Congratulations: I could not wait to be a Tank (and wished I could have remained one!).
I started playing in 87 at university.
How did playtesters miss J1 attack?
-
So, let them land at Queensland. Japan has then traded the DEI for an improvised attack on Australia. The allied main goal of messing up Japan’s entire war strategy was worked. Now the game can begin.
-
not to rain on anyones parade, but a standard J1 war dec involves Java being taken with the fleet from Truk, which the UK does not have odds on sinking thanks to one fighter being unable to reach the fight.
Well, there is that problem. As the Japanese, once you’ve seen this move, you can just take Java J1, and that’s the end of that.
But the first time you see it, I like the idea of the Japanese just attacking it with everything they have. Whatever the Japanese suffer, the Allies will suffer equally, if not more.
The Allies already start the game 100 IPCs behind Japan in air units, and a minor IC build by Japan in Vietnam or Hong Kong will make up for the loss in ground units. Japan can also get 2 x more air units in its build phase on J2 in anticipation of the battle losses.
I don’t see how this move can possibly benefit the Allies?
If you’re going to do the air stack, it seems to me like a better idea to try it in Singapore on turn 2. Then you can get in 4 US planes (2 x bmbrs if you want), and you can have the British land forces moved to Shan State to counter attack Singapore should it fall. It’s a bigger, more spectacular battle, and more of a winner take all deal.
Of course, that is unless the Japanese take Singapore on J2, which is the same problem the air stack on Java has, the Japanese have the option of taking it away in the first place.
the problem with the game is not the J1 DOW, its the india crush which can be done with a turn 1, turn 2, and while i’ve not seen it yet i’m sure its out there, turn 3 dow. In the india crush, india falls turn 3 giving japan income advantage on the allies as well as TUV advantage, which means game over man.
I’m not super sure of all the mechanics of the J3 India Crush myself, but from what Jim says, I’ll take his word for now that it is broke until I get a chance to break it down.
But it sounds like it would have to just be banned. Disallow the Naval & Air Base build in Kwangsi and be done with it.
I just got back in from Dayton and two solid days of AAP:40. I’m too tired to for more now now, I’ll be back tonight.
But I think the J1 attack is equally as broke in this game. The main point being that the Japanese can build a major IC easily right in the heart of where the action is.
In OOB games that we’ve played, the Allies never overtake the Japanese forces in numbers. A skillful Japanese player can do exactly what the Allies try to do, namely hold down friendly losses and maximize enemy losses.
We continue to see large battles take place where both sides dish out equal amounts of losses to one another. When this happens, the Japanese gain an edge as their replacements make it back to the key areas a turn (and sometimes two) before the US units can make it back. That allows the Japanese forces to concentrate while the US units come straggling in piecemeal.
Two good players will maneuver their forces in AAP:40 like two boxers in the ring. If neither makes a mistake and gives the other an opening, then the best one can hope for is to move in and lock horns, hoping for the dice Godz to smile upon you. :|
We’re seeing games in which both sides maneuver, unable to gain a clear cut advantage. Eventually one sides moves to strike, and the battles have been winding up mutually destructive. In the race to build back up, the US is coming from Timbucktoo (San Francisco), and the Japanese have the option to rebuild damn near right where the battle took place.
The first turn only allowing the US to have a meager 17 IPCs gives the Japanese too much of a head start. The first big US buy doesn’t get placed until turn two, moves out to Pearl until turn three, and therefore doesn’t get into the action until turn four.
The designers, IMHO, have allowed the Japanese player to get too big a lead from third, and they’ve stolen home.
-
Honestly i think the J2 war dec India crush (still happens on turn 3) is much scarier of a tactic than the J1 one is. Stony is the creator of this opening, but simply put Japan takes Yunnan loosing a plane instead of ground units, and kills the china inf in Kweichow with planes, making retaking Yunnan unlikely for china on turn 1. Along with moving transports to FIC. Then on turn 2 simply war decs, kills any potential blockers, and stacks a crapton of units on Sham State, still gets to hit India with 6 loaded transports plus planes that don’t even need an airfield if they goto Yunnan. There is obviously alot more to it than that, but that is the general idea. One less round for US to make big money, and all of UK’s big money goes strait to japan on turn 3 anyway.
-
and all of UK’s big money goes strait to japan on turn 3 anyway.
OK, now there’s a good reason for not attacking on J1.
If on UK1, player takes 2 money islands, UK has an extra 8 IPC’s to spend on UK2. But the money collected on UK2 would only serve to be collected for Japan if J can take Ind on J3. That does sound nasty.
So then, although you’re letting the 2 transports live on J1, if the UK player takes islands on UK1 you will just be sinking them on J2 instead. However, refraining from a J1 attack does give the UK options, and they do not have to take islands and lose transports, and they can combine the warships…. And the US, while not getting +40, does get +7 for the Phillipines, and also salvages the fighter and bomber on the Phillipines, and the transport at Hawaii, and can they also save their destroyer and transport at the Phillipines? Plus Japan’s not getting IPC’s for Hong Kong, Phillipines, etc. If J doesn’t take Hong Kong on J1, that’s an extra 8 for the UK, plus J can’t build any facilities at Hong Kong on J2. Boy, I don’t know. J1 attack still seems awfully good…
But at least we’re hearing about benefits and angles for forgoing a J1 attack. Thanks, guys.
-
It doesn’t matter what the UK does against that, the best they can do is take the ANZAC island NO and get 2 men back into India from Mal, but its still pointless. India falls on J3, Japan has income advantage, US only has 17+22+22=61 IPCs total spent, not enough to have enough fleet to win or even compete. The Phi stuff doesn’t get to go anywhere safe, the UK boats can still be smashed on J2 if desired, etc. It just means that by turn 4 the allies are even worse off.
I keep saying it, and will continue to say it, J1, J2, J3 war dec is immaterial, the India crush is the balance problem of this game. Its not the money that UK looses, its the money Japan gets income wise, combined with positioning (major IC in DEI area for free) and with the TUV / navy disparity, and a mobility disparity with the large number of naval bases they control.
Unless someone comes up with a way to screw japan hard for doing a J3 india crush, the game will continue to be messed up. The ironic thing, as i said before, is that to fix it all we need is the SZ on the other side of India. UK1 carrier build would then allow a block and a large threat to japan’s boats in the DEI area in the early game.
The only thing I can see to screw japan over for doing an india crush is in northern china/Korea, but I don’t think that will work too well once japan has delt with it once or twice. Will be better once TripleA lets us play the map with the new rules as far as testing strats out goes though.
-
Whoa, bugoo. I just have a question about a couple of your facts. Wouldn’t the US get 24, not 22? Phi is worth 7 to the US.
How can you say the Phi stuff doesn’t get to go anywhere safe? The bomber can definitely fly away to safety, and couldn’t the fighter get to Australia or something?
I’m not disputing your ideas, just seems you might have a few facts wrong…
-
sorry was in a hurry, yes the bomber gets away, fig cannot goto ANZAC if war has not yet been declared, just to guam or to land on carrier in SZ 30 or 31, but depending on conditions that can expose your carrier, DD and trans have no where to really go that would be safe from japan on turn 2. And yes would be 24, but the end result is the same.
The other thing that would really help against an India crush strat, would be allowing coastal airbases to scramble, as you could turn Mal into a fortress for a turn, and the India SZ would be a bit tough to enter with Japan. Still see no logical reason nor balance reason for this rule.
-
Well, if this J3 India crush works after J2 attack this is huge.
Can’t UK just spread out their ships UK 2 to block J3 attack? Attacking any Japanese blockers with ships and planes?
-
Where will they hide at from bombers in Siam , carriers in SZ 36, and japan boats scattered all about? without the other half of the map, simply no.
-
I’m starting to form the strong opinion that this game was very poorly playtested.
I don’t think AAP is going to see any more table time after the European side comes out. That’s a shame too, it would’ve been nice to have had the option to game just the Pacific if the mood struck.
This makes me wonder whether the Europe stand alone version is going to have the same game balance and set up issues. I’m starting to have flash backs to the original Pacific & Europe versions… :|
-
I’m starting to form the strong opinion that this game was very poorly playtested.
I remember having thoughts of this when I first analyzed the setup for the first time.
I don’t think AAP is going to see any more gametime after the European side comes out. That’s a shame too, it would’ve been nice to have had the option to game just the Pacific if the mood struck.
Well, you guys have logged an awful lot of hours on it already, so I wouldn’t call that a failure. Just make a tweak to the setup and it’s a balanced game.
This makes me wonder whether the Europe stand alone version is going to have the same game balance and set up issues. I’m starting to have flash backs to the original Pacific & Europe versions… :|
Depends on what triggers the USA war economy. E40 might be fine by itself. I really wanted to believe them when they said P40 could stand on its own as a good game, but come on. When the UK can’t sail west of East India, and the Russians suddenly don’t exist, and Japan has little good reason not to attack everybody in 1940 instead of December 7, 1941, and the Chinese can’t leave China under any circumstances (that’s for you, Func), and the USA can’t transfer anything from their Atlantic fleet, come on. I mean, come on. The global game will not have any of these issues, except for the curious China deal.
-
Well, you guys have logged an awful lot of hours on it already, so I wouldn’t call that a failure. Just make a tweak to the setup and it’s a balanced game.
That’s for sure, we have played the dog snot out of it. Immediate US 40 seems to still be the way to go for us for now. But we’d like to be playing the game the same way everyone else is playing, you know?
The global game will not have any of these issues, except for the curious China deal.
We shall see.
-
But we’d like to be playing the game the same way everyone else is playing, you know?
Yes, I know. I have made several adjustments to AA50 that I prefer, but then it just becomes a disadvantage when you play anyone else, because you’re not used to their way and the strategies are slightly different.
Would be best if they’d make official adjustments that everyone would follow. But as you said, we pretty much have to wait for Europe, and just play the global. I don’t think I’ll miss being able to play P40. I’ll be playing global 40 and AA50 exclusively, I’m sure.
-
kauf, you should use a bid, it is what most of the community has done to fix EVERY axis and allies theater game to date. i think you will get even more enjoyment out of your games.
immediate ipc is good but not as good as using bid. my quick comparison below shows some of the reasons why
immediate 40ipc helps to balance game but with more play you will find 40ipc does not perfectly balance the game.
bidding makes the game perfectly balanced for every playgroup.40ipc gives the usa player some variability.
bid makes the game more variable as players can give any power(s) ipcs and place them in many territories over the whole board.40ipc only changes one rule
bid only adds one rule which has been used for all of axis and allies history; classic, revised, aa50, aa42We like immediate 40 because it doesn’t change the OOB set up at all, and is the only change from the OOB game. There are no other changes. The ole’ KISS meathod.
bid is also simple. only one rule addition aswell. with bid you add a rule before the game starts, and no rules are changed after the game starts.
Bids effects can vary widely from game to game, and at some point, a particular bid may be found that imbalances the game yet again. Then you start the process all over again.
the beauty of a bid system is that it can change from one game to the next untill your group finds the perfect balance. if a particular bid is found to imbalance the game, you can be sure that the next game your opponent will bid lower. the ironic thing is that the immediate 40ipc is a system that will soon be found to be imbalanced(even if it is slightly uneven maybe usa needs 35ipc or 43ipc).
Good luck with your meathod, we’re going to stick to immeduiate 40 for now.
i hope you try using a bid. i think you will get even more enjoyment out of your games.
-
I agree - bid is the way to give each side an equal chance to win without playing a different game than everyone else.
If you play with an immediate 40, then your bid should be less than 40, because those units will be placed at startup and will be in the action a turn faster.
-
Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth
“Well, to be clear… At this point I’m not sure what the change(s) would end up being, frankly, all that remains to be seen. I feel that my ultimate objective is to create a situation where a 1st turn Japanese attack is only a viable option, and not, as I think it is now, the best option.”
Larry Harris, 10:02 PM CST 8/1/10
-
Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth
“Well, to be clear… At this point I’m not sure what the change(s) would end up being, frankly, all that remains to be seen. I feel that my ultimate objective is to create a situation where a 1st turn Japanese attack is only a viable option, and not, as I think it is now, the best option.”
Larry Harris, 10:02 PM CST 8/1/10
Word.
-
Well, my group has tested out the plane concentration strategies and a few other things. The more games we play, the more we’re given to Kauf’s conclusions: A skilled Japanese player can only lose due to luck.
Our conclusions:
1) Airbases make it impossible for the US to sail West. If Japan leaves enough planes behind, America can’t break through. Japan can fly planes to the Carolines and stop the US from taking either. If the US decides to skip Truk and SZ7 and take an island, their entire navy will be incinerated in the counter assault.
From either Japan or Truk, with the inclusion of an airbase, their planes can strike the navy that took any island, move one sea zone away and land on a friendly island. There are simply too many islands around for the US to take them all in one turn to prevent the counterstrike. And if the US is throwing money away on sacrificial transports, Japan can afford to do the same.
2) Japan’s starting forces: are just too much for the Allies to counter. Simply put, Japan can throw just about everything towards India and still have enough to counter the US fleet. From turn 2 on Japan is buying 4+ Fighters per turn, and once India falls, they will stay well ahead of the American fleet in production. Plus, once the DEI are taken and there’s no other allied navy besides the US, the Japanese fleet doubles back east to reinforce.
3) India is screwed. It just doesn’t matter what they do. Whether Japan goes in full force or takes their time, there is nothing the US and ANZAC player can do about it. ANZAC needs an air base on WAUS to fly to India, and Japan can take that at will from the meager ANZAC forces should the Allies build one. America can’t get there at all before India falls, except perhaps with an odd bomber or two, and that won’t help much.
4) The Allies attack separately from one another. A concentrated Japanese force can withstand anything the separated UK or ANZAC player throw at it. The Allied combined airforce still has to attack piecemeal, and they’ll get destroyed by the Japanese in doing so. The stack of 8 fighters and 1 tac on Java? That could be deadly to a Japanese fleet……if only they could attack together. Instead they have to attack 5 and then 4.
5) The cost of attacking. Most units defend better than they attack, putting more pressure on the attacker to have better odds. It’s more cost effective to be on defense than on offense. The US needs to buy carriers with no attack value to get planes onto islands. For the same amount of IPCs, Japan gets an extra fighter and 6 IPCs.
6) The US can’t increase their income. None of the islands near them are worth anything that matter! Their income won’t grow at all unless they can somehow break through to the Chinese mainland.
The whole thing turns into a logic problem which can’t be solved:
o Due to airbases, the US needs overwhelming force to attack.
o However, it is more expensive to attack than to defend. The US needs to build up more forces than the Japanese so they can break through.
o But they can’t wait too long, or Japan will out produce them, so they must attack within X turns (before that happens).
o Yet X turns isn’t enough for the US starting forces +new units to overcome Japan’s left behind planes +new units.
o The US must attack prematurely and hope for awesome dice.The other option is to ferry units around Australia, but lightly defended transports sent in waves around Australia won’t be able to bust through the starting Japanese fleet that waits in the DEI. There is no way to prevent Japan’s economy from ballooning past the US’s.
-
Great post, Matt - just a couple of thoughts
USA income can go up for DEI islands, and the Phillipines….
Japan is building 4+ fighters a turn from turn 2 on? Seems they would need boats and ground forces more… Don’t they normally have enough air power that they don’t need to build any fighters or tacs for quite some time? You guys build 4+ from turn 2? I’m surprised by that one.
Hoping for awesome dice is not a good strategy, as you know. :-)
I can’t say any more - haven’t really played as the Allies yet in a “normal” game.
-
Well gamer, it depends on what America dose to force some Japanese buys. If America starts out aggressive (as possible anyway), and concentrate everything on Hawaii and buys a carrier US1, then Japan has to get 4 more fighters onto Japan from Kauf’s posted strategy. Japan ends with 5 planes on Japan, 1 destroyer, and 1 sub. That’s not enough to counter America’s forces. Per the battle calculator, Japan needs 4 more fighters on defense to stop America from moving into Korea. None of the mainland planes can double back in a turn. It’s either strip some carriers, abandon Truk, or buy Fighters.
Because the 2 US bombers, 2FTR, 2 Tac, 1 of everything else. And if American keeps up the pressure, it necessitates all Fighter buys for some time, unless you weaken the forces against India. At some point it’s possible, but not for the first few turns.
But having written all of the problems America has, it might be possible to come up with some counters. I’m working on a few right now, and I”ll post against soon. It isn’t as bad for the US as I previously thought. That’s mostly because Fighters are mostly a defensive buy, and the only things America will lose are the pieces they put out there knowing they’ll be sunk.
Suggested Topics
