What will be wrong with AAAE: 1940?

I would also refer you to this question that was almost identical to yours, and Krieghund’s official answer:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32092.msg1198391#msg1198391

A link to a list of the units in Europe and Pacific 1940 2nd ed can be found in this thread:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28636.0

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.

Ja das ist gut thank you brothers

Well I’m not sure if modifications are necessary or not since Alpha +2. But then again, I wasn’t exactly planning on writing a strategy guide, just a beginner’s guide, hence the title.

But these are just mumblings of mine, thanks for the feedback guys!

Also: this should have been in Global 1940 :|

@LHoffman:

@Make_It_Round:

Italy. For the novelty factor alone.
I like problem-solving, and Italy is bound to have more problems than the proverbial one-armed paper hanger…
Plus, it looks like there’ll finally be something interesting to do in Africa, with so many French and British units around to roll up.

I’d like Italy because they aren’t all over the place, they basically have only 1 front and they can have a fun and challenging time taking over Africa. Very little stress. They can just do what they like and support the Germans as needed… What a life!

I probably won’t be Italy first… but they’d be fun to play with as you could experiment a good bit… with what to attack and where to go. You could play as Italy the first time and learn what not to do with other powers by just watching everyone else. Then you’d be more prepared when you play again.

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.

@Imperious:

1 French inf

???

Theres a French Infantry that starts in the UK, like ANZAC had a guy in Malta.