Europe map

@The-Janus indeed hurting the luftwaffe is a plus but not if it costs you way too much. Keeping your fighters with UK and alive in the Med then they can go to moscow fast.

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

Has anybody played JUST a Europe game yet? I think I got a group of people to play this weekend, but they are new and seem to be concerned with the length of time it takes to play the game. I was thinking about playing just the European game instead since it should be quicker.

Has anybody played it? Was the game play as good as Global (smaller scale of course)?

How does E1940 compare with P1940?

You’ll see edits on all the posts before this one. I just changed the title from Pacific to Europe.

@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.

No.

Like other posters have said, they do give some flavor, but most of them just make the game try to follow the track of the actual war. Say for instance, the ‘Russian Winter’ NA for the Soviet Union. Needless to say when playing Germany, it left me in the cold.

Marines are also not a national advantage, several countries had marine/amphibious assault units. Or partisans, several countries resistanced and conducted sabotage operations, not just people in Soviet territories.

So yeah, adds flavor, but opens up a can of worms too.  :lol:

I am with you Sergente!

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?