Only based on your bidding rules. My bids puts them in a power’s treasury (so they have to be spent later).
Allied setup additions for balance (new poll)
-
So take away. one fighter and 1 tactical bomber from Manchuria, and add 1 British fighter in Ontario, 1 Russian strategic bomber in Moscow, and 1 American tactical bomber in Western USA.
How’s that sound?
-
5 inf central usa.
1 bomber archangel.
1 sub sz 97
~That is pretty good.
-
@Young:
So take away. one fighter and 1 tactical bomber from Manchuria, and add 1 British fighter in Ontario, 1 Russian strategic bomber in Moscow, and 1 American tactical bomber in Western USA.
How’s that sound?
might be too much. Forget the US Tac. Otherwise, sounds good.
-
@wittmann:
@Young:
So take away. one fighter and 1 tactical bomber from Manchuria, and add 1 British fighter in Ontario, 1 Russian strategic bomber in Moscow, and 1 American tactical bomber in Western USA.
How’s that sound?
might be too much. Forget the US Tac. Otherwise, sounds good.
How about this…
Remove 1 fighter, and 1 tactical bomber from Manchuria
Add 1 British fighter in Ontario
Add 1 Russian strategic bomber in Moscow
Add 1 American transport off Western USA -
If you want to give the US something, a Tac over a TT would be my choice. A TT is a powerful and necessary tool. Do you want to help the US that much?
I just think if you reduce the starting number of Japanese Air, that already helps the US.
Thank you for listening to my opinion and considering my thoughts. -
Looking at bid among the mid-tier players, I see a clear preference for a sub off Egypt (1st priority), and then more land units in Alexandria and/or Egypt. Then you’ve got the Inf in NG.
What if we just baked those in?
-
Hi Shin Ji. I am find of bolstering UK’s start up, to prevent Italy running rampant. The Sub is a must for me.
Young Grasshopper, however, plays regularly with a group of friends. He is thinking of them, I think and what they would like. -
Yes, the bid doesn’t help us much because our players rotate between playing axis or allies from game to game. We also don’t like setup changes that effect opening strategies, so the sub is out for us.
-
Reducing Japans starting planes greatly changes the game. It allows stacks in Burma or Yunnan that would otherwise not be possible. Not sure if I like that.
-
But why does Japan have 21 Air? It is too powerful a tool. I think that ruins the game. If is also why Japan can get to 70 income and earn more than the US.
-
True. I like the idea of US making 10 more when at war, so a base of 80 instead of 70.
-
Probably my biggest gripe with Global. US must make more than the other nations.
But then 1942 is more silly! By T2 if has less than Germany and won’t take long for Japan to overtake its 38 either. -
As for me ,I usually don’t add more units for balance,if I want to do that,I will add USS battleship Massachusetts (BB59) in Atlantic .
-
I wouldn’t limit a ‘balancing act’ to setup changes. Rule changes (like allowing the US to enter the war earlier or on expanded criteria, etc.) or bonus changes like ROC pointed out, may better bring about balanced play than unit changes alone.
-
would it be better if the us gets more money in general? If you play pacific by itself, the usa gets like 60 ipc once at war.
could we give the usa two differnt economys like the uk? -
would it be better if the us gets more money in general? If you play pacific by itself, the usa gets like 60 ipc once at war.
could we give the usa two differnt economys like the uk?That would be interesting to see, the same incomes as in each separate game but divided like UK. 62 Wartime on the pac side and 60 wartime on the atlantic side.
-
would it be better if the us gets more money in general? If you play pacific by itself, the usa gets like 60 ipc once at war.
could we give the usa two differnt economys like the uk?That would be interesting to see, the same incomes as in each separate game but divided like UK. 62 Wartime on the pac side and 60 wartime on the atlantic side.
In contrast, why not amalgamate both UK economies into a single income? The IC in India remains a major, Japan still gets a $5 NO for control of it, but Calcutta is no longer a capital city which relinquishes it’s income when captured, only London would have to hand over all UK cash upon enemy occupation (making Sealion a viable strategy once again).
To begin the game, Britain would have $45 to build on whatever IC they own, they could use the first round $ to protect London and build an IC in Egypt, then they could use the second round ($45+ with NO) to build on the new factory, and 10 units on India. This would also prevent Japan from convoying, and bombing India down to zero income, pretty much paralyzing them until Calcutta gets invaded.
Lifting the double income restriction for the UK would allow the allies more flexibility in regions they need to protect, or allow more aggression in areas they wish to apply pressure… making the game more balanced.
-
This sounds like a great idea, but the main problem is that if you combine both UK incomes then India would never be taken. UK would always put 10 guys a turn in India (after turn 1). These 10 guys plus the Chinese units would be way too much for Japan to handle, and I don’t think you would ever see Japan win a game.
-
This sounds like a great idea, but the main problem is that if you combine both UK incomes then India would never be taken. UK would always put 10 guys a turn in India (after turn 1). These 10 guys plus the Chinese units would be way too much for Japan to handle, and I don’t think you would ever see Japan win a game.
But the point is to not let Japan run away with the Pacific, and I would think that forcing Germany to put significant pressure on London and Egypt in order to prevent such a India stacking strategy, solves the other problem of a turn 5 Moscow crush.
-
There are a few good ideas here. But instead of seeing what sticks to the wall, another approach may be to analyze the most common vectors of victory for Axis and apply countermeasures to reduce the effectiveness of those vectors.
If I had the time, I would analyze about 20 games between competent players where the Axis won. I would distill them down for overall strategic commonalities (i.e. 80% do J1, 75% do G2 Russian steamroller, etc.). Then take the most common winning commonalities and determine minor Allied placements/changes (or Axis placements/changes) that would reduce the odds of that particular strategic component being successful.
No need to prevent winning Axis strategies, just blunt their edge a bit.
Possible changes and how I view them:
- Unit placement changes (bids) provide a one-time offensive or defensive increase, and maybe a small strategic advantage such as an ANZAC troop on NG. Small scale tweaks here.
- Rule changes can reduce flexibility (ex: “Japan shall not attack on J1”), and railroad the game a bit, but can expire later in the game. More medium sized tweaks here.
- Economic changes are initially minor but become more exacerbated as the game progresses. Warning: here be Dragons!
Balancing can be a very delicate exercise. Too large of a change and you tilt the whole game on its’ side.
V
Suggested Topics
