Thanks gents. I’m currently editing my video for upload to YouTube and my argument sounds nearly exactly identical to @Cernel .
I appreciate all the feedback.
How to achieve balance part 2-> bids
-
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.
-
If China gets say 4 inf placed in Yunnan, Japan will have a choice between committing all they got against that space (3 inf, 4 fig) or else go for Burma and bypass Yunnan. Most likely they will lose some fighters in Yunnan, and UK can reinforce India with 2 inf from transjordan. In that scenario, throwing a lot into India, Russian inf and arm, UK and US fighters transferred via Russia and Australia, could be a viable strat together with an IC. On the other hand, if Japan forgo Yunnan, Allies can go heavy into Africa, aiming for 2 ICs in Saf and Egy and stopping the Japanese later around Persia. Russian reinforcements will then go into China which will become a tough nut to crack for the Japs. We should see if considerations like these would change the game before just saying, well, this favours KGF even more!
-
Mmmm… I didn’t noticed 4 figs could attack Yunnan. I counted only two … well, then or 4 infs are not enough bid or the attack in Yunnan is too costly to being really done. It will be interesting see what does the people
Other option is simply move that fighter before starting. It would low the bids in case of chinese restricted bid. Or we could bid all type of units to China, not only infs. Then, maybe a couple of artilleries could compensate the loss of the fighter and this would allow negative bids
I also like the option before said of using 1942 setup for China in 1941. One way or another, we should do something with China, the question is what to do
Anyway, is interesting see that no option is winning clearly. Larry should done some official bidding rules :|
-
I am going to try to use the Chinese setup of 42’ in 41’ next time I play. The Jap forces in mainland China are almost identical in both scenerios so if it’s “balanced” in 42’ it should be in 41’.
-
what if Chine went before Japan? they could strafe or consolodate and also reposition the fig and reinforce.
-
Anyway, is interesting see that no option is winning clearly. Larry should done some official bidding rules :|
Yes, but he made a comment on bidding rules, although he has not yet made any official bidding rules, like the same concept as other official optional rules like the Dardanelles closing or LHTR, but he said that he would opt for a money bid.
-
I don’t think we have to be guided by Larry on this topic. Optional rules are his first choice to balance the game, it seems, probably due to the vulnerability of Caucasus and the power of SBR, yet people don’t seem to want to use the Optionals as a balancing device. We could opt to go for the spirit of AA50, which is to have a balanced Europe/Pacific boardgame, and then create a bid system that goes in that direction. Democratic, too… :wink:
Maybe unlimited unit bids, but only on territories or in sea zones bordering those with Japanese units, call it the anti-Japan bidding system, A-JAP? Hot candidates: Yunnan, Burma, West Coast. China, only having infantry, could only get inf bids, but it wouldn’t be so tied up just to China and create more variety.
-
Maybe unlimited unit bids, but only on territories or in sea zones bordering those with Japanese units, call it the anti-Japan bidding system, A-JAP? Hot candidates: Yunnan, Burma, West Coast. China, only having infantry, could only get inf bids, but it wouldn’t be so tied up just to China and create more variety.
I like this one. It allows negative bids also. A note, maybe we should let chineses bid one fighter: probably they will stick still to infs, but it’s good having the option just in case
Suggested Topics
