American split income?

And if Hitler was a woman she’d be really ugly.

This is important. Hitler wasn’t exactly a good looking guy though, was he? If he’d been an ugly woman he would’ve at least had the genitals to guarantee him sex, even if they didn’t guarantee him love.

Question: If Hitler had gotten laid more, would he have been the way he was? Feminists might see that as laying the blame for insane men at the feet of women – which I’m not trying to do. I do believe, however, that some of the men out there who go nuts and kill people might not have done so had they had a decent share of trim. Thoughts?

Her claims lay in the Pacific and she wanted the Europeans out of Asia into some pan-asian empire controlled by japan.

That always seemed a flimsy idea; “We want those foreigner Europeans out so we can rule Asia with an iron fist (since all Asians are inferior to the Japanese).”

Russia was not part of that equation, let alone sending really light and slow tanks 10,000 miles to attack Moscow.

Whenever I think of the “what if the Japanese had attacked Russia” hypothesis, I am always thinking in terms of a limited military campaign to show support to the Germans and to redraw some of the borders of Manchuko in Japanese favour. I never think of vast armies moving with the intention of reaching Moscow. More of a ‘force the Russians hands’ than a ‘defeat Russia with the might of Japan’. I also picture it as a part of the whole Pacific naval campaign. I think they could have carried out a moderate sized engagement in the north of Manchuko without affecting anything else they did (even if their intention was not victory). After all, the Manchuko army just sat there most of the time. Doing this might also have allowed their military vessels to attack the Soviet/US shipping that was supporting Russia through their waters, which might’ve had a significant impact on Russia’s military mobility (does anyone have any figures on lend-lease equipment to Russia - from whom and how many?)

Let’s face it, the Russian’s did end up breaking their non-aggression pact and attacking the Japanese, and they did it with equipment that the Japanese had allowed them to have which was being given to them by the US who the Japanese were at war with! Crazy!

I agree, though; with the Japanese mindset how it was, the attack was never going to happen. They seemed (on one level) to honour their treaties. They also treated any area tainted with failure as a closed door. They were like the kid that plays a game, loses, and then will not consider playing that game again.

Before the traditional Spring/Summer 1942 start I generally favour a 4 player game; European Axis, USSR/CCP, F/UK/USA/KMT, and Japan.

Each of these has it’s own objectives, and any “Alliance” with another player is purely honourary.

In theory each player will have to give roughly equal attention to it’s two potential historical enemies, otherwise it is handing a big advantage to whichever HE it doesn’t attack.

Theoretically the WA can attack the Communists (or VV), or Germany and co can attack Japan (or VV); but in neither case would it make much sense on purely geographical grounds.  The two “Grand Alliances” were based purely on having a threatening mutual enemy; USSR never saw Japan as a threat so didn’t attack it until Hitler was beaten.

For Germany in 1941, it made sense to attack it’s Soviet friends in order to gain Russian resources considered necessary for the ultimate battle with a fully mobilised USA.  But suppose the Reds attacked first and gained huge inroads into Europe; the Democracies may have been persuaded to throw in their lot with Hitler and defend Germany.  If this sounds far fetched, remember that Churchill had called Mussollini the “First Statesman of Europe”, and that he’d called for Britain to send troops to Finland to fight Stalin.  After the war he commented that he might have “Killed the wrong Pig”.

Nevertheless the R-J treaty should be given serious consideration; Japan wouldn’t have launched PH without it, neither would Stalin have been able to send so many Siberian divisions to the defence of Moscow.

@Army:

I agree, though; with the Japanese mindset how it was, the attack was never going to happen. They seemed (on one level) to honour their treaties. They also treated any area tainted with failure as a closed door. They were like the kid that plays a game, loses, and then will not consider playing that game again.

You’ve touched on a critical point there AoNV. The Japanese fought significant skirmishes with the Russians on a couple of occasions in the late 1930’s some of them with Zhukov himself commanding the Russian soldiers. The important thing was: The Japanese got their asses handed to them every time. As a result they were not keen of fighting Russia ever again. The non-aggression treaty was Japan’s idea; it existed because the Japanese were literally afraid of the Russians.

Perhaps AA does a poor job of representing how incapable the Japanese were, not only of getting to Moscow, but at capturing any territory whatsoever inside Russia after the 1930’s.

It seems like the game mechanics of the traditional global AA games (41 and 42) always encouraged Russia to split its income and the US to pool its income.

My guess is the VC conditions in the Pacific will force the US to make a big commitment here, even if they are not required in the rules to split their income. There just seem to be many more prizes for the Japanese to take in south Asia and the Pacific and the consequences are bigger for the allies of she gets them.

As far as Russia goes, I think the larger China and more territories in Siberia and the Far East should keep Japan out of Russia’s way, at the most we could see a little “keeping them honest” strike like you described.

The again, it’s more than likely that, given the diplomatic dynamics of the current versions, Larry will clearly lay out in the rules a necessary build in the Pacific for US and/or an non-aggression between Japan and Russia. I hope not though.

Alternatively, did anyone ever think that the maximum builds per factory might make the US make a bigger commitment to the Pacific? I realize that its easy to just march troops 2 spaces from WUS to EUS but that holds up your forces quite a bit. Perhaps this combined with the greater significance of the South Pacific as far as winning the game goes, will force the US to commit to both theatres.

Every other player has to decide how to split it’s resources between fronts, so it seems odd to deny the US the same privilege.

There are other, better ways of representing the need to balance; i.e. the four-player game:

Pump everything into Europe, and see a Japanese monster eat up the world; go all out in the Pacific and have a huge German empire to deal with in future.

As far as Russia goes, I think the larger China and more territories in Siberia and the Far East should keep Japan out of Russia’s way, at the most we could see a little “keeping them honest” strike like you described.

The again, it’s more than likely that, given the diplomatic dynamics of the current versions, Larry will clearly lay out in the rules a necessary build in the Pacific for US and/or an non-aggression between Japan and Russia. I hope not though.

I think that there should be some flexibility. In a huge game a certain amount of treaty-making might not be such a bad thing (as an option - not as a regular rule). For instance; I would like to have seen some convoy boxes. I would especially have liked them for Russia. A non-aggression treaty between Japan and Russia could exist until one person breaks it. If there were a couple of convoy boxes in the north Pacific it might have been a temptation for the Japanese player to take them, or maybe they might not touch them, but still have to move things into Manchuria in case of Russian betrayal. I guess there could be some house rules made up.

Alternatively, did anyone ever think that the maximum builds per factory might make the US make a bigger commitment to the Pacific? I realize that its easy to just march troops 2 spaces from WUS to EUS but that holds up your forces quite a bit. Perhaps this combined with the greater significance of the South Pacific as far as winning the game goes, will force the US to commit to both theatres.

Maybe. Can a land unit move one space and then be loaded onto a transport all in one go?

I think the US player will still have to play proactively, with units moving where the Axis are growing, or to support Allied forces even while the US maintains some kind of forward thrust.

Damn, I’m looking forward to the Europe game!

@Army:

Can a land unit move one space and then be loaded onto a transport all in one go?

No. A land unit must be loaded on to a transport as its first move. So in that case it would take 2 extra turns to load infantry build in the west onto transports built in the east.

Seems to me like sending those guys against Japan in 1 turn would be quite a bit more effective.

Additionally, the US is going to be making mega-wads of cash and will have to be smart about placement on only 2 or 3 industrial complexes. in AA50 it was no big deal, you could do an entire build in the east, but in the new game when you have 100+ IPCs to spend, you’re going to have to be careful about where you decide to build your equipment. If its all built in the east it better be 12 bombers or you’re wasting a lot of money just to focus on in the European theatre.

It seems to me that the logistics of the 10 unit IC and the fact that the US should have adequate resources to deal with BOTH theatres should negate the necessity for a forced split of income. Additionally, I beleive that the need to contain Japan will be greater in this version.

In any case, if it happens I can always house-rule it out.

P.S. Just had a thought. Perhaps the US not being at war with Germany yet will have a bearing on it. A in: if US goes to war with Japan, WUS income jumps to 50 but if it is still at peace with Germany EUS income remains at 10 (or whatever the east will be worth). Something like that could really shake things up…

@Omega:

Let’s not forget that spending in one theater doesn’t force USA to play in that theater. He can still move his troops around…

Say he wants to go only Europe (i don’t know, a new player’s strategy), he can use the pacific money to buy only fighters/tac/bombers and send them all in non-combat toward Europe

There is no way to force the US to split its income as Omega has pointed out.

And certainly, there won’t be a rule that says units bought in Pacific remains in Pacific. Or else, it will be so complicated that the game won’t be playable.

I say, keep the income united (up to Larry I guess), and let the players do as they wish. Obviously, some strategies won’t work, but that’s the fun of a non-linear game :)

Robert

One alternative is to split the entire Western Allies into two players thus:

The “Atlantic” Allies;

Eastern USA
Eastern Canada
(France)
UK
African and Middle Eastern colonies

VCs: London, Paris, Cairo, Cape Town?

[Neutral Iran provides a handy marker]

The “Pacific” Allies:

Western USA
Western Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Asian and Pacific colonies
Nationalist China

These players can send help to each other, but individual victory conditions can limit this.
VCs: Chungking, Delhi, Sydney, Manilla

Keep it easy: the inmensity of board will force USA fight a 2 front war (no more gamey ignore Japan strats). If ignored, AA40 Japan can made the Godzilla of AA50 seem as a little smurf just by economy, and I guess a probable strat to counter ignore Japan will be a combo of raids on Alaska and invasions on neutral South America (put big IC at Brazil or small ICs at Argentina, Peru or Venezuela (Chavez?) :-D )

And better not talk what waits to ANZAC, India big fat IC and China if no USA aid comes. Ouch!  :lol:

No need of any splitting rule

Don’t bet USA collecting 100 IPCs. It’s totally possible WUSA in global game being 10 IPCs (2nd number of 50 only used in AAPacific) and similar with EUSA. I guess it will be near to 50 in global game, a bit more or less

I guess in global game USA at peace will collect some ridiculous proportion as 1/5 or 1/10 of total income, using lesser values for both east and west USA

@Funcioneta:

Don’t bet USA collecting 100 IPCs. It’s totally possible WUSA in global game being 10 IPCs (2nd number of 50 only used in AAPacific) and similar with EUSA. I guess it will be near to 50 in global game, a bit more or less

I guess in global game USA at peace will collect some ridiculous proportion as 1/5 or 1/10 of total income, using lesser values for both east and west USA

No this will not be the case since then it would be immposible to play the Europe game stand alone.

The US is also going to have a large income on the Europe map. Their income(when at war) is going to at least be forty between central and eastern United States + add to that south and central america. I think 100+ IPCs is a sure thing.

I like how the US income is going to be split, its unrelaistc for all a countries industry power to result in production in one location particularly one as large as the United States. The US should be split into more territories so it naturally has to spread out its units due to production cap like other players, but since it isnt this is the next best thing. And spliting the income does not make a choices for the US they still decide where to allocate their resources and if they should emphasize the pacfic or european theaters.

I guess this whole issue could be settled with NO’s.

Consider the industry changes. 10 per major factory. Thus, most reasonable buys would have to be split. Consider 2 transports, 2 inf 2 art, and a loaded carrier on east coast. That’s 64 IPCs and uses 9 of your 10 production. Hell, throw in a DD for escort. That’s 72. That leaves at least 30ish in pacific theater. The only way to mass one theater would be massing bombers, and I don’t see that as being effective enough in one theater, ignoring the other to top a more practical buy split with at least 30 on either side.

But we still don’t have any idea of USA global income :/ I think its too early to talk about this…

It is never too early to talk.

@Omega:

But we still don’t have any idea of USA global income :/ I think its too early to talk about this…

its a sure bet that they have 40+ IPCs in the Europe game.

so more than 40 + 57 equals more than 97 IPCs.

East Coast income is more likey larger than west coast income, Id say near 60……however the US has few holdings in the europe game other than Panama and perhaps West Indies.

Hopefully alot more of the US income in the east will be subject to convoy attacks by the Germans

The US will have about 110 IPCs in the combined game

@oztea:

East Coast income is more likey larger than west coast income, Id say near 60……however the US has few holdings in the europe game other than Panama and perhaps West Indies.

Hopefully alot more of the US income in the east will be subject to convoy attacks by the Germans

The US will have about 110 IPCs in the combined game

dont forget brazil.

The US should have alot more IPCS in Europe than in the pacific to be hisotrically accuarte, but for gameplay reasons Larry might give the Eastern US less than the western US. Certainly it wont be anyfewer than 40 IPCs

But yah I think 110 IPCs in the global game is a good guess too.