• Founder TripleA Admin

    I don’t like the idea of attacking Hawaii only to have my Japanese navy destroyed the next turn.

    @shohoku201:

    @JohnBarbarossa:

    One other thing. There was some talk (by Larry?) that the USA had a motive to keep a large fleet based at Hawaii (so Pearl would be re-lived again). Our US player thought differently and kept the fleet safely at the west coast to build it up first. But when we finised our test game we saw that there was a route from Japan to Hawaii of only 3 spaces (with a naval base). This means that Hawaii is constant at risk and this is probably the reason why you have to base a fleet there (or at least make it a deadzone for Japan).

    I don’t like the idea of Hawaii within a single move (with a naval base) from Japan and vice versa.


  • I’m thinking as Japan an invasion of New Zealand could be a viable option. Stationing a fleet at the sea around New Guinea in the first two turns then invading on the third. Gives you a free Minor IC right off Australia and provides a good distraction to US.


  • Ive only played the game once, as the Allies, so I dont have the Japanese perspective yet, but I must agree with DJensen’s post.    Japan was spread way too thin, and even though they looked after rounds 3-5 like a win was inevitable, the game started slowly tu torn after that and the Allies eventually won in the 9th round.

    The American Juggernaught is just ridiculous once they have a supply line established, and Japan has to get just enough cities that it makes it hard for them to get that last one.  India is not a piece of cake, and Austrailia is fairly close to the US that once they are in the war they can easily fortify.  It seems like Japan is always one city short of victory, and they just dont have the resources to get it.

    I’d be very curious if i could win the game with Japan.

  • Founder TripleA Admin

    Roland, it was the 11th round where I gave up. But the outcome was really obvious by round 9 or 10.


  • @rmorel:

    Ive only played the game once, as the Allies, so I dont have the Japanese perspective yet, but I must agree with DJensen’s post.    Japan was spread way too thin, and even though they looked after rounds 3-5 like a win was inevitable, the game started slowly tu torn after that and the Allies eventually won in the 9th round.

    The American Juggernaught is just ridiculous once they have a supply line established, and Japan has to get just enough cities that it makes it hard for them to get that last one.   India is not a piece of cake, and Austrailia is fairly close to the US that once they are in the war they can easily fortify.   It seems like Japan is always one city short of victory, and they just dont have the resources to get it.

    I’d be very curious if i could win the game with Japan.

    Yeah I had the same problem with original Pacific. I never played a game where Japan won.


  • @djensen:

    @JohnBarbarossa:

    We got the game yesterday. We did not have time to schedule in a full game but we played a short game of 2 rounds.

    Only playing 2 rounds you only see the massive potential power of Japan. You fail to see the downside, which is getting spread too thin too fast. You just cannot cover the entire Pacific and Asia with your supply lines. Something will be missed and it gives the USA the chance to move in and dominate.

    In my game, I probably didn’t attack fast enough but I still was stretched thin. There’s just not enough boats to keep all of your transports safe. But to rapidly expand to get the National Obective bonuses, you need to use all of those transports.

    In my opinion, I think it is a false to say the game is unbalanced after 2 rounds of play.

    Mind I did not say the game is unbalanced. Noone can come to that conclusion after 2 rounds. I just find it hard to see how allies can win at this point. And of course we need more playhours under the belt but I also wanted to give the people who were waiting for their copies some information.

    @bennyboyg:

    @rmorel:

    Ive only played the game once, as the Allies, so I dont have the Japanese perspective yet, but I must agree with DJensen’s post.    Japan was spread way too thin, and even though they looked after rounds 3-5 like a win was inevitable, the game started slowly tu torn after that and the Allies eventually won in the 9th round.

    The American Juggernaught is just ridiculous once they have a supply line established, and Japan has to get just enough cities that it makes it hard for them to get that last one.  India is not a piece of cake, and Austrailia is fairly close to the US that once they are in the war they can easily fortify.  It seems like Japan is always one city short of victory, and they just dont have the resources to get it.

    I’d be very curious if i could win the game with Japan.

    Yeah I had the same problem with original Pacific. I never played a game where Japan won.

    You are all talking about spreading out but I was talking about a concentrated attack. First take out India and then Australia (and MAYBE both at the same time).  How can India not be a cakewalk when Japan throws everything they have at it?
    Has this been tested by the playtesters btw? The former India crush tactic from AAP.
    I admit Australia could be a serious problem (due to its relative proximity to the USA) when you go after India first.


  • It seems from the hi res photos that the quality of the pieces are better compared to AA50.  They seem like the quality from AAE, AAP, AAR and such.  Would that be a fair assumption?

  • '20 '18 '16 '13 '12

    @JohnBarbarossa:

    You are all talking about spreading out but I was talking about a concentrated attack. First take out India and then Australia (and MAYBE both at the same time).  How can India not be a cakewalk when Japan throws everything they have at it?
    Has this been tested by the playtesters btw? The former India crush tactic from AAP.
    I admit Australia could be a serious problem (due to its relative proximity to the USA) when you go after India first.

    I recommend you hold your projections at the VERY least until you have played a whole game, and would probably reserve my own judgment until I had played at least a couple games as EACH side.

    Furthermore, the reason it’s very difficult for Japan to win once its forces are spread across Asia and no matter how big it’s economy becomes, is because it was very difficult for Japan to win once its forces were spread all across Asia… no matter how big its economy was. This is a reality of war. It’s  why the success rate of empires is, as of yet, Zero. Because vast territory is very difficult to supply and easily susceptible to attack.

    I like that about the game: the fact that you can never take victory for granted. And I think it represents a big improvement on the old “race for Moscow” games that we always see in the global games. The dynamics of the 1940 global game remain to be seen…

    All that being said, I will still reserve judgment until I have played a few…

  • Official Q&A

    @RogertheShrubber:

    It seems from the hi res photos that the quality of the pieces are better compared to AA50.  They seem like the quality from AAE, AAP, AAR and such.  Would that be a fair assumption?

    Yes, they are of the same quality as AA42.


  • Hi all,

    My first post…

    I haven’t played the game in years, but I played pretty much every weekend for several years in my teens, and I have treasured memories playing the original.  Can’t believe the number of games that have sprung up, but with this new “monster” game (when both 40’s are combined) has got me to get back into the fold.  Hopefully, I’ll get mine before Christmas.

    Having said that, I would like to comment on strategic-level Pacific games.  The strategic position of Japan is similar (in fact, if not for the same reasons) as the South in The Civil War, and presents tough design choices.  In both wars the strategic position of both guaranteed an uphill battle against an enemy who was more numerous, and had access to vastly superior resources and infrastructure.  Therefore, these types of games are very hard to model with realism as it’s main goal because the fact is both underdogs had little chance for a favorable outcome.  In other words, where is the fun in playing a country who has no chance of victory without resorting to laughable gaminess in order to achieve a sense of hope?

    I am very interested in seeing how this design handles this tough obstacle.  I don’t want over-complication which is why I have stayed away from some interesting titles (like Empire of the Sun, Asia Engulfed, War in the Pacific) because I have a family and job that keeps me very busy.  I would like to have FUN, too, along with a design that gives a nod to actual historical believability.

    What I have seen so far looks good, but I don’t think the game will see it’s full potential until it mates with it’s brother next year.  Now, I can hope to finally have my World in Flames-lite, and not have to spend weeks (or years, in the case of WitP) playing out my warlord dreams.

    Jim

  • Customizer

    how many NO’s does each country/player have?  And what are each of them worth?


  • how many NO’s does each country/player have?  And what are each of them worth?

    check them out here, in the latest preview…

    http://www.axisandallies.org/node/408


  • I say do away with the NO’s. Production value for territories is enough of an incentive.


  • Japan has a lot of NO :O

    Djensen, how high did Japan peak before getting crushed by superior allied numbers?

    50+ ipc from USA

    3x 10-20ipc country (China, UK and ANZAC)

    that’s alot of trouble to handle :O And I’m quite sure Japan needs those IPC!


  • Japan needs an ally.

  • Founder TripleA Admin

    This comes from a person who has clearly not played this game yet. The NOs are essential for both the Axis and the Allies.

    @Brain:

    I say do away with the NO’s. Production value for territories is enough of an incentive.

  • Founder TripleA Admin

    I think the most that Japan collected was 68 IPCs. I shot up over 60 IPCs fairly quickly. dipped below once in the middle. Even at the end it was still getting over 50 IPCs.

    @Omega:

    Japan has a lot of NO :O

    Djensen, how high did Japan peak before getting crushed by superior allied numbers?

    50+ ipc from USA

    3x 10-20ipc country (China, UK and ANZAC)

    that’s alot of trouble to handle :O And I’m quite sure Japan needs those IPC!


  • @djensen:

    This comes from a person who has clearly not played this game yet. The NOs are essential for both the Axis and the Allies.

    @Brain:

    I say do away with the NO’s. Production value for territories is enough of an incentive.

    How could I have played the game yet. You are the only one on the planet that has one.


  • Also if the NO’s are needed to be competitive, then the game is flawed.


  • @Brain:

    Japan needs an ally.

    I’m curious to know if there were any other minor pacific countries allied with Japan?

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 23
  • 18
  • 16
  • 13
  • 4
  • 81
  • 9
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

23

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts