US before at war?

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in When USA not at War:

@Marshmallow-of-War ANZAC DOW is not always dumb. Sometimes it allows a key ship block or prevents transports in disputed zones from picking up soldiers. I have seen it happen a handful of times.

Completely true! The ANZAC declaration following a UK Pacific ship move is a classic! I can’t imagine anyone taking issue with that.

However, you’re ignoring the second half of that…

It’s taking the Carolines after initiating a war that leaves the US out of the fight that is the issue, leaving the transports vulnerable and stripping defenses from ANZAC itself. I can’t imagine a scenario where that would be wise.

I actually think the US BB should start in SZ26 to give an incentive to this attack which was historically accurate too. Perhaps the cruiser too, but both of those take balance in the wrong direction.

Anyone use War at Sea miniatures in the global game?

Thanks for responding so quickly Jennifer.  Actually, ANZAC is at war with Germany and Italy at the beginning of the game and USA just declared war on ALL Axis.  So, both powers are at war and should be considered Allies, even though ANZAC is not yet at war with Japan.  I know it’s a technicality and probably a very grey area, but I talked it over with my gaming buddies and while we all agree that it’s kind of an odd loophole, we think it is a legal move.  So, that’s what we are going with.  Thanks anyway.  Really appreciate your advice and quick answers.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

Thank you Calvin.

What stops US or UK placing 4-5 fighters in Gibraltar. Each would roll a 2 vs a 1 the escorting fighters if any(lack range i think) might get. Each Bombing raid would cost the attacker 1-2 bombers from defending fighters before you roll AA.

I am not a big fan of J1 attack - I think alot of that money starts heading towards Germany/Italy…and if I am an axis player I want Germany/Italy to not see a green pc of plastic rolling dice against me until US4-5 at the earliest…not US2!!!