USA in global only get 30 IPC in war NO

Consider this….In P40 US makes a steady 55…
In Global 40, you will be making 80+

So you can split 40/40, 30/50, 60/20…whatever you like
Even dump 80/0

In Pacific, you cant dump 80…because you dont have it, however. You get the benifit of the Lions Share of the US economy to make up for this.

Long story short…since you cant spend 80 in the pacific at once, you get to spend 55 instead.

What I don’t understand is how the US is going to have enough territories to be earning 50 IPCs without the 30 IPC wartime NO to have a total of 80+ while at war.

In Pacific they don’t earn that much, and I can’t see Larry increasing the IPC value of the other US territories (EUS and CUS are only 18 IPCs together, while Panama, Brazil, and Cuba are 5 IPCs together) when WUS is still worth 10 IPCs in Pacific like it always has been.

I suppose they could be earning extra from an NO for controlling all the contiguous US territories like in AA50 (which they wouldn’t be able to do in either Pacific or Europe individually) that would also help to make up the difference between the +40 IPC wartime NO in Pacific and whatever wartime NO they’ll get only in Europe.  However, in AA50 that NO was only worth 5 IPCs.

That would mean the US is making 17 IPCs from the Pacific map (assuming Japan hasn’t taken the Philippines yet), 23 from Europe map, 5 from the North America NO, and 30 from the wartime NO; giving a total of 75 IPCs.  I suppose the North America NO could be 10 IPCs instead, but considering that Japan is still probably going to have the Philippines while the US is at war, that would still put the US below 80 IPCs, not above.

Perhaps there will be extra islands in the Caribbean that will be worth a few IPCs to get the US above 80, but short of that or some extra US NO on the Europe side (which there is no precedent for from AA50) I still don’t completely understand. :|

It’s possible that EUS would be worth 15 instead of 10, putting your total at 82. Another possibility is Larry’s comment about the Middle East… US income from that somehow? Maybe…

@Variable:

It’s possible that EUS would be worth 15 instead of 10, putting your total at 82. Another possibility is Larry’s comment about the Middle East… US income from that somehow? Maybe…

EUS is actually usually worth 12 IPCs, but I suppose that’s a possibility also.  However, I added wrong for the contiguous US, since EUS is worth 12 IPC and CUS is worth 6 usually, that makes those two worth 18 together, not 20. edited above post  So if EUS was worth 15 that would take the grand total to 78 IPCs actually.

However, what comment of Larry’s are you referring to with the Middle East?  I know he’s talked about greater value there and such, but I still wasn’t aware of any possible US presence anywhere other than the Americas + Philippines as usual.

@SilverAngelSurfer:

@Variable:

It’s possible that EUS would be worth 15 instead of 10, putting your total at 82. Another possibility is Larry’s comment about the Middle East… US income from that somehow? Maybe…

EUS is actually usually worth 12 IPCs, but I suppose that’s a possibility also.  However, I added wrong for the contiguous US, since EUS is worth 12 IPC and CUS is worth 6 usually, that makes those two worth 18 together, not 20. edited above post  So if EUS was worth 15 that would take the grand total to 78 IPCs actually.

However, what comment of Larry’s are you referring to with the Middle East?  I know he’s talked about greater value there and such, but I still wasn’t aware of any possible US presence anywhere other than the Americas + Philippines as usual.

Just PURE SPECULATION on my part with the Middle East. I’m just saying the we know it will be controlled by UK to start and has a big bulls-eye painted on it by the Germans/Italians. I was just wondering if Allies holding the ME gives the US some kind of income bonus. It would be a reason for the US to get involved in that part of the war where we typically don’t see them.

@Variable:

Just PURE SPECULATION on my part with the Middle East. I’m just saying the we know it will be controlled by UK to start and has a big bulls-eye painted on it by the Germans/Italians. I was just wondering if Allies holding the ME gives the US some kind of income bonus. It would be a reason for the US to get involved in that part of the war where we typically don’t see them.

That’s true, but with Larry there would have to be a historical reason for there to be a US NO there, and I don’t think the US was really all that involved in the Middle East in WW2, were they?  The NOs all help guide the game into a more historical pattern since there were economic/political/etc. reasons the countries did what they did that aren’t otherwise easy to represent in A&A game mechanics.

I guess perhaps it could represent resources in the Middle East that the US and Allies needed economically…  In which case it should be a multi-country-NO for the Allies like the France one in AA50.

Where’s the original link to this info?
I haven’t actually seen confirmation of this anywhere on LH’s site yet.

USA could be 80 or 100 IPC, it really depends on what the other countries are going to start with.

@Brain:

USA could be 80 or 100 IPC, it really depends on what the other countries are going to start with.

Well, yeah.  I understand the amount of IPCs is really relative to the whole of the game, but it can’t go up too much or it will make the cheaper pieces too commonplace, though I suppose with all the newer expensive pieces it’s probably necessary for the overall game economy.

@SilverAngelSurfer:

@Brain:

USA could be 80 or 100 IPC, it really depends on what the other countries are going to start with.

Well, yeah.  I understand the amount of IPCs is really relative to the whole of the game, but it can’t go up too much or it will make the cheaper pieces too commonplace, though I suppose with all the newer expensive pieces it’s probably necessary for the overall game economy.

And now there are more territories to occupy.

Oh my goodness. You chaps are complaining about it! Have you seen the board? Have you playtested it? I am convinced that there is a way around J1 attack.

@Razor:

I have not seen the actual global board, since I am not an official playtester, nor am I a chimp employed by WOTC, so I coudnt possible have seen it, butt based on my deep analyzes I figure the J1 attack will break the global game too. I will now quit playing A&A and start mountain climbing full time and hope you all will join me.

Sounds good.

@Razor:

I have not seen the actual global board, since I am not an official playtester, nor am I a chimp employed by WOTC, so I coudnt possible have seen it, butt based on my deep analyzes I figure the J1 attack will break the global game too. I will now quit playing A&A and start mountain climbing full time and hope you all will join me.

I am going to miss you and all of your alter-egos.

J1 attack wont break the game because

J1 attack activates US in the atlantic, making UK likeley impossible to take on G2+
J1 attack activates US economy 1-2 turns before Germany and Italy are ready to deal with
Japan can not leave Manchuria/Korea empty as in most J1 attacks because there will be russians on the border.

@oztea:

J1 attack wont break the game because

J1 attack activates US in the atlantic, making UK likeley impossible to take on G2+
J1 attack activates US economy 1-2 turns before Germany and Italy are ready to deal with
Japan can not leave Manchuria/Korea empty as in most J1 attacks because there will be russians on the border.

Yupyup.

That total of 6 IPC’s between Manchuria and Korea represents an extra two Soviet Inf or a tank for Germany to deal with, so the Glorious Union isn’t going to hesitate taking it for free.  Not to mention there will be Russian infantry coming in to help out China.  The presence of a potential 5th opponent for Japan in the Pacific (and a relatively rich one at that) is going to force them into being a lot more conservative.

This doesn’t even touch the issue of how much stronger the USA can be in the Pacific with those extra IPCs.

@TitusAndronicus:

@oztea:

J1 attack wont break the game because

J1 attack activates US in the atlantic, making UK likeley impossible to take on G2+
J1 attack activates US economy 1-2 turns before Germany and Italy are ready to deal with
Japan can not leave Manchuria/Korea empty as in most J1 attacks because there will be russians on the border.

Yupyup.

That total of 6 IPC’s between Manchuria and Korea represents an extra two Soviet Inf or a tank for Germany to deal with, so the Glorious Union isn’t going to hesitate taking it for free.  Not to mention there will be Russian infantry coming in to help out China.  The presence of a potential 5th opponent for Japan in the Pacific (and a relatively rich one at that) is going to force them into being a lot more conservative.

This doesn’t even touch the issue of how much stronger the USA can be in the Pacific with those extra IPCs.

If I’m Russia I might take Korea and build a minor ic there. That would really help the Uk on the main land with japan fighting a two front war.

Dear god, considering the way things start out in europe, with France STILL ON THE BOARD G1, I’m assuming Japan doesn’t want to upset the applecart the first round.  At least not in Global.  Too many things Germany/Italy need to do to get setup the first few rounds; not to mention a possible Sealion/Baltic fleet strategy.  And clearing out the Med.

Germany could still get a lot done with US activating round 1; but they’d better start hauling ass towards Russia ASAP if Japan attacks J1 anyway.  Russia won’t be setup very well yet on the first round; but with troops stationed in Siberia he’ll have nothing better to do with them but invade Manchuria.

Hell, keeping US neutral till round 3 is probably going to be the best strategy in Global from here on out; nothing the Axis can take in the first three rounds is going to be equivalent to 2 rounds of +30 war income NOs for the US.  Axis is going to need any bit of help it can get once the US is able to place 80 IPCs worth of units on the board each round.

Agreed.

This was true in the war also.  Hitler was very upset that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor before they got Europe wrapped up.

@SgtBlitz:

Dear god, ……

Blasphemy!