My review copy of Axis & Allies Europe 1940 has arrived

@Midnight_Reaper

I don’t. I’ve never tried it against another player yet.

I do agree though that as the Axis you should look for opportunities in tough/actual games (as in, not against yourself).

Ok, sounds like a lot of guys think it is not necessary to take London to win?
For sure you already have your “sealion” invading force on the board by turn 2 (as demonstrate by Siredblood) but i have to admit that 63 IPC for those 9 missing transports is a lot of money!

The main (and maybe only) reason why i thought about taking London (besides extra IPC) was to prevent US/ UK from using it as a launching platform to bomb/ invade mainland Europe by turn 5 and up!!

My current plan is this (almost cut/ paste from Siredblood’s Cobra-Kaï):
G1:
Eliminate Royal Navy in SZ106, 110, 111
Take France (leave normandy/ south France to Italy)
Ping-Pong Yugoslavia back in Romania (Leave it to Italy)
Barbarossa (Bessarabia + Eastern Poland)
Of course annex both Finland and Bulgaria
Build a Minor Complex in Romania (to pump tanks all along)
put a destroyer in SZ113 and regroup navy.
Italy 1
Buy 1 tank & 1 mech (to speed up with both tank from Albania/ North Italy and meet German forces near Bessarabia)

G2
Retake Bessarabia (unless Russian player is too dumb to give it a thought)
Take West. Ukraine
Strategic bombing of London
Move all my “Sealion” forces into West. Germany/ Germany (to "bluff away" Sealion)
Pump 3 tanks in Romania and keep all the rest of my IPC (42) to keep my opponent in the dark as much as possible!

G3
Take Ukraine
Drop 9 transports in SZ113 + 3 tanks in Romania
Italy 3
“can open” Rostov with tanks and all air force!

G4
Tank rush into Stalingrad with all tanks and air power (2 Tac, 2 Strategic)
“Sealion”! Bouum!
Pump 3 tanks in Romania and in Ukraine
Move back 6 of the 7 guys from Finland to Norway (will bridge to uk/ Scotland in T5)

G5
Rebuild forces in Stalingrad/ Ukraine, bring some planes
Strat bombing Moscow
Bridge some infantry from Norway to London and 1 to take Scotland
Buy a max of aircraft (strat. and Fighters)
Italy 5
“Regroup and can open” Tambov or Briansk with tanks and all air force!

G6
Moscow boum!

By then the Axis should have 8 victory cities (Italy’s role is to take Cairo and reinforce by turn 4 max)
I don’t even give a rat ass about Leningrad as it is already way too strong right off the bat!
Also on turn 6 i would start to take back infantry Eastern Poland/ Baltic states/ Romania that might be scattered to turtle them up on Warsaw!
At this point the goal is to hang on tight for 1 turn!

Of course all along Italy is putting 3 infantry per turn on South France and move them to Paris on turn5
Italy is also to put 1 destroyer in SZ92 on T4 simply to delay US and buy Axis 1 turn.

This strategy is stretched to the max and of course bad/good rolls might turn it into either a brilliant victory or a shameful beating!

Any piece of advise or parts that i am missing?

I agree on the points you said. I was playing as Axis, and I always like the Russian retreat move now. Make his planes inept. If you merge up your Russian forces with British forces you can hold Egypt for much longer.

The problem he had with trying to take Norway was that if he sent enough to Norway to take it he wouldn’t have enough to take and defend Paris. Since I was guaranteed with my move to get Egypt.

why the americans on turn 2 are near afrika?

If you build a factory in Cairo as UK, its great!!  If you can get away with it, which is hard.  The best way to do this is to save your transport, not worry about Greece, combine your fleet, bring up some reinforcements from south Africa, and land as many allied aircraft there as you can by turn 3 or 4.  If you throw down a factory there by turn 3 or 4, then you have Africa and a sizable fleet to help protect India one the good ole USA puts the vice on Italy.

Like I said,just a thought

Yes, but with so much information overload I started doubting my own thoughts and ideas.

@Krieghund:

@GrayBlaZe:

Hey Keighund, got a question; Why could it not be considered to be up to a nine person global game instead of six.  I do understand that playing France, China or ANZAC will be very minor, however, it’s possible for nine people to draw straws and last three places got it get the minors.  Or am I missing somthing?  I’m assuming that it’s just listed as six because that is the max number that would be a good game to spread playing around equally so nobody is just totally eliminated fast with France or having to play limited China.  Is this correct?  Thanx……

You’ve already answered your own question:

@GrayBlaZe:

When they state the number of players, it is just a recomendation.  You could very well play with nine players except; France, China, & ANZAC would be quite boring, unless a newbe or child was playing with you, it would be good for them to play a minor country.  If you are playing with six then some player would play two counties, however, they are still considerd nine different armies; if you play two they don’t mix there income.  So it always be nine indiviual counties weither you play with nine people or two.

The “official” player mix listed in the rules is what we consider to be the best mix for optimal enjoyment of the game.  There’s nothing stopping you from changing that if you have more than six people who want to play.  I do think, however, that getting beyond six will definitely get into territory that could be at least somewhat boring for players of minor powers (ANZAC, China and France).  A seventh player playing all three wouldn’t be too bad, though.