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

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.

@ehenry:

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)

@JimmyHat:

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)

Exactly, if the enemy fleet is too big to handle, avoid it, do an evasive dance around the ocean (doing something useful while at it) and don’t buy new ships (urgent blockers excepted)
Med is indeed not a bad idea either.

The classic BS (surprise attack story) aside, America should not have a real battleship anyway.  Yes, the British used cruisers and biplanes effectively against the Bismark, but they had real battleships as well.  America had no real battleships and more-over, reducing the battleship to a cruiser effectively removed 8 IPC and 1 hit from the board, without drastically altering the setup.  I am much more inclined to remove units than I am to add units.

BTW, I have a framed copy of the Navy Intelligence’s directive to shoot the next officer coming to warn President Roosevelt about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor.  I’ll see if I can get a specialist to scan it or if it will damage the ink to badly.  The ink back then did not hold up well to sunlight, so it may not be scanable, but we’ll see.

Agreed on the parameters thing, but I would keep the new “ends” as effective cut offs.  After all, there comes a point in which defeat is pretty much a sure thing and by then, it might be wiser to just end and start a new game so you have more samples and thus, better results on the data.

I do not see a distinction between game balance and a game breaking strategy.  If the game is balanced, there is no game breaking strategy.  If there is a game breaking strategy, then game is unbalanced.

Japan should maintain the largest possible threat it can for as long as it can.  By doing this, it extends the time America has to spend in the Pacific and thus, gives Germany the maximum possible chance to beat Russia before America draws their forces out of Russia allowing Russia to push them back into Europe.

If Japan does not block a frontal attack, then America will sink their ships and thus, there is no threat in the Pacific.  One does not need to wait around for China to push Japan out, once the Japanese fleet is gone, America can stop building in the Pacific using what they have to maintain naval supremecy.

If Japan does block a frontal attack, now America has to worry about countering Japan’s builds.  Further, countering Japans builds is only part of the issue, as Japan is blocking an attack thus America must either move forward and lose Australian air support or build planes for an all out air attack on the Japanese fleet.

Essentially, putting out picket ships forces America to make decisions and delays the point in which America can withdraw and help in the Atlantic.  I agree that throwing away 24 IPC a round for Japan is a losing proposition, but it is better than throwing out 2 or 3 carriers, 2 battleships, a cruiser, a dozen destroyers, a bakers dozen submarines and a wing of fighters/bombers and ending up paying the bank a dozen IPC a round in convoy damage.

I have been on both the receiving and dealing end of a Round 1 Japan attack.  It looks awesome, until about round 4 when it becomes clear their advance is mostly on paper, there is no real purchasing power to that expanse.

I assume India is small for most of the game, it is only later that territories are liberated and annexed that India finally grows.

Australia is Australia, there’s really not a lot Japan can do to it on Round 1.

America, on the other hand, is just a monster.  The longer you can prepare for the monster, the better your chances seem to be. (Remember, if you attack America on Round 1, America can immediately start reinforcing England if they choose to go that route.)

I agree, if there is no help for the entire game, Russia will fall to Germany.  The argument is not that Russia can win, the argument is that Russia can last until the Allies have time to come save them.

Jimmy:

If you flee with the Japanese navy, you cede 11 IPC in damages a round to convoy damage, meanwhile, with no reinforcements coming, it is only a matter of time before you are cornered.

As America, I can easily keep enough submarines in the water to prevent you from building a new fleet.  Further, if you run away, even if you go all the way to S. Africa, all you do is bring the Americans with you, one step behind.

Doesn’t seem effective, but go and try it!  Let us know!

excellent, sounds quite effective to me.  I would try and pull the allies away from the pacific, hoping to team up with the Italians/Germans and help them.  I know sz6 is going to be convoy raided to death, in fact you would do that if you killed the fleet.  So losing the fleet or saving it Japan will be convoyed….

Great.  Would you try it and see if it works?  Let us know.

I don’t think it would help much since all I believe you would accomplish is dragging the American fleet closer to Italy and Germany.

Also, keep in mind that the DEI, the northern coast of China as well as Japan/Korea can be convoy raided and probably will be until the territory is liberated.  Just a thought to keep in your head, something to consider.

The Allies were victorious,  lucky rolls on key battles and the Allies worked together better than last week.
The teams were the same, the score 1-1 next time we’re going to switch sides.

Jen,

As the US with your all Pacific strategy, what would you do if Germany had wiped out the Royal Navy, on G2 purchased 5 subs with other equipment from the 70 IPC round 2 that is easily attainable with the destruction of France. By Germany turn 4 they could bring upwards of 8 Subs to attack the Cruiser in the waters off of Eastern US. The likelihood that one of the 8 hit on their sneak attack is  ~97%, which would destroy both the cruiser and the transport at that point. With no Destroyer in the SZ101, no retaliation is likely.

On G1 3 subs attacked SZ106, 2 attacked SZ109.  The two in SZ109 will get wiped out most likely in UK1. Assume UK navy in Mediterranean stays focused on Italy instead of making a dash to the Atlantic. G1 purchase of an AC, Sub and Destroyer.

With up to a 16 IPC reduction in the US income, that would force the US spend on the other side of the map. Those coastal waters off of the US are going to be ripe for convoy raids if the German player puts for a little bit of effort.

I believe Germany can afford to sacrifice that hardware at that point in the game to draw the US attention away from the Pacific. It would give the Japanese some time to forge into the DEI. This also assumes that Japan attacks only China in J1 and J2, with an aggressive J3 to attempt to take Hong Kong, Manilla and Malaya.

Hard for me to test this out since the aBattleMap crashes constantly and my boards are tied up with a game in progress.

had a game tonight but I drew axis and had a hard time convincing my opponent to try a strategy he wasn’t prepared for.  :cry:  As is we are at the beginning of G4 with germany having 13 trns, an army in Scotland and the hammer poised.  Italy has taken the Med and is fighting in the middle east, and US has moved to Gib with a large fleet but very small army.

Largest aberration in this game was Russia stacking Amur with 18 inf 1 aa gun R1.  After my J1 attack on Russia it postponed my attack on the allies until J3.  Still the value in killing those infantry and the few dollars earned from Russia have made up for the 12ipcs and lost round.  That being said, round 4 is when the real fighting will start and I will have to update after the next time we play.