Balancing Pacific 1940

Got a question that you'd like me to answer?
I'll be checking in on this thread now and then and hope I can answer any questions you may have.
Post Reply
calvinhobbesliker
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:53 pm

Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by calvinhobbesliker » Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:14 pm

Larry, remember the original Pacific where you suggested a change in setup so that the game would be more balanced? Do you have any official suggestions(maybe to be added to the FAQ like in the original) to help the allies a bit? One example may be to give the US the extra 40 ipcs to spend on its first turn. Most people at A&A.org think it's unbalanced. Thanks for your help.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:09 pm

All you have to do is make the setup of military exactly historical, then balance with assigning a new IPC basis to USA when they go to war.

The last thing is to address Japanese Victory as something like the AAP system of points ( 10 IPC= 1 Point). Japan would need X points to win.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

calvinhobbesliker
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:53 pm

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by calvinhobbesliker » Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:20 pm

Imperious leader wrote:All you have to do is make the setup of military exactly historical, then balance with assigning a new IPC basis to USA when they go to war.

The last thing is to address Japanese Victory as something like the AAP system of points ( 10 IPC= 1 Point). Japan would need X points to win.
Do you have a setup suggestion, then?

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:57 pm

Id have to look at the starting positions of all the navies in June 1940. if somebody has a link i can do that. Of course i can extrapolate it from Sept 1939 starting positions and account for documented movements after. The pacific should be easy because naval activity was probably very slow.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

timerover51
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:31 am

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by timerover51 » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:27 pm

calvinhobbesliker wrote:Larry, remember the original Pacific where you suggested a change in setup so that the game would be more balanced? Do you have any official suggestions(maybe to be added to the FAQ like in the original) to help the allies a bit? One example may be to give the US the extra 40 ipcs to spend on its first turn. Most people at A&A.org think it's unbalanced. Thanks for your help.
The US Pacific Fleet would still be primarily at San Pedro in California, both battleships and carriers. There would be no significant development of either Wake or Midway Island. The Asiatic Fleet would be about the same composition, with the addition of the USS Boise or another Brooklyn-class ship. The subs would be a bit fewer.

I would have to look at the Japanese Fleet, but they were tied down in supporting the Japanese Army in China. Also, the Zero would not yet be available, so all you would have for fighters would be Claudes. Same with the Betty. For bombers, the IJN would only have Nells. Have to see what else the Japanese would be missing.

calvinhobbesliker
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:53 pm

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by calvinhobbesliker » Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:45 pm

timerover51 wrote:
calvinhobbesliker wrote:Larry, remember the original Pacific where you suggested a change in setup so that the game would be more balanced? Do you have any official suggestions(maybe to be added to the FAQ like in the original) to help the allies a bit? One example may be to give the US the extra 40 ipcs to spend on its first turn. Most people at A&A.org think it's unbalanced. Thanks for your help.
The US Pacific Fleet would still be primarily at San Pedro in California, both battleships and carriers. There would be no significant development of either Wake or Midway Island. The Asiatic Fleet would be about the same composition, with the addition of the USS Boise or another Brooklyn-class ship. The subs would be a bit fewer.

I would have to look at the Japanese Fleet, but they were tied down in supporting the Japanese Army in China. Also, the Zero would not yet be available, so all you would have for fighters would be Claudes. Same with the Betty. For bombers, the IJN would only have Nells. Have to see what else the Japanese would be missing.
Is this a suggestion for a setup change, like mose US ships off the Philippines and less Japanese ships?

timerover51
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:31 am

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by timerover51 » Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:15 am

As I do not have the game, and do not know the setup, it is hard for me to judge. The US Asiatic Fleet was never very large, so it would not mean more ships in the Philippines. However, the armament of the Nate and Claude fighters the Japanese would have used was only two 7.7mm machine guns synchronized to fire through the propeller, so they would be far less deadly than later fighters, and less than the US fighters of the period. You would need to check something like Conway's Warships 1922-46 for completion dates of the Japanese aircraft carriers, since I am a bit busy, and do not have the time to look them up. As for battleships, the Yamato and Musashi were still one to two years away, so that makes 10 Japanese battleships verses 15 US battleships. with 4 of the Japanese ships being closer to battlecruisers than battleships, with only 9 inch armor and eight 14 inch guns. Cruiser strength should be about equal, with the US having a lot more destroyers.

If I remember correctly, the Japanese Army expanded quite a lot in 1940 and 1941 compared to 1939, but I need to check my copy of Kogun to verify that. From comments on the Axis and Allies Org board, sounds like Japan is way overpowered. Japanese aircraft production was not that great either. As for tanks, the Japanese tanks were actually worse than the Italians. Artillery was in short supply too. Japan could barely sustain the China War at the time.

Against that, that is likely too much historical accuracy for the game. I can think of a few house rules I would likely put in fairly quickly, but the fastest fix might be make the US and Japanese fleets the same size for carriers, battleships, and cruisers. Give the US a few more destroyers and maybe give the Japanese at most one sub, considering their very poor use of submarines during the war. Deploy most of the US ships near California, and go from there.

calvinhobbesliker
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:53 pm

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by calvinhobbesliker » Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:10 am

Well the setup is as follows
US has a DD and Trans off Phil; Trans off Hawaii, 1 of each ship and naval plane off California

Japan has a CC, SS, DD off Okinawa, BB, loaded AC, DD, Trans off Truk, and BB, 2 loaded AC, 2 DD, 1 SS, 1 CC, 1 Trans off Japan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests