A&A Europe vs A&A Europe 1940

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Additional balance note:

On TripleA I set all sides to the Fast AI to guarantee equal players. As you can see, the Allies clearly won:

AI 2025-7-13-World-War-II-Europe-1940-2nd-Edition.tsvg

No one is mentioning what Italy is doing.Sending as many mech and tanks east to can-open ahead of German forces is popular.
Its good to battle the brits all over the med.Its more rewarding for Italys  income level.My mistake is trying to do both,and not succeeding at either before the American wave arrives in SZ 91.

I agree on the points you said. I was playing as Axis, and I always like the Russian retreat move now. Make his planes inept. If you merge up your Russian forces with British forces you can hold Egypt for much longer.

The problem he had with trying to take Norway was that if he sent enough to Norway to take it he wouldn’t have enough to take and defend Paris. Since I was guaranteed with my move to get Egypt.

I wass talking about both of them together being $120-180

thank you.

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.

@Whackamatt:

but the axis would probably never want the US able to focus only on one theater of war

Depends on which Axis player I’m controlling.   :lol:

It could be a good thing.  I won’t really know until I see the set up.  Perhaps America being unable to aid in Europe would spell the end for the UK or possibly Russia.

Pretty sure that Larry said that a US that doesn’t spend income both ways to a degree will usually result in an Allied loss. Probably Germany is powerful enough that if the US goes full steam toward Japan, then Germany can keep less men in France and bust through Russia easier.

Duh!!