I am curious to what the exact NO’s are for the European theatre. What are the differences from the Global NO’s already posted by Emperor Taiki?
When you delete the Pacific NO’s from his list you get the following NO’s:

Germany

• 5 for denmark, norway, and a neutral or axis sweden.
• 5 for being at peace with the soviets
• 5 for each soviet VC
• 3 for having a land unit in egypt

Soviet Union
+5 for being at war
+6 for each original german territory if they have all of their originals

UK
+5 for getting rid of the subs in the atlantic

Italy
+5 for getting all the allied warships out of the med
+5 for southern france, egypt, and greece

USA

• 30 for being at war

France

• 4 inf when Paris is liberated

It looks like most NO’s are useable also for the stand alone version but UK probably has a couple of more.

Anyone with info care to elaborate?

@djensen:

W00t! Thanks for proof-reading it.

@Krieghund:

It looks OK to me.   

One small typo (but one that could be confusing), in the Italian Political rules:
•Declaring war on the Soviet Union does not cause Germany to go to war with USA and vice versa.
I think this should read Italy.

Just a small thing, but still…

@Proud:

lets stop annoying IL. Im just saying I barely use the pic. Infact I havent used it till today!

Anyway i think theres 4 there. Anyone back me up?

It is probably a 4, but it is definitely not a 1 (compare it to the other 1’s on the chart PLUS plurar for “fighters”)
4 makes the most sense (but cannot be confirmed since there are no other 4’s on the chart) because of the attack on the Bismarck (djensen testgame) and the stacks of chips under the fighters (djensen testgame) and lastly for historical accuracy and game balance.

@General:

First of all, thanks for the FAQ Krieg.

But could you include some justifications for these changes.  It would be nice to see the reasoning behind these changes.  Especially the NZ change.

@Krieghund:

They were just good old-fashioned mistakes.

I cannot believe the unit setup mistakes. This is unbelievable. What a retards.

Having said that, these unit setup alterations make Japan even more stronger. That is the real concern.

And don’t forget the setupcharts. Japan line 1, Artillery is misspelled.

@Driel310:

Krieg, I can’t believe what I am reading …. 

The US can’t fly planes to Australia if she is not at war with Japan? Bloody hell, how was it possible this is not mentioned in the rulebook…  :?

If this is true then the allies are even weaker than I thought.

I can’t believe the terrible quality of the rulebook. I am a fiscal advisor. If I get one letter wrong this could have big consequences. Therefore we check, check and doublecheck all our work.
Either they are all incompetent or they try to save money on the wrong things.

@Krieghund:

Apparently, some naughty on-line vendors in Europe and Australia are releasing their copies early.   

No online vendors. It is in the stores here. I just walked i a shop last Thursday and picked up a copy.

For everyone who doesn’t think Japan is too powerfull maybe they can write a review about their experiences.
I don’t know how this will work out in the end. But I do know one thing. In order to make a balanced game, you put LESS units in the setup not more.

@djensen:

@JohnBarbarossa:

We got the game yesterday. We did not have time to schedule in a full game but we played a short game of 2 rounds.

Only playing 2 rounds you only see the massive potential power of Japan. You fail to see the downside, which is getting spread too thin too fast. You just cannot cover the entire Pacific and Asia with your supply lines. Something will be missed and it gives the USA the chance to move in and dominate.

In my game, I probably didn’t attack fast enough but I still was stretched thin. There’s just not enough boats to keep all of your transports safe. But to rapidly expand to get the National Obective bonuses, you need to use all of those transports.

In my opinion, I think it is a false to say the game is unbalanced after 2 rounds of play.

Mind I did not say the game is unbalanced. Noone can come to that conclusion after 2 rounds. I just find it hard to see how allies can win at this point. And of course we need more playhours under the belt but I also wanted to give the people who were waiting for their copies some information.

@bennyboyg:

@rmorel:

Ive only played the game once, as the Allies, so I dont have the Japanese perspective yet, but I must agree with DJensen’s post.    Japan was spread way too thin, and even though they looked after rounds 3-5 like a win was inevitable, the game started slowly tu torn after that and the Allies eventually won in the 9th round.

The American Juggernaught is just ridiculous once they have a supply line established, and Japan has to get just enough cities that it makes it hard for them to get that last one.  India is not a piece of cake, and Austrailia is fairly close to the US that once they are in the war they can easily fortify.  It seems like Japan is always one city short of victory, and they just dont have the resources to get it.

I’d be very curious if i could win the game with Japan.

Yeah I had the same problem with original Pacific. I never played a game where Japan won.

You are all talking about spreading out but I was talking about a concentrated attack. First take out India and then Australia (and MAYBE both at the same time).  How can India not be a cakewalk when Japan throws everything they have at it?
Has this been tested by the playtesters btw? The former India crush tactic from AAP.
I admit Australia could be a serious problem (due to its relative proximity to the USA) when you go after India first.