American split income?

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)

As far as I can see the UK already has it good enough off.

They get emidate land wars in India and Africa (which I think will be awsome), have a big a war aginst Germany, naval battles in the Med, India and Alantic.

Then the crown, they get to be part of overloard, the US or Russia should get the ANZAC.

I already have my name down for UK, if they get the ANZACs they will be the only player worth wanting.

Even if distances are a problem in RL - the game turn is what 6 months ? so even if the arms factory can be in New England, the Division can be assembled in San Diego with no problem, so (KISS) NO split income.

@Richter:

Even if distances are a problem in RL - the game turn is what 6 months ? so even if the arms factory can be in New England, the Division can be assembled in San Diego with no problem, so (KISS) NO split income.

I’ve heard game turns were even less, sometimes as low as 3 months, but that would still be enough time.

Let’s pray they do a gazillion territories in mainland USA and Canada to ensure they must split the income. A 2 territories USA would be … patetic  :-P

To me it won’t matter if US income is split or not. You will be able to do as you please anyway. It will just take more planning. In some cases it could take more time, but not necessarily. It could also work as a tactic, so the enemy isn’t sure where that stack of air units are going. In WWII the US constantly used the Panama Canal to shuttle fleet and equipment. I like that the game gives us a little logistics.

BD why is this even an issue for you. You will still be able to buy fleet on one side, and air on the other. Your ftr placed on E US should be able to land on carriers off Hawaii. Ftr placed on W US should still be in UK in 2 turns via Canada because of AB. When I play I like to keep the US in both theaters. Usually about 2/3 income goes to one side or the other for a more balanced US strat, hinging on what Jap is doing. Seeing Jap in 40P, the US will not be able to bail in the Pacific for K Euro F.

Sounds like the US income will be split as if it were playing in separate games. Everything earned on the Pacific side (including NO’s) will be spent in San Fran. Likewise for Wash w/no variances. I wonder if San Fran will continue to be considered a capital for game purposes. If Washington is taken do you have to give up you San Fran $.  This could be stepping away from the capture the flag rule (I doubt it, but would be easy to implement). On a side note I wonder if something similar will be done w/India. Looks like N S Wales will keep its capital status for Anz.

@WILD:

Sounds like the US income will be split as if it were playing in separate games. Everything earned on the Pacific side (including NO’s) will be spent in San Fran. Likewise for Wash w/no variances. I wonder if San Fran will continue to be considered a capital for game purposes. If Washington is taken do you have to give up you San Fran $.  This could be stepping away from the capture the flag rule (I doubt it, but would be easy to implement). On a side note I wonder if something similar will be done w/India. Looks like N S Wales will keep its capital status for Anz.

If income were split depending on where a territory is located on the map it would be very hard to keep track of.  Also, looking at the map, there are territories which overlap both maps in Russia, China, and possibly India.  If the US somehow gets a hold of one of those territories (through a captured capital) who would get the money?  I think the ONLY forced split should be where the DoW national objectives are concerned.  The 10 IPCs that the WUS is normally worth can be spent as normal IPCs wherever the US wishes.  The 40 IPCs given to the WUS from the DoW NO is the only money that should be forced to be spent in the WUS.  A similar NO in the EUS would be the same.  Regular territory income and other NOs would be spent as normal, wherever the US player wishes.

That is possible, but now your creating 3 incomes for the US. NO East, NO west, and tt income. The other NO’s that the US get’s ($5 IPC) would also go to the NO east or west I guess. Then there’s convoys, which income pays for that. You would have to keep three separate incomes and it might get confusing. It would be easier IMO to just buy units in each theater and move them where you want them.

The more I think about it the more it looks like when you hook up both sides, the individual games will still be in place to a certain extent (I think IL mentioned this first?). There will be some minor changes in set up, and political rules. I think what you see now in 40P is what your gonna get in 40GL for the most part. The fact that they left all those Manchurian’s there for Jap w/o having to worry about the Russian boarder kinda proves my point (for now is just over kill in China).

It also looks like there will be tt breaks pretty close to where the two maps will meet. You will be able to determine simply by where the name of the tt is. If its name is on the 40P map then its a Pacific tt and so on.

@WILD:

That is possible, but now your creating 3 incomes for the US. NO East, NO west, and tt income. The other NO’s that the US get’s ($5 IPC) would also go to the NO east or west I guess. Then there’s convoys, which income pays for that. You would have to keep three separate incomes and it might get confusing. It would be easier IMO to just buy units in each theater and move them where you want them.

I actually feel it would be relatively easy to keep track of.  40 IPCs spent in WUS, 40 in EUS, and the rest split up between them and other possible factories the US player builds.  The UK did this in the original Pacific (Australia had an income, India had an income, and UK had an income which was divided between Australia and India).  Gains in the Pacific should be able to be used to build in the EUS to fight in Europe, just as Germany can use African IPCs to go after Russia.  IMO, just the NOs which are written on a certain territory have to be spent in that territory.  For example, the WUS NO is written right in the territory (income 10/50), unlike the Phillipines (it just has a 2, not a 2/7), so only the WUS NO has to be spent in the WUS.  Honestly though, I don’t care how it works as long as the game plays well.

Agreed, how its split won’t matter that much, even if its not split at all. You’ll still have the flexibility to do as you want.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t a larger portion of the US’s military/production done in the western side of the US?
IE maybe with Europe we won’t have a similar 40 IPC bonus, a smaller one perhaps of 10 or even 20.

BD why is this even an issue for you. You will still be able to buy fleet on one side, and air on the other. Your ftr placed on E US should be able to land on carriers off Hawaii. Ftr placed on W US should still be in UK in 2 turns via Canada because of AB. When I play I like to keep the US in both theaters. Usually about 2/3 income goes to one side or the other for a more balanced US strat, hinging on what Jap is doing. Seeing Jap in 40P, the US will not be able to bail in the Pacific for K Euro F.

They probably will split their income, I just don’t believe that they should be forced into it.

@Brain:

@Richter:

Even if distances are a problem in RL - the game turn is what 6 months ? so even if the arms factory can be in New England, the Division can be assembled in San Diego with no problem, so (KISS) NO split income.

I’ve heard game turns were even less, sometimes as low as 3 months, but that would still be enough time.

Indeed.  Even without the post-war interstate system.

So the turn is a fixed unit of time.
And Speed is the distance divided by time…
And yet we’re still looking at Germany having the same number of territories and 1/20th the distance… oops, how do you model that?

Look. Forget about rationalizing what can be done in a turn. This is a game balancing decision not some math problem.

"a train with armour leaves Detroit at 0900 hrs on T1 at 70 mph and a transport leaves San Diego at 1000 hrs on T1 travelling at 50 mph… yada yada yada"

Who knows maybe the new rules will give US an IPC boost to maintain balance and their “arsenal of democracy” role against both bad guys.
Who knows…

All I can say is that a good us player will be the most active player in the game. He will need to get up and walk from one side of the board to the
other every turn to play because the board will be so huge.

That and the US controls china for the only time in history

I think that it should not have split income.

The U.S. shouldn’t be forced to fight equally in both fronts.