Agreed. If the Axis run into a stumbling block at any point in time, they lose the game. However, the Allies do not have this problem. Provided the Allies do not lose the game, eventually, they will win the game.
By that I mean: As long as the allies can avoid allowing the Axis to gather the perscribed number of victory cities to win the game, eventually, the Allies will be able to recover from any losses incurred and go on to win the game. However, the Axis do not have that benefit, if they take a licking in any major engagement, they are seriously put at a disadvantage that they may not be able to recover from.
Perhaps that is how it was intended.
In any event, I still feel the game is unbalanced and something should be done to restore balance to the playing field. Historical accuracy is nice and all, but if the sides are not balanced, the game loses a fun factor. It’s like saying the black team in Chess only gets 6 pawns instead of the 8 the white team gets. Perhaps it is more accurate historically, but it is hardly in balance. (Nor would the fact that black is short 2 pawns necessarily mean that they lose 100% of the games.)
Honestly, I think something as simple as a transport in SZ 33 might balance the Pacific. Why? Because it would allow a Japan 1 surprise strike to be highly effective since now they can take Hawaii (potentially) and thus, have a landing zone for fighters in case of American counter attack.
Not to mention, it could be used to gather the Dutch East Indies a round faster, or threaten New South Wales, etc.
I have run through several games where US spends all in the Pacific. Is it possible to counter? Yes I think it is. The problem however is that at the end of the 2nd round, the US has a massive Navy. It is totally out of whack with history. With two rounds the US could have purchased 2 CV, 1 CA and 3 BB (I know Jen likes the DDs rolling on USA2 with the IC in Mexico). Adding that to the existing fleet and it is overwhelming. Can the Axis win against that? Sure but Germany better take Moscow by G7 or G8, because Japan will be neutralized by then.
A rule that would limit production in the US before the DOW that says the US cannot place units on an IC when they total more that twice (or triple) the value of the territory. That would limit W. US to 20 (or 30) IPCs worth of equipment per turn. If the US builds an IC in Mexico, only 4 or 6 IPCs worth of material may be placed there.
The ability to drop down 52 IPCs worth of ships for the first three turns in SZ10 is the problem, in my opinion. The US just wasn’t mobilizing that hardcore in the pacific.
How about a simpler rule, the US cannot build carriers or Battleships until they are at war.
LOL, What would you have the US build then?
And Jim - I’m with you. A good strat is a good strat, and there is ALWAYS a counter. A game imbalance would be if no matter what you did - you won.
I’ve got a new German Strategy that’s been working in F2F games I like to call the Devil’s tongue. I’ll post it once I finish the visual diagrams for it. It might help quel some of the doubts - that the axis “don’t have a chance”. Because they certainly DO have a chance.
Well my point is that if your going to limit them to 20 to 30 ipc at a single industrial complex (see the post directly above mine) then a simpler rule is to just keep them from building the big ships and it has a similar effect.
Eh. But people seem to have heart attacks when you suggest things like that for America. I mean, may the gods of WOTC forbid America have to spend some cash at both the W. USA and E. USA complexes! That alone would balance things out very nicely, has in every game it’s been tried so far!
But bids are what EVERYONE defaults too. How unoriginal, how MUNDANE, how DROLL…but if it’s the ONLY thing people can agree too, then give Japan 1 transport in SZ 33 in addition to what they have.
If that’s not enough, give them another Aircraft Carrier or Strategic Bomber (bomber Japan, Carrier somewhere out of the way to negate much of it’s benefit), but I think the Transport would do nicely. It doesn’t seem all that powerful, but the ramifactions of what you can do with it…
LOL Players shouldn’t be penalized for doing things DIFFERENTLY than history deemed correct.
What if Americans took Pearl Harbour even more to heart?
And what difference is the “IPC Construction Limit” going to make? They can still build the ships in the east to ship west.
By the same Logic, the USA can sit on it’s hands in the pacific, and JUST hold Sydney and Honolulu - a very undifficult thing to do, whilst pounding ALL of it’s IPC’s against Italy. It works just as well. Or not as well, depending on the Axis manuevers. But wait, wasn’t that the point of the game? to allow players to play how they want to?
Right, they can ship from East to West or West to East, but it takes time to do so! That’s the point!
If you don’t want to go that route, then the transport in SZ 33 seems like an effective alternative. That would give Japan 4 starting transports, coincidentally, just enough to hit Borneo, Sumatra, Java and Celebes in one round without needing to buy more transports! Not that it’s the only option, but the transport is in range of NSW and Hawaii, forcing the allies to concider the SZ 33 fleet as a threat, instead of something that can be readily ignored since it cannot do any permanent harm.
Further, the transport gives a J1 surprise strike the lasting power needed as now 3 transports can hit Hawaii, so you have enough ground equipment to take it and leave enough airpower to hit SZ 26. Thus, Hawaii is a valid landing zone for your aircraft if America counter attacks (not to mention, the 5 IPC NO.)
@Cmdr:
But bids are what EVERYONE defaults too. How unoriginal, how MUNDANE, how DROLL…but if it’s the ONLY thing people can agree too, then give Japan 1 transport in SZ 33 in addition to what they have.
Jennifer, I agree with that thought about bids.
But I actually like the old A&A-europe rule where each side got 12 IPC to spend, i would like to see something like that added.
But bids are what EVERYONE defaults too. How unoriginal, how MUNDANE, how DROLL…but if it’s the ONLY thing people can agree too, then give Japan 1 transport in SZ 33 in addition to what they have.
A bid does change things up - use the cash how you see fit. The way you use a bid can be very original. And it doesn’t just balance teh game, it balances unequal player.
It is THE best way to balance a game.
But bids are what EVERYONE defaults too. How unoriginal, how MUNDANE, how DROLL…but if it’s the ONLY thing people can agree too, then give Japan 1 transport in SZ 33 in addition to what they have.
A bid does change things up - use the cash how you see fit. The way you use a bid can be very original. And it doesn’t just balance teh game, it balances unequal player.
It is THE best way to balance a game.
I disagree. I think it is the worst way to balance the game (things worse than bidding do not even balance the game.) Unit locations should be static from game to game, else, why wouldn’t Larry just say “Germany has 500 IPC, Japan has 500 IPC, Italy has 200 IPC, England has 300 IPC, Russia has 300 IPC, America has 250 IPC, China has 50 IPC, India has 100 IPC and Australia has 100 IPC to spend on any units to be placed on any territory they control at the start of the game.” Eh? It’s effectively just “bidding” we’re just taking it to one extreme to demonstrate how pitiful a method, I feel, it is at balance the game.
Heck, there are unit values for Chess, why not bid for Chess too? If Bidding is superior then maybe someone wants to trade a knight in for 3 pawns?
Then a new player has no chance against an experienced player. With a bid, the new player will have more units to balance out against the experience of his opponent.
As for placing the units where you wnat, many games do that. Rise and Decline of the Third Reich, a classic by any standard, works that way.
Yes, but there are not many of us who play R&D 3rd Reich.
Anyway, a new player never stands a chance against an experienced player. Bids don’t change that. Bids only change the balance of power, and if we’re going to have a bid at all, why not just place what you want where you want without having to worry about 1 guy here, or 1 tank there?
If it’s good for 3 IPC, it’s good for 300 IPC. After all, we have established it’s good, now we’re only arguing over degree.
Sort of like the old joke:
“Will you have sex with me for $5 million dollars?”
“Yes.”
“Will you have sex with me for $5 dollars?”
“NO! What do you take me for!”
“We already established what you are, we are now discussing price!”
Never happy with what you have always wants more……it’s not how much you have but what you can do with what you have maybe that’s just human nature.
Try to sack the USA with Ger Jap & It
But if your going to try to get them to hand out more stuff for Jap I don’t think there are too many people who would turn them down
WE almost set up the OOB last weekend for a change of pace but we didn’t. The Jap OOb set up could be a game changer then again those dam dice can do it to ya to
Keep on keeping on and maybe there’ll be a new set up to the game (official)
Part of the problem isn’t just what the US can buy, but that coupled with what they have before the game starts. Remove the BB from SZ10 and the Sub from SZ26. Move the DD from SZ35 to the Eastern US. Also move the CA from SZ10 to SZ26. Also the US shouldn’t start with as many transports as the Japanese. They were commandeering cruise ships in the beginning of the war.
I wouldn’t mind trying the OOB setup with the Alpha 2 rule set. It might work. The adjustments on the board would be countered by the increased units Japan starts with.
@Cmdr:
I wouldn’t mind trying the OOB setup with the Alpha 2 rule set. It might work. The adjustments on the board would be countered by the increased units Japan starts with.
you do realize that the allies start out with alot more aswell (mainly in the pacific and US)
@Cmdr:
I wouldn’t mind trying the OOB setup with the Alpha 2 rule set. It might work. The adjustments on the board would be countered by the increased units Japan starts with.
you do realize that the allies start out with alot more aswell (mainly in the pacific and US)
'Cept for China.
@Zallomallo:
@Cmdr:
I wouldn’t mind trying the OOB setup with the Alpha 2 rule set. It might work. The adjustments on the board would be countered by the increased units Japan starts with.
you do realize that the allies start out with alot more aswell (mainly in the pacific and US)
'Cept for China.
Japan starts with less in china aswell
@Zallomallo:
@Cmdr:
I wouldn’t mind trying the OOB setup with the Alpha 2 rule set. It might work. The adjustments on the board would be countered by the increased units Japan starts with.
you do realize that the allies start out with alot more aswell (mainly in the pacific and US)
'Cept for China.
Japan starts with less in china aswell
And Japan has like twice as many aircraft.
