@knp7765:
Yeah, I’m not crazy about the US fighters placed in London either.
Not sure about the French idea, probably would never happen since more than likely some French territory will still be Axis controlled.� Still, it would force Germany to keep some forces in Paris, which they probably should anyway.
I really like the island NOs for both the Allies and Japan.� It gives both some opportunities to add a little to their incomes and it would be nice to make all those little, seemingly worthless islands actually worth something.
How about this one for the UK Europe:� UK gains 5 IPCs for having surface warship(s) in the Med (Sea Zones 92-99).� Not only would it give UK an extra chance to earn, but be in direct confrontation with Italy’s “No Allied surface Warships in the Med” NO.
Also, what about the Middle East territories of Iraq, NW Persia and Persia?� If Germany or Italy control these, it’s worth and extra 2 IPCs per turn for them but if any Allied powers control them, it’s worth nothing except the actual territory value.� Shouldn’t the Allies also get 2 IPCs each for whomever controls those three territories?� After all, they do have to send troops over to take control of Persia and NW Persia and they actually have to fight for control of Iraq.
The US fighter idea is based on http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ In short, the US ended up with approximately 3 Ftr squadrons under the RAF’s direction that primarily flew defense missions over the UK until later in the war (hence the transition of up to 3 Ftrs turning into TacB which are more offensive). I figured since the US declares war the end of US3, it sort of makes sense to add those Ftrs. However, the dilemma about not being at war and unable to defend themselves creates an issue that I’m not sure how to resolve. Perhaps:
If London has not fallen when the US enters the war, UK can elect to have up to 2 Ftr on London revert to any combination of Ftr/TacB under the US control? (Replace with US units).
I chose the French idea based on the French Resistance that, if Germany left Paris unoccupied, would in all likelihood have risen up against the lack of German occupation. Basically instead of adding units to Paris to start with, it addresses the Germans having to maintain some form of occupation in Paris post its conquest or face units placed in Paris that can assist with an allied landing in Normandy. I just didn’t want them to be able to liberate Paris on their own because I could see it as an easy way for Germany to keep adding IPC’s from a see saw effect of taking paris, withdrawing, retaking paris after they collected income.
As for the Islands, I just want to make the Island hopping a potential windfall for either side. As it stands the NO for Japan is realistically not worth the effort because you have to own ALL of them. I figure a good alternative is to make each one individually worth something to the opposing side to own as all the islands were strategic to one side or the other during the course of the war. Some were more valuable than others, but almost all of them experienced some form of conflict for their control, and as our current pacific game stands, only Hawaii and the Philippines (outside of the DEI) see much action. The biggest part of it is that the islands you start with aren’t worth IPC to you, but are to the enemy. This requires you to protect them and requires the enemy to direct resources after them with some interesting 2 Inf vs 1/2 Inf rolls with maybe a Bombard or two.
I don’t see a reason for the UK to not have the conflicting NO with Italy, it seems plausible to me and doesn’t affect much until mid to late game which is too difficult to project from a strategic point of view to make it a primary goal early on in the game.
Most of those middle eastern countries do have an IPC value, don’t they? Iraq is 2 IPC, Persia is 2 IPC. You get free units from them as well depending on which side you are on which translates Persia being worth 8 IPC for the Allies and Iraq being worth 11 IPC and a NO. The allies have an easier time getting to them as it stands, where as the Axis have to intentionally send units away from their respective fronts in order to obtain that windfall. I wouldn’t tinker with that one too much.
