Allied Strategy Help

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 - Basic Rules Guide:
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:
0d441e40-8415-45da-b642-2483ff53fbd5-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

@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.

I was the Allies and my Father-in-law was axis. He pulls off sealion on his 3rd turn I think. I was not seeing it as a real threat like I should have. Nice move, he held it for the entire game(9 rounds). I never took it back from him and I defeated him with only Russia and USA. He is not the greatest player but he is not that bad. I consider myself good but not great. This is a tough game for the axis to win.

He held UK all game?  He took away from the Allies $20 - $30 a turn for all that time and still lost?  Imagine how bad it would have been for him had the UK been in the game spending that money all along - right next door … .

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.

From what I have heard the Japs are too strong but I have not played Pac 40 enough to see if this is the case. I might have to have a sit down 1 on 1 game with myself to see if this is true.

Stalin also allowed German destroyers to sail around northern Russia to attack Allied shipping in the Pacific.

I personally believe that if the US/UK can drop land units off into Archangel/Karelia the game is essentially broken.  By all means allow them to send IPC aid to Russia, but historically Stalin did not want to share the glory of victory in Russia with foreign troops.

There must be a handicap to doing this; at the very least the turn it takes for Russia to convert this income into units and get them into action.

In a sense, the eastern and western fronts are depicted in different scales, certainly in regard to the numbers of units represented by infantry and Armoured pieces.  If it were accurate, the IPC income and starting units for Russia relative to the other Allies would be significantly bigger, perhaps 50%+.  That’s why introducing US/UK units into Russia can be so imbalancing.

@mike:

Well lets see…USA would be the country that protects Canada so to take Canada you would have to take the USA! BOOM solved

Like the other dude said, you don’t take North America. London, Washington, San Fransisco, and Ottawa will hold (in your average Axis victory game,)

This is what you start with:

1. Berlin
2. Warsaw
3. Rome
4. Tokyo
5. Shanghai

Not a lot, here’s what will be yours after turn 1

1. Berlin
2. Warsaw
3. Rome
4. Tokyo
5. Shanghai
6. Paris

After Japan makes war with the Allies

7. Hong Kong
8. Manila

Later on after war is made with Russia

9. Leningrad

Then the Allies have: Honolulu, Sydney, Calcutta, Moscow, Stalingrad, Cairo, London, Ottawa, Washington, San Fransisco

Some you’ll get over time, Cairo and Calcutta
Some you’ll need to be sneaky, Sydney and Honolulu
Some you’ll need to be brave. Moscow and Stalingrad