• 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


  • @Canuck12:

    @Army:

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

    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.

    Hmm, possibility of 100+ ipcs per turn for the US. So that means a possibility of tons of bombers. So now it does seem the escort/interceptor rule is REQUIRED or SBR will get out of hand. But who knows how they are going to work it with the US?


  • 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.


  • USA in my opinion would have another 50 for the Atlantic side, but in 1940 start with 10. Brazil will be fixed as a neutral ( it is not an American colony)

    Cuba will be rated at 1, but also be neutral as well as Mexico. Instead these will be rated as pro allied camp neutrals.

    The rules should allow some transfer of income but not more than 20 IPC either way from Pacific to Europe.

    total USA IPC 100-110


  • @Imperious:

    USA in my opinion would have another 50 for the Atlantic side, but in 1940 start with 10. Brazil will be fixed as a neutral ( it is not an American colony)

    Cuba will be rated at 1, but also be neutral as well as Mexico. Instead these will be rated as pro allied camp neutrals.

    good point.

    But why should income be transferable when players can just transfer whatever they purchase?


  • Maybe US could have 2 colors of  pieces.


  • no but the game should include marines as AAP did. brighter green


  • Yeah what happened to the marines?

  • '10

    Yeah what happened to the marines?

    in AAP, they cost 4 and attacked at 1 unless it was an amphibiaus asssualt, then they attacked at 2.  currently, artillery would be the better buy because they always attack at 2.  they would have to come up with something new for marines


  • So the marines have been declared obsolete.

  • '20 '18 '16 '13 '12

    @Imperious:

    Cuba will be rated at 1, but also be neutral as well as Mexico. Instead these will be rated as pro allied camp neutrals.

    Mexico exists as an American territory in the Pacific game.

    Perhaps this is because they didn’t want to mess around with pro-axis/pro-allied neutrals yet in the Pacifc version.

    I look forward to seeing what the rules are for them though, whether you recieve some fraction of income from your neutrals or just have rights to pass through their territory…


  • In the real WW2, US spent about 20% against the Japanese, and the rest went to Europe.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 2
  • 7
  • 9
  • 13
  • 6
  • 7
  • 35
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

206

Online

17.3k

Users

39.8k

Topics

1.7m

Posts