What impact will the USA have, if any?

US should get a bitchin Navy, as they actually kept very up on that during the war before they entered it. That said, right now, with the Rome-Paris strategy looking like the most potent, I would send the first batch of AEF to Italy. I assume Italy will need it more, plus it will avoid any German fleet units lurking around the N. Atlantic.

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 with Flashman.  the entire idea that U.S.A. can do anything in the 4 turns prior to entering the war is absurd.

It’d make more sense if U.S. had a reasonable navy, but having it parked some where with no allowance to move.  Additionally it’d make sense if they got a bare minimum of income until they are active in the war.

Otherwise the whole thing makes very little sense.

The idea of being able to move American forces en-mass into position for turn 4 is quite silly.

It would make sense if they could load IPCs into transports and send them to Britain and France before they are at war. And so Germany has a reason to keep building subs.

US shipping to the allies was vital to the war effort.

Yeah, I agree that the U.S. shouldn’t be able to do anything before war is declared, but if that’s the case, they should have a much bigger starting land army. Lets not forget that, although they didn’t prepare for the war, they eventually deployed 2 million troops to the Western front, and I think they currently only start with like 6 infantry.

@ossel:

Yeah, I agree that the U.S. shouldn’t be able to do anything before war is declared, but if that’s the case, they should have a much bigger starting land army. Lets not forget that, although they didn’t prepare for the war, they eventually deployed 2 million troops to the Western front, and I think they currently only start with like 6 infantry.

Don’t think I can agree with a larger army.
What they should have is a larger navy.

@ch0senfktard:

@ossel:

Yeah, I agree that the U.S. shouldn’t be able to do anything before war is declared, but if that’s the case, they should have a much bigger starting land army. Lets not forget that, although they didn’t prepare for the war, they eventually deployed 2 million troops to the Western front, and I think they currently only start with like 6 infantry.

Don’t think I can agree with a larger army.
What they should have is a larger navy.

Alright, let’s do some math.

France had mobilized roughly 4 million troops by the time the war started. In the game, they start with 30 infantry and 8 artillery, or 122 IPC’s worth of land units.

When the U.S. entered the war, they deployed 2 million troops, or half of the French initial mobilization. This implies that by the time they enter the war, they should be able to deploy 61 IPC’s worth of land units. Does that number sound familiar? Yep, 20 IPC’s per turn X 3 turns before the U.S. enters = 60.

This also implies that if you want to deny them the ability to do anything before the war starts, you need to start them with a much larger land army, or give them a lump sum to mobilize with on turn 4.

Forbid them from moving, but not from building.

@oztea:

Forbid them from moving, but not from building.

Forbid them from moving and slash their IPC count to half while not at war. They can still build, but on a 10-IPC-a-turn budget.

Well that missing 10 should be allowed to be transported to Britain or France…and Germany get to shoot at it.

Britain and America were completely different from Continental armies. They didn’t have compulsory military service, which meant that not only did they have tiny professional armies before going to war, but that the masses of men they conscripted had no military training (unlike the large trained reserves of European armies).

Before 1917 the American army was a small militia force, maintained with minimum expense to deal with local difficulties like pro-German coups in Haiti.

When they invaded Mexico in 1916 they couldn’t even find the enemy (Pancho Villa).

The balance must be made between America having virtually no army in February 1917, to having 2 million men in the field in the Summer of 1918.
Too large an income, and the Americans become overwhelming in a few turns, too little and they never get going with enough units.

Certainly have a full USN in place already, after all it took 2 years to build a dreadnought.

The figure for income then should be based on the cost of the number of infantry they sent over in a turn averaged out over the course of the war from American entry. This is very difficult to calculate given the crazy timeline of the game.

Another process I’ve though about is that of equipping this army with British and French weaponry. When they arrived in France the Americans had nothing more than small arms; virtually all the helmets, trucks, horses, planes, tanks and artillery they used were supplied by the Allies. This did not bother the Allies, who had been running out of manpower, but had by now a well developed weapons industry producing a surplus of equipment.

So, keep American income relatively low, but when the purchased infantry arrive the Allies can pay to equip them, the cost being the difference in unit price from infantry.

In essence: Any American infantry unit in an Allied controlled tt in or adjacent to London, Paris or Rome can be upgraded to a tank, artillery or fighter by paying the difference in price. Any Ally can pay this, the upgrade taking place in the purchase units phase of it’s own turn.

A very few American built copies of British planes took part in the last offensives of the war, a few copies of the M6 tank were built in America as “Liberty Tanks”, but none arrived in time to see combat.

@ossel:

@ch0senfktard:

@ossel:

Yeah, I agree that the U.S. shouldn’t be able to do anything before war is declared, but if that’s the case, they should have a much bigger starting land army. Lets not forget that, although they didn’t prepare for the war, they eventually deployed 2 million troops to the Western front, and I think they currently only start with like 6 infantry.

Don’t think I can agree with a larger army.
What they should have is a larger navy.

Alright, let’s do some math.

France had mobilized roughly 4 million troops by the time the war started. In the game, they start with 30 infantry and 8 artillery, or 122 IPC’s worth of land units.

When the U.S. entered the war, they deployed 2 million troops, or half of the French initial mobilization. This implies that by the time they enter the war, they should be able to deploy 61 IPC’s worth of land units. Does that number sound familiar? Yep, 20 IPC’s per turn X 3 turns before the U.S. enters = 60.

This also implies that if you want to deny them the ability to do anything before the war starts, you need to start them with a much larger land army, or give them a lump sum to mobilize with on turn 4.

@Flashman:

Britain and America were completely different from Continental armies. They didn’t have compulsory military service, which meant that not only did they have tiny professional armies before going to war, but that the masses of men they conscripted had no military training (unlike the large trained reserves of European armies).

Understood, I was simply trying to get a baseline understanding in IPC terms of what 2 million men looked like. I based it on known figures for the French army.

@Flashman:

The figure for income then should be based on the cost of the number of infantry they sent over in a turn averaged out over the course of the war from American entry. This is very difficult to calculate given the crazy timeline of the game.

I think my explanation was more than sufficient. The U.S. needs to have 60 IPC’s worth of land units by the time they go to war (on turn 4), and they do with the OOB rules.

@Flashman:

Another process I’ve though about is that of equipping this army with British and French weaponry. When they arrived in France the Americans had nothing more than small arms; virtually all the helmets, trucks, horses, planes, tanks and artillery they used were supplied by the Allies. This did not bother the Allies, who had been running out of manpower, but had by now a well developed weapons industry producing a surplus of equipment.

So, keep American income relatively low, but when the purchased infantry arrive the Allies can pay to equip them, the cost being the difference in unit price from infantry.

In essence: Any American infantry unit in an Allied controlled tt in or adjacent to London, Paris or Rome can be upgraded to a tank, artillery or fighter by paying the difference in price. Any Ally can pay this, the upgrade taking place in the purchase units phase of it’s own turn.

I like it. Adds a bit of complexity, but it makes sense.

@ossel:

@Flashman:

Britain and America were completely different from Continental armies. They didn’t have compulsory military service, which meant that not only did they have tiny professional armies before going to war, but that the masses of men they conscripted had no military training (unlike the large trained reserves of European armies).

Understood, I was simply trying to get a baseline understanding in IPC terms of what 2 million men looked like. I based it on known figures for the French army.

If you do that then you have to give Russia a shit ton more than what they start off with.

Too complicated. Just make the US collect half, but get to collect a special extra 20 ipcs the turn it declares war. Then the normal 20 from then on

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)