How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.

@edfactor:

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.

Mare Island Naval Shipyards and Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard in San Fran built ships during WW2 - perhaps not to the same extent as the east, but they were considered major WW2 shipyards.  Also, you’re implying that shipyards are the definition of “major industry” while Seattle had Boeing cranking the B-17 (so concerned of bombing that their largest building was disguised as a city with fake streets/houses/cars/trees camouflaging the plant) and Burbank had Lockheed (also camouflaged but not so famously as the fake city).  Northrop, Douglas, and Glenn L Martin were based in Cali.  Suffice to say, I’d argue that the west coast did its share of output, but perhaps mainly in the air.

@kcdzim:

@edfactor:

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.

Mare Island Naval Shipyards and Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard in San Fran built ships during WW2 - perhaps not to the same extent as the east, but they were considered major WW2 shipyards.  Also, you’re implying that shipyards are the definition of “major industry” while Seattle had Boeing cranking the B-17 (so concerned of bombing that their largest building was disguised as a city with fake streets/houses/cars/trees camouflaging the plant) and Burbank had Lockheed (also camouflaged but not so famously as the fake city).  Northrop, Douglas, and Glenn L Martin were based in Cali.  Suffice to say, I’d argue that the west coast did its share of output, but perhaps mainly in the air.

Sorry tunnel vision, was only thinking about shipyards and all the ones i could find building carriers and battleships were east coast.

just spitballing here, but would placing the west US capital ships on the Atlantic side help at all?  As I recall, the US navy was out of position at the outset of the war - other than Pearl weren’t a huge portion of their naval assets tasked in the atlantic as Germany was considered the primary threat?  Placing them in 102 would make it 2 turns to consolidate, potentially giving Japan a turn to turn up the heat on the DEI without having to immediately worry about Pearl or the Carolines?  Perhaps even giving them a chance to harass the naval units placed on the west coast on J2?

Honestly, I’m still dubious to the value of “1940” and declaring war when you want.  The Allies have far too much information - they know war is coming and they know Japan is a serious threat not to be underestimated.  As Japan it always seems better to attack while the Allies are out of position (J1) rather than wait for a pearl (J2) giving them time to prepare - there was a balance problem with the OOB J1 attack, but it was closer in theme to the war than J2 seems like.  Pac40 might as well be called Pac41, and combining into a global game just ties their hands while the allies have time to prepare.

@jim010:

@JamesG:

I don’t think people are claiming the game is unbalanced overall, but some are claiming that one strategy is unbalanced.

IF that strategy is unbalanced, then the game is unbalanced.  Why would you play any other strategy if there is one that will win you the game every time?

True enough, but the trick is to fix the unbalanced strategy without breaking balanced strategies.

@jim010:

@JamesG:

Strat C) US goes 100% after Japan and ignores Europe for the most part at the start of the game.  The CLAIM is that the US and Pacific Allies can contain Japan before Germany/Italy can win on the Europe board, and then the US can turn its attention 100% on Europe and that the Allies will eventually win the game due to economics.  Note that this claim is as yet unproven, and some (including Krieghund) have doubts as the whether Japan can be reliably contained before the Axis achieve victory in Europe.

I also have doubts about this, as everything I read is vague, and the games I’ve seen, Axis are winning some.

I too have my doubts about this, but as I said I think steps should be taken even if Strat C is balanced.  In other words, the burden of proof for fixes shouldn’t be “Prove Strat C is unbalanced in favor of the Allies” but “Prove Strat C is at least viable for the Allies.”  This assumes you feel as I do that the US going 100% in one direction is not desirable.

@jim010:

My problem is that I don’t like that the Europe side could be a complete lost cause to the Allies, but they win the game if Japan is conquered.

Not sure what you mean here.  The current victory conditions of Alpha+ .2 require the Allies to conquer all 3 Axis capitals to win.  So the Allies would not win in this case.

@jim010:

Or that Germany is conquered, Italy is hanging by a thread, but Japan wins the game.  I don’t like that.

It seems this should only really happen if the US was trying what I called Strat B (or close to it).  Basically in this case the US put too much emphasis on Europe and not enough on Japan and so lost the game.  I think that is where we want to be – forcing the US to carefully balance its commitments to both regions lest one get out of hand.

@jim010:

I’d like VCs combined again, probably to 13 (or bid for them).  I would say that would then require the US split it’s income.  I’d play that with someone.

I don’t think that will work. I believe the reason they went to split VC was they found that there was no workable number of combined VC.  Either the number was too low and the Axis could reliably blitz to victory before the US could mobilize.  Or the number was too high and the US could go 100% one way and kill/contain that side before the other side could gain enough VC to win.  And then the US could just switch focus the other way and grind them down.

@Cmdr:

As for not impinging on strategy A without leaving strategy C to be abused, the only real solution to this was my solution of requiring America to spend what they earn on each side of the board.  THere was never a limitation that they could not then move it to the other side, just like there is no limitation that England or India could not move units from board to board.  However, it WOULD force America to delay moving units into one side or the other by at least a round, sometimes two rounds.  That gives Japan breathing room against an “all in” allied strategy, maybe enough room that Germany can manage to capture the last victory city they need before America comes pummelling in with carpet bombers and walls of meat (infantry) to stop them.

I disagree this the only real solution, I think shifting some US NO $$ as I mentioned is a real and probably better solution.

For your idea to be a good solution it depends on a one or two turn delay before the US can contain Japan being enough for Germany/Italy to win.  And keep in mind that while this would introduce a delay in containing Japan, by the same token the US would have a partial build already in the East one turn closer to Europe when it does switch focus.  So Germany/Italy would not get the full benefit of the delay.

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.

I too have my doubts about this, but as I said I think steps should be taken even if Strat C is balanced.  In other words, the burden of proof for fixes shouldn’t be “Prove Strat C is unbalanced in favor of the Allies” but “Prove Strat C is at least viable for the Allies.”  This assumes you feel as I do that the US going 100% in one direction is not desirable.

I agree and disagree.  I am unconvinced this works 100% of the time, as you do.  I disagree that we need to fix this just in case it can work, though.  If it does work all the time, then I say fix it.

If it is viable, I have no problem with that.  I would hope that there are a number of viable tactics to play, all with more or less equal odds of success.  If it is as viable as any other tactic, then why fix it?

If VCs are kept separate, then I’d at least like to see that Europe can get their VCs from either borad, and vis versa for Japan.  If Italy gets India, then that should count towards its VCs.

@kcdzim:

Honestly, I’m still dubious to the value of “1940” and declaring war when you want.  The Allies have far too much information - they know war is coming and they know Japan is a serious threat not to be underestimated.  As Japan it always seems better to attack while the Allies are out of position (J1) rather than wait for a pearl (J2) giving them time to prepare - there was a balance problem with the OOB J1 attack, but it was closer in theme to the war than J2 seems like.  Pac40 might as well be called Pac41, and combining into a global game just ties their hands while the allies have time to prepare.

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
Muskvha and either Novogorod or Volgorod are captured

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.

Also, then it wouldn’t be automatic that America is in the war on Round 4.  Nor would they have the ability to pre-war invoke their NOs.

However, to counter this, I think we’d have to let them have some of their NOs prior to entering the war.  Perhaps the NO for the continental United States and maybe Hawaii OR Mexico.

@JamesG:

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.

@edfactor:

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.

@edfactor:

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?

@kcdzim:

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.