What in your opinion Karl is the lowest bid that would negate the usefulness of a biding system.
@Young:
What in your opinion Karl is the lowest bid that would negate the usefulness of a biding system.
less than 6.
with 6 you can buy a sub for the UK fleet in the med.
Whats the solution?
I would change a couple things.� I would not take back any units added to the Axis.� I think the editions were good.� I think any changes would have to be on the allied side.� I don’t think a ton of new units are necessary but I would put back that airbase in Gib (placed there in Alpha2).� Why did they take away the airbase in Gib?� Can anyone explain?� That makes a huge difference.� Replace that, put a harbor in Panama, and give the UK more NO’s.� The UK really comes off as the weak power in most global games in the long run.� Even when they are on the offense and get their 1 NO, I rarely see them get over 40 IPCs.� Maybe a UK NO for no subs in the Atlantic, an NO for no ships in the Med (a reflection of the Italian No)…� A boost like that to the UK would go a long way to even out the game I think,� �
Whats the UK going to spend more IPC on once it control of the Channel has be established for the Allies? You can only place 10 units, and if you’re in a slug fest in Europe you’re going to be spending 35 IPC / round shuttling 5 Inf and 5 Art into Europe on 5 TT.
UK has Canada and South Africa complexes, and many players build even more in Egypt, Iraq, and/or Persia. There is always use for more UK money
I think the real question is what bid makes for a 50/50 win senario btw the very top players. My guess is a bid 12-13 with no china bid restriction and max one unit per territory/seazone. Btw China bid is very OP as one can easily prevent Yunnan r1 with 3inf bid or 1inf Russia fgt.
I think the real question is what bid makes for a 50/50 win senario btw the very top players. My guess is a bid 12-13 with no china bid restriction and max one unit per territory/seazone. Btw China bid is very OP as one can easily prevent Yunnan r1 with 3inf bid or 1inf Russia fgt.
Do you mean placing a Russian fighter in Yunnan? Wouldn’t that put Russia automatically at war with Japan from the start? Then the Mongolians would not join Russia but remain strict neutrals.
Moscow air reach Yunnan
I think the real question is what bid makes for a 50/50 win senario btw the very top players. My guess is a bid 12-13 with no china bid restriction and max one unit per territory/seazone. Btw China bid is very OP as one can easily prevent Yunnan r1 with 3inf bid or 1inf Russia fgt.
Do you mean placing a Russian fighter in Yunnan? Wouldn’t that put Russia automatically at war with Japan from the start? Then the Mongolians would not join Russia but remain strict neutrals.
Russia can declare war on Japan and move into china without having to worry about losing mongolia.
I’m shocked that no one has mentioned getting rid of the 6 victory city rule in the Pacific for an Axis win and continually talk about changing the set up. Talk about keeping it simple stupid. The 6 Victory City rule gives a massive advantage to the Axis as it forces an inefficient use of the USA’s resources, forcing it to maximize its resources against Japan.
It may not be enough, but it is definitely a start.
The purpose of the 6 VC rule is to make the USA worry about the Pacific
I’m shocked that no one has mentioned getting rid of the 6 victory city rule in the Pacific for an Axis win and continually talk about changing the set up. Talk about keeping it simple stupid. The 6 Victory City rule gives a massive advantage to the Axis as it forces an inefficient use of the USA’s resources, forcing it to maximize its resources against Japan.
It may not be enough, but it is definitely a start.
the victory city rule is a key part in making global the best axis and allies game. allies can no longer abandon one side and win the game.
the game is now slightly in favour of the axis, about 6-18ipc bids to the allies. removing the victory cities would not only remove the fun of the allies fighting across the globe, but would result in bids being even larger than they currently are… but for the axis.
I can’t yet prove that is false as I have only played 5 games on global. I played 4 games with just Europe 2nd edition and 4 with pacific. I have played countless other games with edition
I have played countless other games of different variants and editions. The new rules, set up, and NO’s I think are enough to prevent the allies from ignoring Japan. They can’t ignore them. A japan that takes Anzac, China, India, the middle east and half of Russia would still be a major power to contend with, even if Germany falls. So the 6 victory city is not needed.
I can’t say definitively that without the 6 victory city condition, it would be completely balanced, but my impression so far is that luck, strategy, concentration (especially since they are very long games), and overall tactics matter so much in this game, it by far is a greater determining factor in who wins then any initial unbalance. That is my impression anyway.
I can’t stand the 6 victory city condition because the Allies can very easily be in a condition of winning yet lose due to the condition forcing the US to spend inefficiently in the Pacific. They can’t ignore the Japs but they shouldn’t be their key focus. It is unhistorical, unrealistic, and not strategically sound except for that 6 victory city rule.
Maybe it should be an 8 victory city rule.
I have played countless other games of different variants and editions. The new rules, set up, and NO’s I think are enough to prevent the allies from ignoring Japan. They can’t ignore them. A japan that takes Anzac, China, India, the middle east and half of Russia would still be a major power to contend with, even if Germany falls. So the 6 victory city is not needed.
To contend with for doing what? Without the 6 VC rule, how would the Axis win? An 8 VC rule? USA has 3 major factories, and can drop 20 units a turn easily if the Japanese even get close to Los Angeles.
I have played countless other games of different variants and editions. The new rules, set up, and NO’s I think are enough to prevent the allies from ignoring Japan. They can’t ignore them. A japan that takes Anzac, China, India, the middle east and half of Russia would still be a major power to contend with, even if Germany falls. So the 6 victory city is not needed.
To contend with for doing what? Without the 6 VC rule, how would the Axis win? An 8 VC rule? USA has 3 major factories, and can drop 20 units a turn easily if the Japanese even get close to Los Angeles.
I also believe that Japan has little chance if Germany falls and there is no 6 victory city rule. I think the Allies indeed could ignore Japan.
I don’t like the 6 victory city condition, myself. Maybe if it was 7. I don’t like that Axis can win the whole ding-dong game no matter how badly Europe goes if Japan can take basically 2 outer cities (Hong Kong and Phillipines are a given) and neither of them is a major world capital.
It’s kind of like the cheesy economic condition win of the original game, only worse. To get the economic win in the original game you normally would have to be doing very well with Germany AND Japan.
The 6 VC win condition smells of a lazy attempt to balance the game and make the USA commit to both theaters. It could have been so much better…
7 out of 8 feels high (and limiting strategically) to me … maybe if there were 9 VC to choose from, then 7 out of 9 would be good.
Maybe Panama could count as a Pacific VC (though not on the Pacific map). This would mean any Pacific victory would require at least 1 American territory (which I would say is good).
Hmmmm,
as long as the USA is allowed it’s ‘gamey’ ignore-Japan-on-the-Pacific-completely-to-crush-Germany-and-Italy,
I feel 6 VC’s for Japan on the pacific are recquired. Otherwise, who would want to play Axis, knowing you will loose the game no matter what you try.
As it is now, the VC’s are ‘hard’ enough for Japan because any standard Japanese play has to be thrown out the window if the USA is spotted to focus on Europe near-100%.
I say ‘hard’ because to counter this strong USA-strategy, Japan has to fall back into sub-optimal play, easily countered by the allies and, if so, not so easily repaired by Japan (tho it does interrupt the flow of troops into europe for a turn or two).
First of all, Japan trying to take Los Angeles would be foolish unrealistic and not a world war 2 game, but something entirely different.
Secondly, the answer to the US ignoring Japan, is not force the US to almost ignore what is, was, and should be the greatest threat which is Germany. This is still a world war 2 game, not risk with a map of the world.
Thirdly, the game as it is today, in my opinion, if Japan was totally ignored, could end up easily taking Anzac. So if you raised the VC limit to 7, then taking Hawaii and Anzac would produce a victory.
But the answer, the true, historic, realistic, keeping it simple answer to the lack of action in the Pacific problem is now obvious. You can’t ignore Japan, you just can’t, but the majority of resources still must be spent of Germany to keep it balances. So how do you encourage meaningful action in the Pacific without altering the balance of the game in an unrealistic, and unhistorical fashion.
BY DRAMTICALLY LOWERING THE RESOURCES IT TAKES TO BUILD A NAVY SO REAL BATTLES CAN BE FOUGHT WITHOUT SACRIFICING SO MUCH IN OTHER MORE IMPORTANT FRONTS.
Navy’s are way to expensive. Make them comparable in cost to land units.
Transports $3
Subs $4
Destroyers $5
Cruisers $6
Battleships $9
Air Craft Carriers $6
Planes $8 and let them pick there targets at sea. Each side would then have planes and you would get realistic air to air battles.
This is keeping it simple to the core. Germany would be able to fight a real Atlantic battle and would offset the cheaper transports for the US.
Japan and the US could go at it without sacrificing their other theatres. Japan could really threaten Anzac and the US could build a real Navy without sacrificing so much in the European theatre.
This is the answer with the new setup.
BY DRAMTICALLY LOWERING THE RESOURCES IT TAKES TO BUILD A NAVY SO REAL BATTLES CAN BE FOUGHT WITHOUT SACRIFICING SO MUCH IN OTHER MORE IMPORTANT FRONTS.
Navy’s are way to expensive. Make them comparable in cost to land units.
Transports $3
Subs $4
Destroyers $5
Cruisers $6
Battleships $9
Air Craft Carriers $6
Planes $8 and let them pick there targets at sea. Each side would then have planes and you would get realistic air to air battles.This is keeping it simple to the core. Germany would be able to fight a real Atlantic battle and would offset the cheaper transports for the US.
Japan and the US could go at it without sacrificing their other theatres. Japan could really threaten Anzac and the US could build a real Navy without sacrificing so much in the European theatre.This is the answer with the new setup.
I have a feeling that not a lot with change in terms of how well one country can do vs another.
A change in pricing structure like that (without any other changes) is crazy. Might make for a fun house rule game.
Aircraft carriers that cost only 1.5 times more than a submarine instead of 2.67?
Planes that only cost 2 IPCs more than a tank?
I don’t see how this ensures a Pacific war. It ensures that you will have a lot more Allied landings on Western Europe and Germany won’t be able to survive, is what it would do.
Germany relies a lot on the high cost of raising navies and amphibiously assaulting Western Europe, Italy, and Scandinavia. A radical pricing structure like this would wreck the game.
