USA Too many IPCs? Too much Power?

Maybe some sort of NO that gives Russia/UK an extra 5 IPC’s a turn while the US isn’t in the war to represent lend-lease, while the US pre-war eco is lowered to 40?  Just throwing ideas around.  I guess it would work better with the alpha changes as they make it harder for Japan to attack early anyway.

@FieldMarshalGames:

@dadler12:

Game play wise, the US needs to build a transport (7 IPC) for every 2 land units (assuming at least one is infantry). So in essence, it pays double what Germany or Russia has to spend on land units.

That is a good point.  Thanks

I agree that the US should be very powerful once they are at war…  my concern is over their pre-war IPCs.  By turn 3-4 when they are brought into the conflict they have already spent 150-200 IPCs on units!!  Historically they were unprepared for war.  After the Japanese attack they should be scrambling to fill the gaps and build a defense!  Sure their industrial might grows throughout the war and the Axis have to move fast…  but I find in this game that when they are brought in (unless Japan somehow pulls of a REAL Pearl Harbor type attack) they are already a monster and ready to pounce on Europe and the Pacific.

I think they should collect less while a neutral…  sure they had the industrial might but were they not building refrigerators and Automobiles before Dec 7th? AND/OR having most of their military production sent to UK and other Allies via Lend-Lease?

I do agree that a smart US player can prepare for war while neutral in a way the US simply did not historically (I know I have when playing US). Maybe if there was rule incorporating lend/lease into the game while America is neutral would help. Say, a cap on the total number of units US can mobilize per turn for itself while neutral and the ability to buy certain units for the allies while neutral (tanks for UK/USSR, destroyers UK, planes/artillery China)? Maybe also incorporate an IPC cost for transporting the units as well?

just lower the territory value of east-US and add the difference to the ‘at war’ NO
it might give axis a slight advantage a bit too, cause i think they’ll need it
(tbh, i only play europe, but they could use it there)

In the single game I’ve played, I was the US and simply crushed Italy with a steady flow of transports into the Med. I was only delayed because of an early UK attack to kill some freebie planes and hold open the road. When I arrived though, it was in full force and we called the game seeing as there was no way to stem the tide of incoming troops.

The Axis moves were far from optimal. Japan had a high income but had not managed to crush India or China. They split attention too much. Italy was stalemated with the UK in Africa. Germany was doing okay against Russia but made a bad mistake in leaving a stack of tanks vulnerable.

So, it did look like the US is completely unstoppable in that game, but I really need to play a game as all the Axis to see their real potential. I reserve judgment until I’ve seen several games and have worked out what I consider best course actions for all powers.

Many years ago, it was pretty much a given that the classic game required an Axis bid to be even remotely balanced due to the US “shuck”. I agreed–until one player convinced me to try a fairly unorthodox Axis strategy. I argued strenuously against the strategy, and then had to eat a whole lot of crow when I finally tried it out. I then went on to an unbroken (I think?) Axis winning streak, including against players on this board.

Lesson learned: Hundreds of veteran A&A players can be dead wrong, and all it takes is one person ignoring conventional wisdom to find a new, workable strategy. I wouldn’t count the Axis out yet.

I like it this way.  Indeed isn’t it necessary for the USA to have this eventual avalanche of units in order to give the game a sense of urgency and avoid a stale slugging match?

The VC requirement can be adjusted to give the Axis a more attainable target; inevitably if it fails after a number of turns it’s game over.  But the game would go on forever otherwise.

Or adjust Axis winning conditions as I’ve suggested with 3 VCs from each of 3 regions.

@Kobu:

In the single game I’ve played, I was the US and simply crushed Italy with a steady flow of transports into the Med. I was only delayed because of an early UK attack to kill some freebie planes and hold open the road. When I arrived though, it was in full force and we called the game seeing as there was no way to stem the tide of incoming troops.

The Axis moves were far from optimal. Japan had a high income but had not managed to crush India or China. They split attention too much. Italy was stalemated with the UK in Africa. Germany was doing okay against Russia but made a bad mistake in leaving a stack of tanks vulnerable.

So, it did look like the US is completely unstoppable in that game, but I really need to play a game as all the Axis to see their real potential. I reserve judgment until I’ve seen several games and have worked out what I consider best course actions for all powers.

Many years ago, it was pretty much a given that the classic game required an Axis bid to be even remotely balanced due to the US “shuck”. I agreed–until one player convinced me to try a fairly unorthodox Axis strategy. I argued strenuously against the strategy, and then had to eat a whole lot of crow when I finally tried it out. I then went on to an unbroken (I think?) Axis winning streak, including against players on this board.

Lesson learned: Hundreds of veteran A&A players can be dead wrong, and all it takes is one person ignoring conventional wisdom to find a new, workable strategy. I wouldn’t count the Axis out yet.

What strat is that?

There are strats like those in most games.

Revised for example, seems balanced, until USA puts a factory in Brazil, and makes controlling africa a prime directive.  The Axis at that point, barring a MAJOR collapse on the eastern front, never even get close to income parity, and it’s only a matter of time until they give up.

i think that the US should have the split income, not the UK. it should be 41 pacific, 41 Europe. then the player is forced to commit in both theaters.

I think the US has too much income before war, but then again, her fleet is much smaller than it really was (compared to other nations…I mean, RUSSIA has a BB and the US only has ONE?).

Of course the US also lost a lot of at surface power at Pearl which will likely not happen in A&A so I guess the trade-off is that they start with less power, but get the money to build it. This means it’s likely not going to be deployed forward in attack position like it would be if they actually started with their historical forces.

But if anything, the US ‘at war’ income is LOW compared to reality. I agree though that giving the US their ‘real’ income would be a game-ender. Really as of Dec 7, 1941, WW2 was no longer in doubt…it was just a matter of time from there.

In the game, I think 52+30 is a decent compromise. Compared to other nations, that is not really that much higher and as was pointed out above, the US has a ‘shipping fee’ on nearly everything they want to send to war. I think this keeps the US from getting out of hand.

@poloplayer15:

i think that the US should have the split income, not the UK. it should be 41 pacific, 41 Europe. then the player is forced to commit in both theaters.

I think Split income for US East & West Coast wouldn’t work,
b/c they have (Not like UK in both Theaters) their ICs Next to another.
Buy fleet on Eastcoast and Tanks,mechs + Aircraft in the West.
This Splitting would imo only result in a Delay of 1-2 turns
if US wants to bring in the Full Power to Europe.

I dunno.  With the USA spending 80% of each turn’s IPCs in the Pacific, I still could not crack Japan’s Navy, or take any of Japan’s major islands-  they simply have too much of a head start on the US in terms on Naval and Air power.  Maybe they don’t make enough money?

Some ideas to make a more representative image of pre-war US

• The US is restricted from technology development until at war.

• US Major factories produce as if they were minor factories until at war.

• Split income… bonus can be spent on either side.

-  US collects income on a percentage scale unitle at war 
    Turn 1 25%
    Turn 2 50%
    Turn 3 75%
    Turn 4 Money like they had their own priniting press  :-D

@leddux:

Some ideas to make a more representative image of pre-war US

• The US is restricted from technology development until at war.

• US Major factories produce as if they were minor factories until at war.

• Split income… bonus can be spent on either side.

-  US collects income on a percentage scale unitle at war 
    Turn 1 25%
    Turn 2 50%
    Turn 3 75%
    Turn 4 Money like they had their own priniting press  :-D

Split income is not historical. WUS money is easily used in EUS due to good communications between the coasts

@BJCard:

I dunno.  With the USA spending 80% of each turn’s IPCs in the Pacific, I still could not crack Japan’s Navy, or take any of Japan’s major islands-  they simply have too much of a head start on the US in terms on Naval and Air power.  Maybe they don’t make enough money?

No, Japan has too many planes. This is fixed with Larry’s alpha setp

@FieldMarshalGames:

@calvinhobbesliker:

This is fixed with Larry’s alpha setp

I keep hearing about this Alpha Set-up???  Where is it posted?  Can it be made a sticky in this forum?

Here: http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2568

@FieldMarshalGames:

@BJCard:

I dunno.  With the USA spending 80% of each turn’s IPCs in the Pacific, I still could not crack Japan’s Navy, or take any of Japan’s major islands-  they simply have too much of a head start on the US in terms on Naval and Air power.  Maybe they don’t make enough money?

I think they make enough…  Just TO MUCH during their Neutrality phase.

You are probably correct about their neutrality turns. I just started ILs 1939 game today and the U.S. prewar income is only 20 IPCs. Then it increases by 5 IPCs each turn up to a maximum of 60. Of course the prewar setups are different than A&AG1940. You can check out the setup for 1939 on House Rules in my post today.

@dadler12:

Historically the US was “the sleeping giant.” Yes it was still struggling from the depression pre-war, but it still had the highest industrial capacity on Earth. The US helped bankroll almost every allied power pre-war and throughout the war (Lets not forget that America became one of the banks of the world after WW1 and had been heavily involved in lending European countries money since the treaty Versailles). Once the US entered the war it was able to outproduce almost all the other powers combined. The US possessed almost every resource needed for the war, and those it did not have in great quantity (ex. rubber) it could import from it’s sphere of influence within South and Central America. Yes the war was won by the allies, but it was won with US dollars, weapons, and ordinance (except maybe Soviet Russia although it did receive massive amounts of lend-lease weapons early-war and copied American technology whenever it could late-war). Russia may have survived without the US, but not for long. England would’ve fallen as easily as France without lend-lease or if Hitler wasn’t intent on invading Russia. The US defeated Japan almost on it’s own and all while fighting a war on another front. By the end of the war the US fielded more aircraft carriers than all nations combined. The US conducted (with the British) the largest amphibious invasion EVER. The US dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs. Game play wise, the US needs to build a transport (7 IPC) for every 2 land units (assuming at least one is infantry). So in essence, it pays double what Germany or Russia has to spend on land units. In the Pacific, it is dealing with a monster (Japan) that no other power can fend off unless the US is involved in 30+ IPC per turn builds. Let’s not forget that after turn one Germany makes 70 IPC and around 50-60 IPC per turn after, and by round 3 latest Japan has 50+ IPC. Not to mention the US starts out with very few units compared to the other major powers. Almost every build the US makes (minus air units) will take at least 2 rounds to reach the front. I think the US is represented fairly in-game and fairly historically. If the US is not a beast, it cannot fight a war in the Pacific and Atlantic and the Axis will run all over the board. In fact in most of my games the Allies can only win by playing defense until the US gets involved (just like in real life!) and smart Axis players can knock out both UK capitals by turn 3 and whittle the USSR to 30ish IPC. The Axis needs to wait until turn 3 or 4 to bring the US into the war. When they have in my games, they have won.

Patriot much? I hate to burst your bubble but while the USA was immensely powerful they did not single handedly win the war. The US did not train the majority of your pilots (The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan or BCATP did), they could not effectively figure out how to move goods across the Atlantic and had to rely on Canadian escort. Should I also mention that Canada had a bigger navy at the end of the war then the US? The USA did take part in D-day but to a lesser extent than the British and Canadians, the Russians contributed immensely in every way to the European war effort and made it to Berlin before the USA. The Russians produced more tanks than ALL Allied nations combined (Yes that means more than the USA AND ALL OTHER ALLIES combined, actually the Russians LOST almost as many tanks as the other allies produced). I could go on but I think everyone is getting the idea.

As for the game itself, I believe that the representation is just fine. The one problem if anything is that the USA should have a slightly bigger economy and NOT be able to reach the European or Pacific fronts in a single turn. It should take at least an extra turn to get into combat. I can assume that this was done for playability as apposed to historical accuracy.

As Gargantua and Calvin (I think it was the two of them) said the axis have to think ahead and prepare for plans to delay and push the US troops back if the US comes in without adequate protection on their landing forces.