USA Too many IPCs? Too much Power?

History is irrelevant.

We are trying to balance a board game.

Sooner everyone can accept that, the better off we’ll all be.

@domicron:

History is irrelevant.

We are trying to balance a board game.

Sooner everyone can accept that, the better off we’ll all be.

How can history be irrelevant to balancing a historical military board game?

Jeremy’s right.  We’ve all kind of gotten off topic here.  It’s not about how much American involvement affected the outcome in the ACTUAL war.

This is supposed to be about whether or not USA is too powerful economically in the Global game of Axis & Allies and if there are any solutions to solve this problem.  I think that the gradual income increase suggested by leddux is VERY good.  It not only gives the game a little better balance, it also reflects the historical unpreparedness of the USA for war at that time.  I think I will try that in my next game.

By the way, any thoughts on Sea Zone 101 being serviced by the Major ICs of both Eastern US and Central US?  I still think there should be another sea zone in the Gulf of Mexico so land units built in Central US couldn’t just immediately board transports built by the IC in Eastern US.  Or, the US couldn’t just build 20 ships all in the same sea zone.  That’s just too much.

@spectre_04:

I don’t think we ALL have gotten off topic, but SOME definitely have.  Jeez people, the game says 14 and up on the box, act like it for goodness sake.

And by the way, NO, the US did not win the war ALL by itself.  I think 15 million dead Russian soldiers proves that.  However we were definitely a pair of aces in the allies hand and if you dispute that then you don’t know history, board games, any of it, sorry.  The sky is not green or yellow, some things are FACT and not up for debate.

Your right we have gotten off topic and I wont dig through my papers and books to find the quotes in interest of staying on topic. I think what you said is exactly the point I was trying to emphasize, no single nation won the war. The US was incredibly powerful economically but they other allies had their own advantages.

Sorry for jumping off topic on that one.

As per the game: One thing our group has tried is forcing the US to not only stay off Africa and Europe until at war but making them stay off the coast of US held territories in the Atlantic and the same in the Pacific with the exception of being allowed to move from Philippine’s to Hawaii if so desired (even though this takes two turns for all but the bomber)

I do like the idea of the NO income but think that maybe there should have been more in NO and less on the board for peace time economy. The US was really thinking isolation at this point in history and not gearing for war. I also love the idea of having an escalating income. The were isolationist but not oblivious to what was happening in the world around them. Does anyone know why the game designers took the game the way that they did? Was it all balance or was their another historical reason for the US pre-war big time income?

@spectre_04:

I do like the idea of the NO income but think that maybe there should have been more in NO and less on the board for peace time economy. The US was really thinking isolation at this point in history and not gearing for war

I wouldn’t be so sure about that.  America was gearing up their industries and propaganda machine well before Pearl Harbor.  It wasn’t broadcast on the airwaves but in political secrecy, it was happening.

Still, I maintain that the Harris and his assistants had to artificially reduce the relative income of the USA to actually give the axis a chance of winning, which in reality, they didn’t have a chance in Hell.

I think the USA would have earned some 150-200 IPC by the turn equivalent to the summer of 1944. that being said, Russia’s should be much higher by then as well.

And Germany made more AFV in 1944 then they did in 1934-43 added up, despite all the bombing.  Economic growth, while realistic, is not going to be easy to reflect in a game of this relatively low complexity.  If we get into that, Japan is going to be in trouble as their lack of resources was crippling them.  If the US economy is a problem in the game, perhaps a further reduction of their prewar income may help.  I’m still not sure if it is a problem yet though.  I need to play a few more times.

It does seem that a gradual buildup for the US would be both more historical and balance the game better. 52 IPC a turn while at peace is a huge ammount of money.

As far as representing history in this type of game……it’s impossible and we could agrue for hours on it.

1. Yes the USA should have more money when at war to represent history. Russia would have a stronger economy later as well.

2. On the other hand the German Army was incredibly massive when compared to all other powers but the Russians.

Troop quality, tank quality, etc. could all be argued. Manpower, and leadership as well.

Why not have Italy be unable to function because of poor historical performance?

The point is this is a fun casual war game to play for fun. If we want to play an exact replica of history then this is not the game to do it in. Just my 2 cents.

@spectre_04:

I do like the idea of the NO income but think that maybe there should have been more in NO and less on the board for peace time economy. The US was really thinking isolation at this point in history and not gearing for war

I wouldn’t be so sure about that.  America was gearing up their industries and propaganda machine well before Pearl Harbor.  It wasn’t broadcast on the airwaves but in political secrecy, it was happening.

Still, I maintain that the Harris and his assistants had to artificially reduce the relative income of the USA to actually give the axis a chance of winning, which in reality, they didn’t have a chance in Hell.

I think the USA would have earned some 150-200 IPC by the turn equivalent to the summer of 1944. that being said, Russia’s should be much higher by then as well.

I couldn’t agree more. There are factors on both sides that are impossible to represent without going to a much greater complexity. I have not felt the US makes to much in our games but I would have liked to see less in pre-war and more in the post war.

As per the Axis having no chance to win, that is an impossible debate but I will say that there were many factors that gave the allies an advantage that shouldn’t have. I think the war was a lot closer than most people realize. The Axis tended to lose the war for the allies just as much as the allies beat the axis powers. However, that being said hindsight is 20/20 and impossible to do more than speculate.

@Stockus13:

It does seem that a gradual buildup for the US would be both more historical and balance the game better. 52 IPC a turn while at peace is a huge ammount of money.

As far as representing history in this type of game……it’s impossible and we could agrue for hours on it.

1. Yes the USA should have more money when at war to represent history. Russia would have a stronger economy later as well.

2. On the other hand the German Army was incredibly massive when compared to all other powers but the Russians.

Troop quality, tank quality, etc. could all be argued. Manpower, and leadership as well.

Why not have Italy be unable to function because of poor historical performance?

The point is this is a fun casual war game to play for fun. If we want to play an exact replica of history then this is not the game to do it in. Just my 2 cents.

Perfectly said. I couldn’t agree more.

I guess I just don’t think 40 IPCs per Ocean is all that much for the US.  What is that? (examples:)

Atlantic:
2 Transports (14 IPCs), 2 Arm (12 IPCs), 2 Inf (6 IPCs), 1 DD (8 IPCs) = 40 IPCs. Whoa thats a LOT of firepower for the Atlantic!  What will Germany do?  Say, buy 4 Inf (12 IPCs), which give you 8 defence pips vs. the 8 attacking pips the USA can throw at you.  Granted, you may need to build 4 Inf at multiple ICs, however with 50-60 IPCs/turn, it is easy to buy ~6 Inf/turn for the Atlantic Wall while still keeping pressure on Russia.  Hell, you won’t be sending any Infantry to the Russian front after turn 3 or so (After that you are looking at turn 8 or 9 before they get anywhere).

Pacific:
1 CV (16 IPCs), 2 Ftr (20 IPCs), 1 SS (6 IPCs) = 42 IPCs.  Maybe not the best buy depending on if they need carriers.  Other navy based options include:
1 CA (12 IPCs), 2 DD (16 IPCs), 2 SS (12 IPCs) = 40 IPCs.  Whoa Japan is screwed!  All Japan has to do is mass its surface fleet at Truk, the Philippines, or Japan with 10 or so Fighters with scramble ability and they are nigh untouchable for several turns; long enough for India and China to fall.

I’m not sure the USA can fight effectively in both theaters of war with such little built each turn.  If you ignore one theater, then Germany or Japan goes hog wild.  Hell, Europe by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 3, while the Pacific by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 1,2,or 3.  Why isn’t USA’s total IPCs 120ish?

By the way, in incredibly scientific terms verified by myself:  :lol:
USSR’s share in beating the European Powers: 50%
UK(Including France and Canada) share in beating the European Powers: 25%
USA’s share in beating the European Powers: 25%
UK(Including India and ANZAC) share in beating Japan: 25%
Nationalist/Communist China’s share in beating Japan: 25%
USA’s share in beating Japan: 50%

USSR’s share of winning WWII: 25%
UK’s share of winning WWII: 25%
Nationalist/Communist China’s share of winning WWII: 12.5%
USA’s share of winning WWII: 37.5%

@BJCard:

I’m not sure the USA can fight effectively in both theaters of war with such little built each turn.  If you ignore one theater, then Germany or Japan goes hog wild.  Hell, Europe by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 3, while the Pacific by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 1,2,or 3.  Why isn’t USA’s total IPCs 120ish?

I think it is because the allies have other things to help them in the global game. For instance, 18 Russian men in Soviet Far East, Indian troops helping Africa. The other thing to remember is that in the game the US can get into action a lot faster than was actually possible in the war. Some of the sea zones in both games are massive and with a naval base allow US to build one turn and attack in their next turn. Giving the US more income could unbalance how quickly they can get into battle.

As for incremented income: Perhaps you could try reducing their starting income by 20 and increase it by 5 for the first four turns. In order to keep things even though I still think that something else would need to be added. Perhaps a one time bonus to income after someone attacks them (ie: after war has been declared on them) Maybe you give them the bonus whether they declare war or not, it sounds like it could be getting complicated… What can I say I love to complicate things if it increases strategy, haha.

More simply: Perhaps just give them a reduction in income by a factor of ‘X’ and give them that money back at ‘A’ IPC’s for ‘X/A’ turns. ie: x=20 and a=5(previous example) so the US starts with 20 IPC less in income but gains 5IPC a turn for ‘X/A’ or 4 turns.

Another interesting idea would be to give the US a very small, such as 1IPC a turn income forever at the cost of reduction of ‘X’ amount at the start up. This way the are not making huge bucks to start but if the axis cannot win then eventually it would become impossible to compete with an ever increasing US income.

I am just throwing ideas out. I hope someone can refine them and make sense of them, lol.

@FieldMarshalGames:

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

@spectre_04:

I think 15 million dead Russian soldiers proves that.  However we were definitely a pair of aces in the allies hand and if you dispute that then you don’t know history, board games, any of it, sorry.  The sky is not green or yellow, some things are FACT and not up for debate.

Yes. Some things are fact. For instance estimates are between 8 and 11 million USSR military deaths from WWII., not 15.

OMG!!  Can you guys start another thread to argue?  Some of us want to talk about the GAME.

How about splitting USA’s income between Pacific and Europe?  The NO money can be assigned each collect income phase however the US player wants.  That would slow their deployment a bit but still allow them to focus on whichever front the player chooses.

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think the Allies have that much help-  18 Russian Inf?  If they mass near Japan, they are wiped by a few Japanese troops and 10+ aircraft.  If they retreat then they are no threat to Japan.  Indian troops help in Africa?  That much easier for Japan to nab India.

I wonder if the folks who think US should make less have played with skilled Axis players? I agree with BJ card. The US, if anything, does not make enough. I also think it depends on which setup you are playing with. OOB setup US needs ever one of those 52 IPC or it will never match the air and naval forces Japan will throw at it. Alpha setup I could see a pre war US income reduction but not much. I think someone has pointed it out before, but US has 1 battleship for 2 oceans while Russia has a battleship for the Baltic. Come on. US has one carrier Japan starts with 3. I don’t know. The US is designed to function as the “clock” in this version, because this version is designed to be as close to a historical AA as there has been. The more games I play, the more I think Japan has to wait until turn 3 to attack and has to do a Pearl Harbor type attack and wipe some US units. Maybe I’m playing with better Axis players or maybe the Ally players have been dummies, but out of 5 games 2 have been axis wins, two were Ally wins, and one was a draw leaning Allies.

A pretty good player is running the U.S. in our current game.  Things are not going that well for the UK and U.S. Boy is he wanting more money lol.

@moralecheck:

How about splitting USA’s income between Pacific and Europe?  The NO money can be assigned each collect income phase however the US player wants.  That would slow their deployment a bit but still allow them to focus on whichever front the player chooses.

Biggest problem I can see with this is that it is A-historical. The US spent the majority of its money on the Pacific. It spend more manpower in Europe but men are cheap, a fleet and air force are not. For a balanced stat you will need to be allowed to spend more than 45 on Japan on some turns. As has also been said before the US can always move units across their seemingly small country (at least in the game… always been an annoyance of mine.) and put everything on one front anyway.

I have certainly not found that the allies are at a disadvantage in the game and so giving the US more money does not seem like a good idea to me in any respect.

@BJCard:

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think the Allies have that much help-  18 Russian Inf?  If they mass near Japan, they are wiped by a few Japanese troops and 10+ aircraft.  If they retreat then they are no threat to Japan.  Indian troops help in Africa?  That much easier for Japan to nab India.

Just send some air force and then also use some London forces to help in India. I will abandon Calcutta if it means that I will be able to capture it with a larger force afterwards…

@dadler12:

I wonder if the folks who think US should make less have played with skilled Axis players? I agree with BJ card. The US, if anything, does not make enough. I also think it depends on which setup you are playing with. OOB setup US needs ever one of those 52 IPC or it will never match the air and naval forces Japan will throw at it. Alpha setup I could see a pre war US income reduction but not much. I think someone has pointed it out before, but US has 1 battleship for 2 oceans while Russia has a battleship for the Baltic. Come on. US has one carrier Japan starts with 3. I don’t know. The US is designed to function as the “clock” in this version, because this version is designed to be as close to a historical AA as there has been. The more games I play, the more I think Japan has to wait until turn 3 to attack and has to do a Pearl Harbor type attack and wipe some US units. Maybe I’m playing with better Axis players or maybe the Ally players have been dummies, but out of 5 games 2 have been axis wins, two were Ally wins, and one was a draw leaning Allies.

I agree any money that would be taken away from them should be made up some how or else the game will be broken. I do not personally see a problem with anything but can see where some people might complain. As for the US Battleships. I think that is meant to portray Pearl harbour since in the game the US player never leaves a group of expensive ships to be sunk so easily as they were in Pearl. I could be wrong but I believe that is the thinking behind the set up.