Which Ruleset do you use when playing Europe 1940?

The original AA Europe is fatally flawed.  Germany can win every time by just buying tanks and smashing Russia.  This is a well known problem with that game.  This AA Europe 1940 is much better.

Hi. You could use Larry’s 42 set up. I have played that quite a bit on AAA with others here. You would probably have to play 3 times to see how much of an at War NO the US needs to compete against the Axis, without tilting too much in the allies’ favour.
Please report back how it goes  playing Europe stand  alone.

I don’t know if you play AAA or whether you would want to download it, but I attach a 43 version I set up and have played twice.
The axis cannot win and that was my intention. It was solely done, as I love playing  Germany with its back to the wall, with the nasty Russians growing stronger and invading Germany proper.

Global43.tsvg

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28502.0

My recommendation is to hit him hard in Normandy and see about landing only a couple infantry in Norway.  Taking Norway loses him those IPCs plus the Scandinavian trade bonus, which will hurt his economy by at least a Panzer purchase per turn, and he can’t afford to split his attention so many ways.  Just like he is trying with Russia, give him a death by a thousand little cuts.  If you can convoy raid him (if you are playing with raids, that is), then you can knock him down even more.  Of course, I may just be a bit overaggressive– I can’t see what all you can, but anything to stop the Scandinavian bonus is a good thing for beleaguered Russia.

I would say that france would benefit the axis because of their first turn fall and their additional income to germany and Italy, this would make the game a 3v2 like all axis and allies games.

here terrain rules would have made for a great addition to the game and solution to the potential problem you’re mentioning. as most of you will know the Italioan campaig lasted for two years and by the war’s end the fighting was still going on there. The mountainous terrain was ideal for defending troops and an attacker’s nightmare.if defended it would be virtually impossible to just push on to germany….

It looks amazing. Thanks 13thguardsriflediv

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.