are the axis purposefully being patched out of existance?

[aletoledo]

I've been mulling this over for the past few weeks and thought I'd throw it out there for any other axis players opinions.

doesn't it seem odd that every strategy we've come up with: pearl harbor surround, japanese paradrop into russia and now even discussions of autovictory itself, have all been patched so they are non-viable anymore. Yet the allied strategies that everyone seems to hate such as the prussia invasion, northern italy and now WA's bombing japan to get into the war early never get any patch.

I'm not complaining really, but making an observation that our "gamey" tactics are all patched, yet the allies "gamey" tactics go unchecked.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Allied gamey stuff will be patched too.

O.

[Joel Billings]

We're removing the Prussian garrison, adding 2MP borders to Afghanistan, and have already changed Italian surrender (and expect to reduce Allied amphib capacity). As Oleg said, we are changing play for both sides.

[Paul Vebber]

I list of what you believe teh "gamey" Allied strategies are would help.

I know Amphious Assault hijinx have been a subject of a lot of Beta discussion. A few others.

What do you see them to be?

[aletoledo]

I think you guys have hit it on the head.

transport shuffle issue (which leads to prussian invasion and italian invasion)
bombing japan through afganistan

I did forget that the italian invasion issue was addressed somewhat. I suppose it was the best way to do things by changing the surrender requirments, instead of adding an additional italian unit (that could easily be moved away). I was just comparing it to the japanese paradrop into russia, that was solved by placing a tank and infantry to prevent it. As I recall though, they were moved from another location and not actually added to the russian forces. still nothing stops an italian invasion first turn, just the actual surrender has been changed. a careless german player will still be caught first turn unless he knows to garrison italy properly.

like I said, this wasn't really a complaint, more just an observation to see what other axis players thoughts were.

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We're removing the Prussian garrison

Cool! Thats exactly what I did in my mod. About two weeks ago it was a non-issue in the forum. After I stated my opinion of it in "The War Room" I jumped on it and addressed it in my mod. I made several posts debating why I thought it was flunky and unrealistic to have the Soviets unfreeze. Link here: Link JanSorensen and I got into a heavy debate over it that spilled over to another thread[:D]. I can't help but wonder if the guys at 2by3 games were following these posts? It gives me great satisfaction to see an idea I championed be considered for an upcoming patch. I don't know if they will copy what I did exactly, I bumped Polands garrison to 4 while removing Prussia's, but IMHO I think its great that the Prussian Gambit will soon be dead. Officially anyway, because I already killed it[:D]

Like Aletoledo said, there were allied gamey/exploit tactics not getting fixed. In version 1.3 of my mod, I addressed what Aletoledo was complaining about. The two big ones that unfroze Russia or the US early were the focus of my latest update to Franco's Alliance. For those that read my readme on Franco's Alliance you would have been informed of some of the upcoming official changes that address some of the gamey tactics, like the Afghan Gambit. I had a little inside knowledge on this because Joel Billings asked me if he could use my graphic fixes in the next patch. I said of coarse. I love contributing to make WAW a better game. Can anyone tell?[:D]

To answer Paul's request for more suggestions, I have a few to add.

1: For V1.5 of my mod I was going to try adding more territories in eastern Russia. In not sure its possible given the code I have access to. What I had in mind was to split Irkutsk into two parts. Maybe others too. But if 2by3 can do this for us, it would make many of us happy.
2a: Fix the Pacific so the US actually has to fight his way though the Islands. As of now it seems kind of pointless for the US to Island hop, since they can just sail to the Bonin Islands, take out the militia and set up base. I added 1 flak and 1 artillery to the Bonin Islands in my mod to help the Japs stop this. Of coarse they need more than this, but I left that up to the Jap player to decide. I hope you guys at 2by3 see that beefing up the Bonin Islands to the garrison level of the others is necessary. Maybe even placing an Infantry or a second militia there.
2b: I think you should do the Bonin beefup in addition to the sea zones adjustments that are being made. Just to inform everyone, 2by3 is thinking about making the single border sea zones around Alaska double borders. I only know this because Joel Billings asked me to do them. But I had take a pass on that because I can't run WAW on the computer I'm using now[:(] Hopefully soon I'll get a better computer.
2c: Island hoping is only necessary in this design because of artillery doing op-fire on passing ships. When I first played WAW I thought it was stupid that artillery were attacking my ships. I thought, why can't I just command my ships to sail clear of the artillery on them Islands? Then it hit me. I realized it was a design desesion to make it necessary to take out them Islands so that the historic Island hopping would take place. It's gamey but works well on this scale. The problem is, this design only works when the US player goes though the South Pacific, thus passing by Jap ocupied Islands. The US skipping this, and heading strait for the Jap homeland seriously affects game balance. Which is why Jap players wait until the last minute to attack the WA's. If it wasn't broke, then we would see an earlier Pearl Harbor since the Jap player could count on his Island defenses slowing the US down. What can be done to deter a northern route to Japan? Well the double sea borders at Alaska will help a little bit, but more needs to be done. If the US had went north in real life they would have really been sticking their necks out. In this game all the US really needs is a chain of transports rather than a chain of Islands. So to make the northern route suboptimal for the US, Japan needs to be able to effectively cut this overextended chain. Perhaps give Japan more starting subs to increase this threat. If the US player employed the standard Island hopping strat he could neutralize these extra subs with air placed on Islands. On the other hand, if the US goes north then they should be prepared to face heavy losses in transports because he's using an overextended chain. The trick here is to give Japan more forces to counter this strat, and steer the US player into Island hopping mode. But the increased forces have to be ones that can only reasonably be used against the US. We don't want to give Japan more bombers because they can be turned around and used on Russia, China and India. Speaking of air, I think giving Japan a few more Zeros would help counter this strat too. Fighters are not all that helpful on the mainland agianst China/India or Russia. So the Jap player will most likely use them as intended. To assist in Island defense. It would help to counter the sudden appearence of the US fleet near Japan. Several Zeroes would be nearby to clear the US carriers of their air before the Jap bombers take care of the rest. And the US player should not complain, because thats what should happen without a CAP from a nearby Island. So in summary, short of placing additional fictional Islands, I think adding a few extra forces is the way to go.
2 or 3 extra subs
2 or 3 extra fighters
beef up Bonin Islands
1 or 2 more transports around the homeland

3: Reduce allied transport capability, as has been said above. I'm not sure what was meant by that. A reduction in the number of transports at sea and in the cue, or a reduction in the carrying capacity of each. I would prefer you removed some tranports as that would actually do something about that long chain I talked about above. Make the US spend more of their production on getting more transports to sea.

[toddtreadway]

In regards to the lack of island hopping, how about increasing the movement costs of at least some Central Pacific sea areas to three?

[aletoledo]

Lebatron,

I like your commentss regarding the island hoping in the pacific. I think this aspect is totally missing from the game also.

however I don't think adding a few subs is much of incentive for the USA to take the "long way around" to japan. even by taking a few of the 1MP borders up to 2MP, won't make a difference.

perhaps reducing ships combat effectiveness the farther away they are from a friendly port would do. this would even make hong kong useful to the japanese and since there is no port close to alaska it would be suicide for the USA to go that route. of course this isn't something easy to code and perhaps this was an early idea that was abandoned by 2by3?

[JanSorensen]

I am sure you know already - but just for the sake of completeness the missing island hopping was debated already in the thread I started here: tm.asp?m=931661

I also dont see extra subs are helping at all with the island hopping issue. They will certainly help the Japanese defense some but not really by making island hopping more interesting. Going through the south the line back to the US will be longer making for more targets for the subs - so extra subs dont particularly deter going directly through the nortern route. The problem is also that adding more forces likely will ruin the historical correctness of the oob. Thus I think that the means needed are different.

[aletoledo]

that thread has a nice suggestion in it also Jan. I like your idea of limiting invasions due to lack of a close port.

however the tactic used by the majority of USA players, including yourself, is to surround the japanese home islands on turn 1 or 2 of the unfreezing. if anything I think think this is worse than amphib invasions. its essentially throwing the usa fleet 1000's of miles away from the nearest port and still maintain top fighting capabilities.

simply limiting amphib invasion capability would just delay the inevitable. while the japanese home islands have been completely surrounded and starved out, the USA will have to island hop its way along to finish the job.

on the other hand the USA wouldn't commit to surrounding the home islands until they had a close enough port, if a "port modifer" was in effect for surface ships. subs obviously would be exempt from this rule or have a less severe penalty. this would make things more historic, in that subs operated off of japan very early, but you would never have seen the USA throwing its fleet into japanese water 3 months after the japanese attack.

[Lebatron]

Yes its true adding a few subs won't in itself make the US take the long route. Also I don't think changing a few sea zones to 2 or even 3 would change things much either. But everything taken as a total package does help. If the Bonin Islands had a decent garrison on it to survive a US attempt to take it, then the Japs with the extra fighters I suggested could give the US a good beating for trying the direct route. The extra subs could pick off the transport chain supplying the US fleet. Maybe even well enough to strand the US fleet a little while. Like I said above in point 3, I believe several allied transports need to be removed so that it becomes more important to be careful with them and also to force the US to have more of them in the build cue.

In the end, this all helps but is probably not enough. Like Aletoledo said "reducing ships combat effectiveness the farther away they are from a friendly port" would be a good idea. We have something like that built into the game now for amphibious assaults. The further an assault unit has to travel by transport the greater the combat penalty. I would suggest to 2by3 to increase the penalty substantially. In the end it would not hurt the D-day landing since that should be launched from England anyway. But in the Pacific it can change the way the US invades. I know this is not what you meant Aletoledo, but I thought it was appropriate to mention my support for increasing the penalty for long distance invasions.
One way to reduce the combat effectiveness for US warships that take the northern route would be to use interdiction points. Yes it may seem weird to apply that here since there are no islands in those sea zones, but it would work. It would deter the US from taking that direct route to Japan because he would build up several interdiction points that could be fatal to a good Japanese counterattack. If you need some real world logic to accept that, just assume the US fleet encounters stormy seas going north, thus reducing their effectiveness when they reach Japan. If its possible to add interdiction points to empty sea zones I think this would be the most elegant solution. It would not require a whole lot of changes in the mechanics of sea battle. Interdiction is already there, just use it for a new purpose.

[Lebatron]

I was writing just as you two guys posted. I will chech out that link now.

[Lebatron]

Oh yes I did read that thread. Good ideas there. Purhaps some will be considered for WAW2. I doubt that any of them will make it into WAW1 as to many game machanics would need changing. So I think my suggestion above would be the easiest for 2by3 to add in. It seems sound, but it may have a serious flaw that I don't see yet. I did just come up with this off the top of my head several minutes ago[:)]

[aletoledo]

I agree Lebatron, increasing the coast of amphib inasions is a good idea, that what Jan is saying also in that other thread. but playing a lot of axis, I can say that I don't have a huge issue with defending against amphib invasions per se. the problem I have is defending against japan being choked out.

if japan uses its naval forces to take the DEI its hard to defend the home islands and the US simply surrounds it without a fight. if the jap navy stays to defend the islands, then they easily lose the resources they've used to repair the DEI. sorta a damned if you do and damned if you don't. there has to be a reason for the USA CVs and BBs to head south and not make a b-line for the home islands.

I suppose this is all off the original topic, but its an interesting discussion.

[Ramblinman]

What was the "Hawaii Surround" tactic and how was it nerfed?

[Uncle_Joe]

however the tactic used by the majority of USA players, including yourself, is to surround the japanese home islands on turn 1 or 2 of the unfreezing. if anything I think think this is worse than amphib invasions. its essentially throwing the usa fleet 1000's of miles away from the nearest port and still maintain top fighting capabilities

How's that work? I tend to play Japan quite a bit in my games and I cant imagine being vulnerable to something like that in 42. Granted I tend to play MP games against the same crowd locally, so we are somewhat tactically 'inbred' at this point, but this one has me stumped.

The US doesnt seem to me to have anywhere near enough naval assets to survive in those waters unless Japan is asleep at the switch and doesnt have supplies stockpiled outside of Japan in case of interruption.

Now if Japan is concentrating on back-dooring the Sovs or making a maximum effort in China and not DOWing the US until '43, then yeah, they can get what they deserve. But if you hit in Fa41 or Wi42, I just dont see the US as being able to do that, particularly if the northern route is all changed to 2 MP borders.

Can someone fill me in on this tactic. [:D]

Thanx!

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

I agree Lebatron, increasing the coast of amphib inasions is a good idea, that what Jan is saying also in that other thread. but playing a lot of axis, I can say that I don't have a huge issue with defending against amphib invasions per se. the problem I have is defending against japan being choked out.

if japan uses its naval forces to take the DEI its hard to defend the home islands and the US simply surrounds it without a fight. if the jap navy stays to defend the islands, then they easily lose the resources they've used to repair the DEI. sorta a damned if you do and damned if you don't. there has to be a reason for the USA CVs and BBs to head south and not make a b-line for the home islands.

I suppose this is all off the original topic, but its an interesting discussion.

Make surface ships unable to op-fire if they are out of supply. It doesn't have to cost supply to op-fire, but at least they need to have supply to do it.

I put another transport idea on Jan's thread.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
Make surface ships unable to op-fire if they are out of supply. It doesn't have to cost supply to op-fire, but at least they need to have supply to do it.

In addition, leave warships out of supply at the end of their movement if they have moved more than half of their total movement points (AKA "speed").

Thus, surrounding Japan from a long way off would be worse than useless, it would be sacrificing the fleet. Much like it really would have.

Of course, if you have the transports you can still do it. But that's OK.

[Svend Karlson]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

however the tactic used by the majority of USA players, including yourself, is to surround the japanese home islands on turn 1 or 2 of the unfreezing.

How's that work? I tend to play Japan quite a bit in my games and I cant imagine being vulnerable to something like that in 42. [:D]

It's basically as you describe. Having fallen for it once as an Axis player myself, I have no fear that it would ever be effective again. So long as the Japanese player can choose the timing of the US war entry, then they can also keep their fleet & sufficient air assets around Japan to stymie any attempt to use this particular gambit.

The occasion where I fell for it I had removed my carrier-air & several ships to help with the destruction of the Allied ships around the Indies thinking that I could simply move them back next turn.

The last occasion I saw it work was when the 'bomb Japan from Persia' tactic was used, triggering an unexpected US war entry.

If Japan simply keeps it's fighters & carrier-air on the Jap mainland, along with it's fleet, this tactic would be a costly mistake for the US I think.

[aletoledo]

It's basically as you describe. Having fallen for it once as an Axis player myself, I have no fear that it would ever be effective again. So long as the Japanese player can choose the timing of the US war entry, then they can also keep their fleet & sufficient air assets around Japan to stymie any attempt to use this particular gambit.

The occasion where I fell for it I had removed my carrier-air & several ships to help with the destruction of the Allied ships around the Indies thinking that I could simply move them back next turn.

The last occasion I saw it work was when the 'bomb Japan from Persia' tactic was used, triggering an unexpected US war entry.

If Japan simply keeps it's fighters & carrier-air on the Jap mainland, along with it's fleet, this tactic would be a costly mistake for the US I think.

the other method that works to surround japan is with subs. every single time I play WA, I make a few extra subs (sometimes as many as 7 extra though) and raise their evasion. Its very rare to have a japanese player research ASW and they're basically screwed immediately because they can't hit a level 3 evasion sub (not hard to achieve) with a level 1 ASW.

but as svend mentioned, that if the japanese decided to do anything else with their fleet besides guard the home islands, then the USA can use its surface fleet to surround japan. add this together with subs and its takes a well prepared japanese player to defend against this, thus leaving little for actual conquest of the DEI, russia or china.