My review copy of Axis & Allies Europe 1940 has arrived

@Italiarulesthewaves

That happened to me once as well.

Yeah, I kind of agree with you Variance. Europe is where most of the action is. Plus, if you just play Europe, it takes up a lot less space on the table.
Yet, every time I think, let’s just play Europe, I already start to miss the Japanese. I just can’t seem to get into a game without the Japanese making trouble on the other side of the board.

How nice. They look very straightforwardly, I guess they are great help to make the game run more streamlined.

I agree with Karl’s assessment.  For the OOB set-up, Sea Lion seems like the only viable option.

Even then, the Allies might still have the advantage.  But taking London early on (by G3) should give Germany a decent shot at the W.

If there is a winning strategy for OOB that doesn’t involve taking London early, then it would need a strong naval component, or the Allies will set up in France and USA will build a major in Norway.

I looked it up. Yes, you are right. It only applies to major ICs, so a minor one could indeed be built in Finland.

That one is not a true NO of course, but it’s from part 3 of the preview by DJensen. Krieghund also confirmed it by saying it won’t be in the global game.

hi guys!

since dynamic counter would ruin it: first post coming up!

to the point: i have a layered europe map in the works. as i understand modules for regular sw are a work in progress as well, i still found this the only way to have a ‘map’ ready in acceptable time (i’m from central eu, would take a month or so for the actual boxes to arrive…).

only problem is with the layering, in the sense that you do need some basic PS knowledge and the sw itself (or equivalent) if you want to use it… meaning tossing around units and so…

still, if you’re interested, let me know, should be ready around… sunday evening (US time)… expect a huge file… :)

also, right now i m using a 1500x1500px base map, the highest resolution i could find. if sone happens to have a better one, please redirect me… (map only, no units and glares and stuff like that)

(note: player with some AA experience - myself - seeking opponent for aae40 game, as posted under the relevant section…)

Gabike

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.