Please makers to be :“Do not rule that america splits income”
Look nobody is taking anything away from the great contributions that the other Allied countries made. All I am saying is that the US could have handled both Germany and Japan alone, with or without the A-bomb. I am sure they would have found a way to drop the bomb on Berlin.
@Brain:
All I am saying is that the US could have handled both Germany and Japan alone, with or without the A-bomb. I am sure they would have found a way to drop the bomb on Berlin.
Not a chance.
They didn’t launch D-Day from Norfolk ya know.
@Brain:
All I am saying is that the US could have handled both Germany and Japan alone, with or without the A-bomb. I am sure they would have found a way to drop the bomb on Berlin.
Not a chance.
They didn’t launch D-Day from Norfolk ya know.
Bombs don’t have to be dropped from planes.
@Brain:
@Brain:
All I am saying is that the US could have handled both Germany and Japan alone, with or without the A-bomb. I am sure they would have found a way to drop the bomb on Berlin.
Not a chance.
They didn’t launch D-Day from Norfolk ya know.Bombs don’t have to be dropped from planes.
Sorry I meant the US defeating the Axis singlehanded comment.
No country would have the resilience to keep fighting after they had a few A-bombs dropped on them.
I dunno.
I think given the inability to put boots on the ground in Europe or mount a concentrated SBR campaign, and having depleted their entire Atomic arsenal of two, the US would have had ended up on the receiving end of the Germans’ huge stockpile of weaponized chemicals.
That is if they bothered with Germany at all. (Which begs the question of what was the fate of the Allies they never had in this counterfactual scenario, I presume conquest before American DOW.)
Well the US didn’t have to put boots on ground in Japan. Now did they?
@Brain:
Well the US didn’t have to put boots on ground in Japan. Now did they?
Actually they did have to put boots on the ground, island by island right up to the Home Islands, until it was quite clear that both them and the Russians were on the doorstep of Japan itself.
Lobbing bombs across an ocean didn’t end the war. Douhet was wrong.
And this of course, was not done without some brave Allies keeping the road to India and New Guinea etc. in Allied hands.
I just think that the US would have executed a more difficult KJF campaign - driven by that Day of Infamy. But if Hitler had been left with a free hand to handle Europe, once UK is Neutral or Nazi, and Moscow has fallen… I dunno, say 1944… then it’s too late for the US to take on the Germans from across the Atlantic.
If UK and Russia was captured before US sent many troops to Europe, I think the US would not go to war against Germany, only defend their home waters, and eventually secure south America, and capture Japan.
For Germany’s sake, this had to happen before, or sometime during 1942, b/c then the war was lost for Germany.
It is ofc very possible that nukes against Germany could be an option, but even today, you need troops on the ground, or at least be 99% certain that your enemy knows that you’re willing to put troops on the ground, like the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
It wasn’t until Milosevic thought that NATO would send in ground troops that he conceded, even if he (Serbia) had lost before the war started.
@Subotai:
For Germany’s sake, this had to happen before, or sometime during 1942, b/c then the war was lost for Germany.
I was throwing 1944 out there… presuming Barbarossa is delayed maybe by a year for Sea Lion or something else to take the British out of the fight, and then the Soviet defense / counter-offensive being entirely re-written owing to Lend-Lease never occurring.
Admittedly this “America goes it alone” scenario is a major counter-factual.
[Note: this scenario was not [u]my idea :-P]
Anyway, back on subject: I’m not a fan of the US economy being split by rule.
I think it should end up split by compelling circumstances and player choice.
Mind you, this is obviously open to abuse thru really gamey decisions… but if players want that kind of experience then what can you do? :wink:
@Brain:
I look at A&A as a 2 player game so I couldn’t care less about an individual country being the winner.
Really? I find it much more fun with all the spots filled.
LOL. Argh, multiplayer is fun (especially on TripleA) until you find out you’re having to play the clueless guy’s turn for him/her anyway. If I ever get to play multiplayer AA50 in real life with 6 people (hard to do with all the friends halfway across the country) I just suggest stuff and let them decide. Usually you just watch as they flounder around a few turns and you end up bailing them out on what to do. It’s hard to have a learner’s curve on a game you play once a year. I have horrible luck with the dice when it comes to the pivotable battles, so always let the other guys on your team roll, less stress that way.
I think that in the event of a US v Japan and Germ conflict in reality, the US might have been able to take out Japan, but getting enough men into Europe to defeat the entirety of Germany would be a longshot. In the end, I think it would be a number of inconclusive naval skirmishes, some angry glares, and then some sort of peace agreement.
As for the question of American split income, it is obvious that this is a very bad idea. A&A has not had scripted play mechanisms in any of the global games.
Better to make the pacific islands worth so much that both Japan and US must fight in the pac, or lose a lot of money.
Like Hawaii worth 5 ipc, and maybe even more, including NOs.
i think it’s combined income
if japan succeeds to conquer pacific, game is over, which will happen if US does nothing
If its not combined income then I hope the U.K. and Russia can hold their own.
I wonder if split incomes also means split capitals for the US. I know loosing Washington doesn’t happen to often but would you also give up the west coast $ ?
Exactly WW2 had ZERO teamwork with these exceptions:
UK and USA in Europe
Germany tells Italy what to do because they pay their bills.
The Soviets didn’t trust anybody
The British didn’t trust the Soviets
Italy just wanted the trains to run on time, and the have a large lake known as the Mediterranean.
Spain wanted to be on the winning side after it won
USA just wanted to keep Democracy alive after 1945
Japan wanted its own dominion in the pacific
Germany wanted a free hand in Europe
Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungry all wanted parts of western Russia for farming and lucrative contracts from the Reich.
This forgets the greatest (not most powerful) allience in world war 2. Was between AUS and the US. We were scared stiff of been invaided by Japan, the UK had sent most of or forces to africa and the rest to Singapor, along with all the navy to the Med and left us for dead after Pearl Harbour after we gave them everything.
MacCather came along, and with it tons of US forces and planes and gave real leadership to us. The US were not afraid of giving Aus all we needed because we were not a compeating power, and in return we put all our forces under US command.
We won Coral Sea, held liberate to Phillipans and ended up capturing Bereno.
And to this day we are still one of your greatest allies.
i still think russia will have a zillion infantryn so germans can never take moscow and US can go to pacific
