• Yea, that’s what I do. When the Burma road is lost, China needs to become as annoying as possible.


  • I used to think that was a viable strategy, but by the time the see-saw battle for the Burma Road is lost, China doesn’t have enough of anything left to provide but the most minor distraction.

    Moving the Chinese army to the north early in the game only hastens the collapse of the UK. Japan has more than enough forces in the north to contain it.


  • @Autarch:

    I used to think that was a viable strategy, but by the time the see-saw battle for the Burma Road is lost, China doesn’t have enough of anything left to provide but the most minor distraction.

    Moving the Chinese army to the north early in the game only hastens the collapse of the UK. Japan has more than enough forces in the north to contain it.

    Agreed.

    Yeah, this is an interesting thought; going north with the Chinese; but seriously, if anyone is pinning any hopes in strategy for the Allies in Asia on the Chinese…it’s time to cut them off from the alcohol.  :lol:

    The Chinese don’t even amount to a speed bump for the Japanese. At least grinding away on the Japanese over the Burma road causes a little attrition against the Japanese.

    It’s great that they got the non-aggresion pact represented in the game with Russia here, but that just makes the game situation in China just that much worse as it frees up the Japanese to go all out without any fear of having to deal with the Russians. All the at start Japanese units in Manchuria in the game were there in the first place to guard against the Russians. The way AAP:40 has it, they’ve freed those units up to go after the Chinese and British now.

    So they’ve still missed the boat on China. The plain fact of the matter is that Japan never defeated China in the war; yet in every single game of A&A I’ve ever played, China has been little more than an after thought for the Japanese.

    It’s almost as bad as the JTDTM.

    That and the IPC level between the Japanese and the Allies is just not right. The Japanese have very attainable bonus income objectives to earn and go after, while the British have very nearly impossible ones to go after.

    With a J1 attack, Britian will never get the DEI bonus, ever. Britian will also never get the Hong Kong-Singapore bonus, again, ever. Why even bother including them in the game? You might as well put another one in for the British that says, If the British control both Iwo Jima & Okinawa at the same time, gain 5 IPCs.


  • Good thoughts, Kauf.  Thanks for posting them.  I for one don’t disagree with any of those opinions/observations, for what it’s worth…


  • Well, for what it’s worth, I still can’t help thinking that I’m missing something with the Allies in this game.

    I was looking at the board again tonight (Buckeyeboy on here and myself both are thinking that we’re both spending way too much time thinking about this game!  :-o).

    The last game we played, the Japanese went J1 of course, and the DEI was the target of J2 moves.

    As the Allies, I spent a game trying to build up at Hawaii, and it caused me to have to waste a US turn with the US hanging around Hawaii, waiting for reinforcements to arrive before pushing on.

    A couple games I tried adding a naval base to Wake, but it also caused the US to have waste a turn before pushing on. The US is so weak to strat out too, that it really can’t afford the base early on, it needs to make combat units.

    It kept bugging me that on US2, I really wasn’t doing anything with the US fleet.

    My best friend, TA in Dayton, likes to build a British CV on B1, to use as a battering ram against any stray Japanese fleet fragments that may present themselves in the reach of the British ships & air units from India.

    It got me to thinking again about moving the US fleet down to SZ54 on US2. This would be right after the Japanese make their move into the DEI, possibly splitting up, or at least exposing some transports.

    If the ANZAC’ers build a sub on ANZAC1, and bank the other 4 IPCs, then they could plop down 2 more subs on ANZAC2, the turn the US fleet moves down to SZ54. The ANZAC DD could move into SZ55 if needed, which would potentially block any Japanese ships from moving into SZ54 on J3 from Java. If the Japanese are spread out in the DEI, then SZ54 would only be able to be attacked from air units, as SZ54 is not reachable from Borneo or Sumatra by ships. If there weren’t any Japanese ships in Java, then the ANZAC DD could join the US fleet in SZ54.

    If the US transport were to survive in SZ54 to the US3 move, it may have a path open to either the PI or to Guam, where ANZAC air could follow up.

    If the ANZAC forces have 3 subs ready on ANZAC3, with their 4 fighters, they could also counter attack Japanese surface ships in either SZ55 or, I think it’s SZ46 (the one adjacent to SZ55, to the north). These would be the spots Japanese CVs may have to position themselves to recover the air units from a Japanese SZ54 attack on the US.

    The British could, from India, counter attack SZ55 (north of Australia, the little skinny SZ) in conjunction with British air out of India too.

    The US could position 2 bombers, 1 fighter & 1 TAc in Australia too. If the US fleet bit the dust from air attack, the US sub would still be alive in SZ54 to counter attack with the planes.

    If the Japanese stage a J3 attack on the US fleet in SZ54, and choose SZ55 as the spot to recover planes from, then the Allies could pull a triple whamy on them there! The US could hit 'em; then the British; then the ANZAC’ers!

    The threat of counter attack might just give the Japanese player a little trouble from simply swatting down the intrusive American Navy.

    Either way, if the Americans are in SZ54 with their at start fleet as the Japanese start J3; the British are sporting a loaded CV with their CA & DD just off India; and the ANZAC’ers have 3 subs positioned to counter attack the waters off of Australia with their air force…that’s about as tough as the Allies can make it on the Japanese for J3 in that area.


  • My buddies and i just finished our 7th game and have yet to have Japan win despite India falling.  ANZAC strategy has revolved around liberating the phillipines and taking the DEI back from japan.  China strategy has fallen away from defending the burma road and more becoming an economic nuisance.  With US control of the Carolines, it has been impossible for japan to kill china and maintain control of hong kong, phillipines, and shanghai.  We have gotten very close to a Japan victory but still haven’t seen one yet.  India has been the easy part but the US and ANZAC have turtled sydney and honolulu well enough to prevent the victory.


  • @mike2swift:

    My buddies and i just finished our 7th game and have yet to have Japan win despite India falling.  ANZAC strategy has revolved around liberating the phillipines and taking the DEI back from japan.  China strategy has fallen away from defending the burma road and more becoming an economic nuisance.  With US control of the Carolines, it has been impossible for japan to kill china and maintain control of hong kong, phillipines, and shanghai.  We have gotten very close to a Japan victory but still haven’t seen one yet.  India has been the easy part but the US and ANZAC have turtled sydney and honolulu well enough to prevent the victory.

    Perhaps Japan is putting too many resources into the India conquest?


  • Once UK is bottled up in India with a sub or 2 in the sea zone the british are neutralized.
    No need to take India turn 3 or 4 if UK income is 1 ipc.
    Eliminate China and concentrate on ANZAC and USA.
    Take India at your leisure.


  • Well, it is worth 8 ipcs to you. So not quite at your leisure. But don’t kill your whole air force to do it.


  • @The:

    Well, it is worth 8 ipcs to you. So not quite at your leisure. But don’t kill your whole air force to do it.

    I do take it at my leisure, like Van Trump said.  The game I’m in right now, I just took it on J10, had a 97% chance of winning, and was able to take in less air, by forgoing the 8 IPC’s per turn.  If you take it earlier, you risk a lot more air to AA fire, you give the other Allies a turn off, early in the game, and as Van Trump said, there’s no pressing need to do that when the UK is totally neutralized, boxed in, and can do absolutely nothing.

    If you focus too much on the UK early, you also give the other Allies too many opportunities and inroads.

    Mike, try being less urgent with taking India fast, and focus more on keeping ANZAC and China down and the US at bay, and see how that goes.  It’s not the best to have too many fighters and tacs way down in the corner of the map for too many turns.  Take your time.  It’s tempting to keep a lot of fighters and tacs together for simplicity sake, but they need to be spread out more to project a threat radius to various important areas of the map.


  • @idk_iam_swiss:

    be cheap as the UK stop buying normal units ONLY buy people reinforce the burma road and shan state, take the dutch islands as america put everything in pearl harbor expect a loss thats fine, reinforce it with bombers

    You obviously are not playing vs J1 attack. There would be no UK APs to take the DEI.

    @idk_iam_swiss:

    realize japan cant afford re resupply itself. if you hold out on the first three turns the game is yours JAPAN IS A GLASS CANNON. yes they are crazy strong but hold out. Stop thinking agressively

    If Japan is a glass cannon, then the Allies are wisps of smoke. It doesn’t take long for Japan to achieve 60 IPCs with which to easily rebuild aircraft, ships, tank armies or to defend Japan.

    @idk_iam_swiss:

    As america you have 4 strategies

    ONE: Buy bombers put them in queensland, have anzac pile its fighters to back you up. then defen the UK

    This strategy has already been debunked. This only works if the Japanese player is dumb enough to linger around for this slow strategy to develop. The US can NOT spend its bonus IPCs from a J1 declaration of war until US2. With the loss of the US bomber in the Philippines, it starts with only two that can’t attack until turn 2 and it takes several more turns for enough bombers to be built to take on the IJN. By then the IJN is safely out of harms way or based at Truk with a nice big air defense umbrella. Sending US bombers to bolster India with their paltry defense is just throwing good money down the Black Hole of Calcutta.  @idk_iam_swiss:

    TWO: as america keep buying fleet after fleet japan CANT fight a two front war. never forget this. all you have to do is take the island tough to do i know, but YES it can be done.

    I thought they were supposed to be buying bombers. I guess you could do both if the game lasts for 20-30 turns.

    @idk_iam_swiss:

    THREE: As the Chinese concentrate your attack in the north. it will force the japanese to make a decision. either attack china or the UK.

    See below.

    @idk_iam_swiss:

    Four: worst of all but try it anyway…ignore the japanese navy defend where you need to of course, but let the water crash upon the rocks hold out for a few turns and THEN build you make more then them when combined.

    Time is really on the Japanese side with a J1 attack. The Allies can’t afford the time lost it takes hoarding IPCs, unless the US is concerned about a US first strategy. But your better off building land/air defenses anyway.

    @idk_iam_swiss:

    OR just join UK and ANZAC…its cheap i know but treat them as one power…

    Like to try to come up with a solid strategy before house ruling.

    @mike2swift:

    My buddies and i just finished our 7th game and have yet to have Japan win despite India falling.

    These types of posts always baffle me. And then I read on and grow even more confused.

    @mike2swift:

    ANZAC strategy has revolved around liberating the phillipines and taking the DEI back from japan.

    Uh, so exactly what happened to the Japanese navy/air force that they couldn’t take out a single DD and AP around turn two? And if your turtling in NSW, then what ANZAC forces are doing all this liberating? Is the Japanese attacking J1 or waiting?

    @mike2swift:

    China strategy has fallen away from defending the burma road and more becoming an economic nuisance.

    China abandoning the Burma road just means the UK falls that much faster. Economic nuisance? By ordering Sushi and not paying?  :lol:  Japan has more than enough assets (that were going to get burned in Yunnan anyway) in the north to deal with any northern Chinese strategy.

    @mike2swift:

    With US control of the Carolines, it has been impossible for japan to kill china and maintain control of hong kong, phillipines, and shanghai.  We have gotten very close to a Japan victory but still haven’t seen one yet.  India has been the easy part but the US and ANZAC have turtled sydney and honolulu well enough to prevent the victory.

    Sounds like you are letting the Japanese navy be killed off piecemeal. Heck, not even then. I’ve lost my entire IJN before and STILL won the game! Your strategies conflict, there is no way the US/ANZAC can go on the offensive and then suddenly “turtle…well enough to prevent the victory.” Unless your games are lasting more than 10 turns. Then that might be your problem.


  • I have to say that I agree entirely with the post & comments above by Autarch.


  • @kaufschtick:

    I have to say that I agree entirely with the post & comments above by Autarch.

    They were good, yes.  I sent him a PM earlier, but now that you mention it, thought I’d post my agreement as well.


  • The game is clearly not balanced no matter what round the Japan attack. The only win we have had as allies, was when Japan waited til turn 3 and also suffered from bad dice, UK got rich and he was never able to break India.

    The balancing issue could be easily adjusted in my opinion. What were the gamedesigners thinking of giving Japan that air-armada? Japan is able to overwhelm every UK/China attempt to make a stand with some ground troops and 10+ planes and Japan has plenty more for eqiupping new carriers and safeguarding Japanese homeland.

    I think that removing 5-6 planes from Japan could make the game a lot more balanced.

  • TripleA

    it is good to see that some people are finaly starting to make sense. i thought the axisandallies.org community had become stunted with wishful thinking that they want a japan(j) first round(1) attack to be balanced so they keep telling themselves andd posting that the game is blanced.

    it is clear to those that have played the game many times that a j1 declaration of war(dow) always leads to a japanese victory.

    i think the game is unbalanced in 2 ways. j1 dow is far superior to j2, j3, and j4 dow. and japan is far superior to allies.

    the latter issue can be fixed with a bid, like all axis and allies versions before it. the former issue is more difficult to fix.

    i have started a thread for possible fixes. unfortunatly for me no one has commented possitivly or negativly on my ideas. wild bill and variable have offered up new ideas aswell, but no one has commented on thier ideas either. robbie358, gharen, and variable have said to ignore the problem by barring a j1 attack. frontovik has said japan needs help on a j1 dow. bube has said all dows are balanced. kaufschtick (who has made many insightful and entertaining posts on other threads) and silverangel surfer have also said to ignore the problem as this is more historical.


  • @allweneedislove:

    i have started a thread for possible fixes. unfortunatly for me no one has commented possitivly or negativly on my ideas. wild bill and variable have offered up new ideas aswell, but no one has commented on thier ideas either. robbie358, gharen, and variable have said to ignore the problem by barring a j1 attack. frontovik has said japan needs help on a j1 dow. bube has said all dows are balanced. kaufschtick (who has made many insightful and entertaining posts on other threads) and silverangel surfer have also said to ignore the problem as this is more historical.

    I did not say to “ignore the problem as this is more historical”, I only suggested that perhaps there’s another strategy related to the way the war went historically since the game designers have been going for better historical accuracy in general.  Ignoring the problem and having Japan over-run the Pacific, especially China and India, is in no way historical.  However, I have no further insight to add to the discussion as I have yet to do more than work out my own J1 DoW in the only Pac40 game I have played yet, hence my question that was in response to variable and gharen’s comment on the game.

    @SilverAngelSurfer:

    If that’s the case, maybe the designers left it that way so the game could follow relatively accurately the historical playout?  In which case can we learn anything from the strategies actually used by the Allies in WW2?


  • @allweneedislove:

    it is clear to those that have played the game many times that a j1 declaration of war(dow) always leads to a japanese victory.

    Always is a strong word.  I think some would strongly disagree with your statement that J will win 100% of the games.

  • TripleA

    @SAS:

    @allweneedislove:

    i have started a thread for possible fixes. unfortunatly for me no one has commented possitivly or negativly on my ideas. wild bill and variable have offered up new ideas aswell, but no one has commented on thier ideas either. robbie358, gharen, and variable have said to ignore the problem by barring a j1 attack. frontovik has said japan needs help on a j1 dow. bube has said all dows are balanced. kaufschtick (who has made many insightful and entertaining posts on other threads) and silverangel surfer have also said to ignore the problem as this is more historical.

    I did not say to “ignore the problem as this is more historical”, I only suggested that perhaps there’s another strategy related to the way the war went historically since the game designers have been going for better historical accuracy in general.  Ignoring the problem and having Japan over-run the Pacific, especially China and India, is in no way historical.  However, I have no further insight to add to the discussion as I have yet to do more than work out my own J1 DoW in the only Pac40 game I have played yet, hence my question that was in response to variable and gharen’s comment on the game.

    @SilverAngelSurfer:

    If that’s the case, maybe the designers left it that way so the game could follow relatively accurately the historical playout?  In which case can we learn anything from the strategies actually used by the Allies in WW2?

    sorry sas, i guess i did not understand your post and jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

  • TripleA

    @gamerman01:

    @allweneedislove:

    it is clear to those that have played the game many times that a j1 declaration of war(dow) always leads to a japanese victory.

    Always is a strong word.  I think some would strongly disagree with your statement that J will win 100% of the games.

    you are right always is a strong word, and is a slight exaggeration.

    in games with highly skilled opponents and fairly even dice a j1 dow will mean j always wins.
    i estimate that in games with highly skilled opponents, a j1 dow would lead to j victory 95% of the games. early round bad dice for japan could cost them the game, but it would have to be very bad dice, thats how i came to my 1 in 20 games estimate.


  • I’ve just been thinking about how this will relate to the global game. Since Germany starts off only at war with France and UK, a J1 declaration would probably also bring Germany into war with the US round one, which while it may be advantageous for Japan it could be fatal for Germany. If it’s better, at least on the Europe side, for the Axis to declare war later on then this may debunk the J1 attack strategy, at least in the global game.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 8
  • 16
  • 1
  • 4
  • 22
  • 12
  • 18
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts