Changes still needed to the game, IMHO

MKP,

Your quote from eudemonist (#60) is erronious because eudemonist was sorely mistaken in what was being said.

No one said that England and Russia can TAKE Europe.  What is being said is that England and Russia can withstand the awesome might of the Germans and Italians, with tactical redeployments as necessary, and last until Japan has been neutrallized and America can build an Atlantic fleet and move it’s armies over through Russia and over the Atlantic.

The thing is, England and Russia are more than capable in preventing a Victory City win by Germany/Italy until America is free to help, allowing America full, uncontested, sway in the Pacific because Japan just CANNOT stop them.

Dadler12:

Any Japanese attack on the American fleet will result in mutual destruction at best. (Mutual destruction is defined as the Americans will have enough firepower to sink anything you have left.)

This is HORRIBLE!  Japan cannot possibly rebuild, but America can drop 2 loaded carriers and some destroyers/submarines every round!

China will NOT be wiped out, barring ATTROCIOUS dice for China…who are you playing?  They really need to work on their England/China skills!

But I think you answered yourself in your last line of Reply #61.

ghr:

Russian owned Scandinavia seems to be a pretty standard event these days.  If Germany went for England, then they sapped their strength on the RUssian front allowing more Russians to be free to campaign up north, if Germany is going against Russia, then they have no fleet because England sank it and Russia can send minimal forces to Scandinavia.

The change in turn order only makes life boring for all the players, IMHO.  Why is England can-opening for America anyway?  England needs to be reinforcing China while America pummels the shit out of Japan in the water and ANZAC makes strikes of opportunity through the American lines to pick up islands.

Again, I’m going to have to agree with Geist #63.  Just because the allies you play with at home do not know how to stop you as the Axis does not mean the game is balanced.  I used to win all the time without bids in classic and revised, it did not mean the games were balanced, it just meant my skill was superior enough to win despite the balance being off.  (I also lost with bids against superior players, don’t take this to mean I think I am Larry’s gift to Axis and Allies, I just want to demonstrate a point that just because something CAN be done, does not mean it is NORMAL.)

I have attempted Japan attacks at all phases of the game with multiple attempts against multiple players.  The best return for Japan, against players over average or greater skill than I, is to attack either on Round 4 or on Round 3. (Either way, that makes it the latest for America to collect their NOs and thus, puts America at the weakest possible part of the game.)

The DEI is worth a great sum of money.  If you can entire England to violate the neutrality with you, it would be easier to get DEI (since you are now permitted to bombard the limies right off the map.)  If they do not, the fallout from attacking early far out-weighs the gain.  Hence, as most Brits won’t attack you, the earliest you can possibly get DEI is round 4, and only if you have yourself set up for an immediate attack on those four nations.  Granted, America is most likely piled into Hawaii/Aleutians ready to nail Japan/Korea by this point, so you have minimal transport defenses at best if you are down there.  Hence, it’s very hard if not impossible to get DEI and hold it for any period of time. (American players seem to enjoy Hawaii/Aleutians, and with good reason, you have to keep ships up by Japan which means less down by Australia so in effect, you’re being stretched too thin.)

I also build with about half my income at the very least in naval units.  If you don’t put ground units in, you won’t be able to keep China/England ground forces subdued, so it’s really a catch-22.

As for your assertion Frank, to break the back of Japan means to stop any expansion  by Japan and be in a position to start sniping away Japanese NOs.  Generally speaking, GOOD players are at this point by round 4 (start of Round 4) average to mediocre players are at this point by round 6, bad players may get to this point by round 8, but who cares what bad players do?

Here’s how most games go down, from what I have seen and participated in:

1)  Russia and England turtle and eliminate the Italian pressence in Africa.  This is actually pretty easy since the British fleet is in prime position to sink over half the Italians with inconsequential losses - it is even better if you can get a German plane or two while you’re at it.  Russia lines the German border with mass units.  As Germany gets stronger, Russia retreats into their reinforcements and steals into Scandinavia.  Italy, being unable to add reinforcements, is gone from Africa.  A simple shuffle of troops from S. Africa to Egypt should handle that, more so if Germany does not look to be setting up for an attack on London, since you can then put down a complex in Egypt and kick them out faster.  Fighters from India may assist if needed as they can easily fly back to India.

2)  Japan invades deeper into China, but since England cannot really be attacked (it can, but it’s suicide) they cannot get any of their NOs except the FIC one.

3)  America puts out huge hordes of ships every round (6 a round can go directly into the Pacific with a minor complex in Mexico - the rest off the coast of E. USA to sail to W. USA which is a short trip.)  Eventually, by round 4, America’s fleet is too massive to be sunk, not strong enough to sink the Japanese one.  By round 6, the American fleet is not only too massive to sink, but can swat the Japanese fleet aside crushing it and keeping all of their capitol warships at a minimum.  By round 8, Japan is land-locked, essentially, with what ships they have in SZ 6 protecting against invasion while Australia and India pick off islands reducing Japanese income.

4)  America starts building in the Atlantic.  Now that Japan is no longer any kind of threat, America can focus on saving Russia.  Now Germany faces the ungodly income of the Americans and are stalematted in Russia.  It is only a matter of time now, with English forces pooring in through S. Africa, American forces transport trained into Scandinavia and down through North Russia and/or Landing in Europe directly, the game is over.

How did it all come about?  Because America is way too strong at this point in time.  Japan either needs a buff so that they can counter a full American investment in the Pacific or America needs a penalty for investing too heavily in either theater.  Remember, Russia and England do not have to win, they just have to stop the allies from losing, that is significantly more easy!  With 52 IPC * 3 Rounds + 72 IPC for 2 rounds + 80 IPC for one round (gets you to end, round 6) America will have invested an extra 380 IPC into naval units to crush Japan.  Add to that the 129 in naval units they start with and the 83 IPC in air power they start with, you have a combined attack force worth 592 IPC.  Against that, you have Japan with 177 IPC in naval units at the start + 212 in Air power and only (given the benefit of the doubt here) 44 IPC a round income, the MOST you can have against America is 653 IPC in navy.  That may sound like enough, after all, one generally budgets to have 150% the attack punch of the defender, right?  But here’s the kicker, that Japanese number assumes no losses to your ships or aircraft and assumes no investment of ground units into China.  Essentially, that assumes China rolls over and plays dead, not attacking or building to counter you, and that just isn’t going to happen.  More realistically, Japan is going to have to invest about half their pay into destroying China, so drop that 44 IPC a round (best possible income, remember) to a more realistic 22 IPC a round and you get a more accurate picture: 521 IPC in units and most of those are planes so you will have to buy a lot of carriers to hold them all, or they no longer count and carriers have no attack value, so your punch goes down from there.  It is probably safe to say 3 aircraft from scrambling, and you probably have 4-6 in China helping there, so let’s drop 3 fighters and 2 tactical bombers from that list of Japanese units to defend against America, reducing Japan further to 469 IPC, including the strategic bombers which you won’t have on defense, so that goes down to 445 IPC defense vs 653 IPC offense.

So you have 653 IPC in gear attacking Japan (less transports 3x = 21 IPC, reducing to 632 IPC) vs 521 IPC in gear defending (includes scrambled fighters from one Airbase).  That is 1.21 to 1 in America’s favor.  America would GLADLY take that any day of the week.  Even if you assume America loses the battle, there cannot be much of anything left of the Japanese fleet, certainly not enough to counter the Australians who are coming in for a second raid with a few destroyers and a cruiser if all there are for Japan are a scattering of damaged battleships.

Now you are left with Japan earning 44 IPC and America earning 80 IPC.  Who is going to rebuild faster?  Yea.  Even assuming you got great dice and were able to sink all the Americans (and that just isn’t really going to happen, not often anyway, it might on an off day with the dice) you’ll never be able to press it for an advantage and America will.  Either way, your days are numbered.  Most likely, you are now taking CRD to Japan, England and Australia are landing reinforcements into China on a regular basis, Russia may start sending some tanks in as well to push the Japanese off the mainland faster (so you give them 12 IPC, they are unable to use it effectively anyway!) and America starts building carriers and transports to land troops in England/N. Africa and start threatening Germany’s soft under belly.

Then you agree, Chompers, Japan needs a boost or America needs a deficit.  You just differ on degree and implementation.

Personally, I think the issue is that England and Russia can last long enough for America to kill Japan and get over to save them.  If Japan was increased just enough that Germany and Italy would have a little more time and thus negate America’s ability to build in time to save Russia and England, the game would balance itself out because America would then feel compelled to spend something in the Atlantic to prevent Russia from falling. (England falling may or may not be moot, given it could fall prior to America entering the war in the first place, but then, American submarines can negate much of the benefit of that.)

Honestly, that’s all I want.  I want it to be relatively assured that if America does not invest in one theater or the other, then the allies will lose the game.  I would be happy if America only had to invest 16 IPC in the Atlantic theater and the rest in the Pacific, that’s enough to reduce the speed in which America becomes unbeatable by Japan.  America will still have plenty of equipment that they can work against Japan, but won’t have that 121% strength as early.

16 IPC per round, 6 rounds = 96 IPC. 
We determined that America starts with 129 IPC in naval units (less 3 transports so 108 IPC in warships) and 83 IPC in Aircraft.
We determined that Japan starts iwth 177 IPC in warships (less 3 transports so 156 IPC in warships) and has an effective air force of 160 (including strategic bombers and less aircraft set aside for use in China).

That means, if Japan only invests 22 IPC a round, on average, to naval / air for naval power, they have a total of 448 IPC.
That means, if America puts 16 IPC a round into the Atlantic and invests the rest into naval / air for naval power in the Pacific, they have a total of 419 IPC.

Given the rate at which money is spent into the Pacific, if these levels continue, it only takes one extra round for America to exceed Japan’s naval / air for naval power.  But it might take 4 or 5 rounds longer to have the same surety of sinking the Japanese navy and that is enough time for Germany to break the stalemate with Russia if America does not intervene.

@eudemonist:

Personally, I think waiting until round four to attack with Japan is a terrible mistake, and almost certainly will lead to the Japs getting beat down, as by that time India and Anzac are pulling in serious money.

I agree that waiting until round 4 will result in the Japs getting beat down, as you so eloquently put it, but then, I also know from experience and witness that it’s worse if they attack before round 4.  Damned if you do, damned a little less if you dont.

Chompers, you recommended an immediate influx of 18 IPC into the China front. The position of those units, as well as the units themselves, would have a more significant impact on the game than many of my original suggestions would.  Think about it, those infantry can put 4 rounds closer to their targets (Build, Move, Land, Attack = 4 moves).  However, asking America to put some units in the Atlantic Ocean before moving them to the Pacific Ocean adds nothing, takes nothing away and only delays them 1 turn.

And I submit that adding a bunch of infantry to the board is a greater change to the game than merely requiring America to spend money on both maps.

We are talking infantry that start on mainland Asia for sure, probably on the front lines with the Chinese forces (which is where I suspect they would be placed) meaning you need less transports to move units, you don’t have to buy these units, and they are at best 4 rounds into the game at the start of the game since normally you would have to buy them, load them onto transports and unload them, move them inland and then they are available to attack.  Also, these infantry units are immune from the Chinese, Americans, British and Australians on the first round of play (because Japan gets to use them before any of those nations anyway) thus, they would significantly change the game’s make up.  In effect, you’re allowing a restricted bid of 18 IPC, give or take (which is what was talked about.)

My preferred fix is to require America to spend money on both sides of the board.  It adds no new units, adds no new costs, does not significantly change any aspect of the game at all, since America can still move all those units to one side or the other.

You want to talk game breaking, adding units will get you a lot closer, a lot faster than just having America build its fighters in E. USA and fly them to W. USA on their next turn ever will!

And if you feel the reverse, tell us how negative is the opportunity cost, how many rounds are added or lost, what new units are added or removed, how does it significantly change the game, etc, etc.  I, personally, do not think anyone can make the argument that requiring America to build on both sides of the board could be in any way, fashion or form game breaking nor could it do more harm than good in regards to the balance of the game.  At least, no where near as strong an argument as can be made against adding or removing units from the board due, primarily, to the fact that adding units, or removing units to the board add strength in forward positions or reduces strength in forward positions.  Remember, you are not just “adding” an infantry unit, you are adding the unit which effects offensive and defensive ability, you are artificailly moving the unit from manufacturing, transport and movement into a position it would not normally be at if it was just built prior to round 1 and you are making significant alterations to game board tactics.  None of this occurs if you just require America to spend some cash on both sides of the board.

And for the record, those of you who think America has to build on both sides of the board, then what are you complaining about?  Requiring them to do what they should be doing changes nothing from your viewpoint, right?  After all, if you think they HAVE to build on both sides, then REQUIRING them to do so does not harm them one iota.

(I suspect many of you do not really believe your argument, hence you are using it as a strawman.  If you truly believed in your aguement, you would only be posting in agreement to the rule change.  Further, I suspect those who claim it is “game breaking” to require America to build on both sides of the board are weaker players and do not feel they could recover the minutia of alteration such a rule would require.  Many stronger players have, for years, built in the West and moved to the East to shield against Japan, now that Russia is a powerhouse, they do not have to do so anymore, so build directly into the Pacific, knowing it to be the over-powered strategy.  Thus, the rule change, in effect, would have America building fighters and tactical bombers in C. USA, Aircraft Carriers in W. USA and moving them all down to Hawaii on the next round.)

Fine, even 15 IPC is 5 infantry being added, up front, with a massive head start. (they get to start where they would have ended up on round 4…)

America is not too restricted to respond to what is happening.  Just because they spend a minimum of 16 IPC on the other side of the board does not mean suddenly they are going to lose every game!  Let’s call it what it is:  A minor adjustment to build placement.  It’s less impactful than a bid, it’s of just enough adjustment that it balances things out (namely, they cannot scramble over the W. USA fleet or E. USA fleet if they are built on the other map, but they can still get to the front of their choice that next round, just as if they had been built on that front the previous round.)

From E. USA to can get through the Panama canal, boom, you’re on the map you wanted!
From W. USA you can get to the Gulf of Mexico, boom, you’re on the map you wanted!
From C. W. or E. USA you can get to the carriers built after 1 full carrier movement (less bonus from NB) and, boom, you are on the front you want.

To get 5 infantry where Japan wants them they would have to:
a)  Purchase them and place them.
b)  Transport them to the mainland/move them one space on the mainland)
c)  Move them one space on the mainland
d)  Move into a defensive position on the mainland
e)  Attack with them on the mainland.

Seriously, requiring America to build 16 IPC on the otherside of the board, ONE MOVEMENT ORDER AWAY FROM THE OTHER is more unbalancing than tossing half a dozen extra infantry on the board for Japan?

Instead of just arguing out of rote, perhaps think about what you are suggesting in contrast.  Many of you have claimed the allies will lose if America focuses on one side of the board, I count you all as supporters of the restricted American placement rule, as you obviously think it would be good for new players to have to abide by.  Those of you who have made suggestions such as adding more units to the game or increasing Japan’s income in some way I view as supporters as well, as my suggestion is significantly less game altering than any of those, however, in addition to supporting the change, you wish it would go further.

Therefore, we have two camps:

1)  Those who want no change and do not recommend that America ever split it’s build order until such time as one side is defeated.
2)  Those who support splitting the American build in such a manner as they can still get their units to either side of the board, it just requires an itsy-bitsy bit more time to do so.

Which camp are you in?  There are no 3rd options.

For the record, I don’t mean to be accusatory, I literally want to find out if you are in the:

1)  “Absolutely nothing should be done to the game camp”, or
2)  “There exists a bias in the game that makes it harder for Japan to win than for America to win”, camp.

Once we have a consensus on one or the other camps, we can look at the minutia of what to do.  I still hold that the option with the most insignificant impact on the game, that may work, is to require some of America’s builds to go on both halves of the map.  It’s the most insignificant because it is the most correctable by the American player.  It alters the base of the game because it gives Japan 1 or half a round’s head start.

@questioneer:

Officially I am against the American split idea.  However, I am in favor of beefing an NO #4 by 5-10IPcs by adding Shanghai, Manila or Hong Kong or some combination of them.

I could see that as well, as NO $4 generally comes into play only when FIC NO is lost, so it would be a quasi-replacement.

Dadler, I honestly and truely think adding infantry to the game for Japan is a much more significant impact than having America build a couple of units on the other side of the board.  Seriously, you’re delaying the Americans by maybe half a round.

Sgt,

Actually, 1940 has bids for the Allies, AAR, AARe and Classic were all made balanced by bids or were balanced to begin with.  Something major happened on this game, the designers lost their minds, first the Axis were way too powerful, now the allies are significantly (fine, America is significantly) too powerful.  They seem to be shooting for a middle ground and only hitting their own feet, or so it seems.  To be perfectly honest.  I feel this is the most unbalanced game in the history of the franchise, however, each incarnation of Alpha seems to be getting closer to the mark, if they do over compensate and reverse the bias each time.