Not seeing it

[MaherC]

I think a far simpler solution for making the game more balanced might be removing the UK CV off GIB.  Then again, it might make IT so overpowered that we see Axis rolling along too much before the US can get in.

[axisisthebest]

everyone: the alpha setup changes is progressing quite fast and will progress even faster if more people play test and make their comments on setup/NO/political changes rather than complaining. heres a quick summary: generally everyone agrees that japan should have +10 NO for not at war, and most people agree about a two way island bonus and splitting the US NO into different parts however it is still being refined. personally i think that questioneers beta changes look the most promising so far, and he is already play testing it. perhaps if more people play tested a single setup (that setup) then we can obtain a reliable result for the one setup and then changes could be made if still needed. (i would if it was practical for me but its not)

link the last page
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2568&start=208

and Qbeta setup
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2568&start=192

[tarkonis]

Is this Alpha setup applied to global too?  Or is it just for PAC40?

[Funcioneta]

Sadly, I’m not surprised with all this debate. As I predicted a time ago, no wonder how ridiculously bad can be trying ignore Japan, always will be somebody doing so, and now wonder how ridiculously bad can be counter that ignore with a ignore USA, always will be somebody trying that, because people seem think that USA is unstoppable, but USA is not that

There is not any need of additional incentive to fight the Pacific. For both sides, the incentives are massive and obvious. Here is that the Allies can lose if ignores the Pacific, and also what Japan can take easily:

• Convoy damage on z10 (total damage is 12)
• Alaska (2 for USA, 2 for Japan, total is 4)
• Hawaii (1 for USA, 6 for Japan, total is 7)
• India (4-5 for UK, about 10 for Japan, total is like 15)
• ANZAC (total is 10 for ANZAC, 15 for Japan, total is 25)
• I don’t count China or Siberia because Japan can usually take them before USA enters in action, but I guess that even here, a quick USA support can aid in some way
• Massive amount of targets at Africa/Middle East for Japan (like a swing of 20 IPCs if Japan takes SAF and most of East Africa?)
• Potentially Persia and WIndia as well (like 8 IPCs swing)
• Massive amounts of USA’s cash just to hold Japan’s invasions on America -> that can halt most of the effort against Europe
• Also, Allies can say goodbye to Dutch East Indies or Philippines

I’m being very generous if I say that the average cash swing lost each turn for Allies will be like 50 IPCs each round. Also, Japan should start to ignore attacking before round 3: this will prevent a early suicide USA’s trannie dash attack on Europe and halt it at very least until round 4 … if Germany buys its fleet a bit, for when USA’s 1st load of trannies are ready to do significative damage to Europe, Pacific will be in Japan’s hands and further loads of yankees will be too busy in America to fight in Europe

The attack on America is not so difficult: all you need is 6 submarines to do the convoy raids (Japan starts with 2), some trannies (Japan starts with 3 -and I don’t care about alpha setup, it’s still unoficial), a minor IC at Alaska and buying a NB for Alaska to get the chain ready. True, Japan will need a bit more of cash than in Revised or AA50 to do this, but also, Japan has much more money and starting units in this game, and Canada is much longer this time, so the old trick of buying in California to start the shuck from there will not work

I should repeat the obvious one more time: in game terms, Tokyo is nearer to America (1 move) than to Moscow (8-9 moves). So, the main mayor target for Japan is America, not Moscow

Now, if the game finally shows as unbalanced, we can talk how fix that, but you cannot fix anything if you assume false things, like per example that USA should go Ignore-Japan all the games and that Japan should go Ignore-USA all the games as reply to that

[Krieghund]

@General:

Is this Alpha setup applied to global too?  Or is it just for PAC40?

It’s for both.

[kungfujew]

Funcioneta, you’ll never be able to convince anyone about the importance of the pacific if they don’t want to see it.  If people want to believe that the US is unstoppable and should only fight in Europe, then there’s also nothing you can say to change that perspective.  The only thing you can do is wait until you get the chance to show them what an unopposed Japan can do.  Throwing everything at europe will always be easiest and therefore seem the best and most powerful option, because an island hopping game full of controlling the skies and fleet movements is more complicated and difficult to master (and more fun).  So unless you really want to learn those mad skills  and learn them likely by failing numerous times, people will choose the path of least resistance.  Just be happy when they try it on you.

[gsh34]

Funcioneta,

I don’t think Japan can possibly do everything that you stated they can do.  How can they take Sydney (killing Anzac), take Calcutta (killing UK Pacific), and permanently engage the US (there by giving the Europe Axis a chance) all within  a reasonable time frame (say 5-7 rounds)?  Having played just a few games, they simply don’t have the resources to go in three distinct directions concurrently.

Here is the reasoning I use when looking at this from the US players perspective.  As the US I ask myself, if I spend all my money in the Atlantic, how much and how easily do I affect the game?

Answer:  A lot and it is relatively easy.  Compared to Japan, Germany and Italy start with a much more limited Navy and much, much smaller air force.  The US can spend much less on planes and capital ships and correspondingly more on transports and ground units.  Also, if Germany does Sealion, which seems to be a common occurrence, I don’t know how they don’t respond forcefully to that?
If Japan goes 100% against the US, they only have one major complex, the one in Japan.  Even if they set up a shuck-shuck convoy from Japan to Alaska and it has a minor complex and a naval base, the US has three major complexes that it can build out of in order to boot Japan out of North America.

Question:  If the US spends all of its money in the Pacific, how much and how easily do I affect the game?

My answer:  I don’t know and not very easily.  Japan has a huge fleet and 20 planes (at least in the Alpha setup).  America starts out with a relatively meager fleet and air force. To gain parity, they would need to spend a lot.  Now granted, if the US comes into the Pacific, it will open something else up for either the UK or Anzac but at what expense in the European theater?

In my mind, I keep falling back to the idea that Japan can’t possibly do everything you laid out for them in a reasonable amount of time.  Maybe they could, but I guess I would have to see it.

Kungfujew,

I agree with what you say.  Europe is the easier theater for the US to affect change in and I think that is why most players do it.

This is not a criticism of you two personally.  It is just that I don’t see this in my mind.

[Gargantua]

Russia needs it’s own victory conditions.

THAT would make things MUCH more interesting, offer rational balance - as they too do not want the allies to win, and you’d get a new diplomatic side of the game.

It would be a real MOVING solution to sort out game balance, Russia would apply themselves strategically to meet their own goals.

Axis / Allies / Comintern

[kungfujew]

The issue with Japan doing all that is in the allocation of forces.  Thinl about it from a pac 40 point of view.  Japan can easily overpower both India and anzac in the first 5 turns, it’s only the intervention of the US that turns the tide, and the threat of their air and naval forces that forces japan to pull back or keep some of it’s power in reserve.  If you hold off attacking the western allies for 2-4 turns then the US can’t be in a position to attack until the start of turn 4 or 5.  By the end of turn three china will be dead and you can position yourself in the carolines and/or sz 36 to launch a devistating blow to either ally with ALL your consolidated forces.  Without needing to spend money on fleets to defend against the US, factories and transports and lots of ground troops can be purchased.  A well placed air or naval base will let you attack at any weak point in overwhelming force, and, unlike in a Pac 40 game, the uk gets no +10 ipc bonus for the islands and land territories.  With a 3-5 turn head start on the US in the pacific, even if they start to build up, you don’t need any of your starting forces to combat them.  Just think about how far you’d get in a pac 40 game without the US spending in the pacific and what you’d do to make as much headway as fast as possible and you’ll see what I’m talking about. 5-7 turns is more than long enough to do irreperable damage to the allies cause in the pacific, and then turn to africa/the west coast and russia.

[Flashman]

@Gargantua:

Russia needs it’s own victory conditions.

THAT would make things MUCH more interesting, offer rational balance - as they too do not want the allies to win, and you’d get a new diplomatic side of the game.

It would be a real MOVING solution to sort out game balance, Russia would apply themselves strategically to meet their own goals.

Axis / Allies / Comintern

I maintain that you also need Japan to be separate to balance this.

You then have 4 factions, each one looking out for itself.

Then, simplify turn movement by having each complete faction moving together, so no Italian can opener for Germany and no UK/US 1-2 punching.

Factions can make alliances, but never share land territory or fight together.

Different scenarios make for 3 faction games (after Summer turn 1941) and 2 faction games (after Winter turn 1941).  Anything starting before this needs to be a four cornered fight, with alliances forming as players choose.

I also believe that NO nation not at war* should collect income or build units.  The “Western Allies” player will have enough to do with UK, France and China; the USA should only be activated when it goes to war.  At most, it should have a “foreign aid” budget each turn to send via convoy; it’s up to factions at war with the WA to decide if it’s worth disrupting these and bring the US into the war earlier.

*By at war I mean of course at war with another faction, not with neutrals. Or indeed China; in fact I’m considering that 3 factions might be able to place Chinese units!  The KMT are controlled by the WA, “Cochin” forces by Japan, and CCP units by the Soviet player.  Thus, there is a “war within a war” going on in China, with the Chinese factions free to attack each other even if their “parent” factions are allies.

I was even thinking of a German Chinese faction, but Germany seems to have pulled out of China completely by 1939, with other “Nationalist” groups pretty much absorbed by the KMT. But maybe the Axis player can start up a new Chinese army…

[gsh34]

@kungfujew:

The issue with Japan doing all that is in the allocation of forces.  Think about it from a pac 40 point of view.  Japan can easily overpower both India and anzac in the first 5 turns…

Are we talking about the OOB setup or Alpha?  Since we know the OOB setup will be changed, my group is using the Alpha setup.  I don’t know how Japan does this with the Alpha setup.  If you can take out India and Anzac by round 5 with the Alpha setup, wow, I need to think much harder about what I am doing as Japan.

@kungfujew:

If you hold off attacking the western allies for 2-4 turns then the US can’t be in a position to attack until the start of turn 4 or 5.  By the end of turn three china will be dead and you can position yourself in the carolines and/or sz 36 to launch a devistating blow to either ally with ALL your consolidated forces.

Ok, I’m following you so far….

@kungfujew:

Without needing to spend money on fleets to defend against the US, factories and transports and lots of ground troops can be purchased.  A well placed air or naval base will let you attack at any weak point in overwhelming force, and, unlike in a Pac 40 game, the uk gets no +10 ipc bonus for the islands and land territories.  With a 3-5 turn head start on the US in the pacific, even if they start to build up, you don’t need any of your starting forces to combat them.  Just think about how far you’d get in a pac 40 game without the US spending in the pacific and what you’d do to make as much headway as fast as possible and you’ll see what I’m talking about. 5-7 turns is more than long enough to do irreperable damage to the allies cause in the pacific, and then turn to africa/the west coast and russia.

I never played Pac40 alone so everything in the 1940 rule set was new to me.  What you say here will take me more time to digest and think about.

One thing I will say is that building new industrial complexes is sooo slow.  You build it on round x.  Round x+1 you get to place units in it.  It’s round x+2 before you get to use them.  If the US sees this, they can easily build a wall of ground units for either defense or a counter attack in advance of your landing.  This is just the thinking in my mind.

[MaherC]

Is this beta setup using the OOB or alpha as it’s base?

[kungfujew]

Everything I was saying was in a scenario of america going all for europe, and if the allies are making 20 with anzac, 20 with india and 0 with america and you can’t steamroll the uk/anzac/china then you’re doing something wrong.  The game is balanced for 3 allies and one axis power.  Take an ally, not to mention the one making a full half of the income for the whole team, out of the picture and it’s nowhere close to a fair fight.

[axisisthebest]

@MaherC:

Is this beta setup using the OOB or alpha as it’s base?

it uses alpha as base, generally any further changes currently are on alpha because everyone agrees that alpha has a better setup they are simply refining the alpha setup right now which hasnt been finalised. questioneer just gave it a name of beta because he has quite a few changes that are actually bunched up together but its mostly NO changes and not many setup changes

[gsh34]

@kungfujew:

Everything I was saying was in a scenario of america going all for europe, and if the allies are making 20 with anzac, 20 with india and 0 with america and you can’t steamroll the uk/anzac/china then you’re doing something wrong.  The game is balanced for 3 allies and one axis power.  Take an ally, not to mention the one making a full half of the income for the whole team, out of the picture and it’s nowhere close to a fair fight.

I agree that the UK, Anzac, and China can be defeated easily with the US going 100% in Europe. I just don’t think it can be done fast enough for the Japanese to turn enough power onto America before the US has affected the outcome of the European theater.  Calcutta in particular can turtle up pretty hard and it takes until round five, if not usually round six, before they go down.

I know you said that Japan won’t even need any of its starting forces to combat the US at this point, but this is hard for me to believe.  For six ipc the US can buy two infantry for defense with 4 pips.  To equal that, Japan has to buy a transport, one infantry and one artillery.  That costs 14 ipc for the same attack value.  Considering Japan only has one major factory vs the three that America has, I just don’t see how this is a winning strategy for the Axis unless it is only meant to pull them away from Europe for 1-3 rounds.  After that, America should have it’s shores sufficiently defended/recaptured.  Also, even if Japan completely convoy raids the west coast of America for 14 ipc, the US would be making 66 ipc (assuming Japan has the Philippines) to cream the European Axis with.

I could always be wrong, but from my few games so far, what you are telling me just doesn’t seem to make sense.

[MaherC]

Using the Alpha as a base sounds like a recipe for disaster.  If the Alpha is for Pac40, then why not use the OOB setup for the G40 “beta” ?

[gsh34]

@MaherC:

Using the Alpha as a base sounds like a recipe for disaster.   If the Alpha is for Pac40, then why not use the OOB setup for the G40 “beta” ?

My guess would be that Larry wants continuity between the Pacific and Global games.  That is why alpha setup is for both.

[MaherC]

That may be so, but the alpha weakens an already weak axis.

The Beta ideas are small tweaks that should be considered for the OOB setup first.  Eliminates the need for a massive FAQ/Errata’d setup.

[axisisthebest]

its because its easier to have same setup but with added NOs since NOs arent necessarily the same anyway, whilst it would be confusing if there were 2 different setups. perhaps if you play tested it also you can see for yourself whether the changes are good or bad

[MaherC]

I’ve tested the alpha enough to know it is trash, harsh but an accurate choice of words in my opinion.  Deal with it. :)

We’ve decided to use the new NO’s with the OOB setup and see what happens.