@Brain:
Well then, should Germany have to split its IPC’s betwen western and eastern fronts?
No, I never said this. Please explain why you implied this.
Also, for clarification, fronts are different than theaters. Europe and Pacific are opposite sides of the world, Eastern Europe and Western Europe are on opposite sides of a small continent, and will likely be serviced by only one major German factory.
I would also make two central USs to make moving forces between theaters even more difficult, but this is unlikely.
I am just asking, Why should the US be forced to split its income while the other countries can freely decide how to spend their income?
I agree with palpatine
@Brain:
I am just asking, Why should the US be forced to split its income while the other countries can freely decide how to spend their income?
Two reasons.
1.) Gameplay. The game is more balanced when US has split income by not pushing all of the major battles to one theater. German split income would still allow units to easily and freely move between fronts because Germany is not a large country compared to the US, so split income for Germany would be somewhat pointless.
2.) History. The US was an extremely industrial country before the war, with huge industries on both the East and West coast. The US couldn’t just somehow move its entire industry to one side of the country. Germany is a small country so this does not apply here.
Also, in comparison to other AA games (aside from AA50) this game does have split income for Germany by breaking it up into Germany, which fights mainly in Northern and Eastern Europe, and Italy, which spends money in the Mediteranean and Africa. There was both a historical and gameplay reason for this. Just like splitting US income.
Why splitting income is useless :
Advantage in leaving income united :
Allow USA to prefer one front over another, THUS allowing him/her to make poor decisions that could lead to defeat of the allies. A good player will not ignore Japan, nor will he ignore Germany.
Leaving income united will grant USA with more freedom and allow him to push harder one side or another. Historically, war against Germany received more resources.
The game is about recreating WWII. So let the player decide what to do.
i am pro-split income for the USA
to me, it is the only way to stop the strategy of focusing 100% of resources on either germany or japan.
and since historically the fight against germany had more resources, then perhaps eastern usa’s income will have to be bigger by 20 or 30…… (or more likely it will just start big, and not get a jump from going to war like western usa’s income)
however, if the income is not split… i hope to hell that there will be some sort of gameplay mechanic to severely punish a USA player that does not split his income.
Split Income is NOT following the KISS rule.
Why forcing the US to spend on the East coast when he needs a boost on the West. Its not even logical.
In the game we are not bound by restrictions like "the big shiop slips are all on teh Eastern Coast, so you can buy BB+CV only there…
- Say Japan is on the west coast ready for invasion next turn. WHY wouldn’t USA be allowed to put her full production to protect WUS from falling? Realistically, a country that is threatened one side will put her resources to defend
OK I was with you up until that point.
No, however helpful it might be, it is not realistic to have half the country suddenly produce everything and the other half stop producing things. With the Japanese clearing the minefields around San Francisco, sorry I don’t think the NYC Recruiters could break out the cards and crosswords.
The US (and Canada) should still have to shuttle units x-country.
@Brain:
Well then, should Germany have to split its IPC’s betwen western and eastern fronts?
Naw, I don’t think so.
USA has something like 30x the land mass but roughly an equal number of territories. Something should replicate the dispersal of their industrial might.
No, however helpful it might be, it is not realistic to have half the country suddenly produce everything and the other half stop producing things. With the Japanese clearing the minefields around San Francisco, sorry I don’t think the NYC Recruiters could break out the cards and crosswords.
The US (and Canada) should still have to shuttle units x-country.
I agree exactly.
The US couldn’t just magically move all production to one side of the country. In Pacific, the WUS gets a 40 income boost due to a national objective, representing increased wartime production in the WUS. Why the WUS’s increased wartime production should be used to build units anywhere outside of the WUS is beyond me.
Also, sure, a player can still go all out KGF or KJF with split income, however, it would be highly inefficient to constantly send units cross country when they could fight a much closer enemy.
- Say Japan is on the west coast ready for invasion next turn. WHY wouldn’t USA be allowed to put her full production to protect WUS from falling? Realistically, a country that is threatened one side will put her resources to defend
OK I was with you up until that point.
No, however helpful it might be, it is not realistic to have half the country suddenly produce everything and the other half stop producing things. With the Japanese clearing the minefields around San Francisco, sorry I don’t think the NYC Recruiters could break out the cards and crosswords.
The US (and Canada) should still have to shuttle units x-country.
This could easily be reflected in limiting the amount of pieces produced at each factory.
@Brain:
This could easily be reflected in limiting the amount of pieces produced at each factory.
Depends on what’s being produced: BBs or infantry, right?
A country is not going to produce something where it is not needed.
@Brain:
A country is not going to produce something where it is not needed.
Yet it’s ICs would still be producing something… not sitting silently.
Mind you, I think we agree that the game should permit sufficient flex for the US player to screw himself over with defective purchases and strategic blunders. :-D
@Brain:
A country is not going to produce something where it is not needed.
Yet it’s ICs would still be producing something… not sitting silently.
Mind you, I think we agree that the game should permit sufficient flex for the US player to screw himself over with defective purchases and strategic blunders. :-D
Not if all of the countries resources were sent to the other coast where they were needed.
@Brain:
Not if all of the countries resources were sent to the other coast where they were needed.
Sent: OK.
Instantly appear…. I can see problems with that.
@Brain:
Not if all of the countries resources were sent to the other coast where they were needed.
Sent: OK.
Instantly appear…. I can see problems with that.
The pieces you will produce each turn are determined at the beginning of your turn and placed at the end of your turn I am assuming this is supposed to take care of the time involved in not only producing the pieces but also getting the resources moved to the necessary factories. Otherwise you would already have know in advance every turn what you were going to build or did those resources instantly appear as you say.
@Brain:
The pieces you will produce each turn are determined at the beginning of your turn and placed at the end of your turn I am assuming this is supposed to take care of the time involved in not only producing the pieces but also getting the resources moved to the necessary factories. Otherwise you would already have know in advance every turn what you were going to build or did those resources instantly appear as you say.
Resources are one thing. However, the US cannot move people and factories east. The jump from a peacetime to a wartime economy meant that both the east and west sides of the country were maximizing their production outputs. Resources alone were not diverted to the war effort. Jobs and manpower became a huge focus. The US couldn’t somehow hire its entire wartime labor force living on the West coast to work in East coast factories because it decided that it suddenly wanted to pursue a new strategy of going only to one theater. The wartime economic jump on the West coast would stay on the West coast, and if the US wanted to pursue an anti German strategy, it could either use the wartime labor in the West coast, or it could just let half the country go back into a peacetime economy. The first option would be the obvious choice, meaning the US would have to build some of its forces in the west and ship them east. There is no option, however, of moving the entire West coast labor force east just for the few months the US decides to pursue a Europe only strategy.
You are assuming that there was not enough labor force on either coast to produce at higher levels.
I am sure I know who you speak of.
I dont believe USA should be forced to split it’s income.
