Well, you guys have logged an awful lot of hours on it already, so I wouldn’t call that a failure. Just make a tweak to the setup and it’s a balanced game.
That’s for sure, we have played the dog snot out of it. Immediate US 40 seems to still be the way to go for us for now. But we’d like to be playing the game the same way everyone else is playing, you know?
The global game will not have any of these issues, except for the curious China deal.
We shall see.
But we’d like to be playing the game the same way everyone else is playing, you know?
Yes, I know. I have made several adjustments to AA50 that I prefer, but then it just becomes a disadvantage when you play anyone else, because you’re not used to their way and the strategies are slightly different.
Would be best if they’d make official adjustments that everyone would follow. But as you said, we pretty much have to wait for Europe, and just play the global. I don’t think I’ll miss being able to play P40. I’ll be playing global 40 and AA50 exclusively, I’m sure.
kauf, you should use a bid, it is what most of the community has done to fix EVERY axis and allies theater game to date. i think you will get even more enjoyment out of your games.
immediate ipc is good but not as good as using bid. my quick comparison below shows some of the reasons why
immediate 40ipc helps to balance game but with more play you will find 40ipc does not perfectly balance the game.
bidding makes the game perfectly balanced for every playgroup.
40ipc gives the usa player some variability.
bid makes the game more variable as players can give any power(s) ipcs and place them in many territories over the whole board.
40ipc only changes one rule
bid only adds one rule which has been used for all of axis and allies history; classic, revised, aa50, aa42
We like immediate 40 because it doesn’t change the OOB set up at all, and is the only change from the OOB game. There are no other changes. The ole’ KISS meathod.
bid is also simple. only one rule addition aswell. with bid you add a rule before the game starts, and no rules are changed after the game starts.
Bids effects can vary widely from game to game, and at some point, a particular bid may be found that imbalances the game yet again. Then you start the process all over again.
the beauty of a bid system is that it can change from one game to the next untill your group finds the perfect balance. if a particular bid is found to imbalance the game, you can be sure that the next game your opponent will bid lower. the ironic thing is that the immediate 40ipc is a system that will soon be found to be imbalanced(even if it is slightly uneven maybe usa needs 35ipc or 43ipc).
Good luck with your meathod, we’re going to stick to immeduiate 40 for now.
i hope you try using a bid. i think you will get even more enjoyment out of your games.
I agree - bid is the way to give each side an equal chance to win without playing a different game than everyone else.
If you play with an immediate 40, then your bid should be less than 40, because those units will be placed at startup and will be in the action a turn faster.
Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth
“Well, to be clear… At this point I’m not sure what the change(s) would end up being, frankly, all that remains to be seen. I feel that my ultimate objective is to create a situation where a 1st turn Japanese attack is only a viable option, and not, as I think it is now, the best option.”
Larry Harris, 10:02 PM CST 8/1/10
Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth
“Well, to be clear… At this point I’m not sure what the change(s) would end up being, frankly, all that remains to be seen. I feel that my ultimate objective is to create a situation where a 1st turn Japanese attack is only a viable option, and not, as I think it is now, the best option.”
Larry Harris, 10:02 PM CST 8/1/10
Word.
Well, my group has tested out the plane concentration strategies and a few other things. The more games we play, the more we’re given to Kauf’s conclusions: A skilled Japanese player can only lose due to luck.
Our conclusions:
1) Airbases make it impossible for the US to sail West. If Japan leaves enough planes behind, America can’t break through. Japan can fly planes to the Carolines and stop the US from taking either. If the US decides to skip Truk and SZ7 and take an island, their entire navy will be incinerated in the counter assault.
From either Japan or Truk, with the inclusion of an airbase, their planes can strike the navy that took any island, move one sea zone away and land on a friendly island. There are simply too many islands around for the US to take them all in one turn to prevent the counterstrike. And if the US is throwing money away on sacrificial transports, Japan can afford to do the same.
2) Japan’s starting forces: are just too much for the Allies to counter. Simply put, Japan can throw just about everything towards India and still have enough to counter the US fleet. From turn 2 on Japan is buying 4+ Fighters per turn, and once India falls, they will stay well ahead of the American fleet in production. Plus, once the DEI are taken and there’s no other allied navy besides the US, the Japanese fleet doubles back east to reinforce.
3) India is screwed. It just doesn’t matter what they do. Whether Japan goes in full force or takes their time, there is nothing the US and ANZAC player can do about it. ANZAC needs an air base on WAUS to fly to India, and Japan can take that at will from the meager ANZAC forces should the Allies build one. America can’t get there at all before India falls, except perhaps with an odd bomber or two, and that won’t help much.
4) The Allies attack separately from one another. A concentrated Japanese force can withstand anything the separated UK or ANZAC player throw at it. The Allied combined airforce still has to attack piecemeal, and they’ll get destroyed by the Japanese in doing so. The stack of 8 fighters and 1 tac on Java? That could be deadly to a Japanese fleet……if only they could attack together. Instead they have to attack 5 and then 4.
5) The cost of attacking. Most units defend better than they attack, putting more pressure on the attacker to have better odds. It’s more cost effective to be on defense than on offense. The US needs to buy carriers with no attack value to get planes onto islands. For the same amount of IPCs, Japan gets an extra fighter and 6 IPCs.
6) The US can’t increase their income. None of the islands near them are worth anything that matter! Their income won’t grow at all unless they can somehow break through to the Chinese mainland.
The whole thing turns into a logic problem which can’t be solved:
o Due to airbases, the US needs overwhelming force to attack.
o However, it is more expensive to attack than to defend. The US needs to build up more forces than the Japanese so they can break through.
o But they can’t wait too long, or Japan will out produce them, so they must attack within X turns (before that happens).
o Yet X turns isn’t enough for the US starting forces +new units to overcome Japan’s left behind planes +new units.
o The US must attack prematurely and hope for awesome dice.
The other option is to ferry units around Australia, but lightly defended transports sent in waves around Australia won’t be able to bust through the starting Japanese fleet that waits in the DEI. There is no way to prevent Japan’s economy from ballooning past the US’s.
Great post, Matt - just a couple of thoughts
USA income can go up for DEI islands, and the Phillipines….
Japan is building 4+ fighters a turn from turn 2 on? Seems they would need boats and ground forces more… Don’t they normally have enough air power that they don’t need to build any fighters or tacs for quite some time? You guys build 4+ from turn 2? I’m surprised by that one.
Hoping for awesome dice is not a good strategy, as you know. :-)
I can’t say any more - haven’t really played as the Allies yet in a “normal” game.
Well gamer, it depends on what America dose to force some Japanese buys. If America starts out aggressive (as possible anyway), and concentrate everything on Hawaii and buys a carrier US1, then Japan has to get 4 more fighters onto Japan from Kauf’s posted strategy. Japan ends with 5 planes on Japan, 1 destroyer, and 1 sub. That’s not enough to counter America’s forces. Per the battle calculator, Japan needs 4 more fighters on defense to stop America from moving into Korea. None of the mainland planes can double back in a turn. It’s either strip some carriers, abandon Truk, or buy Fighters.
Because the 2 US bombers, 2FTR, 2 Tac, 1 of everything else. And if American keeps up the pressure, it necessitates all Fighter buys for some time, unless you weaken the forces against India. At some point it’s possible, but not for the first few turns.
But having written all of the problems America has, it might be possible to come up with some counters. I’m working on a few right now, and I”ll post against soon. It isn’t as bad for the US as I previously thought. That’s mostly because Fighters are mostly a defensive buy, and the only things America will lose are the pieces they put out there knowing they’ll be sunk.
Well, I suppose the US economy could go up if they took some DEI, but really, if that’s happening, that it’s pretty much over for the Japanese anyway.
Well, I suppose the US economy could go up if they took some DEI, but really, if that’s happening, that it’s pretty much over for the Japanese anyway.
Not in my game :-) Func really likes to snipe at those DEI islands.
