You’re welcome. I hope it helps!
Changes still needed to the game, IMHO
-
Extreme case, but it should never be allowed in a game this massive. It’s like fool’s mate in chess. Only I don’t think it’s as easy to block due to the dynamic effect given by the dice.
-
I’m still in favor of some small tweaks to balance the game out. I’d be willing to give Questioneers recomendations a try on the hope that Japan could focus more on naval builds those first three rounds if they had a small boost to their land units. Though I also agree that the Axis need to force the US to commit to Europe.
-
Not force them to commit to Europe, they can still commit to the Pacific. What I think needs to be done is to force America to invest in Europe to prevent a loss.
Here’s an idea, why not reduce the required number of VCs for Germany/Italy to win from 8 to 7?
-
I /guess/ I agree that Japan specifically needs an adjustment. Italy does as well, but their fix is simple, Italy isn’t at war until their turn.
For Japan, I think all that is needed is 1 trn. They have enough troops on the mainland to shove China back, that is enough I think. They have enough aircraft and combat ships, but what they need is 1 more trn so they can take all the DEI J2. Those islands are a 20ipc swing, best to give it to Japan as soon as possible to counter the 25-30 US is getting.
-
I’m still in favor of some small tweaks to balance the game out. I’d be willing to give Questioneers recomendations a try on the hope that Japan could focus more on naval builds those first three rounds if they had a small boost to their land units. Though I also agree that the Axis need to force the US to commit to Europe.
Right, that’s the idea of just adding approx 4inf, 1art (16 IPC) to Japan island. Then Japan can focus on naval builds or IC/bases or whatever. Giving them the bases/IC/ships/ or aircraft right from the beginning is a big mistake as it will tip the scales too much the other way. Its real touchy to balance with so many key regions adjusted already.
VC’s in Europe down to 7 may help also but would that be a little too easy for Axis??? Imagine Japan flying a bunch of planes over to Europe to help sack the 7th VC in Russia. I’d have to play it out- that may be a big change- maybe too much.
I think the easiest and safest way to balance right now is adding infantry to the Axis capitals in Japan and maybe Italy. It doesn’t mess up the balance of key battles we have now in the opening and it helps the Axis in the long-term weather the storm of eventual Allied economic pressure.
Possible Adjustment:
Add 1inf, 2art in SIta (Rome)
Add 4inf, 1art in Japan (Tokyo)It doesn’t seems like much, but I’m confident it will do what we want which is tweek the Axis so they can focus on other builds of choice to help balance things long-term. Whadda think?? Can we try it and come to a concensus???
-
I wouldn’t want to lower the VC in Europe down to 7 that would almost seem to demand a Russia crush.
-
I /guess/ I agree that Japan specifically needs an adjustment. Italy does as well, but their fix is simple, Italy isn’t at war until their turn.
For Japan, I think all that is needed is 1 trn. They have enough troops on the mainland to shove China back, that is enough I think. They have enough aircraft and combat ships, but what they need is 1 more trn so they can take all the DEI J2. Those islands are a 20ipc swing, best to give it to Japan as soon as possible to counter the 25-30 US is getting.
I think more than that. While the initial forces can probably push China back they are insufficient to do that and seriously threaten Calcutta especially without a major IC on the mainland. Once japan takes the money islands their available transports all but vanish. It is almost impossible to replace them in sufficient number as Japan has to contend with countering US naval builds and hold off the British in India. The game has been tweaked so much that I’m not sure how anything other than a historical outcome is possible. Perhaps the US can be weakened by reducing/eliminating the value of their NOs as the 20 IPCs for the continental US, inner Pacific ring and Pan America are a joke. Possibly the continental NO can be eliminated and the others reduced to 3.
-
Japan by J2 can get a major swing in economy……Ill lay it all out
J1 purchace 3 transports
Japan makes the standard China moves
all navy save a Carrier from seazone 6 to carolines including transport and one inf
transport from SZ 19 inf and art from manchuria to SZ 36 (kwangsi) with remander of navy
transport from SZ20 moves to sz19 picks 2 inf from manchuria back to sz20 unloads Kangsinow your set up for J2
make a navel purchaceIf USA stayed in Hawaii you can smack them hard from Carolines or you can smack Anzac if USA retreated, the transport can take solomans, transport in SZ20 can grab the inf from Okinawa place in guam(5 or 7 NO), transport in SZ36 takes Borneo, Inf from Kangsi and some planes take HongKong. Inf in Siam take FIC, Navy in SZ 36 moves to Phi with 3 transports. You should still have enough ground and air around to kill china and close the burma road. You should have enough ground and transports to take the DEI or most of it next turn. So…
In the least Japan has made gains on China, stopped 4 allied NOs gained one themselfs, destroyed at least one navy and is set up for DEI. And really hampered Anzac and UK Economy all with at least 2 turns before USA can get anywhere. Japan should be making close to 50IPC a turn.
-
destroyed at least one navy
I agree with everything you wrote except this. Why would the allies be dumb enough to get one of their “mini” fleet destroyed ?
-
I also agree with Peck, which is why I think Japan should be given 1 more trn. They cannot, as it sits now, take the DEI completely on J2. I think they should be able to. After the first round of war(j2) you’re still only going to be making about 40ipcs, you won’t be making 50 until J3 or more likely J4.
I think Japan needs that income boost to keep up with the Americans who will be making much more….albeit a few turns away.
-
Kinda what I been saying. Japan needs the ability to strike before Round 4 and have an income equivalent to America’s pre-war income at that time to even have a prayer.
I’ve crushed so many Japanese fleets in this game, and so many before it too. The difference is, before, Japan could assist in taking down Russia before being neutrallized in the Pacific, but it cannot now. The allies earn way too much and are more than happy in trading you ship for ship in the Pacific since they can build two ships for everyone one Japan can. (70 IPC USA + 10 IPC Australia + 20 IPC India (or 20 Australia, 10 India, yer choice) = 100 IPC, Japan earns maybe 50 IPC, probably 40 IPC a round once at war.)
Do not discount Australian submarines and destroyers either. They’re a real bitch if you have to send Japanese ships to kill them or suffer raid damage, as it saps your strength against the Americans and Australian planes can easily land on islands just taken by Americans to lend extra defensive punch that Japan cannot over-whelm.
-
Good analysis Jen, I’m seeing the same things. You’re right on about Australia.
Although I see it as 70(USA)+10(Australia)+6 (India)= 86 by round 5-6. There are ways for Japan to dwindle them down a bit. However, point taken that’s still 86-50 Allies in the Pacific. Yes, the Japs need a little something more and/or force them to invest in Europe more.
Maybe add some inf, art to Japan and shave off $5 from a current US NO or something.
-
You know, adding a couple tanks to Germany to allow the penetration and impregnation of Russian territories with the glorious emblem of National Socialist Party may be what it takes to convince America to put something into the Atlantic and thereby, put less into the Pacific.
For instance:
Add a German Transport to SZ 95.
Add a German Infantry to S. Italy.
(This is primarily to make a sneak attack on Russia more beneficial to Germany as they can replace the NO with the one in Egypt faster.)Add 1 Infantry, 1 Armor to each: Poland, Hungary and Romania
Why is this better than giving land units to Japan?
For one, it does not make Japan ridiculous against China, while still adding enough punch to the game to balance out the strengths of each side of the board.
For another, Germany should have enough power to make serious in roads into Russia by round 3 or 4 (defined as control of Keiv (S. Ukraine) strong threat against Leningrad (Novogord) and strong supply lines) if America does not do something to draw German strength off the Russian front.
By drawing strength off the Russian front, America - by necessity - must put less strength along the Japanese front. (Even if all America does is put 2 submarines and a destroyer in the Atlantic each round to Convoy Raid Germany/Italy and prevent the Italian NO in the Med, you have drawn 20 IPC a round off Japan.) -
Again I think ships in the Atlantic are too much. I agree with your premise, its just I think a more subtle adjustment is needed:
My current thinking:
Erase NO #5 for the US (Mexico NO)
Add 4inf, 1art to Japan (Tokyo)
Add 2inf, 2art to SItaly (Rome)That’s +$30 in land material for Axis and -$5NO per round for US
-
Dropping the Mexican and Alaskan NOs might work too, but some of these guys get antsy when you futz with the objectives. It seems to be hardwired into their minds that the only way to fix the game is with units and money. I don’t know why, it’s probably since it was the first viable solution to the traditional version of the game.
So, we add units. But I think it is not appropriate to make it easier for Japan to attack China, that’s already a pretty balanced game. Too bad it doesn’t give Japan enough cash to counter the combined fleets attacking it. But if it was, then China would be too hard to crush as it would be earning a lot more money. Besides, I don’t like the idea of increasing land values anyway. Again, an NO for taking Sikang might be an option, but then we run into the problem listed in the first paragraph.
Adding transports in the South Pacific might make it too easy for Japan to get a VC victory. I can see that being a concern, as all they need are six which means taking Hawaii and NSW (probably) along with Hong Kong, Philippines, that one in China and Japan itself.
Splitting America’s income by fiat seems to be something hard for people to swallow - although I still think it is the best solution as we already do it to England and there’s no way America would ever ignore the plight of England by allowing Germany to invade it.
An idea might be lend-lease to England (allow England to just take up to 6 American IPC a round until America enters the war.) But that might not be enough, and there’s no real assurance that they will take it, even if it would solve the Sea Lion problem over there. (I don’t view it as a problem. IRL if America ignored England, it would fall anyway, that’s why we didn’t ignore it! But this is a game, not real life, and in a game, you don’t care about human casualties or evilness of an empire, etc, you just care about winning, and the easiest way to win is to break Japan’s back, then turn on Europe.)
So we’ve pretty much ruled out any possible solution in the Pacific. That leaves looking for a solution to the Pacific problem in the Atlantic - I think. To that end, maybe adding some ground units to Germany may solve the problem? It would give Germany the same options on England (wouldn’t really make it easier for them since they can already cap out 11 Transports worth of guys on Round 3 anyway.) But what it would do is put more pressure on Russia. Not enough to unbalance the front, Russia already has to take its lumps and retreat back slowly while the Allies are breaking Japan into little chunks of nothingness. What adding units to Germany may do is force Russia to retreat faster, if the Allies do not come to help, thus make it easier for Germany to get a VC win if the Allies go whole hog after Japan.
I am considering a very modest increase really, it’s equivalent to the one proposed for Japan, only Russia is more able to absorb it than China is.
+2 Infantry, +1 Artillery to Romania
+2 Infantry, +1 Artillery to Hungary
+1 Infantry, +1 Artillery to Poland
(15 IPC for Infantry, 12 IPC for Artillery = 27 IPC, 25-27 was proposed for Japan earlier)These forces are too far away to help in France, thus, losses to the first round France attack should remain the same - specifically, weeding Germany down to 20-30ish ground units in Western Europe territories.
These forces are close enough to make a round 1 attack on Russia optimal. Sure, Germany loses the NO and Russia may gain some, but it gives Germany a head start on Russia - one they really cannot afford early in the game, I don’t think.
-
@Cmdr:
+2 Infantry, +1 Artillery to Romania
+2 Infantry, +1 Artillery to HungaryI agree if we talk Italian units.
Maybe add 3 Italian inf and 1 Italian artillery to Romania, and the same to Hungary.This will make the set-up more historically correct, since in fact 25 % of the Axis force that startet Barbarossa was non-germans.
For playability, I think this will be a fair can-opener since with Alpha rules 4 Allied powers go in a row. -
We could make them Italian units in Romania. I’d say make Bulgarian infantry go Italian regardless of if Germany annexes them or Italy does as well. Same for Finland, if Italy annexes Finland, the infantry go German.
-
@Cmdr:
Same for Finland, if Italy annexes Finland, the infantry go German.
Not to be a troll, but are there any reasons Germany should not activate Finland turn 1 ?
-
@Cmdr:
Same for Finland, if Italy annexes Finland, the infantry go German.
Not to be a troll, but are there any reasons Germany should not activate Finland turn 1 ?
None that I see.
-
@Cmdr:
Dropping the Mexican and Alaskan NOs might work too, but some of these guys get antsy when you futz with the objectives.
So, we add units. But I think it is not appropriate to make it easier for Japan to attack China, that’s already a pretty balanced game.
Adding transports in the South Pacific might make it too easy for Japan to get a VC victory. I can see that being a concern, as all they need are six which means taking Hawaii and NSW (probably) along with Hong Kong, Philippines, that one in China and Japan itself.Splitting America’s income by fiat seems to be something hard for people to swallow - although I still think it is the best solution as we already do it to England and there’s no way America would ever ignore the plight of England by allowing Germany to invade it.
I am considering a very modest increase really, it’s equivalent to the one proposed for Japan, only Russia is more able to absorb it than China is.
+2 Infantry, +1 Artillery to Romania
+2 Infantry, +1 Artillery to Hungary
+1 Infantry, +1 Artillery to Poland
(15 IPC for Infantry, 12 IPC for Artillery = 27 IPC, 25-27 was proposed for Japan earlier)1. Yeah, I’ll try to convince Larry to drop this unecessary NO- it really doesn’t effect current gameplay at all.
2. If the infantry, artillery are put on Japan like I suggest, then they are not really “crushing” China since Japan has to work a little to transport them off the island. This includes buying more TTs. Putting land units on the capital does make them work to get them off the island in the beginning AND its saves them from having to buy them in later rounds. Now that money can be used to buy ships, bases or whatever. It helps things out long-term.
3. Adding ships, aircraft, ICs, bases to ANY of the Axis powers makes them “too fast”. I’m still very adament about placing inf/art on Japan island and SItaly capitals for this reason.
4. Your proposal of land units on the Eastern front is out of the question. It makes Germany way too strong. Larry has already said this is an area too touchy to mess with- I agree- that’s why when he balanced it last he put more infantry on the capital which was the safest. I am suggesting the same for Japan island and SItaly along with the takeaway of the Mexican NO- which is not really needed mechanically or historically.
Suggested Topics
