Can US upgrade Japanese Factory after capture

@nubnumber1 just like a fighter unit in A&A is meant to represent many aircraft,think of a destroyer unit representing a group (flotilla I think is the term) of destroyers.Military history has many examples of small,yet determined, forces delaying the progress of larger forces. eg 101st airborne in Bastogne dec 1944

Just FYI it also ejects any Allied control markers (so if the USA controlled Shan State because you did not have a capital at the time, as soon as you liberate, the USA marker is ejected and it returns to UK control).

This is true of Paris too, so it resets all blue areas back to French ownership upon liberation if they were “liberated” Allied at that time.

^^^^

Yep! Hit Spain and Turkey at the same time. You are obviously not going to DOW neutrals if Italy has Egypt / middle east or if Japan is a monster. At the same time you are not going to Norway either under those conditions either.

Spain is a perfect shuck, easy to defend port, and you only have 1 fleet to defend. Great way to close out the game.

@Cow:

You get the middle east by buying air and attacking ground with it.

Air force > Navy in this game

@Nippon-koku:

Great points all around.  I’m starting to think Japan would have to attack turn 1 for this to work, like Wild Bill suggested.  Get it right off the bat.

Maybe a better first round buy would be 1 factory and 2 transports?  I agree you still have to get men down to the DEI.  The good news: if you can keep America from heading down that way for a while you can take the islands with minimal sea power.

Exactly, with US at port the other Pac allies are backing up.

I like to save the IC purchase for J2 so I can place it on FIC, might buy 3 transports, or maybe 2 transports +dd to replace losses. J2 you can take Malaya, and start grabbing Money Islands etc….as you press Hawaii which could be ripe for the taking as well.

Ok that’s a pretty good spot for it. I had a feeling you weren’t leaving it there to be destroyed. Thanks for the quick response.

The US was a mechanized force, and those mechs can be useful in N. Africa, but I do agree that the value of mech is much lower than in the real war.

@knp7765:

<snip>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?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.