I was referring, mostly, to how bad it would be to implement a bidding system. Since the pacific side is grossly unbalanced, bids would have to be significant to balance things out. However, significantly bidding can (and probably will) lead to unbalancing the game towards the other spectrum.
Honestly, if we are adding units to the game, toss a transport back by the Carolines, add a tank to lower China (for Japan, thinking KSI, KSU area maybe) and that should about do it.
Or, just put a minor complex in Korea…that could do it too.
OR. Put a minor in Hong Kong or FIC? That would be interesting.
If france survives G1, they can build in the PAC!
The one in Korea seems to be in the most logical spot. FIC and Hong Kong both prevent an upgrade to Major and both locations are much closer to India. (Not to mention, these are places people generally build complexes anyway.)
@mantlefan:
@Cmdr:
The one in Korea seems to be in the most logical spot. FIC and Hong Kong both prevent an upgrade to Major and both locations are much closer to India. (Not to mention, these are places people generally build complexes anyway.)
Manchuria makes the most sense from an industrial development standpoint, and it’s far from necessary that it needs to be upgradable.
No, but the option is nice.
Perhaps if the complex rule was amended to read upgradable complexes on territories you start the game controlling….
Not to mention, these are places people generally build complexes anyway.)
That’s my point exactly.
If Japan was busy building units instead of complexes, It not only could it send out attacking units earlier from the zones where the complexes are, but also have extra on the ground fighting units. - It gives the Japanese an Edge, in China, as well as in the defense of it’s fleet mid to late game along the coast of China.
Yes, but those territories are not Japanese to begin with. A complex in Hong Kong would make it harder to take. A complex in FIC isn’t going to be usable until Round 3 or 4 anyway.
HK might be harder to take, sure, but if they choose to defend it, India will be ALOT easier to take.
And FIC then becomes a good question, do I take it, just BEFORE my DOW on the US / UK? So that I can build into it the following turn? Definetely a good question…
I like the idea of a minor in FIC you could even place some token French troops to guard it.
I like the idea of a minor in FIC you could even place some token French troops to guard it.
But, how does that help Japan?
1) They cannot use it unless they invade
2) If they invade, they lose the NO
3) If they cannot use it until round 4, how does it help them at all?
The idea is to help Japan! Not the allies!
Now, if you made FIC a Japanese territory, gave them the NO until the Allies capture FIC and put a minor industrial there, you might be on to something. But, I wager, many of the players might think that is too powerful, as it would be at least 6 rounds before the Allies have a chance to capture FIC, thus, you have essentially given Japan 72 IPC worth of bid. (6 rounds times 10 IPC + cost of the industrial…this, of course, does not count the 8 IPC extra Japan earns from the four free rounds of income for FIC, nor does it take into account the opportunity cost of having the complex from round 1, three steps from India.)
In a recient game as japan I gave up the NO first turn to take FIC and j2 build a factory. I found that having the troops right where I needed them almost as useful as a 10 ipc bonus for 2 to 3 turns.
A FREE complex the Axis gets to take - HELPS JAPAN.
Sorry if you couldn’t read into that intention in my post.
Gah, if you build 3 minor complexes in Asia you almost have equivalent output to a major IC (Malaya, Ksi, FIC, 36 IPCs vs. 30 IPCs). If you did your job correctly in the DEI in the opening turns as Japan, the UK Pacific major IC ISN’T going to be producing 10 units a turn to counter that (likely it’ll be reduced to 6 IPCs in short order). You also have the advantage of transports that can reinforce at will along the coast. Japan can easily crush India over time as the UK’s unit deficit adds up, especially if Japan moves their starting units in China over to Yunnan in a hurry.
Get over it. Japan is not underpowered, I would say its overpowered compared to the US with the ability to kill 10+ IPCs each turn of the US’s NOs during the entire game and the monstrous advantage in starting aircraft. Even if you play to the point where Japan is finally losing against the US, if its J8 or J9, you’ve done your job in distracting the US away from the European theater and the Axis should be victorious on that side of the board.
I think Commander Jennifer needs to change her playstyle IMHO.
That was my comment earlier Gargantua. I would suggest not letting the war start so late, instead plan on a J2 attack and see if that changes things. Waiting until turn 4 means ANZAC/INDIA/and US are prepared.
I agree totally. Japan does better if they attack earlier, but it may put a kink in Germanys plans for sealion. It’s really a very slick design.
Does better, but still loses.
@Cmdr:
Does better, but still loses.
I would even suggest that a J2 attack would still work even in the face of a Sealion since the US would need to commit everything to the Atlantic for several turns for the UK retake and Japan would get even more gains than it would have otherwise in the Pacific. It’s only (+20-30, depending on how many territories Japan takes on J2 attack) extra US IPCs for one turn since the US always declares war on US 3 collect income anyway. Hell, with a good push on Hawaii on J2 you could force the US to split those extra IPCs into the two theaters right off the bat. Early Japanese attacks still seem to work best. Even if you wait and don’t provoke the US’s war NO till Round 3, the UK and ANZAC are making almost that much off the DEI already, AND fortifying it with infantry to boot! (It’s also kind of dumb waiting around to declare war since the US can declare war if the Germans take London on Round 3 anyway…)
Also, define “loses” if the Euro Axis win by going for Barbarossa instead. Faking Sealion has never been easier for the G2 build. And all Japan needs to do is really buy time and force the US to spend in the Pacific. Even historically the Japanese willingly entered a war with the US that they knew they couldn’t win; they were simply hoping to wear the Americans down enough to where the Pacific would become a stalemate. Same thing in this game. The way this game is set up in separate theaters with little overlap makes it even more so.
In my last game I as Japan took FIC first turn, built 3 transports, shipped one transport out to carolines with most of my navy and some air force put a small navy down by FIC and had some transports on the coast. My german partner did the typical G1 moves (killing france and half of UK navy, taking axis neturals)with a CA,SS,DD purchace, USA built on both sides thinking a sealion was happining and retreated their navy from Hawaii fearing a perl harbour on J2. Turn 2 Germany purchaces lots of transports and ground setting up for a Sealion. J2 purchaced minor for FIC and some subs, with no USA navy in Hawaii the lone transport took solomans, all of the navy went and smashed ANZACS navy off queensland, The costal transports took Guam(5 of 7NO) and Borneo as well, 3 TRN went from SZ6 to PHI with navy from FIC (setting up for DEI), as well as killing china out of burma and UK out of Hong Kong. This worked out for Japan in the long run because On turn 2 Japan collected about 45 IPCs Not much difference than if they would collect their 10IPC NO but left USA collecting 75, Anzac 12(4 from Java), UK even(assuming 7 from DEI) and a factory in FIC to build out of on turn 3 and set up to take the DEI.
Now I know I have left out alot of details but Japan is by no way a disadvantaged country, the plain and simple truth is if USA wants Japan to go down, Japan will go down, If they want to Crush Italy, Italy will get Crushed. If one peice of the axis puzzle is not pressing forward it gives USA a choice on where to build.
As the axis you just need to have a competent plan for Japan, that coincides effectively with a German Strategy.
Japan can strike at several American NO’s, and take a -5 or more a turn chunk out of Russia, by starting a conflict with them. Then it’s all about economic’s, drawing the Americans into the Pacific, for Stale-mate or Victory.
I see this as pretty even.
If you don’t, look at the games where the Axis have won on the forums, and work on your Axis Strategy.
My german partner did the typical G1 moves (killing france and half of UK navy, taking axis neturals)with a CA,SS,DD purchace…
Wow a G1 cruiser build! And it made the UK player think Sealion! Impressive. What did you build with the extra 4 ipcs Germany had? I never see cruiser builds in my games, they are not as powerful as the other capital ships.
Something to think about when invading Russia, in order to cost Russia 12 ipcs in land value, it will take you only 4 rounds.
