Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.
I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.
The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D
which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.
What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.
I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
I suppose there could be a third camp, that mantlefan may be part of, that says “If US goes all Pacific, it is a 50-50 shot that the Axis could win on the Europe side before the US can neutralize Japan.”
I guess this camp would say that the game is already balanced in the face of a US all-Pacific strat, and that moving US NOs to the Atlantic side would imbalance things too much towards the Axis since it would slow down the US too much on the Pacific side, giving the Axis a better than 50-50 shot on the Europe side.
-
@mantlefan:
[
People supporting your argument tell others just to “read it” Why are those supporters not reading about your claims of the Soviets in Norway and Denmark? Why are they not reading about your claims of Germany needing at least 13 rounds to take Stalingrad?
[/quote]
Why aren’t you asking these supporters directly? Jen has no more control over her supporters than i have control over your mother.
-
The ships at Pearl Harbor were, for all intents and purposes, abandoned by the United States Navy. They were running on generators supplied from the docks, their engines were on cold steel (off, and cold, would take HOURS if not DAYS to get the fleet moving under their own power again, as a totality for the fleet) the ships didn’t even have enough people to be called a skeleton crew (regulations required more people on board than were actually on board at the time of the attack). Boiled down, if the ships were any more abanadoned than they were at the time of the attack, they would have sunk from leaks in their own hulls. I call that abandoned.
Did I say “undefended?” No. Of course not! America put on a spectacular show, and many lives were lost so that FDR could justify entering WWII, but they were hardly as well defended as America’s Carriers were, by any stretch of the imagination.
The Super BBs are just as complicated as National Objectives. IMHO. However, the option was given to pander to those who wanted more units on the board.
A London NO makes the most sense of any NO proposal on the Atlantic Board. Primarily because London can fall and probably will fall if Germany wants it. Thus, America has to dedicate itself to the liberation or forever give up the NO. IMHO.
-
Mantlefan: Stop complaining and prove the opposite and demonstrate it by your own public record of games you played here on this site.
Stop all this whining with one post after another basically telling others not to listen to Jennifer and just making claims with empty hands.
You are not helping the conversation one bit and just drawing attention to yourself…
-
@Cmdr:
The ships at Pearl Harbor were, for all intents and purposes, abandoned by the United States Navy. They were running on generators supplied from the docks, their engines were on cold steel (off, and cold, would take HOURS if not DAYS to get the fleet moving under their own power again, as a totality for the fleet) the ships didn’t even have enough people to be called a skeleton crew (regulations required more people on board than were actually on board at the time of the attack). Boiled down, if the ships were any more abanadoned than they were at the time of the attack, they would have sunk from leaks in their own hulls. I call that abandoned.
Did I say “undefended?” No. Of course not! America put on a spectacular show, and many lives were lost so that FDR could justify entering WWII, but they were hardly as well defended as America’s Carriers were, by any stretch of the imagination.
The Super BBs are just as complicated as National Objectives. IMHO. However, the option was given to pander to those who wanted more units on the board.
A London NO makes the most sense of any NO proposal on the Atlantic Board. Primarily because London can fall and probably will fall if Germany wants it. Thus, America has to dedicate itself to the liberation or forever give up the NO. IMHO.
The Super BB is more complex than a NO because it requires a counter. It is too complex.
A London NO is redundant and needlessly complex. America’s incentive in the Atlantic is to prevent the loss of an ally. Another NO is not needed.
America should receive fewer IPC. This would require more American teamwork with allies and is historically accurate.
-
maybe edit it where america does not get the 25-30 ipc boost right when it gets into the war, maybe have like 5 ipc added every turn after it goes to war. America was not a peak production for the real war till late 43, early 44.
-
Fair comment mantlefan……is it innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent.
-
I can’t believe I’m going to draw myself into this debate, but…here goes.
I come at it from the opposite perspective, mantlefan. I’ve been looking for quite awhile, and I have not seen a single Axis strategy posted either here or on Larry Harris’ forums that leads to a solid chance of an Axis victory. Even on the few play-by-forum games I’ve skimmed, Axis wins are usually either (a) fluke dice, or (b) bad Allied decisions. Die rolls are part of the game, but if you require them to have a chance at victory I wouldn’t call that game balance.
I can say from our own games that Russia has never fallen. Ever. It’s been an unbroken string of Allied wins. Even with Germany making ~60 and Russia making 25-30, Moscow has held for long enough. We haven’t even tried Sea Lion first and given Russia the extra buildup time…our games have all been variants of Barbarossa. The Axis have attacked G2 (once), G3, G4, and even G5, and still Moscow has never fallen. We’ve had tank/mech builds, ICs in Romania, no ICs in Romania, air force with artillery/infantry, Leningrad first, Stalingrad first, ignoring both and heading for Moscow. All no go. To your point: we don’t routinely see Russia in Norway or even Finland, but it hasn’t ever mattered.
The worst off Russia has ever been was last game, when my regular opponent decided to smash through Turkey to get to the Middle-East/Caucasus and then come up from the south in addition to coming from the west. That was pretty close, and the UK actually had to send some units up from India to reinforce. Of course, by then, Germany had already lost Western Europe, Italy wasn’t anywhere near Cairo anymore, Russia WAS in Norway, and most of the true neutrals were Allied territories thanks to the invasion of Turkey. Taking Moscow would have prolonged the game, but that’s about it. Still, it was a close (if ultimately meaningless) fight. :-D
Now, the US has pretty consistently been spending something in the Atlantic in all of those scenarios (except on US 1). Even without 100% Pacific spending, though, Japan has still had major problems. I don’t know how much detail you are looking for in outlining strategies, and I don’t really understand why you need specifics for the US spending 100% in the Pacific (build a giant fleet, sink the Japanese fleet, throw some transports in to retake islands). However, I can outline what I do do. It’s not 100% Pacific spending, but it’s been working just fine…
When I play Allies, first turn US is two carriers and a battleship for the Pacific. This immediately brings the US up to near-parity with the starting Japanese fleet. Fleet moves from Hawaii back to the Western US, stuff on the Philippines starts heading back too. Planes from Honolulu and the continental US land on the new carriers. After US 1, you basically only have to slightly exceed Japanese naval builds, though I do often spend more than that depending on the European situation. ANZAC and the UK can handle the rest.
US 2 everything sails towards Hawaii, including the stuff from the Philippines (via the Solomons) if it doesn’t get sunk. US 2 buys depend a bit on what Japan does…a few destroyers/subs or maybe strategic bombers depending on where their fleet is. The Atlantic gets destroyers, transports, and maybe a land unit (exact mix depends on which naval forces are still afloat in that theater). I spend about 60/40 Atlantic/Pacific on US 2, with the goal of landing 4 transports on the European half of the map on US 4.
US 3 Japan generally loses the Carolines…committing to its defense really hampers their ability to escort transports and keep pressure on everywhere else. Even if Japan parks their whole fleet in the Carolines and I don’t think the US can win the fight, it’s often worth attacking anyway. It opens up a lot of opportunity for ANZAC and the UK if the Japanese fleet is trivialized, and the US can rebuild their lost fleet a lot faster at this stage of the game. I only stay away from the Carolines if Japan has been spending significantly on naval units to reinforce it, or if they’ve tried something unusual like going for Alaska. In the Atlantic it’s time to go grab the free infantry on Brazil. US 3 buys are generally split about 50/50 between a Pacific fleet and an Atlantic mix of air, sea, and land + transports.
Once the Carolines are gone, Japan is in trouble. Going to India in force means not defending most of the Pacific for 3 rounds. Japan loses the Philippines, followed by their DEI NO. Australia is easier for Japan to take if you do it quickly, but harder to hold and there’s not as much strategic advantage to owning it once you’re there. Japan crumbles incredibly quickly once they hit the tipping point and can’t hold the DEI. It’s usually only 2-3 rounds after that before they can’t sustain an offense, and maybe another couple after that until they are trivialized.
On US 4+, if Japan is still floating a navy, I generally buy a new loaded carrier or replacement airplanes for empty carriers, depending. Throw in 1-2 subs or destroyers as cheap support, and that leaves somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of your income for the Atlantic depending on NOs. I don’t generally have many active US transports in the Pacific…I leave that to ANZAC and the UK, as they need the income more. If Japan has lost their navy and can’t or isn’t rebuilding, I might throw loaded transports out there instead of the cheap naval units.
Turn 4 is when the US starts taking targets of opportunity if Japan is out of position. If the Japanese fleet is sitting on the Philippines or some other standoff location, that’s also fine. The US still has more income at this point as well as two additional allies running around the Pacific. Just keep building up until you can smash their fleet…the more they spend on offense in Asia, the quicker they fall behind at sea and get crushed.
Now, how can Japan match the US naval builds and still post some kind of credible threat on land? They have to be spending about 40 just to keep up at sea, and that doesn’t even include ANZAC’s purchases. They need another 20+ to keep some kind of offense going vs. China and India. How are they making 65-70IPC (or, I suppose, eliminating a mainland opponent) by J 3? We can’t find a way for Japan to get it all together fast enough without either (a) bringing the US into the war on J 1, or (b) buying a bunch of carriers to get their air force out to sea. Either of those strategies creates a bunch of other problems. Getting the US into the war early lets them stick a giant fleet in the Pacific (or even SZ 6) very quickly while still landing in the Atlantic by US 4 or 5. Buying carriers and moving the Japanese air force out to sea seems to work better, but it slows them down in Asia and time isn’t on their side with a lower income. You’re counting on Germany to win in that case, and as I mentioned Moscow has always held long enough for the UK and the US to be landing in Europe in force.
If there is indeed a sound Axis strategy, I’d love to hear it. It’s my turn to play Axis next and I’m sick of seeing them lose :-) I’m almost desperate enough to try Sea Lion, though if G3 Sea Lion is the only viable German opening I’d still argue that this version of Alpha has problems (and I’m not at all sure that G3 Sea Lion has a bright future).
Incidentally, I can’t believe some people this thread wanted to make China more powerful. CHINA. Japan faces four opponents, and even the least powerful of them is supposed to put up some kind of fight? Where is Japan supposed to make progress if every one of those four opponents is a legitimate source of resistance? That’s like saying France should be able to stick around until G3-G4. The Axis start with fewer units on the board AND less income. They need to make progress rapidly somewhere to stand any chance at all.
-
Japan is very hard to play. The overwhelming need for transports makes it even more difficult. They start with 3. J1 purchase is 2 Transports and 2 Subs.
Japan in essence has two theaters to fight in. Mainland Asia and the Pacific.
My objective in Asia, is to get Calcutta. First cut off the Burma road as fast as possible. Second funnel as many men as you can as fast as you can toward Calcutta. The only way to achieve this is to use your three transports and move men and artillery along the coast to Kwangsi. Along with your non-carrier air force. Take and hold Yunan as quickly as you can. If you can take it on J1 and withstand the Chinese counterattack, land your air force there J2. J3 attack the UK in Hong Kong and Malaya, and begin strategic bombing of Calcutta with fighter escorts. The whole time half of the fleet (2 of the 3 starting Carriers) is helping along the coast and assisting with the capture of Malaya and Hong Kong.
I view the Pacific as Japan as a triangle. The three points being Tokyo, Malaya and the Carolines. For the first three turns my focus is so much on the Calcutta, I just hope that the US doesn’t come wipe out what little of my fleet is left in the Carolines. I stack on the Carolines and put a Destroyer in SZ16 to block any attack from Hawaii on the undefended home island. (I hate this tactic, but it becomes a necessity at times). If by J3 I can spare a transport for the Carolines I can begin a push toward the Solomons. Simply adding a couple of ships to the Carolines in the setup would make an enormous difference here. As it is with a Carrier and Destroyer, its very thin. Add a transport, sub and cruiser and the Japanese can begin to prosecute some kind of offensive against ANZAC. With the current setup as soon as war breaks out with the UK, ANZAC is at 15 IPC since they easily take Dutch New Guinea on their first turn. Also if my assault on Malaya doesn’t succeed, then he is at 20.
I don’t know if on J1 in place of 1 of the transports and one of the subs if I bought a Minor IC and place it on Kiangsu if that would free up some more resources to focus on the Carolines and DEI. I typically cannot get all of them and do everything else I am trying to do on the mainland. My current game against a friend of mine he moved a transport and some men out to the DEI as the UK and has half under his control. At this point I don’t know if it worth re-directing my efforts towards taking it since I am within 3 turns of taking Calcutta. If I distract from that it pushes that out. I know with all four under my belt it is worth 20 IPC, but I see an opening in India and I am going to take it. He also is pestering me with Russia in the north. He is down to six men, but I have a scarce force of a tank and two artillery in Korea.
I am winning this game as Axis, but that is mostly because of some bad dice for my opponent and one or two mis-steps on his part. I have made some of my own but his bad dice and my good dice saved me. In Europe I took UK on G2 and have a formidable force pressing on the Russian border for the start of turn 4. The Italians have all of the Mediterranean and are about to push into the middle east and use their Navy in the Atlantic to defend Western Europe.
-
@mantlefan:
WHERE ARE THE PLAY REPORTS?!?!?!?!?!?
It is a fair statement, at the same time you need to provide the play reports that say the game IS balanced. Where are YOUR play reports??? Any pencil-neck can ask questions or criticize. Just make sure you play by your own rules. Do you think I’m just going to “believe” its balanced just because you say its not unbalanced???
Jen has given general summaries of her games. Documenting every move for 12+ rounds (which is what you want) takes pages to type. Your better off to quit whining about play reports and try it a few times yourself and share your conclusions- that would be most helpful.
Most of what she is talking about doesn’t effect the game unitil past rounds 8+. As the rounds go by there are more variations to the game, however only a few more strategically sound variations will surface. This will all take time, yet I don’t think we are far away from a good balanced game. My experienced from the 5-6 games I have played in Alpha+2 is that the game is Allied advantaged. Root of the issue lies with the US to shift some of it NO money to the Atlantic. That’s it. Adding a few Axis units could help but it doesn’t solve the ROOT of the problem. Oh, but I forgot mantlefan, you believe Alpha +2 has reach utopia. Well, until we see some of YOUR play reports then we won’t know will we??? :roll: :roll: :roll:
-
@Cmdr:
The Super BBs are just as complicated as National Objectives. IMHO. However, the option was given to pander to those who wanted more units on the board.
A London NO makes the most sense of any NO proposal on the Atlantic Board. Primarily because London can fall and probably will fall if Germany wants it. Thus, America has to dedicate itself to the liberation or forever give up the NO. IMHO.
The Iowa class was better then the Yamato, vastly better fire control, at least least a 33% (perhaps as high as 66%) faster rate of fire on the main guns, more penetration in Iowa’s 16" gun ammo then Yamatos 18", much higher quality armor, 3 to 4 knots faster, and much better AA guns.
In no way did the Yamato stand up to the Iowas, so if the Japanese get 3 hit BB so do the US. (but only battleships the US builds after the US is at war)
-
Mantlefan has a valid point.
That the game is balanced can only be proven over thousands of plays utilizing many different strategies. In point of fact, that it is balanced can never really be 100% proven at all, as new strategies are constantly evolving which may prove otherwise. All that can be proven for sure is whether or not there are known strategies that give one side or the other a clear advantage. If there are, the game is out of balance. If there are not, the game is assumed to be in balance.
I say “assumed” because no one can actually prove that the game is balanced. To do so would mean proving that there are no strategies that give one side or the other a clear advantage. This is impossible, as proving a negative is indeed impossible. For this reason, the burden of proof must rest on those who claim that it is not balanced. It is up to them to present such a strategy and allow others to fail to prove that it can be defeated.
The question here is whether or not Jen has discoved a game-breaking Allied strategy. The only way to answer that question is to test that strategy, and that can only be done effectively if its details are known. However, this particular strategy may have enough variables that such details are unimportant, and only a general understanding is needed.
-
The Iowa class was better then the Yamato, vastly better fire control, at least least a 33% (perhaps as high as 66%) faster rate of fire on the main guns, more penetration in Iowa’s 16" gun ammo then Yamatos 18", much higher quality armor, 3 to 4 knots faster, and much better AA guns.
In no way did the Yamato stand up to the Iowas, so if the Japanese get 3 hit BB so do the US. (but only battleships the US builds after the US is at war)
Yes, the myth of the Japanese “super battleships” is one of the most persistent ones of the war.
-
@mantlefan:
Thanks for trying to put forth an analysis (although it is still to general to be of real value; I’m not trying to slight you, that’s just how it is; we can’t examine alternatives to moves in important situations unless we have the whole picture),
Am I reading this right? You are now saying that what you’ve been asking for is actually impossible? That you’re demanding proof and yet not going to actually accept what you’re asking for? Or are you just asking for an unnecessary level of detail?
I’m saying, in my outline, that the US is parked in the Carolines by US 3. They have done this with a fleet that Japan is not capable of dislodging if Japan has followed any of their relatively common openings. While it is true that other stuff is happening on the board, Japan’s game is being won or lost right here. They can coast a bit on the mainland once they have lost the seas, but their time is limited. They certainly can’t win on the Pacific map, because they need Sydney or Honolulu and they don’t have naval superiority.
Japan in the first three turns has done typical stuff. They advance in China, lose Yunnan on China 1, retake and hold it on J 2, and generally crawl forward. They buy transports on the first turn and generally launch on the Philippines/DEI on J 2. Early on in our games, J 2 was a positioning turn to maintain the Japanese peace NO for another round, but it’s too slow when the US hits the Carolines in round 3. Japan never even got out of the gate when they didn’t start grabbing the DEI until the US was already at the Carolines.
@mantlefan:
That puts the burden of proof on her. (I’m not sure if you get into logic at all but this site is helpful if you wnat to have meaningful discussions/debates rather than Jerry Springer)
I know some logic, though I’m no expert. I know enough to know that you’re using this wrong. You can argue that Jen’s specific points require burden of proof, and in the minutiae of her specific solutions you have a point, but in the big picture the extraordinary claim (the game is balanced) is yours.
It is much more likely that a game this complex is still unbalanced. Step one is deciding whether or not the game is balanced. Step two is moving on to proving whether a specific solution is needed and functional. Some people are working on step two, and for any specific solution the burden of proof is on them.
You’re arguing something different: that the game should be assumed to be balanced in Step one. You need proof for that.
@mantlefan:
Allegedly there is some new discovery that proves that USA full pac breaks the game. Why not share the “discovery?” Was it made during games skewed by tech or house rules? Was it skewed by uneven dice? Was it skewed by uneven player skill? Was it made up out of thin air to push a rule change that forces USA to spend IPC in both theatres? IL gets on me for asking questions; well, I have one more: Why are none of these questions being answered?
They are being answered. You just don’t like the answers that you’re getting because you think they’re too vague. The discovery is that the US can go 100% in the Pacific and still get to Europe in time.
Or, if you like, I am making a lesser version of the claim, which is that the US strategy outlined above (first turn build specified, and then just outspend Japan every turn after that) will have Japan on the brink fairly quickly.
@mantlefan:
Jen made a claim that the axis essentially can’t win when USA goes full pac (or at least not win often enough to call the game balanced). How can we test if axis CAN win with this allied strategy in place if we are not clear on what the strat is?
That is the strategy. It’s no one set series of builds, and even if it was that would be more tactics than strategy. The US spends 100% in the Pacific until it is clear that they have broken Japan’s fleet, and until ANZAC and India are safe and capable of reclaiming the DEI, etc. At that point on they start moving on Europe. At least, that’s Jen’s claim. I haven’t tried it myself, but then I haven’t had any trouble bottling up Japan quickly with a lower level of spending. Japan’s income has spiked for, generally, about two turns in our games. That’s it. They lose their economy before they really have a chance to gain anything from it, and even at their peak they’re not making what they’d need to make to achieve parity.
@mantlefan:
With little more information from jen other than the USA goes full pac rds 6-8, does this mean that if I buy 2 US battleships every turn I will win as the USA? Why not? So far according to the information she has given that follows the strat.
I think that Jen, questioneer, and the rest of us are assuming that you aren’t being deliberately obtuse with your gameplay. No, “full 100% Pacific” does not mean you can buy a bunch of transports and sail them out en masse to get sunk by the closest sub. Wage war just as you usually would, but with the entire weight of the US focused on breaking the Japanese fleet and bottling them up on their home island. Once you’ve destroyed their navy, ANZAC and India can clean up the DEI and such.
The whole point is that it doesn’t really matter what Japan does, because they don’t make enough money to stop you. I think you are underestimating how helpless Japan ends up being when the US neglects the Atlantic and falls on them with overwhelming force. You’re looking for details, when the counterargument is that the details are irrelevant.
@mantlefan:
The point is that plenty of people have won and are winning with axis. Just look back in this thread alone.
I have looked. If you’d like to point out a specific example you have in mind, I can show you where I think the game was decided on either (a) fluke dice, or (b) Allied mistake, or ©, you’ll show me an Axis strategy that might really work.
Unfortunately, to your point, there is a large category (d), which are games too vague to really know what happened, but I’ll do the best I can.
@mantlefan:
If you have a strat that is different from hers but also is an auto-win for the allies please post a report of it in action so we can see how it worked as well and see if there’s anything the axis could have done. If the axis had no better options responding to and anticipatiing each allied move then maybe jen is rightand there does exist an unstoppable strategy.
Basically same as above. The strategy has been described at a general level. Have you even tried it?
I can attempt to post a full Pacific battle report from what I remember from my last game, but it will have to wait a week until I get back home. I’m stuck with generic debating until then.
-
"I have looked. If you’d like to point out a specific example you have in mind, I can show you where I think the game was decided on either (a) fluke dice, or (b) Allied mistake, or ©, you’ll show me an Axis strategy that might really work. "
& you say you know logic
-
MStephens that was brilliantly elucidated. Thank you very much.
The strategy is USA all in for the Pacific. I expect all other allies turtle or otherwise hold out until Japan is finished.
The details are obviously in the tactics. A good strategy still fails if you deliberately buy only factories and troops but no protection or transportation.
Anybody who wants to succeed as the Allies should be testing this to determine if they found a guaranteed Tournament winner every time they play.
-
Mantlefan has a valid point.
The question here is whether or not Jen has discoved a game-breaking Allied strategy. The only way to answer that question is to test that strategy, and that can only be done effectively if its details are known. However, this particular strategy may have enough variables that such details are unimportant, and only a general understanding is needed.
Thank you- that is a fair statement. There are several now who agree with us that US money needs to be shifted as in my given prosposal. Many of them, including myself have given “summaries” of their games of what is going on. We will work on getting more “detailed” (move speicfic- though exhaustive to write out) game reports in the future.
However, I must suggest that those that are hard-pressed against the accusation of imbalance playtest the “Total Pac” strat with and w/o Sealion to come to your own conclusions and report as well. It doesn’t do anybody any good sitting there and saying “prove it!!!” while doing nothing in the meantime.
-
@mantlefan:
Thanks for trying to put forth an analysis (although it is still to general to be of real value; I’m not trying to slight you, that’s just how it is; we can’t examine alternatives to moves in important situations unless we have the whole picture),
Am I reading this right? You are now saying that what you’ve been asking for is actually impossible? That you’re demanding proof and yet not going to actually accept what you’re asking for? Or are you just asking for an unnecessary level of detail?
I’m saying, in my outline, that the US is parked in the Carolines by US 3. They have done this with a fleet that Japan is not capable of dislodging if Japan has followed any of their relatively common openings. While it is true that other stuff is happening on the board, Japan’s game is being won or lost right here. They can coast a bit on the mainland once they have lost the seas, but their time is limited. They certainly can’t win on the Pacific map, because they need Sydney or Honolulu and they don’t have naval superiority.
Japan in the first three turns has done typical stuff. They advance in China, lose Yunnan on China 1, retake and hold it on J 2, and generally crawl forward. They buy transports on the first turn and generally launch on the Philippines/DEI on J 2. Early on in our games, J 2 was a positioning turn to maintain the Japanese peace NO for another round, but it’s too slow when the US hits the Carolines in round 3. Japan never even got out of the gate when they didn’t start grabbing the DEI until the US was already at the Carolines.
@mantlefan:
That puts the burden of proof on her. (I’m not sure if you get into logic at all but this site is helpful if you wnat to have meaningful discussions/debates rather than Jerry Springer)
I know some logic, though I’m no expert. I know enough to know that you’re using this wrong. You can argue that Jen’s specific points require burden of proof, and in the minutiae of her specific solutions you have a point, but in the big picture the extraordinary claim (the game is balanced) is yours.
It is much more likely that a game this complex is still unbalanced. Step one is deciding whether or not the game is balanced. Step two is moving on to proving whether a specific solution is needed and functional. Some people are working on step two, and for any specific solution the burden of proof is on them.
You’re arguing something different: that the game should be assumed to be balanced in Step one. You need proof for that.
@mantlefan:
Allegedly there is some new discovery that proves that USA full pac breaks the game. Why not share the “discovery?” Was it made during games skewed by tech or house rules? Was it skewed by uneven dice? Was it skewed by uneven player skill? Was it made up out of thin air to push a rule change that forces USA to spend IPC in both theatres? IL gets on me for asking questions; well, I have one more: Why are none of these questions being answered?
They are being answered. You just don’t like the answers that you’re getting because you think they’re too vague. The discovery is that the US can go 100% in the Pacific and still get to Europe in time.
Or, if you like, I am making a lesser version of the claim, which is that the US strategy outlined above (first turn build specified, and then just outspend Japan every turn after that) will have Japan on the brink fairly quickly.
@mantlefan:
Jen made a claim that the axis essentially can’t win when USA goes full pac (or at least not win often enough to call the game balanced). How can we test if axis CAN win with this allied strategy in place if we are not clear on what the strat is?
That is the strategy. It’s no one set series of builds, and even if it was that would be more tactics than strategy. The US spends 100% in the Pacific until it is clear that they have broken Japan’s fleet, and until ANZAC and India are safe and capable of reclaiming the DEI, etc. At that point on they start moving on Europe. At least, that’s Jen’s claim. I haven’t tried it myself, but then I haven’t had any trouble bottling up Japan quickly with a lower level of spending. Japan’s income has spiked for, generally, about two turns in our games. That’s it. They lose their economy before they really have a chance to gain anything from it, and even at their peak they’re not making what they’d need to make to achieve parity.
@mantlefan:
With little more information from jen other than the USA goes full pac rds 6-8, does this mean that if I buy 2 US battleships every turn I will win as the USA? Why not? So far according to the information she has given that follows the strat.
I think that Jen, questioneer, and the rest of us are assuming that you aren’t being deliberately obtuse with your gameplay. No, “full 100% Pacific” does not mean you can buy a bunch of transports and sail them out en masse to get sunk by the closest sub. Wage war just as you usually would, but with the entire weight of the US focused on breaking the Japanese fleet and bottling them up on their home island. Once you’ve destroyed their navy, ANZAC and India can clean up the DEI and such.
The whole point is that it doesn’t really matter what Japan does, because they don’t make enough money to stop you. I think you are underestimating how helpless Japan ends up being when the US neglects the Atlantic and falls on them with overwhelming force. You’re looking for details, when the counterargument is that the details are irrelevant.
@mantlefan:
The point is that plenty of people have won and are winning with axis. Just look back in this thread alone.
I have looked. If you’d like to point out a specific example you have in mind, I can show you where I think the game was decided on either (a) fluke dice, or (b) Allied mistake, or ©, you’ll show me an Axis strategy that might really work.
Unfortunately, to your point, there is a large category (d), which are games too vague to really know what happened, but I’ll do the best I can.
@mantlefan:
If you have a strat that is different from hers but also is an auto-win for the allies please post a report of it in action so we can see how it worked as well and see if there’s anything the axis could have done. If the axis had no better options responding to and anticipatiing each allied move then maybe jen is rightand there does exist an unstoppable strategy.
Basically same as above. The strategy has been described at a general level. Have you even tried it?
I can attempt to post a full Pacific battle report from what I remember from my last game, but it will have to wait a week until I get back home. I’m stuck with generic debating until then.
mstephens, I’m behind you on this one- what he said is just plain ignorant
-
I wish these forums still had a way to give a “thumbs up” or “postive karma” or whatever to signify approval of a post so I could give it to mantlefan’s.
-
@mantlefan:
The way you test if a strat is too good in a particular game is to look at the game at each turn and see if there is anything that the allegedly disadvantaged player could have done better. Disagree?
I’m talking full breakdown of each turn [Gasp!] Yes, it adds a lot of time and work.
There’s strategies at the absolute highest, most macro level (All pac, Barbarossa, Sealion, India first, Japanese Russia invasion, etc). These are things that can actually pretty much be decided before the game even starts in many cases.
As you move down and the number of territories specifically involved in each situation decrease, each issue becomes more context dependent.Even the smallest moves in terms of IPCs can have an impact on the flow of the game, especaily over many rounds. To see if there is ANY way to defeat this strat regularly we need EVERY detail of how it was used effectively, to see if either the allies or the axis did not act to their best advantage at the time each move was made.
Actually -what you ask and intend to do is impossible.
There’s no way to deduct - whether people know logic or not - whether a move is to “their best advantage” at any given time. It’s not an objectively, quantifiable event.
So if somebody presents something they think, argue, believe is the best advantage at any given moment, it will always be possible to ask “what if” and “why not”.
So you can only believe or assume the move was the possible best at a given time. And because of the nature of the “what if” and “why not” in this context, nobody can then prove (when we talk logic) that an alternate move would have been any better.
There’s simply too many permutations to be able to say that a move is to the best advantage at any given time. Therefore asking for every detail is a dis-justice to the discussion, and possible just a delaying strategy used in argumentation (logic again), because every detail will be impossible to use for anything.Sure there are situations - such as moving al your troops out of a defending city or only building factories and AA guns - that will unanimous be declared bad moves, but whether you move troops from one zone into another or a third zone into a fourth - then we’re in a situation where the “what if” and “why nots” alone can question any tactic made.
As you claim yourself: “Even the smallest moves in terms of IPCs can have an impact on the flow of the game”
Therefore any contrary opinion, even if followed by play-by-play - will easily be refutable in a “logical debate” and therefore we’ll always be back at square one simply due to the inability of objectively deciding what is to their best advantage.Tactics affect the game and game moves are important to deducting whether a strategy is sound - balanced or imbalanced aside - however, you can only judge said move in the very context of the situation, aka the strategy.
If within a reasonable amount of games, going full pacific leads to victory for the Allies the vast majority of times , then it is assumed a sound strategy. And if it works the majority of times, it will be assumed imbalanced. Despite once in a full moon an Allied player will mess up or get diced or simply outplayed.
Despite the full turn play-by-play available or not.
But because it is time consuming and rather infeasible to test such things out, it’s a debate which will be governed fully by own personal experiences and belief.Assuming equality in ability - then it is my clear opinion and experience the USA is too much of a powerhouse, and going full Pacific is viable most of the time.
And the times it isn’t - the dice usually have had their say.
That does not stop me from trying to out play or outsmart my opponent when Axis, but I know I’m up against the odds regardless and my success is more calculated on how long I can hold out than whether or not I pull of a win. The game is imbalanced, advantage the USA aka the Allied but I play with what I got.The easiest argument for the game (still) being imbalanced is simply the existence of changed ruleset. The game was tested and shipped in a state that was imbalanced - otherwise Alpha+2 wouldn’t be here. So why suddenly do people think it will be balanced now? It might be more balanced, but there’s no ground to think it is fully balanced now when it was tested and shipped imbalanced to begin with.
Suggested Topics
