Okay, so I can understand that if USA goes 100% either way, it is usually doom for the Axis. One side get’s smashed while the other side just can’t get enough VCs to win before all the Allies are bearing down on it. This makes many of you feel that the game is imbalanced toward the Allies. However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis? As one who normally plays an Axis power, yeah I like to win it but I don’t want to win every time with almost no fear of losing the game. Also, I know that historically the US did go both ways and we of course crushed the Axis. I am not sure you could properly simulate that in this game unless you actually raised the US income. There has been talk of changing certain NOs, particularly the one involving Mexico and the Carribbean, for something in the Atlantic, Africa or Europe itself. Well, how about not changing ANY of the current NOs, but rather ADDING some new ones in the European theater. Yes, it will make the US income even larger, but they will need more if they HAVE to invest in both theaters.
As a side note, before the US was actually in the war, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that when the US was finally in the war, defeat of Germany would take precedence over Japan. When war did come, and Hitler and Mussolini were stupid enough to declare war on the US, the majority of the funding did go toward the European theater. As big as the operations might have been in the Pacific, as far as funding went it was almost like an afterthought compared to the preparations for the Atlantic side. So, maybe having the US adopt a KGF strategy in the game would be more in line historically.