MOVED: Russia and Germany allies

@Smack

Rulebook says:

When Germany Is at War with the Soviet Union:
• 5 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Novgorod (Leningrad), Volgograd (Stalingrad), and/or Russia (Moscow).
Theme: High strategic and propaganda value.

The “or” indicates that it is 5 IPC per territory. Be it one , two or three.

Hi ColonelCarter,

Thanks so much for your reply. I will tell a bit about the background of my question. We played Axis and Allies 1940 Europa a number of times, in the beginning the Axis player could still surprise the Allies player with a new strategy now and then, but at the end we had a ‘solution’ for every Axis strategy, and the Allies always won. So, we were looking for ways making the game a little more balanced, and as a result we wondered whether Russia and USA actually have a turn before they are at war. But after reading your response, I must admit that there still Axis strategies to try and hopefully our games with become a little more exciting:)

@Frontovik:

@special:

@Frontovik:

So US is down for 4 rounds. afterwards, what territory should be their main goal? i used to assault normandy or south-france, because of the IC’s. Also thought of aiming at italians, who can break through egypt now. But then russians are hard pressed.
perhaps they should land together with british in norway?

the turn sequence of Alpha 3 is ideal for attacking with USA and reinforcing with UK INFs and FIGs

edit: for me Africa is first priority (UK IPC’s + securing a front and Egypt, a VC), when that is settled i prefer to aim at Norway (NO bonus for Germany and a relatively safe spot to land, AND of course a place where USA can build an IC)

by the time africa is decently secured, russia has fallen…
(atleast alpha 2)

That can happen, but even so, as long as Axis don’t capture either Cairo or London they haven’t won.

Also i said first priority, not only priority ;)

Of course Allies need to be turning the tide by now on the other side of the map.

@MarkVIIIMarc:

Interesting about the American landings.  Do you think the Italy first strategy would have gotten better results?

That would have worked better than the landings on France. Italy was earning some 30 IPCs and was preparing to defend S. Italy from the US (it was sending a DD to block the US fleet from moving into the Med) but the US could have gained access easy. Another thing that he should have done would be to force passage through the Danish Straits by taking Denmark with the UK then sending an US fleet through it. Then Norway would be impossible to take back (bye bye Sweden NO).

@Imperious:

Well Italy vs UK in Egypt area, slightly favors the Italians.

BUT UK plays before Italy and Italy can lose its fleet on UK1, then UK can move out of Egypt and funnel troops for the counterattack.

Italy is weaker in this game than in AA50. Look at the setup and turn order. If Italy messes up the first turn it can be over for them and like dominoes, Germany becomes more weak.

What do Italy purchase? Fighters get rid of the British navy in the Med or land units to defend and help in Europe.

@purplebaron:

@zooooma:

The Consensus seems to be that Japan is the favourite in A&AP:1940.  This means that to balance the gloabl game Germany should be the dog in A&A Europe.  The Allies will have to divert resources from Europe to Pacific or Japan will spill into the Middle East, Africa, and/or Russia.

I disagree.  Even if Germany is favored in A&AE:1940, it could be balanced or favor the Allies in the global game.  There are two reasons for this.

The first is strategic swing power.  As discussed in another thread, the Allies (in particular the US and to a lesser degree UK and USSR) have the ability to “swing” their force from one theater to the other, the better to both concentrate their forces (which is why KGF is so disproportionately powerful a strategy in most other versions of the game) and to respond to specific threats as they develop.

The second is small-scale tactical interactions.  To list two specific examples off the top of my head, USSRs Siberia setup (actually not part of the AAE40 setup, but still…) will do a lot to keep Japan “honest” and leave troops behind to defend Manchuria, which will slow Japan down in taking China and India.  Also, UKs Mideast starting forces and African production will have the option (swing power) to help defend India, as will the potential Indian ocean fleet.

That’s true; those extra 18 infantry (or however many Russia gets in total) will not be in either “half-game” by itself, only in Global.  I also doubt E40 will include the couple ANZAC infantry in the Mid-East (though perhaps they will simply be accounted for with UK infantry in the E40 setup versus the G40 setup), so in essence playing Global as opposed to the half-games has the potential (assuming an unchanged Axis setup) to basically give the Allies a 60+ IPC bid!  Because of this alone, Germany/Italy doesn’t have to be weak in E40 for G40 to be balanced.  And that’s not accounting for the “swing power” previously referred to, however the Global game will also be more taxing on the Allied player with the even greater need for coordination between the multiple powers across the whole board, while the Axis player gets theater-oriented powers that require a lesser amount of coordination.

Can we combine this with A&A on a Colonial Diplomacy map and play global?