Changes still needed to the game, IMHO

@Cmdr:

Same for Finland, if Italy annexes Finland, the infantry go German.

Not to be a troll, but are there any reasons Germany should not activate Finland turn 1 ?

@Cmdr:

Dropping the Mexican and Alaskan NOs might work too, but some of these guys get antsy when you futz with the objectives.

So, we add units.  But I think it is not appropriate to make it easier for Japan to attack China, that’s already a pretty balanced game.  
Adding transports in the South Pacific might make it too easy for Japan to get a VC victory.  I can see that being a concern, as all they need are six which means taking Hawaii and NSW (probably) along with Hong Kong, Philippines, that one in China and Japan itself.

Splitting America’s income by fiat seems to be something hard for people to swallow - although I still think it is the best solution as we already do it to England and there’s no way America would ever ignore the plight of England by allowing Germany to invade it.

I am considering a very modest increase really, it’s equivalent to the one proposed for Japan, only Russia is more able to absorb it than China is.

+2 Infantry, +1 Artillery to Romania
+2 Infantry, +1 Artillery to Hungary
+1 Infantry, +1 Artillery to Poland
(15 IPC for Infantry, 12 IPC for Artillery = 27 IPC, 25-27 was proposed for Japan earlier)

1. Yeah, I’ll try to convince Larry to drop this unecessary NO- it really doesn’t effect current gameplay at all.

2. If the infantry, artillery are put on Japan like I suggest, then they are not really “crushing” China since Japan has to work a little to transport them off the island.  This includes buying more TTs.  Putting land units on the capital does make them work to get them off the island in the beginning AND its saves them from having to buy them in later rounds.  Now that money can be used to buy ships, bases or whatever.  It helps things out long-term.

3. Adding ships, aircraft, ICs, bases to ANY of the Axis powers makes them “too fast”.  I’m still very adament about placing inf/art on Japan island and SItaly capitals for this reason.

4. Your proposal of land units on the Eastern front is out of the question.  It makes Germany way too strong.  Larry has already said this is an area too touchy to mess with- I agree- that’s why when he balanced it last he put more infantry on the capital which was the safest.  I am suggesting the same for Japan island and SItaly along with the takeaway of the Mexican NO- which is not really needed mechanically or historically.

Was it Yamamoto who said we have awakened a sleeping giant?  What about Germany running out of people to keep their armed forces adequately enlisted, hence the Hitler youth.  Maybe after so many rounds Germany should only be able to produce a certain amount of Infantry,  who might fight at a disadvantage?  EEK GADS HEAVENS TO MURGATROID ZEPHON. I like it the way it is

@suprise:

EEK GADS HEAVENS TO MURGATROID ZEPHON. I like it the way it is

that’s the spirit!

Hey! I said that earlier…

US production shouldnt be contingent on the other allies posessions
If anything I feel the US has been nerfed to a point it can bareley be the force to reckon with that it once once, now its like Revised US….just another power

The US should start with at least another bomber, another boat in the atlantic (destroyer at panama, another cruiser?, or just a sub would be fine), and two more infantry on the mainland to off set its IPC losses from having its NOs balkanized.

Id even go as far as to give the US an infantry on Wake and Midway to represent that these outposts werent bare naked as they appear.

Im not asking for more naval assets at start, im asking for some niche units for the US that dont really threaten anybody for a long time, but at least start on the board so the first US turn isnt just building the missing links for its army, airforce, AND navy

I think the US has been nerfed somewhat, but, where they are now is good. I would rather add a Japanese NO than take away a US one.

Id prefer italy not in the war round 1 and UK cant attack italy R1

@ghr2:

Id prefer italy not in the war round 1 and UK cant attack italy R1

Doesn’t make sense historically not to have Italy at war already lol…  Italy and Germany are allied and warring UK/France 1940 at the start of the game.

Having 2 German planes on Southern Italy gives them a boon and a fighting chance R1 IMO.

Ok it seems people are pretty turbed when it comes to messing with the NOs- in that case a proposed alternative is to place land units on capitals which would be the safest.  I propose this:

Add 4inf, 1art to Japan-Tokyo
Add 2inf, 2art to SItaly-Rome
Add 1inf, 1art to Germany- Berlin

@Dark_Destroyer:

@ghr2:

Id prefer italy not in the war round 1 and UK cant attack italy R1

Doesn’t make sense historically not to have Italy at war already lol…  Italy and Germany are allied and warring UK/France 1940 at the start of the game.

Having 2 German planes on Southern Italy gives them a boon and a fighting chance R1 IMO.

It would make some sense historically.
And even with the german planes, the UK can do crushing damage to the italin fleet with non too serious losses.  Also, a british invasion of torbruk R1 effectively stops the italian armies from doing anything significant in africa for the forseeable future.

That’s why I plan on Sealion G3 and land 2 aircraft in SItaly and 2-3 aircraft in Tobruk.  Sure most of my German air is away for G2, but I built all ships G1 so I have a decent threat on UKsz’s, and now thankfully I’ve saved the Italian army and fleet.

Yeah, putting planes in Southern Italy has almost become a “must” move at our games.  Germany cannot afford to have the Italians routed early, Sealion or no.