How is the balance in game play in Spr '42?
In Revised, bids ranged from 7-11 give or take. Did the update in rules and slight changes in a few units in Spr 42 eliminate the need for a bid or do players still use small bids?
In Revised, it became pretty clear pretty fast that Axis needed a bid. I would say the Axis bid should be 9 IPCs worth of pre-placed units or banked, with the ladder stipulation limiting one unit placed per territory or sea zone in which a player already controlled units. (Not “7 to 11”, but actually a clear “9”). The most common uses were 3 Ger infantry in Europe for an early Karelia push, or inf/tank in Libya/Algeria with 1 IPC left over to Japan so it could purchase 2 transports 1 IC if so desired.
Why this was needed - in Revised, transports were used as ablative armor for Allied navies, so Germany hitting an Allied fleet meant losing expensive fighters for cheap transports. So Germany could hardly kill Allied fleet, and the Allies came on fast and hard in Europe; Germany would get plowed under very fast, especially since Germany couldn’t normally take any decent Africa income for a while (without a bid)
The Revised bid allowed Germany to push hard in Europe early (which it often couldn’t take a chance on without the bid) for positional advantage; alternatively to use a bid for an early push in Africa for an economic game.
In Spring 1942, it isn’t so clear that there’s an imbalance.
How is the balance in game play in Spr '42?
In Revised, bids ranged from 7-11 give or take. Did the update in rules and slight changes in a few units in Spr 42 eliminate the need for a bid or do players still use small bids?
I’ve almost never used a bid on Spring 1942 because the changes in rules and setup benefit more the Axis than the Allies. On the Med they now only face a cruiser and destroyer (2 hits, 5 attack/defense) rather than a battleship and destroyer (3 hits, 7 attack defense), which take less German air and naval units to destroyer than before.
The changes on subs and transport rules force the Allies to spend more on units for fleet defense on the Atlantic and keep the starting German subs safe from the Allied airforce. The end result is that now a German attack on SZ2 is a highly, safe possibility, while the Allies will almost definitely lose all ships on SZ12 if they make a landing into Algeria. All of this can give Germans more time on Africa and Europe while slowing the UK/US buildup on a KGF.
The new sub and transport rules can also work against Japan but only the US goes on KJF - they make it a better possibility than it was on Revised but you still need to be lucky on the first game turn.
The new sub and transport rules can also work against Japan but only the US goes on KJF - they make it a better possibility than it was on Revised but you still need to be lucky on the first game turn.
My thought is KJF (Kill Japan First) is more possible in Revised than in Spring 1942.
First, in Revised, UK can unify its fleet northwest of Australia; given the Revised rules, the transports make the UK fleet much more durable.
Second, in Spring 1942, subs are 6 PUs each, which helps Japan’s “keep away” game. That is, Japan pumps cheap subs early; if the US sails into range, Japan can smash them using its huge starting navy and air plus the fodder subs; if US stays away, Japan continues to progress in Asia.
True, in Revised, Japan can use transports for combat fodder. But that’s a temporary one-time advantage that only applies early against the KJF.
The fact that subs cost 6 instead of 8 in Spring 1942 means Japan can spend less while still maintaining local superiority of forces. The longer the game goes on, the more Japan benefits from having cheap subs.
US does not similarly benefit from cheap subs. First, the onus is on US to advance into the Pacific, which means US must first move into range where Japan can hit them; only then can any US survivors do anything useful. That means Japan benefits greatly from having subs, which are cheap and have a decent attack, while US does not benefit from having subs, which although cheap have a poor defense.
Second, Japan has much more power to begin with. Third, the map favors Japan’s logistics against a KJF. All these factors make subs immensely useful on an ongoing basis, which I consider more than compensates for the effective loss of transports as combat fodder. Particularly, the cheapness of subs is key. Japan can build subs but still pump out some ground to press in Asia. In Revised, where subs are more expensive, early expenditure on subs really hurts Japan in its ability to press in Asia a lot.
It’s balanced. If you use bids to determine sides, I’d recommend using cash bids.
Any placement bid on the front lines would probably unbalance more than balance.
In a no bid dice game I feel slightly more comfortable playing Axis than Allies. But I wouldn’t allow a 3 placement bid to Allies.
My thought is KJF (Kill Japan First) is more possible in Revised than in Spring 1942.
I agree with this, though it’s premature to say so for sure. Maybe there is a viable KJF and we haven’t figured it out yet.
I don’t think the reason is subs (usa has better use for them than Japan) or Japan being strong (Japan is stronger in revised, where transports are great defensive fodder).
Rather, Germany is too strong and UK too weak at the outset, which means Russia has to bare the brunt of Germany if UK and USA go for Japan. Russia falls too early in KJF because UK lacks the starting navy to assist in Europe.
In Revised, UK can harass Germany with its fleet and land some gear in Norway/Kar, and Russia tends to last a turn or two longer.
@Bunnies:
My thought is KJF (Kill Japan First) is more possible in Revised than in Spring 1942.
First, in Revised, UK can unify its fleet northwest of Australia; given the Revised rules, the transports make the UK fleet much more durable.
On Revised Japan can sink a unified UK fleet off Australia on J1 with 1 BB, 1 AC and 4 FTRs. It will most likely prevent a SZ52 J1 attack but the payoff clearly favors the Axis since Egypt will not be contested by the UK and while Japan will lose fighters those can be easy replaced.
Second, in Spring 1942, subs are 6 PUs each, which helps Japan’s “keep away” game. That is, Japan pumps cheap subs early; if the US sails into range, Japan can smash them using its huge starting navy and air plus the fodder subs; if US stays away, Japan continues to progress in Asia.
Japan spending its money mainly on subs to stop a KJF is not the best move. Unless Germany moves a plane to kill the US destroyer blockers the subs can be rendered useless and, the most important, the subs contribute with zero to the defense of the Japanese fleet against US planes. The best option is really a combined fleet of subs, planes and surface ships.
True, in Revised, Japan can use transports for combat fodder. But that’s a temporary one-time advantage that only applies early against the KJF.
With a J1 buy of 3 transports that means 4 more attack/defense hits and 3 defense points to the Japanese fleet. It is a one time advantage but that makes the difference between stopping cold the advance of the US fleet during the initial rounds.
The fact that subs cost 6 instead of 8 in Spring 1942 means Japan can spend less while still maintaining local superiority of forces. The longer the game goes on, the more Japan benefits from having cheap subs.
Again, airpower. Subs can’t help on land and can be rendered useless against planes. If Japan invests on subs, the US invests on planes to sink the Japanese surface fleet.
US does not similarly benefit from cheap subs. First, the onus is on US to advance into the Pacific, which means US must first move into range where Japan can hit them; only then can any US survivors do anything useful. That means Japan benefits greatly from having subs, which are cheap and have a decent attack, while US does not benefit from having subs, which although cheap have a poor defense.
Both conditions apply to both powers on Spring 1942. The US also benefits from the cheap subs, the distance factor applies to the whole fleet rather than just the subs. And subs are worse in defense both for Japan and the US.
Unless Germany moves a plane to kill the US destroyer blockers the subs can be rendered useless . . .
The US also benefits from the cheap subs, the distance factor applies to the whole fleet rather than just the subs. And subs are worse in defense both for Japan and the US.
Of course Germany should be moving a fighter to the Jap fleet to kill off US destroyer blocks. So the Jap subs are NOT rendered useless. It’s like saying cars are useless if you don’t have gas. So true! But just bring some gas, and it’s not a problem, yes?
As far as cheap subs - I don’t see US building subs. You build destro/carrier/fighter/transport. That is what you need. You need destroyer to hunt sub; if you don’t have it, Japan can throttle you with subs. You build carriers because you need to protect your fleet against air. You build fighters to press the attack quickly. You build transports to pose at least SOME sort of invasion threat.
As far as subs being worse on defense for both Japan and US, I say so what? Think of it this way. Suppose you are in a boxing match in which the first punch ends the match. One boxer has huge range (say it’s Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who had HUGE range). The other doesn’t (say a pygmy). Now yeah, you know, if you ignore the difference in range, then it’s anyone’s game. But there IS a difference in range.
So what happens if the short range boxer concentrates on offense (subs)? He (or she) gets punched out! The boxer with shorter range needs to slip or block the punch on the way in, or “small chance” becomes “zero chance”.
US has to press the attack to make it mean anything, so US effectively has shorter range. It has to come in punching range of Japan first. Japan has the ability to hit first.
So when you have subs that are pretty decent on offense but not so much on defense, who does that benefit? I say Japan, with its ability to hit first!
What about clever tricks? You know, like US building mass subs on US1 and splitting sea zones? It doesn’t matter! US can make zero progress in KJF until it can threaten landings, and that isn’t going to happen without carriers. Even if you build flocks of transports, they will die long before they get into range unless you build the destro/carrier/fighter escorts that you need!
–
Re: other points:
Yes, Japan can sink a unified Aus fleet in Revised. Of course. But the point is, it’s a gigantic pain in the a** for Japan in Revised. In Spring 1942, Japan just blows the hell out of the fleet without blinking.
“Japan spending money mainly on subs to stop KJF is not best move . . . subs contribute zero to defense of Jap fleet against US planes”. You already addressed the first by mentioning the German fighter stopping US destroyer block. The second I don’t consider too much of a problem. Even keeping 1 battleship 1 carrier 2 fighters (I often have a destroyer too) at the sea zone east of Japan at the end of Japan’s second turn will almost certainly stop anything the Allies have coming, and that’s without Japan even building anything. Pretty soon that changes to 2 battleships 2 carriers plus air and probable destroyer as Japan should certainly be able to reunite its fleet on J3. That is no joke to kill with air alone. It’s like, yes, if you have Jap destroyers, then what is merely a stupid US move becomes a retarded US move. But if you have Jap subs, the US move is still stupid, and you have a much harder punch for PUs spent with Japan.
–
Re: early subs vs early fighters &c
Well yeah, I’m a big advocate of ground push. So maybe fighters instead of subs eh. But once US has the threat control against the sea zones around Japan, it’s too late to build sea units; you have to make do with what you’ve already built. Hm.
It’s at least worth thinking again about early fighters, though - yeah.
@Bunnies:
Of course Germany should be moving a fighter to the Jap fleet to kill off US destroyer blocks. So the Jap subs are NOT rendered useless. It’s like saying cars are useless if you don’t have gas. So true! But just bring some gas, and it’s not a problem, yes?
Considering that with the Axis I’d rather have US destroyer blockers (kill them with subs, +2 IPC gain for J and less 1 unit to defend against the Japanese AF) and keep the entire Luftwaffe in Europe for the UK/Soviets then this point to me isn’t really an issue.
As far as cheap subs - I don’t see US building subs. You build destro/carrier/fighter/transport. That is what you need. You need destroyer to hunt sub; if you don’t have it, Japan can throttle you with subs. You build carriers because you need to protect your fleet against air. You build fighters to press the attack quickly. You build transports to pose at least SOME sort of invasion threat
You can go both ways - Japan builds subs, US builds subs - again the trick is to keep a fleet capable of defending against the Japanese AF - if that happens, then US can go subs all the way.
As far as subs being worse on defense for both Japan and US, I say so what? Think of it this way. Suppose you are in a boxing match in which the first punch ends the match. One boxer has huge range (say it’s Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who had HUGE range). The other doesn’t (say a pygmy). Now yeah, you know, if you ignore the difference in range, then it’s anyone’s game. But there IS a difference in range.
So what happens if the short range boxer concentrates on offense (subs)? He (or she) gets punched out! The boxer with shorter range needs to slip or block the punch on the way in, or “small chance” becomes “zero chance”.
US has to press the attack to make it mean anything, so US effectively has shorter range. It has to come in punching range of Japan first. Japan has the ability to hit first.
Japan can always strike first but it needs to set up its navy and AF to properly stop the US from advancing. The question here isn’t ‘range’ (which I don’t understand your definition of shorter) since the range is the same for all units, regardless of their country. (also Kareem Abdul Jabbar was a basketball player for the LA Lakers, not a boxer)
The key issue for J is the ability to mass enough naval and airforce to stop any US naval stack from advancing while at the same time defend its fleet/newly builds from US attacks. Failure to do any of both concedes position to the US and ultimately the Pacific is decided upon these conditions.
So when you have subs that are pretty decent on offense but not so much on defense, who does that benefit? I say Japan, with its ability to hit first!
Again, subs don’t defend against planes. Try holding SZ60 with mostly subs against an armada of US fighters and bombers.
What about clever tricks? You know, like US building mass subs on US1 and splitting sea zones? It doesn’t matter! US can make zero progress in KJF until it can threaten landings, and that isn’t going to happen without carriers. Even if you build flocks of transports, they will die long before they get into range unless you build the destro/carrier/fighter escorts that you need!
US buying subs on US1 is not a good idea unless Japan badly messed up and lost capital ships on J1. You need destroyers, fighters, cruisers and carriers - the goal is Solomon Islands landing on US2.
Re: other points:
Yes, Japan can sink a unified Aus fleet in Revised. Of course. But the point is, it’s a gigantic pain in the a** for Japan in Revised. In Spring 1942, Japan just blows the hell out of the fleet without blinking.
Faced it on Revised quite a few times - it’s only a gigantic pain in the a** the first time, turns into a nuisance afterwards: the US will still be limited on advancing on the Pacific, German units in Egypt survive (making Africa harder/impossible for solely the UK to retake) and J’s transport off SZ59 gets out alive.
Unless the UK fighter on Egypt survives G1 to join the UK fleet Japan can sink it, and if it joins the UK fleet, Japan can still sink SZ52 first and then scare the UK fleet to the Indian to prevent it from joining the US Pacific fleet.
Wow, vehement disagreement with Hobbes. Smexy.
Considering that with the Axis I’d rather have US destroyer blockers (kill them with subs, +2 IPC gain for J and less 1 unit to defend against the Japanese AF) and keep the entire Luftwaffe in Europe for the UK/Soviets then this point to me isn’t really an issue.
You don’t build Jap subs so you don’t care about US destroyer blocks. I do build Jap subs, so I do care about US destroyer blocks.
As far as killing destroyer with sub, I know better than to think you’re seriously trying to base major grounds on the miniscule IPC gain. The point of the US destroyer block is to basically screw the attack power of the entire Japanese fleet so US can move into a key position. You use a single German fighter to free up the attack power of two battleships, four or five subs, and probably destroyer/2 carriers as well.
You can go both ways - Japan builds subs, US builds subs - again the trick is to keep a fleet capable of defending against the Japanese AF - if that happens, then US can go subs all the way.
Theory, theory. But WHEN are you going to actually start pumping out those US subs? You push destr/carrier/fighter/transport with US! You know it, I know it. You don’t build US subs early because that’s not what you need for the early phase. You don’t build them in the mid because those don’t develop the position in the face of the Japanese threat (if Japan is handling its end properly). You don’t do them late because once you establish pseudo-dominance of Pacific, subs catch up way too slowly - you build fighters on a carrier based at Western US that immediately threaten Japan’s naval position, or you build transports to consolidate and dominate the islands.
Now, yeah, if you went KGF, you can use a couple subs for interference to stop Japan from running unescorted transports around. But in KJF, Japan isn’t leaving anything unescorted.
Japan can always strike first but it needs to set up its navy and AF to properly stop the US from advancing. The question here isn’t ‘range’ (which I don’t understand your definition of shorter) since the range is the same for all units, regardless of their country. (also Kareem Abdul Jabbar was a basketball player for the LA Lakers, not a boxer)
The key issue for J is the ability to mass enough naval and airforce to stop any US naval stack from advancing while at the same time defend its fleet/newly builds from US attacks. Failure to do any of both concedes position to the US and ultimately the Pacific is decided upon these conditions.
The movie “Game of Death” stars Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (among others). It’s not boxing, but the principle is that guy had this huge f*ing range. Yeah, you know, Kareem loses because he’s up against the star (Bruce Lee), but jesus. In boxing, the difference in reach is usually in inches, so it’s a lot harder to see the effect that a difference in reach has. But if you watch “Game of Death”, well, wow.
What I don’t understand is why you would consider that Japan can mass enough naval/airforce to deter US naval stack without Jap subs. I think it’s so much easier to deter US from making an attack when you’re going to dump 6 IPC Jap subs per US hit as opposed to 10 IPC Jap fighters. You preserve your attack power, you have preemptive attack when US runs out of destroyers.
Yes, yes, absolutely correct about Japan massing navy/airforce to push US. But if you know you are going to fight, or at least threaten to fight, do you want subs or fighters? Yes, fighters can push in Asia. Yes, fighters are more flexible. But subs are much cheaper, and you need to pump them early to get them into position in the midgame. The way I figure it, you go sub production early and use your existing airforce in Asia/Europe, then you switch to fighter production midgame. The newly built fighters protect Tokyo on unit placement, and have range to hit the US fleet that’s moving around.
Again, subs don’t defend against planes. Try holding SZ60 with mostly subs against an armada of US fighters and bombers.
Oh come on. Why BOTHER holding sea zone 60 (east of Japan) against a chunk of US air? The whole idea of the Jap sub defense, you shift, shift, shift. If US comes in fast and hard, you smash them with cheap subs. If US hovers outside sub range, that’s fine because by definition they’re not close enough to do anything problematic. I’ve never played a KJF defense in which my Japan fleet stayed in one place, ever. If US backs off, you push. If they come forward, you smash them or (more likely) reposition. Move, move, move! Don’t build industrial complexes that lock your defense down, flow like water, reflect like mirror, etc.
US buying subs on US1 is not a good idea unless Japan badly messed up and lost capital ships on J1. You need destroyers, fighters, cruisers and carriers - the goal is Solomon Islands landing on US2.
Yes, of course. But I thought part of my whole point was that Japan can use subs far more effectively than US can.
Faced it on Revised quite a few times - it’s only a gigantic pain in the a** the first time, turns into a nuisance afterwards: the US will still be limited on advancing on the Pacific, German units in Egypt survive (making Africa harder/impossible for solely the UK to retake) and J’s transport off SZ59 gets out alive.
Unless the UK fighter on Egypt survives G1 to join the UK fleet Japan can sink it, and if it joins the UK fleet, Japan can still sink SZ52 first and then scare the UK fleet to the Indian to prevent it from joining the US Pacific fleet.
One of the Axis bids in Revised that I’m used to is inf/tank in Africa, making for 4-5 survivors at Anglo-Egypt. You don’t counter Anglo-Egypt in those circumstances. You just give up on it, because it’s already gone. If Allies go KGF, you use US tanks to blaze through Africa for the quick reclaim. If Allies go KJF, though, you do something else - usually unification. But in either event, there’s no Anglo-Egypt counter.
If Germany went Euro bid, then you use UK to counter Anglo. But then you’re going KGF to offset the quick German pressure in Europe, not KJF.
@Bunnies:
Wow, vehement disagreement with Hobbes. Smexy.
;)
I fear that we’ve gone completely off topic with this KJF discussion and it all really borders on a matter of choices on how to advance with the US/defend with Japan, on which we have different ideas on which are the most effective but at the end I’ll still use subs if the situation is right, they are just not my favorite.
I think 42 is pretty well balanced.
Allied are a bit more difficult to play IMO, since it requires more coordination and forthsight to play especially the US effectively. Therefore axis may have a slight advantage.
