Pointlessly Broken

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Wake Island is a possibility for Allied planes, but it doesn’t change much other than the UK not needing to build an Airbase.

I also have considered the sacrifice of 6 trns, doesn’t seem like a good move and it doesn’t seem like a bad move. The US navy is really over a barrel; it can’t hope to hold up against  the Japanese whether USA blocks or not, and the best USA attack on the IJN is always going to lose more Allied planes than Axis.

If 2 ANZAC guys are able to sneak in ANZAC 2, the Naval base is necessary. From everything we have seen so far, I realize that we don’t KNOW for a fact that ANZAC can’t get 4 there by their 3rd turn, but even the resident expert has no idea how to do it if it is possible with Japan’s available counters.

I have seen in written that Allies have a good chance of winning if Japan takes heavy plane losses, but I have yet to actually see any evidence of that, and have yet to see why that is terribly relevant to the question of whether or not there is a balance issue when the average result is so devastating. Let’s not forget that bombers bought J3 can attack USA J4. That is HUGE. Japan can afford at least 1 bmb on J3, more if they don’t need to buy the Aleutian airbase.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

1-2 (maybe 3) extra Japanese bombers, 2 less Allied land units, and let’s not forget the possibility of bombardments. Changes the odds up a bit from an already high 72%, eh?

The allied 30% chance of winning is not a very good chance of winning, although Gamerman claims it is. I still have yet to see it justified how the Allies still have a good chance of winning even if it goes a little rough for Japan. When can the Allies actually take Japan? When can the Allies actually challenge the IJN even if Japan needs to buy a couple planes to replenish their carriers if USA goes poorly? When can the Allies hope to retake USA? Do they even want to?

The allied navies, if they were to attack the Japanese, would have to attack separately. This means that even if the Allies have a bigger fleet, it would have to be significantly bigger to actually challenge Japan’s. How will the Allied fleet keep its ship production up while defending Syndey and Calcutta with land units, 0 of which can come from China? How will the Allied fleet stop Japan from taking the DEI? Sure it can stack near sydney or near calcutta, but what happens when the IJN is at Java? If UK is buying a bomber and at least one base, that doesn’t bode well for either the Naval or land situations. Since Zhukov has shown that the J4 is without a reasonable counter (I gave it my best with the Aleutians block, so good catch Zhukov), there just isn’t enough time for the Allies to get a real offensive going, unless they leave USA to its fate and go full offensive which results in a significantly less amount of plane losses for the Japanese, and allows Japan to buy defensively if necessary (as if an invasion were ever reasonable anyways when Japan pulls as few inf from Japan as possible and uses mainland inf.) The questions the Allies face are not like choosing a flavor of ice cream. It’s more like they are choosing the texture and color of their nooses.

Regardless, the evidence that the average result is so devastating is proof enough that there is a problem and it needs addressing. In the put up or shut up game, it wasn’t the 14 move that did any shutting up. Since Zhukov started posting on it, it  got even  more powerful.

If Japan wins  well more than a fair share of their games doing the traditional strat, that should be addressed. But if Japan also wins well more than a fair share doing the USA crush, that also needs to be addressed. The traditional strat being too easy does not mean this one should be ignored, especially when it’s looking ever more like this one is more effective. Is there one simple fix that can address both issues? Who knows. But since the desire of those in authority to fix it is that the fix be rules adjustments, there is a lot of room for innovation. Regardless of which strat has a better chance of winning (although we don’t even have any remotely specific suggestions for how the Allies can win after USA falls), the evidence is pretty conclusive that the USA crush is too good for what a reasonably balanced game would have.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Eggman:

I’m not sure why it’s helpful to get Hawaii (solely from the perspective of a follow-on attack on W.USA, obviously it’s nice to nab a VC).  All of your non-Bombers need all 5 moves just to get to San Francisco from there, so they can’t attack.

By going Hawaii to 26 to 12 to 10 to W. USA, Japan’s planes still have 1 movement left.

[Zhukov44]

So here’s where my numbers stand right now on J4 land defense.

I’m basing this on USA collect 17, 17, then 57.

Assuming no Japanese air casualties, Japs bring 18 inf 5 art 1 arm 11 fig 8 tac 2 bmb plus 2 bb 2 cru

Allies defend with 17 inf, 1 art, 1 mech, 9 armor, 8 fig, 1 tac, 1 bmb, 3 aa

I get 87% odds without bombardment.  With bb/cru bombardment, Japanese odds increase to 94%

Substituting aas for tanks in the last USA buy only seems to increase Japanese odds, but if one was in this situation it would probably be worth the risk to buy 4 aa instead of 4 armor on USA3, providing for 21 aa shots.

Of course, if USA uses blockers or conducts naval resistance somehow on USA1-2, the Japanese could lose 1-2 planes or more.

Here are some odds with bombardment

minus 1 fighter=89%
minus 2 fighters=81%
minus 3 planes=71%
minus 4 planes=59%

The only silver lining for the game itself is that given how unbalanced Pacific is, it’s questionable whether a Hollywood tactic with as much as 20% to fail is better than a mainland tactic that might offer more favorable odds.  Any attrition of Japanese fighters seems to dramatically increase Allied odds of success…AND it is heavily dependent on average AA rolls—this might make a conservative player like me somewhat wary of this strategy.

Of course, in a f2f game the Allies can’t be expected to play perfectly unless they’ve read this entire thread.  But not every Japanese player will execute perfectly either.

I suspect a straight bid in this game should be at least 12 anyway–that would be sufficient to try a more ambitious blocker strategy on USA1 where you block all of Hawaii, Alaska, and Aleutians.  Or you could just bid 4 inf to WUSA–not terribly strategically useful off the bat but USA would use them to fill transports soon enough.

The defensive challenge for Allies looks to be forcing the Japanese to sacrifice as many planes as possible.  My impression is this doesn’t look easy and the Japanese shouldn’t have to sacrifice more then 1 fighter to accomplish their objectives on J2-J3.

Still gotta look into naval strats but there doesn’t seem to be enough time for Allies to accomplish anything via naval consolidation.  As early as J2 the Japanese can consolidate into a blob fleet which means they need to be drawn out to suffer losses.

[Witt]

Hi everyone. Have been following with interest
I wonder if the US’ starting income is the problem.
In Europe they have 35, because Central is on that side.
I think the income from Central would be better spent in the Pacific(probably more historically accurate too). Is unfortunate it is on that map.
Does seem like it might have to be a rule change concerning how Far East Japan can move or that no Transports can move that way. The set up seems fine and I think Krieg said Larry does not want to change that again anyway.
Glad you are trying to resolve this and good luck.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@wittmann:

Hi everyone. Have been following with interest
I wonder if the US’ starting income is the problem.
In Europe they have 35, because Central is on that side.
I think the income from Central would be better spent in the Pacific(probably more historically accurate too). Is unfortunate it is on that map.
Does seem like it might have to be a rule change concerning how Far East Japan can move or that no Transports can move that way. The set up seems fine and I think Krieg said Larry does not want to change that again anyway.
Glad you are trying to resolve this and good luck.

I think a movement restriction would be a big help, and there already is one, but that can get kind of clunky. “Japan may not move within 2 of Alaska or W. USA and also may not enter SZ’s X, Y, and Z until at war.”

Not a huge deal if that is what it sounds like, I was just hoping for something more streamlined, maybe.

Restricting loaded transports is very interesting though…

[Witt]

Thank you. Occurred to me as the US has one in the Atlantic and I have understood the problem is one of landing Ground units.
Larry’s call…

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Zhukov, agreed on the Japanese not really losing more than 1 ftr, if USA even does block, which might not be as worth it now that Hawaii is also on the list of landing zones for Japan’s ftrs. If USA goes haywire and blocks whatever it can, then they better hope and pray that they get that 1 plane. It doesn’t look even totally necessary to try to go after the battleship J2. There’s not a whole lot USA can do with 1 blocker left. In your opinion, should USA still try to block Aleutians, Alaska, and or Hawaii?

Don’t forget in your calculations the bomber(s) Japan can buy on J3.

Not really sure what the odds of winning with a mainland tactic are; really haven’t seen much anything about Pac 2e balance with that. Obviously OOB had major issues.

Personally, I don’t really see another overpowered Japanese strat in addition to the mainland being a silver lining for Pac 2e. I think the silver lining here is that Larry and Krieg are willing to work on this even after release.

[Eqqman]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Not a huge deal if that is what it sounds like, I was just hoping for something more streamlined, maybe.

Restricting loaded transports is very interesting though…

Something along the lines of until any nation is at war, no units may be left on Transports in empty sea zones might work.

[Zhukov44]

Just occurred to me that bombers bought Japan 3 can reach WUSA if Japan holds British Columbia!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :cry:

3 extra bombers (though Japan might be able to buy 4) increase the odds with bombard to 100%.  To get Japan’s odds below 50%, USA would need 11 additional infantry.

I guess this increases the value of protecting Alaska and Hawaii somewhat because with control of those Japan wouldn’t need to build an airbase J3, allowing another bomber buy.

USA’s best chance seems to be attacking W Canada on USA3 and that’s about 24-25%.

[Zhukov44]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Don’t forget in your calculations the bomber(s) Japan can buy on J3.

That’s funny, I posted my last post right before I read this.

Do you think there is any hope for USA if they have 1 more blocker unit?

Also worth a look is a land unit bid for USA with the objective of countering W. Canada usa3.  I redid my calculation and came up with 24-25%.  A inf and art (7 bid) for USA would make it 52%.  An additional art (11 bid) would make it 65%.

Now I’m coming around to the opinion that Hollywood is better then the traditional kill China/India.  Best Allies can do is the 24-25% counter.

Would the dd bid to USA stop it?  Or would a land bid be more sensible, since Japan could fake the Hollywood and then stomp the USA navy on J2?

[Eqqman]

@Zhukov44:

Would the dd bid to USA stop it?  Or would a land bid be more sensible, since Japan could fake the Hollywood and then stomp the USA navy on J2?

I think you have to go all land, because if Japan does the fake, they will still clean out your navy if you blocked and have a huge advantage.

[Zhukov44]

@wittmann:

Does seem like it might have to be a rule change concerning how Far East Japan can move or that no Transports can move that way.

If Japan was restricted to a 4/7/16/24/23/33 border it could be blocked from Hawaii, Aleutians, and Alaska, which would effectively stop them if I’m not mistaken.  However, without an additional bid, USA would need to sacrifice however many naval units to block Hollywood on USA1, which would/could further unbalance the game.

[ghr2]

Has this been fixed yet?

[Imperious Leader]

It wasn’t broken.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Z I think Japan’s likely bomber availability J4 is capped at 5 total, 4 is more likely, although since Japan’s ftr and tac can always be in range for the J4, Japan might be able to be more aggressive in china and thus get more income.

USA still needs 4 blockers to block Hawaii and Alaska J2. Ugly for allies.

W Canada attack avg result for USA 3 is 8 remaining land units for Japan last I checked. I see 15 inf, 1 art, 1 mech, 4 ftr, 1 tac attacking some mixture which results in 23 at 2 and 1 at 3 for Japan. Did USA spend some money on artillery in your calculations, or did I make a mistake? I get 16% for that one. With 2 artillery replacing inf I get 26%, avg result 6 units for Japan. Avg result of 6 units is not good enough IMO.

Hard to say on the bid issue, I think a DD could help  by pushing it back to J5, but I’m hesitant to look into that for two reasons; first, in the couple games where it was pushed back to J5, Japan still had odds in the 70s, (I think I wrote a little bit on this page 3 or so), and second, Krieg made it sound like setup changes were a last resort, which a bid basically is (and bids wouldn’t be official anyways). Reason three (I know I said two), is that if in 2e the mainland strat is as good as it was in OOB, the US bid will not solve the mainland problems. However, I haven’t really seen any reports on the traditional strat for 2e, but unless it is even easier for Japan than OOB, this USA crush seems to need to take precedence in the order of fixin’.

Like eggman was saying, if USA does its blocks even with the extra DD,  it seems Japan can still stomp the US navy and then decide to go south while USA tries to rebuild (it looks like USA still has to turtle at least the first two rounds with the 14 move)

SZ restriction seems like a logical step, since it’s already there in some form. Krieghund mentioned several fixes, it would be nice to see what those ideas are.

ghr2, short version is that it hasn’t been fixed yet, and, Zhukov, with a few nifty moves and observations, broke it even worse.

Don’t mind IL, he has a history of ignoring blatant evidence and then trolling those who present it.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Imperious:

Don’t mind Vorbeck1914, he has a history of posting arrogant threads like " hopelessly broken" when people just continue to use bids and have no issues.

Yes, it’s so arrogant to post that a strat is broken after playing several games with it on TripleA often with multiple observers who were universally at a loss for Allied counters.  :roll:

So far the best counter that the most vociferous skeptic (a self-described “expert,” for what it’s worth) has come up with has USA’s odds of survival at less than 30%, and that leaves out
1. The difficulty of getting ANZAC inf included in that stat (forget getting 4, even 2 has its challenges) to W USA.
2. The possibility of Japanese bombardments.
3. The incredibly important ability of Japan to buy 1-3 bombers J3 to use J4.

I made a claim based on careful obervations and discussion with other players, and so far the continuing evidence has supported my claim. All the while, I have been asking and looking for even better strategies than my attempts for both sides, admitting that there were probably more efficient moves than mine (and being shown so by Zhukov’s innovations, btw). That is SO arrogant, while coming into the thread acting like it is beneath one’s dignity and like the noobs in the thread should be so thankful that the “expert” has come to share his genius and ignoring everything already posted (while getting so shredded doing the “best possible” Allied strat that he quits after J2) is not arrogant at all.  :roll:

What’s truly arrogant is to ignore posts and posts of evidence showing the dire situation the Allies are in and posting “It wasn’t broken” while providing 0 evidence to support that claim. (Well, maybe it’s more of a troll)

Which games did these “people” use bids for Pac 2e? Who won?  What were the basic strats that saw the most use? How much were the bids? Were they for US land units? Did Japan move to SZ 14 like this thread describes in any of them? Were bids used in Pac 2e for US land units before this thread?

Probably it would be best for all if you just admitted your very presence in this thread at all is merely waiting for opportunities to attack me due to our history. But it would be almost as good if you just went away, you clearly are not interested in adding anything productive.

[Zhukov44]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Hard to say on the bid issue, I think a DD could help  by pushing it back to J5, but I’m hesitant to look into that for two reasons; first, in the couple games where it was pushed back to J5, Japan still had odds in the 70s, (I think I wrote a little bit on this page 3 or so), and second, Krieg made it sound like setup changes were a last resort, which a bid basically is (and bids wouldn’t be official anyways). Reason three (I know I said two), is that if in 2e the mainland strat is as good as it was in OOB, the US bid will not solve the mainland problems. However, I haven’t really seen any reports on the traditional strat for 2e, but unless it is even easier for Japan than OOB, this USA crush seems to need to take precedence in the order of fixin’.

The bid is surely at least 12, possibly 14 or more.  If there was an 11-12 ipc land unit bid to the USA, then they could have around 65% to counter W. Canada.

If that is sufficient to fend off Japan, then they wouldn’t have to sacrifice their fleet.  However, if Japan so much as fakes an intention to Hollywood, then the first USA buy needs to be all land units.  This is all less than ideal for Allies and would need to be rectified by a bid to China.

The inf/art bid on WUSA would have some use to Allies, but not the kind of direct immediate use you would get from bidding that inf/art to China.

I don’t have any principled objection to using bids to fix this.  After all, it’s normal to place bids in the place where you need extra units.  But the bid itself would have to be pretty high.

17-18 bid for Allies?  That’s what I’m thinking but only experience could flesh it out.

However a rule change isn’t objectionable in itself either, as long as we’re aware we’ll still be using bids to achieve game balance.

-Give USA 5-10 extra AAs (not sure 5 is enough, but 10 probably is).
-Give USA a “Militia Movement” inf bonus if Japan invades North America
-Restrict Japan’s pre-war movement to 4/7/16/24/23/33, or at least restrict the movement of Japanese land units to those boundaries.

The last suggestion, while definitely useful, is the least effective because USA still has to all of their surface ships on USA1 as blockers.

OR we integrate USA’s vulnerable predicament into the bid structure.  Kind of a raw deal for novices, but experts would get to have some fun playing Hollywood!

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

With that bid as USA I would personally still block Alaska to be safe; Japan could concievably just transport into W USA J4 if Alaska is held, although you are right in that it would make it MUCH harder for Japan.

Good point about USA still needing to buy all land. More USA defense would mean that USA has to use less blockers like you said, which makes the 14 move less devastating.

I am not saying that people who use bids are playing it wrong, I am simply saying that bids won’t be the solution for fixing the official game. I don’t recall much discussion about bids in Alpha 2 global, and I don’t recall much evidence behind that claim that KJF was too powerful (and lo and behold Alpha 3 seems universally accepted to be too easy for the Axis). I know playtesting wasn’t super thorough on Pac 2e, but at the same time, I have some confidence that there can be a fix that will make bids not absolutely necessary. After all, if we can find a value of a bid that we are confident will fix the game, why can’t we find a rule change or two that also fixes it? Am I guaranteeing that the next fix will make bids unnecessary? No. But with some examination of what Japan’s fortunes are with the mainland strat in 2e (which I have seen nothing about so far on the forums), I think there is a pretty good shot of getting a balanced game.

I was thinking of adding 10 AA a while ago, but that isn’t very subtle.  :-) It will do the job on the USA crush though. Perhaps if the Japanese move a land unit to West USA, USA can spend a free (50?) IPC on land units immediately to defend, kind of like the militia you were talking about. That way there is NO way USA could use the extra units against Japan unless Japan triggers it, and then  the focus can shift to the mainland strat if need exists.

If anyone knows of any play reports from Pac 2e where Japan does the traditional strat, if you could post some links it would be really helpful to the discussion.

[atease]

How about a few UK land troops in Canada to help balance the odds? Without industries or transports nearby, their only purpose would be to improve odds of USA in winning that battle. Basically the same solution than in Europe with the french units in London.