1941 needs balancing

[incbob]

I think everyone by now knows I am a huge fan of this game. I greatly want it to succeed so I can finally have that board game experience of the Pacific War on a computer. I also know that this is version 1.0 and there are going to be growing pains. This being said.....


The 1941 game needs some changes and better balancing.

2) Either Japan is overpowered or the Allies are to weak.
At first I thought it was the US was to weak and I feared lowering Japan's abilty because it would hamper their ability to get ready for the onslaught of the late war Allies. I wanted the US to be boosted, but I have come to realize that the only reason I want the US to be boosted is to limit Japan.

Currently Japan can take the entire DEI on turn 1.
The Phillipines will fall on either turn 1 or turn 2.
Singapore and Malaysia on turn 3 at the latest.
Rabaul falls turn 1.
Port Moresby on either turn 2 or 3.

Invasion of India and/or Australia isn't a question of if, but when.

All of this and the allies are little better than a speed bump.

[eskuche]

How far have you played against a human? Beta testers have said that the game rebalances in ‘43 ish.

[AlvaroSousa]

Bump up the Allied A.I.
Update to 1.00.01

[eskuche]

Edit: browser double post.

I think we need more data especially with regards to VP. While India or Australia INVASION per se may be a given, success isn’t.

[incbob]

First, I am just now playing my first human player. I am not talking about the AI, I am talking in general.

I can see that the game will "rebalance" and I know the idea of the game is not so much as what can Japan take, but the idea of the victory hexes and points. I understand it is not meant to recreate WW2, but the idea that Japan can do all the above so quickly might be a game, but it is not a simulation of WW2.

Look at it from a European Theatre view. Imagine if in WPE the game is setup so that the Axis conquer Poland, France, Norway, Yugoslavia, and most of Africa by November 1939. Is the answer that it rebalances in 41?

[eskuche]

The difference is that that scenario would be impossible IRL for Europe but entirely possible for Japan were they to have the meta knowledge in the Pacific and throw caution to the wind.

I would still prefer that very low land/air be hidden or at least have a chance to, though, to have some risk for blind invasions.

[incbob]

ORIGINAL: eskuche

The difference is that that scenario would be impossible IRL for Europe but entirely possible for Japan were they to have the meta knowledge in the Pacific and throw caution to the wind.

I would still prefer that very low land/air be hidden or at least have a chance to, though, to have some risk for blind invasions.

I am not sure what you are saying. I do not understand. Are you saying that the reason Japan took so long in real life is because they were two cautious? That they should have conquered the entire DEI, Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia, and Port Moresby by the end of January 1942?

If this is the claim you are making, I would love to see on what you base it on, other than you can do it in WPP.

[eskuche]

ORIGINAL: incbob
I am not sure what you are saying. I do not understand. Are you saying that the reason Japan took so long in real life is because they were two cautious? That they should have conquered the entire DEI, Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia, and Port Moresby by the end of January 1942?

If this is the claim you are making, I would love to see on what you base it on, other than you can do it in WPP.

I'm claiming that it was materially possible to, whereas it's not the in Europe due to political pressure and the territory/force setup. Of course, we can always criticize the surrender mechanics in the game. Maybe that is the way to have some change? Since there is only one city to take for DEI and Philippines maybe it should require that they have less than 50% of starting strength or something as well.

[incbob]

How was it materially possible? If it was materially possible then why didn't they do it? Are you making the claim that the Japanese military leaders of December 1941 were so incompetent that they didn't know how to conquer the resources that their country vitally needed?

On what, other than WPP, do you base the idea that the Japanese leaders in December 1941 where either to cautious or incompetent? Politically or materially, there was no way, IRL, the Japanese could have taken Borneo, the entire DEI, and the Philippines even by the end of January. IRL just because the Japanese take a city or port here and there doesn't mean all resistance collapses.

If you think Japan could have done all they they are doing in WPP then why couldn't the Germans have taken France, Poland, Norway, and Yugoslavia by November? What is stopping them?

[eskuche]

ORIGINAL: incbob

How was it materially possible? If it was materially possible then why didn't they do it? Are you making the claim that the Japanese military leaders of December 1941 were so incompetent that they didn't know how to conquer the resources that their country vitally needed?

On what, other than WPP, do you base the idea that the Japanese leaders in December 1941 where either to cautious or incompetent? Politically or materially, there was no way, IRL, the Japanese could have taken Borneo, the entire DEI, and the Philippines even by the end of January. IRL just because the Japanese take a city or port here and there doesn't mean all resistance collapses.

If you think Japan could have done all they they are doing in WPP then why couldn't the Germans have taken France, Poland, Norway, and Yugoslavia by November? What is stopping them?

Germans had fewer troops than the countries mentioned at the beginning of Blitzkrieg. Naval power for Scandinavian operations was by no means a guarantee, and France was an unexpected downfall.
On the other hand, assuming the troop TOEs and placement in WPP is relatively correct, they far outnumber the relevant defenders. And yes, I agree that just taking one city or two doesn't translate to full collapse IRL like it does in the game.

[stjeand]

Well I am his opponent and he is welcome to come to Aus and India...

You will lose more than you gain.

Australia is worthless overall. Produces nothing...basically just ports that the US can take easily when they get ships.

India has some uses but you have to get through a narrow path before the UK shows up with corps that you are not able to defeat.


Newer Allied players will not be able to stop the Japanese until the figure out a few ways that they can.
Aus was invaded in my first game...I thought all was lost...then the US got transports and the Japanese lost most of their attacking force.


Give it time and let some players learn the roapes...the npeople will be complaining that the Allies are too strong

[DaShox]

I have played both the allies and Japanese in PBEM. I have spectacularly lost both. I'm learning the ropes one mistake at a time.

[incbob]

It does not matter whether I am Japan or the Allies.
I am not the best game player anyway. Usually I never progress past the AI because I am not any good. However...


I will leave it at this:

Just take your argument and put them in WPE.

Look at Europe 1939:
In 1939 a German division far out gunned anything the French or British had.
Germany had better planes and better doctrine.
Germany had 6 armored divisions and 100 infantry divisions.
France and Britain together had 100 divisions available. Poland had about 30 divisions and 12 Calvary Bde.
We know they fell quickly as they were outmaneuvered.


So knowing this why can't we make WPE where by the end of November 1939 Germany has routinely defeated Poland, France, and the British armies?
Shouldn't it be routine for the Axis player to be able to do that?



If Japan could have done IRL what WPP allows them to do and they didn't do it IRL then her military leaders in December 1941 where incompetent.


I am not saying that it might not make a good game, I am just saying that it does not resemble WW2.


And as far as Australia or India......why not both [8D]

[Stelteck]

Currently one thing that i found a little frustrating as the allied is the surrendering mecanism, making perhaps a little too easy the first japanese conquests.

Batavia fall. All dutch units disband, including an excellent fighter force and some garnison troops here and here.
Manilia fall. All philipine units disband, including for example the Davao garnison that is hardly ever attacked.

Maybe the surrendering mecanism is not necessary to the pacific theater and could be disabled, forcing the japanese to finish conquering all the territory by force ?

The alternative is that in my future game, i will go berserk with dutch/Philipino troops in order to inflict as many damage as possible because i know they will disband soon. I'am not sûre it will give an historical feeling.

[eskuche]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

Currently one thing that i found a little frustrating as the allied is the surrendering mecanism.

Batavia fall. All dutch units disband, including an excellent fighter force and some garnison troops here and here.
Manilia fall. All philipine units disband, including for example the Davao garnison that is hardly ever attacked.

Maybe the surrendering mecanism is not necessary to the pacific theater and could be disabled, forcing the japanese to finish conquering all the territory by force ?

Yes, this is what I’ve tried to convey above. Even India in one of my games is turning into “can IJA rush the last production center and autosurrender 250,000 men by doing so”

[incbob]

Let me put it this way. I

Japan did not invade Sumatra until Feb 42. Fighting over in March.
I can give you fighting in Singapore practically over in Jan 42.
I can give you fighting in Philippines practically over in Feb 42.
I can give you fighting in Borneo practically over in Feb 42.

I mean this is a Corp/Army level game after all.

But as WPP now stands if you, as Japan, have not done the above are are not attacking Port Moresby and other areas by the end of turn 3 you either unlucky or not doing good.


Now take the same thing for WPE?
Would you say that WPE was okay if as the Axis player they were doing badly if they had not completely defeated France, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands by March 1940? I mean if you haven't defeated France by March 1940 you are just doing real bad.
By April 1940 should not Germany be turning to either Yugoslavia and the Balkans, North Africa, or the Soviet Union?

I haven't played enough WPE, so maybe that is how it plays out, but if so something isn't balanced right.

[eskuche]

ORIGINAL: incbob

Let me put it this way. I

Japan did not invade Sumatra until Feb 42. Fighting over in March.
I can give you fighting in Singapore practically over in Jan 42.
I can give you fighting in Philippines practically over in Feb 42.
I can give you fighting in Borneo practically over in Feb 42.

I mean this is a Corp/Army level game after all.

But as WPP now stands if you, as Japan, have not done the above are are not attacking Port Moresby and other areas by the end of turn 3 you either unlucky or not doing good.


Now take the same thing for WPE?
Would you say that WPE was okay if as the Axis player they were doing badly if they had not completely defeated France, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands by March 1940? I mean if you haven't defeated France by March 1940 you are just doing real bad.
By April 1940 should not Germany be turning to either Yugoslavia and the Balkans, North Africa, or the Soviet Union?

I haven't played enough WPE, so maybe that is how it plays out, but if so something isn't balanced right.

You’re getting to setting up a straw man argument here. My initial conjecture (and I am not hard set on any side here, just exploring the question) was that Japan had enough forces to take these places in the span of the game time but did not do so not because of ability but because of some degree of caution (such as remaining neutral with DEI until other objectives were secure), I added the qualifier of “if game surrender rules existed IRL” which clearly is not the case historically. Germany barely got through with these about even number of troops and even then only so because of maneuver warfare. In WPP at stalemate areas like Burma and China, IJA cannot get through easily if at all.

[YueJin]

Give the Indian port garrisons 10/10 strength from the beginning and I think many issues are helped out for the allies. I've run it many times now on both allies and axis sides on hotseat and PBEM and Japan can easily take at least two of the ports on a turn 3 landing and the Indian front just collapses by the end of '42 every time. If they had the ability to hold out for a couple of turns under blockade it would force the Japanese to commit major fleet assets to take the ports which gives some counterplay options with night raids from Ceylon or the US carriers striking in the Solomons or India, wherever the Japanese carriers aren't.

Doing the same for the New Caledonia and Fiji garrisons would also make sense to me given how easy they are to blockade.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: eskuche

ORIGINAL: incbob
I am not sure what you are saying. I do not understand. Are you saying that the reason Japan took so long in real life is because they were two cautious? That they should have conquered the entire DEI, Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia, and Port Moresby by the end of January 1942?

If this is the claim you are making, I would love to see on what you base it on, other than you can do it in WPP.

I'm claiming that it was materially possible to, whereas it's not the in Europe due to political pressure and the territory/force setup. Of course, we can always criticize the surrender mechanics in the game. Maybe that is the way to have some change? Since there is only one city to take for DEI and Philippines maybe it should require that they have less than 50% of starting strength or something as well.

eskuche you really need to read up on the Japanese planning that went into the initial plans for the beginning of the war. As your comment shows you have very limited knowledge about Japan's capabilities.

Japan had a real lack of troop transports for invasions. They were hard pressed to invade where they did. Much less add additional invasion areas. Plus they had no idea that they would be as successful as they would be either. In addition, they had to divert cargo ships from supplying China and the Home Islands to support the invasions with resupply. And they did not have enough of just normal cargo ships either. They were always short changing one area of the Empire in order to support a different area.

As I have posted in other threads, the '41 start is a complete fantasy. Solely designed to be 'fun' for Japanese players.

[eskuche]

That’s fine! I’ve expressed in multiple places that I’m not familiar with this theatre and this is good enough evidence for me that perhaps IJN landing craft should be titrated down or delayed a bit.

Edit: the port supply shipping has also been glaring in my eyes. There is always instant free full supply to any taken port.