Suggestions for next campaign/ Imp update

[Mr_B0narpte]

I've been saying this for a long time, but I believe the US gearing events require a little tweaking...

As they stand, the requirements for the 4 are below (and they must be triggered sequentially):-

SpoilerShow

Event 1

Triggers when either:-

* USA is attacking, or under attack from, either Germany, Italy or Japan
* The Axis have 312 VPs with Italy & Japan in the Axis
* The Axis have 271 VPs with Japan in the Axis
* The Axis have 236 VPs with Italy in the Axis
* The Axis have 195 VPs with neither Italy & Japan in the Axis
* The Comintern have 147 VPs
* Germany's belligerence is 35
* Italy's belligerence is 40
* Japan's belligerence is 40
* the UK is at war with the USSR (this could be very gamey...)
* the USSR is allied to either Germany or Japan
* Germany is allied to Japan
* China is annexed or a Japanese puppet
* Japan controls Chongqing
* Either Paris, London, Moscow, Rome or Berlin has fallen
* Brussels has fallen and Italy is in the Axis
* any part of the Americas, Iceland, Greenland is in Axis control somehow
* Azores have fallen, or Portugal is allied to Soviets, Germans, Italians or Japanese

The event gives the USA:-

* -1 professional army
* +3 factories in Chicago
* +5% peacetime IC modifier
* +3 hawk lobby
* +50 manpower


Event 2

Triggers when either:-

* USA is attacking, or under attack from, either Germany, Italy or Japan
* The Axis have 362 VPs with Italy & Japan in the Axis
* The Axis have 321 VPs with Japan in the Axis
* The Axis have 286 VPs with Italy in the Axis
* The Axis have 245 VPs with neither Italy & Japan in the Axis
* The Comintern have 197 VPs
* Germany's belligerence is 50
* Italy's belligerence is 50
* Japan's belligerence is 50
* the UK is at war with the USSR (this could be very gamey...)
* Japan is at war with either the UK, Netherlands or USSR (needs the first event to trigger beforehand, somewhat gamey)
* the USSR is allied to either Germany or Japan
* Germany is allied to Japan
* China is annexed or a Japanese puppet
* Japan controls Chongqing
* Either Paris, London, or Moscow has fallen
* any part of the Americas, Iceland, Greenland is in Axis control somehow
* Azores have fallen, or Portugal is allied to Soviets, Germans, Italians or Japanese

The event gives the USA:-

* -1 professional army
* +1 interventionism
* +3 factories in Chicago
* +10% peacetime IC modifier
* +1 hawk lobby
* +75 manpower


Event 3

Triggers when either:-

* USA is attacking, or under attack from, either Germany, Italy or Japan
* The Axis have 412 VPs with Italy & Japan in the Axis
* The Axis have 371 VPs with Japan in the Axis
* The Axis have 336 VPs with Italy in the Axis
* The Axis have 295 VPs with neither Italy & Japan in the Axis
* The Comintern have 247 VPs
* Germany's belligerence is 60
* Italy's belligerence is 70
* Japan's belligerence is 70
* Japan is at war with Netherlands or England (provided Japan is the aggressor)
* the USSR is allied to either Germany or Japan
* Germany is allied to Japan
* China is annexed or a Japanese puppet
* Japan controls Chongqing
* Either London or Moscow has fallen
* any part of the Americas, Iceland, Greenland is in Axis control somehow
* Azores have fallen, or Portugal is allied to Soviets, Germans, Italians or Japanese

The event gives the USA:-

* -1 professional army
* +3 factories in Chicago
* +10% peacetime IC modifier
* +1 hawk lobby
* +100 manpower

Event 4

Triggers when either:-

* USA is attacking, or under attack from, either Germany, Italy or Japan
* The Axis have 462 VPs with Italy & Japan in the Axis
* The Axis have 421 VPs with Japan in the Axis
* The Axis have 386 VPs with Italy in the Axis
* The Axis have 345 VPs with neither Italy & Japan in the Axis
* The Comintern have 297 VPs
* Germany's belligerence is 90
* Italy's belligerence is 100
* Japan's belligerence is 100
* the USSR is allied to Japan
* Germany is allied to Japan
* Japan is at war with Netherlands or England (provided Japan is the aggressor)
* any part of the Americas, Iceland, Greenland is in Axis control somehow
* Azores have fallen, or Portugal is allied to Soviets, Germans, Italians or Japanese

The event gives the USA:-

* +1 interventionism
* +50% peacetime IC modifier
* +1 hawk lobby
* +525 manpower

My proposal is simply to remove the fall of Chongqing for events 2 and 3, and perhaps have a rule preventing the UK from declaring war on the USSR until Nazi Germany is defeated, to avoid any exploit of event 2.

Chongqing should not be an all or nothing city, and there are plenty of other balancing triggers that make the US gearing quite favourable towards the Allies.

Admittedly the VP requirements are likely off too, as I think they use vanilla VP values, but I think the other criterions are satisfactory.


Also, for the China surrender event, China needs to lose 90% of its VPs and have lost Nanjing and Chongqing, I'd suggest reducing this to 65% of its VPs or 65% of its national territory - bear in mind it would still need to lose Nanjing and Chongqing.

[Mr_B0narpte]

Just to say, a big discussion has been had regarding this on Discord, in the two sub-threads created in the general chat. You click on the # at the top to see the chats if anyone would like to join.

Or message me here or in the Discord group if you're having issues finding it.

[desev]

I don't see the need to tweak the Chinese surrender, but I am ok with removing the Chongqing-trigger from at least the third gearing

[Mr_B0narpte]

I don't see the need to tweak the Chinese surrender,

Even though it will never trigger if China-Nanking is released?

[stevep]

It does seem strange that Chungking is a trigger for all the 1st three US gearings. IIRC when Boney played Japan you were ardent about trying to take it before Nanking as that triggered assorted effects.

Would it be better having something more historical with sat the fall of Nanking and following massacres triggering the 1st gearing, Chunking the 2nd and nothing in the China theatre but a final surrender of China possibly triggering the 3rd? That would spread things out more and avoid it being an all or nothing for one province.

As I see it on a quick read what's suggested above wouldn't avoid the problem we had in this game that a Japanese player who decides not to take Chungking can't be forced to unless the Chinese player declares it a free city prior to the Japanese being adjacent?

[Mr_B0narpte]

Admittedly I am saying this all when quite tired...

I pride myself on my communication skills, but seemingly it is all falsely placed.

I will try and be more precise in what I say going forward.

I always knew Chongqing triggered all 3 US gearing events - and that Nanjing has nothing to do with them.

I believe I was the first player to identify this as a problem, and repeatedly did so.

Two campaigns ago, I only aimed for Chongqing as Japan in order to put to the test China's strength, knowing in the long run it wouldn't be all that beneficial.

For the US gearings, in terms of China, I believe the requirements should be:-

Event 1) Fall of China or fall of Chongqing or Nanjing
Event 2) Fall of China
Event 3) Nothing in relation to China

[desev]

For the US gearings, in terms of China, I believe the requirements should be:-

Event 1) Fall of China or fall of Chongqing or Nanjing
Event 2) Fall of China
Event 3) Nothing in relation to China

I agree

[stevep]

Admittedly I am saying this all when quite tired...

I pride myself on my communication skills, but seemingly it is all falsely placed.

I will try and be more precise in what I say going forward.

I always knew Chongqing triggered all 3 US gearing events - and that Nanjing has nothing to do with them.

I believe I was the first player to identify this as a problem, and repeatedly did so.

Two campaigns ago, I only aimed for Chongqing as Japan in order to put to the test China's strength, knowing in the long run it wouldn't be all that beneficial.

For the US gearings, in terms of China, I believe the requirements should be:-

Event 1) Fall of China or fall of Chongqing or Nanjing
Event 2) Fall of China
Event 3) Nothing in relation to China

Right I must be remembering what you said wrongly then as I thought there was concern about the impact of taking Nanking. Sorry about that.

[Mr_B0narpte]

Right I must be remembering what you said wrongly then as I thought there was concern about the impact of taking Nanking. Sorry about that.

It's okay, I'm sorry to be so blunt. Pretty sure I've got something, and certainly feels like the dreaded lurgy.

Now that I think about it, the issue with Nanjing is that if we had taken it, China would receive 5k supplies. It was even worse then that before, with it also getting -20 dissent and the USA getting a significant boost to its sliders. But after chats with Jarski, most of that nonsense has since been removed and now Japan can take Nanjing without damaging its war effort.

[stevep]

Right I must be remembering what you said wrongly then as I thought there was concern about the impact of taking Nanking. Sorry about that.

It's okay, I'm sorry to be so blunt. Pretty sure I've got something, and certainly feels like the dreaded lurgy.

Now that I think about it, the issue with Nanjing is that if we had taken it, China would receive 5k supplies. It was even worse then that before, with it also getting -20 dissent and the USA getting a significant boost to its sliders. But after chats with Jarski, most of that nonsense has since been removed and now Japan can take Nanjing without damaging its war effort.

Ah that was probably it then. Which makes a good bit of sense because the fall of Nanking and following barbarism did have an impact on feeling inside the US.

[Mr_B0narpte]

Ah that was probably it then. Which makes a good bit of sense because the fall of Nanking and following barbarism did have an impact on feeling inside the US.

Yeah, from a historical point of view, it makes good sense, but in the context of a competitive online game, it is counterproductive.

[stevep]

I have to disagree. If things go badly for a nation's interest its likely to respond. That would apply with something like the loss of Nanking and far more so with the early and unhistorical replacement of KMT China by a more powerful Axis puppet. Otherwise it just becomes an avalanche. Especially if a similar imbalance is occurring in Europe as well.

There might be an argument for steps to insure that France falls roughly on schedule - although with the penalties against it in the mod this is likely to be fatal for the USSR. However to have rampant success on all fronts for the Axis resulting in little/no response by the Allies only removes real challenge for the Axis and realistic change of a nob-nuclear victory for the Allies. There have been three games since I joined the group and all three suggest that China is unhistorically weak compared to the historical position.

[Mr_B0narpte]

I have to disagree. If things go badly for a nation's interest its likely to respond.

So you'd force a Japan player to act against their own self interest in the name of historical accuracy?

In a competitive game what you'd end up getting is the exact opposite, where Japan has little incentive to invade China as the Allies become a lot stronger then a China puppet ever could if you have all these response events to the fall of Nanjing etc.

That would apply with something like the loss of Nanking and far more so with the early and unhistorical replacement of KMT China by a more powerful Axis puppet. Otherwise it just becomes an avalanche. Especially if a similar imbalance is occurring in Europe as well.

It's a tender balancing act, I propose the first two US gearings trigger if China falls, giving them +15% IC, which is likely more the the entire IC of a puppet China (especially when you factor in the free market bonus).

There might be an argument for steps to insure that France falls roughly on schedule - although with the penalties against it in the mod this is likely to be fatal for the USSR. However to have rampant success on all fronts for the Axis resulting in little/no response by the Allies only removes real challenge for the Axis and realistic change of a nob-nuclear victory for the Allies.

That's quite the conclusion you're jumping too. If you're referring to this campaign, it's also quite bizarre. The UK, France and even India at this point are all virtually untouched, and the US already has full wartime IC - and China hasn't even completely fallen.

There are plenty of existing in built mechanisms that balance the game. Yes, there is a lot of pressure for the UK to hold on in the crucial 1939-1941 period, but this is part of a competitive and balanced game in my view. Both sides should be feeling the squeeze.

There have been three games since I joined the group and all three suggest that China is unhistorically weak compared to the historical position.

I think this is objectively false. We have the awkward situation of complete hindsight and clearly set timelines. Japan can therefore focus its entire efforts into defeating China until 1939, whereas IRL it had to disperse its efforts due to fears of Soviet invasions alongside responding to the US blockade etc.

We are already at the point where China can fend off a Japan that focuses all its efforts into defeating it, at least until 1940. Also especially a bizarre claim by you, do you not remember our Japan campaign together? Do you think we should have done even worse??

[stevep]

] So you'd force a Japan player to act against their own self interest in the name of historical accuracy?

In a competitive game what you'd end up getting is the exact opposite, where Japan has little incentive to invade China as the Allies become a lot stronger then a China puppet ever could if you have all these response events to the fall of Nanjing etc.

It's a tender balancing act, I propose the first two US gearings trigger if China falls, giving them +15% IC, which is likely more the the entire IC of a puppet China (especially when you factor in the free market bonus).

The allies might become a lot stronger than a substantial China puppet in the future but your talking about a position where Britain and France are fight Germany, a Japan now free from commitment in China and probably Italy with US aid still totally unavailable and a US dow probably quite a while off.

I think we're at cross purposes here as I haven't suggested all three events fire at Nanking falling. Possibly the 1st or some slider moves as before when that happens would be logical as its a significant factor, especially since it pretty certainly means the bulk of China's most productive lands have come under Japanese control.

That's quite the conclusion you're jumping too. If you're referring to this campaign, it's also quite bizarre. The UK, France and even India at this point are all virtually untouched, and the US already has full wartime IC - and China hasn't even completely fallen.

Their virtually untouched and if France held then it would probably be fatal for the European Axis. If France does fall then the British empire is fighting all three Axis powers - as its unlikely that Italy will join the conflict. I.e. the sort of situation it had in Dec 41 but without any fighting in the USSR or the US at war with a rampant Japan now free of other commitments.

China hasn't "completed fallen" because as Sluz said he deliberately kept it alive. The US has full IC - going from very little - because Japan has gone to war with the allies but can't do anything to help the allies until further substantial losses or another two years have passed.

I should be able to hold India for a while against an overland attack but can do very little against any amphibious assault so its unlikely that India would be able to resist for long

There are plenty of existing in built mechanisms that balance the game. Yes, there is a lot of pressure for the UK to hold on in the crucial 1939-1941 period, but this is part of a competitive and balanced game in my view. Both sides should be feeling the squeeze.

The problem is your planning on advancing the Axis position to ~1941 or more while the US is still tied to sitting on the sidelines.

I think this is objectively false. We have the awkward situation of complete hindsight and clearly set timelines. Japan can therefore focus its entire efforts into defeating China until 1939, whereas IRL it had to disperse its efforts due to fears of Soviet invasions alongside responding to the US blockade etc.

And in the last three games China has got hammered. It was rescued in the 1st by a non-historical Soviet attack. In the 2nd and 3rd it got overwhelmed very quickly. The 1st of those could be a blip as Japan was played by our generally accepted China expert but in this one he was commanding the Chinese army and his production and other plans were being followed but an isolated 3 provinces were only still left in Sept 39 because the Japanese player decided for game purposes to keep them alive.

There has been no US blockade and with China removed there isn't going to be one until the US is in the war and that's most likely to occur with a fall of Moscow if its going to be before Dec 41.

We are already at the point where China can fend off a Japan that focuses all its efforts into defeating it, at least until 1940. Also especially a bizarre claim by you, do you not remember our Japan campaign together? Do you think we should have done even worse??

Are we? In all three games this wasn't the case as compared to the historical case where China was able to hold out until the Dec 41 war between Japan and the allies/US.

In that 1st campaign you were winning until the Soviet intervention in Sep 39 and despite major transfers of forces to other fronts against the Soviets and western allies hold a position and even took part in attacks on India until China was crushed with German aid. If that Soviet intervention hadn't occurred and considering you had releases a N China puppet to help carry the burden its likely that China would have collapsed within another year. Still way ahead of the historical position.

[Mr_B0narpte]

The allies might become a lot stronger than a substantial China puppet in the future but your talking about a position where Britain and France are fight Germany, a Japan now free from commitment in China and probably Italy with US aid still totally unavailable and a US dow probably quite a while off.

On the point of Italy being "aided" by the US - Italy only has one trade with the US, and it is just for 25 oil. The enforced Allied trading is beneficial for both sides - that $ the Axis give to them frees up Allied IC for whatever they desire, alongside clogging up much of the Axis' IC on $ production. Admittedly the resource situation has been somewhat mishandled by the Axis this campaign, we really should have requested the UK cancel its starting trades with non-allied nations, which would have freed up 72k energy for them by 1938.

US aid is already available in the form of efficiency trading ($ for supplies), and likely has been used since 1936. It will also become available after the fall of France, triggering the Lend-Lease act, meaning the US can give the Allies & Comintern all the free supplies & $ they wish.

Under our proposals, the US can get militarily involved from either the fall of France or India - something which I think is needed for game balance. For them to jump in right now when everything is still up in the air is too much.

I think we're at cross purposes here as I haven't suggested all three events fire at Nanking falling. Possibly the 1st or some slider moves as before when that happens would be logical as its a significant factor, especially since it pretty certainly means the bulk of China's most productive lands have come under Japanese control.

Around half of China's IC ends up being in the Chongqing area, or further west and north. Perhaps China would have to lose a certain amount of IC or national land, instead of a specific province to trigger a response from the US (for online competitive games at least)? I'll leave that upto Jarski. Currently I'm happy with the Nanjing events as they are, I'm just making these points as I believe you are making the case they should be rebolstered for the Allies.

Their virtually untouched and if France held then it would probably be fatal for the European Axis. If France does fall then the British empire is fighting all three Axis powers - as its unlikely that Italy will join the conflict. I.e. the sort of situation it had in Dec 41 but without any fighting in the USSR or the US at war with a rampant Japan now free of other commitments.

The US is already at full war economy, and our proposals are that when either France or India falls, the US can enter the war fully.

China hasn't "completed fallen" because as Sluz said he deliberately kept it alive. The US has full IC - going from very little - because Japan has gone to war with the allies but can't do anything to help the allies until further substantial losses or another two years have passed.

"Very little" IC being 150-180 IC between 1936 and 1939 (with full free market bonuses) - perhaps you need to play as Italy or Japan to put yourself on the other side of that coin.

Jarski's proposal is saying the USA can join in a matter of months, and this would also be the case with his proposed rule changes on US entry.

I should be able to hold India for a while against an overland attack but can do very little against any amphibious assault so its unlikely that India would be able to resist for long

It will be interesting to see what happens.

The problem is your planning on advancing the Axis position to ~1941 or more while the US is still tied to sitting on the sidelines.

This is false for reasons already specified above.

And in the last three games China has got hammered.

At extensive cost to Japan. Even if we had defeated China in 1940, we'd have had so little time to prepare against the US and the Allies.

For this campaign Japan has bled itself dry to achieve this early game success.

There has been no US blockade and with China removed there isn't going to be one until the US is in the war and that's most likely to occur with a fall of Moscow if its going to be before Dec 41.

Have you read Jarski's proposals? I feel like you're just making one wild claim after another.

Are we? In all three games this wasn't the case as compared to the historical case where China was able to hold out until the Dec 41 war between Japan and the allies/US.

I believe we're operating under very different assumptions.

Here are mine:-

Assuming all players are equally skilled, with the game balance as it stands in Jarski's mod- Japan needs to be able to defeat China by 1939 in order to stand a chance of dealing with the Allies come 1941 OR it needs to give up on the idea of defeating China from the start, and instead spend 1936-39 preparing for attacking the Allies in September 1939, while making whatever little progress it can in China (setting up Northern China would be a good aim for 1938, and a rump China-Nanking on the east coast in 1939). Although, given this rule

ruleShow

10. If a player-controlled country DOWs a minor non-aligned nation they must make an honest effort to conquer said country.

, is a Japan forced to give up on all naval production until China is defeated? I would argue not, but that is effectively what some have argued thus far.

As Sluz (and I beforehand) have said, there is little incentive for Japan to invade China given the current rules and current set up for US gearing events. While we are playing a historical game, we are also playing it competitively - ie to win - so if you create too strong a response by the Allies that are disproportionate to the Axis successes they are responding too, then players are simply incentivised to play ahistorically.

Another assumption of mine is that if Germany does not take France by the summer of 1940, it has lost the war. I have even thought it needs to take it by 1939, otherwise a fully geared France will be able to create quite the fearsome army by the summer of 1940 (and also that the USSR can invade Germany come 1 May 1940 with our current rules). Even if Japan takes India and China, this would not compensate as the Allies would dominate the seas, have overwhelming IC, and set the tempo for the war, with US entry in 1941 likely ending the war by 1942/43.