Europe 1940 2ed IPC Tracker

I use OOB rules.
I bought this game in November and play one on one against my usual A&A opponent.
We’ve played seven games so far and the axis have won four…allies three. So we think it’s pretty balanced…the only thing we don’t like is the starting IPC’s for Italy. You can’t buy sh*t with that and they lose half of their starting fleet before it’s their turn.
But since the axis have won four out of seven it hasn’t really affected the overall outcome.

@mastermind93:

I currently have a copy of Europe 1940, and I just recently saw how much they are going for on ebay. If I sold mine, that would make enough money to buy a reprint, but all I hear about a reprint is hearsay. I don’t want to sell mine unless I’m ABSOLUTELY sure there will be a reprint. Thoughts?

If I had it I would probably sell it if I could get something like $200 for it.  Selling out this soon appears to be a good sign to me in terms of a reprint.  I figure there will be a reprint with substantial corrections made, and if I’m really lucky perhaps actual Italian and French figures rather than German and Russian in other colors.

That one is not a true NO of course, but it’s from part 3 of the preview by DJensen. Krieghund also confirmed it by saying it won’t be in the global game.

It’s rather funny because I’ve been thinking the same exact thing as you. Before I knew the official setup, I though Germany would have close to 20 aircrafts… I managed to work on the setup too and, based on the strength of the airforces in Europe (remember that Germany has only 8 aircrafts), I removed even more aircrafts from the Pacific map than you did. Now Japan “only” has 12 aircrafts (this is enough IMO), US 4, India 1, China 1 and ANZAC 1.  In order to balance things IPC-wise, I had to remove 8 infantries in Russia along with a few other ones on the allied side. (Look on wikipedia: 5 infantries in Malaya is way too much when compared to the armies in Europe.) I’m gonna try this as soon as possible and see if it’s balanced (and fun…).

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.

@LHoffman:

Interesting, yes… but I don’t think the similarity between the A&A game and Axis pact you reference is intentional. By that I mean it was a total coincidence. Taking into account all of the other errors in Pacific and previous versions, there is no way that the designers paid that much attention to detail. I bet it just looked like a logical place to split the board for them.

Yeah. I think they just split it where China ended, and that happened to be there.

Besides, 10 degrees is a large error.

Meh, really, it simply depends on the Axis’ focus on any particular game.  It looks like Russia only gets a crappy +5 NO once it is at war with the Axis, so compared to pissing off the Americans, war with Russia (only) would be a much more palatable option for Japan.  18 land units, while it is quite a lot, would not be expected to be massed together right at the border with Japan, so they could be picked off a bunch at a time, and definitely doable if Japan gets a major industrial complex in Asia (which it probably will in most games).  Plus, Moscow it so far away that sending reinforcements east is probably not Stalin’s top priority, so Japan could hold onto the Russian IPCs for a long time, gaining back whatever the cost was in killing the units over 3-4 rounds.

Also, it is subterfuge to some extent; forcing the Soviets to respond to threats on their eastern front would pull some attention (and troops) away from the western front, which would help Germany and Italy pull off a successful Sea Lion AND Barbarossa in turn.  Kinda of like not letting your left hand knowing what the right hand is doing.  However, with a Sealion going into action on Round 3 or 4, Japan may be forced to focus entirely on eliminating India so that the UK is incapable of sending reinforcements anywhere else.

I’m wondering what Italy will be required to take in the Med to stop UK air from reaching England.  Definitely Gibraltar and Malta, and all of the African coast, excepting Egypt maybe.  Italy has its hands full.  Maybe it would be best for Germany to ditch Sealion and just go after the Med early and take what it can get?