My two cents

[sveint]

Well I've stopped playing (gone back to the original WarPlan), but I thought I'd stop by and explain why.

Every game just plays the same. The Axis player knows the exact Allied defenses. So for the first 6 months or so we are just playing the exact same game, same moves. This only changes when the Allies go on the offensive.

I think the game should start a turn or two earlier, and during those one or two turns, instead of moving, the players should make some choices with scripted events. Force dispositions, etc. (example : Where should KB strike first? Who should Japan declare war on?)

And forces should be semi-randomized. There should be a chance of a US CV or two at Pearl Harbor. And so on.

As it stands I don't think the game really works in isolation, although the foundations for a great global game are there.

[eskuche]

Makes sense. I am going to probably take a little break when my games complete, as I've gone through 12 or so pretty similar games in quick succession.

The problem with given starts here, compared to say War in the East (for which I went through and created semi-randomized starts!) is that the discrete chunks are delimited by islands, so the problem space is really, really, small, comparatively. The other "problem" is that there is no air/ground fog of war, so there is no suspense as to where Allied dispositions are.

[ncc1701e]

The initial movements in Europe are quite the same too, but it is true that there are possible variations.

This is funny but if you look at the Pacific war day by day video, you can see that Pacific was a war of position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS-BWXfFkVY

Until 1944, not much happened.

And when the Japanese try to invade India or Australia, people say the game is not historical. On the contrary, this is adding possible variations.

[AlvaroSousa]

Pacific is as dynamic as Europe.

[kennonlightfoot]

Right now the Japanese can accomplish a little to much in the first six months. I don't think they should be able to consistently have forces driving into India to take Calcutta by May or have simultaneously taken most of the East Coast of Australia by that time along with key island/ports of Noumea and Fiji.

I suspect but don't know that being able to accomplish so much will win the Japanese the game VP wise. But I do know it throws the feel of the game off enough that people aren't willing to play the Allied side far enough to tell whether the game balance is okay or not.

The lack of ability for the Allies to react and punish the Japanese for over extending themselves like this seems to be the problem. The reason is a combination of factors. Right now the Japanese can use a small group of low factor units to island hop through the Pacific taking everything that does start with a garrison. This allows them to free up ships and marines for taking key defended bases like Noumea and Fiji as well as Australian ports, Henderson Field, and Port Mosby.

On the Indian front the inability to get reinforcement to the Burma line because of the need to defend Bombay and other costal ports makes taking NE India relatively easy.

I think some of this could be fixed by increasing fortification strengths of ports, garrison strengths, and number of units to give the Allies some tactical flexibility.

But I also think the Allies need to receive transports and Landing Ships earlier than Mar 1st. This would give them a means to punish the Axis player for stripping his rear areas of garrisons in order to take minor ports. The US was able to send a division to Australia in January to help fortify these garrisons.

They also need a way to break blockades without having their fleets wiped out. The US started single carrier task force raids in January. This is impossible in the game system. The game makes them have to sit at the island they would support or raid for a easy turn for counter attack. This could also be handled by some other game mechanic that would allow the blockade to be broken temporarily.

Right now it is to easy for the Japanese to take a key position like Fiji allowing the to base Kido Butai out of it and kill any attempt of the US fleet to do anything until they have a full set of CV's.

I guess the objective is to modify the game so that at the end of the first six months:
1. US can operate its CV fleet in the South Pacific without it being suicide.
2. Japan can't have taken Calcutta, Noumea, Port Mosby, Fuji and/or an eastern Australian port except against poor allied play. This should be the extreme result against poor Allied tactics not the thing only stopped by the Japanese have bad luck with weather. When you consider Historically the US was able to get enough force into the area to occupy Henderson Field before the Japanese could get there in force and prevent Port Mosby from being taken, you have to admit the game is over powering the Japanese.

And, of course, accomplish all this without over powering the Allies. [:)]

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Pacific is as dynamic as Europe.

Oh yeah!

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

I guess the objective is to modify the game so that at the end of the first six months:
1. US can operate its CV fleet in the South Pacific without it being suicide.
2. Japan can't have taken Calcutta, Noumea, Port Mosby, Fuji and/or an eastern Australian port except against poor allied play. This should be the extreme result against poor Allied tactics not the thing only stopped by the Japanese have bad luck with weather. When you consider Historically the US was able to get enough force into the area to occupy Henderson Field before the Japanese could get there in force and prevent Port Mosby from being taken, you have to admit the game is over powering the Japanese.

And, of course, accomplish all this without over powering the Allies. [:)]

Yeah this is quite difficult to find the good limit not to overpower the Allies.

For point 1, I have made a small proposal here:
fb.asp?m=5038732

Basically, increasing the strength of US carriers to 4/4 will help them to survive against the big Japanese CV stack.
For me, damage control and armoured flight deck needs to be rewarded.

But, it will overpower the Allies of course later in the war once the USA has its big CV stack.

Limiting the CV stack to 4 instead of 6 is also a possible solution. But, I don't like it. It will mean no Pearl Harbor and no battle of the Philippine Sea. For 1944, 6 CV stack is good to simulate what the USA did.

Perhaps the only thing to act on is the carrier interdiction. Tone down losses during carrier interdiction is perhaps the way to go.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

They also need a way to break blockades without having their fleets wiped out.

Air resupply mission is good to break blockades if you have a bomber unit in range.

[Uxbridge]

2. Japan can't have taken Calcutta, Noumea, Port [Moresby], Fuji and/or an eastern Australian port except against poor allied play. This should be the extreme result against poor Allied tactics not the thing only stopped by the Japanese have bad luck with weather.

Wouldn't an easy way–that can be modded without changes to original game–be to simply increase the cost of landing craft dramatically, at the same time as the Japanese get their initial allotment of them in pieces as in stjeand's scenario. Once the Sons of the Rising Sun is out of initial craft, they have to pay dearly for any further ventures involving landings. This would also slow the Allies down a tad before they get their full production in gear.

[ncc1701e]

The logistics must be an issue more than the landing ships. I remember a long time ago in WPE that transports ships were used to perform port supply. Then, this rule was removed and abstracted.
With 180 transports ships for Japan and 130 in use on turn 1, I am sure Japanese player will think twice before invading more islands.

But, I don't think this is a direction that Alvaro will want to take.

[generalfdog]

Seems to me the latest patch has stop alot of the rampant Jap success, it seems about right now. As far as there being different outcomes I have 6 games going and they are all different and interesting.

[kennonlightfoot]

Air resupply mission is good to break blockades if you have a bomber unit in range

So far, this appears hard to do until US can stand up to the Japanese navy. US receives one bomber, in June I think, with the range to do that but to reach those islands not near Hawaii requires them to deploy to islands the US can't defend. If the Japanese respond to this by blockading that island air base then the US is now going to lose a bomber because I found blockades also ground the air units.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Air resupply mission is good to break blockades if you have a bomber unit in range

So far, this appears hard to do until US can stand up to the Japanese navy. US receives one bomber, in June I think, with the range to do that but to reach those islands not near Hawaii requires them to deploy to islands the US can't defend. If the Japanese respond to this by blockading that island air base then the US is now going to lose a bomber because I found blockades also ground the air units.

I never say that war is easy. [;)]