Potential Rule Change

[JanSorensen]

I actually think 3 might be good.

Not because I think Japan had that kind of zeal - but because it would discourage the US from making a casual landing in Japan. In real life the US commanders had a fear that losing too many US troops as casulties would backlash - in WaW we happily throw every single unit into its death on the last turn.

By making the Japanese defense huge the US player would need to build up an absolutely huge force before landing OR use the a-bomb. Choice rather than forced abomb.

[aletoledo]

I agree that x3 would force a more historical dilemma to the allies, but then it might throw the game balance off. after all we only have a limited number of turns. forcing the allies to devote so many transports and units to the effort would really limit its ability to fight germany then.

on the other hand this would really make the historical "germany first" strategy necessary and thus the allies wouldn't really have enough men/material to attack until germany was destroyed.

some play testing would need to be done obviously to nail down 2 or 3. I can see some new players failing an initial attack and leaving 10 militia in honshu waiting for next turns attack to build it up to 25!!

[SGT Rice]

I like the idea of raising Japan's militia allotment; seems historical to me. The problem of one or more failed attacks generating huge masses of militia could perhaps be addressed by imposing an upper limit on the number of militia; either the number that can stack in a given territory or the total number the major power can have on the map or the total number that a territory/major power can generate over the course of the game. This might be a good change in its own right; Japan isn't the only place where militia numbers could get out of hand.

There are some other options we could consider as well:

Changing some Japanese territory into fortresses. If not the home islands then certainly the Bonins and Ryukus ... the Japanese were dug in on Iwo Jima and Okinawa at least as well as the Brits on Malta. BTW, should fortresses provide any additional defensive benefits against air attack? In the case of small "point targets" like Gibraltar/Malta/Iwo they definitely should ... in game terms its simple to eliminate their defending artillery with your aircraft; in reality fortified Japanese artillery was never (to my best knowledge) crippled by air attack and naval bombardment. Nor do I recall any incidents where battleships were seriously damaged by shore batteries ...

Raising the evasion rating on Japanese militia. This one puzzles me to begin with; why does Japanese militia have a "4" evasion rating (along with the Chinese) while all other major powers have "5" evasion militia? I know their equipment was poor, but the fanatical resistance of the Japanese units on the Pacific islands would seem to justify Japanese defenders who reliably inflict damage on high quality American ground units that invade. Of course inflicting casualties is a function of ground attack rating, not evasion rating ...

[aletoledo]

good suggestions SGT Rice

I guess I don't know enough about Malta, but thats an interesting point about it being a fortress and some of the japanese island aren't?

[Lebatron]

Well, I for one definately believe America's x4 be delayed to 1944. Hell, I championed the idea in the first place and have it in my mod. I have done lots of playtesting, and as I wrote in my readme of Franco's Alliance v2.0, this change in US production really improves the middle and end game. Its nice to see that even Joel thinks its a good idea.

The previous discussions to change the end date and such I believe are off the mark. The best solution, is to adjust the allies production, not move the end date. Fall 1946 should continue to be the end date because, as Germany, you would not make the mistakes Hitler did. As we all know, Hitler hastended Germany's collapse with his poor understanding of how to wage a war. 2by3's initial understanding of this is why I think they designed it to end in 46. Don't second guess yourselves now. 46 was perfect.

Let me share with you guys what I have been experimenting with lately to address balance. Other than the x4 in 1944. That one is a given IMO. I have been playing with America's x3 also. Right now in the beta that I have posted, America goes to x3 as soon as Japan attacks. That is unchanged from stock. But this I feel is to much, and is why Japan never unlocks the US until it is inevitable. So I have been testing a fixed x3 in 1943 for my mod. Here is my newest version for the US.
x1 1940
x2 1942 OR Japan attacks Russia or the US
x3 1943
x4 1944

In this version, Japan is not penalized for declaring earlier, and will then probably do so. The way I see it, the US player is used to waiting till late 42 to get the x3 or x4 anyway, so they wouldn't be missing production anyway during these early years. Also the Allies benifit from the unfreezing of the US. But the unfreezing aside, I think a Jap player will declar earlier in order to grab more resources. A whole year earlier will have a positive impact on Japans economy, allowing many more of their factories to operate. Thus allowing them to field and research more forces. By the time America attacks the Jap homeland they will have a stonger defense. So as much as I like the idea of allowing Japan to generate more free militia its just not that necessary to change. At most 2 per pop should be concidered. Of coarse if my suggestions are not taken then 3 per pop is good.

Other than fixing x3 to 1943 and x4 to 1944, I have been toying with another change that may make the Pacific theatre more exciting and historical. I have moved 3 resorces from 176, 186, and 187 to Dutch New Guinea 221 and 309. This forces the Japs to expand to New Guinea if they want the same number of resources as before. This also creates an interesting target for the US. Sure the US could still ignore the South Pacific and head for the Jap mainland, but with the changes I made to US production its not that optimal anymore. The US may find its best to chip away at Jap production first and the easiest way to do that would be to cut the Japs off from New Guinea. This may result in the South Pacific battles we all hoped this game would replicate. Of coarse this has only been tested by me in solo play so maybe when someone else plays the US that won't happen.

Well back to the topic of Abomb AV. IMHO all thats needed in addition to my above suggestions is to adjust the % to win by Abomb. Right now its 5000% IIRC. To rebalance the game under this option all that needs to be done is find the right %. No other rule changes are needed other than this adjustment. We just need to debate the sweet spot.

[aletoledo]

x1 1940
x2 1942 OR Japan attacks Russia or the US
x3 1943
x4 1944

In this version, Japan is not penalized for declaring earlier, and will then probably do so. The way I see it, the US player is used to waiting till late 42 to get the x3 or x4 anyway, so they wouldn't be missing production anyway during these early years. Also the Allies benifit from the unfreezing of the US. But the unfreezing aside, I think a Jap player will declar earlier in order to grab more resources. A whole year earlier will have a positive impact on Japans economy, allowing many more of their factories to operate. Thus allowing them to field and research more forces. By the time America attacks the Jap homeland they will have a stonger defense.

best idea I think I've heard so far. this type of multiplier would change the japanese game a lot. I personally would attack most of the time after the gift ran out then. this however just addresses the issue of when japan attacks and not the victory conditions.

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

this however just addresses the issue of when japan attacks and not the victory conditions.

Well I beg to differ. It will have an effect on the victory level. The overall effect of reducing US production and the increased production Japan will recieve from gaining the South Pacific resources earlier will change how the middle and end game play. I think we would see more draws and such, and less of the decisive victories. As I said above there is no need to change the victory conditions when these changes are made. This has been my argument all along. That changing the end date or adjusting the victory conditions is not the best way to fix the game. It does nothing to improve gameplay. Rather it just masks the problem by reducing the length of the game.

[a511]

x1 1940
x2 1942 OR Japan attacks Russia or the US
x3 1943
x4 1944

i like this idea as it will force the WA to really plan ahead a bit more on research instead of the current "WA super everything" situation by '44 onwards. and i think the above change will at least encourage some bold JP players to go for the Wi41 Pearl Harbour attack.

Changing some Japanese territory into fortresses. If not the home islands then certainly the Bonins and Ryukus ... the Japanese were dug in on Iwo Jima and Okinawa at least as well as the Brits on Malta.

given Japan 2 or even 3 MIL per pop when home provinces are attacked.

i agree to these ideas as well, but i prefer 2 MIL per pop as 3 is too much (if its feasible to code, make it 3 MIL for the first attack and then 1 MIL for all attacks afterwards will be more realistic) and i think MIL is the only unit to pop up, as historically, JP were lack of military resources in the later stage of the war, so its just not realistic for JP to have free infantry units by then. but i would love to see a +1 attack for JP MIL (say by Wi44 onwards) to reflect the kamikaze spirit of the JP defenders. imo, its wont seriously unbalanced the game as any hit (if any) by JP MIL against the super WA infantry units will be pure luck ...

- not conquering the Axis a Decisive Axis victory.
- conquest in Sum/Fall 46 a Marginal Axis victory.
- conquest in Win/Spr 46 a Draw
- conquest in Sum/Fal 45 a Marginal Allied victory
- conquest prior to that Deceisive Allied victory

among the proposed new rule changes, i like the above one (post by harrybanna) the best.

im so glad to see all the suggestions above (as i always think, under the current rules, Axis player will lose the game once he fails to win by AV by early-43). but im not sure whether the above changes, if implemented in full, will be too much for the Allied and turn the tides to the Axis.

AN

[Lebatron]

I also like the idea of some Japanese fortress islands. I can do this for my mod. Just give me your suggestions on which ones should have it and I'll concider it. Keep in mind that I'm going to be using my new US production multiplier when I update again.

[Uncle_Joe]

I like the 'revised' US production multipliers (a lot), but I dont like the island fortresses at all. There is already very little incentive for the Allies to invade those islands anyways due to their complete lack of power projecting via land based air. That air projection was the main reason to take the islands and without it, their value plummets (hence, we have the US just avoiding the whole mess and going for Japan directly or else just sending in attackers to wipe out the Japanese Transports but ignoring the islands).

If the islands are made into fortresses, the Allies will have even less reason to want to mess around with attacking them. At this scale, the casualties the Allies suffered taking those islands are miniscule....probably a damaged unit. I dont think requiring the US to invest army groups to take those islands is improving the realism or the game balance.

Just my $.02. [:)]

[Lebatron]

Your right Uncle Joe. But purhaps the Bonin and Ryukus islands should at least be concidered, since they are right next to the home island.

[Wise01]

x1 1940
x2 1942 OR Japan attacks Russia or the US
x3 1943
x4 1944

Wow, thats a GREAT idea!
For some reason i find myself playing Japan often,they are fun to play.
But i always wait till end of '42 atm for striking at Pearl (if i do at all), cause of the skyrocket production to x4 from US. Any earlier attack is nearly suicide to axis, especially for Germany in early war (this is where i wish seperate forces for US and UK, so Germany is at war with UK and still at peace with US).
Also your suggested movement of some resources to Guinea sound interesting, but i am not sure if this will make some isle fights into the game (i nearly never have some fighting for islands till now, except the one close to Japan mainland where US stationed aircraft then).

Can we make a poll for your suggested US production modifiers?
As this sounds so great i rather would like to see this in an upcoming official patch, or maybe you can make a smaller mod with this modifiers only?

With this A-Bomb idea i am not sure about, isnt the game already won automatically atm if they have it?

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: Wise01

As this sounds so great i rather would like to see this in an upcoming official patch, or maybe you can make a smaller mod with this modifiers only?

Thanks for the praise. But I'm a little confused why everyone is taking notice this time. I proposed it weeks ago in another popular thread. Oh well.

Anyway to answer your question. Yes, I could make a smaller mod with just this change. But why are you not interested in my whole package? Don't you think making Spain a frozen ally of Germany improves upon the game? Or the new Soviet Far East territories?

[Joel Billings]

Although the production multipliers will probably make a more balanced (and fun) game, I have to say that Gary fought me hard on reducing the WA production numbers. He kept coming up with statistics about US production that really indicated they deserved at least what we gave them in the game and probalby more. The US was able to produce unbelievable amounts of equipment compared to the rest of the world. I'm not against making the changes to US production, but Gary might be. Also, I think it will probably do too much to unbalance the game. Perhaps a compromise would be x2 in 1942 or Japan at war with US/Russia and x4 in 1943+. This would encourage earlier attacks against the US but would give the US it's deserved production starting in 1943. It would probably increase options for the Axis as they could now attack anytime from Fall41 to Fall42 without increasing Allied production.

[JanSorensen]

I am not terribly fond of lowering the US production - if anything it seems on the low side compared to real life. The US produced so much more than anyone else - supplying the British and the Russians as well as fighting mostly alone in the Pacific.

But the compromise that Joel puts forth could work I reckon - mostly because it will give the Japanese player a choice on when to declare war which currently is very lacking as we have debated on this board many times. Good idea on that one Lebatron.

I would think that
- Japan getting 2 MIL per pop (deters pot-shot invasions nicely)
- x2 1942 OR Japan attacks Russia or the US
- x4 1943
would nicely balance the Pacific war and make it alot more interesting without completely breaking from reality with respect to US production. Having the Japanese likely to attack earlier and the US in need of resources if they want to use the 4x modifier also makes for some interesting WA decisions wrt convoys at a time when the Japanese may still be a force to be reckoned with.

I still think the victory timetable needs adjusting though. As it is now (even with these changes) the "window" for getting a Draw or marginal Axis win is simply too small. Draws should be quite common and Decisive wins rare and to make that happen the victory time table needs to be spread out. I have tried to make this happen with the current options in the scendat40.txt file using the beforetime option - but unfortunately that lets you win by just bombing production rather than conquest. If anyone else is tinkering with that file I would be interested in hearing your observations.

[aletoledo]

Also, I think it will probably do too much to unbalance the game. Perhaps a compromise would be x2 in 1942 or Japan at war with US/Russia and x4 in 1943+. This would encourage earlier attacks against the US but would give the US it's deserved production starting in 1943. It would probably increase options for the Axis as they could now attack anytime from Fall41 to Fall42 without increasing Allied production.

I think thats a good idea also, it does at least give some incentive for japan to attack earlier since there isn't really a negative then to attacking in 1942.

I think what Gary needs to take into consideration is what Lebatron said best here, that the US player is already used to playing at a reduced level since the japanese will never attack till 1943 (late 1942) anyway.

besides that, really what difference does it make about history if the game forces japan to wait till the last minute, which in itself is ahistorical? he's basically trading one ahistorical tidbit for another. except the fact is that the "historical production/ahistorical japanese attack" is more unbalanced than the "ahistorical production/historical japanese attack".

I think both the allied and axis player would both enjoy a solution to getting the japanese to attack sooner.

[aletoledo]

I still think the victory timetable needs adjusting though. As it is now (even with these changes) the "window" for getting a Draw or marginal Axis win is simply too small. Draws should be quite common and Decisive wins rare and to make that happen the victory time table needs to be spread out.

I agree, we've sort of filled this thread with two different debates.

I can through another in as well! [:'(] how to make the US island hop in the pacific instead of going the northern route!

[Lebatron]

Well my philosophy towards WAW is that its a GAME and not a SIMULATION. So even though it may be true that US production was that strong that early it doesn't work well in this type of game. Imagine how A&A would play if the US jumped from 36IPC to 90IPC in a short time. No, X4 for four years is just to much. All the super teched up troops are an obvious indication of that. It may tip the balance toward the Axis. If that is the case, its an easy thing to increase the Axis AV. If the Axis are still getting alot more minor victories than the allies, then I can replace the one Russain factory I removed in v2.0 for instance.

Joel, 2by3 can borrow what they want from Franco's Alliance to make the standard 1940 scenario better. As I think about it, x4 in 1943 may be better for the standard scenario but I don't believe it would be for Franco's Alliance. In the 1940 scenario, Gibraltar is usually captured then Egypt sometimes follows. This is a major plus for Germany that perhaps the x4 in 1943 can compensate for. Since Spain is frozen in my mod, the Spainish Gambit can't take place. The Med therefore becomes a battleground, diverting some German strength from Russia. Also Russia gains a new buffer zone in the Far East. These two major items are a bonus to the allies, and as a result my balance adjustments will need to be unique.

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

besides that, really what difference does it make about history if the game forces japan to wait till the last minute, which in itself is ahistorical? he's basically trading one ahistorical tidbit for another. except the fact is that the "historical production/ahistorical japanese attack" is more unbalanced than the "ahistorical production/historical japanese attack".

Well said. Also may I add that when you play Franco's Alliance vs 1940 your trading a "historical production/ahistorical German attack" for a "ahistorical production/historical German attack." Meaning Germany does not attack Spain. IMHO I feel my mod creates a much more fun and dynamic game.

[Forwarn45]

besides that, really what difference does it make about history if the game forces japan to wait till the last minute, which in itself is ahistorical? he's basically trading one ahistorical tidbit for another. except the fact is that the "historical production/ahistorical japanese attack" is more unbalanced than the "ahistorical production/historical japanese attack".

This is a good point but I tend to agree more with Jan's comments. I like that the game attempts to model history in certain respects. I would like to find solutions that keep the game fun while keeping within somewhat historical parameters in things like US production. One way to do this is by tinkering with victory conditions. I continue to lament the fact that harrybanana's excellent idea for a flexible end-date (depending on when all powers are at war) is apparently not possible to code at this point.

The only thing about production that I think may be off is that it is actually a little high before the US enters the war. I'm not sure about this, but it would be interesting to consider reducing US production pre-war, but advancing the date when the US actually enters. For example, US production could be set at the beginning of the game to either .5 or to act like China (if that is easier to code) - and produce only every other turn. US entry date could be advanced to Winter or Spring of '42. On top of that, perhaps give the US some more units to make research even more difficult. One of the ahistorical things about the game now is how the WA can jack up their units to uber-units very early. These suggestions would lead to a more historical feel in how strong the WA are in 1942 and 1943 in actual battlefield strength. Anyway - this is just a suggestion and might not be a good one. But there has to be some other creative solutions that are consistent with history.