Changes still needed to the game, IMHO



  • 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.

    Scenario One

    G1

    Buy major IC

    R1

    Russia builds at least 10 land units

    G2

    Buy 10 INF/ART for Romania

    R2

    Russia builds at least 10 land units

    G3

    Buy more land units, usually blitzing units, Barbarossa

    R3

    Russia builds at least 10 land units

    Scenario Two

    G1

    Germany builds 1 CV 1 SS 1 DD

    R1

    Russia builds land…

    G2

    Germany builds major IC in Romania, land units

    R2

    Russia builds land…

    G3

    Germany builds INF/ART in Romania, Barbarossa

    R3

    Russia builds…

    OR

    Scenario Three

    G1, naval, G2, ART, G3 ART/INF or MECH/ARM - should be able to build at least 30 land units between G2’s $70 and G3’s $50.  Germany still has unit advantage against the Soviets, also is able to threaten Sealion with G1 buy and force UK to spend on INF for several turns.  Massive stack of INF and ART from G2 buy should be ready to go for G4 Barbarossa, much the same as if you’d built the IC on G2.  G1 major IC build is slightly faster, but also has less options at beginning of game and UK won’t play so defensively.

    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.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    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.

    Or double up on the units in places like Okinawa, Carolines, and Iwo Jima.  Make it difficult for the U.S. to capture said islands… or well… atleast make it MORE difficult.

    Or Maybe bring back the tokyo express rule, from the original Pacific?  Japanese Desroyers can carry 1 infantry… ?  Give Japan an extra sub and destroyer somewhere, to give the navy a little lasting power?  Navy doesn’t win games after-all.

    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…


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    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.


  • '10

    @questioneer:

    Add 2inf to Siam
    Add 2inf, 1tnk to Korea
    Add 1inf to Jehol
    Add 2inf, 1mec to Shanghai

    Hmm…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



  • @SgtBlitz:

    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 😉


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @eudemonist:

    @questioneer:

    Add 2inf to Siam
    Add 2inf, 1tnk to Korea
    Add 1inf to Jehol
    Add 2inf, 1mec to Shanghai

    Hmm…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

    I’d be happier with a complex and no units.  IMHO


  • '10

    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.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @HMS_Artemis:

    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.


  • '10

    @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.



  • @Gargantua:

    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 Shanghai

    Thats $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.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Again, I agree with Peck.

    Or atleast, not allow that to be considered a provocation engaging the U.S.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @eudemonist:

    @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 1

    and

    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.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    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.


  • '10

    @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:

    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 1

    and

    1. 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.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    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. :? :? :?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    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.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    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.



  • I think it’s very much up to arguement that the US would go to war over a European powers colonies. In fact that seems almost ahistoric, issuing sanctions is a far cry from going to war, so I could see Japan losing the NO for not being at war with the US, but, the US should not be able to declare war unless it’s attacked.

    There could also be some debate as to whether the UK would declare war on Japan for occupying the DEI, as the game technically begins before Japan joined the Axis. The Dutch declared themselves neutral at the beginning of the conflict with Germany, though the Dutch government fleeing to Britain would seem to argue strongly that the UK would declare war.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    In light of some information, I suppose it can be argued that UK might not declare a general war with Japan, should the latter attack DEI.

    On receipt of the Chiefs of Staff Appraisal, Admiral Wenneker, Germany’s Naval Attaché to Japan sent the following summary to Berlin.

    Despatch of cipher Tel, Nr 209/40 gKdos to 212/40 gKdos to Navy High Command

    For Naval War Staff:

    Of note amongst materials reaching here on 6 December from Ship ‘16’ is a captured report of the War Cabinet about the situation in the Far East in the event of Japanese intervention against Britain, dated 15 August:

    1. In present situation we (i.e. Britain) are unable to send fleet to Far East.

    2. Japan needs Singapore in order to meet its ambitions.

    3. Until the situation in Europe clarified itself, open breach between us and America and Japan improbable.

    4. We must avoid ‘open clash’ with Japan in order to gain time and promote military co-operation.

    5. In the absence of Fleet, we are unable to prevent damage to our own interests. We should retire to a base from which it will be possible to restore our position later on.

    6. Four possible Japanese attacks:

    (a) Direct attack

    (b) Advance into Indo-China or Siam.

    © Attack on Dutch East Indies.

    (d) Attack on Philippines.

    1. Japanese first step either Indonesia or Siam; then Dutch East Indies before Singapore.

    2. In current situation we would put up with Japanese attack on Siam or Indo-China without going to war.

    3. In event of Japanese attack on Dutch, and they offered no resistance, no war between us and Japan. But if Dutch resist, then they would have our full military support.

    4. Hong Kong without any significance and cannot hold out for long without presence of a substantial fleet. However, will be held as long as possible.

    5. Strategy in Event of War:

    a) Impossible to prevent Japanese gaining access to Indian Ocean.

    b) We cannot maintain naval lines of communication with Northern Malaya.

    c) Hope to maintain bulk of commerce by sea with Suez and eastern Australia.

    d) Apart from cruiser raids, Japanese attack on Australia improbable without first taking Singapore.

    e) Japanese occupation of Suva and Fiji likely in order to use as a base.

    f) Need to defend all of Malaya and not just Singapore Island.

    g) Holland probably willing to prepare joint plan for defence of Dutch Indies. In view of limited assistance we can give, their help unlikely if British territory attacked. Consequently, not desirable to begin Staff Talks at this time.

    h) As long as no fleet, forced to turn to air force. But this can only be provided in a limited way. Therefore,

    strong land forces necessary in Malaya. Concentration there a top priority.

    i) Borneo indefensible. Very little air power available for protection of shipping in Indian Ocean.

    j) Until situation in Europe improves, Far East gravely threatened, especially if subjected to determined

    Japanese sorties, with heavy naval units.

    1. Our construction programme never intended to cover war with Germany, Italy and Japan, simultaneously.

    The only hope for providing a fleet for the Far East based on early, successful attack on Italy and the

    Mediterranean

    1. Objectives we must seek to achieve.

    a) Commonwealth must send one Division to Malaya.

    b) By end of 1940, two fighter squadrons and two squadrons of long-range (?) land aircraft to be sent to Far East.

    c) Naval construction programme to be accelerated.

    d) Withdrawal of Garrison from North China and Hong Kong.

    e) New Zealand must send one brigade to Fiji.

    f) General Staff consultations with Holland once situation in Malaya improves.

    1. Detailed information on the strengths of land, sea and airforces in the Far East.

  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @mantlefan:

    @questioneer:

    @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.

    Funny thing is, it’s not that ahistorical. It seems people keep mixing the fact that Japan THOUGHT the US would retaliate if the Japanese invaded the Dutch colonies with the US having issued some sort of warning against it, or that they would have responded if the Japanese did invade. In fact there’s a few historians who argue that Japan’s assumptions were wronf and the US would NOT have responded to invasions of the dutch colonies.

    On 8 March 1942 Japan invaded the Dutch East Indies.  That is pretty close to when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, if you think about it.  7 December 1941 to 8 March 1942 is only a difference of 4 months, one of them a short month.

    That means that Japan had invasion plans prior to their attack on Pearl Harbor (most likely) and thus, it would not be ahistorical to allow the player of Japan to switch the order of events.  Perhaps Emperor Hirohito is convinced, or convinces the admiralty to secure the oil and rubber resources of the Dutch East Indies before swinging over to attack America the following Spring?  It’s a pretty good hypothetical for this type of game, I mean, we allow Germany the option between Barbarossa and Sea Lion now, why not give Japan the option of hitting the DEI?

    I mean, other than Larry’s infatuation with American Exceptionalism that is. (my opinion, no need to rush to his defense.  It just seems he’s extremely anti-Japan in later editions of the game and seems to buff America’s prowess with each and every release.  From my Russian perspective!)

    Now, from IL’s post, perhaps England also would not attack Japan after an invasion of the DEI.  After all, this is DUTCH territory, and HOLLAND is under German occupation, therefore, invasion of DUTCH holdings would not be an act of war against a sovereign nation - given that the sovereign nation no longer existed to have war declared against.

    Finally, if we look at the strategic and tactical ramifications of this action on the game board, I have not yet heard an argument to state this would be unbalancing.  It is my opinion that the added income (what are we seriously talking about here, about 20ish IPCs over the first two rounds + 30 IPC over the second two rounds before America comes into the game) may balance a game that’s been severely unbalanced by Alpha 2 (by seriously, I mean they took something pro-Japan and made it pro-Allies, a very dynamic shift in geo-military power).  However, perhaps it would be unbalanced given board position as well.  Japan could only have a minor complex there, but they could have Airbases and Naval Bases.  Would that unbalance things?  I would think it would not, but perhaps it would?


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games

59
Online

13.5k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts