Posts made by Veqryn

You know what would be cool, because some of these techs really really suck for certain powers, why not have a couple of them be “Your Choice techs”
The list will still be 12 techs long, but….

if you get either War Bonds or Rockets, you can choose one of them.
if you get either Adv Artillery or Improved Shipyards, you can choose one of them.
if you get either Super Subs or Radar, you can choose one of them.

Example:
you get a six for your research roll which means you get to roll for a tech, you choose to roll for the 1st chart (land), and you roll a 2.  Now you can decide to take either rockets or war bonds.

the new list would look like:
Adv Art = increases attack of 2 infantry to 2 each, instead of just 1 inf, OR sea units are now cheaper for you (pick one only)
Rockets / War Bonds = bomb an enemy industrial complex with 1d6 per rocket, per territory, per turn, OR collect 1d6 during collect income phase (pick one only)
Paratroopers = use your bombers to bring in infantry to an attack, bomber still gets to attack that territory, must drop off and attack first enemy territory you come to
Increased Factory Production = each of your IC in a territory worth 3 or more, can produce 2 more units. in addition you can remove 2 damage markers for the price of one
War Bonds / Rockets = collect 1d6 during collect income phase, OR bomb an enemy industrial complex with 1d6 per rocket, per territory, per turn (pick one only)
Mechanized Inf = each inf matched with a tank can move 2 spaces along with that tank
Super Subs / Radar = subs attack at 3 instead of 2 and Sub cost 1 less, OR your AA guns hit on a 2 instead of 1 (pick one only)
Jet Fighters = ftrs attack at 4 instead of 3
Improved Shipyards / Advanced Artillery= sea units are now cheaper for you: BB17, CV11, CC10, DD7, Trans6, Sub5, OR increases attack of 2 infantry to 2 each, instead of just 1 inf. (pick one only)
Radar / Super Subs = your AA guns hit on a 2 instead of 1, OR your subs attack on 3 instead of 2 (pick one only)
Long Range Aircraft = ftrs now move 6, bombers 8
Heavy Bombers = Larry Harris Tourny Rules: roll two dice, pick the higher of the two, if it SBR add one. (or alternatively, Heavy Bombers now attack on a 6 with just one dice, SBR same as LHTR, roll 2 dice, pick higher, add one)

@Pin:

58% for all those 3 attacks bogoo, but add in the odds for the 3 eastern europe attacks and its highly likely at least 1 of the 6attacks will fail

Which is why dice are important to the design of the game.  Yes, T1 Axis have great openings, but chances are that one of their many opening attacks will fail, and that is what the allies have to base their recovery on.  Unfortunately, in LL, none of their attacks fail, producing a relatively static game.
Good post bogoo, +1

I was working under that assumption, that the chips can be used to Re-Roll any One of Your rolls, and then it is used up.  (you can re-roll your own AA gun rolls [but why would you, they are 1 out of 6, sucky], but you can’t make your opponent re-roll his)
I dislike the idea of buying chips though, because then I could just buy a bunch right as my troops get to moscow to make sure they get through.  By having players start with a set number, (a low number), they will have to ration them out. 
Another idea would be LowLuck chips.  Each team gets 1-2 LL chips.  They can then choose use one up by making an entire battle low luck (must declare before btl starts).  (i would not support more than 2 LL chips per team, and by team I mean the entire side, so the axis get 1-2, the allies get 1-2, which means if Germany uses one chip up, that chip is gone and Japan can’t use it too, which is the same principle as Re-Roll chips, which I would allocate about 3-5 per team)

Which are the most useless techs, 4 votes per person.
If I gave you guys just 1 vote, it would 90% for super subs, so instead I am giving you 4 votes so that hopefully we will get a little bit of a spread.

In case you don’t know what the tech does:
Adv Art = increases attack of 2 infantry to 2 each, instead of just 1 inf.
Rockets = bomb an enemy industrial complex with 1d6 per rocket, per territory, per turn
Paratroopers = use your bombers to bring in infantry to an attack, bomber still gets to attack that territory, must drop off and attack first enemy territory you come to
Increased Factory Production = each of your IC in a territory worth 3 or more, can produce 2 more units. in addition you can remove 2 damage markers for the price of one
War Bonds = collect 1d6 during collect income phase
Mechanized Inf = each inf matched with a tank can move 2 spaces along with that tank
Super Subs = subs attack at 3 instead of 2
Jet Fighters = ftrs attack at 4 instead of 3
Improved Shipyards = sea units are now cheaper for you: BB17, CV11, CC10, DD7, Trans6, Sub5
Radar = your AA guns hit on a 2 instead of 1
Long Range Aircraft = ftrs now move 6, bombers 8
Heavy Bombers = your bombers now automatically make your opponent concede (roll 2 dice for each)

have you tried using the BattleCalculator in TripleA?  you can put in any two sets of units, sea battle or land battle, and even including shore bombardments and technology, and then you can tell it to run a simulation of 20,000. battles.  It will automatically take as casualties the lowest IPC value units first.  At the end of the 20000 simulated battles, it will spit out the chance of side 1 to win, side 2 to win, draw (both end up with zero units), and then it will also tell you the average number of units the attacker has left, and the average the defender has left.  (it also makes you identify which is attacker, which is defender, because that matters for a lot of units).

I’ve heard very good things about Lord of the Rings Risk, which I want to play but haven’t yet

I will happily play as the Axis against anyone without a bid, 1941 or 1942 With NOs.  (see me on tripleA)  :evil:

@crispyHaole:

@Veqryn:

+1 Karma for OP
(i personally prefer the idea of ‘bad dice chips’.  each team gets 3-5 chips at beginning of game and can use them to re-roll any roll they make, but when they run out of chips they run out permanently)

I disagree with the general idea people seem to have of why people like playing dice.  Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy).  I play dice because I believe it involves more strategy.  The problem is that people who think LL is more strategic really should just be playing chess, and have yet to understand the reason why dice is more strategic.
Dice demand from a good general the ability to manage risk.
If I am attacking a territory with LL, I can calculate the exact number of units I will need to take that territory with just one unit left, or to take that territory kill all defenders in the first round, etc.  If I am attacking a territory with Dice, I understand that the battle may not go as planned in the short term, but that in the long term things should even out.  However, the short term matters more, and exponentially effects the long term of that particular battle (ie: bad rolls on the first round of btl hurt more and correlate more highly with battle results than second round rolls, and so on).  I also understand that the level of variation is much larger in small battles than in large battles.  If I am attacking a territory with 2 tanks, and the enemy has 2 infantry, I understand that the level of variation (or standard deviation of the normal curve of battle results) is much larger than if I am attacking with 10 units against 10 units.  This means that, If I have to do 2 attacks during a turn, and I can commit a few extra units to one of those two attacks, but not both, then with Dice I should allocate those units to the battle that involves fewer units (because fewer units means more variation, also known to non-math majors as luck).  This is why, when playing dice, a good commander is more conservative, only attacking when he is sure to win, and making sure that he is sure to win by committing more forces than necessary.  When playing with LL, you will see that a good commander no longer needs to manage the risk of losing, and therefore will attack more territories every turn, attacking with fewer units.  To a general who plays dice, the moves people using LL make look suicidal or extremely risky.  To him, it looks like a completely different game.  And it is a completely different game.  LL removes this vital component of risk management from the game.

(however, I too can get pissed off when some really important battle swings more than 3 standard deviations away from the mean, resulting in ‘luck’ either giving or taking away the game from me, which is generally not so fun.  but I do enjoy when my opponents get luckier than me but I still beat them by playing conservatively and being patient. LL generals just need to have more patience, and more tolerance in their strategies for when things go wrong.  LL generals trying to play dice generally make moves that are far to risky, then complain and b**** when they go horribly wrong, even after I try to explain to them that the results of the battle are within two standard deviations, namely because the deviation is so large on such risky moves, and therefore he should try to play better by giving more thought to the consequences of failing to meet all his btl objectives.)

If you’re going to flame my post then don’t bother pussy-footing around with terms like “LL generals”, just use my name. My post was an attempt to weigh the benefits and shortfalls of different battle resolving methods in A&A. Not to prove that LL is more strategic than dice. To that end I thought I was quite clear that I believe LL is better suited to play testing different strategies, and dice are simply more enjoyable.  But if you want to argue that “Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy)” than your argument falls on deaf ears here. To suggest that a general who chooses a maneuver which is other than optimal because it involves a random device is LESS strategically competent than one who chooses other than optimal maneuvers is foolish.

The only reason to pass up any edge in any game which combines skill and chance is that one feels confident that their opponent WILL, in the future, offer a larger edge with less variance. Example: player A is a level 1200 player, player B a level 1400 player. In order for A to win a skill/chance game against B he MUST make moves with more risk, in fact he should seek out game-changing battles with a 45% chance of success. If he doesn’t, he will eventually lose to B’s superior strategy. At the same time B must avoid high variance moves that give A a chance to “get lucky”. However, if both opponents skill levels are the same or similar, both should seek ANY edge lest the game become a draw, since the only edge one will get out of a similarly competent opponent will be a small one.

All I want to figure out, when playing LL, is whether or not a particular opening move is +EV(expected value) or -EV. I therefore don’t want dice “interfering” with my “experiment”. Once you have determined if that a move is +EV, it remains +EV even when utilizing dice. IMHO that’s is the most scientific way one can use to determine what a “good opening strategy” generally consists of.

To OP, bad dice chips aren’t a bad idea either. Perhaps an evolution of that idea would be to “sell” bad dice chips for 5ipc(or whatever u think/play test is fair) apiece. Just a thought i had …

I still prefer player choice. Don’t much care for “battle by battle” player choice though. I would think there would be too much “angle shooting” in that scenario. And again I believe that the point of the game is enjoyment. Therefore “player choice” satisfies both player’s needs.

First off, I am not flaming you, as I posted this from school and quite honestly only read the first 4 posts before I posted.  The idea that dice is for people who like luck, and that LL is for people who want more strategy, is one that is batted around the forum for quite some time, and I have been opposed to it for quite some time.  You can see that here and here.
I also would disagree with your premise that a battle in LL that gives +Expected value remains unchanged when switching to Dice.  If a battle has a 51% chance of giving +EV with dice, and 49% chance of -EV, than under LL it moves closer to 90% +EV and 10% -EV. 
LL completely changes the game, allowing countries like Germany, Russia, and Japan to attack more territories than they would normally attack, with less risk and fewer units.  Its not about luck, its about 2 completely different strategies that are enacted when using LL vs Dice.  If people played the EXACT same way when using LL as they do when they use DICE, then I would be ok with it since it does not change the game.  But when people use LL, they are playing completely different battles, with different forces, with different results (and these results ARE different than the median/mean results of dice rolls, which is one HUGE reason I am opposed to LL).

I’d start out with Risk and make sure that he likes that before moving on.

you can always add rules to risk, or remove rules from AA to decrease its complexity.  Perhaps try playing a Germany vs Russia game, with the rest of the board off limits, just to get him used to playing A&A.  (and no tech, and no strategic bombing, and maybe even no bombardment or antiaircraft guns).

Sourced mainly from wikipedia, though I double checked all of it on another historical database site.
America did indeed have 8 fleet carriers in total before pearl harbor, though the USS ranger would remain in the Atlantic throughout the war, and the USS langley was a converted vessel (still large enough in size and airplane capacity though to count as fleet carrier).  I can not comment right not on the exact locations of each, but I would tentatively agree that only 3 of fleet carriers that were in the pacific were not at port at the time, and therefore a threat to japan.  I would also add that America’s escort carriers, 11+ at the time, were all converted and were all pretty worthless.  However, the pilots who cut their teeth on those would become famous later.

As far as what I think of the AA50 setup, I think it does a decent job with the ships of Japan and America’s Pacific (atlantic is major nerfed).  America probably deserves a couple more ships to be historically accurate, but whatever, they had to balance the game after all.  However, Japan should not have 9 fighters to America’s 2 Pacific fighters, because this is one area where America really shined.  During the Battle of the Leyte gulf, Japan had so few fighters left that it used its entire carrier force as a decoy, hoping that its battleships would do the hitting.  They had fewer aircraft during that battle than America had of ships, while America easily had aircraft numbering in the thousands.  I would also add that while Japan “sank” the capital ships at pearl harbor, most of them were repaired very quickly and went on to serve in the pacific.  America’s industrial might is nonexistant in AA.  Lastly, America needs more submarines in positions compromising to Japan’s initial setup.  If you look at the list, and also at lists of battleships and heavy cruisers, you will find that American submarines were incredibly deadly in the pacific.  They sunk tons of Japanese shipping, sunks many carriers, battleships, cruisers, everything else, as well as resupplying the our men on islands.  I am in general rather unhappy about the lack of any strategic depth in the pacific in AA.

I used to build transports as Italy, but now I do not.  I find that 1 transport is good enough, and that your object is to creatively use your italian fleet to avoid its death until at least after your 3rd italian turn.  Buy infantry and tanks instead.

Axis is much easier to play, so give the noobier player the axis to start off.

without NOs = allies are favored, I suggest a high bid divided evenly between the 3 axis players
with NOs = axis are favored, I suggest a bid of 6-10, with the minimum that I am willing to play as the allies being an extra inf in both Karelia and Egypt minimum.  I would not bid less than 2 units, or more than 3, since more than 3 is way op.

+1 Karma for OP
(i personally prefer the idea of ‘bad dice chips’.  each team gets 3-5 chips at beginning of game and can use them to re-roll any roll they make, but when they run out of chips they run out permanently)

I disagree with the general idea people seem to have of why people like playing dice.  Playing LL is not more strategic, and if anything, it is less strategic (involves less strategy).  I play dice because I believe it involves more strategy.  The problem is that people who think LL is more strategic really should just be playing chess, and have yet to understand the reason why dice is more strategic.
Dice demand from a good general the ability to manage risk.
If I am attacking a territory with LL, I can calculate the exact number of units I will need to take that territory with just one unit left, or to take that territory kill all defenders in the first round, etc.  If I am attacking a territory with Dice, I understand that the battle may not go as planned in the short term, but that in the long term things should even out.  However, the short term matters more, and exponentially effects the long term of that particular battle (ie: bad rolls on the first round of btl hurt more and correlate more highly with battle results than second round rolls, and so on).  I also understand that the level of variation is much larger in small battles than in large battles.  If I am attacking a territory with 2 tanks, and the enemy has 2 infantry, I understand that the level of variation (or standard deviation of the normal curve of battle results) is much larger than if I am attacking with 10 units against 10 units.  This means that, If I have to do 2 attacks during a turn, and I can commit a few extra units to one of those two attacks, but not both, then with Dice I should allocate those units to the battle that involves fewer units (because fewer units means more variation, also known to non-math majors as luck).  This is why, when playing dice, a good commander is more conservative, only attacking when he is sure to win, and making sure that he is sure to win by committing more forces than necessary.  When playing with LL, you will see that a good commander no longer needs to manage the risk of losing, and therefore will attack more territories every turn, attacking with fewer units.  To a general who plays dice, the moves people using LL make look suicidal or extremely risky.  To him, it looks like a completely different game.  And it is a completely different game.  LL removes this vital component of risk management from the game.

(however, I too can get pissed off when some really important battle swings more than 3 standard deviations away from the mean, resulting in ‘luck’ either giving or taking away the game from me, which is generally not so fun.  but I do enjoy when my opponents get luckier than me but I still beat them by playing conservatively and being patient. LL generals just need to have more patience, and more tolerance in their strategies for when things go wrong.  LL generals trying to play dice generally make moves that are far to risky, then complain and bitch when they go horribly wrong, even after I try to explain to them that the results of the battle are within two standard deviations, namely because the deviation is so large on such risky moves, and therefore he should try to play better by giving more thought to the consequences of failing to meet all his btl objectives.)

Pearl Harbor happened on 7 December 1941
Battle of Wake Island happened on 7-23 December 1941
The Japanese Invasion of the  Philippines Islands happened from December 8, 1941 to May 8, 1942
Doolittle Raid happened on 18 April 1942
Battle of the Coral Sea happened on May 4–8, 1942
Battle of Midway happened on 4-6 June 1942
Battle of Leyte Gulf happened on 23–26 October 1944
Aleutian Islands Campaign happened from 1942 to 1943
USA Island Campaigns happened from 1943 to 1945
Japan Surrenders on August 15th 1945

Your numbers on the Aircraft carriers are inaccurate.
At the outset right before Pearl Harbor, America had 8 Fleet Carriers (1 in atlantic) and 11+ Escort Carriers (some in atl), and by Axis high water mark in 1942 (before midway?), had 6 Fleet Carriers (1 in Atlantic) 21+ Escort Carriers (some in atl) and 23+ more Fleet Carriers under construction.

America had Pacific Carriers:
Escort Carriers:
Long Island Class: 2 total built, both before pearl harbor
Bogue Class: 45 total built, of the 11 built for the american navy in the pacific 1 was built before pearl harbor, and 8 built before midway, several more in the atlantic under american flags, the rest were lend-lease HMS vessels
Sangamon Class: 4 total built, all before pearl harbor
Charger Class: 4 total built, all for atlantic, all before pearl harbor
Casablanca Class: all 50 total launched between Nov 1942 and July 1944
Commencement Bay Class: all 19 total launched between 1943 and 1945
(very very few of our escort class carriers were sunk by japanese, close to zero if not zero. a few were sunk by german u-boats in the atlantic, and many served in both theaters)

Light Carriers:
USS Independence (CVL22) (launched 22 August 1942, sunk in 1951 nuclear test)
USS Princeton (CVL23) (launched 18 October 1942, sunk 24 October 1944 at the Battle of Leyte Gulf)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL24) (launched 6 December 1942, scrapped 1960)
USS Cowpens (CV25) (launched 17 January 1943, scrapped 1960)
USS Monterey (CVL26) (launched 28 February 1943, scrapped 1956)
USS Cabot (CVL28) (launched 4 April 1943, scrapped 1972)
USS Langley (CVL27) (launched 22 May 1943, scrapped 1947)
USS Bataan (CVL29) (launched 1 August 1943, scrapped 1961)
USS San Jacinto (CVL30) (launched 26 September 1943, scrapped 1947)

Heavy / Fleet Carriers:
USS Langley (CV1) (launched 1912, converted 1922, sunk 27th February 1942 near Java)
USS Lexington (CV2) (launched 1925, sunk 8th May 1942 at the Battle of the Coral Sea)
USS Seratoga (CV3) (launched 1925, scrapped 25th July 1946 in a nuclear test)
USS Yorktown (CV5) (launched 1936, sunk 7 June 1942 at the Battle of Midway)
USS Enterprise (CV6) (launched 1936, scrapped on 1947)
USS Hornet (CV8) (launched 1940, sunk 13 January 1943 west of the Solomon Islands)
USS Essex (CV9) (launched 31 July 1942, scrapped 1973)
USS Lexington (CV16) (launched 23 September 1942, struck from record 1991)
USS Bunker Hill (CV17) (launched 7 December 1942, scrapped 1966)
USS Yorktown (CV10) (launched 21 January 1943, struck from record 1973)
USS Intrepid (CV11) (launched 26 April 1943, struck from record 1982)
USS Wasp (CV18) (launched 17 August 1943, scrapped 1973)
USS Hornet (CV12) (launched 30 August 1943, struck from record 1989)
USS Franklin (CV13) (launched 14 October 1943, scrapped 1964)
USS Hancock (CV19) (launched 24 January 1944, scapped 1976)
USS Ticonderoga (CV14) (launched 7 February 1944, scrapped 1973)
USS Shangri-La (CV38) (launched 24 February 1944, scrapped 1988)
USS Bennington (CV20) (launched 28 February 1944, scrapped 1994)
USS Bon Homme Richard (CV31) (launched 29 April 1944, scrapped 1992)
USS Randolph (CV15) (launched 28 June 1944, scrapped 1975)
USS Antietam (CV36) (launched 20 August 1944, scrapped 1974)
USS Lake Champlain (CV39) (launched 2 November 1944, scrapped 1966)
USS Boxer (CV21) (launched 14 December 1944, scrapped 1971)
USS Kearsarge (CV33) (launched 5 May 1945, scrapped 1974)
USS Tarawa (CV40) (launched 12 May 1945, scrapped 1967)
USS Princeton (CV37) (launched 8 July 1945, scrapped 1971)
USS Leyte (CV32) (launched 23 August 1945, scrapped 1970)
USS Oriskany (CV34) (launched 13 October 1945, scrapped 1989)

Atlantic Carriers:
Heavy / Fleet Carriers Carriers:
USS Ranger (CV4) (launched 1933, scrapped 28th January 1947)

Carriers that served in the Atlantic then served in the Pacific:
Heavy / Fleet Carriers:
USS Wasp (CV7) (launched 1939, sunk 15 September 1942 off the Solomon Islands)

(total number of American Heavy Fleet Carriers operational 1 year after the war ended: over 39  :-o)

Japanese:
Heavy / Fleet Carriers:
Kaga (launched 17 November 1921, sunk 4 June 1942 at the Battle of Midway)
Akagi (launched 22 April 1925, sunk 4 June 1942 at the Battle of Midway)
Soryu (launched 23 December 1935, sunk 4 June 1942 at the Battle of Midway)
Hiryu (launched 16 November 1937, sunk 5 June 1942 at the Battle of Midway)
Shokaku (launched 1 June 1 1939, sunk 19 June 1944)
Hiyo (launched 24 June 1941, sunk 21 June 1944 at the Battle of the Philipine Sea)
Junyo (launched 26 June 1941, dismantled 1947)
Taiho (launched 7 April 1943, sunk 19 June 1944 at the Battle of the Philippine Sea)
Unryu (launched 25 September 1943, sunk December 19, 1944)
Amagi (launched 15 October 1943, sunk in port on 27 July 1945)
Katsuragi (launched 15 October 1943, dismantled 1946)
Shinano (launched 5 October 1944, sunk 29 November 1944)

Light / Escort Carriers:
Hosho (launched 13 November 1921, dismantled 1947)
Ryujo (launched 2 April 1931, sunk 24 August 1942 at the Battle of the Eastern Solomons)
Ryuho (launched 16 November 1933, destroyed 19 March 1945)
Shoho (launched 1 June 1935, sunk 7 May 1942)
Chitose (launched 29 November 1936, sunk 25 October 1944 at Battle of Leyte Gulf)
Chiyoda (launched 29 November 1936, sunk sunk 25 October 1944)
Kaiyo (launched 9 December 1938, dismantled 1946)
Chuyo (launched 20 May 1939, sunk 4 December 1943)
Unyo (launched 31 Oct 1939, sunk 17 September 1944)
Zuikaku (launched 27 November 1939, sunk 25 October 1944 at the Battle of Leyte Gulf)
Zuiho (launched 27 Dec 1940, sunk 25 October 1944 at the Battle of Leyte Gulf)
Shinyo (launched 15 November 1943, sunk 17 November 1944)
Taiyo (launched 19 June 1944, sunk 18 Aug 1944)

Some of these japanese carriers may be in the wrong catagory, as many of them were converted from other ships.  I know that there were six, not seven, fleet carriers at the time of pearl harbor, and that many of japan’s later fleet carriers never were truly operational or were sunk by american submarines before they saw combat.  When you look above and see a japanese carrier sunk without me mentioning what btl it was in, 95% chance it was an american submarine.

These two questions were posted by Comradekev on the TripleA forums, and I thought I would repost them here since noone has answered them yet.

1. Suppose 5 subs attack 5 destroyers… are the subs allowed to retreat?  I know they don’t get first strike, can’t submerge, and can be hit by air with the DD present… but what about a normal retreat?

My answer: The submarines can retreat.  But, however, if the submarines moved through an enemy cruiser/bb/carrier to reach those destroyers, they could not retreat, because that space was not friendly at the beginning of their turn.

2. I understand that units can’t retreat into a recently captured territory, but should that also apply to blitzing units?  Suppose I have tanks (and optionally- mechanized infantry) blitzing through a territory (capturing it) to reach a third territory.  Also suppose that the attackers are surrounded by enemy territories.  This leaves only the blitzed territory as a possible retreat territory, but the restriction on recently captured territories means these units are unable to fall back.  Of course I’ll go with the official word from the rule gods, but this seems a bit fishy to me.

My answer: Land units can only retreat to a territory where at least one of them came from.  The rules state only that sea units can only retreat to a space that was friendly AND was where at least one of them came from.  Land units are not under that stipulation and therefore can retreat to a blitzed territory.

thx,
veq

hamachi network name: PinAAA
no password

someone join!

Lets say America goes 100% pacific.  Assuming Japan builds 1 factory turn 1 on the mainland, Japan can build nothing but forces for the mainland for the first 3 turns.  After that, Japan only needs to spend about half of its income on navy just to stay ahead of America.  If America gets lucky, Japan will be spending 2/3rd of its income on navy.  Either way, Japan can still spend at least 15ipcs a turn on mainland forces while still crushing America’s Navy any turn that it gets within range of the sea of china/formosa/japan.
(oh, and i do include transport because without them how exactly are you supposed to threaten all those islands? a bb alone does not do much for getting ipcs, you need a transport with a guy or two in it.  but hey, even if you don’t include japans ridiculous 5 transports, they still come out to 164 ipcs. and yes ftrs do count, they sit on top of carriers and project power)

After the first turn, the USA has only 32 ipcs in the Pacific, 42 if you include the fighter in hawaii, meanwhile Japan has 169 ipcs in the pacific, 199 if you count the 3 other land based fighters, and 189 if japan loses a fighter somewhere in the pacific first turn (japan usually loses 1 or zero fighters first turn, a destroyer, and up to 4 infantry).
People who think the USA can compete in the Pacific (with NOs), are nuts

you should just post your network name and pass on here

@Telamon:

To me, the Philippines NO seems totally redundant.  Things have gone very wrong for Japan if the US has a chance at it…

Germany’s NOs are the best designed - they are very interactive.  I wish the NOs for the other countries were as well implemented (they are either too hard to get until you’ve won, or are so easy you can assume them).

Half of the NOs are good, the other half are redundant.

I think Germany’s, Italy’s, and Russia’s NOs are very good.  They are interactive and encourage people to play the game slightly differently and a bit more historically accurately.

UK’s, USA’s, and Japan’s NOs I believe are terrible. 
Japan is going to get all of her NOs by playing the same way as she would normally play if there were not NOs, and the allies are NEVER, never going to take them away from her until they have already won the game (ie: berlin and italy have fallen).
USA’s NOs are the same way, the USA is going to get the first one no matter how they play, and the one in france does not encourage any behavior that the USA does not already do without NOs.  The NO for the philippines will never be taken until Japan is essentially defeated.  The only interactive NO they have is the one about the solomon islands and hawaii.
UKs NOs are again, usually pretty redundant.  Slightly more interactive than Japan and the USA, they still suffer from the problem of UK not really being able to do much.  UK is going to take France when they take France, and that doesn’t change much whether you have NOs or not.  The NO about controlling terr like Gibralter, Egypt, South Africa, and Australia, does not really come into play much because the Axis are going to take and hold Egypt for the same number of turns whether there are NOs or not.  It really only comes into play when the Axis do something odd like take Gibralter or Australia.  And their NO about Japanese pacific Islands is dumb since the UK can’t do shit about it anyway, therefore it is not really very interactive.