UKW Units vs. UKE Units

@allister

yep Infantry a land unit. Can only be placed where there’s a complex.
Can’t place them directly on a Transport either. Has to be in the Territory where the complex is

@shadowhawk

Agreed.

As Simon says you can’t move any of your ships in that sea zone on NCM. There is a provision that allows you to move them to flee the sea zone on the Combat Movement phase without taking them into combat. The real purpose of the move though is to prevent any transports in the sea zone from loading ground units in that sea zone. You can still move to another sea zone on Combat Move and load ground units as long as it is a friendly sea zone. If you haven’t seen the video it explains everything;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkj_9K3lfQk&t=166s

Japan actually won on turn 5

Well yeah, that is what happens when usa builds stuff in the atlantic when Japan is snatching up NOs. Like you said the -38 does not kick in till round 4 when you are parked off east usa. Plus it is not -38, because you gotta roll your convoy damage and very rarely does that max out.

Sure USA makes -38 or whatever, but from a big picture of the long run… it is really insignificant when Japan flops out.

I think the idea of smaller forces being effective against an attack is probably most valid when thinking about the USA navy in both the Atlantic and pacific. Having say three small navies in a “V” formation gives then the advantage of options should one be attacked, while having one large navy would be a stalemate for the most part in the Pacific and usually a loss there. In the atlantic it gives the Axis something to worry about, where a UK fleet parked in one zone can be dealt with quickly and decicivly an multi-zone fleet makes you wonder what he’s up to. Just look at all the resources needed by Germany R1 vs UK, and this is a relatively small fleet compared to what USA can produce.

Good points Gargantua.

@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.

@manincellv:

WHy in ALPHA +2 are there 11 German infantry in Germany?

There was some concensus among LH and those playtesting Alpha +1 that Germany was underpowered in the land attack into Russia and ran out of steam before capturing the victory cities more often than not or attaining economic parity (also why Germany and Italy got more NOs).  The desire was to provide some additional land units that could keep up some momentum.

You may use the tank and the two infantries in Albania with maybe an artillery and/or an infantry from Northern Italy. This way, Italy would have done it’s part of the deal for Barbarossa and appease Hitler’s demands about it.