“Nerfing” Japan makes me afraid for that power.
A simple rule change that would really shake this up (could really tilt it either way) is a guaranteed 1st round of peace. Meaning first round is no attacks but every other phase with same restrictions. I am having a hard time seeing how it would help the Axis more than the Allies but it might.
Another rule that I think can go at least a little ways towards balance is allowing to choose between low luck and full dice before each battle. It really helps the US in the pacific. Goes both ways though but still helps a good Allied player a lot.
@aldoraine I have thought of variations of this. I think I have a video called Phony War. So G40 starts in May of 40. Start the game in January. England and Germany can battle on the seas and in North Africa. The Chinese and the Japanese can go at it, but everything else is noncoms. It would have to be adjusted, but a very good idea. I think I might also call this Generals because it gives YOU the chance to prepare for war! You could also allow only a certain number of units or territories to be changed. Randomize it with dice or pick a number, say 5 units.
"War is coming Churchill. What will you do?
Choose five units on the game board and move them all or partially as you would in normal non-combat if they had not yet received orders.’
@superbattleshipyamato It needs it. I would argue that Japan does NOT have a 40 set up, but rather a late 41 set up. Way too many aircraft. Simple fix. 6 aircraft must remain in Japan as Kamikazes at all times.
Curious. Historically though, if the game is accurate in all respects Termany would have a hard time winning. By all accounts of the actual battle the sickle cut is the equivalent of good dice. Not a chance for Germany. But for the sake of balance a better idea in my view (same concept, different presentation) is freezing time and letting everyone move as many units as they want across as many land territories as they’d like (railroads).
I hope you’re right. If Japan can still win with that setup, I believe you.
@superbattleshipyamato said in [Global 1940] One rule to balance it?:
“Nerfing” Japan makes me afraid for that power.
Why so?
The current J1 attack meta is apparently pretty strong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRi3aIsj8P8
I’m thinking too much about history and how Japan was totally outclassed. I guess I believe that the game setup is accurate and that Japan would win less than the Allies. Nerfing Japan from that perspective makes it seem like Japan will be hopeless (even if you’re actually correcting Japan being overpowered).
I think you’re right to be concerned. currently Japan usually wins the game. So I am right to be concerned. I’ve thought of a historical injection. In my imagination, this is “things in the pipeline coming to fruition.” Or fanaticism that can’t be calculated. So instead of ipc value an additional battleship round 2. Another carrier round 3. A final carrier round three. Goal: to prohibit J1 or J2.
It’s be fun to give it a run through. Game?
No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.
