Honestly, I would start off with
Eliminating Mexican NO for US and
Adding a 5IPC NO for US (at war) for Allies controling Gibraltar, Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia at the same time. (Historically first landing on that hemisphere)
That’s a 10IPC swing to the Atlantic right there. If US still went Pacific heavy (which I don’t believe it would) then I would try Jen’s NO proposal.
I agree with questioneer on NO in Africa for US . Also maybe move brti. inf. in France to Normandy , going along with my previous move of ftr and inf.(from Normandy) to London.
Also my friend suggested taking a German Inf and art from south germany to Lybia.
We are going to playtest these and my above suggestions this thur-friday.
Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.
We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.
IMHO USA shouldn’t even get Mexico to begin with. Mexico should become part of USA led forces at the beginning of turn 4, after USA declares war on germany or vice versa. That’s 3 less IPCs for America, which isn’t a ton, but then they can’t build a minor IC there. Alaska is more risky for a minor IC, because Japan can hit it from SZ 6 in 1 turn.
@Cmdr:
Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.
We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.
Yes. I deem it an unnecessary NO. It should be removed, not moved. America can do with fewer NO.
I’d like to see it rolled into the Hawaii and Alaska NO, lump them all into one called US territory and allies. Then replace it with a North African NO (perhaps Morroco, Tunisia, Egypt and Gibraltar).
@Cmdr:
Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.
We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.
Yes. I deem it an unnecessary NO. It should be removed, not moved. America can do with fewer NO.
The only problem with this is that America would actually need the money, if they played “honestly” that is, if they invested on both sides of the board. If they invest on one board only, then yes, they should have the 10 IPC NO removed and the Mexican NO made solely Alaska + Aleutians (so Japan can snipe it.)
@M:
IMHO USA shouldn’t even get Mexico to begin with. Mexico should become part of USA led forces at the beginning of turn 4, after USA declares war on germany or vice versa. That’s 3 less IPCs for America, which isn’t a ton, but then they can’t build a minor IC.
Or a navelbase.
Eliminating Mexican NO for US and
Adding a 5IPC NO for US (at war) for Allies controling Gibraltar, Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia at the same time. (Historically first landing on that hemisphere)
I think USA should get a 5 IPC NO when Gibraltar strait and Suez canal is controlled by the Allied. This represent the benefit from open shipping lanes and international trade.
Also UK should get 5 IPC NO for controlling Gibraltar strait and Suez canal, because if they dont, the convoys need to go around the tip of South AFrica, and that is twice the distance. Just imagine all the fuel.
I like the idea of having a NO for Gib and Suez that affects the U.S. There should be some offset if a player only plays one side of the board.
Adjusting the NO’s on the Pacific side for the US improved the game. We may need a small adjustment like this for the European theater.
Another idea might be Axis subs in the Atlantic.( ie the US loses 5 or 7 ipcs for Axis subs in the Atlantic, similar to the UK NO)
Good thinking, now we are gettin somewhere, man.
US ditch the Central NO and Mexico NO.
New US NO’s:
US get 5 IPC NO when Gibraltar strait and suez canal is controlled by the Allies.
US get 5 IPC NO if no german sub is present in the Atlantic.
UK get the same NO’s as USA. Easy to remember and to keep track on.
USSR get 5 IPC NO with sz 125, Archangelsk and no Allied units in Russia. This represent the Lend/Lease, but is hard to get, so the Brits send fighters in every game. Russia need one more Lend/Lease NO:
USSR get 5 IPC NO when the Allies control Persia, and no Allied units in Russia. Historically half the Lend/Lease stuff went through Persia, so this is a strategically spot.
Also the Axis should get a 5 IPC NO for control of Persia. This is for the oil. One NO for Persia only is better than the current with 2 IPC for Northwest Persia + 2 for Caucasus + 2 for Iraq etc etc. Simple is better.
It’s + 5 for caucusus.
So pretty much make the US have heaps of smaller IPC value NOs instaed of the 10 IPC NOs. This way if the US wanted its full value it would have to seriously balance its offensive to get them all, and be everywhere at once. Could there be an NO for them in Russia or India, or maybe if the Allies have the oil nations Iraq, Persia etc the US get a bonus as well but they have to hold all of them not just one.
Have one US NO that is worth 10 IPCs for controlling all original territories then the other 5 IPC NOs up to the value of 30 IPCs or whatever, can be spread around the globe.Lets build on this.Be positive.
Have one US NO that is worth 10 IPCs for controlling all original territories
Nobody should get a NO just for control of their own home territory, that is redundant
The idea of spreading around the NO’s for America to give incentive to balance its’ forces is a good one. The details of the NO’s are up for debate, but the basic idea is sound.
Remember it took America at least 6 months go on the offensive in North Africa and the South Pacific. It took a good bit longer for America to become absolutely dominant in the Atlantic (no more German subs) or the Pacific. The delay in America capturing the NO’s should match this historical build up (somewhat).
@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.
We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.
Yes. I deem it an unnecessary NO. It should be removed, not moved. America can do with fewer NO.
The only problem with this is that America would actually need the money, if they played “honestly” that is, if they invested on both sides of the board. If they invest on one board only, then yes, they should have the 10 IPC NO removed and the Mexican NO made solely Alaska + Aleutians (so Japan can snipe it.)
I expect USA to invest in only one board. Doing otherwise is inefficient use of material. USA fights to win on one board and fights delaying actions on the other board.
Yes, the Mexico NO must die. I mean seriously, Mexico? Really?
I like the Alaska / Aleutians NO. It provides a historical reason to fight there.
I think USA should get a 5 IPC NO when Gibraltar strait and Suez canal is controlled by the Allied. This represent the benefit from open shipping lanes and international trade.
Also UK should get 5 IPC NO for controlling Gibraltar strait and Suez canal, because if they dont, the convoys need to go around the tip of South AFrica, and that is twice the distance. Just imagine all the fuel.
I disagree with the USA NO. USA already has incentive to not let UK fall. USA does not need another NO here.
The UK NO works
A lot of effort has gone into the USA NO’s to provide Pacific battles and consequences.
The global game is big and long and I have not played enough with Alpha 2 to notice if the USA player can ignore Europe without consequence on a regular basis with various German strategies. Having a different USA NO for the European side can compensate for it if there is an unbalanced situation. We will see.
@mantlefan:
Have one US NO that is worth 10 IPCs for controlling all original territories
Nobody should get a NO just for control of their own home territory, that is redundant
And… Why is it redundant? If it is redundant, why is that bad?
What does an NO represent, exactly? What do IPCs represent, exactly?
Anyways, lets assume although it’s far from proven) that the game is unbalanced.
What is wrong with this change?
Add the following clause onto the 10 IPC US NO:
If USA declares war on an Axis power before an axis power has captured London or a North American territory, or before Germany has declared war on the USA, or before Japan has declared war on UK, ANZAC, or USA, USA does not collect this NO.
It’s redundant because players initially own their own territories.
It’s bad because it is more complicated than simply increasing the value of the initial territories.
NOs are a McGuffin to increase income. Because NO are a line item in the rulebook instead of a map item they are more complicated. For that reason there should be as few NO as possible.
