E1940 instruction manual?

Of course it can. It makes no difference that originally it was a neutral territory. Its current status is a territory of the United States and therefore, with an IPC value of two,it can be a location where a minor industrial complex can be placed.

@surfer thanks for that clarification

Thanks WarDog @Krieghund !

I haven’t been able to post a map picture, but after thinking about it more, additional context of the German army disposition in nearby territories could impact the decision as well, as they would be the next power in theater to move. If France taking Kaz’ would prevent any armored and mechanized forces from Novosibirsk moving through Kaz’ into the Caucasus, it may be woth sacrificing the 1 IPC income to prevent Germany from securing a 5 IPC bonus. Always multiple points of context to consider, which makes for a very rich gameplay.

@tmartin Yes they can.

@Shadowdoom286

This is for Global 1940 but I’m sure at least half of the details here apply to Europe 1940 (lots of options):

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/assets/uploads/files/1700408602301-allied-playbook-g40-collection-of-essays.pdf

@Shadowdoom286

As the Russian player, continue to stack infantry on Russia and Novgorod. Also, a nice compliment of mobile (ie: tanks and mechanized infantry with movement 2) stationed at Bryansk with your air corp at Novgorod makes a nice counter-attack force that can hit nearly every territory along the Eastern front.

For Germany, by turn 4, that player may have wanted to consider buying more mechanized infantry earlier, and more consistently, as it allows fresh troops to catch up with the asualt eastward, preserving your high value tanks up to the gates of Moscow. It also allows you to capitalize on gaps in soviet defenses to blitz through (tanks + mech inf) in order to unbalance and pose new threats to the Soviets.

Enjoy!

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Units, Mechanics, etc.:

I think what you wrote can be distilled down to 3 complaints:

There’s not much of a historical reason for this.
There’s not much of a game design reason for them.

I think this is where you’re fundamentally misreading me.
I care almost not at all about adding mechanics for historical reasons; if adding historical realism reduces balance, get rid of it.

I think that N.O.'s are a mechanic that imbalances the game – historical or not, is irrelevant. It’s the Occam’s razor approach, that I take. If something isn’t making the game better, find a way to get rid of it. Simplify.

The union jacks are for india’s (uk pacific) income in the global game, because you need to keep the economies separate. There are two so you can have a spare