How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.

[questioneer]

@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:

[edfactor]

@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)

[Krieghund]

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.

[Krieghund]

@edfactor:

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.

[mstephens]

@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.

[Piet Hein]

"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

[ehenry]

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.

[questioneer]

@Krieghund:

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.

[questioneer]

@mstephens:

@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

[JamesG]

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.

[Xandax]

@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.

[questioneer]

Wow Mantlefan,

You seriously got issues.  Yes I doubted Jen at first til I tried a couple of games using her ideas.  It started coming together and now I am in support of her for the most part.  I still don’t know what you’re trying to prove.

Since your so obsessed with super-detailed reports then WHY DON’T YOU FREAKIN POST ONE.  THEN WE CAN FOLLOW YOUR LEAD OH GREAT ONE. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Until then, add something constructive please. :roll: :roll: :roll:

[shohoku201]

wouldnt the easiest way to prove this is have Jen play as Allies versus Mantlefan as Axis?

[Xandax]

@mantlefan:

I’m not saying it couldbe objectively determined 100% of the time, but in a report there are bound to be moves players disagree with. Let’s say I am going over the game and it’s round 3 and I see something Germany does that I really don’t like. I can start from just before that and carry it out.

And that’s where the number of permutations will come into play.
Say turn 3 out of a 12 turn game, then turn 4 and onwards will be unknown.
Then there’s something in turn 4 somebody disagrees with, then turn 5 and onwards is unknown.
And somebody else disagrees with something in turn 2, making your turn 3 invalid.
And so forth.

Analysing the moves is fine and dandy, but it will ultimately be impossible to deduct much based on a play-by-play game. The overall strategies and result is point of contention here.

[Robbernosky]

So I’ve only played OOB, obviously this makes the game more balanced, but what else does it do?  Make it longer, more fun, more interesting?

[suprise attack]

I think a war is brewing on the horizon between Mantlefan and Com.Jen, maybe the best of 7 each one gets the axis 3 times and  each one gets the allies 3 times.  Then on game 7 a 3rd party chooses who’s who ,  and maybe they get to choose a partner in game 7.  Play all 7 regardless of the score. Tactic’s, strategy and dice may or may not favor one player or another.
  It would be interesting…… may the best General prevail

[ehenry]

Once should be sufficient.

Mantlefan reminds me of the tobacco companies. “Well sure our customers have died of cancer. But’s it’s not like smoking caused the cancer.”

[ghr2]

Apparantly its bad to be skeptical to a claim of imbalance to a game.

[suprise attack]

I’m sorry if I offended anybody I didnt mean to, I enjoy all the games Ive played win or loose, ( the dice have decided too many.)
  We set up multiple boards and the players all get their chance to play their ultimate Germany,Japan,Russia,etc. and the results are never the same they may achieve their goals but no 2 games are alike some players are tougher to take your objectives against. Then there are the people who do better with certain countries. Then there are win streaks Ive them at just 2 and then there are some that are 10 + or so.  They become the people to beat.
  We havnt played enough Global to see if one side or the other has a definite advantage Its only been 13 games so far and its about 50/50
  You could play a round and analyze your moves round by round  or go 10 or 15 rounds maybe more then see where you stand, I belive  that even if you did 4 or 5 games of the exact same strategy that your opponent would come up with a counter for that particular move.
    Untill I have played each country alot of times and have seen one side takes all time and time again then I’ll say that it needs to be balanced.  As of now I think its the best they’ve put out,  I just have to remember all my forgets and hope that if I draw one country 8 or so times that I can learn to win from that spot and when I do draw a different one Im not left wondering what to do
    Again sorry, I think that on any given nite with some good rolls and sound strategy you’de be the one to beat.  I think that applies to everyone on this forum.

[Imperious Leader]

That’s what we need to know if we are to have any clue whether or not they have legitimate points.

So perhaps less invalidating another posters experience and a little less “its not broken, but i can’t prove it so i’ll make more posts to raise doubt and show nothing by way of any counterargument”

Play a game with Jennifer and let her show you how she does it, it does not matter who wins, but to prove she is wrong you need to back up your own statements. Jennifer did that by many games she played and can easily be seen on this site.