In what way would taking your allies into battle even remotely slow the game?
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
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.
-
@Cmdr:
@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.
Only like 4 more
-
@Cmdr:
@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.
So do the allies
-
Japan: 28 Aircraft OOB
- 4 Strategic Bombers
- 10 Tactical Bombers
- 14 Fighters
Japan: 21 Aircraft Alpha 2
- 2 Strategic Bombers
- 8 Tactical Bomber
- 11 Fighters
Difference: -7 Aircraft (-25 Attacking Punch)
- -2 Strategic Bombers
- -2 Tactical Bombers
- -3 Fighters
USA: 12 Aircraft OOB
- 4 Strategic Bombers
- 3 Tactical Bombers
- 5 Fighters
USA: 8 Aircraft Alpha 2
- 1 Strategic Bomber
- 1 Tactical Bomber
- 6 Fighters
Difference: -4 Aircraft (-17 Attacking Punch)
- -3 Strategic Bombers
- -2 Tactical BOmbers
- +1 Fighter
It’s a relatively HUGE swing in the balance of power in the Pacific. Just going with the OOB set up and the Alpha 2 rules may, actually, make Japan too strong, or it may balance things out. What it won’t do is make the allies stronger.
Also, it does not give the Allies any more aircraft, it removes Allied aircraft. It does give Japan significantly more aircraft, particularly in long range bombers which is probably a very needed boost in power.
Note: I counted ALL America planes regardless of which board they were on, since it is relatively easy to move them to either board you want early.
-
@Cmdr:
Japan: 28 Aircraft OOB
- 4 Strategic Bombers
- 10 Tactical Bombers
- 14 Fighters
Japan: 21 Aircraft Alpha 2
- 2 Strategic Bombers
- 8 Tactical Bomber
- 11 Fighters
Difference: -7 Aircraft (-25 Attacking Punch)
- -2 Strategic Bombers
- -2 Tactical Bombers
- -3 Fighters
USA: 12 Aircraft OOB
- 4 Strategic Bombers
- 3 Tactical Bombers
- 5 Fighters
USA: 8 Aircraft Alpha 2
- 1 Strategic Bomber
- 1 Tactical Bomber
- 6 Fighters
Difference: -4 Aircraft (-17 Attacking Punch)
- -3 Strategic Bombers
- -2 Tactical BOmbers
- +1 Fighter
It’s a relatively HUGE swing in the balance of power in the Pacific. Just going with the OOB set up and the Alpha 2 rules may, actually, make Japan too strong, or it may balance things out. What it won’t do is make the allies stronger.
Also, it does not give the Allies any more aircraft, it removes Allied aircraft. It does give Japan significantly more aircraft, particularly in long range bombers which is probably a very needed boost in power.
Note: I counted ALL America planes regardless of which board they were on, since it is relatively easy to move them to either board you want early.
You do realize that uk starts with 2 more figs in india and anzac starts with an extra in new zeal in OOB
-
OOB japan has 14 fig 10 tac 4 strats
Alpha 2 japan has 11 fig 8 tac 2 strats
OOB pacific allies have 14 figs 4 tacs 4 strats
Alpha 2 pacific allies have 12 figs 2 tacs and 1 strat
OOB japan has 6 tac advantage
Alpha 2 japan has 6 tac 1 strat advantage 1 fig disadvantage
starting conditions air wise wont make a shred of difference -
You do realize that uk starts with 2 more figs in india and anzac starts with an extra in new zeal in OOB
Yes, but since they cannot be added to an American attack, they are mostly irrelevant. Three of them can be added to America’s defense, but since Australia already has 3 planes for this role in Alpha 2, there is no huge difference. 4 Australian planes ~ 3 Australian planes since only 3 can scramble anyway.
Supposedly this may be a concern if America puts out more aircraft carriers for all the Australian and British planes, but since this does not really make America “stronger” (defined as able to sink the Japanese sooner) it’s also not overly relevant.
However, 7 new aircraft for Japan can all be used simultaniously to attack with. This could mean the demise of India or Australia sooner, or just significantly more punch, sooner, against the American fleet.
-
I thought u said that uk/anzacs were relavant in the pacific? I thought u said they will pick off the extremities of japan and help divide his forces so that the US will have an easier time with the navy. They way u have been posting earlier made it seem that UK and ANZ can be big threats unless japan over commits to lock them down
Suggested Topics
