Russia Conquered

@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.

not in 183 games, the fall of moscow means the writing is on the wall.  germanys bonuses need to be reduced from 5 to 3 (except norway) imo to prevent an unstoppable income flop, and bm air interception rules can prevent the easy suffocation of russia.  these two changes make the game a bit more fair

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:)

OK Thank You

but what I’m saying is that germany would use too much IPC taking england and would not have enough forces to take russia. In those extra turns russia will have the forces from moscow and Stalingrad on the front and will be a strong force. I was a little liberal with the strategy though. In my opinion if England can buy enough infantry to make it a 50/50 deal, and get the germans to invest the money into a Sea-Lion, than I would think it would be a gamble that the allies would be more than welcome to take. But I agree you should not give your capital too the germans… even though I recently said too… I= fool.

@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.

@LHoffman:

@UN:

Here’s the thing I want to know: when you’re only playing a game of Europe 1940, what will happen to the Soviet Pacific IPCs? Will a Soviet territory in Europe compensate for their absence, or will they simply be added in to the Soviet national income in Europe 1940?

Interesting question… I guess Russia is the only country this would pertain to because, although Britain and the US have territories on both maps, they would not necessarily need more money, if you follow me. Russia should probably get their full income, because they don’t play like a Britain or US and use half on one side of the globe and one half on the other side.

What about France? They have, what, French Indo-China in Pacific right? Would they get the income for that?

Well, we know the UK has a seperate income from its Pacific territories, including India. As for the United States and France…I’m really not sure.

I wonder if Krieg could enlighten us, but he’d probably get mauled by like 50 men in black, so…