Well, ignoring Gargantuas fantastic contributions to this thread and focusing on the actual question: I take that as a no then. Or at least not many people have tried alpha+2 out for just Europe?

If you have how did it go? Is it balanced?

@ThomasJefferson:

The Ruskies used the t34, which was by all definitions a medium tank. In fact, the only faction to make heavy tanks was Germany.

Not quite true. The KV series of tanks were Heavy tanks, the the USSR had those in 1941. And the later IS-2 was definitely a heavy tank.

The biggest problem, which you all seem to be ignoring, is that neither the war, nor A&A, START IN 1942. How can you claim the Italians and Japs should get worse tanks for the whole game, when in RL the tanks they used in 1939-1941 were, for all intents and purposes as good as the tanks other nations used in that period? Only once other nations upgraded to better tanks from 1942 onwards did the Italians fall behind.

If you want to add a ‘light tank rule’ for historical purposes everyone will need to use light tanks for the first few turns, then be allowed to buy normal tanks after, say, turn 3. Otherwise you are just adding compexity for no reason, or at least no historical one.

While the Italian tanks were obsolete by the time American forces arrived in the war, during the early stages (1939-1941) they were actually comparable to the British and German tanks of the day.

The M11/39 and M14/41 were both on the lighter side of medium tanks, but armed with a 47mm (heavier than the 3.7cm Main gun of the early panzer IIIs, and similar to the 5cm Weapon on later models (the Panzer III J to M)).

The M14/41 could hold its own against Crusaders IIs (40mm gun) and (to some extent, IIIs, with their 57mm weapon), which were their main opponent until the US lend-lease tanks began arriving in large numbers. And even then the serious draw backs of the Grant - hull mounted weapons were of little use in the desert, as you had to expose yourself to return fire more than a tank with turret mounted weapons could (even the Italians learnt this lesson before the Yanks) - allowed the M14/41 to compete with them, albeit with serious disadvantages in terms of main armourment and armour.

The Italians problem was that they didn’t keep upgrading their tanks. When compared to a Panzer II or III, or a Crusader II the M14/41 was a decent tank. However, it was outclassed by tanks from 1942 and later. Compared to a Sherman, Panzer IV or T-34 it is pathetically under-armoured and under-equipt.

But how could you represent this in A&A? The Italians get normal tanks for the first few turns, then start paying less and get weaker ones once the US joins in? Or ingnore the bits of the war before the Torch Landings?

Plus, A&A is not meant to follow history exactly. What if the Italians had put more effort into the P40, with its 75mm gun? Or if they had been Lend-Leased Panzer IVs by their Allies, and relied on foreign-produced tanks like the British?

The problem with things like this is who decides what he does is illegal? American and European Arms Dealers sell weapons to huge numbers of countries around the world. Why is there nothing illegal about those trades?

Or is it only illegal when the weapons are being given to ‘baddies’? In that case who decides who is the ‘bad’ side? The UN? The USA? If all it takes to be an illegal Arms Dealer is to sell weapons to a country that ignores international law and the UN then a lot of the CEOs in the US Military–industrial complex, and a lot of people in the DoD need to go to jail. And the same goes for the heads of other Arms producers worldwide.

It seems like the current setup is that it is only illegal to Deal in Arms if you are selling them to someone the “West” (specifically the US) isn’t on good terms with. And being from the former USSR certainly doesn’t help your case.

@crusaderiv:

The Boer War

???

Post WWII conflit…
Boer war is before WWI…dude!!!

From what I have seen of his posts ‘Idi Amin’ is just a troll. And a poor one at that. I try to ignore anything he says and await the day he is banned.

Well its not a foolproof strategy, but I don’t think such thing exists in A&A, but it usually goes pretty well. The Romanian IC let’s you put a lot more pressure on the 2 ukraines, since they are both 2 steps from Romania. And therefore you can put much more pressure on Stalingrad. Stalingrad is more important to Russia than leningrad, as it is only 2 steps from Moscow, rather than 3. So the Russians can’t send as many reinforcements to leningrad, esp infantry, as they will be 3 turns from Moscow if needed due to a German advance on the city. So leningrad is easier to take, which makes it easier to advance further into Russia & hold Norway.

All in all I think its a good build for the Germans. But as I said above, the Ukrainian IC added in alpha +2 might mean its not as important as in oob.

In all three games I have played the Germans have build an IC in Romania in G1 or G2. It gives them more power on the southern front, and makes a drive on Stalingrad much easier. However now with the IC in Ukraine it may not be needed. An Italian IC in Egypt is also common, since it is just a matter of time until their fleet either  dies or flees the Med for the Indian Ocean. Without an IC in Africa they cannot hold Cairo.

We also had one game where the Americans build an IC in Spain, the British build one in Egypt, the Italians in Turkey, the Germans in Romania and the Caucasus. It was quite interesting, since areas of the board that aren’t normally fought over became the key battlefields of the war: the Italian push into India and Syria; the Battle of The Aegean, with the British Med fleet vs the (much smaller) German Black Sea Fleet and Air Support etc.

Fun Game.

Not to question your wisdom, but in the rulebook it says tanks can "blitz by moving through an unoccupied hostile territory as the first part of a move that can end in a friendly or hostile territory.

So in the above situation it could go Bessarabia to Romania, then to USSR controlled Eastern Poland (ie going to a hostile territory, and then on to a friendly one.) Or it could go Bessarabia to Romania, then on to a UK controlled Yugoslavia, or on to a German contolled Yugoslavia. Why can’t it carry on to a Pro-Allies Neutral Yugoslvia?

No. They are not part of the “Allies” until they join the war, so their are no countries friendly to them until they do, anyway.