Italy

Breaking away from the Second World War and paying a visit and tribute to the First World War. Coming this March, 2013
User avatar
Yavid
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:25 am
Contact:

Re: Italy

Post by Yavid » Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:05 pm

Flash I'm fully aware of what you're saying and why you are saying it. Which btw I agree with you if Neutral set-up accounted for multiple dead turns. But it doesn't and there is no president for such a rule. It's all I was saying.
Behold the Power of Yavid

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Re: Italy

Post by Flashman » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:20 pm

By dead turns I assume you mean individual players not getting a turn.

Turkey still gets to declare war and play on round one; it's just neutral for purposes of other countries playing earlier relative to it.

Italy gets to do the same on round two, so only misses one turn, and that only if nobody attacks it on round one.

America is a problem, but most agree that Russia and America should be controlled by the same player. Remember all that confusion on initial release about not knowing if the US could sail troops to Europe before declaring war - that was just a complete mess. There is no excuse for artificially getting the Doughboys into battle prematurely just for the sake of the poor old 8th player, even assuming you have 8 players.

User avatar
Yavid
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:25 am
Contact:

Re: Italy

Post by Yavid » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:04 pm

by dead turns I mean not getting a full turn being allowed to send and receive cash. Skipping combat is one thing but skipping sending and receiving money is another.
Behold the Power of Yavid

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Re: Italy

Post by Flashman » Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:58 am

But spending money on increasing your military and moving units into position for war are things that nations at peace don't do.

They keep fighting forces up to the peacetime level they can afford, and keep them on station in essentially defensive positions.

Remember that Wilson was re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war ticket - the American public would not stand for more of their taxes being spent on the military when they had no interest in getting involved in the war. America expanding its forces in 1914 is just not realistic; but when it does join it needs to pack a punch, hence no building at peace but a bigger income at war. Before that the player is busy controlling the Russian war effort.

User avatar
Yavid
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:25 am
Contact:

Re: Italy

Post by Yavid » Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:39 pm

Flashman wrote:But spending money on increasing your military and moving units into position for war are things that nations at peace don't do.

They keep fighting forces up to the peacetime level they can afford, and keep them on station in essentially defensive positions.

Remember that Wilson was re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war ticket - the American public would not stand for more of their taxes being spent on the military when they had no interest in getting involved in the war. America expanding its forces in 1914 is just not realistic; but when it does join it needs to pack a punch, hence no building at peace but a bigger income at war. Before that the player is busy controlling the Russian war effort.
I'm not saying I don't agree with you that it doesn't make real world sense. I do agree it makes next to no real world sense. but to just say America can't collect or send any money for 4 turns would be a huge set back for the Allied cause. Pacific '40 and Xeno's World at War I think got it right. Your income is this before you declare war and this new cool much higher number after. Because America did do some build-up before the war as did Russia.
Behold the Power of Yavid

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Re: Italy

Post by Flashman » Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:32 am

But why not just increase US basic income so that when war is declared they have the clout to make a difference, indeed ultimately guarantee Allied victory if the CPs do not obtain their goals before America is fully mobilized?

For me, having a power take a turn in which it can nothing but buy units only serves to slow the game down. Better to ignore America until it enters the war; the controlling player should have enough on his plate preventing Russia being KOed.

WILD BILL
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Italy

Post by WILD BILL » Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:09 pm

As I said before, most of what you said makes sense Flash. With that said there is more then one way to skin a cat. In AA1914 the US could have had a peace time spending budget (or none at all), then ratchet it when they enter the war with conscription being part of it (defiantly would work, and seem very logical). They went a different route and figured out what the US should have when it enters the war to have the expected impact round 4-5, blended their income over 3-4 turns to achieve the same thing. It was less to explain in the rule book and pretty much in line with other AA games.

I will say that the US being able to load transports, float across the pond, and even land in Europe OOB was horrible. It showed either a lack of play testing, or the assumption at testing was you couldn't do it (but just got over looked in the rules). That was remedied ASAP, and the movement restrictions for the US was put in place.

Similar actions were taken for the US prewar in G40 if you remember (think they would have picked up on that for AA1914 LOL). Originally the US could get into position on the Europe side (just couldn't be next to Europe or Africa). That was re-worked to where you pretty much had to stay in port on the Europe side before the US went to war.

In G40 there was an attempt to show a difference in budget between war prep, and going to war for the US. The 20 IPC at war NO bonus to simulate the "Arsenal of Democracy" is a sizable bump to the US income (35%), but it could have been a higher NO (say 35 IPCs), with a lower starting income (say 35-37 IPCs). This would have given the US a 100% bump in income when going to war, while keeping their war time income the same around 70 IPC for the rest of the game (unless they lost some NO's or have territory gains), and result in building fewer capital ships before going to war. Of course you might have also had to tweak the Japanese or US starting units a bit, but you wouldn't necessarily have had to change the territory values of the US on the map. Could just say that the territory values of the 3 US production centers are reduced by 5 IPC each (15 IPC total) until they are upgraded to major ICs (go to war). This would put the US pre-war income at 37 IPCs, and at war income at 72 IPC's, or at 70 IPCs when Philp is taken (same as it is now).

I have to say that in G40 the USA buying a Battleship, and 2 carriers (52 IPCs) the first 2 turns has become pretty standard (OR ITS EQUIVALENT). This seems way out of the budget for a nation not at war (I don't really know what ships the US was building in 1940-41 but this seems over the top). I think as you do that the US pre-war budget could have been sliced (as above), but it didn't go that way for these games, maybe for the next AA game(s) that will change to reflect changes in budget better.

User avatar
Yavid
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:25 am
Contact:

Re: Italy

Post by Yavid » Wed Jan 01, 2014 4:31 pm

Flashman: that would be the best imo. something like doubling the standard US income in exchange the US forgos there income in peace time.

WildBill: Everything you said top to bottom I agree with. You do need to remember about the US dropping Carriers and Battleships in the Pacific pre-war that the US had just passed the Two Ocean Navy Act calling for massive Navy building. It basically called for doubling the size of the US Navy so that Pacific fleet and the Atlantic fleet were the same size. And before you say it. the Atlantic fleet is horribly represented in the game. The Atlantic Fleet had both Carriers and Battleships. and several times during the war ships were moved from the Atlantic Fleet to the Pacific because the Pacific fleet needed the help. The Iowa, The New Jersey and The Wasp were all Atlantic fleet ships reassigned to the Pacific.
Behold the Power of Yavid

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest