Not understanding US income in Global 1940.

[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.