In what way would taking your allies into battle even remotely slow the game?
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
@Cmdr:
To qualify for your rule that everyone has the same ability, if you were to use “home guard” I would recommend it as you described, but the units are a one time bonus of units defending at 1, attacking at 0, move 0, cost 0. In effect:
America invades E. Germany. E. Germany is worth 5 IPC (no idea why it’s worth less than London, whatever) so Germany would get their defenders and an immediate placement of 5 units that defend at 1, and can be taken as casualties.
On Germany’s next turn, just after France’s collect income phase, before Germany buys their units for this round, those units are removed and a marker placed on E. Germany to show that the “home guard” has been used. However, I would suggest just allowing them to be activated on each and every assault of a Victory City. (so England has to beat them, America has to beat them and ANZAC has to beat them and if that does not work, France does not beat them, then Russia would have to beat them as well. Worst case scenario.)
Our gaming group is very mixed in ability of playing this game, plus at the clubs we sometimes have folk who have never played a strat board game mixed with vets. the rule was essentially to keep it simple as possible as we do random draws on who plays what, and some of our players are very aggresive and will push for sealion no matter and if the UK player is new and learning (and out of the game on G3 is not learning anything other than to shore up in UK and pray) this was the main reason why we implemented the house rule but we decided all nations should gain it, to stop mistakes happening as well :/
However yes against a group who play regular I would take the house rules further and implement what you have added to hopefully improve the game further, as i believe the militia activation already does in our games, I will point out that since using it our games usually last 2 more turns. I look forward to the time when your worst case scenario happens though, not quite reached a point where Berlin is threatened by the Soviets, yet.
-
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Are you kidding me. Nothing has been done to fix the biggest problem that every version of AA has had. China is way to weak. Just way to weak. I have played AAP and the China thing is absolutely ridiculous.
The attempt to fix the 2nd biggest problem (no action in the pacific) is to come up with all these crazy NO’s, which I don’t necessarily disagree with, to force action in the pacific.
Why not just fix the root of the problem. China can only purchase men, maybe artillery, make them cost only $2, start them off with more infantry and bring down the cost of navy ships so they do not eat up such a huge part of you money. Lets see. Purchase 4 tanks to invade Russia or one battleship that wil see no action if the US retreats. If aircraft are $10, Subs should only be $5, $4 for the Germans, transports $4 especially since they can’t defend, destroyers $7-it should not be a ship of choice, but an expensive forced buy to counter submarines, cruisers $9-less than a plane not more, why would you make them more expensive yet much weaker, yet confined to only sea battles, battleships $16 but allow them to transport men and material that can offload to transports, or unloand only on friendly territories. Maybe someone will buy them. They did have some use you know, may not ship of choice, Aircraft carrier $10. That makes 2 planes and one carrier a weaker attack value than 1 battleship and 1 cruiser for what you spend but a better defense value.
The main point is that when buying fleets eats up too much of your income when you can use that income to a greater effort for a greater return, you don’t buy fleets.
More technology would also be great like radar and counter radar for subs. Make destroyers find subs when by themsleves.
-
Jen and others,
Reading around the sites, it seems pretty universal that G40 is a slight Allied advantage in which case one would use a bid.
Jen, I really disagree with your observations mainly because the game numbers don’t prove it (as least not yet). You seem to be in the minority.
However, if slight changes are made (and those will probably be the only ones left made) then they definitely should be to help the Axis.
My suggestion is to log on Larry’s site and state your case. He will make this Alpha+2 final soon. Even if you succeed in some slight changes for the Axis it may be good overall. Your wasting your breath here talking about it- go to him directly on his site. Once its final- its final and no one can complain since they all had a chance to voice their opinions.
-
Eindatadog:
Give the axis powers to the stronger players, the allies to the weaker ones. (It can still be sort of random.) This way, the nations at a disadvantage on the board have the stronger strategists while the nations with the stronger position on the board have the weaker strategists.
Eddiem4145:
As it stands right now, China cannot be improved in power. The allies already have a significant advantage, improving China would only make the situation worse. However, I think you discount what China can and cannot do at this time. If Japan ignores it even for one round, China’s a monster that cannot be stopped. If Japan does not ignore it, America is a monster that cannot be stopped significantly earlier in the game. (It is anyway, it’s only a difference of if it happens in Round 5 or Round 10.)
Questioneer:
As far as I have seen, if the two sides are evenly matched in skill, the allies have a win percentage of 67%-83% (about 4 to 5 times out of 6 games) unless there are some accidents (underdefending something because of not taking into account presence or absense of bases, etc) or some really wild dice (losing a major engagement where you had 80% or better odds as happens often enough to be mentioned.)
Community-at-large:
I doubt Alpha+2 will be finallized. The sides are in more disarray than they were out of the box, in my opinion. However, “fixing” the game shouldn’t be overly difficult. My goal in fixing the game (reducing one side’s chances of winning any given game to 40-60% from the time setup is complete) should be to do the absolute minimum. To me, that means forcing America to split its spending just like England has too, and for exactly the same historical and strategic reasons.
What about a bid? Sure, you want 30 IPC bids going out? I don’t. I think that would be a very, VERY, significant change in the game. Bidding, by necessity, seems to be a very drastic change to the game. It seems far less impactful to just force America to split its spending. America can still bring everything to bear on one side or the other, it just takes longer. Just like England can bring it all to bear on one side or the other, it just takes longer. Meanwhile, it takes America just that much longer to bring it all to bear, allowing Japan time to flex and adapt to the developing situation, or Germany/Italy can adapt, as necessary. And since I recommend America be able to dump the income from NOs on either side of the board, it is not that big of a change - even England has to keep their NOs on there respective sides of the board.
As for Tech, as it stands now, I feel technology is a waste. For one, unlike Anniversary, you do not keep your researchers forever. Unlike every other incarnation of the game, Technology has minimal - at best - impact on the game, in my opinion. To be viable the current structure should be scrapped and built from the ground up - IMHO of course. For instance, LRA: is it as effective now? Why not just buy an Airbase? To get LRA you have to have a research success, that takes 6 dice on average or 30 IPC. Then it takes 6 successes to get LRA on average. That’s significantly more than just buying an airbase.
I suggest finding an online calculator that will use Bayes Rule for you (conditional probability.) You need a 6 followed by a 5. That is a 1 in 6 chance following a 1 in 6 chance. I believe we are talking something akin to impossible…stats was never my strong suit, but I would not be surprised if the odds were about 17% of 17% or about 3% of getting the technology you wanted, and why put up with it? Just get the Airbase, it has way more utility!
Basically, what I am saying in reference to tech is this: “The cost far outweighs the reward, thus, basic risk analysis on your Return on Investment rules out the possibility of attempting to find technology. Compared to the guarenteed return for circumventing the dice altogether, it seems to indicate that the current technology system needs to be scrapped and rebuilt, or discarded altogether.”
Eh, I’m open to arguments, but you get the gist. Nerf America slightly instead of having ridiculous bids, scrap tech or fix it.
-
@Cmdr:
……To me, that means forcing America to split its spending just like England has too, and for exactly the same historical and strategic reasons…
I agree 100%! I also agree that the abundance of NOs simply force you do something that you may or may not want to do. This should be a strategic game of choice and chance, not a scripted theatrical performance. Our group just finished a game of AAE40 where we used the Alpha.2 setups (really like this) and only one or two NOs per country. Except for the US, IPC gains came from taking territories. We gave the US a blanket 20 IPCs once war broke out. The results of this game were very interesting as after three days (yes days) of play, neither side was winning so we declared a draw. Our group does not include any inexperienced players so the skill level was fairly even. Our next game will be a global one where the US economy is split between the Atlantic and Pacific with the only US NOs being 20 IPCs for the Atlantic and 10 IPCs for the Pacific. In a nut shell, I think that the setup is balance but the NOs are just too much.
-
In this game, I view the NOs as bonuses for working in a field of operations. Too bad there are no American NOs in the Atlantic, Africa/Europe and so, there is no incentive for them to play in that theater of operations. Another reason the American player should be required to spend a portion of their money on both maps. IMHO.
I like your option on making the War NO an one time thing for America. I have no qualms with just reducing the number of American NO’s to “balance” things, it just seemed more intrusive (you are changing the rules, as opposed to clarifying a rule as with the divided spending, as I see it.)
Perhaps if the American NOs were:
+10 Continental United States- 5 Alaska, Mexico, Hawaii, Midway, Guam, Jonston, Gilberts, Line
- 5 Philippines
That would only give them 20 at a maximum, with half that easily taken by Japan if Japan’s on the ball. It should rebalance the Pacific greatly. Say, Japan with 42-50 IPC (missing some of the DEI islands) + 5 IPC for pacific islands (5 of 7) for a total of 47-55 IPC a round. Against that you have America with 50 + 10 NO, England with 13, ANZAC with 10 (assuming Japan takes part of New Guinea to deny both ANZAC NOs) and China with 14 (8+6 NO) only puts Japan in the hole 42 IPC.
(Yes, Japan is SERIOUSLY out gunned! It’s routine to see the allies making 2.5 to 3 times what Japan makes, and you wonder why some think the game out of balance???)
With Japan’s starting equipment, and judiciously selecting targets, they may be able to prevent that 42 IPC deficit from being too much to bear. For instance, with enough Submarines, Japan might keep the floating navies away and conduct some CRD…just a thought.
-
The simple point is this. The biggest problems of the game still have not been fixed. I have been playing axis for over 20 years and it kills me the problems are still not fixed. Slightly improved but not fixed.
The same complaint of every axis games has always been the unrealistic nature of how the war is conducted. I understand the idea of axis being a “what if” game. But it has to start form a point of historical accuracy.
Jennifer: Your point about going after China and US getting to strong does not matter. They should just pile on Germany and Japan should just go after Russia. The NO change that but why create NO’s that make the game more complicated than just fixing the problem.
China is to weak and ships cost way to much money. That has always been the ever eternal problem. The lack of action in the pacific is just that.
The axis should be disadvantaged but not to much. Bidding is a tool to make it even, not change the game and a choice among expert players who don’t make mistakes to see who is better. Otherwise the main state of play should be, "If I was hitler and didn’t make his mistakes, could I do it. There are enough variables, territories, luck of the die, to keep the global game from becoming a cookie cutter formula like the other AA games have been. It plays more like chess now then checkers. Many of the beggining moves are standard, but the middle game and end game are all up to individual strategy.
The US spent near 90% of its resources killing Germany because Japan got bogged down in China so forcing them to split thier income is not realistic or historical. UK could not instantly ship thier Pacific resources to Europe like the US could from the pacific to the atlantic. Japan’s alternative, hold of on attacking the US. That should be the option. Japan should not be such a major threat but a distraction to the US to take pressure off of Germany. Australia should be a much much bigger prize if captured. If Wester US is taken even for 1 turn, it should be a massive penalty for US.
Technology should be improved and should be the key to German success.
Just fix the problem. Make ships much cheaper, make China stronger, create more techs for Germans. Problem solved. Done
-
I haven’t played the global yet Jennifer, but AAP40, many times. I think it has been well established that AAP is way out of wack because the Japs are way to strong. In other words, they attack turn 1, and soon China is gone and they out IPC the US. This is well established.
-
And instead of coming up with so many NO’s that you have to keep track of, just fix the problem. Ships way too expensive, China way to weak, and if that makes Germany to weak, more techs for Germany. The idea of makeing Japan stronger and keeping China weak for balance is makin the game not a WW2 game that starts in 1940 but a WW2 like game on earth from a different dimension.
I have waited decades (20) years for AA to fix these problems. Since the very first edition. They improve them so little but they don’t fix the problem.
-
Just a clarification. I don’t think Japan is so strong as they roll over China way to easy.
-
I think making China any stronger would be a huge mistake. If Japan does not pay attention to it as is it can grow out of hand and retake all of China and lock down 2 victory cities. Thus US is free to spend 90+ in the Atlantic.
It is also very easy for Japan to under committ to China if US goes in Pacific at all and the 18 Russian Inf attack.
-
In my view the game is very close to being balanced. I think it might slight favor the allies but I have not played enough Alpha 2 to decide that for certain. Germany got a lot stronger, Japan can bring US into Pacific and Italy can get quite big under certain conditons. This did not happen in OBB. Alot was done to beef up the Axis in my view with National objectives and such. So far I think Larry Harris did a good job and the game is close to being balanced.
-
Without being sarcastic, I think they should make Germany weaker because if the US ignores them and goes all out against Japan, by the time they took it Germany would be too strong.
Clearly we can see that makes no sense. Your logic is right from the perspective, lets make the game more balanced. From that point of view we could just give Germany a bigger army and start them out with Eqypt with a complex. For those who think the Allies are to strong that would certainly make it more balanced. But then it wouldn’t be World War 2 in 1940. It would be something else.
My point is the fact that AA was meant to be a game of what could have been, but to start it at a point of historical accuracy and make the possibilities, like techs, within the realm of plausible during that time era with what was going on during that time.
The problem of balance should be solved with in a starting point of historical accuracy. Japan rolling over China is crazy. Hitler indeed almost took Moscow and could have had he not made some blunders. Had he not impeded some of his wonder weapon research toward the middle part of the war due to his arrogance of “providence” he could have developed jets sooner. The battle of the atlantic could have given him victory if the US entry into the war was delayed. These are real possibilities. Had he prepared for the winter, and the US delayed its entry, his Spring 1942 could have been much more successful. Germany not wasting so much of his resources on Sea Lion could have been sent to N. AFrica. Sea Lion had a 40% chance of suceeding.
The answer of balance should be kept within the historical accuracy of the time.
-
eddiem:
AAP(40) may, indeed, be out of whack. It uses pretty much the same setup as came for AA40. But this is not a discussion of AA40-OOB, this is a discussion of AA40A2 and A2 reversed and destroyed the fortunes of war for the Axis.
As for the point about China and US, it does, in fact, matter. This is a game, not a rewrite of history. HISTORY, does not matter, PLAYABILITY, most certainly does matter, I submit, it not only matters but is the only consideration to think about…after fixing playability, if you have time, you can futz with the historical aspect.
It used to be all nations piled on Germany, now it is more all nations pile on Japan. We traded a bad situation (all on Germany) for a bad situation (all on Japan.) It should be remedied. Hell, it always should have been remedied!
One remedy was national objectives…why do you think most are in the Pacific for 40 and 50? Sure, there’s a smattering in the Atlantic, but there are no objectives for Japan to invade Russia or America to play in Africa/Europe in 40 (there was 1 for America in France in 50).
My objection to increasing the strength of China is that Japan is already hopelessly out-matched against the allies and you want to make one of the allies STRONGER??? As it stands now, if anything happens to China, I would recommend REMOVING infantry! Fix Japan, then talk to me about buffing China…if you put all of Japan’s aircraft back in, double their transports and give them an extra destroyer or two, then yes, HELL YES, even, China would need another 4 or 5 infantry. Until then, China’s OP, IMHO.
Frank:
I think the advantage to the allies is very significant. Run the math on # of Units for both sides, Value of Units for both sides, value of land, value of NOs for both sides, and assume very basic things for round 1. (France is taken by Germany, the Italian fleet is sunk or mostly sunk, etc.)
I think you’ll find that the allies out spend Japan by 40-50 IPC a round + the allies outspend Germany by whatever England earns (as Russia usually earns about what Germany does in most games).
If you don’t think 100 IPC (give or take) difference per round of the game is significant: I bid 50 IPC to Germany and 50 IPC to Japan every round of the game…any takers?
Yea, I didn’t think so…
Questioneer: Maybe I misspoke or you misunderstood…Alpha 2 CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE FINAL, it’s way too flawed…
Larry wants test results??? Does he own a computer? He’s more than welcome to come to these boards and just LOOK at the results of hundreds of games of varying degrees of players and get plenty of results.
The results are in: Japan is way too weak.
The fix is simple: America must be required to spend a portion of its money in the Atlantic and a portion in the Pacific.
Effects of the fix: No bid required. No major changes to the rules (it only applies a rule that currently exists to a nation that currently does not need to abide by said rule.) Ends the 40 IPC deficit that Japan has per round and reduces it to an easier obstacle to overcome. Not EASY, EASIER, there’s a significant difference.
Now you have, what I feel, is a perfect game: The axis have more equipment to start, but earn less. The allies have less equipment to start, but through wise play can use their slightly stronger income to overcome the axis powers.
Just my two cents.
As for going there, as I said, he’s more than welcome to come here - he has a profile here, he’s posted under it before. The play testers I know that are here have been PMed numerous times on things and some fixes I know for a fact won’t even be considered (ie changing the play order back to make life easier on the axis player who is reading his or her copy of War and Peace cover to cover waiting for the allied player to finish already!) (ie moving the Italian fighter from N. Italy to S. Italy or combining the Italian fleet or moving the British fleet to the otherside of the Suez, etc)
I didn’t even include those fixes, I know they won’t be implemented. I am pushing for a fix on America’s spending habbits because it HAS been done before (Gamer’s Paradise Expansions) and it IS part of the rules currently (England has the split in finances) so we don’t have to INVENT anything.
What did he say about tech? Right now, it’s really lame to even try. LRA would be nice, but I can replicate it with ABs, HBs would be nice, but its cheaper to buy a tactical bomber and effectively replicate that too, etc.
-
If the game has to be balanced by ‘US income has to be split’ then the game cannot be balanced. Because what would stop anyone from building a carrier in the Pacific and the requisite fighter/tac on the Atlantic side of the board. Some artificial rule that says ‘thou shalt not move units from Atlantic to Pacific’? If that has to be a rule, then count me out.
What is really missing, is a second Axis power in the Pacific. Of course, that’s a-historic (unless you want to call it ‘generic pro-Japanese minor power’ combining Thailand/Manchuria/ea) but from the arguments I see in this thread, something being a-historic should not be a barrier to implementing it, after all the game is supposed to be competitive, if the game was historic allied advantage would be huge (US would have to make at least 500 IPC for realism).
Maybe axis should be allowed to attack ‘neutral’ neutrals w/out consequence of all others switching pro-allied?
-
Splitting the American build would not stop them from building carriers, neither does splitting the British build stop them from building carriers….however, in both cases, the Axis power most effected gets some relief. England split relieves Germany a bit, America split would relieve Japan a bit. England and America can still bring all they have to bear on either nation, it is just a little bit harder to do so.
Yes, there really does need to be another nation for the Axis. There is nothing of historical value enough to justify it historically, there really is nothing more you can take from the Axis and make them stronger, tactically or strategically either. Not to mention, that violates my concept of minimal alterations to balance an unbalanced (grossly) game.
Another idea would plain be that Japan gets the 10 IPC NO from FIC until Japan, Italy or Germany invades FIC. Essentially, it’s 10 IPC that can only be lost if Tokyo is lost. It too is a VERY minor adjustment to the rules, perhaps more minor than splitting the American build. The only bummer is that it would restrict Japanese minor industrial complex placement in the south…I like to have one in Malaya and one in FIC since I cannot have a Major down there and at least that lets me put 6 ground units close to India…in the hopes of taking India before the inevitable loss of naval supremecy to the Americans…(sorry, but they’re ridiculously strong…America always was the powerhouse in these games and I think more than a little American Patriotism may have something to do with that, but common, America earns double any other nation and there is no restrictions on how they spend that cash. It’s rather sad to see all you Americans fighting saying you have to be allowed to put 12 Submarines and a Destroyer in the Pacific EVERY ROUND, you know. Yes, the Major in W. USA plus a minor in Mexico and you can build 13 units a round in the Pacific…name any other country that can afford 13 naval units per round, every round.)
-
@13thguardsriflediv:
If the game has to be balanced by ‘US income has to be split’ then the game cannot be balanced. Because what would stop anyone from building a carrier in the Pacific and the requisite fighter/tac on the Atlantic side of the board. Some artificial rule that says ‘thou shalt not move units from Atlantic to Pacific’? If that has to be a rule, then count me out.
So we can count you out because you have to do that with England? I don’t understand. You already have to split England’s money into two piles, all I am recommending is doing the exact same thing with America. No one is saying you cannot move units from theater to theater, unit movement rules are fixed, they’ve been fixed since time-immortal. Naval units move 2, air units move 4 or 6, ground units move 1 or 2. If you want to walk a guy from Alaska to Central America, you can do that…no idea why you want too, but you can.
Reiterate, for those unclear on my thought:
- America MUST spend 35 IPC on units on the EUROPE MAP (they can MOVE after they are built, they do not have to stay on the EUROPE MAP.)
- America MUST spend 17 IPC on units on the PACIFIC MAP (15 IPC if Philippines have been lost. The units do not have to stay on the PACIFIC MAP, they can move as per normal rules for movement.)
- America then has 30 IPC to spend in any combination on either the ATLANTIC MAP or the PACIFIC MAP or BOTH MAPS.
35 IPC: Tactical Bomber, 3 Destroyers, in 1 turn the bomber can be in the Pacific, in 2 turns the destroyers can be in the Pacific.
16 IPC: 2 Destroyers can be on the Atlantic map in 2 turns.Etc…just to illustrate. You can, of course, improve upon those examples for instance:
W. USA builds 2 fighters, they are on the carrier off the coast of E. USA next turn.
E./C. USA builds 1 Tactical Bomber, 2 Strategic Bombers, they are in Hawaii / Hawaiian SZ next turn.The above exceeds the minimum purchase amounts for America per theater of operations and still allows America to quickly deploy her forces to either theater of operations.
As I said, it’s a MINISCULE change, but it MAY be enough to balance a game that, as it currently sits, is far from balanced…it feels IMMENSELY IMPROVED compared to OOB, but it’s a far cry from balanced.
-
I think it is a good balance,the Axis have to be agresive and remember the only country between Germany and Japan is Russia, dont give them a chance to buildup. Attack the Allies on the second round. Thats an interesting idea about splitting the American money,the group I"m in looked at that for a couple of games and since it wasnt in the global rules we didnt try it.I think its made us more aggresive as the Axis.Also it depends on the dice, if an aggresive person pulls the Axis and if you can win key battles with minimal loses .we dont play victory cities Let me know if you try the split American income.
-
There’s a huge difference, since England and India are worlds apart, distance wise, whereas the continental USA is one contiguous country (excluding Alaska, though that wasnt a state at the time).
I’ve played a variant designed by some other guys where the British Empire was divided into five separate economies (Canada, S. Africa, India, ANZAC and UK itself) so I have no problem with such a split, since at the time most of those were already dominions which were independent in all but name. This is not true for the USA, so to me such a ‘split’ rule would feel artificial. But opinions can differ, I accept that. And though I see less need for balancing, I do accept that it seems that some games on this forum are won by the allies in a way that some would consider to be ‘unbalanced’. I have not that experience, but that might be more a matter of opponents.
Though with the 35 IPC in the Atlantic, plus option to buy planes in the Pacific, I doubt the pressure on the euro Axis will be relieved. I feel the game might actually swing that way again, with USA focusing on KIF since there is the smallest delay in that.
I think the solution has to be found elsewhere. Maybe in the FIC bonus as you mention. Maybe in changing the ‘neutral’ neutrals rule, maybe in a unit or two.
-
Yes, I have been working on some strategies of an early Axis start, but none have come to overly strong fruition…generally, the first time an allied player sees it they freak out and collapse, but the second time they are more than able to compensate.
Keep in mind,
the Axis combined earn 115 IPC, including most round 4 attacks and NOs.
the Allies combined earn 196 IPC, including most NOs and Territories by round 4That’s a difference of 81 IPC and that is a HUGE hurdle to cross! I am not even totally sure the game designers are aware of this problem, if they are, they have to be snorting something if they think the game is at all balanced right now. I’ve tried being nice, but let’s call a spade a spade, this game is still hopelessly unbalanced it just went from OOB where it was unbalanced in favor of the axis to A2 where it is unbalanced in favor of the Allies.
Something has to be done to weaken the Allies without weakening them TOO much. The best option I’ve seen so far is tied: 1) America has to spend 35 IPC in the Atlantic and 15 IPC in the Pacific (the rest as they want). 2) FIC is worth 10 IPC to the Japanese until it is taken by England, Australia or America no matter what.
In regards to 1) America can still bring it all to bear, it just takes longer. That gives Japan, at least, some time to prepare!
In regards to 2) It’s only 10 IPC a round, but at least it gives Japan all it’s income to go towards naval vessels and 2 infantry, 1 artillery to push into China essentially free each round…better than nothing, and no where near enough to over-compensate for the unbalance.New one I thought of: Go back to the initial setup charts, use the Alpha 2 rule set. That un-nerfs Japan significantly and makes them a contender in the Pacific. After all, wasn’t AAP40 “allegedly” balanced?
However, if you want the allies to be played by a Newb and the Axis to be played by a Tournament Champion, then yes, I can agree that the game is balanced. :roll: Seriously, however, I want a 50 IPC bid to be Axis, to compensate for being 80 IPC in the hole for countless rounds.
It’s not that big of a difference, 13th. America spent a significant portion of its military and industry in Europe/Africa and another portion in the Pacific. This brings the game some historical realism coupled with balancing the game.
You are correct, the “split” making USA more like the UK, would have a minor effect. It is the hope that this minor effect would be cumulative and thus, balance the game without resorting to sillyness such as 50 IPC bids to make it fair, or saying that China cannot have it’s NO, regardless of the board situation, to give Japan a chance, or to require England to be limited to only tan territories on the Pacific map, again to make life liveable for Japan.
I am not quite so worried about Europe as I am how badly they screwed the pooch in the Pacific. I have no idea why they decided to screw with the set up, if it was balanced for the stand alone Pacific, it shouldn’t have been worse for the allies when the allies had more income and Japan the same…
Anyway: I could see recommending that the Pacific side of the global board be set up identically to the out of the box rule-set. At least Japan would have a transport they desperately need, back in the south of the ocean, and all those planes would be back, thus, compensating for the incredible difference in pay! (Not to mention, who the frak can-opens for Japan? Eh? Yea, another one-sided benefit against the Axis.)
Suggested Topics
