Changes still needed to the game, IMHO

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.

@chompers:

I feel nothing should be changed at all, frankly.  Japan is overmatched by the US, to be sure, but to about the same degree that Russia/ UK are by Germany/ Italy.  That’s the part of your argument that doesn’t jive with my experience of the game.

Germany and Italy cannot beat Russia before America has both beaten Japan AND moved enough equipment to Russia to assist in repelling the Germans.  Not if the Russians play a conservative game, yeilding land as needed to stall the Germans as best possible.

Uh, are you looking at Axis and Allies 1940: Global or some other game???

Russia starts at 37 IPC and will easily get the NO from SZ 125 so that’s 42 IPC right there. Assuming you give up the two lands worth something you’re still making 40 IPC.  And that’s assuming you just stay in your own land, you have plenty of forces to move out of your land and go for Iraq or C. Persia on top of it all, and with Scandinavia you’re up to 49 IPC right there.

Germany, in contrast is only earning 36 IPC (6 for Normandy/France + European territories) and has no national objectives.

So yes, I believe Russia is more than adequate at keeping Germany at bay.

Sea Lion isn’t a sure thing, there are numerous demonstrations on how to block it with England, so I will not assume it happens.  So perhaps you are dumping units into Scandinavia, that just means my NO territories are lightly defended for Russia and you’ll have incursions going through Romania.  Losing proposition to say the least.

Oh, and don’t forget you get +3 for each of Norway, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Denmark, Holland, W. Germany, S. Germany and Holland (10 for E. Germany).  Those quickly add up as well.