Capturing capitals was almost always the primary goal: it’s a symbolic act, and they are typically the centers of power, either economically, culturally, politically, etc.  The reason the Europe board is set up the way it is now is because Hitler ignored the more strategic goal of crushing the UK at Dunkirk and instead went towards Paris (no UK troops in the Normandy territory).  After the mistaken bombing of London, Hitler continued because he thought it would wear the British down, and England retaliated by sending a bombing mission to Berlin, even though it was mostly useless.  The invasion of Poland was focused mainly on capturing Warsaw, and the Polish fought very hard to defend it.  And I thought it was common knowledge that if Hitler had not called off the Moscow offensive to divert to Stalingrad, the Germans would’ve triumphed because of how the Russian society, military, communication network, etc was set up (all centralized to maintain control).

So, I have no problems with how capitals are set up now.  Is it a more interesting goal to capture all the useless East Russian territory?  I don’t think so.  And as others have said, you don’t need a capital capture to win the game.  Maybe it’s more efficient in terms of number of turns to destroy the enemy, but it’s always the most heavily defended territory and requires the most IPC investment.

So it would save the Italian fleet for you?  Yes, in my current scenario the 2 destroyer/transport fleets would survive (subs have to be used elsewhere to make up for the missing aircraft) but I don’t think Germany should ever let a battleship live, or else they’ll join up and never be sunk.

Use a roundel on the IPC chart that you adjust as you spend your cash?  I never thought of that…but there’s no difference between the two so you could mix them up.

If there isn’t an Axis declaration of war on the U.S, the U.S isn’t allowed to go into any neutrals, p. 15 Movement.

I believe you use one of them for the IPC chart to mark your UK Europe income (distinct from your UK Pacific income), and they gave an extra in case you lose one, I guess.

A few posts I’ve seen have stated that only threatening a G2 Sea Lion saves the western Italian fleet because the UK carrier and destroyer would then have to be diverted to England’s coast.  Otherwise, the carrier will protect itself with the French fleet and send its tac with a fighter and a cruiser to sink the Italian fleet.  But, as a UK player, if the French fleet was destroyed, would you still make that attack?  Germany would only need to send a tac and 1 or 2 fighters to accomplish this: the consequence would be that the destroyer group off of England’s west coast would survive (use subs and planes in attacks on other fleets).

Any other details on the win?  Was delaying until G4 to build up and attack Russia the deciding factor?  Did you put an IC in Yugoslavia to get units to Africa?  But that is definitely not a normal odds roll.

I’m aware that it’s part of the rules, I’ve been playing since the 1980s edition.  However, it usually only ever comes up in naval combat.  But in this case, those 6 inf and 1 art stationed in Romania are much more powerful compared to being stationed in Hungary/Slovakia on G2 because they can attack both Bessarabia and Eastern Poland, thus forcing the Russians to either stretch out their defenses or retreat.  Bessarabia is already the weakest point on the Russian line with only 2 starting infantry, so those 6 inf and 1 art can make a much stronger push towards Stalingrad 1 turn earlier.

Since this is the first Europe game with an enemy territory in Eastern Europe, Germany on turn 1 can send its army from S. Germany into Yugoslavia and 1 infantry from Romania.  It can then strafe it once, weakening it for Italy to take (who needs it more), and retreat the whole attack force into Romania.  On average, Germany will lose 1 or 2 infantry, but in return have that whole army on the front line ready for G2 (if you want to go for an early Barbarossa).

Is this a problem?

Then why word it that way at all?  There’s nothing to work out: there’s only two places Russia can attack (Manchuria and Korea) and 3 places for Japan to attack (Amur, Siberia, and Soviet Far East).  And it’s at least three territories to get through China, so no one will be surprised there.  Since there is an expectation of shipping Russia’s Asian troops west (due to the Novosibirsk rule in just Europe rules), Russia will most of the time weaken that front, and Japan will quickly exploit it for free IPC’s and a diversion from the Eastern Front.

True, 18 infantry over there is a force to be reckoned with, but diverting from the Eastern Front is always Japan’s relationship with Russia.