That makes sense. I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for responding! :+1:
Changes still needed to the game, IMHO
-
How about if Russia only gets penalized for violating the non-aggression pact. That would allow Japan to invade the Soviet Far East territories to recover some lost ground in the IPC war with the United States while not inflicting yet more pain on Europe?
Or, an Airbase in Korea would work. Minor in Korea would work just as well, since I generally see or build those there anyway.
-
Add 2inf to Siam
Add 2inf, 1tnk to Korea
Add 1inf to Jehol
Add 2inf, 1mec to ShanghaiHmm…maybe. Seems kinda heavy, but I don’t have a board in front of me.
How about:
Siam: +1 Inf
Korea: +1 Inf, +1 Mec
Jehol: +1 Inf
Shanghai: +1 Inf -
Why would you build a Romanian complex as Germany? The ONLY time where it would be beneficial to build one would be on G1, and you need to build a CV and naval units on that turn anyway to threaten England.
(snip)
Effectively you’re losing an entire turns worth of build by purchasing the major IC in the first place, either on the first turn or the second turn. If you build it on the second turn you have even MORE of a future land unit deficit in comparison to Russia’s builds (-20 potential land units to their +20). I could possibly see the need for the major IC with the OOB or Alpha +.1 setup with the starting minor IC in Berlin, but with 20 total production in Alpha +.2 its unnecessary.Best bang for your buck is all ART on G2. Follow that up with stacks of MECH/ARM to keep the initial wave’s momentum going all the way through Moscow on G8.
i was just comparing, and i suppose you don’t win much time with a Romanian IC (even on turn 1), in fact the opposite…
After 3 turns of building you can either have:
1 major IC (romania) + 30 INF (30 + 30x3 =120IPC)
who can reach Moskou in 4 turns and takes 4 turns to build.or (for the same money)
30 Mech’s (30x4=120IPC)(which start more faraway but are double as fast)
who can reach Moskou in 3 turns and takes 3 turns to build.edit: just comparing prices, i’m not saying to buy only mechs all the time ;)
-
Add 2inf to Siam
Add 2inf, 1tnk to Korea
Add 1inf to Jehol
Add 2inf, 1mec to ShanghaiHmm…maybe. Seems kinda heavy, but I don’t have a board in front of me.
How about:
Siam: +1 Inf
Korea: +1 Inf, +1 Mec
Jehol: +1 Inf
Shanghai: +1 InfI’d be happier with a complex and no units. IMHO
-
Seems like that just makes a target for the Russians. I would come after it, I know.
-
I’m just wondering if a 12 point Minor IC in Romania would be worth anything?
I personally wouldn’t make anything there, Germany should be able to capture one of the Russian Minors. I generally prefer to build units than bases.
I liked the 12 IPCs spread around from the previous game.
-
I’m just wondering if a 12 point Minor IC in Romania would be worth anything?
I personally wouldn’t make anything there, Germany should be able to capture one of the Russian Minors. I generally prefer to build units than bases.
I liked the 12 IPCs spread around from the previous game.
No, I would never get the full use out of it.
The major complex has it’s downsides too, mind you, but it is closer to Moscow so, theoretically, you could get there faster. It’s more of a personal preference…if I was going to use a minor complex for anything, it would be in Yugoslavia so I can help the Italian navy.
As for Russia going after my complex in Korea, then Japan would get an additional 12 IPC which would be a good thing, no? I don’t really see Russia being able to take Korea, however, they sort of fixed that in Alpha 2. And the complex would put “feet on the street” quickly.
-
@Cmdr:
I don’t really see Russia being able to take Korea, however, they sort of fixed that in Alpha 2.
Eh? I’ve seen it multiple times.
-
Alot of my threads and posts get deleted, could be why I can’t find that link either :S
I’m with Blitz on this one. Skip the complex.
Questioneer’s not far off, but I don’t know… an extra 10 ground units in China, to be used to cap India, basically make the fall of india wholly inevitable.
How about a complex in Korea instead? Or the Naval Base in Hainan? Only useful if you use em, but wholly effective, without tipping the balance through malignant troop concentration.
That said - it’s still pretty close folks. And whats the ruling on how to stop sea-lion now? I haven’t seen the theory…
Tried the naval base idea with Larry- I explained why and everything but he wouldn’t go for it, because there was already one in Hong Kong. For the same reasons, I doubt he would go for the complex in Korea or Manchuria because of the one in Japan already. You can’t add ships or aircraft- makes Japan way too fast and too strong too early. Ground units are the only way to go. You just have to put them far away from the action so that they have to travel far- so maybe NOT add the infantry in Siam, but add the rest where I stated before.
As far as the Sealion thing, still can be done but you usually lose the Med for it and start a little weaker on the Eastern front though you can recover. There are ways to beef up England and make it hard for the Sealion attack, definitely not a gimmie as in A1 but but still very possible. IMO Europe side of Global is fine, its the Pac side that needs the tweek. Japan needs help, but it has to be done carefully. That’s why ground units (I believe) are the only answer- not NOs or other ideas mentioned.
Revised Proposal:
Add 2inf, 1tnk to Korea
Add 1inf to Jehol
Add 2inf, 1mec to ShanghaiThats $25 worth of land material boost for Japan equivalent to a bonus $5 NO for Japan for about 5 rounds- enough to weather the oncoming economic storm from the US in later rounds.
-
One easy way to balance would be the pacific allow Japan to capture any DEI not already captured by the allies, without starting war.
-
Again, I agree with Peck.
Or atleast, not allow that to be considered a provocation engaging the U.S.
-
@Cmdr:
I don’t really see Russia being able to take Korea, however, they sort of fixed that in Alpha 2.
Eh? I’ve seen it multiple times.
I never see it anymore. I saw it all the time in the box rules and setups, but never in alpha 2.
This is almost certianly due to the facts that:
1) Russia only has 18 infantry in range of Manchuria/Korea
2) Japan has 10 Infantry, Artillery, Mechanized, 3 Fighters and 2 Tactical bombers literally on Manchuria/Korea, 3 transports, 6 fighters, 3 Infantry, 2 Artillery, Armor, 2 strategic bombers, 2 battleships, 1 cruiser and 5 tactical bombers that can hit manchuria/korea on Japan 1and
3) Russia isn’t going to give Japan 12 IPC just for the opportunity to allow Japanese tanks to blitz through all of the Soviet Far East.
-
Threshhold requirements for American DOWs would rock, but I cannot ever think they would be implemented in anything other than a house rules board.
If they were, I wouldnt mind seeing:
Japan territory income divided by 2 + 2 points for each capitol warship + 1 point for each surface warship that is not a capitol warship. At 60 Points, America can enter the war in the Pacific.
Wouldn’t mind adjusting America by removing their ability to purchase industrial complexes prior to their entrance in the war and downgrading their battleship in SZ 10 to a cruiser. (Let’s be honest folks, the reason the Americans had a skelleton crew on the ships and left them on port-supplied power only is because they WANTED those old rust buckets sunk! We’re talking WW1 era battleships, they shouldnt HAVE a WWII era battleship anywhere on the map!)
I mean, if that’s the reason Japan cannot invade the DEI, because history said they didn’t, then history also said American warships were crap and should be one hit only until they enter the war. /shrug.
-
@Cmdr:
I never see it anymore. I saw it all the time in the box rules and setups, but never in alpha 2.
This is almost certianly due to the facts that:
- Russia only has 18 infantry in range of Manchuria/Korea
- Japan has 10 Infantry, Artillery, Mechanized, 3 Fighters and 2 Tactical bombers literally on Manchuria/Korea, 3 transports, 6 fighters, 3 Infantry, 2 Artillery, Armor, 2 strategic bombers, 2 battleships, 1 cruiser and 5 tactical bombers that can hit manchuria/korea on Japan 1
and
- Russia isn’t going to give Japan 12 IPC just for the opportunity to allow Japanese tanks to blitz through all of the Soviet Far East.
Yeah, it’s been my experience that most of that Japanese stuff gets deployed elsewhere pretty quickly. I certainly wouldn’t try an R1 attack, but by about round three, it usually thins out a bit. Russia might not give up that 12 just to allow tanks to blitz through, but helping China out and maybe meeting up in the north can swing a game. With a complex there, I think Japan would have to commit resources to defending it.
If they’re using two battleships, three transports, a cruiser, and a flock of planes, they aren’t using them somewhere else…say, the Dutch East Indies.
-
Granted, but it was my understanding he was implying an early Russian attack to sap the strength of Japan, as was seen consistently with the original rule incarnation. It was to that, I referred to not seeing it anymore, as it was no longer a viable option.
To be honest, by round 3 my Japanese forces are already in Russia. It’s an easier attack than trying to take and hold China, costs less, returns more in the way of IPC to get strength, and is harder to be reclaimed by the allies. (Yea, Russia’s just sitting on half a dozen planes and 3 dozen infantry to push me out, right?) China cannot help Russia, like Russia can help China either.
Too bad it isn’t strong enough to counter the bias the game has against Japan - as of 22 April 2011.
-
Has anyone employed the 3IPC damage German Sub Optional Rule with Alpha+2???
I’m wondering if this could balance the game a little more- force US to spend a little more in Europe and a little less in Pacific. :? :? :?
-
It may.
It would necessitate American involvement in the Atlantic. It’s generally a safe bet that the British navy ceases to exist if America does not help out, with the 3 IPC U-Boats you could hit England for 8 with 3 submarines, Canada for 3 with 1 sub, E./C. USA for 32 with 11 submarines. So for 15 submarines, you could do some serious damage to the allies. Granted, that’s 90 IPC in equipment…
Perhaps just reducing German U-Boat cost to 5 IPC would be sufficient?
-
I remember why we didn’t use the German sub option- because it made Sealion much easier by taking away that extra 1-2 or 3 infantry needed from UK. Well forget that idea. Yeah the only way I believe to balance the Pac side for Global is to adding some slow land units for Japan (infantry, artillery). We did this on the Euro side for Germany and it seemed to work well. It gives the Axis the long term boost they need w/o making them a crusher in the beginning. This, I believe is the only way it can be done. Adding aircraft, ships, bases, NOs tip the scales to heavy at crucial times in the game.
-
Eh, I think the best option floated, so far, has been (no, not the split America build…it was best, until this one) to allow Japan to invade Sumatra, Java and Celebes regardless of who controlled it without bringing England, Australia or America into the war. (Yes, even if they control it, and you kill something of theirs to attack it.)
I would suspect any floatilla vessels in the adjacent sea zone would be ignored and a land battle would take place, thus, even if they put an Airbase there, no scramble option would occur, as it is not a combat zone.
It would give Japan 11 IPC and a leg up towards 20 IPC (+4 Borneo +5 DEI NO) and maybe give them a bit more cash to blow in the Pacific against an America build.
-
@Cmdr:
Eh, I think the best option floated, so far, has been (no, not the split America build…it was best, until this one) to allow Japan to invade Sumatra, Java and Celebes regardless of who controlled it without bringing England, Australia or America into the war. (Yes, even if they control it, and you kill something of theirs to attack it.)
yeah that’s not gonna happen because of historical reasons- otherwise yes I would agree that it is another option.
Suggested Topics
