Well china will have an income of 0 if it doesnt have any territories. So at that point it doesnt really make a difference if it gets 0 or doesnt get 0.
USA Too many IPCs? Too much Power?
-
I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.
I am not sure that you have been reading the same thread. We are simply saying that credit is due for ALL Three Major Allied nations and I feel that credit is even required for the minor nations and some of the immense contributions they made considering their side.
As for the comments on Russian aid, that could not be more true. Yes the US and UK send a large amount of aid to Russia but ultimately it was Russia and the Five Year Plans and horrific timeline forced on the Russian people that allowed them to industrialize, it was not the US who industrialized Russia it was Russia herself. As was also pointed out already Russia became an enemy even before WWII was over!
-
I apologize if I demeaned the other allied nations contributions. The Russians fought about 80% of German forces. I was simply stating that no other nation had as much industrial and economic power as the US and that the US was able to engage in, and win, both theatres in WW2 (Europe and Pacific), while every other nation (exception is the UK although apart from fighting in Burma and SE Asia they didn’t do much in the Pacific) was fighting a one theatre war. Russia declared war on Japan once the war was over! Germany would have defeated the Russians had it not been for Hitler’s interference, so I do think that front eventually would have ended in stalemate had the US not been able to lead invasions. The commonwealth was important but in reality was the junior partner in the US/UK alliance, I’m sorry but that’s how it was. Do you honestly think the Canadians and Brits could have invaded Europe alone (remember Dieppe)? And if the Canadian fleet having more transports and escorts make it “bigger” than the US navy I used the wrong choice of words, no navy could expect to defeat the US on the seas in 1945 with all their aircraft carriers. I steer clear of US propaganda, but you can’t argue the fact that they were the deciding factor of WW2. Yes Egypt, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow were major turning points the US had little to do with (short of supplying tanks to UK in Egypt and tanks and supplies to the Soviets). But without the US the UK would have eventually tired of a war it couldn’t win and elected another Chamberlain to negotiate a peace with Germany, in my opinion. And the Germans beat themselves out East via Hitler’s poor decisions such as diverting forces from Moscow.
The BCATP was another massive contribution put forward by the commonwealth forces. I am not saying they won the war by any means but I feel that no single nation won the war. The BCATP put out tens of thousands of pilots a year and supplied the pilot training for almost the entire Allied air effort. The program was so successful that they actually had to slow it down as it was training more pilots than even the US could build planes.
As for Dieppe, horribly planned raid I couldn’t agree more. Many historians have tried to give reason to it but it was a terrible plan and logistically a disaster with nothing working in conjunction with one another. However, the US was no better when examining their first landings in the Pacific. Some of the atols that the US took had greater losses than all of D-day combined.
As per the navy, I hate to break it to all of you but the Canadian navy really was the biggest one around. It had so many small escort ships to patrol and escort the convoys across the Atlantic that no other nation could outmatch it.
When it came to Allied Victory I strongly feel that no nation deserves more glory than the next. They all had massive contributions in their own way and none were the savior that any of them claimed to be.
If one country has 10 escort ships and another has 1 carrier, that doesn’t mean that the one with the escort ships is “bigger”
-
I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.
I am not sure that you have been reading the same thread. We are simply saying that credit is due for ALL Three Major Allied nations and I feel that credit is even required for the minor nations and some of the immense contributions they made considering their side.
As for the comments on Russian aid, that could not be more true. Yes the US and UK send a large amount of aid to Russia but ultimately it was Russia and the Five Year Plans and horrific timeline forced on the Russian people that allowed them to industrialize, it was not the US who industrialized Russia it was Russia herself. As was also pointed out already Russia became an enemy even before WWII was over!
In a way, you could say that Russia was really an enemy of the Western Allies before WW2 even started, as far back as the Russian Revolution. Many of the Western Powers, including America, Britain, France and Japan, had limited forces in Russia advising and backing the White armies against the Reds. Unfortunately, the White armies suffered from corrupt and incompetant leaders and ill-disciplined soldiers while the Reds had very organized leadership and pretty much pasted the Whites on all fronts, thus bringing Communist rule to the Soviet Union. I’m sure that Lenin, and later Stalin, never forgot that.
As for the US involvement in WW2, does anyone wonder what the outcome would have been if Pearl Harbor never happened? Or, if Germany and Italy didn’t hold up their end of the tri-partite pact by declaring war on America? Before Pearl Harbor, American Public opinion was still 80% in favor of America staying neutral. Even with Pearl Harbor, America was only technically at war with Japan, NOT with Germany or Italy. What might have happend if America had only went to war in the Pacific? Or not at all?
-
In interesting discussion here! I didn’t read every sentence of every post, but I get the picture.
I tend to agree with the opinion that, the US is supposed to start slow, but grow to dominate.
The Axis have a narrow window to either all out win it, or climb to a high enough status to compete for victory, if they do not achieve this in time, then the game will be much like the war.As far as historical accuracy is concerned, the soviet union should probably be earning around 60-70 by turn 8-10, as should Germany, Japan around 50. the USA, if the game was REALISTIC would earn around 200-250 IPC per turn easy, we outproduced everybody and your momma.
That being said, it wouldn’t be much of a game if the USA earned what they REALISTICALLY earned no would it? The axis never had a chance once our production got in gear, not a chance in hell. -
Patriot much? I hate to burst your bubble but while the USA was immensely powerful they did not single handedly win the war. The US did not train the majority of your pilots (The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan or BCATP did),
Not true.
they could not effectively figure out how to move goods across the Atlantic
False
and had to rely on Canadian escort.
Only partially true, the US and IK decided to use canadian escorts to free up US and UK escort for other tasks.
Should I also mention that Canada had a bigger navy at the end of the war then the US?
THis statement is laughable. The US produced more ships during WWII than any other nation…by far. THe Canadian navy had a total of 400 hulls at war’s end, the US had more than that just counting DD’s…the US had over 145 Carriers alone (22 fleet carriers) at wars end.
The USA did take part in D-day but to a lesser extent than the British and Canadians,
“On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.”
the Russians contributed immensely in every way to the European war effort and made it to Berlin before the USA. The Russians produced more tanks than ALL Allied nations combined (Yes that means more than the USA AND ALL OTHER ALLIES combined, actually the Russians LOST almost as many tanks as the other allies produced).
This is not true either. The US and Britian combined produced more tanks than the Soviets. The US produced more trucks than the rest of the world combined that’s a fact.
I could go on but I think everyone is getting the idea.
The idea that you are virulently anti-American.
As for the game itself, I believe that the representation is just fine. The one problem if anything is that the USA should have a slightly bigger economy and NOT be able to reach the European or Pacific fronts in a single turn. It should take at least an extra turn to get into combat. I can assume that this was done for playability as apposed to historical accuracy.
As Gargantua and Calvin (I think it was the two of them) said the axis have to think ahead and prepare for plans to delay and push the US troops back if the US comes in without adequate protection on their landing forces.
There is so much incorrect information i
-
I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.
I am not sure that you have been reading the same thread. We are simply saying that credit is due for ALL Three Major Allied nations and I feel that credit is even required for the minor nations and some of the immense contributions they made considering their side.
As for the comments on Russian aid, that could not be more true. Yes the US and UK send a large amount of aid to Russia but ultimately it was Russia and the Five Year Plans and horrific timeline forced on the Russian people that allowed them to industrialize, it was not the US who industrialized Russia it was Russia herself. As was also pointed out already Russia became an enemy even before WWII was over!
The Canadian Navy was no where near the size of the US Destroyer fleet alone….
-
History is irrelevant.
We are trying to balance a board game.
Sooner everyone can accept that, the better off we’ll all be.
-
History is irrelevant.
We are trying to balance a board game.
Sooner everyone can accept that, the better off we’ll all be.
How can history be irrelevant to balancing a historical military board game?
-
:? Seems the purpose of my thread is completely lost…
Oh, well. interesting and funny to read
-
Jeremy’s right. We’ve all kind of gotten off topic here. It’s not about how much American involvement affected the outcome in the ACTUAL war.
This is supposed to be about whether or not USA is too powerful economically in the Global game of Axis & Allies and if there are any solutions to solve this problem. I think that the gradual income increase suggested by leddux is VERY good. It not only gives the game a little better balance, it also reflects the historical unpreparedness of the USA for war at that time. I think I will try that in my next game.
By the way, any thoughts on Sea Zone 101 being serviced by the Major ICs of both Eastern US and Central US? I still think there should be another sea zone in the Gulf of Mexico so land units built in Central US couldn’t just immediately board transports built by the IC in Eastern US. Or, the US couldn’t just build 20 ships all in the same sea zone. That’s just too much.
-
I don’t think we ALL have gotten off topic, but SOME definitely have. Jeez people, the game says 14 and up on the box, act like it for goodness sake.
And by the way, NO, the US did not win the war ALL by itself. I think 15 million dead Russian soldiers proves that. However we were definitely a pair of aces in the allies hand and if you dispute that then you don’t know history, board games, any of it, sorry. The sky is not green or yellow, some things are FACT and not up for debate.
Your right we have gotten off topic and I wont dig through my papers and books to find the quotes in interest of staying on topic. I think what you said is exactly the point I was trying to emphasize, no single nation won the war. The US was incredibly powerful economically but they other allies had their own advantages.
Sorry for jumping off topic on that one.
As per the game: One thing our group has tried is forcing the US to not only stay off Africa and Europe until at war but making them stay off the coast of US held territories in the Atlantic and the same in the Pacific with the exception of being allowed to move from Philippine’s to Hawaii if so desired (even though this takes two turns for all but the bomber)
I do like the idea of the NO income but think that maybe there should have been more in NO and less on the board for peace time economy. The US was really thinking isolation at this point in history and not gearing for war. I also love the idea of having an escalating income. The were isolationist but not oblivious to what was happening in the world around them. Does anyone know why the game designers took the game the way that they did? Was it all balance or was their another historical reason for the US pre-war big time income?
-
I do like the idea of the NO income but think that maybe there should have been more in NO and less on the board for peace time economy. The US was really thinking isolation at this point in history and not gearing for war
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. America was gearing up their industries and propaganda machine well before Pearl Harbor. It wasn’t broadcast on the airwaves but in political secrecy, it was happening.
Still, I maintain that the Harris and his assistants had to artificially reduce the relative income of the USA to actually give the axis a chance of winning, which in reality, they didn’t have a chance in Hell.
I think the USA would have earned some 150-200 IPC by the turn equivalent to the summer of 1944. that being said, Russia’s should be much higher by then as well.
And Germany made more AFV in 1944 then they did in 1934-43 added up, despite all the bombing. Economic growth, while realistic, is not going to be easy to reflect in a game of this relatively low complexity. If we get into that, Japan is going to be in trouble as their lack of resources was crippling them. If the US economy is a problem in the game, perhaps a further reduction of their prewar income may help. I’m still not sure if it is a problem yet though. I need to play a few more times.
-
It does seem that a gradual buildup for the US would be both more historical and balance the game better. 52 IPC a turn while at peace is a huge ammount of money.
As far as representing history in this type of game……it’s impossible and we could agrue for hours on it.
-
Yes the USA should have more money when at war to represent history. Russia would have a stronger economy later as well.
-
On the other hand the German Army was incredibly massive when compared to all other powers but the Russians.
Troop quality, tank quality, etc. could all be argued. Manpower, and leadership as well.
Why not have Italy be unable to function because of poor historical performance?
The point is this is a fun casual war game to play for fun. If we want to play an exact replica of history then this is not the game to do it in. Just my 2 cents.
-
-
I do like the idea of the NO income but think that maybe there should have been more in NO and less on the board for peace time economy. The US was really thinking isolation at this point in history and not gearing for war
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. America was gearing up their industries and propaganda machine well before Pearl Harbor. It wasn’t broadcast on the airwaves but in political secrecy, it was happening.
Still, I maintain that the Harris and his assistants had to artificially reduce the relative income of the USA to actually give the axis a chance of winning, which in reality, they didn’t have a chance in Hell.
I think the USA would have earned some 150-200 IPC by the turn equivalent to the summer of 1944. that being said, Russia’s should be much higher by then as well.
I couldn’t agree more. There are factors on both sides that are impossible to represent without going to a much greater complexity. I have not felt the US makes to much in our games but I would have liked to see less in pre-war and more in the post war.
As per the Axis having no chance to win, that is an impossible debate but I will say that there were many factors that gave the allies an advantage that shouldn’t have. I think the war was a lot closer than most people realize. The Axis tended to lose the war for the allies just as much as the allies beat the axis powers. However, that being said hindsight is 20/20 and impossible to do more than speculate.
-
It does seem that a gradual buildup for the US would be both more historical and balance the game better. 52 IPC a turn while at peace is a huge ammount of money.
As far as representing history in this type of game……it’s impossible and we could agrue for hours on it.
-
Yes the USA should have more money when at war to represent history. Russia would have a stronger economy later as well.
-
On the other hand the German Army was incredibly massive when compared to all other powers but the Russians.
Troop quality, tank quality, etc. could all be argued. Manpower, and leadership as well.
Why not have Italy be unable to function because of poor historical performance?
The point is this is a fun casual war game to play for fun. If we want to play an exact replica of history then this is not the game to do it in. Just my 2 cents.
Perfectly said. I couldn’t agree more.
-
-
Great…back on Topic.
Many have mentioned a graduated income for US during neutrality. I think this is a good start at a fix.
What do you propose? I would like to play test this next game and see how it works out.
-
I think 15 million dead Russian soldiers proves that. However we were definitely a pair of aces in the allies hand and if you dispute that then you don’t know history, board games, any of it, sorry. The sky is not green or yellow, some things are FACT and not up for debate.
Yes. Some things are fact. For instance estimates are between 8 and 11 million USSR military deaths from WWII., not 15.
OMG!! Can you guys start another thread to argue? Some of us want to talk about the GAME.
-
I guess I just don’t think 40 IPCs per Ocean is all that much for the US. What is that? (examples:)
Atlantic:
2 Transports (14 IPCs), 2 Arm (12 IPCs), 2 Inf (6 IPCs), 1 DD (8 IPCs) = 40 IPCs. Whoa thats a LOT of firepower for the Atlantic! What will Germany do? Say, buy 4 Inf (12 IPCs), which give you 8 defence pips vs. the 8 attacking pips the USA can throw at you. Granted, you may need to build 4 Inf at multiple ICs, however with 50-60 IPCs/turn, it is easy to buy ~6 Inf/turn for the Atlantic Wall while still keeping pressure on Russia. Hell, you won’t be sending any Infantry to the Russian front after turn 3 or so (After that you are looking at turn 8 or 9 before they get anywhere).Pacific:
1 CV (16 IPCs), 2 Ftr (20 IPCs), 1 SS (6 IPCs) = 42 IPCs. Maybe not the best buy depending on if they need carriers. Other navy based options include:
1 CA (12 IPCs), 2 DD (16 IPCs), 2 SS (12 IPCs) = 40 IPCs. Whoa Japan is screwed! All Japan has to do is mass its surface fleet at Truk, the Philippines, or Japan with 10 or so Fighters with scramble ability and they are nigh untouchable for several turns; long enough for India and China to fall.I’m not sure the USA can fight effectively in both theaters of war with such little built each turn. If you ignore one theater, then Germany or Japan goes hog wild. Hell, Europe by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 3, while the Pacific by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 1,2,or 3. Why isn’t USA’s total IPCs 120ish?
By the way, in incredibly scientific terms verified by myself: :lol:
USSR’s share in beating the European Powers: 50%
UK(Including France and Canada) share in beating the European Powers: 25%
USA’s share in beating the European Powers: 25%
UK(Including India and ANZAC) share in beating Japan: 25%
Nationalist/Communist China’s share in beating Japan: 25%
USA’s share in beating Japan: 50%USSR’s share of winning WWII: 25%
UK’s share of winning WWII: 25%
Nationalist/Communist China’s share of winning WWII: 12.5%
USA’s share of winning WWII: 37.5% -
I’m not sure the USA can fight effectively in both theaters of war with such little built each turn. If you ignore one theater, then Germany or Japan goes hog wild. Hell, Europe by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 3, while the Pacific by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 1,2,or 3. Why isn’t USA’s total IPCs 120ish?
I think it is because the allies have other things to help them in the global game. For instance, 18 Russian men in Soviet Far East, Indian troops helping Africa. The other thing to remember is that in the game the US can get into action a lot faster than was actually possible in the war. Some of the sea zones in both games are massive and with a naval base allow US to build one turn and attack in their next turn. Giving the US more income could unbalance how quickly they can get into battle.
As for incremented income: Perhaps you could try reducing their starting income by 20 and increase it by 5 for the first four turns. In order to keep things even though I still think that something else would need to be added. Perhaps a one time bonus to income after someone attacks them (ie: after war has been declared on them) Maybe you give them the bonus whether they declare war or not, it sounds like it could be getting complicated… What can I say I love to complicate things if it increases strategy, haha.
More simply: Perhaps just give them a reduction in income by a factor of ‘X’ and give them that money back at ‘A’ IPC’s for ‘X/A’ turns. ie: x=20 and a=5(previous example) so the US starts with 20 IPC less in income but gains 5IPC a turn for ‘X/A’ or 4 turns.
Another interesting idea would be to give the US a very small, such as 1IPC a turn income forever at the cost of reduction of ‘X’ amount at the start up. This way the are not making huge bucks to start but if the axis cannot win then eventually it would become impossible to compete with an ever increasing US income.
I am just throwing ideas out. I hope someone can refine them and make sense of them, lol.
-
I think 15 million dead Russian soldiers proves that. However we were definitely a pair of aces in the allies hand and if you dispute that then you don’t know history, board games, any of it, sorry. The sky is not green or yellow, some things are FACT and not up for debate.
Yes. Some things are fact. For instance estimates are between 8 and 11 million USSR military deaths from WWII., not 15.
OMG!! Can you guys start another thread to argue? Some of us want to talk about the GAME.
How about splitting USA’s income between Pacific and Europe? The NO money can be assigned each collect income phase however the US player wants. That would slow their deployment a bit but still allow them to focus on whichever front the player chooses.
Suggested Topics
