Submarine vs submarine (surprise strikes)

@simon33 I have no idea why they didn’t go w/ the Scot fighter . I let them pick, and i think i smoked most of the stuff they had first round (the DD didn’t do much on its own), and the luftwaffe got the rest on T2. That was when i decided to not attack early anybody i wasn’t already at war with…

I tend to think the best solution to SBR is making interceptors and escorts roll at 2. Otherwise it’s too difficult to defend against SBR. Sure a large escort force nullifies the defence but it also ties up a lot of planes on SBR.

This fix is also in Balanced Mod.

A bit houseruley, but you could simply have the UK be a single economy but still two capitals, that way Japan could destroy Calcutta, then after the UK collects again, Germany finishes them off in London. You also need to make Moscow less attractive (G40 was created with the intention of Sea Lion and a more successful Burma campaign to be possible), so additional national objectives are needed for the USSR, with a combination of a means to make China more difficult for Japan, to prevent a Moscow-Rush or Dark Skies Strategy from always taking place.

Another thing is, the allies need simple and also possible to obtain victory conditions, so perhaps this:

Europe Victory: The Allies control 1 original European Axis Victory City; Calcutta and Sydney still under Allies Control
Pacific Victory: Japan controls no originally Pacific Allies Victory Cities; Moscow and London still under Allies Control

@teslas:

This is not a houserule board, but I can’t help it.

“Does not help Moscow.”

Yes it god damn does. The first time you SBR Mosocw you’re taking off from Eastern Poland. Maybe the second time, too.

“Does help Calcutta.”

Not really. Bombers are probably coming from a Kwangsi air base after J2. The only time it’d help them is on J2 itself.

Speaking of which, I usually don’t bomb Calcutta. The potential loss of a strat bomber sucks, and they’re not building more than 2-4 units a turn anyway after UK1, so the first six damage doesn’t matter at all. And then just a couple turns later, their income is so low (2-7/turn) that they’re not building anything that matters much anyway. This is only a very minor influence, but it might matter: if you bomb it, you’re bombing what will be your own factory.

To comment on this part that you added to your original post… once captured, the Major IC with max damage will immediately downgrade to a Minor IC with max damage, so if I really want to use it… it will only cost me 6 IPCs.

@ShadowHAwk:

@aequitas:

90 % of the time I would attack a lone BB or a loaded/empty Carrier.

6 ipc’s vs 16 to 20?
Yeah I’m in!

It depends a lot where the BB or carrier is as well. Near a friendly naval base no point you damage the BB and then what. If it is not then you also force it to retreat.

Chances of a sub vs a BB are not that great, VS the carrier it is pretty ok ish.

Exactly, this is where I got my 90% from. It should be a good opportunity and not a suicide run.
The possibility to cause damage and not to drop water on a hot plate!

@aequitas:

90 % of the time I would attack a lone BB or a loaded/empty Carrier.

And sometimes the dices got their own way.

Never tell me the Odds! :-)

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

This has been noted somewhere else on this forum but I can think of countless video games i have bought, played for about a month then have 6 or seven different patches to correct the game etc. These are downloaded for free. Making changes to the dynamics and rules of a board game is no different. It is a patch for the board game. It could even be classed as an expansion for a board game which you would normally pay for if it was a video game. Let the creators do their thing. Its their project they can do what they want. There will be a final version, just be patient.

AAlife -

I tend to use a lot of the Infantry / Armor / Planes.

Never used a significant amount of ships.