I wouldn’t attack anyone but China till J3 unless Germany took the UK in G2.
Again, America does not need to sink the Japanese fleet, only have a force strong enough to threaten to sink it along with a few transports and ground units to keep Japan honest.
I have demonstrated numerous times in multiple threads how easily it comes to America to gather a 900 IPC fleet. By comparison, I have also demonstrated numerous times in multiple threads on how hard it is for Japan to get a 500 IPC fleet. Both fleets include air units but neither include transports. The American fleet and Japanese fleet both have 4 transports in the scenarios I posted. I recommend you go read them, instead of asking the same questions others have asked and have gotten very sound answers too.
For the record, your Kamikazee’s are great, but rather useless. America should refrain from bringing in some of the carriers, this way, they still have soaks to justify landing long range fighters (not the technology, but those fighters at or near the end of their fuel) but deny Japan the “Hail Mary” of one kamikazee per carrier in the hopes America has nothing to land on and loses a lot of fighters to the ocean. Generally by round 8 this is no longer a factor, it generally occurs with rookie players who attack SZ 6 too early.
I wouldn’t attack anyone but China till J3 unless Germany took the UK in G2.
Even with a G3 Sea Lion (I do not believe round 2 is an option, I could be wrong, but even if I am, I don’t think it would make much of a difference to Japan) I would not recommend doing anything in Russia.
As I outlined, in order to get the moderate benefit of taking the territories (14 IPC) it costs you 12 IPC (since you cannot collect it now, no matter what the allies do) and you have to dedicate a pretty sizable land force to get it. If you don’t send in the ground forces, the little income you might have get is quickly dwarfed to next to nothing.
Keep in mind, an invasion of Russia justifies Russian reinforcements into China! Otherwise, Russian reinforcements gives Japan the NO. So by NOT invading Russia, you potentially prevent Russia from bolstering China.
I never invade Russia and only attack China till J3. In fact I leave Manchukuo and Korea undefended. If Russia attacks I will use the 12 IPC to upgrade a Destroyer purchase into a BB.
The US DOW says the following in the Pacific FAQ: “However, if the United States is still not at war with Japan by the Collect Income phase of its third turn, it may declare war on Japan at that time.”
Do the NOs for US take effect in the turn 3 collect income? Or Turn 4?
G2 Sea Lion is possible with a poor purchase in UK1. As well as picking the wrong time to scramble.
The US DOW says the following in the Pacific FAQ: “However, if the United States is still not at war with Japan by the Collect Income phase of its third turn, it may declare war on Japan at that time.”
Do the NOs for US take effect in the turn 3 collect income? Or Turn 4?
Turn 3.
Japan must plan for the eventuality that America will attack its fleet. To fail to do so invites a devastating attack that will result in no less than 11 Convoy Raid Damage per round and the irrevocable destruction of the Japanese fleet.
However, America does not need to engage in the battle if the odds are not in their favor. Since America is in such a prime position to replace any losses in the field, and since they have allies that can bear the brunt of trading off control of sea zones, America is in the enviable position to determine when, if ever, and with what to attack the Japanese fleet.
This is what I allude to in my statements. Japan must prevent the sinking of their fleet as they cannot replace it. America can trade sinking of the Japanese fleet for the counter attack from Japan sinking their fleet because America can afford to build the fleet (to the tune of twice as fast as Japan can! Furthermore, America probably has ships in the pipeline, Japan is already in SZ 6, there is no pipeline!)
It cannot be a mistake for America to attack early, America may not declare war on Japan until the end of Round 3.
If you refer to America ensuring it has the units to clear SZ 6, then yes, one has to be wary and ensure they have enough to do the job. Attacking on round 4 is probably not wise as Japan will have enough units in range to sink what you have left over. Attacking on round 8 is probably wise as Japan cannot possibly have the forces to clear out what America has left (since America has 80 IPC worth of units 1 rounds from SZ 6 on their next turn, whereas Japan no longer has any naval pressence and only what little air power is left after retaliating against America.)
In regards to the Dutch East Indies, these are territories that should be taken by India (with the possible exception of either Java or Sumatra, so that Australia has an even 24 IPC so they can field 3 destroyers a round, as outlined. Of course, Celebes and Formosa works for that as well!) There is just no reason for America to have ships down by SZ 41 or 42 at any point in time. If Japan leaves their ships down there, America should set up blockades in the north and let the Japanese have the DEI.
Why? 22 IPC in Convoy Raid Damage, vastly reduced ability for Japan to build naval units, prime position to start nailing the Japanese hide to the wall by bringing troops over from Alaska and Okinawa makes a very sweet spot to send Strategic Bombers over to pummel the industrial complex there. (On Average an American Strat Bomber will do 4 IPC in damage and cost America 2 IPC. Given the income differential, this only exasperates Japan’s hopes and speeds up the process. Not to mention strat bombers are not limited to strategic bombing raids, they are perfectly adept in sinking Japanese ships!)
It is a mistake for Japan to initiate hostilities too soon. Round 3 is fine. Rounds 1 or 2 is generally a very bad idea. For one, you lose out on the FIC NO. For another, on round 1 there is no hope of getting the DEI. (I know I explained this above, perhaps this time you will read it.) For another, America will INSTANTLY collect +20 IPC a round. For another, America’s complexes instantly become major complexes. For another thing, America can immediately declare war on Germany and Italy, thus, if those nations did not do so well, America can ignore Japan and go all in to Europe, if it really wants too. Just because I am stating that Japan has no chance against a fully determined America does not mean that America is inept at going into Europe very heavily.
What does Japan gain?
Turn-About!
Explain, IN DETAIL, how you will stop America from bottling up Japan.
How are you spending 40 IPC a round on warships and 40 IPC a round on ground units to invade China?
How are you simultaneously keeping your airpower close enough to defend your ships AND using them to strike deep into Russia and China?
And, since you are now spending double what you earn, I am assuming you cannot also be building industrial complexes, or are we tripling Japan’s income?
How are you keeping your ships in SZ 41 and SZ 6?
How are you threatening India, Australia and Hawaii simultaneously with the same ships?
How are you taking Russia with Germany without taking England?
How is Russia failing to prevent Germany from getting a victory city win, when all they have to do is retreat and hold one victory city from falling?
I am quite sure we would all like to know. It seems to be the argument used by Herr NCSCSwitch on a routine basis. He was famous for double counting his units (“They attack here AND they attack here this round…”). Sure, if you can use your units twice, and you can spend your money twice, then Japan is perfectly capable of keeping Australia, India, China, Russia and America at bay!
If they are not, then explain yourself, sir. How do you envision this grand Japanese battle plan? How do you explain a Japan that is woefully outspent every round, a Japan without enough units or ways to produce enough units attacking and beating nations with enough units and with plenty of ways of producing and deploying new units exactly where and when they need them? How are you countering China, Russia and England on land AND America and Australia at sea?
Given that maneuver, Mantlefan, America will have Japan completely contained and out of the game on Round 6. I will have America available to start pummelling Germany on round 8, instead of on round 10 (needing two rounds to move into position.)
Why is Japan blocking?
1) Once they don’t have a fleet, I don’t have to build fleet to sink it.
2) Once they don’t have a fleet, I can keep them bombed and convoy raided to zero income every round.
3) Once they don’t have a fleet, India may stop worrying about being back-doored.
4) Once they don’t have a fleet, America no longer has to worry about their income in the Pacific (the only real reason America is in the Pacific in the first place.)
5) Once they don’t have a fleet, the Allies cannot lose to Japan through Victory Cities.
I am sure others can think of more reasons why Japan has to keep blocking the American fleet each and every round to keep them busy. Perhaps I should shut up and let them chime in so the community at large can point out what a bone headed maneuver it is for Japan to throw away their fleet. (See, I called the action bone headed, not the person.)
As for picketting being a losing proposition: Uh, YES. I’ve been saying that. The point is, you’ve been saying “Japan can hold out until Russia falls.” I call bull $#!T if you just allow the Americans to sink the Japanse fleet and stack SZ 6 with submarines to keep it sunk. If you picket, then MAYBE, with the a sacrifice of French Infantry on a bonfire to the dice gods you will have just enough time to take out Russia (I highly doubt it, but MAYBE, after all, there is always a 1% chance anything could happen. You COULD aim a gun at your foot from 6 inches away and there’s a chance you will STILL miss. But do you want to take bets on it? No, neither would I.)
As for the rest of your claims, go through the two major threads. This one and suggested changes. You have made every statement rebutted here, not in exact words since I didn’t want to litter up the post with one line quotes everywhere, but you made the statements none-the-less.
You’re getting toasted on these boards Mantleman :lol:
If I were you, I would play a best of 3 with Jen straight up- she is Allies, you are Axis.
You just need to try the strat, Jen’s given you MORE than enough explaination.
So are you gonna man up???
I think what he needs to do is go home, pull out his boards (Europe and Pacific) link them up, set them up and play it out a few times against himself. He has the bones of the strategy, he can flesh out the rest himself.
Hell, doing that is how I come up with some really crazy manuevers myself. And who knows, doing that he MIGHT come up with an actual strategic game plan that would stop this from working, instead of waiting for detailed explanations so he can state “No, three rounds before you do that, I am going to do this” and claim strategic superiority - which of course is a HUGE problem since America would have 3 rounds to adapt.
Case in point: “I won’t block America from attacking my ships.”
Wow, so I am still going to throw Australian destroyers up and move them to the American fleet when I don’t need them to trade Japan anymore? Nah, thanks. I’ll get transports, a naval base in W. Australia and start shuttling troops to India faster.
Wow, so I am still going to sit there building ships for America I won’t need anymore, because Japan isn’t defending it’s fleet? Nah. That’s okay, I’ll replace some submarines I would have built with Strategic Bombers so I can start pummelling Japan sooner. (Statistically I will do 18.5 IPC in damage before I lose a 12 IPC bomber. {3.7 average per round, 5 rounds of life, bomber lost on 6th round}) thus Japan will be crippled much sooner. (11 CRD + 20 IPC Dmg to the Industrial Complex, that’s -31 IPC a round to a nation that is MAYBE getting 20 IPC by this point, but probably is not. And yes, once I do more damage to Japan than it earns, I will stop moving units in to do even more damage, it’s a given (for most of us anyway)).
Wow, so once Japan is gone from the oceans it cannot sufficiently reinforce Asia and thus I am still, for some reason, going to have to keep sending massive units from India in to help China? Russia is magically still going to need to send infantry into China? No, neither of those will happen. What will happen is that Russia and India will be able to bring pressure to bear on Egypt much sooner because Japan isn’t able to reinforce Asia anymore. (3 infantry from Korea is not reinforcing when China is making 26 IPC a round, 6 Infantry + 2 Artillery > 3 Infantry built in Korea. That’s all Japan can bring with no fleet. Assuming you don’t have ANOTHER complex in Manchuria, in which case, you can bring 6 ground units max (min 18 IPC) and I don’t see Japan ever having the 18 IPC after they lose their fleet.)
Point is: Go home. Set up your board. Give us a viable, MULTIPLE ROUND strategy that secures the DEI, China, invades or does not invade Russia, and holds the American fleet back for more than 8 rounds.
Then, like everyone else who has a good idea, go try it against other players. It’s funny, but other players seem to have a knack in punching holes in ones strategies, but they cannot demonstrate the weak areas if you just talk about them, and never actually try them. I have worked the American strategy against no less than 5 different opponents, multiple times per opponent and only one has successfully beaten it. However, that player is not my equal in strategy, he is far superior, and thus, I would hope that he would beat it. And for the record, he almost did not beat it.
I will draw the line at 10 rounds, if America cannot afford to start landing troops in N. Africa or England by Round 11, then I will conceed that Germany will win the game. How’s that.
Jennifer your posts have been brilliantly insightful.
The next step should be finding a solution. Have you had a chance to consider potential modifications?
You have talked about requiring USA to split income between the boards. Various USA NO have also been discussed.
I regret i haven’t like most of the proposed solutions so far. However, i agree the Mexico NO should die and i would like to add something for Alaska and the Aleutians that Japan could snipe.
Would the above two changes be sufficient? I hope so as they are simple changes but it needs testing.
Otherwise, what about a USA NO that encourages splitting income between the boards? For example, Battle for the Atlantic NO. Each turn America builds a ship in the Atlantic America earns an immediate 5 IPC when the ship is placed.
Straight up removal of the US National Objective in Mexico and downgrading of the American battleship in SZ 10 to a cruiser in SZ 10 would probably do it.
One of the reasons the ships were left at Pearl Harbor on cold iron was because they were antiquated world war one battleships, not employing the new technologies available to world war two. However, Roosevelt knew that Congress would never sign off on a large order of new battleships because he had some already. By allowing the Japanese to sink the “cruisers” (to convert them into game units) Roosevelt was able to go to Congress and demand new “Battleships” to replace the ones lost at Pearl Harbor.
Why do you think the Aircraft Carriers, brand new, were out at sea when the attack happened?
Perhaps, with these modifications, America will still be flexible enough for those who claim it is “unfair” to require America to build something on both hemispheres but also stop this nonsense of adding new units in territories chosen by the country getting the new units. I have always disliked “bids.” Just balance the game and leave it at that. IMHO.
Simply removing that NO and downgrading the Battleship to a cruiser makes US spend in both theaters? Don’t see how that accomplishes the goal.
There seems to be an unfortunate tendency in this thread towards proposing solutions rather than verifying the problem. No matter how forceful or insightful the arguments of one or two people are, it’s not a broad enough base of experience to declare anything broken. The problem has not yet been proven to our satisfaction. Finding a solution is premature at this point. More test results from more player groups are needed.
Of course, we can’t stop anyone from spending their time and energy debating solutions to a problem that may or may not exist. Such solutions may indeed prove useful if the problem is verified. However, we’d like to request that efforts at this time be focused on proving the existence of the problem by testing Alpha with the rules as they currently exist and reporting the results in some detail. That’s how all of you can be of the most help right now.
Thanks.
Jen,
(haven’t read every single line in this large topic, so dont shoot me if you had said it before)
If Japan goes to war in J1, playing agressive (without sacrificing expensive material), taking out all it can, grabbing the money islands (which takes more than a turn, but they can take most of them in 2 turns), threatening India and Australia (and making sure Anzac can’t get their bonuses), but giving USA its wartime bonus right away,
about how many turns would you need to get your all-pacific american fleet ready to move into action?
Holy poop you guys write craploads!
Wardog, there is an unfortunate tendency to accept that a broken game is worthy of distribution.
Put some parameters to your testing process. What methodologies are you following? RPS? Kaizan? Your gut feeling? What would be acceptable evidence?
A broken game becomes balanced by solutions, not by fiat from a failure of imagination. Any good playtester knows this.
Special Forces:
Regardless of when Japan declares war, we are talking Round 4 that America is in position with sufficient strength to necessitate a Japanese withdrawel to SZ 6, except when Japan declares war on Turn 4, in which case, add two rounds and America should be in sufficient strength to necessitate a Japanese withdrawel on Round 6.
What’s the primary difference? For three more rounds Japan can collect the National Objective for FIC. +24 IPC (3x 10 IPC - 3 rounds of controlling FIC at 2 IPC a round.)
Mantle, I answered you in the post above. Please read it. I carefully detailed the pitfalls of Japan NOT picketting the American fleet and the ramifications therein.
Krieg,
Many of us have play tested the game by this point. We are stating emphatically that it needs to be balanced and we are suggesting ways in which to balance it. If you like any of these ways, please feel free to pass them along. However, many of us refrain from playing “house rules” since we never know which ones will later be incorporated, so it defeats the purpose (to us) to play them.
However, there should be PLENTY of games for you to compile to demonstrate all the possible avenues of attack and all the possible strategies for you to get a firm understanding that the game is unbalanced. You won’t have to play test, we’ve done that for you to the tune of at least a few hundred games amoungst all the players here and probably a lot more with the players who post at Larry’s blog forum.
Parameters of Testing:
Novgorod, Volgorod and Muskva controlled by the Axis = Axis win.
Novgorod, Volgorod and London under Axis control = Axis win.
Japan controlling Dutch East Indies on Round 6 = Axis win.
Japan controlling Muskva = Axis win.
These are good places for the Allies to conceed defeat. Granted, the rules lawyers and the blind (those who fail to see they have lost and continue to play to the bitter end) will point out that officially the game is not yet over. However, if you quit at those points, you can play another game sooner!
Oh, allied victory conditions:
France liberated and held
Italy taken and held
Japan taken and held
Germany taken and held
Russia collecting 60+ IPC a round
Japan collecting (net) 0 IPC a round. (what they collect + objectives - convoy damage - strategic bombing raids < or = 0)
@Cmdr:
One of the reasons the ships were left at Pearl Harbor on cold iron was because they were antiquated world war one battleships, not employing the new technologies available to world war two. However, Roosevelt knew that Congress would never sign off on a large order of new battleships because he had some already. By allowing the Japanese to sink the “cruisers” (to convert them into game units) Roosevelt was able to go to Congress and demand new “Battleships” to replace the ones lost at Pearl Harbor.
Why do you think the Aircraft Carriers, brand new, were out at sea when the attack happened?
You really have to stop that conspiracy crap.
THe fact that the battleships were constructed during WW1 has no bearing. The british made excellent use of WW1 battleships against a modern German battleship and defeated it.
If the American battleships were worthless they would not have been manned by thousands of men during peacetime. If the battleships were worthless they would not have been raised, repaired, and resent into harms way.
The carriers were out at sea because they were in fact brand new. They were out training. Japan new the carriers were not present and accepted the plan anyway. Because at the time everyone, including Japan, followed Mahan’s theories and considered battleships the primary fighting force.
You all are encouraged to study up with Dr Zimm’s new book on the subject. The Attack on Pearl Harbor. I regret this forum does not allow links.
Put some parameters to your testing process. What methodologies are you following? RPS? Kaizan? Your gut feeling? What would be acceptable evidence?
A broken game becomes balanced by solutions, not by fiat from a failure of imagination. Any good playtester knows this.
The parameters have already been established - follow Jen’s strategy as the Allies, and see if it can be countered as the Axis. That’s simple enough, isn’t it? As I’ve already stated, acceptable evidence would consist of multiple groups achieving similar results, or what scientists call replicating an experiment. Any logically-minded person should be able to appreciate that.
As to solutions, trying to apply them without ascertaining the exact nature and magnitude of the problem will most often only make matters worse. Any good playtester knows this.
@Cmdr:
Krieg,
Many of us have play tested the game by this point. We are stating emphatically that it needs to be balanced and we are suggesting ways in which to balance it.
There seem to be two separate discussions going on here - one about general balance and one about a game-breaking Allied strategy. As far as general balance goes, what I’ve mostly been hearing is that the Allies have a slight edge. That obviously doesn’t concern me nearly as much as the possible existence of a game-breaking strategy.
@Cmdr:
However, there should be PLENTY of games for you to compile to demonstrate all the possible avenues of attack and all the possible strategies for you to get a firm understanding that the game is unbalanced. You won’t have to play test, we’ve done that for you to the tune of at least a few hundred games amoungst all the players here and probably a lot more with the players who post at Larry’s blog forum.
Again, I’m concerned about your “game-breaking” strategy right now. All I’m seeing to support that are your posts and a few other people jumping on the band wagon without any evidence of their own to support it. I want to see the results of more games played with that strategy before considering any fixes.
@Cmdr:
Special Forces:
Regardless of when Japan declares war, we are talking Round 4 that America is in position with sufficient strength to necessitate a Japanese withdrawel to SZ 6, except when Japan declares war on Turn 4, in which case, add two rounds and America should be in sufficient strength to necessitate a Japanese withdrawel on Round 6.
What’s the primary difference? For three more rounds Japan can collect the National Objective for FIC. +24 IPC (3x 10 IPC - 3 rounds of controlling FIC at 2 IPC a round.)
Well, the primary difference would be that if Japan attacks turn 1 it can keep both India and Anzac small (and bonusless) and even snag one of their VC’s. Also, as you know, Japan can grow fast as well when they do this.
The drawback is of course that USA grows faster.
I was trying to get an idea of the (dare i say) balance between a rapidly growing USA + wounded India / Anzac,
versus a USA that starts earning the big bucks a few turns later, but with India + Anzac getting strong enough to significantly hassle Japan, and/or setting their own VC’s safe, or even helping out in the Middle east.
That FIC NO (which i have no problem with) wont stop India + Anzac from growing and getting into good positions (which is also not unimportant)
If, like you say, USA is ready to go around round 4 (or 6) that means it can reach the asian coast or japan itself no sooner than turn 7 (or 9) if we add 1 turn of blocking.
Also I am guessing this US fleet won’t carry enough land units to overtake Japan instantly. So let’s say USA needs a few turns to succesfully do that, or take and keep another VC on the mainland.
Where i am trying to get is: Do the Axis have enough time to get their VC’s before the American Fist strikes? (in either the Jap1 or USA4 scenario). About 9 turns to get enough VC’s?
If this is still possible, we could claim the game isn’t broken.
I should add that i don’t agree that Germany cannot handle Russia (it may take time but eventually, Moskva will have to burn), it will take about 9 or 10 turns at least though. Also, without US pressure Italy should be able to get hold of Cairo (these were at least possible in OOB rules, which were said to be even less balanced, no?)
dude, she could have posted that link 20 pages ago!!! She’s not going to do it. Page after page and I am starting to think Jen is not all she’s cracked up to be. These set in concrete strategies she employs result in this situation of US beating Japan like a small child. When I chime in with possible solutions for the axis, they are mostly ignored. All I can say is her results are far different than the ones I’ve had in Global. Now in my games Italy takes no losses UK1 and Japan attacks the allies J2 or at latest J3.(usually J2 tho)
Also, have you tried fleeing with the Jap navy? So you’re going to lose sz6 and be convoy raided, why bottle up your Jap fleet, why not instead dominate the Indian ocean or move into the Med? Why put the Jap fleet in a position it can die in sz6? (I keep my fleet fast and lose, it never anchors somewhere to die)
