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
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?
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.
@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.
in AAP, they (the Marines) 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.
Yes, but remember that the Marines did attack at 3 or less if amphibious assaulting together with a matching artillery. That was a lot of bang for the bucks. Too bad Larry dont want them.
This is off topic, and they deserve a dedicated thread, butt since we are at it, Razor think the Marines should go free on a tranny, as their special ability. Just think about it. An infantry unit or a tank unit, or an artillery unit, they all are attached to large supply and support units with trucks and horses, that takes a lot of space on a tranny. A Marine unit is only the men, since they will be supplyed from their ships.
Come to think about it, Marines should be able to travel on destroyers or cruisers. Like one DD takes one matching Marine as cargo.
Also let me comment on the actual topic. I dont like special rules for split income. I know we need them, but I dont like them. I think the player should decide where he wants to place his units. If he wants to place all in one theater, thats OK to me. And as long as it is team victory conditions, he might get away with it too. If the game had individual victory conditions, then no player could afford to ignore any theater. It would be like the real war, everybody looks out for everybody. The only fix this game need is individual victory conditions. Now go tell Larry that.
If the US player leans too heavily towards any one theater while ignoring the other, I’ve a feeling the Axis player in the other theater will run rampant. We shall see.
If one is running rampant, then the other should be getting squashed.
After reading this I like the idea of making the US fight a 2 front war with victory conditions.
How about this: AAP and AAE are played simultaneously, if the Japanese meet the AAP1940 victory requirements in the pacific then the Axis win. If Germany and Italy meet the victory requirements in in AAE1940 then the Axis win. (Likewise for the Allies) That way to prevent an axis win the US will need to keep the axis occupied in both theaters.
I am thinking since both versions of the game are balanced by themselves it should still be balanced when they are combined. No special rules required:)
But the Pacific game wont be balanced after the Far East Russian territories are mobilized.
Good point
But the Pacific game wont be balanced after the Far East Russian territories are mobilized.
They must have accounted for this on the merged game. We only have part of the info so far. Without seeing Europe merged with Pacific it’s going to be very hard to guess the ‘balance’.
Non agression pact will be standard in europe, its referanced in the pacific rule book that it cant be violated
Im supposing the europe book will have a condtion that if either power attacks eachother that power immidatly forefits its ability to collect upon ANY national objective bonus income. For japan in a global game…thats not that bad. The army’s northern plan aimed to attack russia, but this will be a near imposible task in 1940…And russia just plain wont want to break it…the tanks and mech infantry are fast enough to be pulled west to moscow, so losing your NOs on a fools errand in the east wont happen
The far east front has to represent one thing…because it IS NOT the route to moscow like it is in Revised etc. It has to represent the fear each power had of eachother. Russia HAD to use the sibeiran divisions to save moscow, and you probably will have to leech some of in 1940 leaving youurself exposed. And Japan feared the soviets leaping across the border and cracking open the bread basket of Korea and Manchuria
They both didnt want to break it, but there has to be the ablity to break it…it would just be foolish to break it
