Very cool! Please respond to the direct message I sent you. 👍
Sea zone 101 is just absolutely bursting.
Pacific 1940 Strategies 1/4: ANZAC and UK
-
True. I’m putting my focus away from J1, though, because I think its going to transfer through less, and I think J1 is kind of an unsporting move.
-
True. I’m putting my focus away from J1, though, because I think its going to transfer through less, and I think J1 is kind of an unsporting move.
What do you mean by “transfer through less”?
-
Meaning he doesn’t think it will be a common move in the Global game.
-
Your article made a couple of interesting points. I agree that the main game will be Europe, although I’m almost glad that Pacific was released first if it means that they got the bugs out of the system in time for the real centerpiece. Also, there are actually fewer rules issues in Pacific–no straits, canals, or pro-allegience neutrals–so in terms of complexity Pacific is a better jumping-off point.
I do think, however, that by limiting your article’s scope to games of Pacific that employ an obscure house rule (No J1 attack… what? Who plays that??) makes the work much less relevant that it could have been.
Alternately, I also take issue with the main points of the strategy that you seem to advocate:
- “…put all 5 [UK] planes on Malaysia…”
This is suicidal. Your fighters are both your best defensive units and the only units you start the game with that threaten flexible counterattacks. Putting them in easy reach of the Japan player is like putting your nose directly in the mousetrap. You need to drop these in the deep infantry stacks that you push forward from India, with AA gun cover (see #2).
- “…as India you will want to focus on holding the Indies as long as possible, and that means a focus on naval power rather than land power…”
Also suicidal. As India you will want to focus on holding India as long as possible, which means all infantry / artillery builds from UK1, until the US eventually comes to save the day. To do otherwise is to squander resources that are needed for causing the maximum number of Japanese casualties, while keeping China in the game, and thus staving off a push to Calcutta for as long as possible. Let ANZAC do those dick moves like landing fighters in the East Indies and producing naval units… they’ve got nothing better to do, and can actually recover from losses more safely than the UK, due to their remote location at the bottom of the board (see #3) and their relative proximity to Big Daddy USA’s protective base in Hawaii.
- “A minor complex on Queensland would be great…”
Yeah, great… Great for the Japan player to take. Queensland is exposed to attack from the Phillipines and the Carolines, and ANZAC doesn’t have the on-board units to defend a new IC build. Say what you like about the inconvenience of New South Wales: at least it’s sheltered! And even if ANZAC did have the money to spare open up a new factory (it seriously doesn’t), it should spend it on high-quality units instead of infrastructure. As Japan, I like to build an IC in Queensland if it’s not possible to take Sydney directly, because Japan can afford 3 tanks a turn while ANZAC can only afford 3 infantry a turn… it’s not long before they’re overrun by my more powerful units. You’d really make me smile as the Axis player if you went through the trouble to set up my supply line for me.
In conclusion, for the reasons given above I disagree strongly with literally every strategic tip you’ve offered the UK/ANZAC player, which makes me question (i) how many games you’ve played, (ii) the calibre of your opponants, and (iii) why I should read the rest of your upcoming ‘strategy’ articles. No offense, but so far I’m unimpressed, and left with the impression that not enough (of the right kind of) field testing has gone into the construction of your article.
-
Yeah, I agree with you on points 1 and 3, and I voiced those opinions and he responded to them, though I’m not sure they’re adequate. Yes, it takes a lot, but it destroys Japan’s only airpower. I think his justification for Queensland IC is purely psychological(like having 3 battleships, when 10 subs are better on attack and almost equal on defense.
I think I can agree on your second disagreement as well.
-
Your article made a couple of interesting points. I agree that the main game will be Europe, although I’m almost glad that Pacific was released first if it means that they got the bugs out of the system in time for the real centerpiece. Also, there are actually fewer rules issues in Pacific–no straits, canals, or pro-allegience neutrals–so in terms of complexity Pacific is a better jumping-off point.
I do think, however, that by limiting your article’s scope to games of Pacific that employ an obscure house rule (No J1 attack… what? Who plays that??) makes the work much less relevant that it could have been.
Alternately, I also take issue with the main points of the strategy that you seem to advocate:
- “…put all 5 [UK] planes on Malaysia…”
This is suicidal. Your fighters are both your best defensive units and the only units you start the game with that threaten flexible counterattacks. Putting them in easy reach of the Japan player is like putting your nose directly in the mousetrap. You need to drop these in the deep infantry stacks that you push forward from India, with AA gun cover (see #2).
- “…as India you will want to focus on holding the Indies as long as possible, and that means a focus on naval power rather than land power…”
Also suicidal. As India you will want to focus on holding India as long as possible, which means all infantry / artillery builds from UK1, until the US eventually comes to save the day. To do otherwise is to squander resources that are needed for causing the maximum number of Japanese casualties, while keeping China in the game, and thus staving off a push to Calcutta for as long as possible. Let ANZAC do those dick moves like landing fighters in the East Indies and producing naval units… they’ve got nothing better to do, and can actually recover from losses more safely than the UK, due to their remote location at the bottom of the board (see #3) and their relative proximity to Big Daddy USA’s protective base in Hawaii.
- “A minor complex on Queensland would be great…”
Yeah, great… Great for the Japan player to take. Queensland is exposed to attack from the Phillipines and the Carolines, and ANZAC doesn’t have the on-board units to defend a new IC build. Say what you like about the inconvenience of New South Wales: at least it’s sheltered! And even if ANZAC did have the money to spare open up a new factory (it seriously doesn’t), it should spend it on high-quality units instead of infrastructure. As Japan, I like to build an IC in Queensland if it’s not possible to take Sydney directly, because Japan can afford 3 tanks a turn while ANZAC can only afford 3 infantry a turn… it’s not long before they’re overrun by my more powerful units. You’d really make me smile as the Axis player if you went through the trouble to set up my supply line for me.
In conclusion, for the reasons given above I disagree strongly with literally every strategic tip you’ve offered the UK/ANZAC player, which makes me question (i) how many games you’ve played, (ii) the calibre of your opponants, and (iii) why I should read the rest of your upcoming ‘strategy’ articles. No offense, but so far I’m unimpressed, and left with the impression that not enough (of the right kind of) field testing has gone into the construction of your article.
I take a bit of offense to your tone. I specifically wrote this article for non-J1, and if you don’t like that, don’t use them. Many users have complained how broken J1 is, and this is the source of the house rule. However, I do believe my article gives valid suggestions for the game, and I have played the game around 30 times. I don’t pretend what I wrote is infallible or perfect, but I do think it has more merit than you credit it.
Number 1 is the strongest of the three points you’ve selected. It works only if the Japanese spreads itself somewhat thin, and it can really backfire if the Japanese really dedicate themselves to stopping it. Its a risky move that only works under certain conditions. I’ll conceed you its far from perfect. My real intent there, though is that keeping planes in attack range of the Japanese fleet forces them to defend their transports much more than if the air power wasn’t there. IE, you get a big benefit from being able to attack even if you choose not too.
Number 2 is the weakest, in my opinion. I’ve played an all-land India and an all-naval India, and compared them. Now, granted, by late game India is forced to turtle and focus on land. No argument here. But focusing on land-only for the first few turns as India is actually pretty suicidal. It allows Japan to conquer the Indies too easily, which means India gets cash-starved very, very quickly and looses on land anyway. Delaying Japan in the Indies is actually vital to India. Trust me. I’ve played plenty of games both ways, and the extra cash India is able to get is a godsend. It really does pay off. Letting ANZAC do this work is all well in good late game, but early on, ANZAC just can’t get there is time and India needs to move quickly.
Number 3 is somewhere is the middle. I don’t think you quite understand how powerful the minor IC on Queensland can be. This strategy doesn’t work if Japan makes a push for Australia, and this is mentioned in the article. However, Japan usually doesn’t. The New Guinea/Solomons objective is usually a much lower priority to Japan than the Indies objective. The Indies objective has four spaces worth a sum of 15 + 5 for the objective for a total of 20 IPCs, or 5 per space. The New Guinea objective has four spaces worth a sum of 0 IPCs + 5 for the objective for a total of 5 IPCs, or 1.25 per space. This means its in Japan’s interest to conserve its resources by denying ANZAC the objective, taking one of the spaces, but dedicating enough force to take all four is rarely worth it. Attacking continental Australia can work out pretty well for Japan, but this needs to be a dedicate push, and this will be telegraphed the ANZAC. Like I said, more than one transport on the Carolines means that building the IC on Queensland is a bad idea. However, its worth it if Japan does not make a heavy push for Australia.
The IC itself is worth the cost, for sure. In Revised or Anniversary, Germany really wants to either capture a Russian IC or build one in the east. Why? One could argue that it doesn’t really make Germany stronger, since the tanks from Germany will arrive there in one turn anyway. But this isn’t how things really work. In actuality, reducing the travel time for newly built units is immensely powerful. It means that the IPCs Germany spends will pay off much more quickly. This is the same for ANZAC. Newly-built ships pay off in half the time. Also, you move from Queensland to a juicy target in the Indies in one turn. This means Japan has a harder time striking back before the fleet can move to the Indies. Japan either has to put planes close to Australia or have a fleet within Australia’s air power range, both pretty dangerous and vulnerable to American intervention. Plus, it means your builds are one turn more current. Perhaps the Japanese are running out of destroyers? You can build subs and have them in a position to cause damage in half the time it would take without an IC on Queensland. Also, you can shift your positioning much more quickly. Perhaps you need to move your fleet north or east rather than west, you can do that much faster if you have the IC. Your builds are more up-to-date, more flexible, and more protected. All together a good deal. If you guys want, I’ll post some graphics illustrating this to make the concept more clear. -
Very nice strategies. Not particularly useful for me, since I play J1 allowed, but US immediately gets the bonus IPCs. Just because of this, I might try a J2 game. Thanks!
-
One thing to add to the mix, although I am not sure how much it changes things, Sandforce had a massive firmware update just after Computex. It allowed for larger drive sizes probably by lessening the use of spare area.
My guess is that they did things in a paranoid way for the first release, then once they got masses of data, backed off to a realistic spare area.
Have you seen anything that compares pre and post firmware upgrades?
-Charlie
-
Klop is not a dog. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmm!!!
-
Klop is not a dog. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmm!!!
-
bump to get rid of spam post
Suggested Topics
