Posts made by Flying Tiger

Try moving half of Japanese navy into the Med. While they’re backing up Italy with major force Italy will be contesting Africa.

For fun….
Pretty much 80% builds in pacific. In the atlantic I am just trying to get troops in Africa as fast and safe as possible. IMO if Italy takes Africa game is over. I like to use british for India and Northern europe.

Threatened with death if I lose…
100% European builds.

They spin alot and when they spin the side with the one will be on the bottom because it weighs more than the 6 or 5. You almost always get a 4,5 or 6 when it spins and for me that is probably 15-20% of the time. The rounded edges do it.

I wonder how many of the 45 Allied victories involved a KGIF strategy with zero to minimum pacific investment by America? Maybe 40?

@Funcioneta:

@ithkrall:

we have an agreed balance shift instead of a bid in my group

1 extra UK infantry in Egypt
2 extra Chinese infantry in the areas behind the front
move flying tigers back 1 space so it cant be attacked 1st turn
UK NO requires 4 of canda, egypt etc

that’s our balance tweaks

1 extra uk infantry in New Zealand.

That’s because we are New Zealanders and didn’t like our home country being undefended :) Has yet to come into play though until the game is basically decided.

Seems pretty good

Decent tweaks.

If adding units to the allies to balance the game I would like to see American ships added in the pacific only. Not in Hawaii though, pearl harbor needs to go as planned. A cruiser in wusa would be good start.

Djensen,
Is it unopened and where are you in California? I’m in Simi Valley.

I was thinking about this again today.

Things we know
1. Axis has the advantage.
2. Japan is a monster.
3. KGIF seems to be the best way of winning the war as the Allies. This equates to not much of a pacific campaign because there is not enough $$ for the Americans to go east and west.

If the American NOs were changed to
-Collect 15 ipcs if the allies control 3 of the 4 territories…Alaska, Hawaii, Wake Island and Midway.
-Homeland NO is deleted (east, west, central USA for 5 ipcs)

What would this do?

• America would have a large value NO close enough to reasonably defend. This would put American ships in the pacific for sure. This would lead to a pacific campaign, even if limited.
• This would also get America closer economically to the Japanese.
• There would be enough $$ to go east and west. 53ipcs to America each turn as long as they have this NO.
• Since axis have advantage OOB this will put the allies on an even level with the axis powers.

Don’t just dismiss this idea, think about it.

@Crossover:

Our way to balance the game:

UK gets a factory from the beginning (and may build units in Round 1 there) in India, while NOs are used without any changes. We had very interesting games with that so far.

I like it. There’s got to be a way to get a pacific war going.

For me KGF in A&A terms means all US and UK IPCs vs. Europe. In real terms in the war, the “Europe first” strategy still involved substantial construction and involvement in the Pacific war.

There just isn’t enough money for America to go to both theatres. I think you have to give America a large incentive to go into the pacific. Something that would put America economically above Japan.

I still like changing NOs

For America
-gain 15 ipcs if you own Alaska and Hawaii. (If you ignore Japan they will take one of these territories leaving you with 38 ipcs. If you fight in the pacific you secure Alaska and Hawaii AND you still have a bit of money to send something to Europe. The US fought on 2 fronts in the real war, beleive it or not…… This NO would get USA to a realistic economy.
-get rid of the homeland NO(gain 5 ipcs if you own west, central and eastern US)
-get rid of Hawaii, Midway, Soloman islands NO

What if the bid was for US ships at WUSA? Say a bid of an extra DD or Cruiser could deter an attack from IJN fighter on J1. Maybe this could help promote a global war.

Or how about removing a fighter from the Midway IJN fleet? This would give them 3 and I would not feel comfortable using only 2 fighter vs a BB. This would leave the USN alone in WUSA. This removed fighter could be placed on an island somewhere….

Drastic options, I know, but I thought I’d throw it out there.

State why you think a certain side has the upper hand to win the war.

@axis_roll:

@Zhukov44:

We are just talking about how to balance it in a way that promotes a fun and balanced game where a variety of strategies are plausible, rather than balancing it in such a way that the only reasonable choice is the same old race to Berlin and Moscow.

If you think the game is balanced and fun as it is (ie monster Japan vrs. Allied KGF every game) then great.  I do too…I’d just like to play with a real China and see whether this would open up some KJF possibilities.

Excellent point!  +1 karma

I think this needs to be specified when we speak of balance:

I prefer the former (balance it in a way that promotes a fun and balanced game where a variety of strategies are plausible).

However in my limited (20 games) experience, it is my opinion that this is not possible with the current OOB rules.  In fact, my FTF group has already altered the rules since we live by the above creedo (in RED)

What have you changed? Getting action in the pacific is my main objective. Seems everyone wants bids but you know they will just go towards a KGF, except chinese units and even then we still don’t have pacific action like we should.

@Subotai:

@Flying:

If any bid is necessary I would bid for American ships off of western USA. A bid elsewhere will favor a KGIF.

I really think it is important have the USA fight in the pacific. I’m not saying 100% builds in pacific, but why can’t USA fight in both theatres like in our history books? If you force the Americans to fight in the pacific you get a more interesting game. But right now, as the rules and setup stands, as Allies I am going KGIF every time. That means I play defensively in Pacific theatre as USA. But that is not what happen in history. America was very aggresive in the pacific. Why can’t this game simulate that? Change NOs for USA to all be in Pacific and even possibly put another DD or Cruiser in WUSA. More incentive to fight there and less KGIF strategies.

In the real WW2, US spent approx. 85% of resources against Germany.
A game where KJF is more powerful than KGIF is less historical correct then the current AAR and AA50 setups, which favors KGF as most effective.

I didn’t say anything about a KJF strategy. All I would like to see is a game where it is beneficial for America to fight in both theatres. This would be a more historical game and way more fun. Instead we have a game of 100% builds towards a KGF strategy. I don’t think there is much of a balance problem, still a toss up on who wins the war.  But if I am Japan I can send much of my fleet to the Med and the allies are not sinking the combined fleet of Italy and Japan for many rounds. IMO this is the best counter for a KGF strategy. Italy can do alot of damage to Africa and the middle east , not to mention caucus. If you Use Japan to attack Alaska to take pressure off of a KGF you are wasting your time. You have to go big for that and if you do you lose Asia and the war. Sure you can counter the KGF but there is not enough action in the pacific which IMO is undesirable.

If any bid is necessary I would bid for American ships off of western USA. A bid elsewhere will favor a KGIF.

I really think it is important have the USA fight in the pacific. I’m not saying 100% builds in pacific, but why can’t USA fight in both theatres like in our history books? If you force the Americans to fight in the pacific you get a more interesting game. But right now, as the rules and setup stands, as Allies I am going KGIF every time. That means I play defensively in Pacific theatre as USA. But that is not what happen in history. America was very aggresive in the pacific. Why can’t this game simulate that? Change NOs for USA to all be in Pacific and even possibly put another DD or Cruiser in WUSA. More incentive to fight there and less KGIF strategies.

If the game is played globally (USA fighting in pacific and atlantic) then IMO it is a toss up on who wins the game.

If game is played as KGIF then allies have about a 60/40 edge in victory. But thats just my opinion. My father-in-law tried the polar express move with Japan and he just couldn’t keep up the pressure and take asia so he lost.

Someone said the USA spent 20% of their income for the pacific war. In this game spending 20% on the pacific is like trying to put a band-aid on a severed arm. It may have worked in the real war but it does not simulate well in AA. You could probably go 20% into the Atlantic and secure africa and be a thorn to Italy. Putting 80% into the pacific would slow japan and make a dent(but you would have to be a perfect strategist).

I voted for NO tweaks because I feel to get the true global war you need to make all USA NOs in the pacific. This way they must fight Japan to be strong if they fight KGIF then they will only be collecting 38 ipcs a turn. Sure they could still do a KGIF but it would at least be a bit harder.

IL, I have downloaded the map and it looks great.  I found a printer at work that is on the network that has a continous roll paper on it that is 3’ top to bottom. So I could print out a 6’x3’ map easily(during overtime while no one is there…“insert evil laugh”)

What if I wanted to scale it down to 5 feet? Is that doable and HOW do I do it? I’m not much of a computer guy. I don’t think my table can do 6ft.

In a 3 player game I would prefer…

1- Allies
2-Japan and Italy
3-Germany

@Cmdr:

With more experience under my belt, I have to say that without technologies, the game cannot be won by the Axis.  Germany almost has to get, or at least have the chance to get, Radar to negate the allied bombing runs somewhat.  Also, improved factories are a god-send when recovering from SBR runs (50% cost, so 1 IPC repairs 2 damage!)

Without playing with Technologies, it is far too easy for America to stock up on 9-12 bombers (depending on if Germany puts a factory in France) and just keep the Germans and Italians from ever getting a break!

When not playing with tech what could counter this? The only thing I could imagine is Japan doing SBRs on Russia with 9 bombers of it’s own and hoping Germany can break through to Moscow before it is defeated. Some naval help from Japan in the Med helps alot to keep Italy in the game. I play guys who play a global war so your scenerio will never happen in my games. So far I haven’t heard of anyone using this type of strategy to counter that USA bomber strategy. I’d like to know if it could work. Maybe this should be a thread of it’s own….

USA is too weak production wise

-Gain 15 ipcs if at the end of your turn the value of all American units in Pacific theatre are more than 90 ipcs,not including ICs or AA guns.
(Pacific theatre includes…Alaska, all pacific islands and Pacific ocean)If you really think about it the American people would have been furious if we had not fought Japan after PH. If we are not engaging them then morale should be low and no bonus should be given. This would also get America to its ideal ipc level.

-Gain 5 ipcs if Allied powers control Phillipines

The other 2 NOs are deleted. All American NOs focused on Pacific. If you don’t fight in Pacific you get no bonus.

Yes, this is from “How to balance the 1941 scenerio” thread. I still think this would work. It fixes a couple of things…
1. You are actually fighting in the Pacific. Come to think of it I think that is what actually happened in the REAL war. Crazy, I know.
2. This gets the US to a more realistic income level. We want it to be more historical right?
3. This level of income for US can let them fight in BOTH theaters. Kind of important when we are thinking historical.
4. With the US breathing down Japan’s neck it keeps the Japs out of Russia(theoretically anyway). It also helps the weak representation of China(only getting a few infantry).

@Funcioneta:

@Flying:

After some thought the game actually is balanced. In AAR it was an allied advantage. In AA50 they have balanced the game (50-50 win) by making Japan stronger to counter the KGF strategy.

The real question should be how do we make this a “GLOBAL WAR” and keep it balanced?

I disagree. The allied advantage in AAR was very slim (it vanished playing FTF with at least 4 players) and was possible a global war. 1941 gives monster advantage to axis (mainly Japan). It’s not possible a global war (Asia cannot be hold), only a USA Pacific strat that in fact is the only slim chance allies have to win with balanced skill players.

1942 is another history, maybe India and China can survive, giving a global war and maybe a balanced gameplay.

I’ve read your post like 5 times and I think we are in agreement. AAR has advantage to allies, even if slim. A KGF strategy wins like what 80% of the time in AAR? Japan is weaker in AAR. Now in AA50 you have a much stronger Japan that “helps” to counter the KGF. I’m not saying it would always counter the KGF move but I have moved part of my Japanese fleet to the Med in 2 games so far and the Italian navy has survived long into the game. So if Italy buys a transport then you are going to conquer much of Africa AND pound Caucus EVERY ROUND. This is very effective but the fleet has to survive and Japan is key to this.

So far I have played 4 games. Using the allies I am 1-0-1. Using the axis I am 2-0. I play my father in law who only has about 10% the experience as I do. He has beat me in AAR a couple times though.

My beef with the game is not balance, it is the fact that I know I cannot be defeated by America if I am Japan. America could put 100% of her builds in the Pacific  and it will not begin to hurt me until probably round 5. By then the European theater has probably been decided. So why would America try to fight Japan? Maybe if it goes KGF then Europe will be conquered by round 4? I still think the Americans should get all their NO bonus from the Pacific and it should be increased to get them in the war quicker, this would also be more realistic. If the Americans go KGF then they should get no bonus and only have 38ipc to work with but if they put 80% into the Pacific, get their NOs, then producing 53ipcs or more should be the norm. Wouldn’t that give us a more historical war? With Japan’s strength in 1941 the USA should be producing more to make it fair.

@Imperious:

they had 4 in the pacific, and 4 on the other side.

**hornet,wasp, ranger,**and the Jeep carrier long Island all on the Atlantic side.

Source: common knowledge. sorry no book recommendation.

so US could have 1 in pac, and 1 in Atlantic or just one on Pacific…oh wait it has just one… so its perfect.

So if the US had 8 and their strength can be represented by 1 CV can you explain what the 3 CVs for Japan represent in strength? You would think the Japanese would have to have at least 20 CVs in 1941. The 2 CV and 4 fighters are a good representation for the PH attack but is the 3rd CV necessary?