Posts made by eddiem4145

How a cheaper Navy helps the allies is this. The US comes in after turn 4. With a cheaper navy, namely transports, Japan could be a real threat to Australia, forcing the US to pay attention to it, making it historically accurate.

The US paying some attention to Japan helps the Germans.

Lastly, IMHO, the game is close enough that these changes don’t ruin the game. But seeing your point, to go along with this, you would also have to fix the sub problem which is horrible. The advantage Germany had in the beginning of the war with their subs just doesn’t exist in the game. They need to make the subs more stealthy, like rolling the dice to locate them before attacking them, (destroyers would have a better chance than other units) and greatly expanding the areas they can convoy. Also giving the Germans a wolf pack advantage that the US copies and made use of much later in the war against the Japanese.

This whole incredible aspect of WW2 was somehow left out of the game.  A real shame. That would bring some balance.

Fixing the submarine rules without drastically changing the rules is pretty simple. The idea comes for the World at War game which specialized in rules that were extremely historical.

The basics of that rule were that planes, capital warships had to roll to find the sub on a 1-2. That represented the chance they caught them on the surface. Destroyers had a much better chance of finding the subs on a 1-4. Representing finding them on the surface and tracking them underwater.

Convoy raiding zones stretched across the Atlantic. Sub also could not defend or attack with capital warships.

They also had different levels of radar and counter radar technologies that the allies and Germany competed. If Germany had level one counter radar, it was harder to located the sub. If the allies had radar level 1, it made it easier to find the subs. They also had sub pens that gave them greater protection when parked along the French and German coast.

The answer is simple. The game World at War had it right. You had to roll to find subs first. Destroyers had an advantage at finding subs. Also the convoy disruptions sea zones covered much of the Atlantic. They also included sub pens that made it hard to attack them when stationed along the German and French coast.

Once found, you basically had one chance to attack them. Historically, the vast majority of subs in the US who submerged against destroyers and were followed for a great length of time, ended up escaping.

In Germany, most of them that were destroyed were destroyed while on the surface. The US and Britain were also able to cover to much of the sea by the time they came up with longer range aircraft.

Also, they developed more sophisticated radar towards the later part of the war that made it much easier to locate subs even when they submerged, but that is technology. In fact, the game World at War incorporated Radar and counter radar in their technology.

Please someone send me some info or links regarding subs coordinating attacks with friendly capital warships.

My post was completely misunderstood. I didn’t mean subs fighting against capital warships, but subs fight with, that is on the same side.
Another words, US subs coordinating with US capital warships. I always understood subs fought by themselves and never with capital warships.

If anyone has a link to videos or webpages please let me know. Just the info would be OK and then I can look it up.

I always have been disappointed in what I see as the minimization of subs in this game. Although it is much better now, still, playing other versions of this game, (World at War) and expansions for Axis and Allies throughout the 90’s still leaves me disappointed.

Does anyone have any links to anything that indicate subs fought with capital warships. My influence has always been that subs only fought or conducted operations among subs only and there were never any naval battles that were coordinated with subs.

I know some subs were used by the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, but since no capital warships were involved, they really did their own thing. They certainly did not coordinate with the air craft.

Finally, someone else who agrees Navy’s are to expensive. I will be looking at this site when I have time.

I really like the idea of the transports getting a change to evade. Not sure how realistic that is, but I will definitely be giving it some thought.

Variance

No way were they ever going to take over India, Australia or the Western third of the United States, but yeah it is a game.

I beg to differ. And there is no way to know for sure, but from what historical reference I have, I do understand the massive resources the Japanese spent in an offensive war against the US Navy. As I understand it, once the US conducted the Doolittle raid, which was inconsequential at best, and almost impossible to pull off again, the Japanese over reacted and attempted to create a defensive perimeter in the Pacific. If they fought more defensively in the Pacific and focused on India, it very well could have fallen. The question of course is how much damage would have been caused in the Pacific. Not much in my humble opinion.

We know that attempting to build there defensive perimeter to far out, cost them ever taking India or anything else. That is the beauty of the game. Starting at a point of historical accuracy, then be allowed to do something different.

If any of you ever played World at War, I think many of there concepts played well into the historical aspect of things while keeping the game simple enough. Especially the French idea.

I agree with most of everyone’s ideas except of course the problem is always keeping it simple, however in Global, I think there is a lot more room for historical accuracy while keeping it simple.

Overall I really think the game could have achieved the desired changes we now see without some the NO’s being as silly as I think some of them are.

Did anyone here play World at War. They were working on an online game version, like triple A but it took years for the first version to come on line, and years of promises for the 2nd version. Many of us paid in advance for the online version never to see it fully developed and out money gone.

I expect when Axis came out with its Europe/Japan/Global versions, it put them out of business.

With that said it is worth reiterating the cheesiest thing about Axis, by a landslide is the 6VC rule for Japan. Does anyone play without that rule.

Making it an official rule or change was my initial intention. But due to the lack of support I don’t intend on pushing this idea. I would like to see at the very least the cost structure for the Improved Shipyards as the default or make that tech, along with all other techs easier to get.

My last post to you, I thought would be the end of it but all of a sudden I started defending what my arguments were as I felt they were being incorrectly referenced.

I will wait as see if there are many games being played without the 6VC rule and hope to find some people to play with without that rule on Triple A before I make any more arguments regarding this.

Unfortunately I won’t be able to play on triple A for a while, that is until I have spent sufficient amount of my free time with my wife.

I do agree that: Quote The NO, however, is ONLY 5 IPC!!! I can’t see how you really think 5 bonus ipc are having any effect on the grand scheme in the pacific.

I would agree with that statement. I have addressed this several times and it keeps being brought up as though I think otherwise.

There is more than this way (reducing the cost of ships) to increase action in PTO:
1- Increase IPCs (from 1 to up to 3 IPCs) value for “0” and “1” IPC islands.
2- Give a random (2 to 4-5-6? IPCs) but valuable one time “Prestige” IPCs bonus for each islands group conquered.
In both case, giving more IPCs for PTO islands territories let the Japan and USA with more money and more ability to buy ground and naval units for this campaign.

I definitely would have preferred this to the 6VC rule

Mr Roboto,

The Post you read that was to Uncrustable, where I mentioned your name, (I shouldn’t have), was in reference to an earlier response you gave to me. I think your last posts to me were fine and reading that might have set you off. My apologies.

I am trying to be less foreful in my posts.

Imperious Leader,

I understand your point that if you make Naval units comparable in cost to land units, that could happen. So I guess it depends on how much you lower them.

I unfortunately realize that many games would have to be played without the 6VC rule to prove or disprove my case. These days I only play with my son and 4 games have taken more than 6 months to play. We are both experienced AA players. I also realize I would need to play numerous games with other players without the 6VC rule.

Excuse me? I’m just not able to address your points, because you are not giving any points except “it has been done before”. You are proposing to lower the navy cost, although there are no problems at the moment with the cost of naval units. So I don’t understand this proposal in the first place.

If I make a Post to long, it has become evident to me, it is not read thoroughly. It feels like you didn’t even read my last post to you otherwise you would not have responded the way you did. I gave my reasons for lowering naval units, then opted not to repeat myself to those who categorized my reasons as, “you don’t lower costs just because it was done before”, then reiterated my reason to you because you asked me too politely.

So I will summarize my reason very quickly. I’m sorry, I don’t have time to reargue the same points again and again.

The more expensive you make something, the less likely you are to buy it. The less expensive you make something the more likely you are to buy it. The gains in the Pacific are set, so from that point, the cheaper you make ships, the more you are going to buy them. If you got rid of the 6VC rule, I believe you would see action in the Pacific diminish to a point that people wouldn’t like it. That is my opinion and I understand not enough games have been played with others without the 6VC rule to prove that. Â

I addressed the other NO’s in my last post to you.

Mr. Roboto,

What stays true, however, …So the fact remains, that reduced navy costs, especially transports, will still hugely benefit the axis early on.

I am writing this politely. This is the 2nd time I have said I addressed this already, so I will be more specific again. I don’t disagree with that point. I FEEL that the benefit would be offset sufficiently by the US coming in with cheaper transports but I could be wrong. It depends on how much cheaper you make them. If you make them as cheap as I suggested, I did say, acknowledging you may be right, that such a change might have to come only with a new edition where the necessary rebalancing would have to occur. If I made that point to someone else and not you then I apologize.

Hm, I read this part 4 times now and have to admit I still don’t understand it.
So putting it simply, US and Japan, once players became proficient at the game with each new edition, realized that it was not economically efficient to go on the offensive in the Pacific. This was always a common complaint with each edition. I brought up the Pacific NO’s and the 6VC rule to point out there purpose as evidence that Naval units are still to expensive. As without them, in my humble opinion, you would see Naval action in the Pacific greatly diminish.

Now separating them as you wish, the 6 VC rule forces Naval Action the most in the Pacific between the US and Japan. Like you I hate the rule. And I have responded to others who have argued that without it, the Pacific again become a wasteland by arguing that reducing all Naval cost further would make that rule not necessary. That was other people’s argument. Then I read the posts on “The aberration of defenseless transports” and responded to those arguments that reducing transports along with all Naval units was the answer.

Now the other Pacific NO’s. I don’t like them, but it is pure preference. I have my reasons but I don’t want to start a new argument but I understand why people like them. I would make them different but again don’t want to start a new argument. Overall I love the game, the changes to the 2nd edition like improved shipyards that made Naval Units even cheaper, ect…

Uncrustable,

So in the original AA, once the US lost China, which was automatic and quick on turn 2, the US had only $32 IPC. There choice in building a Navy for the Pacific was, a one hit battleship and one transport for a total of $32 IPC’s, there entire income for one turn. The US could not even afford to buy 1 Carrier, one Transport, and one plane. UK’s income was at $30 and immediately lost significant territory on turn 1. The Germans were at $32 and that included all of Italy’s income. Japans income with the Philippines, all the DEI, Burma and China was less than $34

Today, the income on the board of all the nations is more than doubled. Battleships are now $20 and are two hit battleships instead of one, (yes, in the past one submarine could sink a Battleship), we have lower cost units like Destroyers, Cruisers, Cheaper AC’s which are now 2 hit Carriers instead of just one hit, Planes $10 instead of $12, and slightly cheaper Transports, and Subs.

And now with the newest edition, we have Improved Shipyards as a tech making everything else cheaper.

So the cost to actually build a Navy is significantly cheaper from the perspective of getting something on the board you can use without spending all of your income. These changes came slowly, not at once.

There are many ways to make Navy’s cheaper. Buy lowering there costs, coming up with lower cost units, and raising the income value of the Nations. Doing a little of all three put together is a significant change. From an economics point of view, if I have $10 and I want to buy $10 worth of stuff, whether you reduce the cost of the stuff of increase the amount of dollars I have, the effect is the same. The cost of what I want to buy has been reduced.

So we went from the US having to use 100% of its income to buy a one hit battleship that attacks at 4 and defends at 4, and one transport,

To being able to spend only 50% of it income and being able to buy a destroyer, a cruiser, a sub, and two transports with improved shipyards. The price of naval units have come down drastically.

And even if what you say is true, it is illogical. Tanks were increased to 6, does that mean they should be further increased? Bombers were decreased from 15 to 12 (2nd biggest change after the BBs), following your logic it would make sense to further reduce them.

I never reasoned that you should reduced the cost of naval units because they have been decreased. If fact I made that point to Mr. Roboto and declined further arguments regarding this since he was not able to address my points as opposed to re-categorizing my arguments as something silly.

OR…maybe you should accept that you are in the minority. At the end of the day it is ones opinion vs another.
That is obvious to me. Think I was acknowledging that by referencing Toblerone’s last response to me.

Maybe the problem is you are on here arrogantly stating that your idea is simply better and anyone against it must be daft. (a touch of sarcasm here to drive home the point, i hope you realize), but as i said, they are all opinions.
Early one, I became concerned I may have come across that way, but I then started responding to someone else doing that to me. So se la vie. I will make a better attempt to not come on so strong.

The biggest hurdle you face trying to get others too ‘see’ your side of the fence, is the fact that the current system works very well, and is very balanced, fun and popular. Your side of the fence has simply never been put to the test, maybe, instead of ranting on here. Create a system yourself, and balance the game around it, test it, release it to the public for more testing, provide after action reports, etc…

I have. I have played years with naval cost structures similar to the new Improved Shipyards tech cost. I at some point began to argue a more dramatic reduced cost that I have not yet thoroughly tested. But as I am finding out, everyone plays with the 6VC rule on triple A. I believe, just an opinion, if people did not play with that rule, they would be more receptive to the idea of lowering the cost of Naval units even more. Just my opinion, because without the 6VC rule, though I don’t think the Pacific would be a wasteland, I think naval action would greatly diminish due to the resources required to mount a Naval campaign, although it is much better now.

To all others reading these Post,

It is obvious to me that the new Global, Pac and Europe put Xeno games and World at War out of business. So before people think I am hating the game, understand that axis and allies is the greatest game I have ever played and I love the new changes. It is so great, I stopped playing World at War and couldn’t find anyone to play it.

But the 6VC rule was such a disappointment, as I recently downloaded Triple AAA, I was hard to find people to play without it. At that point I was inundated with the argument that without it, there is no action in the Pacific and the Allies get the advantage. Then came the post “The Aberration of the defenseless transports” and I thought I could get people to support the idea of an even more cheaper Naval units for future editions.

But as Toblerone pointed out, I think I came to strong with the idea.

But I more than love the game.

So without turning this into a journal, let attempt to address your point in a simple manner. I would appreciate you trying to understand my point.

I was talking about your experience in the second edition. I’ve not played A&A before the 2nd edition, so I have no idea about the changes that have been made earlier. And frankly, they don’t matter. You don’t make a balance change now, just because it has been done before. That’s not rational.

So my reasoning to change anything was never simply because it has been done before. If that were my reasoning, I would agree, it would be very irrational. So the fact that you came back with that argument to my point, I hope would explain to you why the energy it takes to make a point to you is just not worth it.

So I will address a few of your points that don’t require me to make the same argument over and over again or address silly tangents.

The fact that it has been consistently done with each new edition from the 80’s including all expansion packs and Axis and Allies alternatives throughout the decades was pointed out only to show you that I didn’t just dream up the idea that Navy’s are too expensive. If you think Naval costs are just right now, I wouldn’t consider you a fool for thinking so.

I think there is evidence that Navy’s as a whole are still to expensive but I would save my arguments for that, for someone a little more rational.

So it’s not only the act of conquering London. It’s the threat that comes with it and that trails a lot of other problems for UK.
All ready addressed this. Not interested in a, “yes it is, no its not” argument. Besides, I didn’t even totally disagree with you.

Reducing the navy cost will always benefit the one that has the superiority. So at the start of the game, the axis will benefit hugely. Of course in the late game, this benefit will shift to the Allies. I’m just having serious doubts that the allies will be able to reach the late game in that situation.

Well, its just the opposite. I can see based on what your wrote, why you came to that conclusion, but look, I am an economics and finance guy. I can see the logic you followed but its wrong. If the cost of each naval unit doubled, then the nation with the biggest navy to start, has the advantage of that change. If the cost of all naval units if cut in half, it helps that start with the smallest Navy.

I disagree with you here. I’m not sure what you define as the “pacific problem”. I think the problem is that Japan can reach Victory conditions very fast, forcing US to spend heavy and especially early there. This eliminates choices.

Without the NO, Japan would have 5 IPC less. Wow. That’s not really a big deal. It would mean Japan earns 65 instead of 70 with DEI (and of course the majority of China mainland and Philip and so on). Do you really think this would change the whole situation in the pac? To the point where it “would see minimal action”?

So the Pacific Problem is this; After a new edition would come out, that made it easier or less economically inefficient for the US of Japan to go at it in the Pacific, after a few years, in tournaments and home games, the Pacific would slowly again see very minimal action because it was inefficient for either side to go on the offensive in the Pacific and only play defensively there. Since this brought a level of play not consistent with history, the complaint would resurface. You could disagree without being irrational, that with this new set up, that would not happen. Let me partially agree. The way this game is now set up, it guarantees the Pacific would not be a “wasteland” once the DEI were taken.

But, without the NO’s and especially the 6VC, there have been many on this post who have argued it would send the game back to the Pacific being a wasteland. I have been open to those arguments and see how that would still be the case. I don’t want to turn this into a book so I won’t go into why I think it would here.

But understand, that is exactly why the NO’s and the 6VC was introduced. That is why they exist.

I’ve said it before - this is no reason whatsoever. It has been done because the cost might have been too high. That doesn’t justify future cost reduces. Following this argument chain would eventually lead to 1-ipc transporters, because “it has been done over and over”.

So this king of comeback reminded me why I wasn’t going to spend to much time responding to you. My arguments regarding the reasons to reduce Naval units have at the very least, been given some credit by others, even those who disagree. But again, those were with people who were capable of having rational discussions.

I won’t start this post by saying no offense, not that I mean offense, but by no means by the tone and arrogance of your post care if you take offense.

Lowering the cost of Navy, ESPECIALLY transports, is a horrible idea.

You of course have a right to your opinion, but I hate to break it to you, this has been happening with each new version since the 1980’s, and it has only made the game better. So as experienced as you sound, and of course more experience than me, you must have played the first edition for years. Of which case I would expect more sense from somebody in their 50’s. I am in my 40’s and purchased the 2nd edition when it came out.

If you really even doubt that sealion is unstoppable with 4-ipc-transporters, you clearly lack experience in this game.

I will check that out when I get home and list the stats. It is a simple computation of math.

And it doesn’t even matter what G1 does or plans. The sealion threat alone leads to an auto-buy UK1 every single game - all inf.

I addressed that as a potential problem that I have not thorough examined which is why I acknowledged that potential problem as something that MIGHT have to happen only with a new edition.

Japan would benefit too. Since their navy/airforce is so much bigger, UK-Pac will still not start building a fleet (since it’s senseless, just a waste of IPC). Anzac will have problems with that single Minor factory, forcing them to build the queensland minor way earlier than usual. Meanwhile Japan can save the IPC spent for all the minor factories usually built in FIC, Kwangtung, Malaya and Shantung and just build transporters.

What benefits one benefits the other. The more dramatic the change, the more potential problems of the current situation. It depends how dramatic the change. I have heard many say they simply start with both the US and Japan with Improved Shipyards tech. That by the way makes transports $6.

I’m not even halfway through the arguments against lowering navy cost. I don’t even understand why you’d want to do that in the first place.

It has been done over and over again from the first edition until now. Including all the expansions that have ever come out that apparently have had enough demand to be sold in great quantities. The greatest of all was World at War. I am GUESSING that is where improved shipyards came from.

The action in Pacific is not forced by NO.
Uh, that is why they exist. Of all your comments, this makes me think that an inexperienced player is calling me an inexperienced player.

Japan would want the DEI even without the NO (and that said, this NO makes absolute sense!). It is forced by the need of Navy superiority to defend coasts and islands while threatening the opponent.

I will apologize for this. I assumed that those arguing pro or against this point of view have some historical experience with the basic concept of the PACIFIC PROBLEM with axis and allies. The Pacific problem has to do with action in the Pacific once the US gets into the War. In Global it is assumed the DEI, would have been already taken. So up and until the DEI are taken, the Pacific problem does not exist. Also, Global alleviates this quite a bit by the creation of ANZAC. Global is still new and without the NO’s, specifically the 6VC rule, the Pacific would see minimal action, once Japan took the DEI, if both sides played to their greatest strengths.

The relationship in cost between airforce, ground troops and navy is absolutely where it should be. Only few units, namely AAA, submarine and cruiser, are not where they should be.

This is not the case both from a historical perspective and an economic one. The cost of mounting a Naval campaign compared to rewards attained in the Pacific leaves any offensive in the Pacific, specifically (again not talking about the DEI) the US against the Japanese or vice versa as an inefficient use of resources. The US historically spent less than 15% of their resources against Japan. Yet were still able to mount some sort of offensive. To build an offensive Navy to conduct the smallest of offensives in the Pacific by the US would take more than half of their resources.

You don’t have to agree with me but understand I did not come up with this idea. This has been probably the biggest complaint since the 80’s. The improved shipyards as a new tech did not come from the idea that Naval cost were perfect. Many may agree that the new current costs, when you factor how much more IPC’s everyone now has to spend, makes what we have now fine. I disagree, but don’t think people are foolish for thinking otherwise.

You would have to play near 100 games without the 6VC rule and without some of the silly Pacific NO’s to see. But again, you may still rationally disagree.

Pretty vague counter here, ‘others’ and ‘i have seen arguments’. You offer non yourself…

You are right, I didn’t. That was why I referred to others and arguments I have seen. Not sure what you are pointing out. I then offered my opinion, which was listed as an opinion indicating it could hurt and a rebalance might be needed but I didn’t think much would be needed.

But lets be honest here, if Germany can purchase transports for cheap with no other changes to the game, sealion is unstoppable,

So know let me make my argument.
First, lowering the cost of transports is only part of my argument that all naval units are to expensive. So if all naval units were reduced, the UK could counter with naval units or,

If Germany starts out with $30 IPC, and lets say transports are only $4. Instead of 4 transports, Germany can now buy $7. That is 14 units it can transports now instead of 8. I gets an extra 6.

The UK can spend all of its money on infantry, and stack everything it can on London to stop it. How an extra 6 units makes it an automatic? Well I have the game set up at home and will have to look at how “automatic” this is. And if it fails, that is a disaster for Germany.

To the extent it would hurt the UK’s campaign in Africa versus Germany’s failed attempt at sea lion, I don’t know, that is why I said there would probably needs to be some rebalance, but in my opinion, which means I could be wrong, it would only have to be a minor one.

So reducing the cost of transports would require another balance overhaul, one which i highly doubt anyone (maybe except you) wants to go through.

So here, I am going to make reference to the Post, “aberration of defenseless transports” as to the disappointment that exist with the new transport rules. To much to argue and rewrite. It has been said many times over.

The only valid argument you offer, in my opinion, is the 6 VC rule; but this has nothing to do with transports being defenseless or too expensive.

Getting tired of rewriting the same things over and over, but OK, here goes. The purpose of the 6VC rule and other NO’s in the pacific was to FORCE action in the pacific because the way the game has always been set up, the rewards you could obtain by going all out, or spending most of your resources in the Pacific did not justify your costs, so as player became more experience, the Pacific became a wasteland.

This has improved, but not enough in my opinion as we can see these NO’s are still necessary.

In the original, it took the entire income of the US to buy just one “one hit battleship” and one transports. It could not even afford one Carrier, Plane, and transport. So if such a cost was going to be spent, it was spent in getting to Europe where the pickings gave greater rewards.

Slowly this has changed. But no enough in my humble opinion. This is evident in the fact that a new tech. is improved shipyards. But with the tech rules, it is very hard to get and the resources needed to be spent to get it makes it not worth trying.

SO MY POINT: Some say the 6VC rule is necessary for action in the Pacific. To that I say, not necessary if you just lowered the cost of all Navy’s, including transports.

Secondly transports are not at the same high cost. They were reduced by 1

Taking away their defensive ability, but only reducing the cost by one, is actually raising their cost, as the cost of man and material is more expensive. I posted something before about transports in the past actually representing the actual transport ships, landing craft, and escorts. Not going to post it again and others have. But if you didn’t like the image of a naval Army of almost pure transports, AND I ALSO DID NOT, then the answer would have been reducing their cost, since they are now defensive, which would then require more purchases of Naval units to defend them. It would have been a wash.

Third, i assume you only want to reduce the price of transports in global? Either way you do realize that the benefit goes to the axis as sealion is now unstoppable again and the entire game has to be rebalanced. Again. Alpha+1.3.7 all over again. Again.

Others have argued this and I have seen arguments that say this isn’t the case at all. In the case where British resources to stop it would overly hurt it in Africa, I would agree that any drastic changes like I have suggested might have to be reserved for a new edition, but I don’t think much change would be required.

lastly, i gather that you imply increasing the number of VCs that Japan must attain for victory would cause the US to abandon the pacific in favor of a KGF strategy? If that is the case then i couldnt disagree more. Germany is not only in a better position to defend itself from allied assaults, but giving Japan free reign in the pacific is going to cause 1 of 2 things. 1, Japan crush India on the way to the middle east and egypt. 2, Japan dow russia turn 1 and pushes for Moscow, while delaying UK and ANZAC. Japan can do more damage i believe in the early stages if left unchecked. USA is the check.

I usually have to put the caveat, that just because I believe going on the offensive in the Pacific, or all out in the Pacific is foolish does not mean that I support completely ignoring it no matter what your opponent is doing. My point is, and if you are aware of the History of axis games you would know this, the 6VC victory was designed, as well as some of the other Pacific NO’s, to force action in the Pacific. In the original, it took the entire USA’s income for a turn to buy a “one hit battleship” and one transport. They could even buy one Carrier, one plane, and one transport. My point was instead of coming up with all these NO’s, some of which seem unrealistic, they should have just reduced the cost of Navy’s more or a combination of both.

I also do not hear many on here complaining about the pacific vc rules, you seem to be in the minority? Maybe i have been under a rock idk…
Look up the post of the “Chessiest things about Global”. It has been argued better by others better. All Japan has to do is take Hawaii for one turn. All other VC’s are considered automatic for Japan. Then the whole game is won regardless of how Europe is doing. This makes the US spend to many resources in the Pacific to stop the risk of that happening.

Not interested in arguing that point on this post as I believe I have taken the point of this post on a tangent.