That makes sense. I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for responding! :+1:
Changes still needed to the game, IMHO
-
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.
-
The ground units on the eastern front have been changed from German to Italian. Perhaps Larry might consider that option?
But seriously, a few extra units on the Eastern front shouldnt unbalance the game, rather, it should bring America to invest in Europe, I think.
Anyway, what if we cobimed the Hawaiian, Mexican and Alaskan NOs? That way taking Midway, Wake, Hawaii, Aleutians, etc would remove 15 IPC from America. Oooh…hey, I like that! America would have to invest in Midway as per real history!
-
Was it Yamamoto who said we have awakened a sleeping giant? What about Germany running out of people to keep their armed forces adequately enlisted, hence the Hitler youth. Maybe after so many rounds Germany should only be able to produce a certain amount of Infantry, who might fight at a disadvantage? EEK GADS HEAVENS TO MURGATROID ZEPHON. I like it the way it is
-
@suprise:
EEK GADS HEAVENS TO MURGATROID ZEPHON. I like it the way it is
that’s the spirit!
-
Again, not really bringing the game into balance by limiting Germany’s power when the problem is the impossibility of Japan to survive as it currently stands.
I was thinking if we IMPROVED Germany’s power against Russia we might force America to act more like they did in history, thereby relieving the strain on Japan.
-
Hey! I said that earlier…
-
I’m beginning to like the concept of discarding the Alaskan NO (5 IPC for Alaska, Aluetian Islands, Lines Islands, Johnston Island and Hawaii (might be another one in there)) and replace it with Allied control of 3 of 5 of:
Egypt
Syria
Gibraltar
Brazil
AlgeriaAgain, only collectable if America is at war with the European nations.
-
US production shouldnt be contingent on the other allies posessions
If anything I feel the US has been nerfed to a point it can bareley be the force to reckon with that it once once, now its like Revised US….just another powerThe US should start with at least another bomber, another boat in the atlantic (destroyer at panama, another cruiser?, or just a sub would be fine), and two more infantry on the mainland to off set its IPC losses from having its NOs balkanized.
Id even go as far as to give the US an infantry on Wake and Midway to represent that these outposts werent bare naked as they appear.
Im not asking for more naval assets at start, im asking for some niche units for the US that dont really threaten anybody for a long time, but at least start on the board so the first US turn isnt just building the missing links for its army, airforce, AND navy
-
I think the US has been nerfed somewhat, but, where they are now is good. I would rather add a Japanese NO than take away a US one.
-
Id prefer italy not in the war round 1 and UK cant attack italy R1
-
Id prefer italy not in the war round 1 and UK cant attack italy R1
Doesn’t make sense historically not to have Italy at war already lol… Italy and Germany are allied and warring UK/France 1940 at the start of the game.
Having 2 German planes on Southern Italy gives them a boon and a fighting chance R1 IMO.
Suggested Topics
