My review copy of Axis & Allies Europe 1940 has arrived

No one is mentioning what Italy is doing.Sending as many mech and tanks east to can-open ahead of German forces is popular.
Its good to battle the brits all over the med.Its more rewarding for Italys  income level.My mistake is trying to do both,and not succeeding at either before the American wave arrives in SZ 91.

Germany will have nothing to worry about since all those ships don’t land and the expensive planes will be dying to fight infantry and tanks.

@Black:

… while Soviet Navy could have been dealt with just British units (as was in previouse AA versions)…

Some naval units for the USSR have been unique to Russia since AA1942.  These aren’t new molds specifically for AAE1940, these are reused molds from AA1942 plus new molds for tactical bombers and mechanized infantry.

I don’t disagree with you regarding the necessity for unique russian units or the sad lack of Italian units. I just want to point out that it was AA1942 (the 25th anniversary release of A&A) that first featured the unique russian destroyer, cruiser and battleship.

here terrain rules would have made for a great addition to the game and solution to the potential problem you’re mentioning. as most of you will know the Italioan campaig lasted for two years and by the war’s end the fighting was still going on there. The mountainous terrain was ideal for defending troops and an attacker’s nightmare.if defended it would be virtually impossible to just push on to germany….

It’s rather funny because I’ve been thinking the same exact thing as you. Before I knew the official setup, I though Germany would have close to 20 aircrafts… I managed to work on the setup too and, based on the strength of the airforces in Europe (remember that Germany has only 8 aircrafts), I removed even more aircrafts from the Pacific map than you did. Now Japan “only” has 12 aircrafts (this is enough IMO), US 4, India 1, China 1 and ANZAC 1.  In order to balance things IPC-wise, I had to remove 8 infantries in Russia along with a few other ones on the allied side. (Look on wikipedia: 5 infantries in Malaya is way too much when compared to the armies in Europe.) I’m gonna try this as soon as possible and see if it’s balanced (and fun…).

I agree. It’s funny because the game is not that hard to comprehend. I started playing A&A at 12, and while my first few games I was playing wrong, that was mainly because I never really read the rule book. Once you sit down and read it once, the only time you have to use it again is if you are doing something like an amphibious assault or shore bombardment, something that maybe only comes up once or twice in a game. Other than that the basic premise is really easy to understand.

Stalin also allowed German destroyers to sail around northern Russia to attack Allied shipping in the Pacific.

I personally believe that if the US/UK can drop land units off into Archangel/Karelia the game is essentially broken.  By all means allow them to send IPC aid to Russia, but historically Stalin did not want to share the glory of victory in Russia with foreign troops.

There must be a handicap to doing this; at the very least the turn it takes for Russia to convert this income into units and get them into action.

In a sense, the eastern and western fronts are depicted in different scales, certainly in regard to the numbers of units represented by infantry and Armoured pieces.  If it were accurate, the IPC income and starting units for Russia relative to the other Allies would be significantly bigger, perhaps 50%+.  That’s why introducing US/UK units into Russia can be so imbalancing.

@Canuck12:

On that note though, I actually liked the subtle “watermarked” convoy and kamakazi zones.

Same here ;) just when the allies get too cocky you remind them of a kamakazi strike. “Oh, did’nt QUITE see that coming…”