Changes still needed to the game, IMHO

[Jennifer]

For easy reference, here are the changes I recommend.  I will split them into Plans since doing every change would grossly unbalance the game again.  Feel free to give me feedback, of course, but to be honest, deep down, we all know there has to be at least some tweaking.

Plan A:  America
*  America should be required to spend 35 IPC (or more) in the Atlantic and 15 IPC (or more) in the Pacific, less any territorial losses on those maps.
*  American income from conquered lands and National Objectives may be spent on either side (Atlantic or Pacific.)
*  When Italy (Rome), Germany (Berlin) and/or Japan (Tokyo) are conquered and held for one round, American spending restrictions are lifted.
*  When Italy (Rome), Germany (Berlin) and/or Japan (Tokyo) are conquered and held for one round, British spending restrictions are lifted.
** Justification 1: America went to war in both theaters.  They went after Japan because it was Japan who attacked us, public opinion would have been royally ticked off if Japan was then ignored.  However, if America did not enter the war in Europe, they were worried that England would fall and they would not have a staging ground with which to invade and liberate France.  To this end, America should be encouraged to engage in both theaters of operations.
** Justification 2:  There are no National Objectives for America in the Atlantic.  Therefore, there is no motivation for America to engage in the Atlantic.
** Justification 3:  America earns double what Japan does, in addition to that you have China, India and Australia burying Japan further into the sea.
** Justification 4:  It has been mentioned that America needs to buy expensive ships.  First, they are no longer expensive!  Second, so does Japan!
** Justification 5:  A split of this magnitude is not unbalancing as it is still possible to get American equipment from one theater of operations to the other in one or two rounds.  The idea is to slow America’s monstrous bank-roll down and give Japan a little more time to get the equipment needed to be a “contender.”  Japan cannot afford to ignore either China or Pacific warships.  The first because China earns way too much, the second because all of Japan’s objectives are at sea except Calcutta. (I am not including FIC because America’s DOW ends that NO permanently.)

Plan B:  French Indo-China

• FIC yields 10 IPC until it is controlled by England, Russia, Australia or America.  This means that Japan will probably have that NO for the entire game.
  ** Justification 1:  Japan’s already in a financial hole that feels like a bottomless pit. 
  ** Justification 2:  Japan already has to divide her fleet to cover America, Australia and Japan.
  ** Justification 3:  This 10 IPC bump would give Japan 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Armor or 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery a round to put against China.  If you figure China earns 9+6, then Japan’s 10 IPC  (2/3rds) should be enought to “hold the line” recquiring England to put an effort into China.

Plan C:  Starting Units

• Restore Japan’s starting units to their former glory. (Start with the OOB setup for Japan)
  ** Justification 1: Coupled with the removal of Major Industrial Complexes for Japan in SE Asia, the decimation of Japan’s starting forces was a bit extreme.
  ** Justification 2: With the allies making 50-70 IPC a round more than Japan (with 80 IPC a round deficit for Japan not being too hard to achieve either) Japan needs all those planes that were removed to be restored.
  ** Justification 3:  With the transport restored to Caroline Islands, Hawaii and Sydney, Australia become valid targets.  Hawaii is nice because without it, American planes have to land on Carriers after attacking the Japanese fleet and Japanese planes can be left until almost last as casualties since they can land on Hawaii.  Sydney, Australia is nice because it’s +15 IPC and territory, even if it will be liberated right away. (10 IPC cash on hand + 5 IPC for having Sydney.)

Plan D:  The Tried and True, bidding

• Germany, Italy and Japan need their own bids.  Bids will most likely fall between 12 and 24 IPC per nation, depending on which nation you look at. (Numbers chosen because they are easily divisible by 3, the cost of an infantry unit.)
  ** Justification 1:  Japan needs overwhelming firepower in China to end them fast enough to have time to put boats in the water to challenge the other three allies in the Pacific.
  ** Justification 2:  Germany needs submarines early to sink the British fleet faster and get convoy raids started / OR / Ground units to press into Russia faster and maybe break them before being overwhelmed themselves. (Keep in mind, Russia is SIGNIFICANTLY stronger in this game than in any other game in history thus far!)
  ** Justification 3:  With the Italian fleet almost a complete joke now (easily sunk by the British), Italy is going to need more units in N. Africa to keep the Allies “honest” and to make up for the lack of ability to transport units for a while. (You could trade all your aircraft, a German aircraft and some prayers to keep the Italian fleet alive, but it’s really not worth it at this time, you can sink the British fleet with the Luftwaffe on your own terms later, but the damage is already done, Africa is almost certainly lost.)

Plan E:  (blech)

• Put the game back in the box.
• Get a piece of tape.
• Tape the receipt on the box.
• Drive to the store.
• Stand in line and return game.
• Get your Anniversary game back out.
• Have fun with an almost perfectly balanced game again!
  ** Justification:  House rules almost always die, even if they are needed to a massive extreme to balance the game.  As the game is unbalanced already, the odds of it ever becomming the standard of play as we had with classic, revised and anniversary (41) is very slim.  With the attitude of some people, there’s no way significant changes will be made to make life more even for both sides anyway.  There seems to have been a very one-sided tunnel vision on ensuring that India did not fall to Japan with the release of Alpha 2, no holds barred, did everything they possibly could to screw Japan over and then nothing to rebalance Japan out.  Taking India was, like, the ONLY chance Japan had of holding her own against America, it is why Pacific is balanced!  Japan takes India and China (because Japan has the Aircraft to do both and the ability to put MICs in down south) and has an equivalent income to America/Australia making the game “balance.”  The game testers must have been objective blind to that, they must have wanted to save India from falling “easy” and forgot that the game will be thrown way off balance in their zeal to do so.
  ** As I’ve said often, the Europe side is mostly balanced, provided that the Pacific side is returned to balance.  If Japan is going to be left as crippled as it is, then Germany/Italy need a significant increase in power so as to put the screws to Russia and England.

---

***          Nutshell              ***

---

The basic concept in each plan (except the last, of course) is to nullify the massive American income.  America earns twice what any other nation earns, three or four times some nations and six or seven times other nations.  Allowing them to spend it all in one theater of operations (Pacific or Atlantic) unbalances things.  (More so in the Pacific, hence why you see virutally every game where the board is littered in American flags all over the Pacific.)  To do this one must:

a)  Increase the offensive capabilities of the European Axis Powers
b)  Increase the income of Japan significantly (10 IPC a round, in a manner that cannot be taken from them regardless of what the Allies can do)
c)  Restore Japan’s units that were lost in the changes which would allow them the ability to “burst” and attack many targets earlier in the game, forcing the allies to have to think and apply strategy
d)  Simply requiring America to act like England, spending part of their income in both hemispheres initially. (It is still possible to move units from one side to the other, but it takes time to move stuff, time Japan has to build.)
or
e)  One not suggested above, reduce W. USA and India’s industrial complexes to minor complexes and forbid their upgrades, thus reducing the number of units that can be employed against the Japanese until later in the game.

[Napoleon]

Last game went wrong or what? :lol:

Seriously, i dont think OOB for Japan is ok.

America is pretty cool

Indo-China too

A bid for Axis seems maybe ok not sure.

Plan e sucks :mrgreen:

[Jennifer]

No, I generally have 5-7 games going at a time, so I can collect a lot of data fast.  I’ve also taken the liberty of going through a vast number of games on the boards here and they generally have one theme in common:  America is WAY too strong.

Why?  America has the income of 2 or more nations.  I believe, personal opinion, that the original game testers/designers did this so that America could put a full country’s income in both the Pacific and the Atlantic simultaniously.  The testers/designers, historically, have a poor imagination and generally fail to see how their games are implemented, hence the reason things like bidding, “enhanced”, “historical” and alpha rule sets are typically released and re-released as new games “find their feet” in the world.  America, in this game specifically, seems to have been in their blind spot.  I do not believe they realized that England and Russia are fully capable of containing Germany/Italy (by contain, I mean prevent a VC victory) long enough for Japan to be annhillated by America’s double income (coupled with harrassment from Australia, India and China.)

Hence, the suggested plans above are all designed around the central theme of mitigating America’s vast economic advantage.  Some do so more than others due to the fact that I wanted there to be choices to choose from.  My personal preference is to divide America’s spending between the hemispheres because it seems to have the smallest change to the rules for the biggest result.  But I am a Utilitarian and believe in the greatest good possible for the greatest number of people possible (slight modification to traditional, for I think it is far better to visit a dying grandmother than it is to serve soup to 30 homeless people, traditionalists might disagree with me there.)

The alternate favorite is the FIC modification since it denies the income to England and bumps Japan’s income significantly enough to counter China.

Lastly, I think the old Japan setup may be good.

Worst is bidding…if I had to bid, I’d put transports in the south so I could hit New South Wales / Hawaii right off the bat.

[Mountaineer]

I have to agree, the Axis are still at a disadvantage. Perhaps Plan A would be simpler if you just split the US income between East and West lik ewe do with the UK. I also think you can combine the intent of Plan B&C wiht that large NO and a minor IC for Japan in FIC. That would work well and provide Japan the financial footing they need to challenge the US.

I don’t care much for bidding.

How do you play so many games at once?

[Jennifer]

I agree, bidding is very weird, but it is a very established house rule and is valid in just about every tournament I know of, so it was included.  My qualms with bidding is the dynamic shift from the game.  It is very hard to judge if a player won because s/he got away with bidding for that one extra IPC over another player in another game that may have lost because s/he undersold his/her need.  It can skew whole tournaments.

A baseline change to the ruleset would be established for all players and would keep the game an even-keel.

As for the minor in FIC, I disagree.  1)  FIC would have to be made an invadable territory and if the enemy has it, you cannot collect the NO for it, right?  2)  That would unbalance things I think, it would give Japan the ability to drop submarines in range of India and put tanks two rounds from India.  Perhaps, if Japan needs the IC, it should be placed in Korea?

[Peck]

I don’t know about any changes.  I only play one game at a time and it’s maybe 2 or 3 a month now but I have played about 15 games of alpha 2 now…  I have found that if USA spends too much on one side they loose out on the other.  Maybe it’s the players I’m playing against but I think that USA has to walk a tight line for the first 6 to 8 turns.

[Pelanderfunk]

I feel like the Alpha +2 changes have balanced the game more than enough – these additional changes are unbalancing.

First of all, I’ve yet to see a +2 game where an Europe or Pacific-only strategy pays off for the US. If the US weren’t in the game at all, the Axis would have no trouble getting their victory cities on either side – given that victory can come from one theater for the Axis, the US has to balance their forces or they will lose the game. In fact, it takes the Allies walking a very fine line to avoid losing the victory city game in alpha +2.

Secondly, if you’re looking for a balanced game like the Anniversary, you might as well take G40 back to the store, because there is no variation of 1940 that will capture that same symetrical balance. In Anniversary, the incomes and armies become relatively even after the third round or so. Then it all comes down to tactics and rolls of the dice. Global 1940 may seem extremely unbalanced (and it certainly is in Anniversary terms), but only if you ignore the massive tactical advantage the Axis have. With every roll of the dice and every unexpected move by your opponent, you will need to adjust your strategy – the Axis can pick their battle and have the mobile forces to quickly change strategy, whereas the Allies are either stuck pumping out slow infantry walls or stuck behind oceans.

In every game of Global 1940 I’ve played, OOB or Alpha +2, the game was won or lost by the Axis. The Big Book of Allied Defense is already written – the moves you need to make are known. When the Allies win, it’s been because the Axis wasn’t aggressive enough in the beginning or they got too cocky and attempted a low-odds battle. When the Axis win, it’s because their opening moves put them in position to take on the superior income of the Allies.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that a lot of people that complained about Axis inferiority in G40 also played a lot of the earlier editions. I’ve looked through some of the Axis overall strategies for those editions, and they are way too conservative to work in the new game. I sometimes wonder if some of the Axis players aren’t able to look past their favorite strategies for the previous games.

[Jennifer]

Mantle:

Regards to 2)  I disagree, I rarely, if ever, see any American equipment in the Atlantic outside the equipment that America starts with in the Atlantic. This is due, probably, to the fact that Russia can easily out produce Germany and thus stop the incursion without assistance.

Regards to 3) I disagree, Japan cannot earn more than America in three rounds, they cannot do it in 50 rounds either if both sides are evenly matched.  If your opponents, or you, are allowing Japan to get 5 of 7 islands, take Hawaii, take NSW, take the DEI, then I suggest you start reading the games here to figure out how to stop them.  Stopping Japan from earning more than 40 IPC a round is child’s play - no offense intended.  Look about, you’ll see its relatively simple, or PM me for ideas on how to stop Japan, you are probably just overlooking convenient ways to abuse airbases and naval bases.

Regards to 4) America does not need to buy battleships to counter Japanese ones.  Battleships are HIGHLY inefficient.  However, America does need cheap destroyers and submarines (as does Japan.)  Now the difference is, America can buy 2 submarines for every 1 submarine Japan buys, 2 destroyers for every 1 Japan buys.  Add in Australia/England warships and you quickly dwarf the Japanese fleet.

Regards to 5) I would love to GET the DEI for a change!  But I think you are missing how easy it is to sack Tokyo now.  If you have your fleet down there, Hawaiian ships can destroy you, if you have your fleet up there, Australian fleets (Americans off Australia) will quickly take DEI back.  Getting DEI is pretty impossible now due to how fast America can move and get ships to bear.

Perhaps we just need to remove the Naval Bases from Hawaii, Carolines, Queensland, New South Wales, India, Malaya and Kwangtung? (Hong Kong).  They could be rebuilt, but it would effectively make it possible to get DEI with England without being murdered for it.

Now, granted, if you play with USA going in the Atlantic, then you are effectively splitting America’s income, are you not?  You put enough in the Pacific to maintain the Hawaiian, Alaskan, Mexican and Continental NOs and the rest in the Atlantic?  If more people played that way, there would be no issue!  The issue comes with the Russian Turtle + Crucify Japan strategy that is the common proceedure.  Why is it common?  Because it’s 90% effective (or more) and there is nothing the Axis can do about it unless they get REALLY lucky with the dice.

[Jennifer]

Pelander:

Alpha 2 stopped the game from being an easy Axis victory to an easy Allied victory, I do not see that as balancing the game so much as pandering to American Exceptionalist attitudes.

The only games I see the Axis win are when America doubles down in both the Pacific and Atlantic.  If America goes 100% Pacific, the Axis lose 9 out of 10 times at least.  All the allies have to do in Europe is to turtle with Russia, keep the Germans from sailing south and kick Italy out of Africa, all of which can be done with what is currently on the board.  You only need to buy 6 rounds, 4 to get America into the game and 2 to establish American naval supremecy in the Pacific.

Yes, I believe the community at large prefers a balanced game to an unbalanced one.  Balancing this one should not be overly difficult.  As I said, by forcing America to be “honest” and spending on both sides of the board (regardless where the units end up) you should buy Japan enough time to counter.  Then it’s a matter of skill, not a matter of bias.

I agree, in the current incarnation of the game the Axis have to go balls-to-the-walls to win, but that gets screwed up by one set of bad dice.  Should we have to have a game where it requires perfect dice to win?  Seriously???  I feel it safe to say that everyone feels the Axis are at a disadvantage in this game, we’re only quibbling over how much of a disadvantage and whether it is significant enough to do something about.

I feel that if you total the offensive, defenseive punches as well as the income between the two sides (at about round 3 when the game really starts) you will see a significant advantage for the allies.  By significant, I mean about 80 IPC give or take.

[Noll]

I completely agree with Jennifer.

Thanks for the time you put into this, you should post these concerns in LH’s forum in my opinion.

Thanks again.

[Jennifer]

@Noll:

I completely agree with Jennifer.

Thanks for the time you put into this, you should post these concerns in LH’s forum in my opinion.

Thanks again.

Eh, but then I have to create a profile there…lol.  Spose I could.  Although, I think the community there (from back when I had a profile there) was less experienced and less able to function at a level consistent with the players I have played here and at AAMC.

Anyway, I want to clarify, I think only ONE option should be implemented, but all should be considered to determine which is the best.

[questioneer]

** As I’ve said often, the Europe side is mostly balanced, provided that the Pacific side is returned to balance.  If Japan is going to be left as crippled as it is, then Germany/Italy need a significant increase in power so as to put the screws to Russia and England…

The basic concept in each plan (except the last, of course) is to nullify the massive American income.  America earns twice what any other nation earns, three or four times some nations and six or seven times other nations.  Allowing them to spend it all in one theater of operations (Pacific or Atlantic) unbalances things.  (More so in the Pacific, hence why you see virutally every game where the board is littered in American flags all over the Pacific.)  To do this one must:

a)  Increase the offensive capabilities of the European Axis Powers
b)  Increase the income of Japan significantly (10 IPC a round, in a manner that cannot be taken from them regardless of what the Allies can do)
c)  Restore Japan’s units that were lost in the changes which would allow them the ability to “burst” and attack many targets earlier in the game, forcing the allies to have to think and apply strategy
d)  Simply requiring America to act like England, spending part of their income in both hemispheres initially. (It is still possible to move units from one side to the other, but it takes time to move stuff, time Japan has to build.)
or
e)  One not suggested above, reduce W. USA and India’s industrial complexes to minor complexes and forbid their upgrades, thus reducing the number of units that can be employed against the Japanese until later in the game.

Ok Jen, I can understand what you are saying:

By the way I will put your post on Larry’s site since you are a bull-headed lazy butt to make your own profile.  I’m only doing this because you are experienced and make some good points…

Anyway,  I can tell you right now Larry won’t do “D”.  He’s already talked about this before.  No way he’s splitting the income like England- so that’s out.

“C” is not happening either- those million fighters were way too easy for Japan to use.  If you are going to beef up Japan it is going to be through land units only- infantry probably- anything else makes Japan too strong.

Since you and others agree that its the Pacific side that needs help, then “A” will not happen either.  That theater is really touchy.  Its very hard to beef up Axis in Europe w/o tipping the scales quickly to their side.

“E” is not popular with Larry either.

Your only real chance is “B”.

Plan B:  French Indo-China

• FIC yields 10 IPC until it is controlled by England, Russia, Australia or America.  This means that Japan will probably have that NO for the entire game.
  ** Justification 1:  Japan’s already in a financial hole that feels like a bottomless pit.
  ** Justification 2:  Japan already has to divide her fleet to cover America, Australia and Japan.
  ** Justification 3:  This 10 IPC bump would give Japan 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Armor or 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery a round to put against China.  If you figure China earns 9+6, then Japan’s 10 IPC  (2/3rds) should be enought to “hold the line” recquiring England to put an effort into China.

B is probably the best bet-  I like your French Indo-China NO.  It is the easiest to implement w/o immediately disrupting the setup in the region- yet it gets Japan what it needs.

Question on your proposed Frindo NO- as the Alpha +2 stands Japan cannot take Frindo otherwise it would be a declaration of war and they would lose their bonus 10 bucks for not being at war with US/Allies.

I’m assuming you want to make Frindo an exception to this rule- Japan attacking Frindo does NOT make it a DOW and then add your Frindo rule to the Alpha+2 setup right???

Also, if Japan take control and Allies takes back, can Japan retake and REGAIN/REACTIVATE the Frindo NO again for themselves???  Type out a cleaner version of this NO please.

…and Jen for what its worth, thanks for your observations, I’ll make sure your voice is heard. :-)

[Hellmet]

@Noll:

I completely agree with Jennifer.

Thanks for the time you put into this, you should post these concerns in LH’s forum in my opinion.

Thanks again.

I’m with Jennifer on this - particularly the US split economy.

[Geist]

I think a split economy for the US is a bad idea. What’s next? Another Acme wall to prevent the US from building on the east coast and shipping out to the west, or land/air units in Central US from moving to the Western US? I do think the game is slightly Allied favored, but, a slight buff to German/Japanese troops and/or possibly adding another NO to Japan would go alot further in regards to balancing the game then splitting US income or giving 10 IPC a round to Japan just for holding FIC. I certainly do not think Japan needs to add to their air armada either.

It seems that the Japanese starting transports were purposely placed to not allow for a strong J1 attack (as opposed to te unstoppable Pac40 J1 atack). Any changes at this point should be more subtle than overt. My experience in the games I’ve played so far are very different then what has been described here.

[Jennifer]

Thanks for the post copy into LH’s forums and the comments, Questioneer.

I envision the National Objective for French Indo-China to be changed in only the one aspect, that it does not automatically disappear if America has visions of Hegemony all over the Pacific.

Essentially:

• As long as Japan, Italy or Germany does not invade French Indo-China, Japan gets 10 IPC a round.

Effects on the game:

• For one, Japan gets 10 IPC a round! (its a given, but if I don’t mention it, you know someone will point out I forgot to mention it!)
• Japan cannot take FIC without losing the NO, thus, Japan will most likely not have a minor Industrial in FIC (other than that, FIC is mostly a waste, there are other territories you can use to circumnavigate FIC.)
• Likewise, England, Australia and America will never get the 2 IPC for FIC either, unless Japan invades first.

Geist:

The economic split is not so much split as forcing America to use factories on both halves of the board.  Think of it this way:  A factory eventually hits peak performance and then other factories are needed.  Granted a Major complex can do 10 units a round anyway, but the workers may rise in revolt over being forced to work 18 hour shifts day and night for 5 years, eh?

Seriously, the idea is to delay some of America’s units from getting to the Pacific right away.  Most people seem to be under the misguided notion that what is built in Washington must stay in Washington or what is built in San Francisco must stay in San Francisco.  No such limitation was ever established nor recommended.  Units built in Calcutta can freely go to Sydney, Toronto or London and vice versa.

If the economic split for America is a bad idea, then the economic split for England is worse!  England needs the money much more than America does AND England has a slightly harder time reinforcing itself!

[Jennifer]

I had another thought, as I typed the last post.

What if, and work with me here because I want feedback and I am not, necessarily, advertising this as a solution ~ YET!, but:

1)  You may not build any major industrial complexes.
2)  You may not upgrade any minor industrial complexes to major complexes, unless you are upgrading a complex on YOUR OWN CAPITOL CITY.
(Essentially, the only major complexes on the board are the ones that start less any that have been captured once.)

3)  Complexes in: Chicago, Los Angeles and Calcutta are permanently downgraded to minor industrial complexes. (The Washington DC Complex now starts as a major complex for America.)
4)  One minor complex is added to W. Mexico. (So that America can put 6 units into the pacific per round, 9 if they put a complex in Alaska.)

Since most of those complexes start as minors anyway, that shouldn’t be too bad.  The Calcutta complex downgrade is a surety for Japan as well…but I could see adding a new minor in Malaya or West India for India to use as well, sort of diversify their building ability.

[Geist]

I tend to like the UK split a bit more, not so much for logic, but, for game reasons. It would be too easy for the UK to max out production in India, or if needed forget India entirely and use the extra IPC’s in Europe. Actually, one of the things I think that’s a bit broken is a UK minor IC in Central Persia, this lets both UK economies support each other and becomes tough on Japan and Italy.

I’m not convinced the delay the US would experience would have the effect you desire, in stopping an all out US blitz on Japan. At essense I think we do agree the game is Allied favored (though I think it’s closer to a 60/40 split, but, even that is enough to make people eventually not want to play Axis), I would just rather see the US spend more resources in the Atlantic because it’s the sensible thing to do rather than because they are forced to. This would almost seem to suggest a buff to Germany/Italy rather than Japan. To me it seems that it’s tough for Germany to put real prussure on Russia, certainly not the kind of pressure Germany is under from US/UK.

I tend to be biased against building IC’s in general, but, for some reason the idea of building in Mexico and Alaska just doesn’t mesh with my sense of historical accuracy.

[Jennifer]

I sort of dislike the England split.  Other than for historical purposes, it does nothing but weaken England unrealistically.  I grant that the allies need to be weakened, but I disagree that it should be England.

Rather:  Combine England and split America.  Drop the Major in India to Minor.  Combine the “original land” NO into 1 and leave it at 5 IPC.  England needs a round or two of London dump, and that would necessarily weaken the Indian offensive to make it easier on Japan…sounds like an awesome trade for me!  Kills two problems at once!  England gets the defense it needs against early Sea Lion, Japan gets the relief it needs in China!

Great idea Geist!

[M K P]

I think adding to the starting German military heavily and giving Russia some sort of +2 inf Novosibrisk NO similar to the Europe one. The game doesn’t deal with the Soviet industry in Turkmenistan or Kazakistan or the Don River industry (although I suppose Southern Ukraine could count).

Perhaps give the Germans more infantry and artillery, just not on the border with France? This way Germany can’t really knock out more British navy and take all of France safely, yet Germany will be at an initial advantage to the USSR even if they focus on helping Italy or beginning Sea Lion.

And here’s where the USSR NO kicks in. It only would come in to effect when at war with Germany or Italy (and maybe Japan), but to show the mass recruitment of citizens, the Soviets should get a constant infantry flow from the Urals, where heavy Soviet Industry was moved during the war. Perhaps something like, 6 IPCs to spend or lose? That way they choose between a tank or two infantry, because no accumulation?

I agree, Axis does feel a bit weak, and it seems Sea Lion or all out Russia are only feasable steps, but turn 1 Germany needs to buy Navy to do/feint Sea Lion and to get maximum use of their airforce against the Royal Navy. So I think some more German units, perhaps a presence in the Med (nothing fancy, a trans or something) would give Germany more options (such as helping Italy secure the med) because it always seems Italy becomes convoyed to death because almost all their territories are hit by convoy zones, if not all.

@Cmdr:

I sort of dislike the England split.  Other than for historical purposes, it does nothing but weaken England unrealistically.  I grant that the allies need to be weakened, but I disagree that it should be England.

Rather:  Combine England and split America.  Drop the Major in India to Minor.  Combine the “original land” NO into 1 and leave it at 5 IPC.  England needs a round or two of London dump, and that would necessarily weaken the Indian offensive to make it easier on Japan…sounds like an awesome trade for me!  Kills two problems at once!  England gets the defense it needs against early Sea Lion, Japan gets the relief it needs in China!

Great idea Geist!

I disagree somewhat. The USA should feel like the most powerful country initially. They already have to juggle spending on two theatres, and the USA was connected, unlike Great Britain. Realistically Britain wasn’t organized enough to control their vast Empire that efficiently. I think India should feel hard to take for Japan and UK Europe might need a bit more pieces on the board. Perhaps move the battleship in SZ 110 or give it a bit more protection.

[M K P]

Maybe give Germany a NO on France, called REVENGE or NO VICHY FOR YOU or something. For holding NB + Paris + Southern France + Belgium-Netherlands. It might conflict with Italy not getting SFR, but I think Germany can put the $3 to use better anyways.