Europe 1940 re-release date?

Notes on the Europe 1940 2nd rules, mainly highlights of the most important rules as they appear in the rulebook along with some additional comments and explanations and some helpful tables:
Europe 1940 2nd - Setup Charts:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m8t34moclkiy0ai/Setup Charts for A%26A E40 SE.pdf?dl=0
Europe 1940 2nd - Important Notes about Rules:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nkmtfl3tblfhyd5/Important Notes for A%26A E40 SE.pdf?dl=0
Some pages as a sample of these Notes below:

09662159-39b1-42e9-b2d0-a6ebd72cb973-image.png

7e8a94cf-de2e-45c2-a44e-cfd2cb5a7a4b-image.png

See also the posts for Pacific and Global 1940 SE versions:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1623789
and
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1630786

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 usually figure half and hour to an hour per round as long as players have a concrete idea of what they want to accomplish and plan during other people’s turns.  So, the fastest game of Europe I have had so far was this last weekend, at 4.5 hours and 5 rounds.

@QwertGold:

Also, In Aplha3 Russia gets +9IPC instead of the 2 units, regardless of their diplomatic status with Germany, and what territories they control.

I just checked the Alpha 3 thread again and did not see this rule on there.  Can you tell me where you found this?  Thanks

I thought it was funny that one of the first things it brought up was a review for AA50.

@Dylan:

Do you mean beginner’s game or “beginner’s game” ?

I meant what I wrote, the game is meant for newcomers to the Axis & Allies universe, or for vets like us that want a short, quick game.

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.

I assume you meant to put “owned” instead of “pwned” when talking about a Barbarossa/Stalingrad game in reference to Battle of the Bulge or Guadalcanal. I agree here too. At least for me, a game such as that would probably have owned the others.

Nah, I meant “pwn”. I was using netspeak: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned

I think some kind of A&A Russian-front game would be the brilliant, but I don’t hold out much hope of seeing one.

I won’t continue, since I’ve made my feelings clear and this is just one of those ‘we don’t agree’ type issues. I also don’t want to sound like I wouldn’t be able to enjoy / play the game because of it, which obviously isn’t true.

However, I will still say this…

No, they’d probably, like me, not give a damn.

I think some of them, like some people here, clearly would give a damn. For that reason alone designers should take certain things into account. I don’t hold WotC in particularly high esteem, since they have a habit of short-changing the consumer on many small aspects of games which in reality would take almost no effort or cost to put right. Larry only has input which goes so far, and he has my respect. But Wizards do too many irritating things, and to me, this is just another one of them.