Ahhh, fair enough. Sorry did not see…
-e
What Makes For The Most Balanced Game?
-
Fixing the tech stuff would also help balance the game towards axis.
No rolling until at war.
Your idea is fine but the cost to reduce the rolls is also necessary. $1 for the 1st roll, $2 for the second, $3 for the 3rd, ect… I outline in another post how this is not only more historical, in terms of what it would produce, but it is more realistic from an economics perspective based on the idea of diminishing returns and the efficient allocation of your resources.
Germany would get a head start on Russia and the US on technology.
Your better of with letting income deside the number of dicerolls. Max one breaktrough each round, no rolling when not at war (and for soviet it has to be war on the atlantic side), UK use combined income to deside number of rolls, china never rolls.
0-15 income: No dice
15-30 income: 1 dice
30-45 income: 2 dice
45-60 income: 3 dice
60-75 income: 4 dice
75-90 income: 5 dice
105< income : Free tecnNow enjoy lots of tecn.
-
That would make sense if you mean you do not have to buy rolls
-
Fixing the tech stuff would also help balance the game towards axis.
No rolling until at war.
Your idea is fine but the cost to reduce the rolls is also necessary. $1 for the 1st roll, $2 for the second, $3 for the 3rd, ect… I outline in another post how this is not only more historical, in terms of what it would produce, but it is more realistic from an economics perspective based on the idea of diminishing returns and the efficient allocation of your resources.
Germany would get a head start on Russia and the US on technology.
When you say $1 for the first roll, do you mean $1 per dice? In other words, say Germany wanted to try a tech roll with 6 dice, it would only cost them $6? So for the price of a tank or a sub, Germany could possibly get heavy bombers or long range aircraft.
-
Not sure how you interpreted that from my post.
What I meant by $1 for the first roll, $2 for the second, $3 for the third, ect… is…
If you buy 1 dice it is $1. If you buy 2 dice it is, $1 plus $2 equals $3 total. So 6 rolls is 1+2+3+4+5+6=$21
Assuming you didn’t read my entire post, this idea is based on economic principles of diminishing returns and the efficient division of resources. Scientists not being put in a fox hole for example.
-
Not sure how you interpreted that from my post.
Because you said $1 for the first ROLL, not the first DICE. A Roll means when you roll the dice, it doesn’t state how many dice there are. Increasing the $ per dice makes much more sense: the better the chance you want, the more you have to pay.
At first it sounded like you meant the first time you roll for techs, it costs you $1. The Second time you roll for techs, it costs you $2. And so on…
-
I have never played with victory cities. The game is always called well before that and someone surrenders. There could have been a time when it was temporarily met but no one would have even noticed. Either the allies would surrender just before or just after. Once the game becomes obvious as to a clear winner, agreements are always made to play a certain number of turns with some qualifiers that must be met, otherwise the losing side must surrender.
When I was in the army, I remember just one playing the Axis IPC victory if anyone remembers that. The axis for a moment, that could not be maintained, had the level of combined IPC’s to win the game. I was on the allies side. 5 of us were playing. The axis claimed their victory and we, (the allies) were livid and declared it a false victory.
I understand you issue with Japan in the sense that it is Germany who will always dominate when the Axis wins. But that does not take away from the importance of Japan. If Japan is able to win in the Pacific, (without declaring an end to the game), it can then place incredible pressure on Russia, the UK via Africa, or the US via Alaska or Hawaii, that will bring victory to the Axis.
Japan would be a power house if allowed to take China, India, the Middle east, and all the Pacific Islands so they cannot be ignored. They just need to be slowed down. One of the things I think should change to encourage action in the Pacific without unrealistic NO’s and “technical wins” would be dramatically lowering the costs of building a Navy. Subs $4, Destroyers $6, Cruisers $8, Air Craft Carriers $10, Planes $8, Tac Bombers $10. Then you could have real action in the pacific without taking away so many resources from other fronts that are more important.
Also, instead of making Hawaii worth more to the Japanese then to the Americans, which makes no sense at all, they should be penalties to the losing country, such as a one time surrender of IPC’s, $20 or so to mimic a loss of morale, as suppose to a constant unrealistic stream of income to the Japs. These things combined would be more realistic, historical, encourage action in the Pacific and still allow for the efficient expenditures of resources.
Historically, the US spend less than 15% of its resources fighting the Japanese in the real war. There was a reason for that, but there was still meaningful Pacific action. That was because building one air craft carrier with a full complement of planes and a ship or two did not require nearly 100% of their resources for 3 months.
I don’t know how the axis win a global game with normal set up, let alone having the navies cost less. The allies buy way more navy than the axis. The main problem with Japan is that she is so far from the real money (Europe).
A good way to make Japan be able to wage a consistent war would be to allow her to build major factories on foreign soil. This way she could turn the factory in India into a major, or even build a major factory in the middle east.
-
How a cheaper Navy helps the allies is this. The US comes in after turn 4. With a cheaper navy, namely transports, Japan could be a real threat to Australia, forcing the US to pay attention to it, making it historically accurate.
The US paying some attention to Japan helps the Germans.
Lastly, IMHO, the game is close enough that these changes don’t ruin the game. But seeing your point, to go along with this, you would also have to fix the sub problem which is horrible. The advantage Germany had in the beginning of the war with their subs just doesn’t exist in the game. They need to make the subs more stealthy, like rolling the dice to locate them before attacking them, (destroyers would have a better chance than other units) and greatly expanding the areas they can convoy. Also giving the Germans a wolf pack advantage that the US copies and made use of much later in the war against the Japanese.
This whole incredible aspect of WW2 was somehow left out of the game. A real shame. That would bring some balance.
Suggested Topics
