I chose US is to strong, but it’s only that way when they use over 90% of there resources in only one theater for an extended period of time IMO.
The other things discussed seem to have a balance, or consequence.
UK attacks Italian fleet (one or the other), but most times the UK Med fleet is lost in the process along with much of the RAF. I know it is a bummer to play Italy once it loses the navy, but the UK is in the same boat so to speak, and you may have just cleared the path for a Sea lion. The only difference is that the US can back the UK getting it back on track (if it chooses to), and Italy normally can’t recover easily in the Med, because Germany has its hands full.
Sea lion is doable, but Russia will only be 2 spaces from Berlin with a hoard of units and will be very difficult to deal with. You will also have a hard time keeping them from getting a 3 IPC NO for each green tt for quite some time. This is also one of the reasons I would be against a Romanian IC to start. It would be nearly imposable to Sea lion, because you most likely would be giving up that forward IC to the Russians. I don’t think you (as Germany) could keep it, your best chance is to trade it to keep them from using it. If that’s not enough the US could also be steaming your way. Sea lion takes a lot of wind out of your sails, even when it is successful.
Honestly, I don’t have a lot of experience with the US using all of its income in one side or the other for extended periods of time (7-8 rounds or more), we are just now exploring that (defiantly changes things). Some games in our group the US will use all its income for 2-3 rounds in one direction, but then lends a hand for the other side. Evidently this could be a losing recipe, switching gears to early. We normally play FTF for fun, not trying to see if something is broken, but I can see the US being used in this manner to achieve victory in most games (dice and mistakes could still cost you the game). It’s my hope that Alpha 3 doesn’t force an economical split like UK (not even on the table), but it cost the US to much income for doing that (more self governing).
The NO’s are one way of doing that, but they also add a lot more income to a game that starts out with a lot more base salary. Are NO’s becoming the tail that wags the dog as Larry would say? I would be equally interested in ways to remove income from a power for ignoring its obligations and goals, as rewarding it for achieving them. Case in point like the Russian lend lease NO of now having US ships being present in sz 125 (would have been ok w/UK as well, thinking they would most likely need the help of the US anyway). I would also like to see Brazil added to the Mex NO for the defense of US interests to the south, don’t live up to your responsibilities lose income. The newly proposed Jap/US island NO’s will take more resources to achieve I think, so this could also remove income from the Pac theater. This will all depend on how much of a commitment the US has in the Pacific as to who gets its bonus. If there is a reward (NO bonus) for getting the US ground unis to Europe (should be something for this), I hope that it isn’t an extra 5 IPCs US can earn. Its other NO’s should be reduced or combined to make up for it (w/o axing the Mex NO IMO).