Posts made by ehenry

@Young:

@Axisplaya:

it was not a challenge, or a pissing contest of any sort. Just a friendly proposition to explore early UK rounds positional play. Just an oportunity for one of us (or both) to learn a few things about this wonderful game.   :wink:

I live in Montreal, so if i know i’m going to be in Toronto for a few days, i’ll sure pm you and try to fix an apointment for a gaming session.

:-)

That would be great, you would love my set-up and the beer fridge is always running (after a few cold ones, we could have that pissing contest).

That’s damn funny

I’ve been experimenting with alternative global setups in an effort to find balance. One setup which has returned favorable results requires fewer rules, not more. Using Alpha2 rules but no national objectives has returned some tight finishes and, so far, balanced results. The caveat of course is that i have a limited set of eyeballs and opponents. From this limited data set i might conclude that all the extra bonus income only muddles and confuses the game.

More testing is needed but i wonder if a true global solution would mean less is more.

America declaring war when London falls seems highly implausible. That’s a long way to go with no allies to help. I don’t see it.

If any Axis power attacked America then i could see a DOW against all Axis powers. Or if China had only one territory left i could see an American DOW again Japan. The current DOW rules are too contrived and unnatural.

I’m a concise gibbering fanboy

I wouldn’t use the extra rules. Too gamey and contrived

Starting a new Global 40 game. Using OOB setup, Alpha 2 rules, NO national objectives! Burma road is used but only artillery purchase is allowed, no additional income.

turn 1 in progress. Germany elected Barbarossa and taking France. Normandy and Southern France were ignored. Italy will take southern France later this turn. U-boats attack British warships with mixed results. German fleet attacked Russian fleet to allow amphibious invasion. Baltic States were taken but Russia drove back the Hun on their turn. Eastern Poland is in Nazi hands. Stacks of six infantry will reinforce from Hungary and Poland.

Japan attacked China, Russia, and continental British and French holdings. The almost the entire Japanese air arm has landed in Manchuria. The Carolines have been abandoned and the fleet is returning via the Phillipines.

Waiting on the ANZAC turn…

THere was discussion a few pages ago about using OOB setup and Alpha2 rules and NO. Has anyone attempted a test? I wonder if that wouldn’t solve the Pacific problem.

Obviously this has the added value of using what’s in the box and not requiring additional printed pages of setups.

Historically the Axis did attempt Barbarossa and not Sealion. THerefore i agree that Russia can be reduced. I don’t see a need for India to be easier.

@Jay:

I would also like to see the US have a trigger for going to war.   I would suggest .

The axis capture of London

Attack on any US territory obviously.

Any attack on Calcutta(inc. ind. bombing) or Australia(any part) .  Including convoying.

Japan attacking Russia , if only to make Japan more likely to stick to it’s treaty.

Also remove the FIC NO for Japan  . But they can attack other Uk/anzac pacific territories and the DEI , solomons ect.  Without bringing US into war.

I like most of these. Not so much the last line.

@kcdzim:

Japan utterly crushes Anzac/UK with free reign of the Pacific.  They confine them to Calcutta and Sydney and convoy raid all income away.  They take EVERY money territory, AND China, and the US STILL cannot enter the war.

THat’s not right. THe complete loss of China should draw America to the fight.

@Cmdr:

What if America could not declare war until one of the following happened:

Calcutta AND Sydney are captured

There were other war entry points but i’m only interested in this one.

I like removing the US3 rule, it’s much too arbitrary for me.

I would expand the Sydney option and say any invasion of Australia. The invasion doesn’t have to be Sydney and it doesn’t have to be successful. Any Japanese attack on Australia should bring America into the fight.

Would these rules be with the OOB setup or the Alpha2 setup?

@edfactor:

Actually but “historically” the west coast only rates a minor IC. I think just downgrade the WC-IC to minor(in global only). All the shipyards that I can think of were on the East coast.

For instance all the shipyards that built US Essex class carriers (all east coast):
Newport News Shipbuilding
Fore River Shipyard
Brooklyn Navy Yard
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
Norfolk Naval Shipyard

The gulf coast. and the midwest as well. The manitowoc shipping company produced submarines, one of which is still moored in manitowoc WI.

I like starting with a minor on the west coast but it seems trivial to upgrade to a major.

@jim010:

Again, if you feel the game is unbalanced - meaning allies always win - give more bomus money to Japan

or

combine the VCs on both maps again, but reduce the number needed by the axis.  13 or 12.

MUCH simpler.

I don’t like bonus money. 13 victory cities across both boards looks intriguing.

And to clarify, this is 13 victory cities across both boards using the current Alpha2 rules and the alpha2 setup?

@Cmdr:

My, unscientific, untested hypothesis is that the rule set for Alpha 2 with only the one modification of using the original setup charts provided with the rules in the box, may balance things out.  That is, one would use the original setup for the global 1940 game, but use the rule adjustments given in Alpha 2. (National Objectives, Non-Aggression Treaty, etc.)

Okay, thank you for expounding on that. must test…

@Cmdr:

I wouldn’t mind trying the OOB setup with the Alpha 2 rule set.  It might work.  The adjustments on the board would be countered by the increased units Japan starts with.

Interesting. Consumers would not lose immediate value on their purchase with an OOB setup. I rather like the handiness of nation setups on each nation’s box cover.

When you suggest using the rules for Alpha 2 do you mean both the combat rules and the National Objectives?

If it performs well in playtest it would certainly resolve the dickering over which units should be added where.

@Cmdr:

One of the reasons the ships were left at Pearl Harbor on cold iron was because they were antiquated world war one battleships, not employing the new technologies available to world war two.  However, Roosevelt knew that Congress would never sign off on a large order of new battleships because he had some already.  By allowing the Japanese to sink the “cruisers” (to convert them into game units) Roosevelt was able to go to Congress and demand new “Battleships” to replace the ones lost at Pearl Harbor.

Why do you think the Aircraft Carriers, brand new, were out at sea when the attack happened?

You really have to stop that conspiracy crap.

THe fact that the battleships were constructed during WW1 has no bearing. The british made excellent use of WW1 battleships against a modern German battleship and defeated it.

If the American battleships were worthless they would not have been manned by thousands of men during peacetime. If the battleships were worthless they would not have been raised, repaired, and resent into harms way.

The carriers were out at sea because they were in fact brand new. They were out training. Japan new the carriers were not present and accepted the plan anyway. Because at the time everyone, including Japan, followed Mahan’s theories and considered battleships the primary fighting force.

You all are encouraged to study up with Dr Zimm’s new book on the subject. The Attack on Pearl Harbor. I regret this forum does not allow links.

Wardog, there is an unfortunate tendency to accept that a broken game is worthy of distribution.

Put some parameters to your testing process. What methodologies are you following? RPS? Kaizan? Your gut feeling? What would be acceptable evidence?

A broken game becomes balanced by solutions, not by fiat from a failure of imagination. Any good playtester knows this.

@mantlefan:

However, playing 10 games, 100 games, 1000 games, etc., where they all seem balanced proves nothing, since only one game needs to be imbalanced to prove that an imbalanced strat exists. One would need to examine EVERY game ever played to prove that imbalance does not exist. Do you agree?

The key here is that Jen has allegedly already proved that imbalance exists, and since she has said that she plays pretty much only on the forums, she probably has this proof somewhere on the forums. All we need is the link to the game where the axis did everything they could and still lost, and then we can conclude that there exists an unbalanced strat.

Dude, if only one game is all it takes then play the game. You are capable of playing one game yes? Why would you accept someone else’s results? In fact you haven’t accepted Jens or mstephens results because you’re still Sisyphussing at failed analogies.

So engage some intellectual curiosity and play a game. Engage in the discussion instead of being oh so proud of stringing some stolen sentences together. Act like an adult. Offer something testable and quit crying that nobody is listening.

Jennifer your posts have been brilliantly insightful.

The next step should be finding a solution. Have you had a chance to consider potential modifications?

You have talked about requiring USA to split income between the boards. Various USA NO have also been discussed.

I regret i haven’t like most of the proposed solutions so far. However, i agree the Mexico NO should die and i would like to add something for Alaska and the Aleutians that Japan could snipe.

Would the above two changes be sufficient? I hope so as they are simple changes but it needs testing.

Otherwise, what about a USA NO that encourages splitting income between the boards? For example, Battle for the Atlantic NO. Each turn America builds a ship in the Atlantic America earns an immediate 5 IPC when the ship is placed.

@mantlefan:

Come on now, that’s the first fallacy you should have learned in the class that made an expert out of you.

Inability to prove the contrary (balance) does not prove the claim (imbalance).

The only thing that can be attempted to proven is IMBALANCE. Why?

Because we can look at a game and see that X side won, and conclude that there was nothing side Y could have done to have a fair chance of winning.

Yet to prove that balance exists, we would need to look at EVERY game and find NO cases where one side was totally incapable of having a fair chance with the moves the other person made.

Essentially, to prove balance exists, you need to prove that EVERY game was balanced (since if one game was imbalanced, balance does not exist), whereas to prove imbalance exists, you need to show only ONE game where imbalance exists.

I don’t claim omnipotence or omniscience, so I can’t see or know every game played. The only thing that can be attempted to be proven is that there exists an effectively unstoppable strategy. It cannot be proven that there does not exist an effectively unstoppable strategy, because EVERY strategy would need to be known to determine that not one was effectively unstoppable.

“Since it has not been proven that the game is not unbalanced, it is unbalanced.”

“Since it has not been proven that Mars does not have beautiful palm beaches, Mars has beautiful palm beaches.”

In terms of logical discourse, what is the fundamental difference between these statements? (None.)

Back to the infantile invalid analogies again. Pity. I briefly thought there was hope for you. Look up straw man.

The point of the exercise is the testing. You cannot test for martian palm trees. You can play a decent number of games and determine outcomes based on those games. The amount of testing you perform will determine if your conclusion is 9% correct,  99% correct, or five nines correct.

Please start testing and leave the debating to the adults.