What impact will the USA have, if any?

@ch0senfktard:

@ossel:

Yeah, I agree that the U.S. shouldn’t be able to do anything before war is declared, but if that’s the case, they should have a much bigger starting land army. Lets not forget that, although they didn’t prepare for the war, they eventually deployed 2 million troops to the Western front, and I think they currently only start with like 6 infantry.

Don’t think I can agree with a larger army.
What they should have is a larger navy.

Alright, let’s do some math.

France had mobilized roughly 4 million troops by the time the war started. In the game, they start with 30 infantry and 8 artillery, or 122 IPC’s worth of land units.

When the U.S. entered the war, they deployed 2 million troops, or half of the French initial mobilization. This implies that by the time they enter the war, they should be able to deploy 61 IPC’s worth of land units. Does that number sound familiar? Yep, 20 IPC’s per turn X 3 turns before the U.S. enters = 60.

This also implies that if you want to deny them the ability to do anything before the war starts, you need to start them with a much larger land army, or give them a lump sum to mobilize with on turn 4.

Forbid them from moving, but not from building.

@oztea:

Forbid them from moving, but not from building.

Forbid them from moving and slash their IPC count to half while not at war. They can still build, but on a 10-IPC-a-turn budget.

Well that missing 10 should be allowed to be transported to Britain or France…and Germany get to shoot at it.

Britain and America were completely different from Continental armies. They didn’t have compulsory military service, which meant that not only did they have tiny professional armies before going to war, but that the masses of men they conscripted had no military training (unlike the large trained reserves of European armies).

Before 1917 the American army was a small militia force, maintained with minimum expense to deal with local difficulties like pro-German coups in Haiti.

When they invaded Mexico in 1916 they couldn’t even find the enemy (Pancho Villa).

The balance must be made between America having virtually no army in February 1917, to having 2 million men in the field in the Summer of 1918.
Too large an income, and the Americans become overwhelming in a few turns, too little and they never get going with enough units.

Certainly have a full USN in place already, after all it took 2 years to build a dreadnought.

The figure for income then should be based on the cost of the number of infantry they sent over in a turn averaged out over the course of the war from American entry. This is very difficult to calculate given the crazy timeline of the game.

Another process I’ve though about is that of equipping this army with British and French weaponry. When they arrived in France the Americans had nothing more than small arms; virtually all the helmets, trucks, horses, planes, tanks and artillery they used were supplied by the Allies. This did not bother the Allies, who had been running out of manpower, but had by now a well developed weapons industry producing a surplus of equipment.

So, keep American income relatively low, but when the purchased infantry arrive the Allies can pay to equip them, the cost being the difference in unit price from infantry.

In essence: Any American infantry unit in an Allied controlled tt in or adjacent to London, Paris or Rome can be upgraded to a tank, artillery or fighter by paying the difference in price. Any Ally can pay this, the upgrade taking place in the purchase units phase of it’s own turn.

A very few American built copies of British planes took part in the last offensives of the war, a few copies of the M6 tank were built in America as “Liberty Tanks”, but none arrived in time to see combat.

@ossel:

@ch0senfktard:

@ossel:

Yeah, I agree that the U.S. shouldn’t be able to do anything before war is declared, but if that’s the case, they should have a much bigger starting land army. Lets not forget that, although they didn’t prepare for the war, they eventually deployed 2 million troops to the Western front, and I think they currently only start with like 6 infantry.

Don’t think I can agree with a larger army.
What they should have is a larger navy.

Alright, let’s do some math.

France had mobilized roughly 4 million troops by the time the war started. In the game, they start with 30 infantry and 8 artillery, or 122 IPC’s worth of land units.

When the U.S. entered the war, they deployed 2 million troops, or half of the French initial mobilization. This implies that by the time they enter the war, they should be able to deploy 61 IPC’s worth of land units. Does that number sound familiar? Yep, 20 IPC’s per turn X 3 turns before the U.S. enters = 60.

This also implies that if you want to deny them the ability to do anything before the war starts, you need to start them with a much larger land army, or give them a lump sum to mobilize with on turn 4.

@Flashman:

Britain and America were completely different from Continental armies. They didn’t have compulsory military service, which meant that not only did they have tiny professional armies before going to war, but that the masses of men they conscripted had no military training (unlike the large trained reserves of European armies).

Understood, I was simply trying to get a baseline understanding in IPC terms of what 2 million men looked like. I based it on known figures for the French army.

@Flashman:

The figure for income then should be based on the cost of the number of infantry they sent over in a turn averaged out over the course of the war from American entry. This is very difficult to calculate given the crazy timeline of the game.

I think my explanation was more than sufficient. The U.S. needs to have 60 IPC’s worth of land units by the time they go to war (on turn 4), and they do with the OOB rules.

@Flashman:

Another process I’ve though about is that of equipping this army with British and French weaponry. When they arrived in France the Americans had nothing more than small arms; virtually all the helmets, trucks, horses, planes, tanks and artillery they used were supplied by the Allies. This did not bother the Allies, who had been running out of manpower, but had by now a well developed weapons industry producing a surplus of equipment.

So, keep American income relatively low, but when the purchased infantry arrive the Allies can pay to equip them, the cost being the difference in unit price from infantry.

In essence: Any American infantry unit in an Allied controlled tt in or adjacent to London, Paris or Rome can be upgraded to a tank, artillery or fighter by paying the difference in price. Any Ally can pay this, the upgrade taking place in the purchase units phase of it’s own turn.

I like it. Adds a bit of complexity, but it makes sense.

@ossel:

@Flashman:

Britain and America were completely different from Continental armies. They didn’t have compulsory military service, which meant that not only did they have tiny professional armies before going to war, but that the masses of men they conscripted had no military training (unlike the large trained reserves of European armies).

Understood, I was simply trying to get a baseline understanding in IPC terms of what 2 million men looked like. I based it on known figures for the French army.

If you do that then you have to give Russia a shit ton more than what they start off with.

Too complicated. Just make the US collect half, but get to collect a special extra 20 ipcs the turn it declares war. Then the normal 20 from then on

Not wanting to reignite all that Zimmerman nonsense, but a new look at a possible American entry track:

Lets say the tracks runs from 10 to minus 10, starting at 0.

10 means USA declaring war on the CPs, minus 10 it declared war on the Allies. Right.

Factors:

Each full year of the war in Europe; (each 4 turns by my chronology): +1

Declaration of USW by the CPs: +2

Activation of Mexico by Germany (on my map): +3

Each neutral attacked by the CPs: +1

Each neutral attacked by the Allies: -1

Note: Attacks on an aligned neutral count the same, as long as it is not active. i.e. if Germany attacks Belgium G1 it moves the US +1 towards war; but if it attacks Belgium G2 after France has activated it there is no effect.

The USA can never invade neutrals. Except Mexico. The Germans can declare war then, if they want.

Overthrow of the Tzar: +2

American election: At the end of the American Winter 1916/7 turn the election is held (roll a die?); if the Republicans win: +2

KISS
Tracks are complicated

@Croesus:

KISS
Tracks are complicated

Why? If you want KISS, have KISS rules then.
We already know the US rules, so why not share all house rule ideas? KISS or not.
I’d like to play a game with “complicated” house rules one day. I probably won’t find the people to play it with, but still interested nonetheless.

It seems like the U.S. as a playable nation might just not work in this game.  Playing as US would probably be as fun as playing China in global.

I would suggest just dropping US as a playable nation.  Have the U.S.'s role in the game be extra IPCs to either france/UK and/or ever increasing automatic infantry that gets deployed to the front.  This would start after the US declaration of war.

Honestly, I can’t blame LH from including the US but functionally it doesn’t make alot of sense in the game.

@Cyprian:

It seems like the U.S. as a playable nation might just not work in this game.  Playing as US would probably be as fun as playing China in global.

I would suggest just dropping US as a playable nation.  Have the U.S.'s role in the game be extra IPCs to either france/UK and/or ever increasing automatic infantry that gets deployed to the front.  This would start after the US declaration of war.

Honestly, I can’t blame LH from including the US but functionally it doesn’t make alot of sense in the game.

Well, the US doesn’t get very much money, and they did eventually get over to fighting in Europe.  Plus it gives you a slightly larger Atlantic for German Subs to roam, so its not all bad.

Also- it gives the Allies a bit of flexibility- Instead of the US ‘turning up’ in the same territory every turn they can be routed to where they are needed (Med or France or England)

@Cyprian:

It seems like the U.S. as a playable nation might just not work in this game.  Playing as US would probably be as fun as playing China in global.

I would suggest just dropping US as a playable nation.  Have the U.S.'s role in the game be extra IPCs to either france/UK and/or ever increasing automatic infantry that gets deployed to the front.  This would start after the US declaration of war.

Honestly, I can’t blame LH from including the US but functionally it doesn’t make alot of sense in the game.

This is exactly what I was talking about here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30209.15

You can’t simulate 2 million men with just a few extra IPC’s, and you shouldn’t. The U.S. arrived late to the game, but they played a significant role against the Germans, who as you’ll remember had just had one of their fronts pacified.

Again, I challenge all of you who think the U.S. was insignificant in the war to drop them from the game, and see how you fare as the Allies.

As far as the ‘fun’ factor, this is why everyone is suggesting that one player plays both Russia and the U.S.; Russia will most likely drop out of the game as the U.S. is entering.

@ossel:

@Cyprian:

It seems like the U.S. as a playable nation might just not work in this game.  Playing as US would probably be as fun as playing China in global.

I would suggest just dropping US as a playable nation.  Have the U.S.'s role in the game be extra IPCs to either france/UK and/or ever increasing automatic infantry that gets deployed to the front.  This would start after the US declaration of war.

Honestly, I can’t blame LH from including the US but functionally it doesn’t make alot of sense in the game.

This is exactly what I was talking about here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30209.15

You can’t simulate 2 million men with just a few extra IPC’s, and you shouldn’t. The U.S. arrived late to the game, but they played a significant role against the Germans, who as you’ll remember had just had one of their fronts pacified.

Again, I challenge all of you who think the U.S. was insignificant in the war to drop them from the game, and see how you fare as the Allies.

As far as the ‘fun’ factor, this is why everyone is suggesting that one player plays both Russia and the U.S.; Russia will most likely drop out of the game as the U.S. is entering.

Agree with you.  One thing though- in my limited experience with playing A&A Global with more than 4 players (dozen games with 5-7 people), greater than 4 players begins to become unwieldy.  You start to have player waiting an hour to play their turn and/or their country getting marginalized early.  How much fun would it be to be the Italian or Ottoman player after they are all but dead?  None.  So the ‘7th’ player that plays Russia/US would still be bored.

Think the optimal group for face to face is 4 people (maybe 5… maybe.)

I think it depends on your people …

You describe it as if they would go and watch tv when its not their turn.  :|

Speaking for me, I need the time during others turn to plan my next moves and I also enjoy watchin the others play and combat each other. Last week I played A&A for the first time after years with two friends. I was the Allies and I hated it beeing involved within each turn.

KISS house rules are ones we might see at tournaments, or get Larry to rubber stamp. Stuff like delayed/randomized US entry or bare bones tech or something.

Get too complicated, and they will never see the light of day.

@Flashman:

America doing ANYTHING before declaring war is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The USA had no intention of becoming involved in a European war. Nor did it set aside any income for future war spending.

The military situations of America in August 1914 and in February 1917 were and should be absolutely identical.

I agree.  Remember people, this is the America of 1917…  not 1941.  The USA was barley considered a World Power (military sense).

The only plausible justification for America having more than a turn’s money to spend in 1917 is the vast interest charged on loans to the Allies. But America went to war partly to secure the repayment of the debts, only likely if the Allies won. It made a big profit from the war, but didn’t expect to collect until after the shooting stopped.

Well, the US’s estimated GDP is double Germany’s in 1913 (admitting using quick wikipedia search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29 ), so it isn’t like the US couldn’t have built up its military and there were many debates about doing so when WWI started (again, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_entry_into_World_War_I).

If different political priorities existed, it isn’t outside the realm of imagination that the US would have built a few ships and trained a small army before 1917 (all you can do with the 60 IPCs from turns 1-3 anyway).  It isn’t like we are talking about the 200 IPCs the US gets in AA1940 if they start the war on turn 4.

If you wanted it to be more historically correct, the US would not be able to build anything in AA1914 until turn 4 and then start collecting ~60 IPC per turn to reflect its industrial might.  But, such a historically accurate economy would be game unbalancing (much like the US getting a more accurate 120 IPCs/turn in Global 1940, based on GDP).