• From what I gather from reading here, Japan is a bit overpowered.

    I don’t know if anyone has thought of this or mentioned it before, so if someone has, please excuse the duplicate post.

    What if you combined the UK and ANZAC into one nation?  Would that make things a bit better for the allies?  Would it make it worse?

    I would imagine this as don’t change any of the setups, just replace the ANZAC forces with more UK forces and allow the UK player to build at either IC that’s on the board.  And maybe just use the UK’s NOs.

    I would also want to couple this rule to say that losing India doesn’t mean losing the capital, it just means that any income that is not from ANZAC territories is not collected unless India is liberated.

    This would allow the two nations to pool their resources and maybe get a few more units onto the board and that could perhaps help to stop Japan from rolling over the Allies (as it seems to be the consensus).

    I would imagine that something to this effect is going to happen in the 1940 global game that comes out with Europe, though I’m not very well versed on what is going to be happening there.

    Thoughts?  Comments?


  • Actually, if the allies play correctly, the Japanese offensive runs out of steam due to lack of ground units. They can take planes as hits, but they only have so many. Even when India and China are taken, Japan’s air and land forces will have diminished, while the US and ANZAC have built a stronger navy than Japan due to Japan’s focusing on the mainland. If any of the DEI or PI are taken, the US and ANZAC will have a greater income. Furthermore, the entire coast of china and korea are usually open, and the US can take Hong Kong or Malaya or Korea for a major factory, retake china, etc.


  • Yea. I think that the game is balanced. If you play the game many times and differ from me, then be my guest and make a house rule. Although I think a cooler handicap for Japan would be to add russia in the game with some sort of conditional neutrality to realistically keep some Jap units in the north (just a suggestion if you find it unbalanced, i don’t use that rule).


  • The Russian threat is helpful to slow the japanese just enough to balance the game perfectly in my opinion


  • I agree, we might use a house rule where Japan must keep 3 infantry in Manchuria at all times to account for the Russian front. But, the games we are playing right now with all J1 attacks are very close…almost balanced as we get better with the allies.  I really didn’t think the allies had a chance but we are developing some better strats with the allies and it is close…comes down to really planning your purchases, especially with the Aussies.


  • Yea. I really think that a lot of the problems that are coming up are b/c this is only half of the game. Anyone else think that this is kind of pointless? They release half of the game (they call it a game on its own but bs I say) and the half that they release is filled with crap (errors, in rules, maps, pieces, and such). They should have just waited and released it perfect all as one game. Anyone else agree?


  • I’m kind glad they released Pac at X-mas (test run). Hopefully our feedback and more internal testing will make for a better global game when you combine them. Keep in mind many of the political rules have went through a transformation that will aid in the upcoming game. If they released it as one game this summer, many of the problems that have come up over the last few months would still need to be fixed.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 1
  • 20
  • 7
  • 3
  • 8
  • 5
  • 51
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.1k

Users

39.4k

Topics

1.7m

Posts