I was thinking about making a pool table insert. If you make the inner side walls taller, I think it might work. You could then place the entire outer edge over the pool table banks.

We noticed the increased importance of the Norway territory last night- as it relates to the IC idea.  (And the twin NOs)

As a play tester for E40, I would have thought you wound have seen the importance of Norway like 8 months ago (LOL).

I think I might try the G IC build, that w/tpts in the Baltic gives you more options in the battle for Scandinavia. It also gives you units up there in case you do something silly w/German fleet.

I was already cognizant of its movement advantages as it concerns it being one territory.  An idea for it would be to split it into two territories- one in the south worth 2 IPCS and one to the north worth 1 IPC.  That way it is a longer path around the top to Karelia and it takes away the ability of the US/UK of building a major IC in Norway.

Yeah the US should only be able to put a minor on Norway (what was he thinking?, 10 US units?). If you want a major invade Sweden, and deal with the consequences (but that should probably be worth just 2 ipc's too IMO)

The E40 game we played the Italians took almost all of Africa. The UK didn't hit the Italian Navy UK1, it was overly concerned w/German naval builds and brought the Gib fleet home. This was a mistake (kinda) because the loaded carrier was lost anyway to German air, but the Germans also lost valuable air units so Sea Lion was a no go (if it was ever a go in the first place). The UK did end up taking out the German navy soon after (came out of Baltic to soon ooch)

Back to topic, the Italians took just about all of Africa including the S African IC w/help of part of its navy & tpts (which got locked out of the Med he-he) Italy even ran out of roundels to mark its conquests. The US is just way to much for Italy to handle though (at least in E40). They were making over 70 ipc's w Brazil & a few former French tt. Then in the 10th round it really got serious when the US went for the strict neutrals (income around 90 give/take). In the mean time Germany managed to take out Moscow in the 8th round with its 47 units vs 39 Soviets (a good fight). By this time though the US had flexed its muscles, and owned/liberated all of Africa, controlled the Med, and destroyed the Italian navy. Even with Moscow in German hands, the writing was on the wall. It would have taken a few rounds, but there was no stopping them (USA). In that game Italy only got the benefit of the French tt ipc's for a couple rounds. Every thing looked as if it was going there way. Then the "Jolly Green Giant" comes over and takes back the French tt's for a 6 ipc swing. The US made more $ from the French tt then Italy did.

Hey your right, there's 6 ipc's up for grabs. Do you take them as axis, or should you leave most of them so US can't convert them?

Yeah our German player found out the hard way how important Norway is (we were playing E40 w/2 NO's tied to Norway). He lost his German fleet (came out to the North Sea to early), and couldn't reinforce Scandinavia. That cost him 10 ipc/round plus the tt $.  Building a German IC there would be rather ballsy, but I can see the benefit of a sub pen up there to harass the convoys, and take out allied navies.

I have only played a few games so far, but if Italy takes the French African tt, the US will eventually end up with them. They are on the west African coast, and the US will be there at some point. There are 5 (correction 6) French ipc's up for grabs on the African mainland. Italy can get them, but will only collect the IPC's for a few rounds. That leaves the US economy growing once they recapture them. They will be worth more to the US in most cases as the game goes on if Italy invades them. If for some reason the 3 French units in North Africa combine on one tt, then as Italy I would hit it, but it might be better to not invade the other two tt. Does anyone else see it this way, or should Italy just grab what it can to grow its own econ.

Thanks for a fairly detailed report. It was cool to see some strats that worked, and some that didn't. Just wondering if you used the new set up for Pacific in your global game (14 air unit reduction, inf changes in Asia, NB on NS Wales, and 1 tpt to India). Also giving the new guy Japan was just wrong, to much power, and to many decisions  The UK attacking Japan, now that's a twist, but it seemed to work against the newbie. The German player didn't do much of a naval build from what you said, I think Germany has to pump some $ here to keep UK honest in the early rounds. The trick is to keep your navy afloat, so you can use it in the Baltic to reinforce/counter attack Scandinavia/Russia. You also noted an SBR campaign on Germany, did you use to ftr/ interceptor rules, did you lose any planes because of it?

If I may be so bold, generally things that happen in the European theater only affect the European theater and vice versa with Russia, so I can't see that "egypt plane" move as being legal.  If being at war with Japan doesn't allow the USSR to collect their wartime NO, and if being at war with Japan doesn't allow them to attack Germany/Italy and if being at war with Japan doesn't let Russia invade European neutrals then it shouldn't let them move into a European "ally" until at war in Europe.  As for historically... if you remember Russia had a pact with Germany and until Germany broke it with their invasion of the USSR I don't really think that Britain regarded Russia as anything close to an ally.  Also, Russia fought the Japs in real life too, and I don't think that the brits cozied up to them in Europe then either.

So if the examples at the start of the post don't convince you, then I think the historical reality of the time, which the designers took such pains to include with the "political situation", should certainly answer that question.  Britain and Russia were not allies until the war with Germany broke out and I don't think anything that happened in the pacific would have made that any different.

I agree completely.  The more I think about this, the more I think it will be addressed in the errata.  At least I'll push for it.

Yeah but a Soviet DOW on Japan does allow Russia to invade the Euro neutrals (Krieg already ruled on this), that's kinda why there's even a discussion about also allowing Russia into all its allies tt's (or ships) when only at war w/Japan (rules don't make it illegal). Testers didn't see this coming, and Krieghund is thinking about which way to go.

Invading neutrals is a little bit different than moving units into another power's territories.  We definitely saw that and allowed it to happen.  After all, the USSR invaded several Eastern European countries as part of its agreement with Germany.

I have no problem w/Russia being able to invade the neutrals while still neutral (to Euro axis). Furthermore I don't think it should have to declare war on Japan to do it (it is kinda corny). War w/��� would have nothing to do with the Euro neutrals. Actually if Russia went to war w/��� it might not tie up the resources to invade the Euro neutrals.
Just let Russia invade the neutrals it wants to no strings attached.

Getting back to Russia being able to put units into its allies tt or ships before its at war w/ a Euro axis (or a common enemy) will most likely be dis allowed (and I'm good with that).  I'm simply pointing out some of the places that Russia can get, and the effect they could have if it is allowed. Like def Egypt, India, Scotland, or England itself. It could halt a J3 India crush, stop Italy from getting Egypt, or force Germany to abort a Sea Lion (which is risky anyway). If these scenarios were not play tested w/this in mind, it should be disallowed IMO because it sways the out come of the fore mentioned battles.

Yeah but a Soviet DOW on Japan does allow Russia to invade the Euro neutrals (Krieg already ruled on this), that's kinda why there's even a discussion about also allowing Russia into all its allies tt's (or ships) when only at war w/Japan (rules don't make it illegal). Testers didn't see this coming, and Krieghund is thinking about which way to go.

As far as the facilities being considered units:
I wouldn't have picked that up either. Honestly though I only skimmed the rule book (very impressed by the way). Common sense would have taken over however and told me you should also have to take away there ability to mobilize. After rereading it though I see where Krieghund is coming from. They do call them units when purchasing, and mobilizing, and it is clearly under "Unit Profiles". Some times when you have to link several things together to get the correct interpretation, things get lost. It still would have been clearer to just simply include allied facilities in Africa in the NO to remove any question.




As far as the Russians can be on its allies tt when only at war w/Japan:
I like that ability, but I'm sure it wouldn't fly with the historical sector. There are other things to consider here too. You could put a Russian ftr on Scotland R1 to force Germany to go to war early if it wants to invade Scotland (which it won't). Then that ftr could be on England R2 for def (another 4) for a G3 Sea Lion, allowing Russia to start attacks (early) R3 on Germany. It might not make much difference if Germany was planning a G3 Barbarossa, but if Germany is going Sea Lion, it may want to wait til G4 to attack Russia. Plus Russia would get it's war time 5 ipc bonus R3 as well (plus its 2 free inf in E40). Plus the Russian ftr on England throws the G3 Sea Lion out the window. Then there's some scenarios of putting the Russian ftr on a UK carrier, that would put Germany/Italy in the same circumstances. In any event it could be a benefit to the allies, but your right it does cost Russia the use of a ftr possibly, so would it be worth it in the long run.

Edit: I hope you don't rule on this to fast, and take the ability away. I want to catch my opponents off guard first. We've talked about Egypt, but not Scotland. My German opponents seem to like to build navy G1

I agree that an English IC in Egypt is to risky early in the game (even if you take out the Italian fleet in sz 95). When the dust clears from naval battles, Italy is still normally the only power in the Med w/ships (until US can get there turn 4-5). As noted above Germany normally does some kind of naval build to at least threaten Sea lion. You may have to use all your income to protect England, and will have a hard time even building units for the S African IC early in games. What you do as UK is really in reaction to what Germany does. The axis already has several English IC targets, why give them another one (the more you build the more you have to protect). You ever hear the term "Build it and they will come" (it doesn't only work for Field Of Dreams). Besides I think UK has enough IC's on the board at start, learn how to use what is given to you. UK is all about navy/air and transports.

IL,
In any case, if you give the UK a juicier German target (fleet), then yeah you will probably save the Italian fleet. The Italian fleet is worth 39 ipc's. The starting German fleet is exactly the same (39 ipc), but you are adding boats to it to be slaughtered (getting over 60 ipc's). If you lose the German fleet it's just as bad as losing the Italian fleet (you would know this if you actually played a game). The Germans need a fleet in the safety of the Baltic to keep Norway. In global Norway is part of your NO (Norway is tied to two German NO's in Europe only). Germany must fight for Norway the same as Italy fights for Egypt (Africa). Once Norway is allied, things get really tough on Germany. Especially if the US gets it (builds a major ic). So before you go sacrificing the German fleet, keep this in mind. Plus building only fleet G1 will give Russia some breathing room. If you lose that fleet the soviets will be stronger then you would like. Adding to the German fleet is a good idea (but keep it in the Baltic for now). I have played UK a few times and the Germans have got ballsy and came out into the North Sea to early. They paid the price, and opened up a lot of doors.

and the 3 other TRNS go into SZ 113.

UK's fighters can kill that. UK has an AB

Uk ftrs can't hit sz 113 from England and return home. You can get two ftrs into that battle, but UK must either bring up the sz 91 carrier, or build one in sz 110 to pick up surviving ftrs (if any).

He is also leaving the German BB in sz 113 w/3 transports. The UK can only get 2 ftrs to sz 113, if it (theoretically) brings the carrier up to land the planes (or builds a carrier in sz 110). I say theoretically, because the carrier may not be able to noncombat in to pick up the surviving ftrs from the sz 113 battle. The UK would also have to kill the German cruiser that is cock blocking in sz 104 to bring the carrier up.

The axis power would have to declare its self at war w/US on its own turn (before combat move) in order to raid the convoy on US turn (collect income). Then when the US turn comes round the US would have to declare its self at war (before its's combat move phase) to collect its war time bonus (at the collect income phase). The US could also make attacks that turn as well. You can't just move a German sub to the convoy zone then on the US's turn announce by the way we are at war and I'm now costing you $.

I don't see it that way. Russia can move into its allies tt once its at war. It doesn't say it has to be at war w/all axis (or include Euro axis). Russia doesn't have any reliance on what UK does, or who the English are at war with as far as I can see.