Quick Fix to the Balance Issue

[Veqryn]

Instead of this: Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, Australia, and/or India

Japan’s 3rd National Objective should read:

Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, and/or Australia

Bang! No other fixes needed.  No need for China mod, No need for bidding the NOs down, You can still cash or unit bid if one player is weaker.
I mean, face it, Japan is going to get India no matter what anyway, and they are going to keep it no matter what too.  Unlike all the other 3rd National Objectives of all the other nations, Japan’s is the only one that can’t be taken back by the enemy the very next turn under normal circumstances.  Since it is Japan’s job to pressure Moscow, the Caucasus, and British and Russian income, having her 3rd NO look like this will force her to either focus a bit more on the pacific islands, or she can continue to attack russia but with just 5 less income than normal (so 60 instead of 65, which is STILL ridiculous).  Can work for both 1941 and 1942.

PS: we are talking about the game WITH NO’s, so if you play the game without it, this thread isn’t up your alley

[squirecam]

@Veqryn:

Instead of this: Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, Australia, and/or India

Japan’s 3rd National Objective should read:

Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, and/or Australia

Bang! No other fixes needed.  No need for China mod, No need for bidding the NOs down, You can still cash or unit bid if one player is weaker.
I mean, face it, Japan is going to get India no matter what anyway, and they are going to keep it no matter what too.  Unlike all the other 3rd National Objectives of all the other nations, Japan’s is the only one that can’t be taken back by the enemy the very next turn under normal circumstances.  Since it is Japan’s job to pressure Moscow, the Caucasus, and British and Russian income, having her 3rd NO look like this will force her to either focus a bit more on the pacific islands, or she can continue to attack russia but with just 5 less income than normal (so 60 instead of 65, which is STILL ridiculous).  Can work for both 1941 and 1942.

How about playing without National objectives. Even simpler fix.

[Lucifer]

It’s more fun to play with NOs, and w/o NOs we still need somekind of bid, but for (edit:) axis instead of allies.

[squirecam]

Better an axis bid, then to turn china into a “seventh country”. Thats not the intent of the game, giving them huge inf # or an IC.

[Funcioneta]

@squirecam:

Better an axis bid, then to turn china into a “seventh country”. Thats not the intent of the game, giving them huge inf # or an IC.

Huge? LOL!

Better tell “some infs to make China an aid to allies instead of a boost for axis” instead of “1 lone and last inf after China 1”  :-D

[squirecam]

@Funcioneta:

@squirecam:

Better an axis bid, then to turn china into a “seventh country”. Thats not the intent of the game, giving them huge inf # or an IC.

Huge? LOL!

Better tell “some infs to make China an aid to allies instead of a boost for axis” instead of “1 lone and last inf after China 1”  :-D

If you give china 4 (or more) infantry, this allows them to keep the fighter, which exponentially increases their attack power.

So yes, IMHO, a +12 bid + a fighter is a huge boost to China. Add an IC and its greater.

[CalmDragon]

What balance issue?  Have you played/simmed ten thousand games and noticed one side has an advantage over the other?  In the few dozen games I’ve played in, with NOs and Tech, the axis and the allies in AA50 seem to be evenly matched.

[TimTheEnchanter]

I always like to read these kinds of topics to see which side the OP thinks has an advantage that needs to be neutralized.

[axis_roll]

@TimTheEnchanter:

I always like to read these kinds of topics to see which side the OP thinks has an advantage that needs to be neutralized.

OP = Opponent?

[Veqryn]

Did you guys even read my reasoning?

It would make the Pacific an area that the Japanese will attack, rather than just half-heartedly defend.

[Croggyl]

@axis_roll:

@TimTheEnchanter:

I always like to read these kinds of topics to see which side the OP thinks has an advantage that needs to be neutralized.

OP = Opponent?

Original Poster

[Funcioneta]

@squirecam:

If you give china 4 (or more) infantry, this allows them to keep the fighter, which exponentially increases their attack power.

So yes, IMHO, a +12 bid + a fighter is a huge boost to China. Add an IC and its greater.

Yep, that was the idea. China needs that boost, and also allies and the whole game

Sure, you can play without NOs, without the new shiny techs, going KGF 100 of 100 games and with LL and then maybe allies have a chance (I doubt it). But then it would be better play Revised

[Lucifer]

@ Func, I don’t think you really played the game if you doubt that allies are favored w/o NOs, and the reason why players prefer some strats and not other strats, is b/c they want to win the game.

[beerbelly]

I only play w/o NOs (no tech also) and I’ve found that format to be quite balanced for both teams.

I haven’t found a “best” strategy to consistently win with either side so far.  In this format, KGF is a viable strategy for the Allies, but so is USA going heavy Pacific.  The game is simply decided much earlier if the Allies choose the KGF strategy.

[critmonster]

_Posted by: Veqryn
Instead of this: Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, Australia, and/or India

Japan’s 3rd National Objective should read:

Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, and/or Australia_

great idea, or make it two of the three (HI, Aussie, India)