American split income?

@allboxcars:

No, however helpful it might be, it is not realistic to have half the country suddenly produce everything and the other half stop producing things.  With the Japanese clearing the minefields around San Francisco, sorry I don’t think the NYC Recruiters could break out the cards and crosswords.
The US (and Canada) should still have to shuttle units x-country.

I agree exactly.

The US couldn’t just magically move all production to one side of the country.  In Pacific, the WUS gets a 40 income boost due to a national objective, representing increased wartime production in the WUS.  Why the WUS’s increased wartime production should be used to build units anywhere outside of the WUS is beyond me.

Also, sure, a player can still go all out KGF or KJF with split income, however, it would be highly inefficient to constantly send units cross country when they could fight a much closer enemy.

@allboxcars:

@Omega:

4. Say Japan is on the west coast ready for invasion next turn. WHY wouldn’t USA be allowed to put her full production to protect WUS from falling? Realistically, a country that is threatened one side will put her resources to defend

OK I was with you up until that point.

No, however helpful it might be, it is not realistic to have half the country suddenly produce everything and the other half stop producing things.  With the Japanese clearing the minefields around San Francisco, sorry I don’t think the NYC Recruiters could break out the cards and crosswords.
The US (and Canada) should still have to shuttle units x-country.

This could easily be reflected in limiting the amount of pieces produced at each factory.

@Brain:

This could easily be reflected in limiting the amount of pieces produced at each factory.

Depends on what’s being produced: BBs or infantry, right?

A country is not going to produce something where it is not needed.

@Brain:

A country is not going to produce something where it is not needed.

Yet it’s ICs would still be producing something… not sitting silently.

Mind you, I think we agree that the game should permit sufficient flex for the US player to screw himself over with defective purchases and strategic blunders.  :-D

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

A country is not going to produce something where it is not needed.

Yet it’s ICs would still be producing something… not sitting silently.

Mind you, I think we agree that the game should permit sufficient flex for the US player to screw himself over with defective purchases and strategic blunders.  :-D

Not if all of the countries resources were sent to the other coast where they were needed.

@Brain:

Not if all of the countries resources were sent to the other coast where they were needed.

Sent: OK.
Instantly appear…. I can see problems with that.

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

Not if all of the countries resources were sent to the other coast where they were needed.

Sent: OK.
Instantly appear…. I can see problems with that.

The pieces you will produce each turn are determined at the beginning of your turn and placed at the end of your turn I am assuming this is supposed to take care of the time involved in not only producing the pieces but also getting the resources moved to the necessary factories. Otherwise you would already have know in advance every turn what you were going to build or did those resources instantly appear as you say.

@Brain:

The pieces you will produce each turn are determined at the beginning of your turn and placed at the end of your turn I am assuming this is supposed to take care of the time involved in not only producing the pieces but also getting the resources moved to the necessary factories. Otherwise you would already have know in advance every turn what you were going to build or did those resources instantly appear as you say.

Resources are one thing.  However, the US cannot move people and factories east.  The jump from a peacetime to a wartime economy meant that both the east and west sides of the country were maximizing their production outputs.  Resources alone were not diverted to the war effort.  Jobs and manpower became a huge focus.  The US couldn’t somehow hire its entire wartime labor force living on the West coast to work in East coast factories because it decided that it suddenly wanted to pursue a new strategy of going only to one theater.  The wartime economic jump on the West coast would stay on the West coast, and if the US wanted to pursue an anti German strategy, it could either use the wartime labor in the West coast, or it could just let half the country go back into a peacetime economy.  The first option would be the obvious choice, meaning the US would have to build some of its forces in the west and ship them east.  There is no option, however, of moving the entire West coast labor force east just for the few months the US decides to pursue a Europe only strategy.

You are assuming that there was not enough labor force on either coast to produce at higher levels.

I am sure I know who you speak of.

I dont believe USA should be forced to split it’s income.

Well that should be determined by what the Axis does.

As far as I can see, spending nothing in the Pacicifc thertre will be a death sentence for the allies. Thes ANZACs, China, India and Hawaii will fall, Then their income will be about 100 for NOs. From India, they would start pushing into Russia from the Cacacus, taking the middle east along the way, and would crush Russia. From there, they could easily take the USA.

But if you felt the need to split it, just make them spend AT LEAST 40 in each thertre to keep it simple.

I believe that the US should be able to decide how it wants to allocate its money just like all of the other countries.

But America is the only country that-

A-Has 2 huge war threeats that need lots of money.
B-Has lots of money
C-Has 2 huge factories with nothing in the middles.

.:

There income should be split.

They will split their income if they need to.

If the distance between Eastern and Western factories is a factor forcing a split, should we also split Brits income from Indian and African ventures? No. That’s stupid.

@xzorn:

If the distance between Eastern and Western factories is a factor forcing a split, should we also split Brits income from Indian and African ventures? No. That’s stupid.

So then the ANZACs should hand back the cash?

So then the ANZACs should hand back the cash?

NEVER NEVER NEVER

I would have hoped Anzac be united with UK. That way, UK would be incredibly rich, thus making him likely the perfect country to play (I mean, with IC in India, Australia and UK, who wouldn’t want to play UK? So much possibilities! Close to action, and also everywhere at the same time)