I’ve never done it myself, but my impression is that the game is severely imbalanced in favor of Japan, so start with a 30-50 IPC bid for the Allies, and revise from there.
Pointlessly Broken
-
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… -
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.
-
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 zonesmight work. -
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%.
-
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?
-
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.
-
@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.
-
Has this been fixed yet?
-
It wasn’t broken.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
@Imperious:
What’s truly arrogant is to ignore posts and posts of evidence
Thats just it. The ‘posts and posts’ are from you where evidence does not count because you posted it. You take too much liberty with the truth and quantity does not have a quality no matter how many times you post.
That’s arrogant.
Liberty with the truth? Where? Please provide evidence supporting your claim. (This is the point where IL’s arguments fail, when actual evidence is brought into the equation.) I have backed up everything I have said, and in fact I could have taken an even stronger position, and the evidence would have still supported that, especially since Zhukov’s Japanese moves were posted.
What’s really arrogant is to support your insulting and baseless trolling personal attacks with 0 evidence and act like your personal credibility is enough. Looking at Lucas McCain’s account shows us that your credibility is nonexistent.
-
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.
That’s an interesting one; it’s hard to say but it seems like they are of even less use to USA than the AA guns would be for an offensive strategy, but still quite effective for defense.
-
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 catch. Lol so much of the problem is related to Japan being 3 spaces from SZ1. The Japanese could put their main fleet in sz1 on J3. But ideally Japan wants to be in sz10 on J3, so if they can’t hold both that’s an inconvenience, since the combined Allied fleet might be a threat to the Japanese fleet w/o the benefit of air support.
If the J4 landing is unstoppable, I guess USA could sacrifice 3 naval units to block Alaska. Reason enough to increase the bid even more.
-
Maybe a game where the competitive players’ bid ends up being around 4 or so after lots of playing is balanced enough, but if we start getting into the 20s, which it sounds like, I think as long a Larry and Krieg are willing to make a rules change, I think the change would be for the best.
To me a major problem here that I don’t think has been addressed is how easy this USA crush is. There’s really not a ton of adjustment that needs to be made while running it.
-
You don’t need a bid in the 20’s to stop KUSAF from working too effectively. You’re just trying to make your case that you are so brilliant that you found a glitch in the game that needs a bid of 20+ to fix and that the creators of the game need to change the rules because you are so clever.
But as Zhukov has repeatedly pointed out, as I have also, the game is already a bit unbalanced in favor of Japan - always has been. So you can cook the Allies with KUSAF. Big deal - you can also cook them by wailing on China and the UK, and then ANZAC. OOB was much more imbalanced, and J2 and J3 attacks made no sense, although the designer of the game wanted it to be a hard decision. This is all VERY well documented on these boards. One guy studied these matters much more thoroughly than you are right now. Kaufstick was his name - he’s from Ohio. He also posted about these matters EXTENSIVELY on harrisgamedesign.com. You can probably read all about it on either website.
Other people who have ideas that clash with yours seem arrogant because you yourself are so proud and stubborn. You won’t listen to IL’s pointing out that maybe you are arrogant. You arrogantly argue with him about why he must be wrong, or point out negative things about him, as if that proves that you are not arrogant.
I’ve already demonstrated that a couple of infantry is all that’s needed. I see you are all talking about the need to park in Z10 on J3, thanks to my ANZ infantry strategy dramatically changing the odds, if Japan does not park in Z10. Zhukov is making a lot of the same conclusions that I did (and I acknowledge that he is taking it much farther and working on strats, which I couldn’t because you wouldn’t work with me). Zhukov happens to be one of the other elite players on this site.
-
That said, the whole game is quite silly.
Russia doesn’t exist.
UK fleet is trapped in Z39 and can’t go west.
There is no Canadian army whatsoever.
USA doesn’t have the ability to shift resources within its own country. You’re playing with half a USA with no flexibility. Ground units from WUS can’t go to CUS or get away anywhere.
WUS is a capital, and the USA ceases to exist if it is captured.The whole game is just unrealistic, and we only played it in 2010 while we were waiting for the other half to come out in September.
I understand the fun of trying to solve a puzzle, and I’m not laughing at you guys for doing that. But vonLettow, you shouldn’t have been such an a-hole when I came along wanting to enjoy trying to solve your puzzle.
Suggested Topics
