My review copy of Axis & Allies Europe 1940 has arrived

@Cesc.1987:

So if I play a single Europe 40 or Pacific 40 game I must use the setup that is on top of the faction’s boxes.
If I play a global 40 game I must use the Global 40 setup alpha 3.9 version, correct?

Not really, Alpha3.9 is way outdated, as it was the predecessor of the official Global 2nd edition ruleset.

@rulebook:

Global Rules

…
Set up units as shown on the setup charts found in Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940. Additionally, place the following units:
Amur: 6 Soviet Infantry
Sakha: 6 Soviet Infantry and 2 Soviet AAA
Buryatia: 6 Soviet Infantry
Egypt: 2 ANZAC Infantry (also, remove 1 United Kingdom infantry)

…

The powers start with the following IPC income levels and treasuries:
Power  Starting Income
Germany  30
Soviet Union  37
Japan  26
United States  52
China  12
United Kingdom - Europe  28
United Kingdom - Pacific  17
Italy  10
ANZAC  10
France  19

HTH :-)

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.

Meant One map only for a shorter game.was talking Europe, but have a few problems with Pacific concerning set up, especially
Vis a Vis missing Russian Inf. In pacific only Japan should not be allowed to empty Manchuria and Korea as Russia borders them. Played a friend who sailed his Us fleet to Australia on T2 , before my T3 DOW. Was legitimate, but I feel it should not be. I now accept T2 DOW is seen as all as best. Would like to see a clarification of stand alone NOs and starting set ups. Sorry if I sound unclear.

almost positive that every one fits on the europe game, I believe that the grid goes to 72 and USA(highest income) is 65 in AA 1940 europe…

@z0m4d:

These are pretty sweet!  Any motivation to do one adjusted for the different national objectives in the 2nd edition?

I concur!  These are the best I’ve found and the NO board is fantastic!  I’d love to see these updated for the 2nd Ed.!  Exclamation point!

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.

@idk_iam_swiss:

happy now?

yes, very

This seems a nearly dead thread, but since FMG isn’t selling any replacements for the cardboard counters, I thought I’d share what I’ve done.

I use old Diplomacy naval (extruded anchor) and army (extruded star) pieces, as naval bases and air bases.

For minor/major ICs I just use old white and grey AaA ICs, as I’m guessing many others do.