@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.

I can understand that, it is a bit of an oddity, but it would give the Allies a strategic advantage to get units into that area, whether it be Malta, or the Mediterranean in general.

Well with the political rules Russia could start with a small navy in the Baltic (dd & sub maybe even a cruiser) and it could survive for 1-2 rounds. Ger and Russ start off as neutral to each other. They can pass through each others sz’s while neutral. Russia could leave the dd in the northern Baltic to keep Germany from using bombardment in an amphib when it does attack. It could also attempt to run from the Baltic to meet up w/UK navy before Germany attacks. If Russia is still neutral to Germany we know they can coexist in the same sz, will the Soviets be able to pass through the German owned Danish straight?

okay so Portugal actually sucks, Agreed

Stalin also allowed German destroyers to sail around northern Russia to attack Allied shipping in the Pacific.

I personally believe that if the US/UK can drop land units off into Archangel/Karelia the game is essentially broken.  By all means allow them to send IPC aid to Russia, but historically Stalin did not want to share the glory of victory in Russia with foreign troops.

There must be a handicap to doing this; at the very least the turn it takes for Russia to convert this income into units and get them into action.

In a sense, the eastern and western fronts are depicted in different scales, certainly in regard to the numbers of units represented by infantry and Armoured pieces.  If it were accurate, the IPC income and starting units for Russia relative to the other Allies would be significantly bigger, perhaps 50%+.  That’s why introducing US/UK units into Russia can be so imbalancing.

I forgot Madagascar as  French territory, so Paris may be 4

@CWO:

@Make_It_Round:

Players: 2 - 5

Well, if France was a playable ally, it should have read:

Players: 2 - 6

Perhaps what they mean is that France, although it’s playable, is controlled by one of the Allied players, in the same way that China in Pacific 1940 gets its own game turn but is controlled by an Allied player.

Agreed, this is only logical. As for game time listed, I’ve always found estimates on wargames are WAY OFF.

@idk_iam_swiss:

Thank heaven 43, and 44 set up would be terribly boring. And All that happened in 39 was the invasion of Poland.
He picked the best time to do it (Post Dunkirk) It would be waaaay to crazy to have it pre Dunkrirk

I want waaaay to crazy so I can conduct the war the way I think it should be fought.

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?

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

@cressman8064:

My hopes jumped for a second when I saw the title of this thread, thanks for the let down lol.

You should know better than that.

I have heard blue but I have not heard the shade.

@allworkandnoclay:

Good idea for a mushroom cloud piece: Find a simple tree miniature with very little detail and paint it grey.

I can’t believe you didn’t show us an example of one that you have done for yourself already.

@Brain:

@Make_It_Round:

The USSR will probably be busily gobbling up neutral countries in the Balkans, just like they actually did in 1940. There’ll be lots for them to do there, and in the Middle East, while gearing up to defend against Germany.

So there are going to be some added neutral territories between Russia and Germany that they can grab before the ultimate confrontation?

Nah, probably not a buffer state (or states) between Germany and Russia directly.  Might be some out of the way, such as in Romania or Greece, but Germany and Russia had partitioned Poland between them as part of the non-aggression pact.  As such, it is likely that Russia and Germany will have some forces in Poland and East Poland at game start to represent the two powers divvying up Poland and eastern europe.

I’m guesing you could start invading Russia from G1, but the forces in eastern poland will probably drag it out for a few turns until reinforcements can get there.  But I doubt Russia will have many forces BETWEEN Eastern Poland and Moscow round 1 so there might be some easily conquered empty territories ripe for the taking.  Germany will also be poorly situated to invade too, so probably a better idea to follow history.

Well I think that would be possible, but of course we need to have it stay within the rules and confines of the game and keep the complexity to a moderate level.

Sounds more like what would happen in a game of Risk.

The Saffron and Green IAF Roundels as adapted by the IAF after the declaration of the Republic in 1950.

The “can opener” tactic has always been part of AA. The UK opens doors for the US all the time on land or at sea in both theaters. It wasn’t until Italy became a power that it became more prominent (axis vs Russia). Russia gets beefed up a little to compensate, and it has allies to bail them out.

Make_It_Round has a great point about countering week Russian advances w/UK or US air (or ground forces) to force Italy to think twice about attacking in the first place (or at least cost them if they do). If both euro axis want to play in Eastern Europe then you have to get UK/US in there as well. A strong UK/US naval presence heading toward Italy will also turn those Italians around (love to see them waffle).

Another thing would be to close the Black Sea (errata/faq option in AA50). Don’t allow Italy to use its navy to aid in taking key tt. We at times have not totally closed the Black Sea, but axis would need to hold all 4 tt that boarder Turkey in AA50 to enter (we call it political pressure). In AA 40 global you will need to invade Turkey (new straight rule) to gain access to the Black Sea, so this should slow them a bit.

As we add more minor powers there will be more double teaming going on by both sides. UK (India) and Anzac both go before US in global, you only think Russia has problems. You have to be aware and see at least into the next round of play so you can prepare.

Well hopefully Japan can keep US from doing as it wants in Europe.

Sshhh its a secret!!