Advantages Incurred from the 1940 Start Date

Rd#1 Germany will drop France like it is supposed to, and set up its attack to the east with its purchases.
I think what was intended for Japan to do rd #1 is attack China (it was there in 1940), take FIC and just set up your attacks/defense for rd #2. Remember that an attack on UK, Anzac, Dutch, Philippines, or Hawaii will result in US declaring war, and getting that 50 IPC income early. Japan really doesn’t want that rd #1. 
It does how ever want to provoke the UK/Anzac to attack it so then Japan can retaliate without bringing the US into the war.
rd#2 Germany could attack Russia (Barbarossa) but might not be ready keeping in mind that much of its force will be in France. At this point we don’t know, Barbarossa might not happen til rd #3. I think Japan could fill its commitments in the pacific rd #2 or rd #3. So the historical time could fall into place but doesn’t necessarily have to. I think that the delay for Japan may represent the political aspects your talking about, its like they are negotiating to keep the US out as long as possible, but inevitably there will be war.

Interesting. I think the flexibility might offer an advantage to the Axis, since they know what they need to do (and how the enemy will react to it) in advance. It depends how constrictive the rules are. If they’re loose… I’m joining with Stalin and smashing the world!

I’ve always said that the Japanese successes in the Pacific were entirely dependent on the fall of France and an isolated Britain. They were - much more than those of Germany - opportunistic successes. As time has gone on my feelings on Japan have changed from an underdeveloped ‘Germany’ of the east, to something more akin to an Italy of the east, with soldiers that actually wanted to fight (if that makes sense). Japanese successes were completely dependent on the Germans tying everyone up, whereas German successes had nothing at all to do with Japan (arguably, the actions of the Japanese made things more difficult for them).

In the game I think that the ability to re-strategise the war would benefit the Axis more in the merged game. But we’ll have to wait and see. It all depends how much equipment they have on the map at the start of the game, and how strong their enemies are.

Is America at war with Germany on the first turn? Did Germany declare war on America in 1944? Or was it much earlier. I’m confused because this would be a huge bonus for both the Axis player and the Allied player. Germany has the first few turns to beat up France, prepare for Barbarossa and maybe even a SeaLion. This would also mean that the American player now has these turns to completely focus all his builds in the Pacific (if the Japanese player declares war early).

@Krupp:

Is America at war with Germany on the first turn? Did Germany declare war on America in 1944? Or was it much earlier. I’m confused because this would be a huge bonus for both the Axis player and the Allied player. Germany has the first few turns to beat up France, prepare for Barbarossa and maybe even a SeaLion. This would also mean that the American player now has these turns to completely focus all his builds in the Pacific (if the Japanese player declares war early).

Certainly not 1944.  US entered in '41.  Off the top of my head and not doublechecking, I believe the sequence was:  Japan declared war on US & UK (but wasn’t received prior to attacks on Pearl), US declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on US, US declared war on Germany & Italy.  My guess with Europe will be that the US can funnel as many “supplies” (units) to britain as it wants, but won’t be at war until turn 3 OR one of the Axis engages them (convoy or otherwise).

Was it established that the US actually CANNOT engage an axis opponent in Pacific to reflect the US reluctance to enter the war?  And will this be the same in Europe?

I’m sure there will be some kind of rule in Europe which will state that Germany and Russia are automatically at war at round 2/3 to make sure that Germany can’t crush the UK like a ant (which I’m sure it would be able to)

I think the US should control France, and untill it falls…american units can not move into the european theatre

I think russia and germany should already be at war turn 1 (like larry said that russia could attack germany turn 1) but russias army is so pitifuly small that germany could do barbarosa up untill turn 3…by then russia catches up from a unit stand point

Russia in fact will be attacking german units in finland, during the closing stages of the winter war, unless thats an axis minor territory they have to choose to attack or something

@oztea:

I think the US should control France,

how about the Soveits controling France?

THe UK already controls the Anzacs and the US controls china.

Also France surrendered to the Germans while the Soveits had a non agression treaty with them.

Us is going to play strawman in china for 3 turns……it should be able to do something in europe

soviets will build up with full capacity and fight the finns

How can Germany possibly take out france and be at the gates of Moscow by the end of round 3? Which would be historical if the US comes in at the end of round 3

@mohare6:

How can Germany possibly take out france and be at the gates of Moscow by the end of round 3? Which would be historical if the US comes in at the end of round 3

National Socialist ardor will take care of that.

We have to see the new map and the unit setup for Europe before we’ll really know. Until then we’re just spitting in the wind. I just hope they were thoroughly playtested so we don’t get an imbalanced game (either merged or standalone).

God I can’t wait to see the new europe map. I’ve always been way more interested in the European theater, and ive got high expectations for the new map after seeing the new pacific

Pacific is the big naval game. I always get more tense watching the European theater. More ‘big guns’. Plus Africa is like a weeping sore that you keep needing to scratch.

@Army:

Pacific is the big naval game. I always get more tense watching the European theater. More ‘big guns’. Plus Africa is like a weeping sore that you keep needing to scratch.

not to be too snarky, but aren’t the biggest guns on the ships, most of which are in the pacific? Those are serious business. But all them 88’s would scare the bejesus outta me in Europe too.

@mohare6:

God I can’t wait to see the new europe map. I’ve always been way more interested in the European theater, and ive got high expectations for the new map after seeing the new pacific

I feel exactly the same way. Europe is the game I really want.

not to be too snarky, but aren’t the biggest guns on the ships, most of which are in the pacific? Those are serious business. But all them 88’s would scare the bejesus outta me in Europe too.

Yeah… but in terms of armies and tanks and planes, the ‘big guns’ are in Europe. Didn’t America only devote something like 20% of its military power to the Pacific?

Ya I think that is true for the most part. Can you immagine how many ipc’s the US would get in the new Europe game if they made their income proportionately that much larger than the US pacific income. It would be around 200!

A giant steamroller!

I always thought that in terms of actual production and power, the USSR was a lot weaker in A&A than it should’ve been. But that was probably just for for the sake of making it more fun.

There might be a German or Italy IPC or territory trigger that brings the U.S. into the war early in the Europe 40 or combined game.

Ya I too have always felt russia has been the weakest of powers in the AA games, while in reality they would probably be the second strongest, if not strongest. I realize that for game playability they have to be weaker than the Germans but I hope that in the new Europe game they make russia a lot stronger than they were in the old Europe game