AXIS VS ALIIES&RUSSIA

[schury]

do you guys think the AXIS winning reuests are a little bit too demanding? i think next patch should do sth to balance it. i believe ALLIES would win if facing foes on the same level. the trends in the AARs support my idea.
or think it in another way, the line in between, 1946, the draw line. it's very hard(i haven't seen it) to let Germany survive until 1947, but it's quite usually or say possible to distroy it in 1945. as a matter of fact, you may make a statistic list of the average Germany surrender year, it shows!(maybe when the situation is clear, Russia didn't that eager to occupy eastern Germany, the longer they wait, the auperior they are, if you consider the year Germany have to stand firm in eastern Germany, it would be far more earlier maybe.)

[schury]

no one think AXIS is weaker than his opponents?[&:]

[kondor]

It is hard to say... but I also think that a Axis player has a tougher job...[:-] Fall 1946 is a little too much (not counting watermarks). I say let the regular draw be around... spring ´46?[:)]. (Or find some other way to make Germany stronger)
But again it is a tough decision...
So schury, I am inclined to your view[;)].

[JanSorensen]

I think Japan falls too easily while I find Germany to be about right.
 
The fact that Japan can rather easily be made to surrender makes it too easy for the WA to go for Europe first in force and still make it back to the Pacific in time to subdue Japan. This in turn makes the German position appear to be too hard.
 
I think changing the scenario data file from
  SURRENDER_ABOMB,PLAYER_JAP,PLAYER_UN,10,
to
  SURRENDER_ABOMB,PLAYER_JAP,PLAYER_UN,3,
would do the trick.

[schury]

cool, that's quite a good idea. so russia can't just ignore the japs. here 10 or 3 pp means all you have. the unlinked resources are counted in, right?
people just don't like kicking the neutrals, or Germany would suffered a severe shortage of resource

[Forwarn45]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

I think Japan falls too easily while I find Germany to be about right.

The fact that Japan can rather easily be made to surrender makes it too easy for the WA to go for Europe first in force and still make it back to the Pacific in time to subdue Japan. This in turn makes the German position appear to be too hard.

I think changing the scenario data file from
SURRENDER_ABOMB,PLAYER_JAP,PLAYER_UN,10,
to
SURRENDER_ABOMB,PLAYER_JAP,PLAYER_UN,3,
would do the trick.

I think you are right that Japan surrenders too easily with the a-bomb since it is easy to temporarily cut them off from their resources. But changing the surrender from 10 to 3 would mean the Japanese would just have to hold Chunking - which is worth 3 vps in the standard scenario. I would change it to 4 or 5 under the current conditions with no other adjustments. But I think the best thing to do is to add some VP's for other strategic areas to the standard scenario - like the Phillipines, Malaya, and Java - and to adjust the surrender conditions a bit. This would force the Allies to really put the stranglehold on Japan in order to force the surrender.

Additionally - I note that a big problem with the current conditions is you can cut off Japan without even being in position to enforce a blockade on Japan. I'm assuming it is unworkable - but the 10 pp rule would make more sense if you had to hold it through the Japanese turn (like AV requires you to keep the neccessary VP's through the Allied turns).

[JanSorensen]

True, 5 might be better for the reasons you state. 10 is far too easy for the WA player though as our game also showed.
 
I certainly agree that it would be better if it was 10 and checked at the end of the Jap turn as you say - but that requires coding changes rather than simply data changes.

[GKar]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

True, 5 might be better for the reasons you state. 10 is far too easy for the WA player though as our game also showed.

I certainly agree that it would be better if it was 10 and checked at the end of the Jap turn as you say - but that requires coding changes rather than simply data changes.

Agreed on all issues.

[WanderingHead]

I have always thought that the WA should actually have to drop a bomb on Japan to get the surrender.

What if it was 5 production and the WA had to damage at least 1 Japanese factory (on Kyushi or Honshu) with the bomb? That forces the WA to at least do enough work to get bombers close to Japan.

It would be a code change, but I could do it for the next patch if approved by Joel.

[Uncle_Joe]

Good lord, you mean you DONT have to have a bomber in range for the A-bomb?? I've always proceeded with that assumption. Didnt you have to for WaW? If not then wow have I been off-base on a few things...
 
There is obviously some sort of code created for bombers in range of 'x' because the VPs in Australia can be earned with Bombers in New Zealand. So I would imagine that that coding might be somewhat simplified.
 
But as the subject at hand, yes, I agree that Japan goes down the tubes a little too quickly. Perhaps key the A-bomb victory to certain required territories as well? For example, for Italy to surrender a few other regions must be controlled...ditto for Germany. Why not do the same for Japan. Perhaps all of Australia, Northern Philipines (or all of the Philipines) and Bonin Islands must be Allied controlled. Honestly I could see adding a few more to that list but it keeps it simple. In any case, it would require the Allied player to actually deprive Japan of her Pacific holdings which is more in line with the systematic reduction of Japan's perimeter eventually leading to her surrender.

[MrQuiet]

I also think it is to easy to ignore Japan and get the bomb then all you have to do is take out a few transports and they surrender.
If you go for the bomb, I think you should have to knock there economy down to almost nothing maybe 2 or 3 production points (SPs would not apply)
 
Just my $.02
 
MrQuiet

[schury]

that why i think the only way to make full use of Japan is attack Russia~
would it be level ten to get a atom bomb? or say, to force japan to surrender?

[WanderingHead]

No takers for actually having to DROP the bomb (in addition to a point reduction)?

Just requiring that you can get a bomber undamaged over Japan is a change, and it forces a certain emphasis on fighters and island bases. Not that you don't have those anyway, but you'd really need them. It also doesn't allow a Japanese surrender on the SAME turn that the a-bomb is attained.

It seems more satisfying (you actually DO something with it), and it allows recreation of the actual course of events.

I really don't think this would be a difficult change.

[GKar]

I agree that the best (and most historical/realistic) way would be (a) that the Allies have to actually drop the bomb (see WH) and (b) that Japan has to be knocked below just a few production points (see MrQ).

[JanSorensen]

WH,
 
I agree that it makes better sense to require that the WA player bombs a Jap factory with an a-bomb enabled heavy bomber to trigger the a-bomb surrender. That certainly will represent what actually happened much better as well as make Japan somewhat harder to force to surrender.

[GKar]

Maybe each a-bomb dropped on Japan should only give a certain chance (50%?) to make them surrender in order to make the whole a-bomb option a little less calculable additionally. Just a thought.

[Uncle_Joe]

Maybe each a-bomb dropped on Japan should only give a certain chance (50%?) to make them surrender in order to make the whole a-bomb option a little less calculable additionally. Just a thought.

 
While I agree in theory, by that part in the game its usually a pretty tight race against the clock. I know I wouldnt like the level of victory (or defeat) hanging on a simply 50/50 roll and I think that is what it would often come down to in close games.
 
IMO if the change can be made to require an actual 'dropping of the Bomb', then IMO that is the best solution.

[kondor]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe



IMO if the change can be made to require an actual 'dropping of the Bomb', then IMO that is the best solution.

Then the most of us agree about this. I propose to move it along in the next patch (or as soon as code can be modified[;)]).

[rjh1971]

ORIGINAL: GKar

Maybe each a-bomb dropped on Japan should only give a certain chance (50%?) to make them surrender in order to make the whole a-bomb option a little less calculable additionally. Just a thought.

Why don't make it incremental, first bombing (factory or resource hit) 50%, second bomb 75%, third 80%, 4th 85%... After all Japan was nuked twice before they surrendered.

Original WH
I have always thought that the WA should actually have to drop a bomb on Japan to get the surrender.

What if it was 5 production and the WA had to damage at least 1 Japanese factory (on Kyushi or Honshu) with the bomb? That forces the WA to at least do enough work to get bombers close to Japan.

It would be a code change, but I could do it for the next patch if approved by Joel

Placong bombers in range and actually making a succesful bombing raid should be part of the requierments to make Japan surrender, imho.

WH I would make the changes, hope Joel doesn't object, keep us inform please.

Original Kondor
Then the most of us agree about this. I propose to move it along in the next patch (or as soon as code can be modified).

I concur

[Forwarn45]

I agree with Uncle Joe that adding any more variability to the equation could make the endgame more of a game of chance. By just adding the A-bomb requirement, the Japanese have one more turn to live and affect the victory level since you have to wait a turn to use the bomb after you research it. Also - you still have to get one bomber through any air/flak and cause the double-hit on a factory.

In short - if the abomb requirement is followed, I'd keep it like wanderinghead suggested. Japan would surrender only after a successful abombing of Japan and if Japanese PP are less than 5 (using the same calculation as now = includes strategic points and production).

On a side note, it's nice that strategic points are included in the calculation (again no change here from how it is now) as one can imagine these would be bargaining chips that would delay a Japanese surrender - IMO it's just too bad that in the stock scenarios (other than UV) there aren't a few more of them sprinkled about.