@joephillips There is no provision in the rules of the game for “annexing” territories. If you want to create house rules for this, it’s up to you what happens; however, when it comes to a hostile power, “annex” is just a diplomatic word for “attack”.
Pointlessly Broken
-
@Eggman:
Here’s the updated rule from the other website:
The United States begins the game neutral. It may not declare war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or ANZAC. Following any such unprovoked declaration of war by Japan, the United States will receive an immediate one-time bonus payment of 30 IPCs, representing the total mobilization and transfer of military assets within the continental United States. However, if the United States is still not at war with Japan by the Collect Income phase of its third turn, it may declare war on Japan at the beginning of that phase. This is an exception to the rules for declaring war (see �Declaring War,� page 11), which may normally be done only at the beginning of the Combat Move phase.
Extra money is nice, but it can cut both ways. If the Japanese skip the USA attack and do more traditional attacks, then the USA is free to spend all that cash on extra ships. Who knows if that is going to be unbalancing, or not. If we test this out, we have to look at both scenarios: does this bring the USA attack closer to 50/50 and does it imbalance the game if Japan skips the attack.
Well, with normal AAP1940 games, Japan is heavily favored so it may balance the whole game by giving the US a bit more money. In global games the US can place more in the Pacific anyway.
-
I like the fix. I will try it in the next game we are playing this upcoming weekend.
-
@Eggman:
Here’s the updated rule from the other website:
The United States begins the game neutral. It may not declare war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or ANZAC. Following any such unprovoked declaration of war by Japan, the United States will receive an immediate one-time bonus payment of 30 IPCs, representing the total mobilization and transfer of military assets within the continental United States. However, if the United States is still not at war with Japan by the Collect Income phase of its third turn, it may declare war on Japan at the beginning of that phase. This is an exception to the rules for declaring war (see �Declaring War,� page 11), which may normally be done only at the beginning of the Combat Move phase.
Extra money is nice, but it can cut both ways. If the Japanese skip the USA attack and do more traditional attacks, then the USA is free to spend all that cash on extra ships. Who knows if that is going to be unbalancing, or not. If we test this out, we have to look at both scenarios: does this bring the USA attack closer to 50/50 and does it imbalance the game if Japan skips the attack.
Well, with normal AAP1940 games, Japan is heavily favored so it may balance the whole game by giving the US a bit more money. In global games the US can place more in the Pacific anyway.
I’m not saying I disagree, but is this coming from an OOB perspective or a 2nd edition perspective?
-
@Eggman:
Here’s the updated rule from the other website:
The United States begins the game neutral. It may not declare war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or ANZAC. Following any such unprovoked declaration of war by Japan, the United States will receive an immediate one-time bonus payment of 30 IPCs, representing the total mobilization and transfer of military assets within the continental United States. However, if the United States is still not at war with Japan by the Collect Income phase of its third turn, it may declare war on Japan at the beginning of that phase. This is an exception to the rules for declaring war (see �Declaring War,� page 11), which may normally be done only at the beginning of the Combat Move phase.
Extra money is nice, but it can cut both ways.� If the Japanese skip the USA attack and do more traditional attacks, then the USA is free to spend all that cash on extra ships.� Who knows if that is going to be unbalancing, or not.� If we test this out, we have to look at both scenarios: does this bring the USA attack closer to 50/50 and does it imbalance the game if Japan skips the attack.
Well, with normal AAP1940 games, Japan is heavily favored so it may balance the whole game by giving the US a bit more money.� In global games the US can place more in the Pacific anyway.
I’m not saying I disagree, but is this coming from an OOB perspective or a 2nd edition perspective?
2e.
-
I did a play test of this +30 IPC bonus. So far I like it.
I did a J1 attack and a conventional Japanese strategy, not invading USA, and while the Allies did win in the end I actually liked giving the US the bonus. It did not seem to break the game but gave the US more teeth and like someone mentioned in another thread “Why NOT attack on J1?” well this might be an incentive not to. I will play it some more but if the consensus among players is positive I would potentially like to see this rule included (for Pac only obviously).
I LOVE Global, but I also like Europe and Pacific individually because you can finish a game in one sitting and less table space is required. I hope after some more testing maybe we can get an amendment to the rule book just like for Europe original.
I don’t think that Pacific is unbalanced per se as it stands but I think the Allies have to play well to win, Japan has more options imo. However in Pacific there are no Russians to worry about, so maybe this +30 IPC helps balance the game anyway.
-
I believe the missing Russians might be the cause of the problem.
They keep the Japanese player honest. As it stands he can abandon Manchuria and Korea and use the large number of Ground and Air units for aggressive manoeuvres.
Perhaps in Pacific, half the number should be removed as compensation, if it is too complicated to rule some remain as a Static Manchuria Garrison. -
Wittmann is right - just because the Japanese were enjoying a Non-Aggression Pact with Russia it didn’t mean that they were confident enough to move large numbers of their land forces away from the Manchurian/Soviet borders. This area has been overlooked, in my opinion…
-
I agree too
-
I believe the missing Russians might be the cause of the problem.
They keep the Japanese player honest. As it stands he can abandon Manchuria and Korea and use the large number of Ground and Air units for aggressive manoeuvres.
Perhaps in Pacific, half the number should be removed as compensation, if it is too complicated to rule some remain as a Static Manchuria Garrison.I see your point but I have to disagree. I am not in favor of changing the setup, it’s too complicated. The rule change needs to be simple, like the one offered. +30 IPCs IS simple and does not change the starting setup.
Just because Russians are stationed near Manchuria in Global does not mean that they will ALWAYS be used to fight the Japs. Some players may wish to pull them back completely and Japan may decide to not invade Siberia, so this said scenario about keeping Japan honest becomes no different from what happens in Pacific anyway. Just saying.
I have played games where Japan sent in the Manchurian garrison and either barely took China or didn’t in the end. You might be surprised how badly needed those extra men are in China.
Has anyone else tried out this +30 IPC bonus yet?
-
@Eggman:
Here’s the updated rule from the other website:
The United States begins the game neutral. It may not declare war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or ANZAC. Following any such unprovoked declaration of war by Japan, the United States will receive an immediate one-time bonus payment of 30 IPCs, representing the total mobilization and transfer of military assets within the continental United States. However, if the United States is still not at war with Japan by the Collect Income phase of its third turn, it may declare war on Japan at the beginning of that phase. This is an exception to the rules for declaring war (see �Declaring War,� page 11), which may normally be done only at the beginning of the Combat Move phase.
So just confirming if Japan does not declare war or an unprovoked attack the US does not get the 30 IPC one time payment at the end of turn 3. If Japan makes an unprovoked attack on Anzac or UK, Us gets the bonus.
Our group has only played this version twice and we haven’t stumbled on to this yet. We have come to the agreement that Japan is at the disadvantage but each group Im sure has a different play style.
-
So just confirming if Japan does not declare war or an unprovoked attack the US does not get the 30 IPC one time payment at the end of turn 3. If Japan makes an unprovoked attack on Anzac or UK, Us gets the bonus.
Correct.
Anyone else have results to report?
-
I think quite a few (I know I am one) are more occupied with WWI at the moment.
-
Our group played the other night without the bonus if Japan declares war on the US.
If US doesnt block it falls hard.
If US does block Japan. Japan’s takeover attempt is usually beaten back and it has a broken economy and not making enough money to defend against UK,Anzanc, and the china takeover.
Now I admit we may not have the most dominant Japan moves but blocking usually slows down the USA crush that we have seen and allows the US to rally a defense for Western US.
Each playing group is different but if you are not prepared for a total Japan invasion on the US Japan can dominate.
-
As we have already seen, even if the US does prepare fully, Japan can still dominate. It’s a lot of reading, but reviewing a lot of the strat descriptions in this thread will probably reveal some Japanese moves that didn’t show up in your game.
-
Still recommend previous mentioned solution:
Offer 2 of 3 choices for the Allies:
- UK CV, Tac, FTR (place it where they like)
- Add 1 inf to every China territory
- Give US 40 IPCs
I was taught this and find that it fully balances the game and prevents any Japan US attack.
-
We’re not changing the setup. Please focus on the officially proposed solution.
-
I’ve been looking at the proposed solution from Krieghund: if we neglect the US attacking BC, then the odds are improved a little:
Using the numbers from vonLettowVorbeck1914 earlier on in this thread, Japan has:
16 inf, 1 mech, 6 art., 1 tank, 11 ftrs, 8 tact., 3 bombs + bombardment (2 cruisers and 2 battleships).
US has 17 inf., 1 mech, 1 art., 7 tanks, 8 fts, 1 tact., 2 AA guns. As you might recall, this battle had a 97% win ratio for Japan.
But now the US had a bonus 30 IPCs to spend. So far, the best combo I used got If the US uses the additional 30 IPCs to buy 1 ftr and 4 AAA, then the win % goes down to 67% (when 1 land unit must survive).
However, with the additional units purchased, the US now has the good option of attacking BC filled with Japanese land units only (16 inf. 4 art, 1 tank) with its units (in my case, 9 inf., 1 mech, 4 art., 2 tanks, 6 fts, 1 tact) with a 85% win chance and an average of 7 units left.
In this case, US purchases are: US1 2 art., 1 tank, 1 inf. (17 IPCs), US2 1 AA, 4 inf., 1 art., 2 fts (47 IPCs, 9 units, using the 30 bonus IPCs).
BC is critical to the strategy outlined for the Japanese in this thread, because it is in BC the air units must land after attacking WUS. If the US takes BC, even with heavy losses then the Japanese are left with few land forces and the UK, ANZAC and China dominating the south and west of the map. The US production is now 57 and they can quickly punish Japan for such a bold move. Note that without the bonus 30 IPCs the US win chance in taking back BC is 42% (using US1 purchases for US2 again). And with the Japanese airforce parked in the Aleutians, the Japanese still have a ridiculously high chance of taking WUS.
Of course, the Japanese can use this to bluff and instead take Hawaii (since the US moved everything out of there to protect WUS), but this is extremely costly in China and SE Asian territories.
Perhaps we could term this the “American Opening” for the Japanese player :-)
-
In the case of Japan going for Alaska (instead of BC) then it needs to capture it on J2 so that the air units can land there on J3. This leave the US a chance for attacking (since SZ 1 & 2 are adjacent). If the US bought an additional transport on US1, then on US2 it lands 2 inf., 1 art. and 1 tank (+ 4 fighters and 1 tact.) on Alaska and has 40% chance of winning (Here I include bombardment which wouldn’t work if Japan had split its fleet between SZ1 and SZ2; the US might even loose the sea battle to 1/2 the Japanese fleet). In the game I played, the US won with a tank and a fighter remaining.
J3: Japan is now forced to land transported units (using 6 trns bought in J2) on BC. US responds with all out attack on US3 (7 inf., 1 mech., 3 art. 1 tank, 3 ftrs) with 97% success and builds 60 IPCs worth of units in WUS.
Thus with the new fix (i.e. the one-time 30 bonus IPCs for an early Japan attack on the US), the US has good odds (though not perfect) of defeating this direct attack. I’m sure smarter US players than myself with think of ways of raising the odds on Alaska, but I think the KUSAF option is a viable one for some Japanese players depending on the US player’s purchases. In my opinion, having viable, though risky opening move makes the game fun! This might be like the 4-move checkmate in chess: a rare opportunity to win quickly if presented by a player making the wrong moves.
Thanks for the update Krieghund and for vonLettowVorbeck1914 for posting this play!
-
I just recently heard about this $30 Official Rule Change and did some research that I posted on the Larry Harris Website. Even without the $30 there is a way to get the Japanese attack of Western USA down to 75% for sure and most likely 55%. Still high enough that some Players would still try it.
Here is how you would get more UK and ANZAC units into the defense of the USA with or without the $30.
US moves carrier to SZ30 (Johnston Islands)
UK buys a bomber and flies it to Queensland then USA
UK flies India fighter to Northern Territory, then to US carrier then to USA
ANZAC builds a fighter then flies it to US carrier then to USA
ANZAC takes infantry and AA gun from Australia and moves to Hawaii then USAWith the 2 extra fighters and bomber the 97% result lowers to 75%. If the ANZAC infantry and AA gun can get there then the result drops to 55%.
The Allies do need to bring the house to Hawaii by Turn 2 so they can sink the Japanese fleet if the Japanese try and block SZ10 from the ANZAC transport to get the last two units into the fray. Luckily that is a non-combat move and ANZAC goes last. Since the Japanese Player has to protect the 12 transports in SZ1 there is not enough Japanese defensive force to protect against a US/UK/ANZAC attack in both Sea Zones. If they abandon SZ12 then without transports the Japanese will have a more difficult time winning the game after the US falls; though I am sure they still could win. I have not play-tested out that scenario.
Of course with the $30 one-time bonus the US can now buy enough units on Turn 2 to make the Japanese attack a mere 28% even without the 2 ANZAC land units.
-
The US Carrier sounds like a sitting duck. Is there no way the Japanese can reach it?
Suggested Topics
