Yes, it’s in the FAQ.
http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AA_Pacific_1940_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf
Does J1 Attack "Break" the games?
-
we did j1 al the time, and japan almost never won
yes, it might get slim overproduction than allies, but allies can easily block convoys, while japan needs a 8 dollar ship to free them, while it only cost 6 to jam them
simple math, and japan ain’t in position to take australia or hawaii -
@Frontovik:
we did j1 al the time, and japan almost never won
yes, it might get slim overproduction than allies, but allies can easily block convoys, while japan needs a 8 dollar ship to free them, while it only cost 6 to jam them
simple math, and japan ain’t in position to take australia or hawaiiElaborate on easily block convoys. Did your Japanese fleet just sit in the Arctic ocean and do nothing? Or perhaps they took a vacation in Samoa? Or did you just scuttle them all in the beginning in favor of world peace? :-D And the math clearly favors a J1 attack. I’m just not sure that it’s unbeatable.
-
In every game I’ve played as the Allies, when the US takes and holds Korea, it’s game over for Japan.
Every time.
US builds a Major Industrial Complex there, then uses its economic might to build a fleet on the spot, blockading Japan and, if necessary, pumping out land units to retake the Asian mainland and/or invade Tokyo if a concession is not forthcoming.
Don’t see what all this fuss about SuperJapan is about.
Seriously, folks.
-
The problem becomes, if India falls on J3 or J4 that’s not really much time for America to build up. It becomes an easy counter to send your fighters back within striking range of Japan. Also Japan in alot of games will keep a few infantry in Manchuria to counter attack with fighters, so the US is delayed in when they can build an industrial complex. I’m not saying it’s not a valid strat, just that it’s difficult if India falls quickly. even more so if the DEI are not being contested…
-
In every game I’ve played as the Allies, when the US takes and holds Korea, it’s game over for Japan.
Every time.
US builds a Major Industrial Complex there, then uses its economic might to build a fleet on the spot, blockading Japan and, if necessary, pumping out land units to retake the Asian mainland and/or invade Tokyo if a concession is not forthcoming.
Don’t see what all this fuss about SuperJapan is about.
Seriously, folks.
I think that this is the mark of a great game. The fact that each of us thinks that one side or another has an unbeatable advantage that needs house rules. The challenge is creativity in overcoming old strategies with new ones, and then overcoming those, and then overcoming those… truly the most versatile game of them all. Global will be ten times better and more versatile.
-
At issue is the speed of Japan’s growth (and the destruction of significant Allied materiel) after a J1 attack.
And there are more than one turn 1 attacks that work for Japan.See the Wake, Midway Naval base thread for a particularly nasty one.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17758.0US taking Korea???
On what turn? I agree if the game lasts past 7 or 8 turns Japan is probably toast.
The one game I played where US took Korea was after a J3 attack.The games I’ve played where Japan attacked on turn 1 were decided by turn 5.
-
Well, I’m hopeful in seeing the poll results here, 63% percent think that a J1 attack does not break the game. The problem is, I’ve seen absolutely no strategies outlined that subscribe a US course of action or strategy to follow.
Take Korea is the only strategy I’ve seen mentioned, but that’s easier said than done.
I went out to Dayton last week, and a good friend of mine and myself logged our 110th hour of playing AAP:40.
We started out using Van Trumps Japan takes Midway then builds a naval base there J1 strategy, and the Allies won both of those games quite easily. We switched sides, so that we could both take a crack at it. Niether one of us liked that strategy for Japan. It took too many of Japan’s resources straight at the US, who have the means to defeat it, with the help of ANZAC forces.
So we were kinda hopeful about the whole game and the J1 attack after that. Those were the first two Allied wins we’d seen in quite awhile!
Then we played two more game using the J1 attack, but this time we decided to use good ole’ common sense with the Japanese, and attacked into the DEI and toward India, the same strategy that had worked so well in all the other numerous Japanese wins we’ve seen, in J2 and a few J3 attacks.
Holy smokes, the Japanese just go through the Allies like a hot knife through butter! I’m not saying Van Trumps strategy won’t work, it’s just not nearly as effective as going after the DEI first though. Japan’s IPC level skyrockets with the DEI first strategy; Singapore gets a major IC extremely fast; and that all spells trouble for Australia after India bites the dust.
I think my friend, who just joined the boards here as Buckeyeboy (BB), as well as myself are leaning heavily toward the opinion that the game is not just slanted toward the Japanese, but possibly broken in their favor.
Before we make our final opinion up on the matter though, I think both of us are extremely interested in hearing from those people who feel that the game is not broken and feel that it is a balanced enough game that the Allies ought to be able to win their fair share of games.
The problem here again is, that we see people express their opinion that the Allies can win, that Japan is not so super unbeatable, but we see absolutely no strategies discussed beyond the vague. It’s like there are a lot of folks saying the Japanese are beatable, but nobody really has any idea how to do it!
With Japan being declared an island for the scramble rule purpose, and it’s having a huge advantage in air units, even a novice player Japanese player is going to be able to hold Korea and Japan from direct attack.
My own thoughts for the general Allied strategy are along these lines. If Japan wants India, then Japan is going to eventually take India, and there is nothing the Allies can do to prevent this. The British should make every attempt to make this as slow and as costly a proposition as possible for the Japanese player.
Australia should begin building for it’s defense from the onset, but the Allies should strive to control the Solomons to gain Australia the bonus IPCs.
The US should move toward securing one of the following islands as a base to move against SZ19 with the aim of getting at Korea through the backdoor route via Manchuria. Iwo Jima, Guam or the Marshalls will work, but an airbase is going to be needed regardless.
Once India falls, the Japanese most likely are going to turn on Australia. So I think the Allies should choose one of the above bases as a potential threat to the PI as well. With the Japanese needing 6 VCs to win, the Allies are going to need to make the Japanese protect the PI as well as Japan & Korea as they move toward Australia.
The game at that point should be fairly even, at least in theory here. IPC levels should be very close with Japan trying to gain Australia as it’s 6th VC while trying to hold Japan & the PI.
One problem we’ve encountered as the Allies is selling out on Allied builds in an all out attempt at saving India. Nothing we’ve been able to do has stopped India from falling. So I believe in our games that we will try a switch in Allied thinking to one of thinking about making the final stand in Australia instead of trying to hold the line in India.
The main point for the Allies here is going to be deciding on what island base it’s going to go after to make its forward operating base.
Guam comes ready loaded with an airbase. It is also just far enough out of the way that fighters & dive bombers coming from Truk can’t overfly and land in Japan, and vice versa. It also doesn’t incure the wrath of the Kamikazies. It requires a naval base on Wake to operate effectively, but this is my favorite choice. It also threatens more of the board without the need for a naval base. Plus, with the airbase already there, the Allies have the chance to grab it, then fly in ANZAC air to reinforce and immediately scramble to protect the ships that brought the invasion troops.
Iwo is just far north enough that IMHO, it would need a naval base as well as an airbase to enable it to threaten the PI. Being adjacent to Japan, it’s also likely to see heavy air attacks against any ships there. I like this as my last choice.
The Marshalls are my in between choice. The Allies can move to this location from Pearl, but it is adjacent to Truk, and so is in a flyover route from Truk to Japan & vice versa.
So here is the strategy I will follow in our next series of games when BB & I get together again in Dayton, hopefully on 4/20-21. We usually get in at least 15 solid hours of game play, and sometimes as much as 18. Lots of beer drinking the first night too! :-D
My overall strategy for the Allies will be:
1.) Make India as slow and as costly as possible
2.) Build to defend Australia as best as possible
3.) Secure a forward base for the US, hopefully Guam, or the Marshalls with the goal of getting at Korea via Manchuria or to take back Manilla
4.) Force Japan to defend SZ 6, SZ19, Truk, the PI & the DEII calculate that for Japan, with all of Britians holdings, minus Canadian BC; with all of China; with all of the DEI+ bonus, Vietnam & the PI…Japan should top out at 73 IPC. 72 if the US takes away Iwo.
The US & ANZAC can be at 70, 71 with Iwo & the Solomons bonus.
In theory, it should be a game still, but BB and I will have to try it out. Van Trumps J1 attack centered on a naval base for the Japanese at Midway sounded like a pretty solid theory too, but that wasn’t the case in actual play.
I’m just hoping that the Allies have a course of action open to them that will make AAP:40 a game, I sure want it to be a good game to play on it’s own, but so far we have our doubts.
BB and I have 110 hours in playing this game, and there have been precious few Allied wins. We’ll see if this general Allied strategy at least gives the Allies half a chance in a few weeks, back in Dayton. :-)
-
Sounds good, kaufschtick, let us know how it works and thanks for actually detailing an Allies strategy!
-
Sounds good, kaufschtick, let us know how it works and thanks for actually detailing an Allies strategy!
Yeah, a new way to die! :lol:
Seriously, thanks for putting the thoughts down. I have also been thinking India should stand on its own. I haven’t actually played the Allies yet (other than that 3 round exhibition game to show that KUSAF is not a good idea), but I’m going to get my first chance very soon. I’m looking forward to getting thoroughly THRASHED.
I got my turn to crush with Japan (took India and New South Wales at the same time in J8), and now we’re switching sides……
I think the USA needs to get a huge force into the Carolines by mid-game. They can threaten nearly everything from there. Japan’s usually too busy to worry about really keeping the USA out of the Carolines at that point - well, it really depends on the Jap player’s style and strategy, of course. But heck ya - the Jap strategy that makes the most sense is attack J1, then quickly take Malaya and the money islands, never to give them up again. Build between 10 and 20 production capacity on the mainland, and then just crush the Allies any way you like, any time you like.
-
I have stated in a few other threads that I think the backbone of the Pacific rests in the Phillipines, Carolines, and Hawaii. These three island groups already have airbases and naval bases and can reach most of the board and all but one capital, India. Sure you could buy more bases for other islands, but this central corridor can be used by both sides as a means to cut off units and IPCs. I have read that the Japan player uses Phillipines sometimes as a staging ground, then the USA should aim for Carolines if that is the case. If you build your fleet/taskforce correctly, you can make Japan suffer for going on the offensive against you. As I have stated before, USA is NOT a supporting power and shouldn’t send everything it has to an already soon to be dead India. ANZAC can if they so wish but they and the USA should be on the offensive against Japan. Playing purely defensive just plays into Japans hands since they have a huge amount of assests.
I do think the Scramble ability of airbases needs to be tweaked a bit, whether putting a cap on how many can scramble or by letting any airbase on the board scramble, even land locked ones. In the end, I think a cap of say 6 planes, 1 plane for each possible damage point on the airbase should be fine.
Also what about naval bases, why not put a cap of only 6 ships being able to benefit from the range increase, this would hinder Japan but also the USA as well. I don’t think the game is broken, just people are stuck in a one track mindset of bailing your Allies out of trouble like in all the other AAA boardgames where Russia needed help ASAP.
-
Gharen, good points about players being in the bailing and defensive mindset. Also that Hawaii, Carolines, and Phillipines are tremendously strategic places with bases already (also, Queensland, New Zealand, Malaya, Japan….)
I don’t think restricting naval base capacity for sending ships 3 spaces is a good idea, or necessary. I think your idea of a cap of 6 (adjusting for any damage) scrambling fighters/tacs is great.
-
Well, I’m hopeful in seeing the poll results here, 63% percent think that a J1 attack does not break the game. The problem is, I’ve seen absolutely no strategies outlined that subscribe a US course of action or strategy to follow.
The problem here again is, that we see people express their opinion that the Allies can win, that Japan is not so super unbeatable, but we see absolutely no strategies discussed beyond the vague. It’s like there are a lot of folks saying the Japanese are beatable, but nobody really has any idea how to do it!
You are correct sir! That’s because there currently are no such strategies. Poor Japanese play, horrendous dice runs and incorrect rules interpretations are not sound Allied strategies. Anyone attempting to codify them as such are quickly revealed and easily shot down. That’s why no one posts these strategies because they all hinge on opportunism. No one admits to it other than through anonymous polls.
My own thoughts for the general Allied strategy are along these lines. If Japan wants India, then Japan is going to eventually take India, and there is nothing the Allies can do to prevent this. The British should make every attempt to make this as slow and as costly a proposition as possible for the Japanese player.
Also correct. For the latter, I’m currently developing a strategy that runs counter to this by moving as much UK forces to Australia as possible. China and India are going to fall. Period. No point in building infantry that are just going to be exchanged for Japanese infantry that if it survives will end up being left behind anyway when the war turns back East. Better to turn those IPCs into aircraft that can fly out of harms way and live to fight another day.
Australia should begin building for it’s defense from the onset, but the Allies should strive to control the Solomons to gain Australia the bonus IPCs.
Good point. Should be part of any winning Allied strategy.
The US should move toward securing one of the following islands as a base to move against SZ19 with the aim of getting at Korea through the backdoor route via Manchuria. Iwo Jima, Guam or the Marshalls will work, but an airbase is going to be needed regardless.
Right now I’m focusing on how to hold on to Sydney and Honolulu or at least set up a fork to retake them. Once Japan’s power is broken, it should be easy to map a way back. The key seems to be to play this game more like the Russians on the Eastern Front in 1941 than the Germans on the Oder in 1945…
Once India falls, the Japanese most likely are going to turn on Australia. So I think the Allies should choose one of the above bases as a potential threat to the PI as well. With the Japanese needing 6 VCs to win, the Allies are going to need to make the Japanese protect the PI as well as Japan & Korea as they move toward Australia.
I’m thinking it may be better not to threaten Japan at all. Better to concentrate all Allied forces out of their reach than let them be destroyed piecemeal by Japan on their way to taking the final victory city.
One problem we’ve encountered as the Allies is selling out on Allied builds in an all out attempt at saving India. Nothing we’ve been able to do has stopped India from falling. So I believe in our games that we will try a switch in Allied thinking to one of thinking about making the final stand in Australia instead of trying to hold the line in India.
Don’t forget Honolulu. I’m not sure you can defend both against a concentrated attack. The only bonus is that the Allies could use the airbase on Honolulu to scramble, but it might be better just to hold the planes back for the land battle. Anyway a dual defense would allow Japan to concentrate their forces to annihilate one defending force then then hold off the other when it counter attacks. That’s why I’m thinking it’s better to lightly defend both but keep a force capable of destroying the IJN and retaking the last VC. No doubt some forces will be needed to block to keep sea lanes open, but these can participate when the tide turning battle is joined.
The main point for the Allies here is going to be deciding on what island base it’s going to go after to make its forward operating base.
At this point, I’d just be happy to devise a strategy to get the Allies to a Midgame and worry about the Endgame later.
So here is the strategy I will follow in our next series of games when BB & I get together again in Dayton, hopefully on 4/20-21. We usually get in at least 15 solid hours of game play, and sometimes as much as 18. Lots of beer drinking the first night too! :-D
My overall strategy for the Allies will be:
1.) Make India as slow and as costly as possible
2.) Build to defend Australia as best as possible
3.) Secure a forward base for the US, hopefully Guam, or the Marshalls with the goal of getting at Korea via Manchuria or to take back Manilla
4.) Force Japan to defend SZ 6, SZ19, Truk, the PI & the DEILet us know how it goes. I’m opposed to house ruling at this point. There’s still a few things left to try. I’m going to test some of these ideas I posted at my next opportunity.
-
I have a few thoughts to share on the subject of the J1 attack.
First off, I have never noticed anyone mention a J1 attack on Hawaii. Is there something in the errata that prevents this? In my most recent game, I, as Japan, took Hawaii and the Philippines first turn, and they were unable to take it back US1. Here’s how:
-Fleet in Carolines + SZ19 head over to Philippines
-Fleet in SZ6 all head to Hawaii and take it
-On US1 the attacking fleet have a roughly 50/50 chance of taking Hawaii back, and they lostThat gave me time to reinforce Hawaii with fighters, and fairly easily hold it for the game. The US1 attack, since it failed, meant six extra IPCs for the rest of the game, and left the US fairly useless for quite some time. The UK, since my fleet went east rather than west, survived a couple turns longer than usual, but they fell like always, eventually. The ANZAC were also left stronger than usual, but that didn’t matter since I no longer needed Sydney. However, there may have been a rule I failed to follow in my J1 taking of Honolulu, since me and my brothers are still somewhat hazy about the world of rules.
Thought #2: My game previous to the one above, pitted me against my brothers, one brother as ANZAC/UK and the other as US/China. At this point I had discovered the beauty of the J1 attack, though not perfected it. Still, almost any half-way decent J1 attack packs a pretty powerful punch. Since I had told my brothers about it previously (a rather stupid move), they basically left the UK to die. ANZAC’s initial force, thus, was put to other uses. After taking the Philippines I went straight for India, taking the Dutch islands and Borneo on the way. As I assume most people do, I left these islands rather weakly defended, but with a couple ships to fend off the ANZAC. However, since I was used to the ANZAC fighters being in SE Asia, they came as a rude awaking, retaking these islands and putting pressure on the Philippines. Let me detail the movements in the South Pacific.
J1: Take Philippines and Celebes. Wipe out British battleship/transports with bombers.
UK1: Move destroyer/cruiser to Malaya.
AN1: Move all fighters to Queensland, and both ships to SZ54. Transport picks up the New Zealand infantry on the way over. Build a transport and another infantry.
J2: Attack Malaya with part of fleet originally in SZ6. Take Java and Dutch New Guinea. Put a destroyer in SZ45 and another in SZ42.
UK2: Out of the South Pacific picture.
AN2: Destroy both destroyers with planes, use original transport/destroyer to take Java, and on the way, Dutch New Guinea. 54>46>45>42 Move second transport and submarine to SZ46. Build another destroyer.
J3: Use almost all force to take India. Bomb SZ42, only take out the destroyer. Move minor fleet towards ANZAC fleet, take Borneo on the way.
AN3: Take Celebes/Sumatra. Use all fighters to take out Japanese fleet heading towards Java, land them in Java. Build an airbase in Java, land all planes there. Fight to the death for Java ensued.You get the idea. While I did eventually take back the East Indies (only to lose it again to the US), on J3 it was either East Indies or India. I chose India, but if I hadn’t, the UK would have fought longer and harder, thus taking more of my military to take them out. Because I chose India, the East Indies poured gold into Australian coffers, not Japanese. Either way, this all out charge initially by my brother caused my defeat, as I had fewer IPCs than usual, and it took quite a bit longer to take the major cities that I needed to. I think that this is a valid strategy for the ANZAC, if a bit risky. Whether or not to use it should depend on what Japan does on it’s initial turn. If it seems to be looking towards a full-out-ish India crush, this will be perfect. If it’s a more cautious J1 attack, you might want to move for India, or wait it out until Japan decides what to do. Also, I fully accept that there might be a rule breakage involved in my plan. Please tell me if there is one, and if the strategy could adapt to allow for this.
Final thought: I came to realize, while looking at the board before a game, that if someone was RIDICULOUSLY lucky, they could win the game in one turn as Japan. The navy at the Caroline islands goes for Sydney, most of the fleet in SZ6 goes for Honolulu (except for 1 transport), that extra transport goes for the Philippines with the help of some planes, and the troops on the mainland go for Kwangtung. A bunch of ones for Japan and a bunch of sixes for the Allies = 1 turn win!
-
I like the ideas for the allies kaufstchick.
If you are resigning yourself to India falling, then does it make sense to move up the UK infantry, together with the planes, to help China? That way they are reinforcing each other and China lasts longer.
It gives UK more aggressive options and you have opportunities for double attacks: First China, then UK.
-
I have a few thoughts to share on the subject of the J1 attack.
First off, I have never noticed anyone mention a J1 attack on Hawaii. Is there something in the errata that prevents this? In my most recent game, I, as Japan, took Hawaii and the Philippines first turn, and they were unable to take it back US1. Here’s how:
-Fleet in Carolines + SZ19 head over to Philippines
-Fleet in SZ6 all head to Hawaii and take it
-On US1 the attacking fleet have a roughly 50/50 chance of taking Hawaii back, and they lostA J1 attack like you described on Hawaii (assuming the tactical bomber scrambles to prevent the BBs + CA from firing) has a chance of success of 37%, defenders will survive 54%). If you lose, the US + ANZAC can land all their planes there, to try to prevent J from taking Hawaii on J2. Unless J takes Hawaii and its naval base the IJN fleet has reduced mobility and meanwhile transports send to Hawaii are not being used on the DEI or in China.
It is a major gamble for Japan. If it works then the US will be out of E. Pacific. If it doesn’t, then Japan just suffered a setback.
-
Well, I’m hopeful in seeing the poll results here, 63% percent think that a J1 attack does not break the game. The problem is, I’ve seen absolutely no strategies outlined that subscribe a US course of action or strategy to follow.
Take Korea is the only strategy I’ve seen mentioned, but that’s easier said than done.
I went out to Dayton last week, and a good friend of mine and myself logged our 110th hour of playing AAP:40.
We started out using Van Trumps Japan takes Midway then builds a naval base there J1 strategy, and the Allies won both of those games quite easily. We switched sides, so that we could both take a crack at it. Niether one of us liked that strategy for Japan. It took too many of Japan’s resources straight at the US, who have the means to defeat it, with the help of ANZAC forces.
So we were kinda hopeful about the whole game and the J1 attack after that. Those were the first two Allied wins we’d seen in quite awhile!
Then we played two more game using the J1 attack, but this time we decided to use good ole’ common sense with the Japanese, and attacked into the DEI and toward India, the same strategy that had worked so well in all the other numerous Japanese wins we’ve seen, in J2 and a few J3 attacks.
Holy smokes, the Japanese just go through the Allies like a hot knife through butter! I’m not saying Van Trumps strategy won’t work, it’s just not nearly as effective as going after the DEI first though. Japan’s IPC level skyrockets with the DEI first strategy; Singapore gets a major IC extremely fast; and that all spells trouble for Australia after India bites the dust.
I think my friend, who just joined the boards here as Buckeyeboy (BB), as well as myself are leaning heavily toward the opinion that the game is not just slanted toward the Japanese, but possibly broken in their favor.
Before we make our final opinion up on the matter though, I think both of us are extremely interested in hearing from those people who feel that the game is not broken and feel that it is a balanced enough game that the Allies ought to be able to win their fair share of games.
The problem here again is, that we see people express their opinion that the Allies can win, that Japan is not so super unbeatable, but we see absolutely no strategies discussed beyond the vague. It’s like there are a lot of folks saying the Japanese are beatable, but nobody really has any idea how to do it!
With Japan being declared an island for the scramble rule purpose, and it’s having a huge advantage in air units, even a novice player Japanese player is going to be able to hold Korea and Japan from direct attack.
My own thoughts for the general Allied strategy are along these lines. If Japan wants India, then Japan is going to eventually take India, and there is nothing the Allies can do to prevent this. The British should make every attempt to make this as slow and as costly a proposition as possible for the Japanese player.
Australia should begin building for it’s defense from the onset, but the Allies should strive to control the Solomons to gain Australia the bonus IPCs.
The US should move toward securing one of the following islands as a base to move against SZ19 with the aim of getting at Korea through the backdoor route via Manchuria. Iwo Jima, Guam or the Marshalls will work, but an airbase is going to be needed regardless.
Once India falls, the Japanese most likely are going to turn on Australia. So I think the Allies should choose one of the above bases as a potential threat to the PI as well. With the Japanese needing 6 VCs to win, the Allies are going to need to make the Japanese protect the PI as well as Japan & Korea as they move toward Australia.
The game at that point should be fairly even, at least in theory here. IPC levels should be very close with Japan trying to gain Australia as it’s 6th VC while trying to hold Japan & the PI.
One problem we’ve encountered as the Allies is selling out on Allied builds in an all out attempt at saving India. Nothing we’ve been able to do has stopped India from falling. So I believe in our games that we will try a switch in Allied thinking to one of thinking about making the final stand in Australia instead of trying to hold the line in India.
The main point for the Allies here is going to be deciding on what island base it’s going to go after to make its forward operating base.
Guam comes ready loaded with an airbase. It is also just far enough out of the way that fighters & dive bombers coming from Truk can’t overfly and land in Japan, and vice versa. It also doesn’t incure the wrath of the Kamikazies. It requires a naval base on Wake to operate effectively, but this is my favorite choice. It also threatens more of the board without the need for a naval base. Plus, with the airbase already there, the Allies have the chance to grab it, then fly in ANZAC air to reinforce and immediately scramble to protect the ships that brought the invasion troops.
Iwo is just far north enough that IMHO, it would need a naval base as well as an airbase to enable it to threaten the PI. Being adjacent to Japan, it’s also likely to see heavy air attacks against any ships there. I like this as my last choice.
The Marshalls are my in between choice. The Allies can move to this location from Pearl, but it is adjacent to Truk, and so is in a flyover route from Truk to Japan & vice versa.
So here is the strategy I will follow in our next series of games when BB & I get together again in Dayton, hopefully on 4/20-21. We usually get in at least 15 solid hours of game play, and sometimes as much as 18. Lots of beer drinking the first night too! :-D
My overall strategy for the Allies will be:
1.) Make India as slow and as costly as possible
2.) Build to defend Australia as best as possible
3.) Secure a forward base for the US, hopefully Guam, or the Marshalls with the goal of getting at Korea via Manchuria or to take back Manilla
4.) Force Japan to defend SZ 6, SZ19, Truk, the PI & the DEII calculate that for Japan, with all of Britians holdings, minus Canadian BC; with all of China; with all of the DEI+ bonus, Vietnam & the PI…Japan should top out at 73 IPC. 72 if the US takes away Iwo.
The US & ANZAC can be at 70, 71 with Iwo & the Solomons bonus.
In theory, it should be a game still, but BB and I will have to try it out. Van Trumps J1 attack centered on a naval base for the Japanese at Midway sounded like a pretty solid theory too, but that wasn’t the case in actual play.
I’m just hoping that the Allies have a course of action open to them that will make AAP:40 a game, I sure want it to be a good game to play on it’s own, but so far we have our doubts.
BB and I have 110 hours in playing this game, and there have been precious few Allied wins. We’ll see if this general Allied strategy at least gives the Allies half a chance in a few weeks, back in Dayton. :-)
With this strategy, what should the UK build? Infantry to delay or planes to escape death and fight on?
-
I completely agree with Autarch, I’ve played 5 or so games on the forum and 15 or 20 in real life, against good oponents and it seems clear the game, like many of its predecessors has some balance issues. I’ve been reading the posts on this for a while now and although I have seem some well thought out strategies they all really seem to need a ton of luck or the Japanese having never seen that strategy before.
In the forum we have begun (in some games) to bid for the Axis ie. take the Allies but with additional IPC to build units at the start of the game.
The problem we have started to run into is the bid number needed to stand a chance with the Allies get to be high enough that the options of what the Allies could do with the extra cash become hard to fore see.
However I have been watching a few other games and it seems that if the Japanese attack turn 2 or latter the games are much closer. The problem is, why on earth would Japan wait until turn 2 to attack as game after game on the forum shows that, played correctly and baring horrible luck, the Japanese take India on turn 3.
We have been working on counters to extend that to turn 4 but it is VERY difficult and typically relies on the Japanese player making a mistake or two.Someone had asked about a J1 attack on Haw. It is possible, but requires a good measure of luck to actually capture Haw on turn 1 (which is really the only point to it) as that, allows you in SOME games to kill the 2nd half of the US fleet and cost them a ton of money.
-
Hey Hewhoisnickel
AN2: Destroy both destroyers with planes, use original transport/destroyer to take Java, and on the way, Dutch New Guinea. 54>46>45>42 Move second transport and submarine to SZ46. Build another destroyer.
Sounds like you are using one transport to take two territories in one round. A transports move ends when they unload, they can’t unload one unit then move on and unload a second unit elsewhere.
-
Aww… really? That totally ruins my plan. :P Well, you can still somewhat follow it, just picking away at Japan’s south Pacific possessions as the ANZAC.
-
I’m currently developing a strategy that runs counter to this by moving as much UK forces to Australia as possible. China and India are going to fall. Period. No point in building infantry that are just going to be exchanged for Japanese infantry that if it survives will end up being left behind anyway when the war turns back East. Better to turn those IPCs into aircraft that can fly out of harms way and live to fight another day.
What to build for the British, good question. That’s a very interesting idea to build a/c and then fly them out.
I had thought of the idea of waiting until the last possible moment, and then flying out the at start British air to Australia, so you’re ahead of me on that one.
I had also thought of pulling the troops out of Singapore on B1 to Shan State, with the idea of trying to fall these units back on India.
Ah hell, Dogfights just came on the History Channel!!!
I’ll get back to ya later fellas! :-)
Suggested Topics
