Will the Atlantic and Pacific in AA40 Global be balanced

Hi Folks,
if I had to choose, I would always decide my self for the Pacific. I prefere the huge naval/air battles over the large clashes of tanks in Russia or the battle for the Atlantic. And with the scale of A&A, the engagements between the German Africa Corps and the British 8th Army are merely a sideshow.
Greetings,
Lars

Midnight Express had done about 10 variants. Look in House Rules. You might have some luck. Or PM him.

@bugoo:

… which means alot of interceptors …

Good point! That would be a big deterrent to try to SBR the airbase.

@cressman8064:

Another idea to add to this tread is to play Pacific1940 with every nation having the “Improved Shipyards” technology. This technology will be included in the global game anyways, but by giving it to every nation in the Pacific only game it turns out to really help the allies. If you havn’t heard, this technology makes all subs, transports and destroyers -1 IPC, and all crusiers, Aircraft carriers and Battelships -2 IPCs. Since the allies generally will be building more ships to counter the Japs, it allows America to build up faster but at the same time also gives the same advantage to Japan if they choose to go for heavy naval builds.
I played a game testing this change and I as Japan still performed a massive Jap1 attack. America built destroyers and crusiers like they were going out of style and while Japan was mopping up the DEI and India America was threating the rest of the Pacific and Japan herself with massive fleets. ANZAC was also able to build 2 subs from turn 1 and they can become a real thorn in the DEI.

I really like this idea Cressman. While the OP’s idea could work if Allies weren’t allowed into the USSR, it’s simply too complicated for me, as I already fail to follow a rule or two. :roll:

However, Cressman’s idea could work, as the Allies have strength in what they BUILD, and Japan has strength in what it already HAS. A bid could work too, though.

@SSPanzer:

Yes well forgoing a J1 attack is out of the question, and giving the US 40 IPCs up front is a bid, which is not optional on this forum. The question posed is objectives, our group prefers to give a few bonus objectives here and there, so if you would like to contribute please address the topic at hand.

Well, the option I mentioned simply allows the US to use their wartime NO right away in the case of a J1 DoW, which is not technically a bid since there would be no placement of units beforehand, it just gives the US 57 IPCs to spend on their first turn instead of the OOB 17; leaving the rest of the game untouched.

I mentioned it since your second US NO gives the US extra IPCs but basically increases the OOB US NO from 40 to 45; which, as Tralis stated, doesn’t do much for the US as they can’t really build much more with 5 extra IPCs per turn besides accumulating it for later use anyway as the US needs boats and planes to contest Japan on the water and actually get their land units in range of anything.

The Chinese NO is significant for China, but I don’t think that’s necessarily bad as China still does relatively poorly against Japan.  The UK NO would allow for 1 extra infantry per turn for UK, which will also be further annoying to Japan.  However, I voted that it will help the Allies, but not much because with the J3 India Crush method, 2 extra infantry to India will not make that much of a difference, and the couple extra infantry that China can accumulate will still only delay the Japanese a little.

I say that the next game needs Canada, special neutral rules for Finland, and vichy french rules (and, depending on the time period, poland as well). Why be picky and only make a few improvements?  :-D

February 4, 2010 - Fixed UK income from 18 to 16

http://www.mediafire.com/?mynuzmzyzzz

Sorry!

Attached are 6 PDF screen shots - my setup in pictures.
Luck,
Vince