👍👍
Pointlessly Broken
-
One thing that might help Krieg, since you are looking for rules changes, is to remove the movement restrictions for china when USA falls. This would help out india a lot.
We might consider allowing Chinese units to leave China if all Chinese territories are controlled by China. Do you think that might help?
-
I think it would help a bit. It doesn’t help with the 5 VC’s off of mainland Asia, but it could help out India and they can take Korea. I am not convinced, however, that that would help the allies (without the USA) have a chance against Japan navally, and Japan doesn’t even need to attack the allied navy as they can almost always go around.
But, China being allowed to go to India could let UK india buy more navy.
I am pretty sure that it would not be enough though, since once Japan starts getting the DEI the IPC swing gets dramatic.
The US Remnant/ANZAC/UK Navy might be able to weather an attack from the Japanese Navy, but they won’t ever be able to challenge it as they would have to attack 3 separate times.
I was just spitballing when I was thinking of china being allowed to leave, i don’t think it’s near enough.
It might be too weird, but if USA is taken, once per game, on USA’s next turn, USA can place 20 IPC worth of units in W USA during their combat move. Of course, with this, Japan could just retake USA soon after.
Another idea is if USA is taken, UK/ANZAC each get an extra 5 if they control all of their original territories, and UK/ANZAC buy and place separately but move and attack together.
Again just throwing things out there.
-
I bounced this idea off of my other players, and we had tentative agreement. Let me know what you think:
If the USA falls, Japan gets the IPCs as normal less the 30 that come from the national objective. That puts the Japanese gain at only 17 or so IPCs, which leaves the UK and ANZAC on more even terms. So in a nutshell, national objective income disappears instead of changing hands.
Does this sound tenable as a house rule? I think it may need a bit of refinement, but the concept is justifiable.
-
Just to be clear, you know that Japan only gets 10 IPCs of income from Western United States, right? Or are you just talking about plundered IPCs?
-
I bounced this idea off of my other players, and we had tentative agreement. Let me know what you think:
If the USA falls, Japan gets the IPCs as normal less the 30 that come from the national objective. That puts the Japanese gain at only 17 or so IPCs, which leaves the UK and ANZAC on more even terms. So in a nutshell, national objective income disappears instead of changing hands.
Does this sound tenable as a house rule? I think it may need a bit of refinement, but the concept is justifiable.
It helps, but honestly it’s still no enough from where I am standing.
-
I bounced this idea off of my other players, and we had tentative agreement.� Let me know what you think:
If the USA falls, Japan gets the IPCs as normal less the 30 that come from the national objective.� That puts the� Japanese gain at only 17 or so IPCs, which leaves the UK and ANZAC on more even terms.� So in a nutshell, national objective income disappears instead of changing hands.
Does this sound tenable as a house rule?� I think it may need a bit of refinement, but the concept is justifiable.
It helps, but honestly it’s still no enough from where I am standing.
I agree that this is probably not enough if China still can only produce infantry and artillery. Japan can ignore mainland china altogether. Maybe allowing them to produce airplanes if they capture Shanghai, Jehol (Beijing) and Hong Kong is under allied control would help.
-
Even if it isn’t the fix for this, China really needs to be allowed to leave China in some circumstances (this includes Global '40). The way it is now, the Chinese player is punished for being successful- once China is safe or safe enough, they really don’t get to do anything except keep placing units that won’t get attacked and can’t attack 99.999999% of most games. This isn’t a lot of fun for that player and seems like a poor game design decision.
Regarding the USA issue, you could allow the US Player to make a one-time placement
XIPCs worth of units into the W.USA during their first combat move after San Francisco is lost. Just low enough that they have maybe a 50% chance or so of defeating whatever Japanese units are left assuming the Japanese had average dice. You can say this represents the diversion of US forces from the East Coast. This seems reasonable since as a historical boardgame, we know that losing San Francisco would not take the US out of the war. An alternative (or something else to work in concert with the previous idea) is to allow the US player to dropXIPCs worth of units into Canada, W.USA, or Mexico every turn that Japan holds San Francisco. This would force Japan to keep some of this extra income tied up defending the West Coast.I’m still not 100% sold on the idea that it is utterly impossible to prevent the guaranteed loss of San Francisco, but the real people to ask are the league players who are undefeated or nearly so. If anybody has the brains to see if the US can be saved, it would be them.
-
I wouldn’t exactly say they are punished for being successful; they can lock down 2 VC’s on the pacific map. That’s more than ANZAC can generally do. From my understanding, China isn’t supposed to be a player’s only power. I will not speak for Global, but like I was saying I think it can’t hurt to allow china to leave if certian conditions are met. Like I was saying earlier, it might be a little crazy, but once USA falls, china could be allowed to open up its buys.
When I first proposed the idea of USA getting X IPC worth of units in USA after USA falls on their next combat move, the problem I saw was that when USA takes W USA back, they all of a sudden make money again, and japan might be in a position to retake easily. I too was thinking about the fact that the rest of the USA was P.O.ed and a little to the East, but again I don’t see it solving the issue.
I think you might be onto something with the trickle of units into the other territories. Japan has to address it, but US isn’t forced to take W USA back before they are ready.
We can put all the faith we want in the “league players,” but the important thing to remember is that the person who first did a version of this strat, Sword, was in his first game on the Pac map. Conventional thinking isn’t what exposed the problem, and I have my doubts that it will be what solves it.
The biggest problem I see for the Allies after the US falls is their naval inferiority that is nigh insurmountable. They might be able to stack and defend one SZ, but they can’t attack.
3 things that I think would be good but might not be good enough (Assuming further restricting Japanese SZ movement is not desirable):
1. Chinese units can move out of China if Allies control all Chinese territories. (If China loses a territory after this, Chinese pieces can still move anywhere)
2. If USA falls, ANZAC and UK are combined into one power. (They still buy and place separately in the manner of UK in Global. Not sure if tech is an issue since it technically is only in the Global game officially in my understanding).
3. USA has an income of 10 IPC per turn while under Axis control. On their turn, they may purchase units and then place them in British Columbia, Mexico, or West USA during their combat move. They may save the IPC if they wish.One thing I don’t want to see but might solve the issue instantly and simply is that Japan may not move land units onto West USA unless they control Sydney or Calcutta.
-
Could the US pull back to Mexico to put its ground forces out of range of being crushed and then retake Western US?
Just an idea.
Otherwise, you could use the old World at War rule and give the US 6 or more infantry the first time the US mainland or Alaska is attacked, representing the National Guard. You could maybe put a time restraint on it. Say, the attack must be before turn 5 or something.
Otherwise, put 3 more aa’s in Western US and an some units in Alaska and Mexico.
-
If Japan saw USA pull back, they could either attack and select only planes (3 or 4 with what the USA will have built), or even attack USA lightly, wait for US to reenter, and then attack them again and double their money (not advisable, but I see its merits)
USA did not have enough strength to attack Japan US3, so they won’t be much better US 4 (maybe 1 plane more
-
I haven’t scoped it our yet, but the other allies are just not able to build up strong enough to stop Japan after US crush?
They need Haw and one more VC right? Hm, I’d think they could hold Hong Kong and Shanghai. But maybe not.
-
I haven’t scoped it our yet, but the other allies are just not able to build up strong enough to stop Japan after US crush?Â
They need Haw and one more VC right? Hm, I’d think they could hold Hong Kong and Shanghai. But maybe not.
The Axis doesn’t want to bother with Hong Kong or Shanghai from what I have seen. Those are the only two China can defend, so why bother fighting china?
The Allies have to be able to challenge the IJN after USA falls or there is no point in playing. Japan has transports up the wazoo and starts gobbling up territory. ANZAC and UK can’t just stack their VC’s obviously, or Japan will never be threatened and Japan takes the DEI which really tips the Allied apple cart of IPC. Problem is, Japan can just take the DEI anyways as the Allies can’t actually attack the IJN and they can only really defend 1 SZ at a time.
This strat doesn’t win with Hong Kong or Shanghai, it’s Tokyo, Manila, Honolulu, LA, Sydney, and Calcutta.
-
This strat doesn’t win with Hong Kong or Shanghai, it’s Tokyo, Manila, Honolulu, LA, Sydney, and Calcutta.
That’s why it’s irrelevant if China can stack those places with infinite infantry or not.
I’m actually wondering if Japan can win without buying a single ground unit. After the DEI is claimed they don’t need China’s income anymore and can just convoy the rest of the players out of the game.
-
Wow! Sydney can’t defend itself?
I’d think that they’d be able to get the DEI with UK with Japan so heavily invested with the US.
Yet, I guess with the dumb minor IC they’d be limited in their build up…
Very interesting post. When I get a chance I’ll set it up. I play almost all global and played pacific only once. So it being flawed doesn’t really change anything for me other than present an interest problem.
The one time i played pacific was 1st Ed. OBB and Japan was a monster. Totally unstoppable.
-
I guess the easy fix for this would be to change the rule so that at least 1 VC has to be on the mainland. At least that will put Hong Kong/Shanghai in the mix.
-
Wow! Sydney can’t defend itself?Â
I’d think that they’d be able to get the DEI with UK with Japan so heavily invested with the US.
Yet, I guess with the dumb minor IC they’d be limited in their build up…
Very interesting post. When I get a chance I’ll set it up. I play almost all global and played pacific only once. So it being flawed doesn’t really change anything for me other than present an interest problem.Â
The one time i played pacific was 1st Ed. OBB and Japan was a monster. Totally unstoppable.
ANZAC/UK can get the DEI easily, HOLDING it once Japan gets back from its vacation in California is a different story. The Allies need to be able to challenge Japan’s navy to have a chance at doing, well, anything important. Every ship they buy is at least 1 less land unit, and every land unit they buy is less going toward ships, and they need a lot of both.
-
Very interesting problem. I am interested to see what people come up with.
Although if Krieghund is stumped…. who knows!
-
The Allies need to be able to challenge Japan’s navy to have a chance at doing, well, anything important. Every ship they buy is at least 1 less land unit, and every land unit they buy is less going toward ships, and they need a lot of both.
If Japan is sending everything after the US, doesn’t that at least mean that ANZAC can buy only ships? And possibly the UK? If Japan isn’t sending more ground down south, then what the Allies start with should suffice, or nearly so.
-
@Eggman:
The Allies need to be able to challenge Japan’s navy to have a chance at doing, well, anything important. Every ship they buy is at least 1 less land unit, and every land unit they buy is less going toward ships, and they need a lot of both.
If Japan is sending everything after the US, doesn’t that at least mean that ANZAC can buy only ships? And possibly the UK? If Japan isn’t sending more ground down south, then what the Allies start with should suffice, or nearly so.
Suffice for what? Definitely not attack on what will be at least 3 loaded carriers, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, and handful of smaller ships, and whatever Japan buys J5.
-
Even with the 5 ships aleutian block, it doesn’t look good for USA.
Turn 1
Japan buys 3 transports, usual moves.
USA blocks Aleutians/Alaska.
UK/ANZAC DOWIf you have time, can you clarify what are the
usual moves?
Suggested Topics
