disagree about the strategic value, but Moses is definitely right that some Far East territories should be worth more IPCs than they are, which might enrich the game in the Pacific Far East.
I would like the increase the price tag of Soviet FE from 2 to 3 and adding an AA gun there.
Conversely, China should be worth AT LEAST 3 IPC’s–I mean it’s CHINA! But let’s leave that alone for a minute…
Yeah, I would expect China to be worth 3 IPCs.
So if you made the above changes, Japan would start w/ 26 instead of 25 IPCs.
Well the way I had it before, I think Japan started out with 26-28 IPCs instead of the normal 25. I also think USA’s income started a little higher, though it might have stayed the same.
USA to attempt a Naval strategy in the Pacific–and we all know how cool carrier battles are in the game! Best part is–it’s not drastically unrealistic; in fact it’s rational…
Wel… the way we have it so far is that USA can’t attack Germany, so they going to be forced to dive in the Pacific. I suggest increasing the IPC value of Hawaii to 3 (adding an IC w/ AA too), along with Midway worth 1.
Also, UK can have a stronger “presence” in Asia by increasing the value of Australia from 2 to 3 or 4 and adding an IC w/ AA). Of course UK will have its hand tied against Germany, so they can only contribute a little.
If the IPC values were rationalized, maybe it’d become wothwhile in more cases.
I totally agree with you. However, the way I do it (and this isn’t very historically correct), is that I bleed IPCs away from Japan itself! Instead of making Japan worth 8, I can lower it to 5 or so, given me IPCs to distriubte elsewhere. This makes the SE Islands much more valuable, which they were in the war (esp. the Indies). Similar I can also lower the value of EUSA and distribute those IC’s to Hawaii or Midway.
With these rules, you have a Pacific Front that is much more intense! And we all know we love expensive carrier battles! :wink: