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.
This would give a boost to the Axis no matter which strategy is being employed by the Allies. It is not targetted enough towards Strat C.
Correct. It would penalize the United States for adversely targetting any one side of the board. If they go “whole hog” against Germany, then Japan gets an income boost to counter them. If they go “whole hog” against Japan (and currently that has failed to achieve results) then Germany and Italy would get an income boost. In either event, the effect is that the side not being targetted gets enough of a boost to achieve a victory city victory, thus, if the United States does not want to lose the game, they have to invest on both sides of the board.
@Cmdr:
You know, there’s a thought. What if America could not declare war until one of the following happened:
Calcutta AND Sydney are captured
Japan makes an unprovoked declaration of war against: England AND Australia OR Russia
London is captured
I don’t understand how Japan can make significant gains without attacking UK/ANZAC and therefore triggering the US? How does this change anything? Are you depending on the UK to start the fight by helping China?
@Cmdr:
It would limit America without infringing on their current abilities, it would further penalize Japan for invading Russia (always a good thing in my book) and it would make the axis a bit harder to contain since they could decide when and where the United States would enter the war.
Personally, I don’t want an attack on Russia to trigger anything for the US. I already find it problematic that Allied units are allowed in Russia territories. while it’s ahistoric that Japan can attack Russia, it’s just as false that the Western Allies are so friendly with the Soviets.
kcdmzim,
I think she is thinking that Japan could attack one of them and not the other. Then “the other” would have to attack Japan, so Japan would be at war with both of them but since Japan didnt declare war on both - then the US could not declare war on them.
There are a number of games in which England and Australia attack Japan first, in those situations, the US should not be triggered and thus, Japan can declare war on America whenever they see fit to do so without America automatically entering the war.
Otherwise, Japan will get to choose when England, Australia and America can enter the war and arrange it to their best position, or when they feel it is in their best position to attack them.
As for ahistorical or historical, let’s remember this is a game. Paramount importance in any game is to make both sides of equal strength and equal ability. After that has been accomplished, then a game should be fun. After those two are accomplished, then one can worry about historical events to make it more realistic.
I must state, however, this is the first incarnation of the game in which Allied units in Russia is a rare occurance, in all other versions of the global game, allied units in Russia were a common occurance.
kcdmzim,
I think she is thinking that Japan could attack one of them and not the other. Then “the other” would have to attack Japan, so Japan would be at war with both of them but since Japan didnt declare war on both - then the US could not declare war on them.
No. If Japan declares war on any of them, then America can enter the war. However, if England declares war on Japan, then Japan is an innocent nation and the America people will prevent the United States from entering another costly, foreign war.
@Cmdr:
There are a number of games in which England and Australia attack Japan first, in those situations, the US should not be triggered and thus, Japan can declare war on America whenever they see fit to do so without America automatically entering the war.
Otherwise, Japan will get to choose when England, Australia and America can enter the war and arrange it to their best position, or when they feel it is in their best position to attack them.
So then the only change you’re proposing is removing the US enters @ US3 rule. It has always been the case that if UK/ANZAC attack Japan first, the US cannot enter until attacked or US3.
If that’s the case though, what exactly is the impetus for the UK/ANZAC to ever attack? If they do, Japan will never bother with Hawaii and just sack ANZAC/UK on the same round, 100 rounds in with a ridiculous force(your suggestion was capturing calcutta/sydney would trigger the US), winning the game with the US never being able to respond.
So if Anzac/UK can’t depend on the US joining in, they’d never attack first. Maybe it should be US 4, but they absolutely need a trigger even if UK/ANZAC start the fight. Otherwise it’s VERY possible to win the game simply ignoring the US.
England and Australia will attack when they feel it is in the best interests of their cause. However, I wager Japan will strike first which will bring America into the war. There are also the myriad of other events that will bring America into the war, that I also listed.
Calcutta AND Sydney are captured
Japan makes an unprovoked declaration of war against: England AND Australia OR Russia
London or Cairo is captured
Muskvha and either Novogorod or Volgorod are captured
Since the axis MUST engage in at least one of these events to win the game, it is assured that America will, eventually, be brought into the war.
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
The gulf coast. and the midwest as well. The manitowoc shipping company produced submarines, one of which is still moored in manitowoc WI.
I like starting with a minor on the west coast but it seems trivial to upgrade to a major.
I’m sorry, I don’t think I was clear. My bad. What I’m saying is:
If you remove the trigger, the UK/ANZAC will NEVER have a reason to attack first. It’s rare now, but it will be nonexistant because if the US has no US3 (or whatever) trigger and UK/ANZAC hit first, the following seems to be the long game winner:
Japan utterly crushes Anzac/UK with free reign of the Pacific. They confine them to Calcutta and Sydney and convoy raid all income away. They take EVERY money territory, AND China, and the US STILL cannot enter the war.
As this is going on, Germany and Italy hold Russia but do NOT capture those cities you mentioned. They take Africa, they reduce the UK and convoy raid her to nothing, and they hold Russia. And the US still cannot do anything. Russia cannot take Germany and Italy alone, and the US still cannot participate. As soon as Japan has the utter advantage, they finally invade, block US movement and win.
You can keep the US out completely because you can stall and steal the win by leaving them perpetually neutral. Sure, that FINAL round, they’re at war, but through stalls and multiple simultaneous strikes, I don’t see how the US could reset everything. I think the loss of that trigger will ELIMINATE the UK first strike because Japan can get a nearly permanent free hand. Let them build up, but eventually, 100 rounds in, the US loses.
Thus, the UK/ANZAC will NEVER attack first. They’ll lose. I don’t see how they could possibly win if Japan then purposefully ignored the US war triggers.
@Cmdr:
What if America could not declare war until one of the following happened:
Calcutta AND Sydney are captured
There were other war entry points but i’m only interested in this one.
I like removing the US3 rule, it’s much too arbitrary for me.
I would expand the Sydney option and say any invasion of Australia. The invasion doesn’t have to be Sydney and it doesn’t have to be successful. Any Japanese attack on Australia should bring America into the fight.
Would these rules be with the OOB setup or the Alpha2 setup?
Japan utterly crushes Anzac/UK with free reign of the Pacific. They confine them to Calcutta and Sydney and convoy raid all income away. They take EVERY money territory, AND China, and the US STILL cannot enter the war.
THat’s not right. THe complete loss of China should draw America to the fight.
I agree, removing the automatic US 3 involvement would cause England and Australia to refrain from attacking Japan. That’s kind of the point! I don’t want America just entering the war because it’s round 3, there should be a precipatory action that causes America to enter the war! For instance, the attack on Pearl Harbor. (ahem, you know, the historical reason?) Or the second sinking of the Lusitania (you know, the historical reason for entrance in WWI?).
But I can see your point. You are claiming that America will never be able to be effective if we allow Japan to set up a strike on NSW and E. India such that both fall in the same round. I disagree vehemently. For one, it’s going to take 4 or 5 rounds to do that, given how little Japan is going to earn vs how much the British and Australians will earn. (remember, attacking any of the DEI causes America to enter the war! However, England and Australia can collect them without triggering war. That adds up over the long haul.)
I am okay with adding the fall of Sikang to the list of triggering actions. I just don’t think America should be in the war just because it’s round 3.
I’m pretty confident that we’re really only talking a 1 or 2 round delay here. Japan will eventually tire of being hemmed in and strike out. For one, 50 IPC a round vs India and Australia making 40 IPC a round and losing units in China is going to be a losing battle eventually. Japan’s going to have to take out the DEI and that will bring America into the war. Then Japan’s going to need to divert funds to building ships, but that’s going to exasporate the financial situation and thus, Japan’s going to have to strike earlier to negate India/Australia’s extra income before it becomes a problem.
no, all I’m saying by removing the trigger the UK/ANZAC will never attack first. That’s all I’m saying. If you want to remove that whole branch of games, that’s fine. But that’s what it will do. Because if the UK/ANZAC attack first (or reinforce China prior to Japanese DOW), Japan can take the whole of the DEI and the US CANNOT declare war. That’s all I’m saying. You’ll remove a small, but in my opinion, interesting (if flawed) branch of strategies.
Moving the US fleets could possibly have the affect of making Japan attack early while they have the positional advantage, this in turn would lead to quicker games (at least in terms of action, who wants to play US and not go to war until round 4 as proposed?) It also might lend itself to the US putting more production into the Atlantic because that is where their starting fleet is. You could even base it around the panama canal, making it 2 turns to anywhere.
I would also like to see the US have a trigger for going to war. I would suggest .
The axis capture of London
Attack on any US territory obviously.
Any attack on Calcutta(inc. ind. bombing) or Australia(any part) . Including convoying.
Japan attacking Russia , if only to make Japan more likely to stick to it’s treaty.
Also remove the FIC NO for Japan . But they can attack other Uk/anzac pacific territories and the DEI , solomons ect. Without bringing US into war.
@Jay:
Also remove the FIC NO for Japan . But they can attack other Uk/anzac pacific territories and the DEI , solomons ect. Without bringing US into war.
Again, I see that as bad. It allows Japan to make the bulk of their income without any threat from the US for quite some time, and they CAN get a huge advantage if the US/UK ties are completely cut.
Why not a delayed trigger? Japan can attack the UK and the US can’t declare war until their next collect income phase (essentially, japan gets a free round of attacks without US retaliation) or 2 turns, if UK/ANZAC attack first. It’s not as though the US was jumping to London’s aid in the atlantic. I don’t really understand why Calcutta and Sydney are so important.
That way if the US doesn’t leave a tempting target (Pearl) to bring them in right away then Japan can choose to ignore them for one round while the UK begs the US to respond.
The problem with changing diplomatic rules for global is that they probably won’t work for the theater games (if the goal is still one set of unified rules with few exceptions). I’m more curious if the global adjustment can be accomplished by simply moving the West US fleet to the Atlantic (in the global game only, obviously).
This weekend I’ll have 2 boards set up, 1 with the OOB set up and we’ll use the ALPHA+2 rules and on the other it will be the new ALPHA+2 set with the ALPHA+2 rules. My goal is to see if that can give Japan a better chance to stay in it longer, the problem comes down to dice and strat.
Maybe that’s the formula Larry came up with to make up for Midway and Nukes.
I think that just changing Japan’s set up from ALPHA+2 back to the OOB set up will give them a more dominating position in the first couple of rounds after that dice and strat. take over, keep everything else the ALPHA+2 set up and rules
I would like to finish our match’s from the last 3 weekends same people same sides they went 1&1 then we changed sides and we lost the first as the Axis. I think it’s going to be 1 on 1 this weekend.
It would be sad to think that the USA will always wins……what Germany invades Washington!!!
Much more testing to be done
Keep the US turn 3 DOW in the income phase but remove the US enters the war if the Japanese invade the DEI. If Japan directly attacks a UK or ANZAC controlled territory the US can declare war. So if the UK or ANZAC don’t take over any dutch controlled territories, then the US won’t care if the Japanese do. Why would the average American (and for that matter their Congressmen) in 1940 care if the Japanese invaded an island they never heard of? Now if the Japanese attack UK or ANZAC forces, they would care more.
@Jay:
I would also like to see the US have a trigger for going to war. I would suggest .
The axis capture of London
Attack on any US territory obviously.
Any attack on Calcutta(inc. ind. bombing) or Australia(any part) . Including convoying.
Japan attacking Russia , if only to make Japan more likely to stick to it’s treaty.
Also remove the FIC NO for Japan . But they can attack other Uk/anzac pacific territories and the DEI , solomons ect. Without bringing US into war.
Agree with all but the last.
Alter the FIC NO for Japan, as long as Japan does not physically control FIC, they get the 10 IPC.
@Jay:
I would also like to see the US have a trigger for going to war. I would suggest .
The axis capture of London
Attack on any US territory obviously.
Any attack on Calcutta(inc. ind. bombing) or Australia(any part) . Including convoying.
Japan attacking Russia , if only to make Japan more likely to stick to it’s treaty.
Also remove the FIC NO for Japan . But they can attack other Uk/anzac pacific territories and the DEI , solomons ect. Without bringing US into war.
I like most of these. Not so much the last line.
Keep the US turn 3 DOW in the income phase but remove the US enters the war if the Japanese invade the DEI. If Japan directly attacks a UK or ANZAC controlled territory the US can declare war. So if the UK or ANZAC don’t take over any dutch controlled territories, then the US won’t care if the Japanese do. Why would the average American (and for that matter their Congressmen) in 1940 care if the Japanese invaded an island they never heard of? Now if the Japanese attack UK or ANZAC forces, they would care more.
To represent the relative isolastionistic attitude of the US public opinion you could randomise the declaration of war. For example: If Japan invades DEI or attacks UK/ANZAC in J1, the American player rolls a die and if its 2 or less the enter the war. Same thing with Japanese aggression in J2, but war starts with a score from 4 or less. But with off course the exceptions of the above mentioned “triggerpoints” (invasion of or aggression towards Calcutta, Australia or American Homeland, etc … I would leave China out of it, as it was “between Asians”). This allows the Japanese player to act more swiftly and offensively. Under normal circumstances the American is too eager to enter the war, and it never really is a choice. This rule could avoid the aspect of “choice-not-being-a-choice” and the Japanese can’t the the outcome in advance. It’s just a suggestion. We never played it this way.
