Yeah, it took me a while to figure out as well. Before I had TripleA I was super frustrated not being able to read those files.
Changes still needed to the game, IMHO
-
Japan lost at Midway….
-
That
s what hes saying Jen… -
That
s what hes saying Jen…Then how’s that going to help Japan? America is not under-powered, they’re over-powered, Japan is the one that needs assistance.
-
@Cmdr:
As far as units go, I would be much more inclined to believe Japan needs +2 Submarines, +1 Transport down in the South Pacific than 7 Infanty and an Artillery scattered around China and Japan. Just IMHO.
Ground units Japan has more than enough capacity to build, naval units is where Japan got seriously short-changed! For instance, a transport off the Carolines (SZ 33), a submarine off Formosa (SZ 20) and a Submarine off Palau (SZ 34) would be a much better situation than a few extra infantry.
The transport would give Japan the option to hit Pearl hard - without tilting the balance of power. (This would allow Japan to repair their ships and use the Naval Base on Round 2, should they go with the Round 1 sneak attack. It also denies America the ability to land on Hawaii after counter-attacking the Japanese fleet.)
The submarine in SZ 20 would add a little extra punch should Japan go for the British Battleboat off Malaya, again, not a drastic change. Meanwhile, if Japan does not go for the Battleboat off Malaya, it’s too far away to do anything else of note this round - and is not adjacent to a naval base. Essentially, it can get to SZ 6 or spend a round or two getting into position elsewhere.
The submarine in SZ 34 is out of position to hit anything, but can move to Queensland and conduct convoy raids if it wants. Probably what would happen is it would move to the Carolines, but would be out of position to be used on round 1 - which was the point.
Essentially, other than the transport that was removed and now to be replaced, the new units are not in a position to significantly alter the balance of power, but they do add a little backbone to the Japanese navy, and give Japan more options - which, I believe, is the point.
As for the transport, I think that was, perhaps, the most significant nerf that Mr. Larry did, and that de-railed their attempts to balance the Pacific. I would not say that alone would recover Japan’s ability to hold it’s own, as many of the aircraft were also removed from the game, but it would go a long way to establishing Japan’s ability to defend itself.
Now, Questioneer says 25 IPC to balance things…50 IPC would be better, but 19 IPC placed in very strategic locations may do the trick. No idea. Honestly, I’d take 25 IPC because I can abuse it. (Transport in Carolines, 2 Transports in Japan, Artillery in KWA). I’d hit Hawaii, Philippines, Hong Kong, the BB by Malaya, Alaska and some other prime targets (primarily to deny America the NO for Alaska.) But, as I said, that would be an abuse of the resources and is primarily intended to demonstrate why it is not the COST of the resources, but rather the LOCATION of the resources and TYPE of resources added. Hence, my references to higher values than Questioneers. (I believe he will agree that a 25 IPC bid would effectively alter the game significantly, given how I just outlayed where things could go. America without 15 IPC from NOs, removal of most of the fleet, inability to effectively counter attack (no LZ) and Japan ability to now hit Australia from Philippines and Hawaii would be a huge shift - equally as bad as “American Exceptionalism” making America way too powerful, in comparison to other nations.)
Wouldn’t that just bring back the “India Crush”???- Japan would certainly get 6IPCs for sure, not even giving America a chance. I’m not really buying it. Your 2SS, 1TT idea I think swings a huge breaker momentum the other way. Like the Europe side, this side is real touchy to balance.
Adding/changing NOs or adding ships or NBs, or aircraft as too “fast” of units to add. I think the best way is to add slow ground troops away from the action- like I’ve proposed. Those land units will come in handy late in the game (like Russia’s from the East), giving a long term balance (which is what is needed for Japan) versus messing up opening balance right now.
-
I was referring, mostly, to how bad it would be to implement a bidding system. Since the pacific side is grossly unbalanced, bids would have to be significant to balance things out. However, significantly bidding can (and probably will) lead to unbalancing the game towards the other spectrum.
Honestly, if we are adding units to the game, toss a transport back by the Carolines, add a tank to lower China (for Japan, thinking KSI, KSU area maybe) and that should about do it.
Or, just put a minor complex in Korea…that could do it too.
-
OR. Put a minor in Hong Kong or FIC? That would be interesting.
If france survives G1, they can build in the PAC!
-
The one in Korea seems to be in the most logical spot. FIC and Hong Kong both prevent an upgrade to Major and both locations are much closer to India. (Not to mention, these are places people generally build complexes anyway.)
-
@mantlefan:
@Cmdr:
The one in Korea seems to be in the most logical spot. FIC and Hong Kong both prevent an upgrade to Major and both locations are much closer to India. (Not to mention, these are places people generally build complexes anyway.)
Manchuria makes the most sense from an industrial development standpoint, and it’s far from necessary that it needs to be upgradable.
No, but the option is nice.
Perhaps if the complex rule was amended to read upgradable complexes on territories you start the game controlling….
-
Not to mention, these are places people generally build complexes anyway.)
That’s my point exactly.
If Japan was busy building units instead of complexes, It not only could it send out attacking units earlier from the zones where the complexes are, but also have extra on the ground fighting units. - It gives the Japanese an Edge, in China, as well as in the defense of it’s fleet mid to late game along the coast of China.
-
Yes, but those territories are not Japanese to begin with. A complex in Hong Kong would make it harder to take. A complex in FIC isn’t going to be usable until Round 3 or 4 anyway.
-
HK might be harder to take, sure, but if they choose to defend it, India will be ALOT easier to take.
And FIC then becomes a good question, do I take it, just BEFORE my DOW on the US / UK? So that I can build into it the following turn? Definetely a good question…
-
I like the idea of a minor in FIC you could even place some token French troops to guard it.
-
I like the idea of a minor in FIC you could even place some token French troops to guard it.
But, how does that help Japan?
1) They cannot use it unless they invade
2) If they invade, they lose the NO
3) If they cannot use it until round 4, how does it help them at all?The idea is to help Japan! Not the allies!
Now, if you made FIC a Japanese territory, gave them the NO until the Allies capture FIC and put a minor industrial there, you might be on to something. But, I wager, many of the players might think that is too powerful, as it would be at least 6 rounds before the Allies have a chance to capture FIC, thus, you have essentially given Japan 72 IPC worth of bid. (6 rounds times 10 IPC + cost of the industrial…this, of course, does not count the 8 IPC extra Japan earns from the four free rounds of income for FIC, nor does it take into account the opportunity cost of having the complex from round 1, three steps from India.)
-
In a recient game as japan I gave up the NO first turn to take FIC and j2 build a factory. I found that having the troops right where I needed them almost as useful as a 10 ipc bonus for 2 to 3 turns.
-
A FREE complex the Axis gets to take - HELPS JAPAN.
Sorry if you couldn’t read into that intention in my post.
-
Gah, if you build 3 minor complexes in Asia you almost have equivalent output to a major IC (Malaya, Ksi, FIC, 36 IPCs vs. 30 IPCs). If you did your job correctly in the DEI in the opening turns as Japan, the UK Pacific major IC ISN’T going to be producing 10 units a turn to counter that (likely it’ll be reduced to 6 IPCs in short order). You also have the advantage of transports that can reinforce at will along the coast. Japan can easily crush India over time as the UK’s unit deficit adds up, especially if Japan moves their starting units in China over to Yunnan in a hurry.
Get over it. Japan is not underpowered, I would say its overpowered compared to the US with the ability to kill 10+ IPCs each turn of the US’s NOs during the entire game and the monstrous advantage in starting aircraft. Even if you play to the point where Japan is finally losing against the US, if its J8 or J9, you’ve done your job in distracting the US away from the European theater and the Axis should be victorious on that side of the board.
-
I think Commander Jennifer needs to change her playstyle IMHO.
-
That was my comment earlier Gargantua. I would suggest not letting the war start so late, instead plan on a J2 attack and see if that changes things. Waiting until turn 4 means ANZAC/INDIA/and US are prepared.
-
I agree totally. Japan does better if they attack earlier, but it may put a kink in Germanys plans for sealion. It’s really a very slick design.
-
Does better, but still loses.
Suggested Topics
