Offsetting Countries and Periods

[Greyghost]

Hello folks,

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Just wanted to throw this out to you folks who tests and tweeks points out.

After reading post such as below:

American Bias in War at Sea http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=20790
USS Essex http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=21130

There is a common consensus that there is be a bit of a bias towards the USA in WaS and with possibility of future sets, the USA will probably gain a lot more in there arsenal.

With a quick check through history (it is amazing with the interest in War at Sea can make you search the Internet for great information by the way):

Even by comparing the following two battles in the pacific, it is evident how fast the US had increased their production of Carriers (not to mention the quality of Carriers).

October 26, 1942 (Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands)
US Aircraft Carrier Strength of 2 compared to Japan’s 4 Carriers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Santa_Cruz_Islands

October 23 to October 26, 1944 (Battle of Leyte Gulf)
US Aircraft Carrier Strength of 17 compared to Japan’s 4 Carriers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf

So, I was curious if something like a “handicap system” based on certain countries (namely USA at the moment) and / or periods (year of aircraft and ships) where as the years increase, so does the handicap.

There can be something like an addendum to the rules that there would be limitations and “penalties” for ships and aircraft to be used in scenario or semi-historical play. I say this because some people are not interested semi-historical play or do not have enough resources (aircraft and ships) to play out some battles, but if they did, it would be nice if Wizards can play test this type of “handicap system”.

Well, Thanks for reading!

[Muenchausen]

Welcome aboard Greyghost. This seems to be a theme that keeps appearing, not only in WAS but also AAM.

A little history. After the first couple of sets were released in AAM, the concern was the bias was towards the Germans. Then as more sets were released the bias was shifted towards the Americans. I haven't visited the AAM boards in a while so I don't know where this discussion has lead recently, if it is still going on.

I won't rehash the discussion on whats ships are better than others. You cited two threads that contain very good points of information.

My opinion is this, I think this conversation is a little premature. Why? We just got set I, set II will be released some day soon, I hope. We have no idea what will be in set two and (fingers crossed) set III. Point being, maybe set II will give the Japanese an advantage, maybe set II will close the bias and all factions will be as equal as possible. Remember, to stay within the bounderies of being historically accurate, they will have to produce ships that are somewhat historically accurate. And that may mean the bias stays with the US.

[Thalan]

In my opinion no system is needed. I have read both of those topics and find them both to be baseless. No one knows exactly what the point cost of a unit is supposed to represent so to say that that US ships need to be increased is not entirely baseless. We are talking about a war in which we OUT PRODUCTED every enemy we were fighting. Now I know this is a game but if you are going to make it accurate, or at least as much as possible, then production has to be taken into account. The ability to out produce the enemy was just as important and any weapon used during the war. So to say that a limit needs to be put into the game to make it fair towards other players it to ignore the history this game is supposed to represent.

At no time did Tojo call FDR on the phone and say "hey great job at Saipan but look for the Iwo Jima invasion Im going to need you to not bring so many carrier's. I really dont have the many left and its not fair that I cant compete with you numerically."

I understand everyone has an opinion and I am all for that but really its frustrating to read that no one can see how the IJN can win against the US due to point cost and awesome SA's and everything else everyone is using as an excuse for why your losing. If you play IJN and you cant beat the US your not using your force correctly. I play against the IJN two to three times a week. It started out 100 point games on one map and now we are up to 500 points on a double map. I win and sometimes I lose. It is the biggest load of BS ever to hear someone say that the IJN cant win agianst the US. I lose as often as I win. If your losing, figure out how your losing and redesign your force. The IJN has great ships and planes so if your losing your not using your force correctly (yes i said that twice), you have the wrong type of force for the opponent you are fighting or......your dice suck!!!

There is no SA on any ship that cant be overcome. The game is balanced and works fine. Could it use just a bit of fine tuning? Maybe, but in my opinion the point costs are fine and every navy has something that puts on an even keel with everyone else. Its all in the design and the dice.

[Thalan]

Oh and grayghost....great research and thanks for the links!!!

[LoneWolf]

Remember, to stay within the bounderies of being historically accurate, they will have to produce ships that are somewhat historically accurate. And that may mean the bias stays with the US.

1939 the Royal navy had like, 15 capital ships, more then just one singal aircraft carrier. not to mention the destroyers and so on. I'm well aware of the obvious naval strength the U.S had by the end of the war, but i don't even see the game to be historicaly friendly towards to brits at the moment. i'm personaly hopping it changes in set 2.

[Thalan]

I see your point Lonewolf but what the Brits do have is darn good. I fought a Brit battleship force with an American Carrier force.....mistake. The Rodney is tough nut to crack. I would like to see a bit more for them in the next set.

["Sink the Bismark"]

I see your point Lonewolf but what the Brits do have is darn good. I fought a Brit battleship force with an American Carrier force.....mistake. The Rodney is tough nut to crack. I would like to see a bit more for them in the next set.

Yes, the british have some good units but suffer because of their lack of a capital ship. The rodney is the only one I would ever consider using and I never use it because I have the Washington. They cost about the same and the washington is far superior. Again the Americans are controlling all:(

[CaptainHans]

I just read these threads and I don't play WAS. But it seems the solution is easy everyone plays the USA all the time. Easy, every one has the best ships and planes to choose from.

Either that or play the game in sets where one player plays axis in the first game then allies in the second game and the winner is the person with the most points from both games. This way faction balance doesn't matter it matters on how well you can use each faction.

[Thalan]

Nice idea CaptainHans. If there were a bias in the game towards the USN that idea would work great. The problem is that the bias everyone seems to find in this game is just perception and nothing more. I play the USN and I lose all the time. I have lost all the ships everyone says through off the "balance" of the game. Every navy has ships that in the right combo will defeat another. Its ALL in how you use your force, what you attack and the dice you roll.

There is nothing like seeing the look in my friends face and he realizes I (and it happens a lot) just scored 7 hits off of 9 dice!!!! Of course I have roll 15 dice and scored 1 hit so it goes both ways. ITS ALL IN THE DICE. There is NO bias, there is nothing that OUT of balance in this game. I spent 5 years in the navy I KNOW how to use my force and I lose just as often as I win. Dont fight your opponents fight, make him fight yours and the SA's everyone cries about wont matter at all.

If you lose, as I have said before:

1. figure out how you lost
2. redesign your force
3. put your strengths against your enemies weekness
4. dont be afraid of a SA because it can be defeated....so attack anyway!
5. Get better dice!!!!

Anyway, thats my my 2 cents!!!


p.s. captainhans....china??? NICE!!

['Warspite']

Looking at the points costings [which is where many of the allegations of either pro-US or anti-Japanese bias lie] it would seem the Japanese do pay a lot for their Long Lance torpedoes and larger number of flagships. They have flagships all the way down to cruiser level.

Thus far the simplest way I have found around this is to give the Japanese players a 5% or 10% points loading.

So in a 100 point game the Japanese get 105 - or 110 if I am feeling generous!

[weedsrock2]

First, welcome aboard GreyGhost! Thanks for the links too.

Handicapping is certainly a viable alternative. It might be more appropriate for an 'advanced' game than the core rules though. I think the goal is to keep the game as close to its current level of simplicity/complexity as possible.

Second, I like to play the British Navy too so I just try the best I can. The Rodney and the Truculents are good units in particular. The Javelin is also a good destroyer for the points. There is nothing wrong with the Ark Royal either, but the Swordfish and Sea Hurricanes definitely require some careful tactical use. I also 'allow' myself to use the Catalina since it was widely used by the Brits. The Hood is a little worrisome to use, but I did win with it the one time I used it.

Third, I don't worry about the Americans sheer volume of ships and planes. That is completely irrelevant in a tournament 100 pt game or even the 200 pt games I mostly play. To get really large fleets of 500 pts or more we just need more sets with more ships. That will come.

As to the quality and power of late-war American units I think that can also be compensated by mid- to late-war produced Japanese units. They built some some fine ships and planes, but just couldn't make enough of them or get crews trained well enough in time. But that won't matter in this game. If the units are made in future sets they can be used and will be fine adversaries to the Americans and British. The Germans, Italians, and French obviously will not have any mid- to late-war technology units, but there is not much that can be done about that except to produce "Z-plan" ships for the Germans. I am actually in favor of doing that after Set II or III. More fun for the game!

[Thalan]

Very excellent points weedsrock2

[Greyghost]

Thanks to all for the friendly welcome!

I love to use the wiki to find out all the battles (both Pacific and Atlantic, works great for individual ship and AAM research too), if you really read it carefully you can't help but be swept away of the sheer scale of the conflict(aircraft, ships, and human life, amazing that anyone can be responsible for a Task Force!)...anyhow back to WAS.

Totally understand that this "system" is probably premature and may not be "needed" but just threw it out there to hopefully quickly offset a particular side or period for specific instances that one can include in a house or gamer club rule.

One thing that I did change in terms of my view of WAS is that, initially, all I was interested was the pacific arena, but because I see a lot of people saying the atlantic countries are more balanced, my interest in English and German fleets and battles are expanding my interest in WAS.

Thanks for everyones great ideas and also hope for balanced Set 2 and for the future!

["Sink the Bismark"]

Even if this would make the game more complicated, I think they should make Long Lances optional. Doing this would make the Japaneese ships cost less for less firepower, if you wanted them to. Does anyone have a thought on this?

[Thalan]

Thats a great idea. I will have to pass that on to my IJN friend and see what he thinks. Now the question is the they have a different type of torpedo? A, for lack of a better word, normal ranged one??? Or was the long lance the only type they had?

["Sink the Bismark"]

Thats a great idea. I will have to pass that on to my IJN friend and see what he thinks. Now the question is the they have a different type of torpedo? A, for lack of a better word, normal ranged one??? Or was the long lance the only type they had?
I know they had others because several threads ago some guy was complaining that the Yukikaze never actually had long lances. If we could find out how many points you'd need to take off we could make the IJN an effective fighting force.:D

[LoneWolf]

I see your point Lonewolf but what the Brits do have is darn good. I fought a Brit battleship force with an American Carrier force.....mistake. The Rodney is tough nut to crack. I would like to see a bit more for them in the next set.

that extra armour point can be a life saver especaily when people send dive bombers after battleships.

I guess torp defense scares some people.

I like to field a combined task force, cause lets face it I reckon the ark royal is better for point cost then fielding a second enterprise. Even if survivor can be a hand SA. Also, even if the hurricane's stats suck in this game, the britsh can field a hell of alot more of them then you can field wildcats.

You have 25 points left, that is 5 hurricanes. 25 points left with america gets you 3.

[LoneWolf]

Yes, the british have some good units but suffer because of their lack of a capital ship. The rodney is the only one I would ever consider using and I never use it because I have the Washington. They cost about the same and the washington is far superior. Again the Americans are controlling all:(

I have me 2 washingtons, 2 rodneys :D finaly. And the Hood. I've had the washington take the yamato down out right, my washington i swear is blessed. I also feel alot of people play the yamato wrong, he trys to bring the yamato in close when he should try to stick to range 3 or extened range as much as possible. It's where the yamato's armour/guns are better.

[Thalan]

I totally agree about the tactics with yamato. Every game that that beast is pushed right up on me. And I guess the Yamato doesnt know the meaning of the word DIVE BOMBER and it laughs at them when every I attack. Either I dont get through or I cant get the right number of hits on her. Odd cause its the only thing my bombers cant hit.


:(

[Joisey]

In my opinion no system is needed. I have read both of those topics and find them both to be baseless. No one knows exactly what the point cost of a unit is supposed to represent so to say that that US ships need to be increased is not entirely baseless. We are talking about a war in which we OUT PRODUCTED every enemy we were fighting. Now I know this is a game but if you are going to make it accurate, or at least as much as possible, then production has to be taken into account. The ability to out produce the enemy was just as important and any weapon used during the war. So to say that a limit needs to be put into the game to make it fair towards other players it to ignore the history this game is supposed to represent.

At no time did Tojo call FDR on the phone and say "hey great job at Saipan but look for the Iwo Jima invasion Im going to need you to not bring so many carrier's. I really dont have the many left and its not fair that I cant compete with you numerically."

I understand everyone has an opinion and I am all for that but really its frustrating to read that no one can see how the IJN can win against the US due to point cost and awesome SA's and everything else everyone is using as an excuse for why your losing. If you play IJN and you cant beat the US your not using your force correctly. I play against the IJN two to three times a week. It started out 100 point games on one map and now we are up to 500 points on a double map. I win and sometimes I lose. It is the biggest load of BS ever to hear someone say that the IJN cant win agianst the US. I lose as often as I win. If your losing, figure out how your losing and redesign your force. The IJN has great ships and planes so if your losing your not using your force correctly (yes i said that twice), you have the wrong type of force for the opponent you are fighting or......your dice suck!!!

There is no SA on any ship that cant be overcome. The game is balanced and works fine. Could it use just a bit of fine tuning? Maybe, but in my opinion the point costs are fine and every navy has something that puts on an even keel with everyone else. Its all in the design and the dice.

I'm curious to know what your favorite 500 point IJN build is, with comments on how it is designed to beat a U.S. force.

[Thalan]

3 carriers
2 battleships
3 crusiers/battlecrusiers
6 subs
3 zero's - carrier based
3 kate's - carrier based
3 val's - carrier based
about 5 - 10 land based planes but he changes it up a bit here and there but mostly zero's. He uses those to hunt down my PBY's and land based torpedo planes.

Two of the smaller carriers are left at the table edge in the same sector.
His main carrier runs with the cruiser ( the one with the spotting rule, I dont know the name)
Yamato/musashi each run with a kongo battlecruiser
6 subs to scare away the faint hearted
so many planes they darken the sky

So far I have yet to destroy it. I have dented some armor but its a really powerful force and he uses it very very well. The sub screen is ferocious and he moves the battleship/battlecruiser combos up to cover the subs so if I run with destroyers to hunt the subs they get eaten alive by the awesome firepower of the yamato/kongo. All those zero's required me to run once with no bombers but all wildcats. Dogfights everywhere and planes crashing into the ocean all over the board.

Large games are really fun, but they do take a bit more time but worth it.

Give it a try.

[Joisey]

So, do you use 3 Yorktowns and 4 Iowas? LOL! :)

[Thalan]

enterprise
hornet ( with the correct number painted on it )
yorktown ( with the correct number painted on it )
iowa
missouri
atlanta
fresno
flint
6 subs
6 wildcats - 3 carrier based
6 dive bombers - all carrier based
3 torpedo planes
5 pby's

Its a good force, but if if he runs the yamato up on you its gets to hurt a bit. This is one of the combos. I ran it mostly with heavy cruisers for support but changed them out for the subs.

[Joisey]

For something different, try my house rules! Sub dominance is reduced, and DD's can survive and become a torpedo threat to the BB's.

[Thalan]

yeah we have checked them out. I am hoping to try some of those really soon.

:D

[Joisey]

Well, when you do, let me know if they improved gameplay for you or not. :)