Europe 1940 shows up on Wizards site…with screenshot

@Oyvind:

Could someone explain the “bid” in the first question?

It is a way of evening up the playing field when it is generally considered that one side has an advantage over the other. Using this as an example:

@Colt45:

Personally, i take Axis with a 3 bid otherwise il take Allies.

Colt45 554 has said that they’ll take Axis if they are given a bid of 3. This means that at the start of the game before the first turn they either get to put down units to the value of their bid, 3, in any of their territories, or accept 3 bonus IPC into one of their countries for spending at a later time.

In a general bidding arrangement, the opponent would have the opportunity to take the Axis for a bid of 2 if they thought they could win with that and that process repeats until a bid has been determined and teams are set.

A bid of 3 is considered a pretty well balanced game. I believe the current bid for 1940 Global is sitting between 20-30 for the Allies. We can read into that that people think that playing the game without bids leads to many more Axis wins than Allied wins by evenly matched players.

See this thread…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28201.0

@gen-manstein Actually haven’t played with bid in solo games, so I hope that will be an advantage.

Thank you

Yes, but with so much information overload I started doubting my own thoughts and ideas.

@Krieghund:

@GrayBlaZe:

Hey Keighund, got a question; Why could it not be considered to be up to a nine person global game instead of six.  I do understand that playing France, China or ANZAC will be very minor, however, it’s possible for nine people to draw straws and last three places got it get the minors.  Or am I missing somthing?  I’m assuming that it’s just listed as six because that is the max number that would be a good game to spread playing around equally so nobody is just totally eliminated fast with France or having to play limited China.  Is this correct?  Thanx……

You’ve already answered your own question:

@GrayBlaZe:

When they state the number of players, it is just a recomendation.  You could very well play with nine players except; France, China, & ANZAC would be quite boring, unless a newbe or child was playing with you, it would be good for them to play a minor country.  If you are playing with six then some player would play two counties, however, they are still considerd nine different armies; if you play two they don’t mix there income.  So it always be nine indiviual counties weither you play with nine people or two.

The “official” player mix listed in the rules is what we consider to be the best mix for optimal enjoyment of the game.  There’s nothing stopping you from changing that if you have more than six people who want to play.  I do think, however, that getting beyond six will definitely get into territory that could be at least somewhat boring for players of minor powers (ANZAC, China and France).  A seventh player playing all three wouldn’t be too bad, though.

Stay on topic. Geez.

@Whackamatt:

but the axis would probably never want the US able to focus only on one theater of war

Depends on which Axis player I’m controlling.   :lol:

It could be a good thing.  I won’t really know until I see the set up.  Perhaps America being unable to aid in Europe would spell the end for the UK or possibly Russia.

Pretty sure that Larry said that a US that doesn’t spend income both ways to a degree will usually result in an Allied loss. Probably Germany is powerful enough that if the US goes full steam toward Japan, then Germany can keep less men in France and bust through Russia easier.

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?