What impact will the USA have, if any?

Not wanting to reignite all that Zimmerman nonsense, but a new look at a possible American entry track:

Lets say the tracks runs from 10 to minus 10, starting at 0.

10 means USA declaring war on the CPs, minus 10 it declared war on the Allies. Right.

Factors:

Each full year of the war in Europe; (each 4 turns by my chronology): +1

Declaration of USW by the CPs: +2

Activation of Mexico by Germany (on my map): +3

Each neutral attacked by the CPs: +1

Each neutral attacked by the Allies: -1

Note: Attacks on an aligned neutral count the same, as long as it is not active. i.e. if Germany attacks Belgium G1 it moves the US +1 towards war; but if it attacks Belgium G2 after France has activated it there is no effect.

The USA can never invade neutrals. Except Mexico. The Germans can declare war then, if they want.

Overthrow of the Tzar: +2

American election: At the end of the American Winter 1916/7 turn the election is held (roll a die?); if the Republicans win: +2

KISS
Tracks are complicated

@Croesus:

KISS
Tracks are complicated

Why? If you want KISS, have KISS rules then.
We already know the US rules, so why not share all house rule ideas? KISS or not.
I’d like to play a game with “complicated” house rules one day. I probably won’t find the people to play it with, but still interested nonetheless.

It seems like the U.S. as a playable nation might just not work in this game.  Playing as US would probably be as fun as playing China in global.

I would suggest just dropping US as a playable nation.  Have the U.S.'s role in the game be extra IPCs to either france/UK and/or ever increasing automatic infantry that gets deployed to the front.  This would start after the US declaration of war.

Honestly, I can’t blame LH from including the US but functionally it doesn’t make alot of sense in the game.

@Cyprian:

It seems like the U.S. as a playable nation might just not work in this game.  Playing as US would probably be as fun as playing China in global.

I would suggest just dropping US as a playable nation.  Have the U.S.'s role in the game be extra IPCs to either france/UK and/or ever increasing automatic infantry that gets deployed to the front.  This would start after the US declaration of war.

Honestly, I can’t blame LH from including the US but functionally it doesn’t make alot of sense in the game.

Well, the US doesn’t get very much money, and they did eventually get over to fighting in Europe.  Plus it gives you a slightly larger Atlantic for German Subs to roam, so its not all bad.

Also- it gives the Allies a bit of flexibility- Instead of the US ‘turning up’ in the same territory every turn they can be routed to where they are needed (Med or France or England)

@Cyprian:

It seems like the U.S. as a playable nation might just not work in this game.  Playing as US would probably be as fun as playing China in global.

I would suggest just dropping US as a playable nation.  Have the U.S.'s role in the game be extra IPCs to either france/UK and/or ever increasing automatic infantry that gets deployed to the front.  This would start after the US declaration of war.

Honestly, I can’t blame LH from including the US but functionally it doesn’t make alot of sense in the game.

This is exactly what I was talking about here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30209.15

You can’t simulate 2 million men with just a few extra IPC’s, and you shouldn’t. The U.S. arrived late to the game, but they played a significant role against the Germans, who as you’ll remember had just had one of their fronts pacified.

Again, I challenge all of you who think the U.S. was insignificant in the war to drop them from the game, and see how you fare as the Allies.

As far as the ‘fun’ factor, this is why everyone is suggesting that one player plays both Russia and the U.S.; Russia will most likely drop out of the game as the U.S. is entering.

@ossel:

@Cyprian:

It seems like the U.S. as a playable nation might just not work in this game.  Playing as US would probably be as fun as playing China in global.

I would suggest just dropping US as a playable nation.  Have the U.S.'s role in the game be extra IPCs to either france/UK and/or ever increasing automatic infantry that gets deployed to the front.  This would start after the US declaration of war.

Honestly, I can’t blame LH from including the US but functionally it doesn’t make alot of sense in the game.

This is exactly what I was talking about here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30209.15

You can’t simulate 2 million men with just a few extra IPC’s, and you shouldn’t. The U.S. arrived late to the game, but they played a significant role against the Germans, who as you’ll remember had just had one of their fronts pacified.

Again, I challenge all of you who think the U.S. was insignificant in the war to drop them from the game, and see how you fare as the Allies.

As far as the ‘fun’ factor, this is why everyone is suggesting that one player plays both Russia and the U.S.; Russia will most likely drop out of the game as the U.S. is entering.

Agree with you.  One thing though- in my limited experience with playing A&A Global with more than 4 players (dozen games with 5-7 people), greater than 4 players begins to become unwieldy.  You start to have player waiting an hour to play their turn and/or their country getting marginalized early.  How much fun would it be to be the Italian or Ottoman player after they are all but dead?  None.  So the ‘7th’ player that plays Russia/US would still be bored.

Think the optimal group for face to face is 4 people (maybe 5… maybe.)

I think it depends on your people …

You describe it as if they would go and watch tv when its not their turn.  :|

Speaking for me, I need the time during others turn to plan my next moves and I also enjoy watchin the others play and combat each other. Last week I played A&A for the first time after years with two friends. I was the Allies and I hated it beeing involved within each turn.

KISS house rules are ones we might see at tournaments, or get Larry to rubber stamp. Stuff like delayed/randomized US entry or bare bones tech or something.

Get too complicated, and they will never see the light of day.

@Flashman:

America doing ANYTHING before declaring war is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The USA had no intention of becoming involved in a European war. Nor did it set aside any income for future war spending.

The military situations of America in August 1914 and in February 1917 were and should be absolutely identical.

I agree.  Remember people, this is the America of 1917…  not 1941.  The USA was barley considered a World Power (military sense).

The only plausible justification for America having more than a turn’s money to spend in 1917 is the vast interest charged on loans to the Allies. But America went to war partly to secure the repayment of the debts, only likely if the Allies won. It made a big profit from the war, but didn’t expect to collect until after the shooting stopped.

Well, the US’s estimated GDP is double Germany’s in 1913 (admitting using quick wikipedia search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29 ), so it isn’t like the US couldn’t have built up its military and there were many debates about doing so when WWI started (again, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_entry_into_World_War_I).

If different political priorities existed, it isn’t outside the realm of imagination that the US would have built a few ships and trained a small army before 1917 (all you can do with the 60 IPCs from turns 1-3 anyway).  It isn’t like we are talking about the 200 IPCs the US gets in AA1940 if they start the war on turn 4.

If you wanted it to be more historically correct, the US would not be able to build anything in AA1914 until turn 4 and then start collecting ~60 IPC per turn to reflect its industrial might.  But, such a historically accurate economy would be game unbalancing (much like the US getting a more accurate 120 IPCs/turn in Global 1940, based on GDP).

I’ve no problem with America getting a higher base income as long as it can’t spend anything until it declares war.

The main reason Germany decided to risk USW was the poor showing of the American army in Mexico; it persuaded them that Pershing and co were not worth worrying about.

The paradox, then, is that if America had had a significantly bigger army in 1917, it may never have been given the opportunity to use it.

Even if US income is huge, it still gives the CPs the incentive to

a) keep America out of the war for as long as possible,

b) defeat the Allies before America can make a difference.

Which gives the game a certain momentum beyond a simple die rolling attrition fest.

Agreed Flashman.  I may experiement with the US not moving/buying but just collecting 20 IPC/turn.  Then when at war the US can buy and move and perhaps a national objective of an additional 10 or 15 IPCs.

The US shouldn’t be able to do anything until war is declared.
Then and only then would they deserve a 40 IPC “War Declaration Bonus”
So for one turn they can spend 60 IPCs.

I would prefer to think of this as a “mass conscription”, since at this stage the American contribution was largely in manpower, certainly not in advanced weaponry, which it had to borrow from the Allies.

This goes back to something I mentioned before about the UK & US not having compulsory military service; hence very small peacetime armies. This did mean, however, that upon declaring war they could enact conscription which would immediately raise large, but untrained armies.

Britain did not do this immediately, relying on volunteers to swell the ranks of the small professional army. But as casualties mounted up, the Military Service Act brought in a flood of new manpower:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Service_Act_(United_Kingdom)

America was much quicker to bring in conscription:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917

Therefore, I suggest that when America goes to war, rather than getting an IPC boost as such, it gets to declare a draft and can place X “free” infantry. These can perhaps be trained up into other units, though I prefer them having to be shipped to Europe to be equipped with B & F weaponry to bring them up to standard.

Britain could be given the same option once per game, but there would have to be a balance (loss of morale?), or the declaration restricted to turn 3 or later.

I think we need to keep it simple Flashman- the US not getting money until turn 4 with a ‘bonus’ would be easier.

What could be simpler?

On declaring war, America drafts X free infantry.

Much easier than all that fannying around lurking off the coast of France waiting for turn 4 to arrive.

I was referring to US troops getting British and French equipment ‘turning into’ artillery and tanks.  Definitely not against x number of infantry turning up on turn 4.  They will need them.

@Flashman:

I’ve no problem with America getting a higher base income as long as it can’t spend anything until it declares war.

The main reason Germany decided to risk USW was the poor showing of the American army in Mexico; it persuaded them that Pershing and co were not worth worrying about.

The paradox, then, is that if America had had a significantly bigger army in 1917, it may never have been given the opportunity to use it.

Even if US income is huge, it still gives the CPs the incentive to

a) keep America out of the war for as long as possible,

b) defeat the Allies before America can make a difference.

Which gives the game a certain momentum beyond a simple die rolling attrition fest.

I agree as well. This was the point of the German Spring Offensive of 1918; they were trying one last ditch effort to overrun the Allies in the West before the Americans could arrive with their massive numbers of ground troops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Offensive