My review copy of Axis & Allies Europe 1940 has arrived

@SuperbattleshipYamato If germanany does’nt send enough units to 110 and 111,I would consider scrambling.Generally if the number of dice I get to throw is equal or more than my opponents,I will scramble.
Of course that does’nt happen often.

Thanks for the confirmation!!!

Hi L0ken, I’ve been trying for a while to find a copy of Europe that isn’t those crazy high prices you saw on ebay.  If you can let us know where to find it that would be great, or if you want to let me know how much you want for your extra copy that would also be fine by me.

I’ve been hoping to get it before a big board game part that I’m going to next weekend so e-mail really wouldn’t work for me, but let me know if you could do a faster transaction.

Thanks, and congraulations on your luck!

Hi, so today I was playing the OOB version of Axis and allies europe 1940 and obviusly ( indeed, a lot of people already said this ) is very un-balanced, so now I decided to change to ALPHA 2, but I have a question, what is the setup, NO’s and turn order for europe theatre only?

In stand alone Europe they get 29 IPC’s.

And yes they can build in West India.

The confusion comes in Global…. where British Columbia’s income is switched with West India’s income, for the purpose of realism/gameplay.

@Bodeacious:

@Koningstiger:

Land three American transports loaded with 3x infantry and 3x tanks in Africa and along with the assistance of the Brits and some token French forces, the Axis will never ever control all of Africa! An Allied player that allows this is defeinitely doing something wrong! ( I agree that Africa is a relative sideshow, but you simply cannot allow the Axis to take ALL the African IPCs!)

The Us can send three tanks to Brazil and pick up the three men there.

Wouldn’t you have to unload at least one of the tanks to claim the infantry? That would then also mean that transports’s move is over since you unloaded. You wouldn’t be able to move that transport again until your next turn. Apart from that that’s a good points. I also go to Africa via Brazil. Again, an Allied player that allows the Axis to completely conquer Africa is doing sth wrong…

Arminius Germanicus is correct.  Pro-Allies neutral is still neutral.

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.