Posts made by The Fire Knight

Hey, does it matter which side of the U.K. buys tech chips? Or can whoever has money left over do it?

@robbie358:

Yeah, the kicker is that the other side has to actually take the territory, you can’t just move into your ally’s territories and call them yours.  They have to take it, and then you re-take it with your ally’s capital in enemy hands for this to happen.

really. I have always played where you can just take it from them.

@Imperious:

I still think the simplest solution to balancing the Pacific theater is to not allow Japan to attack any power but China its first turn.

I said this too except for the first 3 turns. By that time the allies got enough and Japan wont capitalize on its strongest advantage with is on J1, followed by J2 and J3.

You don’t need any changes in the set up and it is the most KISS idea proposed. All these changes are based on a faulty setup from design. It is not historical and so japanese assets are too far forward at this stage in the war and it leads to all sorts of complications because it is too tempting.

Of course nobody tried to address this other than me and now you.

Japan was not in a position to attack USA or UK in 1939, nor Russia. They just got started with full scale war in China since 1937.  The representation of her air-forces is totally ridiculous. I can’t believe the playtesters didn’t say something about this, because it makes no sence for them to have so many planes.

I don’t know but for some reason these games always have some problem about them requiring ‘fixes’. Perhaps the games are coming out too fast and since they don’t want realistic rules, the candyland approach causes many problems in the final outcome because its a faulty foundation with cards built on top and it can’t be sustained. If its not a production issue then you get this.

You should be a play tester. That would fix a ton of issues. How do you become one?

Wait, what is this? Japan was short on mech too? I got my 6 tac bombers 2 like back in Feb but if they’re dolling out mech id like in on it!  :-D What’s their email again?

I think cruisers are fine how they are. Tac bombers too. I buy a few cruisers as america for bombards, and a lot for england once the german navy is dead. Although destroyers are more hit efficient, cruisers also bombard, so it’s like killing two birds with one stone. Just buy enough cruisers to defend from the german air-force, and then you are not only protected, but you get more hits on invasions. And tac-bombers are frickin 1 ipc more than fighters. just one. Honestly, it’s better to have a unit with 4 attack and 3 defense than the other way around. Why some may ask? b/c you will attack with fighters more than you will defend with them. With inf, this is usually not the case. Like on the russian front. You inf will attack and take a territory. Then they will most likely die that turn, or possibly the one after. Nobody puts their air-force where the enemy can attack in anyways, not only b/c of them having to land back in friendly zones, but b/c you don’t want to have them destroyed on the ground.

@allweneedislove:

2 tanks attack 2 tanks. defender wins 41.5% of the battles

How do you figure that? In an even battle, the defender usually wins.

I agree. The only reason. The only one (unless the changes they’re talking a about for the pacific side come through). Would be the russians. Might as well take them out turn one, and then continue with India crush as usual.

Well, it sounds to me like if we don’t put the -NO thing we’ve been talking about for Japan and Russia, then the smart thing for Japan to do is just take down china and then swarm every last russian with their airforce. It would be a one time thing (probable the battle would only last about 1 round too) and then it’s like free 9 ipcs that Japan just advances over time into, along with not having to defend their northern border. Basically, i don’t think they should go for india until russia is wiped out. Anticipate Russia’s move. Don’t react to it.

I support this Russian/Jap -NO whole-heartedtly. I also think that it should be used for America as well. I think that the game should be balanced so that America is one of the smallest earners in the beginning (with a big negative NO to represent their innocent neutrality) but then looses it when it goes to war. Like instead of 52 to 82, it would be 22 to 62.

someone hasn’t read the strict neutral rules  :lol:.

Ok. I found this in the Pacific 1940 thread. I bet I’m not the only one who has for the most part stopped viewing that thread. So I’m bringing it to light in global context. Thoughts?

@calvinhobbesliker:

According to this:http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2386&p=27006#p27006

The setup changes are as follows:
China
Add 2 more infantry to Kweichow
Add 1 infantry to Yunnan
Add 2 infantry to Szechwan
Japan:
Remove 2 fighters (maybe just 1), 1 strategic bomber, 1 Tactical bomber from Japan
Remove 1 fighter from Manchuria
UK:
Sea Zone 37 should have - 1 battleship, 1 transport
Sea Zone 39 should have – 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 transport
ANZAC
Add one naval base to New South Wales.

Also, there is a new Japanese NO:  Japan receives 10 IPCs each turn that it is not at war.
This includes the British, Dutch, the US, and the French, meaning walking into FIC will lose this NO

Let’s try it out.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@The:

Wait, nevermind. I’m pissed again. It wasn’t b/c of FIC that We all embargoed Japan. It was b/c Japan declared war on China right?

Not really. Japan declared war on China in 1937. We embargoed in 1941, leading to Pearl Harbor

I see. Just looked it up now. In that case though, I advocate giving the Chinese back their coast in future games, and giving the U.S. only a 30 ipc war bonus, just like in Global.

Wait, nevermind. I’m pissed again. It wasn’t b/c of FIC that We all embargoed Japan. It was b/c Japan declared war on China right?

@calvinhobbesliker:

@The:

Just saw this, and wanted too comment. I like the extra chinamen, (I always feel that they underrepresent China, who never saw the kind of sweeping domination that Japan deals it these days) like the downgrade to the jap airforce, (who, although they may have been more militarily active before 1940 than germany and may have had more airpower, there is no way they had 3X as many planes as their far superior (although not often shown in these games) German counterpart) and the moving of the transports and the naval base in NSW. But the 10 ipc NO for not being at war is complete Bullshit. Sometimes I just want a completely historical game with no changes to it than compared to the stupid ways people come up with to balance the game. Japan was dying to go to war b/c they were running out of resources. We weren’t freakin paying them to stay peaceful! That is so… i don’t even know. Those other things should probable turn the balance back to pretty even (that and russians). But, heres a thought. If this was actually play tested properly, and people saw the glitch, then maybe they could think to themselves “well, maybe Japan doesn’t need so many planes…” Or maybe they could actually represent China properly on the board! Does anyone here think it odd that in AA50 China starts out with a territory boardering the coast, but that, apparently, Japan owned it (according to this game) 1 year previously? That could certainly shift some more balance, by actually representing the board correctly! Maybe, since the Italian were weak, we should just let them start of with Egypt! Or maybe it’s only fair that the Germans control all of Scandinavia, so why not just give them Sweden!!! Ok. Rant done. Bottom line, the people who come up with game balancing ideas need to have taken a history lesson or two.

The reason they had no resources was because the US stopped them after they took FIC. Japan only gets the NO if they don’t take FIC(or any non Chinese tt).

Ah, well that makes sense then. But im still pissed off by a underrepresented china, a over represented pre-war U.S., Japan owning China places, and too many freakin Jap planes.

Just saw this, and wanted too comment. I like the extra chinamen, (I always feel that they underrepresent China, who never saw the kind of sweeping domination that Japan deals it these days) like the downgrade to the jap airforce, (who, although they may have been more militarily active before 1940 than germany and may have had more airpower, there is no way they had 3X as many planes as their far superior (although not often shown in these games) German counterpart) and the moving of the transports and the naval base in NSW. But the 10 ipc NO for not being at war is complete Bullshit. Sometimes I just want a completely historical game with no changes to it than compared to the stupid ways people come up with to balance the game. Japan was dying to go to war b/c they were running out of resources. We weren’t freakin paying them to stay peaceful! That is so… i don’t even know. Those other things should probable turn the balance back to pretty even (that and russians). But, heres a thought. If this was actually play tested properly, and people saw the glitch, then maybe they could think to themselves “well, maybe Japan doesn’t need so many planes…” Or maybe they could actually represent China properly on the board! Does anyone here think it odd that in AA50 China starts out with a territory boardering the coast, but that, apparently, Japan owned it (according to this game) 1 year previously? That could certainly shift some more balance, by actually representing the board correctly! Maybe, since the Italian were weak, we should just let them start of with Egypt! Or maybe it’s only fair that the Germans control all of Scandinavia, so why not just give them Sweden!!! Ok. Rant done. Bottom line, the people who come up with game balancing ideas need to have taken a history lesson or two.

@mwindianapolis:

@oztea:

In a two on two game the axis split is logical, Germany and Italy and the second player is Japan.

Why not Germany……then Japan and Italy? they were 2 seperate powers.

Italy, a separate power? One that can fight on its own? One that can dominate the mediterranean? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: You’ve played too much a and a. Check the history books.

For a two on two, I would make the allies…

player one: UK, ANZAC, China, and France
Player two: US, USSR

reasoning b/c player one would control the powers most politically and militarily tied together at the time. They would all be coordinating with one another, and so it would make sense for them to be played by the same player to coordinate their movements to be the best for all. The U.S. and USSR aren’t really politically and militarily tied together, but are both outsiders from everybody else. And since they really don’t see any military action together (except maybe northern china, which would be historical) then it makes sense to put them together as well. Thoughts?

I think its fine for now, since i will still be rubbing my hands together in glee every time an opponent invades a true neutral. But I also think that the neutral rules should become more realistic in later versions. Who the hell cares if Mongolia is invaded? And why would it matter if Spain is invaded? Hitler already took almost every other european country, why would one more send it over the bar? Maybe portugal would care, but… and on the subject of portugal, shouldn’t their colonies be with them? And yes, if the neutral rules become more specific per country, so should the representation of their armies. Not just inf.

Not really. When you think about it, all of the turns are technically happening at the same time (a period of half a year). So its kind of just like a joint German and Italian invasion where Italy earns it.

@Dany:

I do think that destroying the RN in G1 and then hitting Russia in G2 will become somewhat of a standard even tho there are other options. Destoying the fleet will deffo be a standard G1 move as you can kill so much with so little losses.

Yes, but it sounds as if all of Germany’s bonuses try to make them take england, and not russia. 5 ipcs for being at peace with russia, and then Russia earning 5 ipcs for being at what with germany?