Not understanding US income in Global 1940.

[MistuhJay]

The game already (slightly) favors the Axis, and you wanna nerf US…? 
:?

[ItIsILeClerc]

Heh,

Nerfing USA could be done, if its wartime production is also increased so that it makes up for the loss of income in the early gameturns.

But remember A&A is a game with very a-historical options/possibilities. Having the US produce way less early on may very well see an unstoppable invasion of San Fransisco by the Japanese, even possibly combined with a successful co-operated Italian/German attack on Washington.

So all in all I think it is simply impossible to let the USA have much less income early on while at the same time preventing the above situation. If the axis can destroy the USA early on I cannot see how the allies can recover from that. Game over, DOA, broken beyond belief ;-).

[Witt]

I would prefer the US to  receive less than the territories’ value until  at war  too. Then a larger at war bonus, maybe 30 a turn, instead of 20. However, the others are correct in saying an aggressive and well played Axis team will win most times, without some sort of bid.

If you wanted to try a game, giving the US half(26) while at peace, then an extra 10 bonus when at war, report back your findings to us. We would like to know how it went. Actually, 10 will probably not be sufficient, unless you give the US an immediate AT War bonus. In the 3 turns before a Japanese DOW, the US will have lost 78 income. Eight turns of 10 extra cannot compensate for that shortfall and the game would probably be decided by then.

The problem with the Pacific side of the map, is that too many territories are within easy reach of Japan and worth too much. If not controlled, it can soon overtake the US’s paltry 70. This signals the end of the game.  Remember the US is fighting on two fronts.

[Witt]

What might work better if you want a lower income at peace US, is half income until at war, then an at war bonus of 10. This bonus  cannot be lost, unless the capital has fallen. Then at a designated turn number(say 7), the bonus becomes 20.
As I said, try something like that if you are unhappy.
Good luck BraselC5048 and have fun experimenting.

[knp7765]

I saw in another thread someone had an idea for limiting the US buying power before they are at war.
First of all, the US is not allowed to develop Weapons Tech before being at war.
Next was their income:
Turn 1 = 25% of territorial income or 13 IPCs
Turn 2 = 50% of territorial income or 26 IPCs
Turn 3 = 75% of territorial income or 39 IPCs
Turn 4+ = 100% of territorial income or 52 IPCs

Now, this would be assuming the US stayed neutral through Turn 4. Of course, by the rules, the US is allowed to declare war on any or all Axis powers during the collect income phase of it’s 3rd turn, which means the US will receive 100% of it’s territorial income along with any national objective income that apply.
Also, if any Axis power attacks the US before Turn 3, Like a J1 DOW on the Philippines, then of course the US gets full territorial income plus national objective income immediately upon their declaration of war during the US Combat Movement phase.

[Witt]

Thank you Knp.
Did this poster not suggest any compensation for this loss?

[BraselC5048]

Hummm. Good points. In the old Europe and Pacific, the Axis would take at least 2-3 turns to invade the US, and would by that point likely get their fleet sunk, and be facing a huge ground force to boot.

But with a 1940 setup, the axis can actually get those turns before the US is at war.

Humm. Lend-lease, perhaps? How about, only can build 6 units per turn, and any excess IPC’s are lost. This would encourage building expensive units. Perhaps only 4 of them can be land units? After all, building a fleet was one of the things the US was doing during this time. However, only 1 of them can be a transport.

Additionally, they can build up to 6 (capacity of 9 permitting) British units per turn, using US IPC’s, representing lend-lease. They are moved by the UK players during the UK player’s turn, and always appear in the Eastern US or Western US, and can’t move until the US is at war except to be loaded on a UK or ANZAC transport (during the UK player’s turn), or to be moved to a Canadian territory. They can’t be naval units.

EDIT: The british units have to be land units.

[knp7765]

@wittmann:

Thank you Knp.
Did this poster not suggest any compensation for this loss?

No he didn’t. This was in a thread where most of the posts were saying that the US had an unfair advantage and it was ahistorical to allow them 3 rounds of building 52 IPCs of units to start out with a really strong navy when they went into war. Because the US was kind of weak militarily when they first got into the conflict and this gradual buildup supposedly reflects that better.
Some people seem to be of the opinion that the moment the US is in the war, the Axis are doomed. I have seen many games where even with their much larger income, if the US player doesn’t do it right then the Axis can swamp them.

[General Veers]

It’s a little silly since historically the bases existed but perhaps you could force the US player to buy airbases and naval bases to represent the acceleration of military mobilization. The US player could exploit this by not bothering to place airbases in Guam, Wake and Philippines (+ naval) since they’re sitting ducks but he’ll still have to plunk down 90 IPCs for naval and airbases in Hawaii, Western and Eastern US. It’d be a simple way to tax the US player in order to limit builds.

[Young Grasshopper]

A good house rule for balance that we have been using recently is to automatically give America the War Bonds technology when they enter the war.

[BraselC5048]

Any thoughts on the lend-lease idea? Allowing production of British land units and transports, along with a 6 unit cap on all US units, 4 unit cap on US ground units, and 9 unit cap total? (including lend-leae units.) After all, the US was shipping material to the UK, and even allowed them to construct merchant ships.

Finally, the US can only build 1 US transport per turn. (British transports don’t count against that limit)

Would this need to be balanced by increasing the US wartime bonus by perhaps 5 IPC’s?

[Commando Brado]

@BraselC5048:

Ok, that’s waaaay too much. Does anything other then “massive US force heads to the front on US 4” ever happen? Defiantly going to houserule that way down. 26 maybe? 20?

Along with “destroyers effectively automatically kill subs” (they can’t submerge? Seriously?) and awful convoy rules (works for Pacific 1940. In Europe 1940, only 9 IPC’s in vulnerable in the north atlantic. It should be “all but 8 IPC’s (UK and Scotland)”

More houserules!

I miss Europe (1999).

Not way too much. If anything, not enough. Axis have advantage. That’s why most players play w/a bid of around 12 IPC’s to the Allies. Take a look at the Axis win ration on the League Forum. Heavily favored towards the Axis. If you’re losing as the Axis, then you’re not playing them correctly.

[Commando Brado]

@MistuhJay:

The game already (slightly) favors the Axis, and you wanna nerf US…? 
:?

Totally agree! Amen brother!  :-D Anyone who says that the US or the Allies should be neutered in any way has not played enough games or is playing the Axis incorrectly.

[knp7765]

@BraselC5048:

Along with “destroyers effectively automatically kill subs” (they can’t submerge? Seriously?) and awful convoy rules (works for Pacific 1940. In Europe 1940, only 9 IPC’s in vulnerable in the north atlantic. It should be “all but 8 IPC’s (UK and Scotland)”

Yeah, I don’t care for that either. We use a house rule where subs can submerge after the first round of combat with enemy destroyers present. Subs could always submerge and escape, even with destroyers around that were specially designed to find subs. It was just harder to do, thus they have to survive the first round of combat.

[Cow]

I prefer the pressure to be on the axis to make things happen. Right now it is a little too easy for the axis to catch up in income.