@ckladman Yes, the game tends to favor the allies without objectives, and the axis with. To balance, you could trying giving a bid (additional starting units) to the side that is at a disadvantage, or play with objectives but reduce the payout. (3 ipcs vs 5.)
How to achieve balance part 2-> bids
-
In my opinion the largest reason the pacific theater is so messed up is because of the atlantic theater being flawed. Without US aid G/I become to large to ignore and you yield economic advantage to the axis. Not to mention you go where the money is, and it is in Europe.
While Africa isn’t worth much to the allies, thats 10+ IPC to deny to the axis. Finland/Norway are easy to take in a KGF so there is another 5. There is also the beautiful 10 IPC Russian NO that is very possible to get by turn 3-5, as well as france, worth a whopping 16 to the allies just in trading! France is the single, most valuable territory to hold in this game. On top of this it is possible to deny germany it’s NOs when using a KGF approach, they should only get 3 nos maybe one turn, and should be down to 1 or none around turn 5. You cannot do that to Japan.
What can you get economically in the pacific in early game for allies, 1 UK NO? Maybe an island? And your going to prevent japan from all 3 of her NOs how exactly?
Good points and
Well said. -
Pacific isn’t really about grabbing IPCs, unlike Europe. So a pure KJF is unlikely. But a pure KGF is problematic as well since Japan can send everything against Russia if USA ignores Pacific. I find it harder to play Axis when USA builds some stuff in Pacific while still investing a majority of IPCs against Europe. Japan will then be forced to keep its fleet together and a majority of its air force, seriously weakening its mainland advance (also protecting Africa from being invaded). If Japan admits the Yanks into the Pacific, UK and US will gain IPCs and Japan lose them, this is unlikely to happen against good Jap play but the threat of it happening is good enough to shelter Russia from a full onslaught.
That said, I think Japan still is too strong, hence China inf bids being the best thing in my eyes, but AA50 at least gives a better reason to invest in Pacific as USA. Also a major reason for this is the surviving CV at-start which gives the US a real chance of building a fleet quite cheaply. Japan should be forced to fight a two-front war, just like Germany!
-
Japan makes 65 IPCs every turn at turn 3, America makes 48 IPCs every turn at turn 3. Nuff said.
That’s true in case of building Pacific navy as USA. Without it, and Japan going Polar Express, Japan can reach 70 and USA will be reduced to 40 (1 USA NO, Alaska, Hawaii and Wcan). Japan could split her income: 40 IPCs against USA and the other 30 against UK and soviets. I doubt euroallies can hold much alone against euroaxis + 30 japanese IPCs
-
Quick side point: why on earth does Japan make 60-65 / turn. It’s 50% more than the US. It’s absurd.
I realise that the game’s an abstraction, but I have trouble suspending disbelief on this one…
-
Pacific isn’t really about grabbing IPCs, unlike Europe. So a pure KJF is unlikely. But a pure KGF is problematic as well since Japan can send everything against Russia if USA ignores Pacific. I find it harder to play Axis when USA builds some stuff in Pacific while still investing a majority of IPCs against Europe. Japan will then be forced to keep its fleet together and a majority of its air force, seriously weakening its mainland advance (also protecting Africa from being invaded). If Japan admits the Yanks into the Pacific, UK and US will gain IPCs and Japan lose them, this is unlikely to happen against good Jap play but the threat of it happening is good enough to shelter Russia from a full onslaught.
That said, I think Japan still is too strong, hence China inf bids being the best thing in my eyes, but AA50 at least gives a better reason to invest in Pacific as USA. Also a major reason for this is the surviving CV at-start which gives the US a real chance of building a fleet quite cheaply. Japan should be forced to fight a two-front war, just like Germany!
I largely agree with this. I’m leaning to the view that USA is better off mainly in the pacific and sending a small contingent to north africa to keep italy in check and threaten landings. Japan’s IPC can be more effectively deployed against russia than america’s can against Gitaly. Thus, if you send american assets at Japan… net gain (irrespective of the value of the pacific). You can force Japan to build boats, which will not help them at all against russia.
But it’s also very tempting to let japan have its pacific lake and send everything to Dday…
-
So russia is going to stack buryatia AND get their second NO against Germany by round 3? Perhaps with help of an an even weakened UK navy that is sending DD’s to the pacific….
I’m not necessarily saying you can do this all at once, but I was just throwing out options. I haven’t played that many games of AA50, but I can see myself trying a Bury stack in one game, or a UK move to Pac in another, etc. Unless other have tried them and the game is posted where I can read the moves it didn’t work.
As for the 2nd Russian NO, that can be independent of the other moves. I mean Russia always has the option to attack Fin in Rd 1, pending Ger moves Nor can then be taken by Rus or UK in Rd 2, meanwhile you probably have a decent stack of Inf 7-9, mabye 1 arm in Cauc at the end of R1, that can easily be moved to Ukr on R2 (since Ger tends to focus on Kar early and is lacking in Inf to start), and that makes Bul tradeable for your 2nd NO. A Bury stack is somewaht irrelevant since theose Inf can’t get to Mos for like 4-5 rds.
To what end does threatening a few islands really mean?
The US fleet could never venture close enough to Japan as early as US2.How long can US sacrifice transports for small island gains?
It will be many rounds of USA full income pacific spending before USA can go on the offensive against the IJN.
And what happens to the European theatre while US concentrates all their money in the Pacific? Germany and Italy will go largely unchecked.
It really depends on the overall Allied strat. I wouldn’t claim there is some automatic way where if you do this then you automatcally will win.
But the US does start with 4 ftrs, 2 bom, 1 ac, 1 dd, and Japan will typically buy an IC (or perhaps another trn) rarely have I seen Japan immediate go offensive navy on J1. So if the US buys something like 1 AC, 1 dd, 3 subs you immediately have 3 subs, 2 dd, 2 ac, 4 ftrs in Sz 56. Can this sink the J fleet? No. But will Japan make an effort to try and sink your fleet? I don’t know.
IMO one of the key things about navies is you don’t have to sink them, and trying to sink them can be a huge pain. BUT you can manuever them and use blocker ships etc. If you can force the IJN back to its home island sz early enough it is equivalent to sinking it. From there the burden is on them to sink your fleet since you can now claim all the islands at your leisure. Also depending on timing you can afford to lose Mos to Ger if it means you’ll eventually get Japan.
I do agree though, that it is slightly worse off for the US b/c they cannot gain credit for Bor or EI. In AA50 you essentially have to gun for Phil, which is fine and doable but it would be a bit better to be able to go from Sol to EI, to Bor, then to Phil.
I’m still more of a KGF player since Germany is main threat in AA50 but I also like to try new stuff from time to time. Eventually I’ll get around to testing more things in the Pac.
-
on paper, it sounds very doable for USA
In reality, it is much harder. The ROI is very low for USA.
The only thing (as you pointed out) is keeping Japan tied up… but how much that slow them up, really? It is proportionally a lot less that how much that same US investment in Europe/Africa slows down the axis.
Japan can just ignore the US fleet and continue to push hard on Russia since they have 3 loaded carriers already, adding a few support ships when US comes closer.
Or with 3 carriers and already 7-9 ftrs, a small investment in a few more ftrs can allow 12 ftrs to rain down on the US fleet if they are silly enough to venture close enough.
There’s really no big prize for US (again, as you pointed out) that is not within 2 SZs of Japan.
-
I largely agree with this. I’m leaning to the view that USA is better off mainly in the pacific and sending a small contingent to north africa to keep italy in check and threaten landings. Japan’s IPC can be more effectively deployed against russia than america’s can against Gitaly. Thus, if you send american assets at Japan… net gain (irrespective of the value of the pacific). You can force Japan to build boats, which will not help them at all against russia.
But it’s also very tempting to let japan have its pacific lake and send everything to Dday…
The actual involvement you want to have with the US in Europe depends on how you play UK. If you buy a Saf IC, for example, you might need to use US bombers+1CV+2DDs or something like that to sink Italy navy while UK navy is tied up around Karelia. Or if you don’t build a Saf IC, early invasions into Algeria with tanks + sinking of Italian navy is paramount. What you describe sounds like a too weak US Europe involvement, unless Germany got really unlucky on G1.
But back to the main question: what kind of bid? How would China inf bids change the game? Guessing, without having tried it, I would think the other Allies would be tempted to play more offensively vs. Japan, esp. Russia on the mainland and USA off West coast, so that Japan won’t just be able to build up for the kill vs. China at leisure. UK has a hard time reaching Japan, probably having to go the long way through Africa. Or maybe an India IC would be worth the commitment? Maybe we’re reaching the point where we need to test it out… Anyone up for a test game PBF with 4 extra China inf? I’ll play either side!
-
on paper, it sounds very doable for USA
In reality, it is much harder. The ROI is very low for USA.
The only thing (as you pointed out) is keeping Japan tied up… but how much that slow them up, really? It is proportionally a lot less that how much that same US investment in Europe/Africa slows down the axis.
Japan can just ignore the US fleet and continue to push hard on Russia since they have 3 loaded carriers already, adding a few support ships when US comes closer.
Or with 3 carriers and already 7-9 ftrs, a small investment in a few more ftrs can allow 12 ftrs to rain down on the US fleet if they are silly enough to venture close enough.
There’s really no big prize for US (again, as you pointed out) that is not within 2 SZs of Japan.
I agree which is why I play more KGF. Worst Case US can shuck from Ecan to Mos in 3 turns if Japan is a threat. Plus I think you can cripple Germany long before Japan is ever a threat, but I still don’t mind looking for some type of Allied Pacific threat.
But back to the main question: what kind of bid? How would China inf bids change the game? Guessing, without having tried it, I would think the other Allies would be tempted to play more offensively vs. Japan, esp. Russia on the mainland and USA off West coast, so that Japan won’t just be able to build up for the kill vs. China at leisure. UK has a hard time reaching Japan, probably having to go the long way through Africa. Or maybe an India IC would be worth the commitment? Maybe we’re reaching the point where we need to test it out… Anyone up for a test game PBF with 4 extra China inf? I’ll play either side!
I don’t think it would have much of an effect or achieve the desired result. Germany is still the early game threat. Perhaps this helps in the mid game (slightly delaying Japan) but if Ger is Kar in rd 2 or 3 or they can threaten the Ita/Ger can opener in rd 3 or 4, I don’t think the Allies are going to be as concerned about as Asia as they are about trying to slow down Germany. If anything I think this helps with a KGF.
-
Anyone up for a test game PBF with 4 extra China inf? I’ll play either side!
I’m willing to do. Sadly, we have to wait until mid June, after my exams end. I only can play one game at the same time until that date, and I have one now against JWW
-
I don’t think it would have much of an effect or achieve the desired result. Germany is still the early game threat. Perhaps this helps in the mid game (slightly delaying Japan) but if Ger is Kar in rd 2 or 3 or they can threaten the Ita/Ger can opener in rd 3 or 4, I don’t think the Allies are going to be as concerned about as Asia as they are about trying to slow down Germany. If anything I think this helps with a KGF.
It cannot help a KGF. Even for that strat, it’s better having a stronger China than 1 inf at end of China 1
However, if you are saying that a stronger China could make some people get even more decided to do KGF, I must I agree. I would not do, but it’s obvious that there are many people that will make KGF, no matter what setup/rules we have in Asia, and many can think that the added time will aid KGF more than KJF or balanced strats. That in the first games of course. Time will force the people to shift to Pacific strats or keep the old ignore Japan thinking :-)
Anyway, a unlimited bid will enforce KGF without doubt, because many will bid to Egypt or Soviet Union. I think that zones are well balanced and it would be a pity if we “balance” the non-broken zones and keep the setup were the problem is -> Asia
Another idea is limited bid to China and India. I wonder if it would be possible a India IC with that type of bid …
-
However, if you are saying that a stronger China could make some people get even more decided to do KGF, I must I agree.
Yes, this. The theory behind KGF is simply to cripple Germany before Japan can hold Novo/Kaz or Cauc in large numbers. In AA50, it takes Japan like 6-8 turns to get a significant army to Moscow (usually via Ind-Per). So IF you do play KGF you are gambling that you can cripple Germany in 6 rds, at which point you turn all three Allies against Japan (if Berlin is too hard to immediately crack). Now placing a few more inf in China now tells a player, hey the Allies now have an extra turn or two before Japan can get to Mos. Do I build ships with the US and try and tackle the J navy (a difficult proposition), or do I use the China inf as an extra road block and try and really shut down Ger with the extra time? I think more people will choose going after Germany.
I think if the goal is to have more fighting in Asia or the Pac then you need game modifications (ie China mod, reallocation of Pac IPCs, house rules) not bids. There has to be some benefit for spending all those IPCs in the Pac. There just isn’t much Allied benefit. Much of Asia is China or Russia (US or UK can’t gain IPCs) and the US can’t place an IC anywhere other than maybe Phil. Your asking the Allies to make a major commitment to theatre where there is little financial gain.
Perhaps if you consider China as some type of territory where once it is conquered by Japan that if it gets liberated the liberating power gets credit for the IPC then maybe you can do something, but as it is the only benefit to keeping China is to prevent the IPC from going to Japan but all that encourages is a player to play just enough defense.
-
You are making a valid point, DM: a bid will enforce KGF (if you are a KGF supporter, the most of gaming community), and it doesn’t matter if we limite or not the bid to China. All assuming that Japan choose JTDTM
So, the important question here is if Polar Express is enough powerfull this time to prevent KGF strats. Obviously, if Japan can make a invassion enough strong to hold all or almost all USA’s income in defense of mainland America while sending some forces to Africa, then euroallies will have no chance of surviving
I guess that if Polar Express is tried many times and starts to win most of them, only then people will shift to balanced/KJF strats. I think it worst the try, at least Alaska is nearer from Tokyo than Moscow. The same is valid maybe for JTDTM, I guess that if JTDTM shows as too easy, people will try KJF
-
Come to think of it, it’s true that a China bid might inspire KGF because the Allies will probably have 1 more turn before Moscow will fall to Japan. But at least this way 1) the game will be balanced and 2) it will appear more historical.
However, a China bid can’t hurt a KJF strat–it certainly doesn’t make a KJF any harder. Whereas the alternatives (bidding to Egypt or Karelia) is geared towards Germany.
-
Come to think of it, it’s true that a China bid might inspire KGF because the Allies will probably have 1 more turn before Moscow will fall to Japan. But at least this way 1) the game will be balanced and 2) it will appear more historical.
However, a China bid can’t hurt a KJF strat–it certainly doesn’t make a KJF any harder. Whereas the alternatives (bidding to Egypt or Karelia) is geared towards Germany.
Anything that would encourage a KGF is a bad idea.
I’d rather see more IPC in the pacific.
-
What if the bid was for US ships at WUSA? Say a bid of an extra DD or Cruiser could deter an attack from IJN fighter on J1. Maybe this could help promote a global war.
Or how about removing a fighter from the Midway IJN fleet? This would give them 3 and I would not feel comfortable using only 2 fighter vs a BB. This would leave the USN alone in WUSA. This removed fighter could be placed on an island somewhere….
Drastic options, I know, but I thought I’d throw it out there.
-
What if you eliminated the European NO’s?
Neither side gets Euro NO’s, but they DO get Pacific ones.
If the Allies go KGF, this allow Japan to crush the USA, because they wont have Euro NO’s to aid them.
Germany cant get too big. But there is incentive to attack in the pacific.
-
Has anyone just had China’s starting forces for the 1941 the same as '42 scenerio? In the '42 scenerio China has 5 more infantry and Japan’s forces are mostly the same but a little more spread out. I think they should of China more like AAP. Most of the China territories not worth anything. There should be a Burma road national advantage for China as well. I also think Chungking should be a victory city. India and Australia should start with factories or at least be able to build infantry. All in all I think AAE and AAP have a lot more historical flavor than AA50 and still give the Axis a chance at victory.
-
You mean like a rule like this: Every turn the allies control India and Burma = 1 free inf in india or burma? it would be useless since the japs take burma j1 anyway, but it is an interesting idea.
I do like the idea of a chinese NO, but the problem with it is that they will never get it -
Well, if India starts off with a factory or at least can build infantry the UK could challenge the Japs for Burma.
Suggested Topics
