If UK and Russia was captured before US sent many troops to Europe, I think the US would not go to war against Germany, only defend their home waters, and eventually secure south America, and capture Japan.
For Germany’s sake, this had to happen before, or sometime during 1942, b/c then the war was lost for Germany.
It is ofc very possible that nukes against Germany could be an option, but even today, you need troops on the ground, or at least be 99% certain that your enemy knows that you’re willing to put troops on the ground, like the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
It wasn’t until Milosevic thought that NATO would send in ground troops that he conceded, even if he (Serbia) had lost before the war started.
@Subotai:
For Germany’s sake, this had to happen before, or sometime during 1942, b/c then the war was lost for Germany.
I was throwing 1944 out there… presuming Barbarossa is delayed maybe by a year for Sea Lion or something else to take the British out of the fight, and then the Soviet defense / counter-offensive being entirely re-written owing to Lend-Lease never occurring.
Admittedly this “America goes it alone” scenario is a major counter-factual.
[Note: this scenario was not [u]my idea :-P]
Anyway, back on subject: I’m not a fan of the US economy being split by rule.
I think it should end up split by compelling circumstances and player choice.
Mind you, this is obviously open to abuse thru really gamey decisions… but if players want that kind of experience then what can you do? :wink:
@Brain:
I look at A&A as a 2 player game so I couldn’t care less about an individual country being the winner.
Really? I find it much more fun with all the spots filled.
LOL. Argh, multiplayer is fun (especially on TripleA) until you find out you’re having to play the clueless guy’s turn for him/her anyway. If I ever get to play multiplayer AA50 in real life with 6 people (hard to do with all the friends halfway across the country) I just suggest stuff and let them decide. Usually you just watch as they flounder around a few turns and you end up bailing them out on what to do. It’s hard to have a learner’s curve on a game you play once a year. I have horrible luck with the dice when it comes to the pivotable battles, so always let the other guys on your team roll, less stress that way.
I think that in the event of a US v Japan and Germ conflict in reality, the US might have been able to take out Japan, but getting enough men into Europe to defeat the entirety of Germany would be a longshot. In the end, I think it would be a number of inconclusive naval skirmishes, some angry glares, and then some sort of peace agreement.
As for the question of American split income, it is obvious that this is a very bad idea. A&A has not had scripted play mechanisms in any of the global games.
Better to make the pacific islands worth so much that both Japan and US must fight in the pac, or lose a lot of money.
Like Hawaii worth 5 ipc, and maybe even more, including NOs.
i think it’s combined income
if japan succeeds to conquer pacific, game is over, which will happen if US does nothing
If its not combined income then I hope the U.K. and Russia can hold their own.
I wonder if split incomes also means split capitals for the US. I know loosing Washington doesn’t happen to often but would you also give up the west coast $ ?
Exactly WW2 had ZERO teamwork with these exceptions:
UK and USA in Europe
Germany tells Italy what to do because they pay their bills.
The Soviets didn’t trust anybody
The British didn’t trust the Soviets
Italy just wanted the trains to run on time, and the have a large lake known as the Mediterranean.
Spain wanted to be on the winning side after it won
USA just wanted to keep Democracy alive after 1945
Japan wanted its own dominion in the pacific
Germany wanted a free hand in Europe
Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungry all wanted parts of western Russia for farming and lucrative contracts from the Reich.
This forgets the greatest (not most powerful) allience in world war 2. Was between AUS and the US. We were scared stiff of been invaided by Japan, the UK had sent most of or forces to africa and the rest to Singapor, along with all the navy to the Med and left us for dead after Pearl Harbour after we gave them everything.
MacCather came along, and with it tons of US forces and planes and gave real leadership to us. The US were not afraid of giving Aus all we needed because we were not a compeating power, and in return we put all our forces under US command.
We won Coral Sea, held liberate to Phillipans and ended up capturing Bereno.
And to this day we are still one of your greatest allies.
i still think russia will have a zillion infantryn so germans can never take moscow and US can go to pacific
Well a split income will make Panama suddenly important.
@democratic:
This forgets the greatest (not most powerful) allience in world war 2. Was between AUS and the US. We were scared stiff of been invaided by Japan, the UK had sent most of or forces to africa and the rest to Singapor, along with all the navy to the Med and left us for dead after Pearl Harbour after we gave them everything.
MacCather came along, and with it tons of US forces and planes and gave real leadership to us. The US were not afraid of giving Aus all we needed because we were not a compeating power, and in return we put all our forces under US command.
We won Coral Sea, held liberate to Phillipans and ended up capturing Bereno.
And to this day we are still one of your greatest allies.
This is why on my 1942 map Australia and New Zealand are US controlled, and Sydney is a US Victory City.
In Pacific 40 I sometimes play that ANZACs move in the same round as the US after the fall of the Phillipans.
Here’s what I think.
In Pacific, the 40 income bonus from the US entering the war is a national objective. If there is something similar to this in the European theater, then here’s how I think it will work. The US income (not including national objectives, meaning not including the 40 bonus) will be combined. However, the 40 IPC bonus from declaring war on Japan can only be spent in the Western US, and a similar bonus in Europe can only be spent in the Eastern US. So the income excluding national objectives will be shared, however, national objective bonuses for entering the war can only be used in the theater in which they get the bonus from entering.
For example, let’s say the US is only an Eastern US and Western US. Each territory is worth 10 IPCs, meaning prewar US income is 20 IPCs. This means that the US can spend these 20 IPCs anywhere it wants. Now let’s say war is declared, and the Western US income increases by 40 along with the Eastern US income due to national objectives, putting the total US income at 100. The 20 IPCs from regular territory income can still be spent in either theater, but the 80 IPCs from national objectives can only be spent in the territory they were earned in. This means if the US went all out KGF, the maximum IPCs they can spend in the Eastern US is 60, and they would still be required to spend the 40 IPC bonus in the Western US.
Sorry if this has already been suggested, but I read the first and last pages and did not want to read the other seven.
@i:
Sorry if this has already been suggested, but I read the first and last pages and did not want to read the other seven.
thats a little laze then isnt it?
You could say that. I don’t have all day to devote to reading a forum for a board game.
My solution. KISS and just make the US spend at least 50 IPCs in each thertre (10 before war). Unless you hsve 2 US players where you can keep them apart easily.
What is to keep the pieces purchased in one theater from moving to the other.
@Brain:
What is to keep the pieces purchased in one theater from moving to the other.
Nothing. If the US chooses to build units in the Western US and send them to the Eastern US, then I see nothing wrong with this. I just feel there is already a lot built into this game that would make players keep most units built in the Western US in the Pacific, except for maybe the occasional plane. Firstly, having to send ships through the Panama Canal and having to send infantry two spaces (assuming there is still a central US) takes a lot of time. I understand that a player could just build planes in the Western US and send them east. However, in this game the US actually starts with a surface fleet that Japan can’t destroy half of in round one, meaning the US does not have to devote 100% of its resources in the first few rounds of the game to put up a fight in the Pacific, as it did in other games. Also, with Australia, China, India, and the DEI worth much more than they were in any other game, it seems as though even if Europe were taken, Japan would still be able to defeat all of the allies (minus Australia) singlehandedly if the US leaves the Pacific alone.
The purpose of having the split income is so that the US can’t just put 100 IPCs right into the Atlantic or right into the Pacific. If the US could spend all of its money on transports for the Atlantic, then I could see a D-Day happening 3-4 turns after the US enters the war, which is totally unrealistic. If the US decides to go 100% KGF and had to send transports around through the Panama canal, that could delay this by 2-3 turns. If they just built planes in the WUS, and assuming the US has to spend at least its 40 IPC WUS NO bonus in the WUS that would still be 4 fighters vs. 3 transports with 5 infantry and 1 artillery. While option 1 would certainly not be a bad choice, option 2 would help the US invade Europe much faster if built on the first turn after war is declared. If spending 100% of income in the
EUS, the US could just do an all transport and ground unit build turn 1 after DoW, fighters and tac bombers T2, and Strategic bombers T3, and then the US would have a much larger invasion force than if the income were split, since it would have more ground units from T1 build and would be able to get all of its planes to UK quicker from EUS than WUS, since T3 strategic bombers would likely reach UK a turn faster from EUS than WUS.
Likewise, if the US could place 100% of its IPCs in the Pacific, this would give a huge advantage to the US vs. having to place at least 40 in EUS because the US could build 2 extra BB in the Pacific T1 after DoW, making a nearly invincible US fleet right off the bat. Had the US had to put 4 planes in EUS rather than 2 BS in WUS, then Japan could hypothetically knock out much of the US Pacific fleet before the planes arive at the carriers that were likely built to put them on, giving Japan one extra turn of free roaming in the Pacific to take some valuable islands rather than worrying about 2 extra US BB. Oh, and they could also take some more islands with US airbases preventing the US from using those planes to scramble.
So while the US can certainly go all out KGF or KJF even with split income, the split would delay the US forces by one or more turns, enough time for Germany to gain some valuable ground in the USSR or for Japan to take a few more islands or stage an attack on Australia. This combined with the increased number of SZs making moving ships between theaters a lengthy task. This makes it more efficient to use units built in a theater in that theater.
Well then, should Germany have to split its IPC’s betwen western and eastern fronts?
