My review copy of Axis & Allies Europe 1940 has arrived

@manwithaplan

UK collects the unspent IPCs of the Germany’s player, then, even if its own capital is in enemy’s hands. See page 21 of the Europe 1940.2 rulebook.

@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.

I agree on the points you said. I was playing as Axis, and I always like the Russian retreat move now. Make his planes inept. If you merge up your Russian forces with British forces you can hold Egypt for much longer.

The problem he had with trying to take Norway was that if he sent enough to Norway to take it he wouldn’t have enough to take and defend Paris. Since I was guaranteed with my move to get Egypt.

I’m no veteran, but from my experience you can’t really focus on Sealion AND the Soviets.  Sealion OOB is really quite easy but then you’ve neglected the Soviets and turning your attention to that front while holding London can be difficult.  People have mentioned G4 attack on Soviets and had success but I’ve found with my own games that it’s difficult for me to take them out after waiting so long.  So that’s my suggestion, do one or the other, not both

@Flashman:

Because the Irish people supported Britain.

The government was not so keen, hence they didn’t join the war and claim the North as their reward.

Another example of the arbitrary assignment of neutral leanings, almost all of which can be questioned.

I like the idea of a set of cards, one for each neutral.  One of these is picked up by each player on finishing his turn until all are collected.  The player can reveal a card at any time to assign “pro” status to that neutral. If an unassigned neutral is attacked it joins the opposing alliance in the usual way.

Maybe a couple of “joker” cards can be included, which allow a player to stage a coup on a revealed but unoccupied neutral thus reversing the alignment.

Then make Spain or something pro-axis.

I assume you meant to put “owned” instead of “pwned” when talking about a Barbarossa/Stalingrad game in reference to Battle of the Bulge or Guadalcanal. I agree here too. At least for me, a game such as that would probably have owned the others.

Nah, I meant “pwn”. I was using netspeak: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned

I think some kind of A&A Russian-front game would be the brilliant, but I don’t hold out much hope of seeing one.

I won’t continue, since I’ve made my feelings clear and this is just one of those ‘we don’t agree’ type issues. I also don’t want to sound like I wouldn’t be able to enjoy / play the game because of it, which obviously isn’t true.

However, I will still say this…

No, they’d probably, like me, not give a damn.

I think some of them, like some people here, clearly would give a damn. For that reason alone designers should take certain things into account. I don’t hold WotC in particularly high esteem, since they have a habit of short-changing the consumer on many small aspects of games which in reality would take almost no effort or cost to put right. Larry only has input which goes so far, and he has my respect. But Wizards do too many irritating things, and to me, this is just another one of them.

No.

Like other posters have said, they do give some flavor, but most of them just make the game try to follow the track of the actual war. Say for instance, the ‘Russian Winter’ NA for the Soviet Union. Needless to say when playing Germany, it left me in the cold.

Marines are also not a national advantage, several countries had marine/amphibious assault units. Or partisans, several countries resistanced and conducted sabotage operations, not just people in Soviet territories.

So yeah, adds flavor, but opens up a can of worms too.  :lol:

@Yoper:

I gave you the answer that I feel he will give you since it is similar to that which I believe he has given before.

Plus, it is better if you do the asking.  If you feel that it is a big deal, then take the time to ask a thoughtful question of him on his site and he should answer you.

Maybe I will. Who is the moderator on that site?