Split income POLL

I voted no, because I don’t think that the US should have restrictions placed on only them.

That must be the control freak in you talking  :-D LOL

@WILD:

That must be the control freak in you talking  :-D LOL

Yeah  maybe, but I still believe in putting things to a vote.

Yea as long as your the only one playing on your side :-)

I voted no because I think it’s just plain daft.  :-) United States should be able to spend her IPCs as she sees fit.

@Lozmoid:

United States should be able to spend her IPCs as she sees fit.

Except on armament until she’s attacked.  8-)

don’t forget, US can only buy 10 at each front ;)
so with over 120, thats enough for 20 subs, 10 on each side :D

who wastes IPC on subs?

@WILD:

Yea as long as your the only one playing on your side :-)

It’s no secret I like to play all the countries of one side. But I’ll tell you what, I haven’t tried it in so long that I am willing to give it another try and maybe there will be some fun factor.

@Frontovik:

don’t forget, US can only buy 10 at each front ;)
so with over 120, thats enough for 20 subs, 10 on each side :D

It’s also enough to plop 6 Battleships into the Pacific in one turn.

I garuntee you will feel the burn in europe if you plop down 6 battleships in the pacific as the US

@oztea:

I garuntee you will feel the burn in europe if you plop down 6 battleships in the pacific as the US

Not if the Europe game is designed for a late US entry into the war.  If Japan gets the US into the war early, it gives the US an extra turn or two to go Japan only.

Although this opens up an interesting question.  Will the US be forced to wait until the third turn to attack in the Europe only game, assuming the Germans and Italians don’t attack before then?  And will this change Japanese strategy in the world game, where it might delay an attack on the allies every time to keep the US out of Europe, making J1 attacks unthinkable and J2 attacks an incredibly risky move?

Well I guess we’ll have to wait until Europe is out and how it’s set up to determine whether or not the split income was/would have been a good or bad idea.  It really depends on how Europe is set up and how the world game works.  In the end, it depends on how it affects gameplay and game balance.

@Brain:

I voted no, because I don’t think that the US should have restrictions placed on only them.

I agree!

@dakgoalie38:

@oztea:

I garuntee you will feel the burn in europe if you plop down 6 battleships in the pacific as the US

Not if the Europe game is designed for a late US entry into the war.  If Japan gets the US into the war early, it gives the US an extra turn or two to go Japan only.

Although this opens up an interesting question.  Will the US be forced to wait until the third turn to attack in the Europe only game, assuming the Germans and Italians don’t attack before then?  And will this change Japanese strategy in the world game, where it might delay an attack on the allies every time to keep the US out of Europe, making J1 attacks unthinkable and J2 attacks an incredibly risky move?

Well I guess we’ll have to wait until Europe is out and how it’s set up to determine whether or not the split income was/would have been a good or bad idea.  It really depends on how Europe is set up and how the world game works.  In the end, it depends on how it affects gameplay and game balance.

OR it just means that germany and italy and japan all attack America and her allies on round two…  (or round 3, or round 1, etc.)
which i guess would make sense… right?

i sure would enjoy plopping down 6 BBs in the pacific though… holy crap!
or 15 destroyers… or 4 carriers and 6 fighters…  or 10 bombers…

I think in the global game if US is brought in early (attack by Jap) then US is at war w/all axis powers (tripartite pact signed in the fall of 1940). Historically that’s what happens, and Larry likes to stick to history as long as it doesn’t compromise game play. I don’t know if Germany will have the option to attack the US in the global game. Historically it could have, but it had a lot on its plate at the time. As the axis you (should) know when Japan will make its move. If Germany is able to strike first (it goes before Jap) then that would surly skew history, and could give the axis an advantage, so it may not be allowed in the global game.

In the Euro game I guess Germany may have the option to attack the US (or at least its convoys) to bring them in before the auto war kicks in at the end of the 3rd round.

Once the US is at war with one of the Axis countries then they must be at war with the other. If not they could still be building with the other Axis in mind anyway.

I am not thinking that a Japan attack MUST bring Germany into conflict with the US. But i think the Axis should talk beforeattacking the US… ;)

I voted yes of course. it was on time they did something about the KGF strategy. Now we have both this and the natinal Objectives, it will be sufficient.

In the real WW2 there was a KGF strat. About 75%-80% of US war production went to Europe.