A&A Europe vs A&A Europe 1940

@cds

Thank you! Seems like G2 is better than G3.

Hi. You could use Larry’s 42 set up. I have played that quite a bit on AAA with others here. You would probably have to play 3 times to see how much of an at War NO the US needs to compete against the Axis, without tilting too much in the allies’ favour.
Please report back how it goes  playing Europe stand  alone.

I don’t know if you play AAA or whether you would want to download it, but I attach a 43 version I set up and have played twice.
The axis cannot win and that was my intention. It was solely done, as I love playing  Germany with its back to the wall, with the nasty Russians growing stronger and invading Germany proper.

Global43.tsvg

@QwertGold:

Also, In Aplha3 Russia gets +9IPC instead of the 2 units, regardless of their diplomatic status with Germany, and what territories they control.

I just checked the Alpha 3 thread again and did not see this rule on there.  Can you tell me where you found this?  Thanks

Keep in mind, that thread was for OOB, and it was well over a year ago.

The basic plan is still the same, but many have come up with their own variations that improve the odds in the battles significantly.  I have tweaked it many times and have much better odds now on London in the 90% range.

why the americans on turn 2 are near afrika?

@idk_iam_swiss:

happy now?

yes, very

No.

Like other posters have said, they do give some flavor, but most of them just make the game try to follow the track of the actual war. Say for instance, the ‘Russian Winter’ NA for the Soviet Union. Needless to say when playing Germany, it left me in the cold.

Marines are also not a national advantage, several countries had marine/amphibious assault units. Or partisans, several countries resistanced and conducted sabotage operations, not just people in Soviet territories.

So yeah, adds flavor, but opens up a can of worms too.  :lol:

Meh, really, it simply depends on the Axis’ focus on any particular game.  It looks like Russia only gets a crappy +5 NO once it is at war with the Axis, so compared to pissing off the Americans, war with Russia (only) would be a much more palatable option for Japan.  18 land units, while it is quite a lot, would not be expected to be massed together right at the border with Japan, so they could be picked off a bunch at a time, and definitely doable if Japan gets a major industrial complex in Asia (which it probably will in most games).  Plus, Moscow it so far away that sending reinforcements east is probably not Stalin’s top priority, so Japan could hold onto the Russian IPCs for a long time, gaining back whatever the cost was in killing the units over 3-4 rounds.

Also, it is subterfuge to some extent; forcing the Soviets to respond to threats on their eastern front would pull some attention (and troops) away from the western front, which would help Germany and Italy pull off a successful Sea Lion AND Barbarossa in turn.  Kinda of like not letting your left hand knowing what the right hand is doing.  However, with a Sealion going into action on Round 3 or 4, Japan may be forced to focus entirely on eliminating India so that the UK is incapable of sending reinforcements anywhere else.

I’m wondering what Italy will be required to take in the Med to stop UK air from reaching England.  Definitely Gibraltar and Malta, and all of the African coast, excepting Egypt maybe.  Italy has its hands full.  Maybe it would be best for Germany to ditch Sealion and just go after the Med early and take what it can get?