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

[Xandax]

@jim010:

Taking Hawaii on turn 1 has about a 3 in 4 chance of succeeding.  The India Crush is pretty much guaranteed.

I will play anyone who thinks otherwise.

As for doing this in a global game … only played Global OOB once.

The difference is that with Global, US get a larger economy which it can dedicate to the Pacific, yet Japan stays the same.
I think if only playing Pacific 40 that Japan is strong enough, but if playing Global, the game is out of sync due to the increased US abilities can still be spend fully in the Pacific.
It does seems like the global game is balanced from the notion that USA spends money in both theaters of war from the start, and when they don’t …… well.

Pacific balance does not equal Global balance.

[Jennifer]

That was the original basis for my argument, Xandax.  It was why I was originally saying that the US should be treated like England, with part of the money having to be spent on each side of the board.  But then there came all the crying and sobbing about how it would be “unfair” and “America is not England” etc, etc, etc.

The absolute BEST solution would be to require any income earned on the Atlantic board to be spent on the Atlantic board and any money earned on the Pacific boasrd to be spent on the Pacific board.  But there were too many tears, so you just know that Larry and WOTC are not going to implement that solution. (That and I fear they are too involved in “American Exceptionalism” to ever downgrade the power of America, but that’s my personal opinion.  The other personal opinion is they hate Russia so much it’s like giving them a root canal to get them to add any kind of power to the Soviet Union.)

The alternative solution is to buff Japan, in global 1940, so they stand a chance if they make wise decisions.  The easiest way there, IMHO, with an untested theory, is to give them a transport in SZ 33.  If that is not enough, perhaps a second added transport in SZ 34 (Pauline).  By increasing the number of transports, you decrease the number Japan needs to build and thus give them more options to use their money on.  Further, the transport in SZ 33 makes Hawaii a viable target on Round 1 negating the penalties Japan suffers in a round 1 surprise strike on the Allies.

The worst solution is a bid.  It is still a solution, but it’s too dynamic and what I feel we need is a static solution.  Not to mention, bidding will result in way more IPC added to the ground than just adding a transport or two.  For one, I wouldn’t take Japan without at least a 12 IPC bid, probably an 18 IPC bid (2 Infantry, 2 Armor) so that I can take Yunnan round 1 and hold it against a China counter attack, thus denying them the NO permanently.  Pretty sure all other bids would also go into taking and holding Yunnan to prevent China from ever collecting the NO.

[edfactor]

Actually but “historically” the west coast only rates a minor IC. I think just downgrade the WC-IC to minor(in global only). All the shipyards that I can think of were on the East coast.

For instance all the shipyards that built US Essex class carriers (all east coast):
Newport News Shipbuilding
Fore River Shipyard
Brooklyn Navy Yard
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
Norfolk Naval Shipyard

[jim010]

Again, if you feel the game is unbalanced - meaning allies always win - give more bomus money to Japan

or

combine the VCs on both maps again, but reduce the number needed by the axis.  13 or 12.

MUCH simpler.

[edfactor]

Combining the VC on the maps makes the KJF strat even better.

[jim010]

I say no.  A KJF means I will get 7 cities on the Europe side likely by turn 7-9.  I’ll need 5 cities on the Pacific side.  I could get that to happen.

Let me finish a game, and then we can fire it up.

[edfactor]

If your saying 12 VC is easy for the axis to get then I don’t think its any kind of fix, it just guarantees an Axis victory.  Because splitting Americas focus will not slow the axis down at all in regards to accumulating their first victory cities.

The whole point of crushing Japan is that Euro can hold the Germans to 7 VC while Japan dies.
Japan can get 4 VC the instant they declare war, if they can get a 5th against a KJF while Germany gets 7 then your suggestion of combining VC is even more broken then the KJF strat may be.

[jim010]

Then make it 13  :roll:

[edfactor]

At 13 I think your back to the same problem, I dont think Japan can get 6 against a KJF (and if Japan can get 6 then you would have won the regular game anyway), so your back to the question: Can Germany get 8?

[JamesG]

@jim010:

Again, if you feel the game is unbalanced - meaning allies always win - give more bomus money to Japan

I don’t think people are claiming the game is unbalanced overall, but some are claiming that one strategy is unbalanced.

There are three high level strategies for the Allies, or more specifically the US.

Strat A) US spends some money in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters from the start.  I think most feel the game is pretty balanced in this case.

Strat B) US goes 100% after Europe and ignores Japan for the most part at the start of the game.  This is a losing strategy for the Allies as Japan can pretty easily win victory in the Pacific with little US intervention there.  So a smart allied player won’t try it.

Strat C) US goes 100% after Japan and ignores Europe for the most part at the start of the game.  The CLAIM is that the US and Pacific Allies can contain Japan before Germany/Italy can win on the Europe board, and then the US can turn its attention 100% on Europe and that the Allies will eventually win the game due to economics.  Note that this claim is as yet unproven, and some (including Krieghund) have doubts as the whether Japan can be reliably contained before the Axis achieve victory in Europe.

Any proposed solution to fix a potential imbalance in Strat C must not impact Strat A.  So ideas such as giving more money/equipment to Japan (or Italy) are bad ideas unless you feel the Allies have the advantage even if the US is dividing its spending.

Really the only thing that can be done to “fix” Strat C without changing the balance in Strat A is something that would weaken the US if they pursue Strat C but not weaken them if they pursue Strat A.  Alternatively it could be something that strengthens the Axis in the event of Strat C but not Strat A.  The easiest way to weaken the US if they go C but not A is to move some of the US NO money from its core territories (such as Mexico) and put it in harm’s way on the Europe board.  But it must be put there in places the Axis can easily take if the US ignores the Europe board, but that the Allies can easily take if the US puts some effort into the Europe board.  Various suggestions have been put forth on this thread involving shifting the Mexico NO to the Africa/Med theater and I think this is the best way to go.

There is still the issue as to whether Strat C is actually broken – does it really give the Allies an advantage?  And if it does not, do we need any fixes?  I would argue that even if Strat C is merely balanced we should implement a fix since having the US go 100% in one direction is an undesirable situation for the fun factor overall.  Of course if we find that Strat C is just as much a losing proposition for the Allies and Strat B we don’t have to do anything since Strat C will die out just as Strat B has.

[edfactor]

Very nice summation James.

[eudemonist]

Seconded.

[jim010]

@JamesG:

I don’t think people are claiming the game is unbalanced overall, but some are claiming that one strategy is unbalanced.

IF that strategy is unbalanced, then the game is unbalanced.  Why would you play any other strategy if there is one that will win you the game every time?

There are three high level strategies for the Allies, or more specifically the US.

Strat A) US spends some money in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters from the start.  I think most feel the game is pretty balanced in this case.

Probably.

Strat B) US goes 100% after Europe and ignores Japan for the most part at the start of the game.  This is a losing strategy for the Allies as Japan can pretty easily win victory in the Pacific with little US intervention there.  So a smart allied player won’t try it.

Agreed.

Strat C) US goes 100% after Japan and ignores Europe for the most part at the start of the game.  The CLAIM is that the US and Pacific Allies can contain Japan before Germany/Italy can win on the Europe board, and then the US can turn its attention 100% on Europe and that the Allies will eventually win the game due to economics.  Note that this claim is as yet unproven, and some (including Krieghund) have doubts as the whether Japan can be reliably contained before the Axis achieve victory in Europe.

I also have doubts about this, as everything I read is vague, and the games I’ve seen, Axis are winning some.

Any proposed solution to fix a potential imbalance in Strat C must not impact Strat A.  So ideas such as giving more money/equipment to Japan (or Italy) are bad ideas unless you feel the Allies have the advantage even if the US is dividing its spending.

Really the only thing that can be done to “fix” Strat C without changing the balance in Strat A is something that would weaken the US if they pursue Strat C but not weaken them if they pursue Strat A.  Alternatively it could be something that strengthens the Axis in the event of Strat C but not Strat A.  The easiest way to weaken the US if they go C but not A is to move some of the US NO money from its core territories (such as Mexico) and put it in harm’s way on the Europe board.  But it must be put there in places the Axis can easily take if the US ignores the Europe board, but that the Allies can easily take if the US puts some effort into the Europe board.  Various suggestions have been put forth on this thread involving shifting the Mexico NO to the Africa/Med theater and I think this is the best way to go.

There is still the issue as to whether Strat C is actually broken – does it really give the Allies an advantage?  And if it does not, do we need any fixes?  I would argue that even if Strat C is merely balanced we should implement a fix since having the US go 100% in one direction is an undesirable situation for the fun factor overall.  Of course if we find that Strat C is just as much a losing proposition for the Allies and Strat B we don’t have to do anything since Strat C will die out just as Strat B has.

My problem is that I don’t like that the Europe side could be a complete lost cause to the Allies, but they win the game if Japan is conquered.  Or that Germany is conquered, Italy is hanging by a thread, but Japan wins the game.  I don’t like that.  I’d like VCs combined again, probably to 13 (or bid for them).  I would say that would then require the US split it’s income.  I’d play that with someone.

[ehenry]

@jim010:

Again, if you feel the game is unbalanced - meaning allies always win - give more bomus money to Japan

or

combine the VCs on both maps again, but reduce the number needed by the axis.  13 or 12.

MUCH simpler.

I don’t like bonus money. 13 victory cities across both boards looks intriguing.

And to clarify, this is 13 victory cities across both boards using the current Alpha2 rules and the alpha2 setup?

[Jennifer]

no one is claiming 100% win chance with any strategy.  For the simple reason that good dice beat good strategy every day of the week and twice on any day ending in y!

However, all things being equal, America + India + China + Australia will beat Japan before round 10 in just about every game.  By that I mean:

Identical levels of skill for both players
Dice that come out at the median/mean result every time they are thrown
No mistakes are made on the game board.

Since you cannot force that to happen no matter how you set it up, there will always be error in the test.  The trick is to minimize the error, but no matter what happens, there WILL be error.  For instance, in ADS games, the dice will almost never come up at the median and mean result in any throw of the dice, let alone every throw of the dice.  Unless you pull a Jim Carry, there cannot possibly be equal levels of knowledge between any two players and that means, there will almost certainly be mistakes made. (Attacking Novgorod without remembering that all Russia has to do is scramble a fighter to sink your 10 transports; forgetting to block an attack with a destroyer and losing your fleet; etc.)

---

As for not impinging on strategy A without leaving strategy C to be abused, the only real solution to this was my solution of requiring America to spend what they earn on each side of the board.  THere was never a limitation that they could not then move it to the other side, just like there is no limitation that England or India could not move units from board to board.  However, it WOULD force America to delay moving units into one side or the other by at least a round, sometimes two rounds.  That gives Japan breathing room against an “all in” allied strategy, maybe enough room that Germany can manage to capture the last victory city they need before America comes pummelling in with carpet bombers and walls of meat (infantry) to stop them.

Keep in mind, the allies CANNOT win with victory cities.  Therefore, the allies don’t care what victory cities they have or dont have, as long as they stop the axis from getting enough to win. That is surprisingly easy.

Downgrading the number of VCs they need to win just makes it too easy for them to win.

Now, giving the allies a target number to win, that may be an option.  Probably not, not without adding more VCs to the game which would require a reprint of the map and you just KNOW that Wizards of the Coast is going to nix that idea!  It’ll cost them money, they won’t do it.

Another idea, if Japan is limited to 20 IPC or less, the German war machine goes in hyper-drive, German factories can produce more units, thus Germany gets + 10 IPC and italy gets +3 IPC.  That would encourage the allies to contain both Japan and Germany at about equal levels.  Likewise, if Germany is limited to 20 IPC or less, Japan gets + 10 IPC NO.

[Jennifer]

@ehenry:

@jim010:

Again, if you feel the game is unbalanced - meaning allies always win - give more bomus money to Japan

or

combine the VCs on both maps again, but reduce the number needed by the axis.  13 or 12.

MUCH simpler.

I don’t like bonus money. 13 victory cities across both boards looks intriguing.

And to clarify, this is 13 victory cities across both boards using the current Alpha2 rules and the alpha2 setup?

13 for both nations wouldnt solve the problem.  Limiting Japan to 5 early on and then pushing them back to 1 is relatively simple as it is.  That would require Germany and Italy to have 12 VCs.

France
England
Russia
Novgorod
Volgorod
Germany
Poland
S. Italy
Egypt
Quebec
and
E. USA?

Just because Japan is limited to Tokyo?

[kcdzim]

@edfactor:

Actually but “historically” the west coast only rates a minor IC. I think just downgrade the WC-IC to minor(in global only). All the shipyards that I can think of were on the East coast.

Mare Island Naval Shipyards and Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard in San Fran built ships during WW2 - perhaps not to the same extent as the east, but they were considered major WW2 shipyards.  Also, you’re implying that shipyards are the definition of “major industry” while Seattle had Boeing cranking the B-17 (so concerned of bombing that their largest building was disguised as a city with fake streets/houses/cars/trees camouflaging the plant) and Burbank had Lockheed (also camouflaged but not so famously as the fake city).  Northrop, Douglas, and Glenn L Martin were based in Cali.  Suffice to say, I’d argue that the west coast did its share of output, but perhaps mainly in the air.

[edfactor]

@kcdzim:

@edfactor:

Actually but “historically” the west coast only rates a minor IC. I think just downgrade the WC-IC to minor(in global only). All the shipyards that I can think of were on the East coast.

Mare Island Naval Shipyards and Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard in San Fran built ships during WW2 - perhaps not to the same extent as the east, but they were considered major WW2 shipyards.  Also, you’re implying that shipyards are the definition of “major industry” while Seattle had Boeing cranking the B-17 (so concerned of bombing that their largest building was disguised as a city with fake streets/houses/cars/trees camouflaging the plant) and Burbank had Lockheed (also camouflaged but not so famously as the fake city).  Northrop, Douglas, and Glenn L Martin were based in Cali.  Suffice to say, I’d argue that the west coast did its share of output, but perhaps mainly in the air.

Sorry tunnel vision, was only thinking about shipyards and all the ones i could find building carriers and battleships were east coast.

[kcdzim]

just spitballing here, but would placing the west US capital ships on the Atlantic side help at all?  As I recall, the US navy was out of position at the outset of the war - other than Pearl weren’t a huge portion of their naval assets tasked in the atlantic as Germany was considered the primary threat?  Placing them in 102 would make it 2 turns to consolidate, potentially giving Japan a turn to turn up the heat on the DEI without having to immediately worry about Pearl or the Carolines?  Perhaps even giving them a chance to harass the naval units placed on the west coast on J2?

Honestly, I’m still dubious to the value of “1940” and declaring war when you want.  The Allies have far too much information - they know war is coming and they know Japan is a serious threat not to be underestimated.  As Japan it always seems better to attack while the Allies are out of position (J1) rather than wait for a pearl (J2) giving them time to prepare - there was a balance problem with the OOB J1 attack, but it was closer in theme to the war than J2 seems like.  Pac40 might as well be called Pac41, and combining into a global game just ties their hands while the allies have time to prepare.

[JamesG]

@jim010:

@JamesG:

I don’t think people are claiming the game is unbalanced overall, but some are claiming that one strategy is unbalanced.

IF that strategy is unbalanced, then the game is unbalanced.  Why would you play any other strategy if there is one that will win you the game every time?

True enough, but the trick is to fix the unbalanced strategy without breaking balanced strategies.

@jim010:

@JamesG:

Strat C) US goes 100% after Japan and ignores Europe for the most part at the start of the game.  The CLAIM is that the US and Pacific Allies can contain Japan before Germany/Italy can win on the Europe board, and then the US can turn its attention 100% on Europe and that the Allies will eventually win the game due to economics.  Note that this claim is as yet unproven, and some (including Krieghund) have doubts as the whether Japan can be reliably contained before the Axis achieve victory in Europe.

I also have doubts about this, as everything I read is vague, and the games I’ve seen, Axis are winning some.

I too have my doubts about this, but as I said I think steps should be taken even if Strat C is balanced.  In other words, the burden of proof for fixes shouldn’t be “Prove Strat C is unbalanced in favor of the Allies” but “Prove Strat C is at least viable for the Allies.”  This assumes you feel as I do that the US going 100% in one direction is not desirable.

@jim010:

My problem is that I don’t like that the Europe side could be a complete lost cause to the Allies, but they win the game if Japan is conquered.

Not sure what you mean here.  The current victory conditions of Alpha+ .2 require the Allies to conquer all 3 Axis capitals to win.  So the Allies would not win in this case.

@jim010:

Or that Germany is conquered, Italy is hanging by a thread, but Japan wins the game.  I don’t like that.

It seems this should only really happen if the US was trying what I called Strat B (or close to it).  Basically in this case the US put too much emphasis on Europe and not enough on Japan and so lost the game.  I think that is where we want to be – forcing the US to carefully balance its commitments to both regions lest one get out of hand.

@jim010:

I’d like VCs combined again, probably to 13 (or bid for them).  I would say that would then require the US split it’s income.  I’d play that with someone.

I don’t think that will work. I believe the reason they went to split VC was they found that there was no workable number of combined VC.  Either the number was too low and the Axis could reliably blitz to victory before the US could mobilize.  Or the number was too high and the US could go 100% one way and kill/contain that side before the other side could gain enough VC to win.  And then the US could just switch focus the other way and grind them down.