trololol uncrustable…… i dont mind though considering everyone on this forum has got to have their own opinion of what to change in global… though it is a house rule… damnt why not just put it in both :p
I have, in general, purchased a naval base for Japan anyway, since it allows for a quick dash to India or down to Australia from that sea zone. Yes, you can get to both from Malaya, but as pointed out, it’s not a one step jump from Japan to Malaya and back to Japan.
I also find that 8 transports is the magic number for Japan anyway. It’s just so flexible.
I think there is still a consensus that the allies are in favor at the moment. However I believe the current rules are so close that it is going to take a few back and forths of which power is ascendant before we settle on the true leader. That being said, I think leaving many of the rules as is would be fine. Perhaps a reworking of NO’s, but leaving them at the same value. You appear to be saying that depriving US of that initial 30ipc’s in NO’s their first round of war might do the trick as well? This is entirely possible, if going this route however I prefer the idea of making US pay to upgrade their IC’s. This equals about the same amount and doesn’t mean the US is getting a ‘free’ upgrade.
China can ignore the Neutrality rules? I know China is a special case but… that doesn’t seem very logical. The rules say you can move into those 2 spots… but doesn’t say you can ignore neutrality.
UK is not neutral. She is at war with Germany and Italy.
But United Kingdom and India are 2 different powers. The only thing they share are Techs. United Kingdom can actually declare war on Japan and India still be Neutral…. ?
Read it nevermind lol, Uk can’t do that. Another Illogical thing to add :(
end note UK split = Nonsensical, really needed to do a better job at seperating the two. When UK falls, India can not pick up IPC from fighting in the Middle East. Very unreasonable.
