Any thoughts on the lend-lease idea? Allowing production of British land units and transports, along with a 6 unit cap on all US units, 4 unit cap on US ground units, and 9 unit cap total? (including lend-leae units.) After all, the US was shipping material to the UK, and even allowed them to construct merchant ships.

Finally, the US can only build 1 US transport per turn. (British transports don’t count against that limit)

Would this need to be balanced by increasing the US wartime bonus by perhaps 5 IPC’s?

Hummm. Good points. In the old Europe and Pacific, the Axis would take at least 2-3 turns to invade the US, and would by that point likely get their fleet sunk, and be facing a huge ground force to boot.

But with a 1940 setup, the axis can actually get those turns before the US is at war.

Humm. Lend-lease, perhaps? How about, only can build 6 units per turn, and any excess IPC’s are lost. This would encourage building expensive units. Perhaps only 4 of them can be land units? After all, building a fleet was one of the things the US was doing during this time. However, only 1 of them can be a transport.

Additionally, they can build up to 6 (capacity of 9 permitting) British units per turn, using US IPC’s, representing lend-lease. They are moved by the UK players during the UK player’s turn, and always appear in the Eastern US or Western US, and can’t move until the US is at war except to be loaded on a UK or ANZAC transport (during the UK player’s turn), or to be moved to a Canadian territory. They can’t be naval units.

EDIT: The british units have to be land units.

Ok, that’s waaaay too much. Does anything other then “massive US force heads to the front on US 4” ever happen? Defiantly going to houserule that way down. 26 maybe? 20?

Along with “destroyers effectively automatically kill subs” (they can’t submerge? Seriously?) and awful convoy rules (works for Pacific 1940. In Europe 1940, only 9 IPC’s in vulnerable in the north atlantic. It should be “all but 8 IPC’s (UK and Scotland)”

More houserules!

I miss Europe (1999).

Pretty much as the title says, I can’t figure out what the US income is. So, do they get the full territory income when not at war? (and which values to use?) And is it +10 IPC’s total, or per territory when at war.

Soooo, what’s the US income when not at war, and when it’s at war?

Can they spend 50+ IPC’s per turn on building a huge military, then ship it out with a massive navy the moment they’re at war? That doesn’t make much sense. You’d think that they’d only have an income of maybe 10-15 when not at war. They shouldn’t be able to build much until they get in the war.

Treating USW as a strategic bombing attack? Simply rolling 1d6 per sub? That’s a pretty good idea, actually. I’d allow it over much of the north atlantic. The only limit to damage is that British always gets the IPC’s from the british isles, and the US always gets at least 10? IPC’s. And you couldn’t do it in a sea zone with hostile surface warships. It probably should be that way in Europe 1940 as well.

Also, perhaps the US enters the war after losing 15 IPC’s? And only cruisers can attack subs.

And yah, the ‘old’ Europe had the best treatment of convoys.

Ok, now I really don’t get the usefulness of airbases. In Kwangsi, you can hit most of the Japanese inner defensive perimeter, but that’s dependent on holding the islands in the sea zones at the far end. From Gibraltar, you can certainly hit the eastern Med off Egypt. The problem is that it’s a one-shot deal - you can’t get them back. From Egypt, you can make it to Malta, but if you’ve lost it, a 2-turn circuit of Africa is the only way back.

And I guess what makes Gibraltar impenetrable is the ability to scramble fighters to help in the defense of the sea zone in conjunction with the surface fleet? Assuming there’s a surface fleet there? And ensuring that the Italians have to bring the navy, and don’t get to bombard? That seems somewhat powerful, but is it really worth 15 IPC’s? (compared to 4-5 infantry?)

I guess I need an article explaining the strategy behind airbases.

Really, what’s the point of long range aircraft technology? 1 more space of movement doesn’t do much, since you can still only go 2 (for fighter/tactical bombers) or 3 (for strategic bombers) spaces away from the starting point. The only situation where it could possibly be useful is when the landing territory is different from the launching territory.

Same goes for an airbase. It’s actually far less useful then airbases from A&A: Pacific, and costs a small fortune as well. You’re still limited to sea zone next to one the island is in / other territories bordering the same sea zone. How often does the extra point of movement come up?

20+ IPC’s for research, and 15 IPC’s per territory, for what you could do in Pacific for free. Why bother.

It’s determined by the territories the units are passing through, and at each end, and it for all units for the turn.

In your example, Germany could only get 2 units to Smolensk through Belarus and Eastern Poland, and that uses up all the rail capacity for those territories. If they wanted to deploy a units in Poland somewhere else, they can only transport 2 out of or through Poland (since the move to near Moscow used up 2 of it’s 4 capacity), and none at all through Eastern Poland.

However, and I forget to say this originally, since Bessarabia sits in the middle of the highest IPC values on the eastern front, and has no IPC value of its own, I would give it an exception, and a rail capacity of 4.
Now if Germany did something wise and advanced through southern Russia as well, they could also transport 2 units into Beyansk, via Western Ukraine, ready to join an attack on Moscow (you’d still have had to taken those territories, though.)
At the same time, assuming you went the Slovakia-Hungary to Romania route, you can transport 2 more units into Western Ukraine, using up Ukrane’s rail capacity. perhaps for a drive to the southeast. Or, and even better, those 2 units could be mechanized infantry or tanks, and could still make it to Moscow on their combat move next turn.

Now, assuming Germany sent those 6 units for the eastern front from Germany, that used up 6 of Germany’s 10 rail capacity. If there are more units in Germany that the player wants to send to fight in say, France, only 4 more units could be sent west from there.

This allows units to move up to the front quickly, and attack on the second turn after they were purchased. But at the same time, even if Germany went the 2 mechanized infantry/tanks into Western Ukraine route, they were only able to get 6 units to the front in one turn.

Even if they had the units, and the capacity left in Germany and Slovakia-Hungery and Romania, they can’t send any units to say, Ukraine, since it’s limited by the capacity in Bessarabia, and they can’t send any more to Western Ukraine for the additional reason that it’s capacity is used up - 2 units passing through to Bryansk, and 2 units ending there.

Hopefully that cleared things up.

It’s always bothered me that, since a turn is a few months or longer, just how long it takes units to get to the front line. There’s a stack of units stretching all the way back to the IC, and even people buying tanks since they can get to the front faster. I have an idea for strategic rail movement that I don’t think anyone has come up with yet.

During your non combat movement phase, land units that did not move in the combat movement phase may move an unlimited number of contiguous land territories that you or an ally control. The maximum number of units that may make a strategic rail movement in a given territory is equal to twice the IPC value of the territory.

If you think about this, it makes a lot of sense. After all, the density of a territory’s rail network is directly related to its IPC value - Western Germany can move more units then Western Ukraine. And this still means you can’t move as many units as you might like to a specific spot on the eastern front. I don’t know whether it should be limited to territories you’ve controlled since the start of your turn or not - those units wouldn’t be able to attack next turn, unless they’re mechanized infantry and tanks, which might actually be a good thing, and would also nicely create a reserve behind the front line.

In the Pacific, I’d rule that territories under Chinese control don’t get strategic rail movement - the Chinese actually spent the equivalent of multiple turns moving armies around. I might give chinese infantry a non combat move of 2 to compensate. Chinese territories starting under Japanese control would get strategic rail movement equal to only the IPC value of the territory - not twice it. For Africa, I’d likely use the IPC value, not twice it as well. I might also use that rule for the rest of southeast Asia, and maybe Australia.

Finally, I’d rule that Soviet eastern territories stretching east from Moscow all the way to Soviet Far East have a strategic rail movement capacity of 4, but only as long as they have been under soviet control the entire game. This enable redeployment from the Pacific to Europe, and vice versa, but at a slow rate, and still means it takes just as long as it should for invaders to travel the endless miles across Asia.

The same rule would also work in 1914. There, I’d allow it to be territories that you or an ally control, or that have been contested since the start of your turn. (really - on the western front they had rail lines built up to the front.) It would take place during your movement phase, so you could reinforce a territory already contested and use those unit for an offensive. This could be the strategic movement mechanic that the game needed.

Any thoughts?