in response to the game "axis" their are several DOUBTS which at the beginning of the game tip the war unjustly in favor of allies. when we compare australia region=one zone, we see differed from the game named "risk" where it is in two parts because it is large. this means the troops in australia can defend the whole thing so relative to risk that gives britian an unjust advantage because it is big and should be divided primarily because most other zones such as east siberia are small much less than 7 million kilometer squared but smaller bits. this size is only acceptable in empty areas like siberia and african jungles or desert which is the reverse of what the publisher made the game.
if the foot-soldier are in the capital then japan should easily take the deserted desert and it is unjust to allow the f to defend all of it like one only the other examples of empty ice or undeveloped jungle or desert should be big and this is not done- inaccurately which slows the axis advance through east russia and africa and since inaccurate hence unjust. based on map of "risk" as validated by other divisions on the same map australia should be two unless we consider it desert... then all desert can be one region like australia and if so west africa named fwa should realy extend from the coast until the middle of libya region and not at the joint as they published. this inacccuracy of australia desert differing from west africa inconsistently tips both regions in favor of britian and since it is inconsistent it is unjust inaccuracies because it takes more moves for the nazi tank to take africa while making australia easier to defend for britian when the game begins. also making a four corner joint is unclear unless they specify all four can move one for example tank from libya can blitz fwa BECAUSE all four touch and second step to central sahara- to be in better position to advance yet this is unclear because only algeria and fwa are aligned so it is unclear that the tank from libya can be used in contrast to using the areea size of "west canada" and of australia then the fwa can be named "ANEY" and extend from the coast until aney of west niger near the latitude 19n near 13e. then it is justly divided and clear that the tank can go to aney first step and continue to second region of same area as west-canada and australia or siberia reaching the red sea coast called ethiopia while egypt would be like the map of "risk" since deserts are large regions as wee see in australia.
similarly the cold desert--the game axis cut siberia into many pieces and gives the allies 10 "potential" 5*2 and this is DOUBTFUL because siberia is not developed. only there would it be appropriate to have regions with the area of "australia" sized zones because it is empty and also jungles of africa could have three australia sized zones but australia itself has a developed east so it should be divided like eastern europe- nad the decision to make africa more peices while australia is defended inconsistantly gives britian 2 unjust advantages at the start of the game in spring 1942. similarly deciding on spring 1942 would mean that madagascar was not yet controlled by britian...
another unjust advantage addding one potential an additional one peotential unjustly besides the unjust potential of 9 in africa plus m total ten when jungle and desert is not military potential and all this in 1942 when the USA adds 36 potential- the game is begum with no way for the axis to out produce the allies which is not a challenge and very stupid unless you are nine or ten years old.
onlky if the allies would buy only the most expensive battleships 24 and aircraft-carriers 18 from USA using their potential and then consistently losing them to the axis bombers would the game be any challenge. and speaking of USA 3 potential in brazil is also unjust and iuinaccurate because brazil was neutral until 1945 like mexico so this inaccuracy gives USA seven unjust potential when it could be justly 29 still plenty more than axis and unjustly madagascar which britian did not control yet in spring- when the game starts as they specified in the rule book and have not changed online yet. and africa itself is jungles and desert it should be only 3 potential in 3 zones south of egypt see previous post for diagram with total of 5 regiions the same total as map of risk but more evenly. this reveals inaccuracies which tip the favor for britian ten 10 instead of 4 and usa would be 29 instead of 36 and russia 17 instead of 24. and large zones for equal troop movement for both sides.
+another doubt is the distance to hawaii. a ship can travel "one of two" steps from the west coast of america to hawaii+ and continue a second step--!-- this is very different than the smaller zones in japan and this is doubtful because a ship can travel "distance" so if hawaii is true then japan should have equaly large zones including several islands with movement equal distance again unjustly japan cannot move ships nor transports with reinforcements the way hawaii can... inaccuracies which favor USA movement while crampin japanese defenses and reinforcements. even if this slows down the USA invasion it is still inaccurate instead of equality.
another doubt is the value of siberia resource not ten but only 1 in east siberia which should be australia size and 2 in west siberia also australia size from west china to moscow and north so russia total resource is seventeen 17 not 24 unjust advantage to allies for non-developed siberia.
similarly africa has jungles and desert should have australia sized zones with few resources perhaps 3 zones of 5 m-km-s south of libya including kafue region like "south africa zone" on map of risk game. potential of each 1 so britian unjustly 30 but 4 for africa 24 potential and zero for madagascar because not controlled in "spring 1942" as website and rule book specified - and according to game rules would need a transport ship-!- which is not there.
in theory knowing that ships are more costly to build we see a terrible of error of britian...
imagine preparing two tank-divisions to attack france, 10 that requires two transport=ts to move them 8+8+10=26 for each pair even if nazi would not attack allied shipping.
the same 26 could be used for land movement using the british region nearest russia--PERSIA if they would invest in factory development in persia admittedly this would require intense protection of the factory from nearby nazi tank so russia would need to protect the factory in exchange for britian building 6 tank divisions each turn to attack germany faster.
SUCH IDIOTS building ships using vast resources sunk by nazi submarines when persia is near eastern europe.
***ORDER
although these above criticisms are true and show the contrast of the game possibilities which i wish to FIX--if anyone cares about accuracy... which theyy just play because it is only a game...the biggest complaint i have is the "order" of countries- again giving the allies an unjust advantage after 36+30+24 so outproduce 57 this was not enough? and see above even those numbers are inaccurately unjustly provided.
***
another flaw is the order=why should russia attack first? it is a defender!
today the game website said begin with atlantic, why? that is so stupid.
firstly russia is not atlantic! if the "world" war began when polands allies responded to the invasuion of poland then starting a cycle must be NAZI not russia. imagine the war starts with nazi then continues and begin the game at the start fo a new cycle with nazi--or better yet-- use the "map" in the OBJECTIVE ORDER of sunrise. the first capitol city is tokyo so it should be first another reason to support japan is the selection of spring 1942 after USA entered war- japan attacked USA and it responded so starting the game should be at the start of a cycle with japan first making japan after britian gives britian an unjust advantage in india and persia--they could build in persia before japan can act.
so it seems to me to that the planners of the game wanted the allies to win without a challenge... we dould imagine if we alter the board more realistically perhaps with australia divided like map of "risk" yet it is desert so okay one large region and like it siberia and africa regions. only africa [similar to risk but see previous post] and siberia with area of australia. large zones of low value.
the order should be "the earths rotation" so japan first then r, n, b.
perhaps the game would be a "true" challenge if usa was still neutral- set up and only act after an axis attacks it as if it started in 1941! and japan could choose to postp[one the attack on america until it had more resources...
also as above brazil not enter war in 1942 and unfair to give USA 36 in that setting. also fix blunders of hitler and emperor to delay pearl harbor one more year, and see what happens... the axis would get much of the resources of britian quickly that would be a challenge! then there is balance until attack USA then activate like game but no brazil and mexico so 29.
to demonstrate:
begin japan [not ussr] why?
because first on map with earths objective rotation. it gives axis advantage but justly.
25 can buy many things what is the strategy? get resources and weaken allied resources priority to destroy russia from both sides
***emperor wanted pacific but that has few resources could delay until control more of asia perhaps until 1943.
example:
build for this goal and meanwhile use forces to get more resources.
build to attack russia. 25 can by tank and 4 foot=a and need one transport ship=ts potential used 8+one tank for attack 5+ 4 infantry 12 total 12+5+8=25 good. can save because potential.
in this example delay attack hawaii until 1943 for one year and delay attack russia until build and transported.
phase 2
attack phase: everything to expand the beach-head in china?
although the bombers can reach there- the potential is only 2. it would seem smarter to attack for the same potential first, weak australia so britian cannot use it to free siam nor reinforce india-- although very far that is reason not to waste time on new zealand but australia is a threat to siam [fic] as well as to four islands.
so delay the use of military division until more tanks come from tokyo.
later will use 6 infantry 2,2,2 for attack to allow long repeated use of air-army and also to outnumber air-army.
suggestion rejected why not use all air-force on china? because australia weak and will be reinforced from new zealand. delay china until ts brings tank with more forces to secure.
another reason to reject this is because the troops will move one that means they are in china and cannot defend siam--imagine: "6i+t+3fp+b also cs brings fp to philipines to get fp and continue to attack 2fp. total 6i+t+5fp+bp--against 2i+fp.
6i one hit, tf 2 more and possible more hits but not needed.
china at same time 2i one hit and fp hit.
2i lost so 4 "move one" to attack if succeed they are in central china will need to reinforce siam and manchuria facing many troops and divisions so too soon for thiis strategy.
INSTEAD
build as above 25=4a+t+ts. good.
first only attack weak australia.
so it has been demonstrated japan begins with the map and in the onjective direction of the rotation of the planet.
No comments:
Post a Comment