German Review of Axis and Allies Europe 1940

@Midnight_Reaper

I don’t. I’ve never tried it against another player yet.

I do agree though that as the Axis you should look for opportunities in tough/actual games (as in, not against yourself).

Thanks for the quick reply.  I certainly understand the appeal of Global, unfortunately it’s just not an option for my regular gaming group.

@EnoughSaid:

@Field:

Now with an Industrial zone of 10 the USA would put 5 fighters and 5 tanks in each buy thus obliterating Germany.

Whenever you capture a Major Industrial Complex, it turns into a Minor Complex. Additionally, only the original power can restore it back to a Major Industrial Complex.

Just so you know, that shouldn’t have been possible - unless you were playing with house rules that say otherwise.

Our house rules state if you lose a Major Industrial Complex you pay the consequences.

Many thanks! That sounds clear to me.

I can see a fair case for both. My strat with Italy is to focus on the Balkans and keep my fleet in the eastern Med, away from the British in the Atlantic and close enough to redeploy to Egypt/mid-east should I need to. I would prefer the Germans to have southern France just so they have an easy jumping point and because, with the larger income, can more easily afford to build fleets there as nesscary.

@jeffdestroyer:

My concern is having to defend another factory in S. France from the U.S.A.  ie from a Gibraltar attack.

Remember, with the fighter stacks I mentioned and the Tac bomber firebrigade, you could easily counter attack and destroy any invasion in that area

There’s a few members that have played global at Gencon (maybe even got E40 as a prize), or have been lucky enough to get E40 early. Has anyone invaded the strict neutrals yet? There is a lot of speculation, but I wondered if anyone actually did it. I doubt anyone would try it in the first couple of games they played (testing the waters), but might push the envelope once they got a few games under their belt. So how about it?

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.

@maverick_76:

That is why I was kidding, kinda like the pot calling the kettle black……

lol. You’ll never admit it, I know it  :wink: