Allied setup additions for balance (new poll)

If that is what you fancy, fine.
I would rather take 3 planes off Japan: 2 Frs and a Tac. They have a ridiculous number of them.

5 inf central usa.
1 bomber archangel.
1 sub sz 97
~

That is pretty good.

@Young:

So take away. one fighter and 1 tactical bomber from Manchuria, and add 1 British fighter in Ontario, 1 Russian strategic bomber in Moscow, and 1 American tactical bomber in Western USA.

How’s that sound?

might be too much. Forget the US Tac. Otherwise, sounds good.

If you want to give the US something, a Tac over a TT would be my choice. A TT is a powerful and necessary tool. Do you want to help the US that much?
I just think if you reduce the starting number of Japanese Air, that already helps the US.
Thank you for listening to my opinion and considering my thoughts.

Looking at bid among the mid-tier players, I see a clear preference for a sub off Egypt (1st priority), and then more land units in Alexandria and/or Egypt.  Then you’ve got the Inf in NG.

What if we just baked those in?

Hi Shin Ji. I am find of bolstering UK’s start up, to prevent Italy running rampant. The Sub is a must for me.
Young Grasshopper, however, plays regularly with a group of friends. He is thinking of them, I think and what they would like.

Reducing Japans starting planes greatly changes the game. It allows stacks in Burma or Yunnan that would otherwise not be possible. Not sure if I like that.

But why does Japan have 21 Air? It is too powerful a  tool. I think that ruins the game. If is also why Japan can get to 70 income and earn more than the US.

True. I like the idea of US making 10 more when at war, so a base of 80 instead of 70.

Probably my biggest gripe with Global. US must make more than the other nations.
But then 1942 is more silly! By T2 if has less than Germany and won’t take long for Japan to overtake its 38 either.

As for me ,I usually don’t add more units for balance,if I want to do that,I will add USS battleship Massachusetts (BB59) in Atlantic .

I wouldn’t limit a ‘balancing act’ to setup changes.  Rule changes (like allowing the US to enter the war earlier or on expanded criteria, etc.) or bonus changes like ROC pointed out, may better bring about balanced play than unit changes alone.

would it be better if the us gets more money in general? If you play pacific by itself, the usa gets like 60 ipc once at war.
could we give the usa two differnt economys like the uk?

@major_payne:

would it be better if the us gets more money in general? If you play pacific by itself, the usa gets like 60 ipc once at war.
could we give the usa two differnt economys like the uk?

That would be interesting to see, the same incomes as in each separate game but divided like UK.  62 Wartime on the pac side and 60 wartime on the atlantic side.