Is this Balanced?

thanks! you rock!  :-D

@cressman8064:

Another idea to add to this tread is to play Pacific1940 with every nation having the “Improved Shipyards” technology. This technology will be included in the global game anyways, but by giving it to every nation in the Pacific only game it turns out to really help the allies. If you havn’t heard, this technology makes all subs, transports and destroyers -1 IPC, and all crusiers, Aircraft carriers and Battelships -2 IPCs. Since the allies generally will be building more ships to counter the Japs, it allows America to build up faster but at the same time also gives the same advantage to Japan if they choose to go for heavy naval builds.
I played a game testing this change and I as Japan still performed a massive Jap1 attack. America built destroyers and crusiers like they were going out of style and while Japan was mopping up the DEI and India America was threating the rest of the Pacific and Japan herself with massive fleets. ANZAC was also able to build 2 subs from turn 1 and they can become a real thorn in the DEI.

I really like this idea Cressman. While the OP’s idea could work if Allies weren’t allowed into the USSR, it’s simply too complicated for me, as I already fail to follow a rule or two. :roll:

However, Cressman’s idea could work, as the Allies have strength in what they BUILD, and Japan has strength in what it already HAS. A bid could work too, though.

@SSPanzer:

Yes well forgoing a J1 attack is out of the question, and giving the US 40 IPCs up front is a bid, which is not optional on this forum. The question posed is objectives, our group prefers to give a few bonus objectives here and there, so if you would like to contribute please address the topic at hand.

Well, the option I mentioned simply allows the US to use their wartime NO right away in the case of a J1 DoW, which is not technically a bid since there would be no placement of units beforehand, it just gives the US 57 IPCs to spend on their first turn instead of the OOB 17; leaving the rest of the game untouched.

I mentioned it since your second US NO gives the US extra IPCs but basically increases the OOB US NO from 40 to 45; which, as Tralis stated, doesn’t do much for the US as they can’t really build much more with 5 extra IPCs per turn besides accumulating it for later use anyway as the US needs boats and planes to contest Japan on the water and actually get their land units in range of anything.

The Chinese NO is significant for China, but I don’t think that’s necessarily bad as China still does relatively poorly against Japan.  The UK NO would allow for 1 extra infantry per turn for UK, which will also be further annoying to Japan.  However, I voted that it will help the Allies, but not much because with the J3 India Crush method, 2 extra infantry to India will not make that much of a difference, and the couple extra infantry that China can accumulate will still only delay the Japanese a little.

Using a J1 DoW with the intent to take out India will indeed work.I pose it to you that this is what the designers had in mind anyway, as its the only way for Japan to truely have a shot at winning. The real game is what happens after India falls. Japan must take one more VC and hold it. The games ive played vs a J1 DoW have come down to an arms race for navies and airforces, usually resulting in a stalemate until someone gets too tired an screws up. India must fall, and this makes it a much more realistic game , as Britian didnt play much of a role in this theater anyway. BTW (subs, infantry and fighters are key to US/ANZAC defenses after Britian falls). All that said, it is important that the British and Chinese kill as many aircraft as possible before they die, Yunnan and Burma must be held onto if you want to delay the J3 fall of India until J4…allowing the other Allies a chance to build up another turn while Japan is out of position.

@SgtBlitz:

@xzorn:

Once the Japanese have all of China and India and Australia, and the Germans and Italians can attack the US, the game is over anyway. Conquering the US is feasible, but it won’t be that deciding factor that turns the tide. The axis will have already gotten the permanent upper hand.

Yes, but this scenario ISN’T possible with the Pacific game, as the US has only ONE FRONT to deal with.  There has to be some rule that lets Japan grab as much as she can BEFORE the US enters the war b/c she’ll HAVE to have equal footing for there to be a “fair” game.  Otherwise its just fighting against the dice the whole time.

No doubt xzorn was talking about the combined game.

I second that, very good post.