How many of each unit does Europe 1940 2nd ed. include?

Hi stever7804 and welcome.
You are right: it  is beginning of the game.
Means Japan can only make a Major IC on Korea. Not on any Chinese territory, even the ones they begin the game with, as these territories are still Chinese.
It also means the US cannot capture Norway and build a Major one there.
It is better for balance.
Hope that is what you meant.

@gen-manstein Actually haven’t played with bid in solo games, so I hope that will be an advantage.

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.

@Black:

… while Soviet Navy could have been dealt with just British units (as was in previouse AA versions)…

Some naval units for the USSR have been unique to Russia since AA1942.  These aren’t new molds specifically for AAE1940, these are reused molds from AA1942 plus new molds for tactical bombers and mechanized infantry.

I don’t disagree with you regarding the necessity for unique russian units or the sad lack of Italian units. I just want to point out that it was AA1942 (the 25th anniversary release of A&A) that first featured the unique russian destroyer, cruiser and battleship.

Thank you

@squirrelfox:

Well, I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing the Soviet battleship leaving the Baltic Sea.  Makes it easier to ferry troops to Leningrad when I don’t have to take out that annoying Red Fleet, and I can take it out when I spread out into the Atlantic.  So it COULD potentially be useful to Germany to let the neutral Soviet fleet out of the Baltic.  I’d have to see it in action first before passing judgment, though.  Could be interesting… I may try it, see what happens.

I think that letting the Soviet BB hook up with the Royal Navy would be bad news for Germany. Better, as the Offspring song exhorts, to “keep 'em separated”.

Heh.

Seems like a fair trade-off then.  :lol:

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.