The case for a second US carrier

@surfer said in Can US upgrade Japanese Factory after capture:

Nope. You can only upgrade factories on territories that you originally own/start with.

Actually a power can only upgrade on territories originally controlled by that power.
That does not necessarily include territories a power starts with.
For example Japan starts with Manchuria, that is originally controlled by China.

There is a reason why I strongly prefer to play the axis.

My last live game I was like, “I will give you a Russian bomber, 5 usa inf anywhere in mainland america, a sub in sz 98, and an infantry on new guinea. If I get to be the axis.” He was like “that sounds like a really good deal.”

It was a close game.
~

It is like America’s economic system, it will crash then money will be reallocated based on the social security system. That is the game plan. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense, sure the people who start out with the most monetary wealth in this new system will be the ones who paid into social security the most (makes sense to me). Everyone has other wealth, land, possessions etc so wealthy people will be fine.

I do not see why anyone would be afraid of the dollar collapse.
~

Just try that 5 inf USA, bomber russia, sub 98, inf new guinea. Like if you are good with the axis you should be fine with the allies getting all that stuff.

Thanks!

I see what you’re trying to do with these ideas, but you need to be careful or you’ll make the US-China partnership in the game become a penility for the US which wouldnt be fair. Ideas I have heard have been to do things like;

If the burma road is open allow the US to replace the Chinese fighter if it gets destroyed.
If the burma road is open AND the US is at war allow them to purchase 1 unit for the Chinese per turn.

I like both of these and would better represent the US’s support to the Chinese, and also the importance of the Buram road. The second idea would need to be limited to land and air units only (obviously) but to have no more then 1 of each non-infantry/arty unit type (no more then 1 fighter, tatical bobmber, tank, mech infantry, ect…)

@Young:

@Cmdr:

@Gargantua:

Although I would never “discount” an allied bomber strategy (I like it!)  I would be wary…

Any of these “just build ALL this” strategies, are always susceptible to counter.

I would opt to do something like  “Build atleast 2 bombers a turn + whatever else”  trend.  That should give you a bit of everything you need.  OR build bombers for the European campaign/Ships for the pacific, or whatever else works.

It is amazing you ever doubt me with how often we agree with each other, Gargantua.

He has a reputation to protect.

Then he should NEVER doubt me!

Still fairly new to these forums. Before I begin, I should say our group plays alpha .2 rules, with the exception of no scramble, kamakazis, and we use original strategic bombing (no interceptors). Our group has decided that having the U.S. spend $100+ in just the Atlantic is too good. Also, it seems kind of “unhistorical” if you will. So we split it up giving some of the NOs to East and West United States. They act similarly to UK London and UK India, where war with one is war with the other, same attack move blah blah blah. I was curious if anyone else has tried this?

Oh and just a random afterthought, how do you guys play canals? This is how we play it:

No matter the amount of spaces before entering a canal, you must stop in the SZ before it. Then, on your next turn, the ships may move through, but only a single space. Then normal movement from there on out.

Another version we play is this. No matter the amount of spaces before entering a canal, you must stop in the SZ before it. Then, on your next turn, the ships may move through it at any length the ship could normally move.

We do this for two reasons. One is to keep the U.S. Pacific stuff, in the Pacific. The other is to slow ships moving up from Africa into the Med. Thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Thanks!

The bummer is a damaged carrier can’t land planes.

Yeah the income is from National Objectives.  It is the same in Pacific, only there it is a flat rate increase, rather than being split into 5.