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

[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.

[Jennifer]

Part of what, I feel, is the error of those who claim the allies will always lose when America goes all into the Pacific is what I call “Machine Play.”  One NCSCSwitch, a former moderator who left after getting the snot kicked out of him by yours truly, after claiming my strategy held no water, was such a player.  Once confronted by something “different” their entire strategy goes up in smoke.

These players find it extremely difficult to imagine the possibilities of varied game play, as they have found “the one” strategy and anything short of that is not optimal.  To which I say, “yup, not optimal, but it beat you, now didn’t it?”

It is the lack of imagination that causes them to demand detailed play reports.  Reports that state you must purchase these units, make this non-combat movements, etc, etc.  It is when they get these reports they retort “well, the Axis can just do this and stop it.”  Duh.  If you KNOW what we are going to do because we told you what we are going to do 8 rounds out, then HELL YES you can stop it.  What’s your point?  Hey, I’m going to play you in a game of chess, but I am ONLY going to try and get you in the “Fools Mate.”  Okay?  Now, don’t alter your moves any!

Sheesh!

---

---

Now, I have been EXTREMELY clear on how I envision the OVERALL, undetailed, Allied strategy to go down.

1. England and Russia turtle, giving up only what land they have to give up to maintain the strongest possible defensive force on the board.  They don’t have to have Denmark or Norway, or anything at all.  They probabily will have one or both of those territories during the game at some point, but the strategy is not contingent there-upon and I never claimed it was.

2. India works to secure the Middle East after sending a MODERATE reinforcement team into China.  14 Infantry, 2 or 3 Artillery and 1 or 2 Armored units is perfectly within the realm of belief for British units in China.  This should be more than enough, with significant pressure on Japan, to push Japan out of most of China and limit them to Korea, Manchuria and Jehol (trading Jehol with China.)

3. China turtles as best it can, to prevent the loss of their fighter until America can get in the game.  This is not hard.  This is not implausible.  In fact, unless Japan wants to trade 10 aircraft for the pleasure of getting the Chinese fighter, it is very simple to keep the Chinese fighter alive!  You only need 3 rounds!

4. England should be super aggressive in SZ 97, Tobruk and Ethiopia (or that little piece of Italy on the African Horn, if the calculators are not giving you what you want.)  Can this be derailed?  Yes.  What’s the result of derailing it?  Uh, well, now Japan has 1 Cruiser, 2 Battleship, 2 Destroyers, 1 Aircraft Carrier and 5 planes to deal with, instead of 3 planes, a battleship and a cruiser, thus, America can afford to leave the Pacific sooner.  Derailing the British aggression seems like a very poor idea, given the long range strategic situation.

5. Russia should retreat 18 Infantry and an AA Gun all the way back to Kansu (assuming they do not go to Muskva, a decision which has to be made at the time the units get to TIM.)  From here they can swing into China’s back door and help push out Japan.  Yes, I realize this gives Japan 6 IPC a round after 6 rounds of pushing into Russia (and giving Russia 12 IPC in the process to use to slow down Germany.)  But this is a very small price to pay once you realize Japan has lost significantly more due to the lost units. (Of which at least 7 to 8 infantry and Mechanized Infnatry, two or three artillery, at least one or two armor and some planes are going to have to press into Russia and thus be unavailable for use in China.  That alone, if for no other reason, makes this retreat a resounding success!)

6. Australia needs to have destroyers and Submarines in the water.  With 3 fighters following the American fleet like a lost trio of puppies, America should EASILY be able to press in further than Japan could (given Australian planes can land on territories taken by Americans as well as British and Australian naval units along for the ride.)  The general idea is that Australia, instead of America, trades destroyers with Japan thus maintaining American warship strength while sapping Japanese strength.

7. America’s only job is to end up with a sizable force of naval warships in both SZ 26 and SZ 33 so that England and Australia can take the islands in the south Pacific.  A very small detachment can go to liberate the Philippines.  Eventually, it would be ideal to have the warships around Okinawa or Iwo Jima.  From here sorties of Strategic Bombers can pummel the Japanese into submission. (Cost per attack run: 2 IPC, Damage per attack run: 4 IPC (3.8…rounded to 4).  This would be assisted with an Airbase in W. USA.  From this point on, about round 7 or 8, Japan is no longer a threat and 100% of American builds (less replacement bombers) can go after Europe.

8.) Germany is now faced with a major problem.  Italy, with about 30 IPC a round income, is going to lose what little they have quickly, as American ships can readily get from Washington DC to Gibraltar and back.  Germany is losing 8 IPC a round from England (thus only getting 5 IPC a round, assuming they took England at all.)  Territories that must be defended:

• W. France
• S. France
• N. Italy
• Holland
• S. Italy
• W. Germany
• Norway
• Denmark

While some of these can be lightly defended and traded, some of these must be defended strongly enough to prevent an American foothold.  This would, by simple logistics and financial reasoning, require German units to be pulled off the Russian front and sent to the west, just as happened in the real war.

9. Now that Germany and Italy are retracting (about turn 10 or 11), Russia is free to stretch out and liberate some territories, sniping at the heals of the Axis in the process.

---

Now, it has been shown multiple times by myself, and at least once by another, that a 900 IPC American fleet by round 7 or 8 is not only realistic, it’s virtually assured given a strong Pac Strat.  Further, it’s been shown that Russia can easily have 80 to 90% of the number of units of the Germans, which should - by all the laws of probabilities - be enough to prevent Germany from “winning”, especially if they lose a significant force in England.

Further, if Germany ignores England, England becomes an impenetrable rock and thus, Germany will never get the VC win.  It was already a long shot, and that was assuming a Russia forced to stand alone for 4 or 5 rounds before the Americans came over to help and the Indians came up from the south to assist.  With the British reinforcing from the North, the Germans have no prayer in winning in Russia.

---

Now, that, of course, is not very detailed.  No where in it did I state that XYZ had to be built on this round, and these units had to be moved to these territories on those rounds.  Why?

A)  Dice.  Good dice beat good tactics every day!  A set of good, or bad, dice can subtly alter your strategic path as you adjust to the new situation.  Why should I tell you that you MUST do it MY way?  No.  Play the game, you’ll see where to go, or you won’t and you will lose.

B)  Your opponent.  Unlike many on these boards, I do not assume my opponent is a complete dithering idiot.  I am well aware that my opponent realizes that the American fleet is now the exact same size of his Japanese fleet with a pretty decent chunk of Australians to help defend it.  They will almost certainly realize that they are throwing perfectly good destroyers out to kill pretty useless Australian ones (the reason I have the Australian ones is to trade with Japan.)  However, they must still do something else leave the door open for America to attack them.  Likewise, they might think a “tank dash” could work.  If it does, see (A).  But it has been the history of the game that Tank Dashes rarely work, and when they do, it’s generally because of (A).

C) Position.  All these subtleties can add up to a completely unique playing field.  Perhaps Russia finds itself in the enviable position of having those 18 Infantry in TIM without Japan ever having invaded!  Maybe along with that, China and England were slightly ahead of the curve in their counter attacks into Japanese territories in China?

D)  Then there are the cases where Japan hands you a victory right out the door.  I am talking a round 1 all out blitz on everything in the Pacific.  Boy that sure speeds up your strategy!

E)  Lastly, you may not have noticed this (of course you did!) but the board is friggin HUGE!  This is not classic, you cannot just say build in Germany, move to E. Europe, Karelia and then Russia.  How do you go to Russia?  Rostov?  Bryansk?  Belarus?  Novgorod?  Volgorod?  Novosibirsk?  Arkhangelsk?  Did you lose England?  Did Germany try to pull a fast one and get spanked?  Did they reinforce Tobruk and SZ 97 but you attacked anyway and got lucky? (Doesn’t take much luck even with German reinforcements, all it really takes is one or two fighters to miss instead of hit and those battles QUICKLY swing back in favor of the British!) and thus, you eliminated 2(4) Germany aircraft on UK 1 and now, you have PLENTY to defend yourself earlier than you expected and thus, you can start with landing planes on Russian conquests to reinforce against German counter attacks, thus giving Russia more NOs and thus, 1 infantry for each new territory conquered (on top of the value of the territory, of course!)

Etc.

---

I know DEMAND and REQUIRE a demonstration of how the Axis WILL ALWAYS (as seems to be the argument) win given an American intervention in the Pacific.

As far as I can tell, the main detractor here has never played a game of Axis and Allies, let alone one in which victory was had.  Perhaps if he would like to enlighten us as to his detailed maneuvering so as to pull victory from the jaws of defeat, against a fully engaged American force, we can better know his mind.

Granted, I presume he is nothing but the rabble rouser we have come to know and despise over the ensuing year.  One who enjoys to pick at nits for his own self glory, never providing us any new information nor any useful critique.  We can all, after all, look upon a game with hindsight and declare “well, knowing you will build 3 battleships on round 8, on round 3 I want to buy 6 submarines.”  This is neither constructive, nor of any benefit to the community at large.

What we need, from those who presume to insinuate, either directly or indirectly, that Germany will (in a statisitcal certainty) gather enough Victory Cities to win the game before America can implement its plan in the Atlantic is a detailed annalysis of what they feel the allies are going to do, how they plan to over come it, and what possible methods the allies might employ to negate what they plan to use to overcome the allied strategy.

Keep in mind, the claim that Russia will win the game has never been made and never will be made.  I have no intention, nor vision, of Russian hegemony over Germany and Italy.  To the contrary, I highly suspect that Russia will be clinging to Muskva and Novgorod with every ounce of it’s being, for at least two or three rounds of America pounding the Germans and Italian and then, and only then, having the forces needed to start pushing the Germans and Italians away.

Keep in mind, no claim has been made that Russia will hold the eastern territories.  To the contrary, if they are held, great, but I suspect that Russia will retreat with 54 IPC worth of units to assist in Muskva or Kansu, units that Germany and Italy now have to contend with.

Keep in mind, the assumption was made that Germany would go Sea Lion.  If Germany does not go Sea Lion (and this contingency is, of course, planned for) then the Allied strategy is made that much stronger as now England has the wear-with-all to seriously threaten the German fleet (enough so to tie up 5 Aircraft, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer and X number of Transports, all rotting at harbor in the Baltic Sea) and the airpower needed to drop onto Russian acquisitions to hold them against German counter attack.

Keep in mind, the assumption that Japan would wait until Round 4 to attack America was made.  Contingency plans have been discussed if Japan wants to gift the Allies with a pre-emptive attack as this allows them to move faster and harder into a now woefully under-prepared and significantly disadvantaged Japan. (for one thing, 1-3 rounds of no FIC NO, roughly 10-30 IPC lost coupled with 1-3 rounds of +25 IPC for America (25-75 IPC extra) + America can build up to 10 units a round in SZ 10, instead of 3 without needing a second complex in Mexico.)

Keep in mind, Australia is relegated to American fleet defense both by adding ships to the defensive line, aircraft to islands adjacent to the fleet (with airbases, of course) but also in replacing the need to use American destroyers to sink Japanese destroyers and block direct attack on the American fleet before they are prepared to engage in said combat.  If Japan does not engage in this trade, it seems likely that Japan will lose control of the Pacific all that much faster, as now the Americans can line up numerous submarines to attack Japan. (Note:  With Australia dealing in Submarines and Destroyers to block the Japanese, America can focus on more submarines and less destroyers.  This is a net gain of 2 IPC for every submarine America can purchase in place of a destroyer, while sacrificing nothing in offensive punch and, since America is not blocking the Japanese, nothing in tactical superiority either.  This allows America to grow faster.)

Keep in mind, this assumes a British contingent in China.  This may be unnecessary given Japan will most likely be unable to replace lost units with new units AND keep the fleet up to snuff.  Losing 2 or 3 destroyers a round adds up FAST guys.  How long do you think Japan can trade 16-24 IPC a round (or more, if they have to replace units due to mutual destruction).  Sure, Australia is probably only building 2 or 3 destroyers a round, but we’re not counting on Australia to do anything but sink Japanese picket ships anyway.  America, meanwhile, has lost zero ships and yet, sunk 3 Japanese ones. (Australia literally did it, but the effect is 3 less Japanese ships.)  So Japan loses 24 IPC in ships, gains 0 IPC for NOs and America gains 25 IPC for NOs and loses 0 IPC in ships.  Great trade for the allies!)

[Jennifer]

Dang, I get long winded.

Nutshell:

• Australia trades ships with Japan, effectively trading Japanese picket ships for relatively useless Australian ones.
• Australia keeps their 3 fighters on newly acquired American soil, thus giving America +12 punch should the American fleet ever be attacked (gotta love that they can land on it if America takes it, right?!)
• Sea Lion Germany: Russia Turtles
• Barbarossa Germany: Russia Turtles, England Reinforces
• China: Russian and British reinforcements combine with Chinese forces.  Since China goes first, British planes can land on forward territories to assist in the defense.

Major Issues for Japan:

• Losing 3 destroyers a round is a loss of 24 IPC.  That’s a lot of money anyway you look at it.  SZ 16, 17 and 18 have to be covered if America has ships in SZ 26 and SZ 33.  With Australian fighters helping along with remnants of the Australian and British fleets, odds of a direct assault on the allies being a victory for Japan are nil.  Even if you win, you lost.  You cannot recover, but the allies can.  Thus, the allies do not need to cover all three sea zones like you do.
• You gained 14 IPC for Russia, but gave them 12 IPC. (Amur Round 1.  Amur, Buryatia, Sakha, Siberia and Soviet Far East Round 2, Amur, Buryatia, Sakha, Siberia, Soviet Far East and Yakut Round.  Amur, Buryatia, Sakha, Siberia, Soviert Far East, Yakut and Yenisey round 4.)  But wait, that’s not all!  While Russia was retreating 60 IPC worth of units (54 IPC in infantry, 6 IPC for the AA Gun) you were sending in 69 IPC in units! (7 Infantry, 1 Mech, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor, 2 Strategic Bombers - since those give you the best range with which to get back to Japan when you need them, they cannot be scrambled to help you anyway, and have the worst defensive punch in the game.)
• You are costing America nothing every round, while they are putting 80 IPC worth of units into the water every round.  Meanwhile, you can only muster 40-50 IPC a round for the first few rounds and you have to split that between fleet and China, one or both are going to lose, it’s only a matter of when.  Can you say “Cold War”?  America spent the Russians into the loser pile.  America will spend the Japanese into the loser pile, how long can you turtle?
• Oh wait, if Japan turtles, America wins, they can start sending units into the Atlantic earlier, since a turtled Japan is a non-threatening Japan.

Other points:

England has to go balistic on Italy, or they have to go full disengage.  Either way, Italy is a null issue, since Italy is going to be stopped at Iraq, Congo and Gibraltar.
Russia, of course, does not have to win the war!  All they have to do is not lose, and not losing something is a lot easier than winning it!  Look at my tourney game with JWW.  I conceded only to have my life back, but I could have drug that battle out for another 10-15 rounds EASILY by refusing to concede defeat.  (I had a major unlucky break, was unable to recover and if I had never tried the gambit, may not have lost, IMHO.  But that’s hindsight again!)  Again here, Russia just has to not lose.  That’s all.  Hold two victory cities, Russia can do that easily!

[ghr2]

Good work jen with the analysis, just i don’t think people were arguing that the axis will ALWAYS win if usa goes 100% pacific for the first part of the game, they thought u were saying that the allies would ALWAYS win if america goes 100% pacific.  So it probably be more accurate if u demanded how the axis can win at all, not ALWAYS win.

[Imperious Leader]

What are my own statements? Where did I say the game is not broken? Please quote (and please don’t cut off in the middle of sentences or meaningfully linked sets of sentence (called paragraphs) to distort on purpose like you often do)

Your own statements are not even close to paragraphs. Look up how to construct a proper paragraph. They are not a series of questions you pose and not bother to provide any answer too. All you do is ask questions and avoid playing a game with Jennifer and avoid looking at her games to see what she is saying.

Do you know anything of logic?

Do you have another question or do you just ask them post after post, offering nothing to this thread but complaints?

If they are so easy to see where are they? If it’s so simple as to post a link why not post a link?

She has addressed them in this thread, probably a better idea to read her posts and look up her games on your own and latter post your own review of HOW she is wrong by proving otherwise.

Jen made a claim ,the burden of proof is on her.

Play a game with her or look up her games or go away. Pick one. But stop all the contentious posts where you bring nothing to the table.

[questioneer]

Excellent post Jen.  I knew you would take the time to explain well as you usually do.  Now people just gotta try it and come up with some game reports for mantlefan.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok Lets keep out the name calling. Some posts will be edited. :mrgreen: