USA Too many IPCs? Too much Power?

@Stockus13:

It does seem that a gradual buildup for the US would be both more historical and balance the game better. 52 IPC a turn while at peace is a huge ammount of money.

As far as representing history in this type of game……it’s impossible and we could agrue for hours on it.

1. Yes the USA should have more money when at war to represent history. Russia would have a stronger economy later as well.

2. On the other hand the German Army was incredibly massive when compared to all other powers but the Russians.

Troop quality, tank quality, etc. could all be argued. Manpower, and leadership as well.

Why not have Italy be unable to function because of poor historical performance?

The point is this is a fun casual war game to play for fun. If we want to play an exact replica of history then this is not the game to do it in. Just my 2 cents.

Perfectly said. I couldn’t agree more.

I guess I just don’t think 40 IPCs per Ocean is all that much for the US.  What is that? (examples:)

Atlantic:
2 Transports (14 IPCs), 2 Arm (12 IPCs), 2 Inf (6 IPCs), 1 DD (8 IPCs) = 40 IPCs. Whoa thats a LOT of firepower for the Atlantic!  What will Germany do?  Say, buy 4 Inf (12 IPCs), which give you 8 defence pips vs. the 8 attacking pips the USA can throw at you.  Granted, you may need to build 4 Inf at multiple ICs, however with 50-60 IPCs/turn, it is easy to buy ~6 Inf/turn for the Atlantic Wall while still keeping pressure on Russia.  Hell, you won’t be sending any Infantry to the Russian front after turn 3 or so (After that you are looking at turn 8 or 9 before they get anywhere).

Pacific:
1 CV (16 IPCs), 2 Ftr (20 IPCs), 1 SS (6 IPCs) = 42 IPCs.  Maybe not the best buy depending on if they need carriers.  Other navy based options include:
1 CA (12 IPCs), 2 DD (16 IPCs), 2 SS (12 IPCs) = 40 IPCs.  Whoa Japan is screwed!  All Japan has to do is mass its surface fleet at Truk, the Philippines, or Japan with 10 or so Fighters with scramble ability and they are nigh untouchable for several turns; long enough for India and China to fall.

I’m not sure the USA can fight effectively in both theaters of war with such little built each turn.  If you ignore one theater, then Germany or Japan goes hog wild.  Hell, Europe by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 3, while the Pacific by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 1,2,or 3.  Why isn’t USA’s total IPCs 120ish?

By the way, in incredibly scientific terms verified by myself:  :lol:
USSR’s share in beating the European Powers: 50%
UK(Including France and Canada) share in beating the European Powers: 25%
USA’s share in beating the European Powers: 25%
UK(Including India and ANZAC) share in beating Japan: 25%
Nationalist/Communist China’s share in beating Japan: 25%
USA’s share in beating Japan: 50%

USSR’s share of winning WWII: 25%
UK’s share of winning WWII: 25%
Nationalist/Communist China’s share of winning WWII: 12.5%
USA’s share of winning WWII: 37.5%

@BJCard:

I’m not sure the USA can fight effectively in both theaters of war with such little built each turn.  If you ignore one theater, then Germany or Japan goes hog wild.  Hell, Europe by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 3, while the Pacific by itself was made with a 60+ IPC USA to join the war at the end of turn 1,2,or 3.  Why isn’t USA’s total IPCs 120ish?

I think it is because the allies have other things to help them in the global game. For instance, 18 Russian men in Soviet Far East, Indian troops helping Africa. The other thing to remember is that in the game the US can get into action a lot faster than was actually possible in the war. Some of the sea zones in both games are massive and with a naval base allow US to build one turn and attack in their next turn. Giving the US more income could unbalance how quickly they can get into battle.

As for incremented income: Perhaps you could try reducing their starting income by 20 and increase it by 5 for the first four turns. In order to keep things even though I still think that something else would need to be added. Perhaps a one time bonus to income after someone attacks them (ie: after war has been declared on them) Maybe you give them the bonus whether they declare war or not, it sounds like it could be getting complicated… What can I say I love to complicate things if it increases strategy, haha.

More simply: Perhaps just give them a reduction in income by a factor of ‘X’ and give them that money back at ‘A’ IPC’s for ‘X/A’ turns. ie: x=20 and a=5(previous example) so the US starts with 20 IPC less in income but gains 5IPC a turn for ‘X/A’ or 4 turns.

Another interesting idea would be to give the US a very small, such as 1IPC a turn income forever at the cost of reduction of ‘X’ amount at the start up. This way the are not making huge bucks to start but if the axis cannot win then eventually it would become impossible to compete with an ever increasing US income.

I am just throwing ideas out. I hope someone can refine them and make sense of them, lol.

@FieldMarshalGames:

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

@spectre_04:

I think 15 million dead Russian soldiers proves that.  However we were definitely a pair of aces in the allies hand and if you dispute that then you don’t know history, board games, any of it, sorry.  The sky is not green or yellow, some things are FACT and not up for debate.

Yes. Some things are fact. For instance estimates are between 8 and 11 million USSR military deaths from WWII., not 15.

OMG!!  Can you guys start another thread to argue?  Some of us want to talk about the GAME.

How about splitting USA’s income between Pacific and Europe?  The NO money can be assigned each collect income phase however the US player wants.  That would slow their deployment a bit but still allow them to focus on whichever front the player chooses.

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think the Allies have that much help-  18 Russian Inf?  If they mass near Japan, they are wiped by a few Japanese troops and 10+ aircraft.  If they retreat then they are no threat to Japan.  Indian troops help in Africa?  That much easier for Japan to nab India.

I wonder if the folks who think US should make less have played with skilled Axis players? I agree with BJ card. The US, if anything, does not make enough. I also think it depends on which setup you are playing with. OOB setup US needs ever one of those 52 IPC or it will never match the air and naval forces Japan will throw at it. Alpha setup I could see a pre war US income reduction but not much. I think someone has pointed it out before, but US has 1 battleship for 2 oceans while Russia has a battleship for the Baltic. Come on. US has one carrier Japan starts with 3. I don’t know. The US is designed to function as the “clock” in this version, because this version is designed to be as close to a historical AA as there has been. The more games I play, the more I think Japan has to wait until turn 3 to attack and has to do a Pearl Harbor type attack and wipe some US units. Maybe I’m playing with better Axis players or maybe the Ally players have been dummies, but out of 5 games 2 have been axis wins, two were Ally wins, and one was a draw leaning Allies.

A pretty good player is running the U.S. in our current game.  Things are not going that well for the UK and U.S. Boy is he wanting more money lol.

@moralecheck:

How about splitting USA’s income between Pacific and Europe?  The NO money can be assigned each collect income phase however the US player wants.  That would slow their deployment a bit but still allow them to focus on whichever front the player chooses.

Biggest problem I can see with this is that it is A-historical. The US spent the majority of its money on the Pacific. It spend more manpower in Europe but men are cheap, a fleet and air force are not. For a balanced stat you will need to be allowed to spend more than 45 on Japan on some turns. As has also been said before the US can always move units across their seemingly small country (at least in the game… always been an annoyance of mine.) and put everything on one front anyway.

I have certainly not found that the allies are at a disadvantage in the game and so giving the US more money does not seem like a good idea to me in any respect.

@BJCard:

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think the Allies have that much help-  18 Russian Inf?  If they mass near Japan, they are wiped by a few Japanese troops and 10+ aircraft.  If they retreat then they are no threat to Japan.  Indian troops help in Africa?  That much easier for Japan to nab India.

Just send some air force and then also use some London forces to help in India. I will abandon Calcutta if it means that I will be able to capture it with a larger force afterwards…

@dadler12:

I wonder if the folks who think US should make less have played with skilled Axis players? I agree with BJ card. The US, if anything, does not make enough. I also think it depends on which setup you are playing with. OOB setup US needs ever one of those 52 IPC or it will never match the air and naval forces Japan will throw at it. Alpha setup I could see a pre war US income reduction but not much. I think someone has pointed it out before, but US has 1 battleship for 2 oceans while Russia has a battleship for the Baltic. Come on. US has one carrier Japan starts with 3. I don’t know. The US is designed to function as the “clock” in this version, because this version is designed to be as close to a historical AA as there has been. The more games I play, the more I think Japan has to wait until turn 3 to attack and has to do a Pearl Harbor type attack and wipe some US units. Maybe I’m playing with better Axis players or maybe the Ally players have been dummies, but out of 5 games 2 have been axis wins, two were Ally wins, and one was a draw leaning Allies.

I agree any money that would be taken away from them should be made up some how or else the game will be broken. I do not personally see a problem with anything but can see where some people might complain. As for the US Battleships. I think that is meant to portray Pearl harbour since in the game the US player never leaves a group of expensive ships to be sunk so easily as they were in Pearl. I could be wrong but I believe that is the thinking behind the set up.

I would say that the US makes “JUST” enough.  Sure they could make more, or make less.  
that’s the interesting thing about the United States income.  They aren’t ever directly threatened on the homefront by invasion (assuming Forest Gump isn’t playing the US).  So if the game needs tweaking, then I think its easily done by adjusting the USA’s IPC income.  That being said, don’t you guys think Larry and the game testers already did that a bit and when they decided on the current number they felt pretty confidant in it??
If your playing a very new axis player, then you could subtract 15 or 20 IPC’s from the US, or at least for the first few rounds of battle.  If the allied player is the newbie and the axis the stronger player, give the US 120 IPC’s per turn and see what they can do with them.

It’s important that money is not everything in this game.  It’s far more important what you do with those IPC’s than how many you have.

Also, Why hasn’t anybody commented on how easy it is for USA to gobble up an extra 6 bucks in South America???

@spectre_04:

I would say that the US makes “JUST” enough.  Sure they could make more, or make less. 
that’s the interesting thing about the United States income.  They aren’t ever directly threatened on the homefront by invasion (assuming Forest Gump isn’t playing the US).  So if the game needs tweaking, then I think its easily done by adjusting the USA’s IPC income.  That being said, don’t you guys think Larry and the game testers already did that a bit and when they decided on the current number they felt pretty confidant in it??
If your playing a very new axis player, then you could subtract 15 or 20 IPC’s from the US, or at least for the first few rounds of battle.  If the allied player is the newbie and the axis the stronger player, give the US 120 IPC’s per turn and see what they can do with them.

It’s important that money is not everything in this game.  It’s far more important what you do with those IPC’s than how many you have.

Also, Why hasn’t anybody commented on how easy it is for USA to gobble up an extra 6 bucks in South America???

Becuase that gives Italy 8 inf in Turkey, Germany 6 inf in Spain and 6 inf in Sweden

It does leave Turkey open,
But I usually do it simultaneously with an assault on Spain via the sea and Gibraltar, and an attack on Sweden via the sea and or Norway which I hope to have captured by then.

This does leave Turkey, and so far I haven’t had enough forces (especially soviet) to take Turkey down, but I think its more than a fair trade at that point.
I know this is off topic, but I think that after the 4th or 5th turns, the Allies have a much better shot at gobbling up the neutrals than the axis do, so why not get that extra money?

The rules of the old Europe says:

On turns 3 & 4 it increases to 30 pp. Then 40 pp on turns 5 & 6. Then 50 pp turns 7 & 8. Increasing production – On turns 1 & 2, US base pp’s are 20 ( 50 % of the given ). Reaching a maximum of 60 pp from turn nine

So maybe we can use this for Global too? :-)

@GoekaWar:

The rules of the old Europe says:

On turns 3 & 4 it increases to 30 pp. Then 40 pp on turns 5 & 6. Then 50 pp turns 7 & 8. Increasing production – On turns 1 & 2, US base pp’s are 20 ( 50 % of the given ). Reaching a maximum of 60 pp from turn nine

So maybe we can use this for Global too? :-)

I think if you use something like that for Global Japan will invade the Western US and/or take Hawaii. US needs 52 IPC pre-war to make up for its lack of units. Otherwise Japan will run roughshod over the US in the Pacific and a smart Axis player will try to co-ordinate a German attack on US as well (after a successful Sea Lion of course). I have yet to hear a concrete argument for the US having too much money. I stand by my previous post that a smart Axis player will neuter the UK and start punishing Russia as the US enters the war. Japan has to put pressure on the US. I think when people post things like US threw everything Atlantic that the player paying Japan is not doing his job. Japan must force the US to spend a majority of it’s pre-war income building a fleet and air force. If the US is building invasion fleets in the Atlantic pre-war the Axis have already lost.

@dadler12:

If the US is building invasion fleets in the Atlantic pre-war the Axis have already lost.

So you’re suggesting a J1 or J2 attack?

I think a big issue is that Japan cannot be both a economic juggernaut and a credible threat to the US. If you think making a significant landing across the Atlantic is hard on the US budget, try invading the US across the Pacific as Japan.

The first global game I played as Japan, the Russians and UK both attacked Japan early, and I was using all my money and airforce just to keep my mainland holdings. ANZAC pumped out fighters and landed them in the DEI, and the UK pulled all of its African forces to India. The US only had to maintain a token Pacific force. Japan was eventually able to win the mainland china fight, but it took them a while to get up to where they would be had they attacked J1. BTW, Germany had a successful Sealion, but the combined super-US and Russia were way too much for them.

Should I have attacked J1? Should a 30ipc Japan have devoted its navy and airforce to taking Hawaii and threatening the US? And with what? What Japanese invasion force could take and keep Western US for more than a turn? You would need a massive amount of ground troops and a fleet of transports. And if you’re buying those, are you just sacrificing the mainland? How are you going to take the DEI? Do you take the Philippines?

Japan needs money. They are not even a threat to UK/Anzac with their starting IPCs, let alone the US. If they are going to get money, they need to fight in the islands or the DEI, which means not threatening the US. I don’t think that an 82 IPC Japan could be a threat to the US, even spending all their money on transports and troops.

I think Japan should wait as long as possible to bring the US into war. Also Japan starts out with enough units to crush the US fleet in the Pacific and if it positions its fleet accordingly it can force the US to build Pacific. Is should add that the Euro Axis have to have enough air/naval units well positioned to force the US to build an Atlantic navy as well (not just transports). If the Axis do this the US will have spent most it’s money on a navy and air force and won’t have 5 loaded transports in the Atlantic ready to head to Gibraltar and kill Italy. Japan should take half of China by round 2, kill Russia or let it retreat to Europe, and position itself to take DEI, Kwangtung, and maybe Malaya round 3. If you can get UK/ANZAC to attack you before turn 3, awesome! Now the US wont be moving units to Europe and making 80+ IPC until round 4. When I played as Japan I dominated the Pacific, took India, crushed China, and never attacked Russia (Russia moved his troops west). Axis ending up winning that game because I drew the majority of US IPC Pacific and the US/UK didn’t spend enough on Europe which resulted in Germany taking Moscow. The Axis will win if they are aggressive early and do not bring the US into the war until turn 3 or the end of US turn 3. When a smart axis does this, a US with 100+ IPC is not enough. Make the US react. It’s troops are so far from the front that if you force the US to react to you instead of making long term plans, you will win every time.

@dadler12:

I think Japan should wait as long as possible to bring the US into war. Also Japan starts out with enough units to crush the US fleet in the Pacific and if it positions its fleet accordingly it can force the US to build Pacific. Is should add that the Euro Axis have to have enough air/naval units well positioned to force the US to build an Atlantic navy as well (not just transports). If the Axis do this the US will have spent most it’s money on a navy and air force and won’t have 5 loaded transports in the Atlantic ready to head to Gibraltar and kill Italy. Japan should take half of China by round 2, kill Russia or let it retreat to Europe, and position itself to take DEI, Kwangtung, and maybe Malaya round 3. If you can get UK/ANZAC to attack you before turn 3, awesome! Now the US wont be moving units to Europe and making 80+ IPC until round 4. When I played as Japan I dominated the Pacific, took India, crushed China, and never attacked Russia (Russia moved his troops west). Axis ending up winning that game because I drew the majority of US IPC Pacific and the US/UK didn’t spend enough on Europe which resulted in Germany taking Moscow. The Axis will win if they are aggressive early and do not bring the US into the war until turn 3 or the end of US turn 3. When a smart axis does this, a US with 100+ IPC is not enough. Make the US react. It’s troops are so far from the front that if you force the US to react to you instead of making long term plans, you will win every time.

Perfectly said

The US makes more than enough and in most of our games in crying for more money. European troops can easily force the US to build a large escort fleet. Japan can easily feint or even attack Hawaii and US navy troops. I always make it look like I am going to hit the US hard on J3 and then have the troops positioned to instead hit half the DEI, Philippines, Kwangtung etc… A smart Japanese player will rule the Pacific and have all of the allies there running scared. Perhaps what we really need is a Japanese strategy thread so that people can see how to make Japan the USA’s direct rival. It is not hard with well positioned navy, air force and factories Japan can push back the allies on all fronts.