Allied setup additions for balance (new poll)

[theROCmonster]

Reducing Japans starting planes greatly changes the game. It allows stacks in Burma or Yunnan that would otherwise not be possible. Not sure if I like that.

[Witt]

But why does Japan have 21 Air? It is too powerful a  tool. I think that ruins the game. If is also why Japan can get to 70 income and earn more than the US.

[theROCmonster]

True. I like the idea of US making 10 more when at war, so a base of 80 instead of 70.

[Witt]

Probably my biggest gripe with Global. US must make more than the other nations.
But then 1942 is more silly! By T2 if has less than Germany and won’t take long for Japan to overtake its 38 either.

[Captain-Mitchell 0]

As for me ,I usually don’t add more units for balance,if I want to do that,I will add USS battleship Massachusetts (BB59) in Atlantic .

[Vold]

I wouldn’t limit a ‘balancing act’ to setup changes.  Rule changes (like allowing the US to enter the war earlier or on expanded criteria, etc.) or bonus changes like ROC pointed out, may better bring about balanced play than unit changes alone.

[major_payne]

would it be better if the us gets more money in general? If you play pacific by itself, the usa gets like 60 ipc once at war.
could we give the usa two differnt economys like the uk?

[ghr2]

@major_payne:

would it be better if the us gets more money in general? If you play pacific by itself, the usa gets like 60 ipc once at war.
could we give the usa two differnt economys like the uk?

That would be interesting to see, the same incomes as in each separate game but divided like UK.  62 Wartime on the pac side and 60 wartime on the atlantic side.

[Young Grasshopper]

@ghr2:

@major_payne:

would it be better if the us gets more money in general? If you play pacific by itself, the usa gets like 60 ipc once at war.
could we give the usa two differnt economys like the uk?

That would be interesting to see, the same incomes as in each separate game but divided like UK. 62 Wartime on the pac side and 60 wartime on the atlantic side.

In contrast, why not amalgamate both UK economies into a single income? The IC in India remains a major, Japan still gets a $5 NO for control of it, but Calcutta is no longer a capital city which relinquishes it’s income when captured, only London would have to hand over all UK cash upon enemy occupation (making Sealion a viable strategy once again).

To begin the game, Britain would have $45 to build on whatever IC they own, they could use the first round $ to protect London and build an IC in Egypt, then they could use the second round ($45+ with NO) to build on the new factory, and 10 units on India. This would also prevent Japan from convoying, and bombing India down to zero income, pretty much paralyzing them until Calcutta gets invaded.

Lifting the double income restriction for the UK would allow the allies more flexibility in regions they need to protect, or allow more aggression in areas they wish to apply pressure… making the game more balanced.

[theROCmonster]

This sounds like a great idea, but the main problem is that if you combine both UK incomes then India would never be taken. UK would always put 10 guys a turn in India (after turn 1). These 10 guys plus the Chinese units would be way too much for Japan to handle, and I don’t think you would ever see Japan win a game.

[Young Grasshopper]

@theROCmonster:

This sounds like a great idea, but the main problem is that if you combine both UK incomes then India would never be taken. UK would always put 10 guys a turn in India (after turn 1). These 10 guys plus the Chinese units would be way too much for Japan to handle, and I don’t think you would ever see Japan win a game.

But the point is to not let Japan run away with the Pacific, and I would think that forcing Germany to put significant pressure on London and Egypt in order to prevent such a India stacking strategy, solves the other problem of a turn 5 Moscow crush.

[Vold]

There are a few good ideas here.  But instead of seeing what sticks to the wall, another approach may be to analyze the most common vectors of victory for Axis and apply countermeasures to reduce the effectiveness of those vectors.

If I had the time, I would analyze about 20 games between competent players where the Axis won.  I would distill them down for overall strategic commonalities (i.e. 80%  do J1, 75% do G2 Russian steamroller, etc.).  Then take the most common winning commonalities and determine minor Allied placements/changes (or Axis placements/changes) that would reduce the odds of that particular strategic component being successful.

No need to prevent winning Axis strategies, just blunt their edge a bit.

Possible changes and how I view them:

• Unit placement changes (bids) provide a one-time offensive or defensive increase, and maybe a small strategic advantage such as an ANZAC troop on NG.  Small scale tweaks here.
• Rule changes can reduce flexibility (ex: “Japan shall not attack on J1”), and railroad the game a bit, but can expire later in the game.  More medium sized tweaks here.
• Economic changes are initially minor but become more exacerbated as the game progresses.  Warning: here be Dragons!

Balancing can be a very delicate exercise.  Too large of a change and you tilt the whole game on its’ side.

V

[General Veers]

@theROCmonster:

This sounds like a great idea, but the main problem is that if you combine both UK incomes then India would never be taken. UK would always put 10 guys a turn in India (after turn 1). These 10 guys plus the Chinese units would be way too much for Japan to handle, and I don’t think you would ever see Japan win a game.

The IC in Calcutta should be downgraded, not like Eastern India was an industrial powerhouse in 1940. Since my office has ties to Bombay I am partial to putting a minor there to help offset the downgrade.

[Young Grasshopper]

@General:

@theROCmonster:

This sounds like a great idea, but the main problem is that if you combine both UK incomes then India would never be taken. UK would always put 10 guys a turn in India (after turn 1). These 10 guys plus the Chinese units would be way too much for Japan to handle, and I don’t think you would ever see Japan win a game.

The IC in Calcutta should be downgraded, not like Eastern India was an industrial powerhouse in 1940. Since my office has ties to Bombay I am partial to putting a minor there to help offset the downgrade.

If we’re still talking about a single UK economy, then I agree with changing the Calcutta Major IC to a Minor.

[Witt]

Has to be a Minor, in this case. Perhaps with a second Minor in West India! (Or would  that be too much of a gift to Japan?)
Some sort of compensation would have to be made though.

[Final Run]

@wittmann:

But why does Japan have 21 Air? It is too powerful a  tool. I think that ruins the game.

Yeah even after OOB Japan still has way to many damn planes. Makes it too easy for them to hold territory in this game.

@wittmann:

also why Japan can get to 70 income and earn more than the US.

I can see what your point to an extent, it would be a bit more historically accurate if America had a somewhat larger IPC income.

As for Japan, if they occupy chunks of China, French Indochina, Malaya and the DEI like they did in the real war then their income should be close to the USA’s. Remember after most of the Japanese advances in 1941-1942, the Japanese held an area of more than 3 million square miles that contained about one fifth of all the population on earth, along with an almost infinite supply of Tin, Oil and other raw materials. If the Japanese were able to thwart U.S. submarines attempting to attack their convoys, these resources might have been put to good use in industrialized Japan. And if the they were able to somehow impress the various Asian peoples into war machine of the “Co-Prosperity Sphere” they could have potentially been the worlds greatest power by far.

[ItIsILeClerc]

I think Japan’s flexibility with their many planes is the main concern of most people here?
Why not remove x number of Japanese planes across the map and replace them with x numer of art/inf in Japan. That’s more true to history and forces Japan to make real choices.

No more taking India J4 AND swing back with all that starting aircraft into Sydney/Hawai, forcing the USA to have ~570TUV in the Pacific to prevent sudden death.
Japan should still be able to get to 80-100IPC wiping out India, DEI, China and a large part of Russia by J9 but it shouldn’t be able to stay at rough parity with the USN at the same time AND gain superiority again by returning all the startup-air…
I calculated that this little trick forces the USA to spend no more than ~160IPCs in Europe if it fears its Japanese opponent will go for that J9 Calcutta + Hawaii trick (know thy enemy…). Less even, if the USA applies less early pressure in the Pacific (applying more in Europe first).

[Witt]

Instead of island hoping as the US, you are forced to cower off Queensland, united with the piddly Anzac fleet, as venturing out means the destruction of your only resources.
Air units are the most flexible, because of the superior range. Japan is, therefore, in a very strong position.  Until  it starts to lose a large number of those planes, the Allies are stuck waiting.
Hence my Japanese Air gripe.

[trulpen]

Sounds like you guys are leaning towards an Allied auto win. How did the tweaks turn out?

Japan will become a true power-house only if you let them. The challenge for the Allies in the Pacific is to work together in order to harass and try to strategically set-back Japan. They might be terrifying with those 21 planes, but they can’t be everywhere all at once. It’s all zen.

I think Japan is pretty easy to play the first 4-5 rounds, but then things might get real messy for them. If the Allies manage to put enough pressure on the board.

Another nice feature of the game is that both sides get pretty tricky decisions to make. Especially the US has to choose how to divide it’s resources and impact.

Young Grasshopper, you made some extra NOs that I think might make up some good balance of the game. Especially the 5 extra IPC to US and USSR, 3 extra to ANZAC and usually about 2 extra to UK. How has the experience been with them?

[Imperious Leader]

Bomber in Moscow, possible 1 more fighter or Fighter-Bomber but near manchuria
Remove some Japanese planes, but replace them with another ship(s), probably combination of transport ( AP) and more infantry
Add BB in Hawaii
Combine the Italian fleet so it cant be wiped out
Possible add 1-2 infantry in or near Egypt for UK