Well a split income will make Panama suddenly important.
@democratic:
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.
This is why on my 1942 map Australia and New Zealand are US controlled, and Sydney is a US Victory City.
In Pacific 40 I sometimes play that ANZACs move in the same round as the US after the fall of the Phillipans.
Here’s what I think.
In Pacific, the 40 income bonus from the US entering the war is a national objective. If there is something similar to this in the European theater, then here’s how I think it will work. The US income (not including national objectives, meaning not including the 40 bonus) will be combined. However, the 40 IPC bonus from declaring war on Japan can only be spent in the Western US, and a similar bonus in Europe can only be spent in the Eastern US. So the income excluding national objectives will be shared, however, national objective bonuses for entering the war can only be used in the theater in which they get the bonus from entering.
For example, let’s say the US is only an Eastern US and Western US. Each territory is worth 10 IPCs, meaning prewar US income is 20 IPCs. This means that the US can spend these 20 IPCs anywhere it wants. Now let’s say war is declared, and the Western US income increases by 40 along with the Eastern US income due to national objectives, putting the total US income at 100. The 20 IPCs from regular territory income can still be spent in either theater, but the 80 IPCs from national objectives can only be spent in the territory they were earned in. This means if the US went all out KGF, the maximum IPCs they can spend in the Eastern US is 60, and they would still be required to spend the 40 IPC bonus in the Western US.
Sorry if this has already been suggested, but I read the first and last pages and did not want to read the other seven.
@i:
Sorry if this has already been suggested, but I read the first and last pages and did not want to read the other seven.
thats a little laze then isnt it?
You could say that. I don’t have all day to devote to reading a forum for a board game.
My solution. KISS and just make the US spend at least 50 IPCs in each thertre (10 before war). Unless you hsve 2 US players where you can keep them apart easily.
What is to keep the pieces purchased in one theater from moving to the other.
@Brain:
What is to keep the pieces purchased in one theater from moving to the other.
Nothing. If the US chooses to build units in the Western US and send them to the Eastern US, then I see nothing wrong with this. I just feel there is already a lot built into this game that would make players keep most units built in the Western US in the Pacific, except for maybe the occasional plane. Firstly, having to send ships through the Panama Canal and having to send infantry two spaces (assuming there is still a central US) takes a lot of time. I understand that a player could just build planes in the Western US and send them east. However, in this game the US actually starts with a surface fleet that Japan can’t destroy half of in round one, meaning the US does not have to devote 100% of its resources in the first few rounds of the game to put up a fight in the Pacific, as it did in other games. Also, with Australia, China, India, and the DEI worth much more than they were in any other game, it seems as though even if Europe were taken, Japan would still be able to defeat all of the allies (minus Australia) singlehandedly if the US leaves the Pacific alone.
The purpose of having the split income is so that the US can’t just put 100 IPCs right into the Atlantic or right into the Pacific. If the US could spend all of its money on transports for the Atlantic, then I could see a D-Day happening 3-4 turns after the US enters the war, which is totally unrealistic. If the US decides to go 100% KGF and had to send transports around through the Panama canal, that could delay this by 2-3 turns. If they just built planes in the WUS, and assuming the US has to spend at least its 40 IPC WUS NO bonus in the WUS that would still be 4 fighters vs. 3 transports with 5 infantry and 1 artillery. While option 1 would certainly not be a bad choice, option 2 would help the US invade Europe much faster if built on the first turn after war is declared. If spending 100% of income in the
EUS, the US could just do an all transport and ground unit build turn 1 after DoW, fighters and tac bombers T2, and Strategic bombers T3, and then the US would have a much larger invasion force than if the income were split, since it would have more ground units from T1 build and would be able to get all of its planes to UK quicker from EUS than WUS, since T3 strategic bombers would likely reach UK a turn faster from EUS than WUS.
Likewise, if the US could place 100% of its IPCs in the Pacific, this would give a huge advantage to the US vs. having to place at least 40 in EUS because the US could build 2 extra BB in the Pacific T1 after DoW, making a nearly invincible US fleet right off the bat. Had the US had to put 4 planes in EUS rather than 2 BS in WUS, then Japan could hypothetically knock out much of the US Pacific fleet before the planes arive at the carriers that were likely built to put them on, giving Japan one extra turn of free roaming in the Pacific to take some valuable islands rather than worrying about 2 extra US BB. Oh, and they could also take some more islands with US airbases preventing the US from using those planes to scramble.
So while the US can certainly go all out KGF or KJF even with split income, the split would delay the US forces by one or more turns, enough time for Germany to gain some valuable ground in the USSR or for Japan to take a few more islands or stage an attack on Australia. This combined with the increased number of SZs making moving ships between theaters a lengthy task. This makes it more efficient to use units built in a theater in that theater.
Well then, should Germany have to split its IPC’s betwen western and eastern fronts?
@Brain:
Well then, should Germany have to split its IPC’s betwen western and eastern fronts?
No, I never said this. Please explain why you implied this.
Also, for clarification, fronts are different than theaters. Europe and Pacific are opposite sides of the world, Eastern Europe and Western Europe are on opposite sides of a small continent, and will likely be serviced by only one major German factory.
I would also make two central USs to make moving forces between theaters even more difficult, but this is unlikely.
I am just asking, Why should the US be forced to split its income while the other countries can freely decide how to spend their income?
I agree with palpatine
@Brain:
I am just asking, Why should the US be forced to split its income while the other countries can freely decide how to spend their income?
Two reasons.
1.) Gameplay. The game is more balanced when US has split income by not pushing all of the major battles to one theater. German split income would still allow units to easily and freely move between fronts because Germany is not a large country compared to the US, so split income for Germany would be somewhat pointless.
2.) History. The US was an extremely industrial country before the war, with huge industries on both the East and West coast. The US couldn’t just somehow move its entire industry to one side of the country. Germany is a small country so this does not apply here.
Also, in comparison to other AA games (aside from AA50) this game does have split income for Germany by breaking it up into Germany, which fights mainly in Northern and Eastern Europe, and Italy, which spends money in the Mediteranean and Africa. There was both a historical and gameplay reason for this. Just like splitting US income.
Why splitting income is useless :
Advantage in leaving income united :
Allow USA to prefer one front over another, THUS allowing him/her to make poor decisions that could lead to defeat of the allies. A good player will not ignore Japan, nor will he ignore Germany.
Leaving income united will grant USA with more freedom and allow him to push harder one side or another. Historically, war against Germany received more resources.
The game is about recreating WWII. So let the player decide what to do.
i am pro-split income for the USA
to me, it is the only way to stop the strategy of focusing 100% of resources on either germany or japan.
and since historically the fight against germany had more resources, then perhaps eastern usa’s income will have to be bigger by 20 or 30…… (or more likely it will just start big, and not get a jump from going to war like western usa’s income)
however, if the income is not split… i hope to hell that there will be some sort of gameplay mechanic to severely punish a USA player that does not split his income.
Split Income is NOT following the KISS rule.
Why forcing the US to spend on the East coast when he needs a boost on the West. Its not even logical.
In the game we are not bound by restrictions like "the big shiop slips are all on teh Eastern Coast, so you can buy BB+CV only there…
- Say Japan is on the west coast ready for invasion next turn. WHY wouldn’t USA be allowed to put her full production to protect WUS from falling? Realistically, a country that is threatened one side will put her resources to defend
OK I was with you up until that point.
No, however helpful it might be, it is not realistic to have half the country suddenly produce everything and the other half stop producing things. With the Japanese clearing the minefields around San Francisco, sorry I don’t think the NYC Recruiters could break out the cards and crosswords.
The US (and Canada) should still have to shuttle units x-country.
@Brain:
Well then, should Germany have to split its IPC’s betwen western and eastern fronts?
Naw, I don’t think so.
USA has something like 30x the land mass but roughly an equal number of territories. Something should replicate the dispersal of their industrial might.
No, however helpful it might be, it is not realistic to have half the country suddenly produce everything and the other half stop producing things. With the Japanese clearing the minefields around San Francisco, sorry I don’t think the NYC Recruiters could break out the cards and crosswords.
The US (and Canada) should still have to shuttle units x-country.
I agree exactly.
The US couldn’t just magically move all production to one side of the country. In Pacific, the WUS gets a 40 income boost due to a national objective, representing increased wartime production in the WUS. Why the WUS’s increased wartime production should be used to build units anywhere outside of the WUS is beyond me.
Also, sure, a player can still go all out KGF or KJF with split income, however, it would be highly inefficient to constantly send units cross country when they could fight a much closer enemy.
- Say Japan is on the west coast ready for invasion next turn. WHY wouldn’t USA be allowed to put her full production to protect WUS from falling? Realistically, a country that is threatened one side will put her resources to defend
OK I was with you up until that point.
No, however helpful it might be, it is not realistic to have half the country suddenly produce everything and the other half stop producing things. With the Japanese clearing the minefields around San Francisco, sorry I don’t think the NYC Recruiters could break out the cards and crosswords.
The US (and Canada) should still have to shuttle units x-country.
This could easily be reflected in limiting the amount of pieces produced at each factory.
