How to play Japan!?

@seancb we also use a giant piece of plywood because any oval table we could find won’t fit the whole board. Its much better to have something under the board (or vinyl) because prevents the board from getting knocked or moved and has at least some sideboard area for piles of chips and drinks and extras. Still, we need dice pits and another area to put most of our stuff because the game is simply that yuge.

@Marshmallow:

What if we turn the question around and asked what power you think would be the most fun for a new player?

That’s a hard one… because “fun” usually means involvement… lots to do… but the countries with lots to do are also the biggest impact players… so while something like Germany or Japan might be a lot of fun because there’s “lots to do”, its easy to make a bunch of mistakes that will cost you the game playing one of them… conversely, the US and UK can often be considered fun because of either lots of forces worldwide and/or a big budget to buy things… but once again, to a new player, trying to grasp all the amphibious needs of both the UK and US can make for major mistakes if not handled well.  I think the safest countries for new players are either the USSR (just buy infantry and hold on), or the lesser powers (Italy/Anzac, etc)… but then of course, these countries aren’t very fun.

Of course if you’re going to make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs… so toss a new player on something and give it a go.

@ItIsILeClerc:

@theROCmonster:

Don’t know why anyone would play a game in revised to 8 VC’s. This seems impossibly easy for the axis to do.

How big of a bid do you think the axis would need in a world domination game? maybe a bid that keeps the Italian fleet alive?

Don’t think the axis need a bid for this in 2nd edition.
IMHO: with the other axis strategies not so much (a VC-hunt from the start), but definately with an economic  domination strategy, the axis are very hard to defeat already! In game turns anyway, because this kind of strategy requires 20+ turns to beat (if at all possible). During the first 10 turns or so, the axis at least equalize in economy and TUV on the board but more likely will leave the allies far behind in both aspects.
AFAICS, the only way the allies can maintain rough economical parity with the axis is to go KJF and this will cost them Moscow big time, seriously endangering Cairo later on (or London, or both for that matter).

Because I don’t like the fact that the majority of the axis strategies already require the allies to resort to this ‘KJF thing’, I have never explored this beyond my typical J1DOW response (which indeed already is very Japan heavy).

I’m not saying that the axis will actually win if they leave the allies behind both in income and TUV on the board, because there is also something like where all that TUV is positioned. Are the allies able to once again stabilize the economical imbalance and if yes, will that be lasting…

…Anyways, for me personally, about 15 turns of playing A&AG40 is my tolerance-limit for this game. So with this kind of axis play we always end up with calling it a draw unless the majority agrees that the situation is easy enough to predict a winner.

Ya, that is the problem with a really competitive global game. Most of them go over 15 rounds, at least in LL. In a game where VC’s don’t matter it would take forever to win as allies. You are right that the axis will be ahead, or even, after the fall of Moscow if you are going KJF. The thing is once US gets a large enough fleet majority over Japan the TUV swing will be massive. It would be something like 700 in TUV lost with Japan if you completely defend against US. Even with a KJF you should still be able to easily hold Moscow till turn 9. Also in a game where VC’s don’t matter I think it is always best for Japan to attack T3, unless the allies leave it open for a turn 2 attack. This is because Japan needs to kill china and set up in a better position against US. Also US is down 40 IPC’s if you wait till T3.

It would be interesting to see what would be best for allies. KGF or KJF.

Going KGF would leave a super Japan, but he is really out of position. Russia would be immensely powerful because he would be able to get Iraq, Italian somali land, Tobruk, and Libya. This would mean Japan would have a hard time taking Russia, and Germany has no chance to do it. US would be a lot weaker because of all the NO’s he looses in the pacific, and he would have to keep at least 10 infantry in western US to keep Japan honest. Britain would be weaker as well because he wouldn’t have India for very long. Anzac becomes a worthless country that is only building infantry to defend.

Going KJF would leave a super strong Germany that would have a lot of options open to him. Japan would eventually die, but not before doing serious damage. He can still take out India and China and survive till around R10 or so when US’s fleet just becomes too much for him to handle. US would be way more powerful than in a KGF, so when he switched to going against Germany he would have a ton of fleet and would only need to build transports and infantry. He should be making 90+ vs a Germany that is making the same. It would come down to US/UK/Anzac vs. Germany and Italy.

I would probably lean towards going KGF because it allows you to keep Russia, and even if Japan is making 120 PU’s, he is so out of position it would take him forever to take Russia, and by then Germany should be dead.

I don’t think the axis would stand a chance in hell if VC’s were taken off the table, but the problem is what would a fair bid be? Because allowing the axis to bid ships would be too powerful, especially with Japan. That is why I think a fair start would be to allow Italy to have their entire fleet merged to start the game.

What do you guys think?

You can push for Egypt after taking Russia. It can be difficult.

Who ever is the defender when the pact is broken gets +1 defense to all their units on the first round of combat, in combats launched by that opposing power.

So that encourages players to keep some units on the border….because they will defend as if they were tanks on the first round.
Or an AAA would defend at ‘2’ on the first round.

Think trench warfare…both those powers were expecting an attack on that front (defensive posture) but didn’t have the initiative, or reason, to launch an attack.

It is a moot point, and I stand by it.

By your situational irony scenario’s, lets say Japan declares war on Russia the turn Germany takes Moscow.  After Germany takes Moscow lets say USA takes Germany/Berlin on the same turn!!  Uh oh!  The allies just wasted a good chance to collect the IPC’s Russia had, BUT, by YOUR method, the bonus totally goes down the crapper and is a MOOT POINT.  Because if you’re talking about taking capitals with ease to a point of if Moscow falls so easily than Berlin can just as easily get taking by USA/UK to get that bonus back.

Pelanderfunk, it doesn’t matter in your game.  It could actually work against Germany.  He see’s that 12 IPC go to you, and Germany could make a risk that he shouldn’t.  Either way there is no reason not to give the bonus right away.  Played enough games of global to forget many things, and waiting to give Russia money would be one of them for sure!

@larrymarx:

@kcdzim:

I’d prefer a solution were russia is required abide the cease fire regardless of war in europe , but allow Japan to break it whenever they please (which still doesn’t cause war with the other axis powers).  Russia just has to make sure it will be costly for Japan, which is precisely what they did with the far east forces.

How about doing this but also allowing Russia to break the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact if Japan chooses to attack early?

The game already favors the allies.  Allowing Russia to preemptively strike isn’t helpful for balance on the Europe side.  However, barring russia from attacking japan first, under any circumstance, probably means Japan won’t bother with russia at all with no need to garrison and will focus on china first, while positioning for the J3 assault which matches far more closely the way AAP40 plays (where russia isn’t available to attack, and won’t attack Japan).

the 18 infantry already is pretty good about giving Japan pause on J1.  J2, it becomes more feasable, but even then Russia can back away and just leave the shorelines open, giving up minimal value.  I just don’t buy that Russia needs more freedom to attack.  While Stalin was of the mind of striking when either axis was vulnerable, the player is NOT the Stalin, and some safeguards like restricted declarations have to be in place so that the game can be balanced.  Otherwise it’s not 1940, it’s 1942.

In my perfect world:

A) Russia cannot attack or enter ORIGINAL UK or US territories ever.  Russia just shouldn’t be in India.  or the UK.  They can take Persia, they can take neutrals, and they can conquer ORIGINAL axis territories to their hearts content.  And even though it’s unlikely, they can help in France.  Frankly, if Russia is in position to take a european french territory, the game is either over, or has gone pearshaped, but this way they can get a token Syria.

B)UK & US units cannot enter ORIGINAL Russian territories ever.  If they do, they are removed (thus cannot defend), a marker takes their place, and Russia has the option to purchase that equiv unit during their purchase phase at half price rounded up (this is lend lease/pilot internment).

C) Russia can attack & control any neutral it pleases at start of game.  No neutral is friendly to Russia - they will all be combat moves, and they will always defend, even if Pro Ally.  Unless strict neutrals are changed to affect regions (unlikely), same rules as OOB for strict neutrals.

D) Russia cannot attack Japan until Berlin falls or Japan declares war on them.  They cannot enter China until at war with Japan (historically, they were still aiding china after the Cease fire in '39, but stopped after the Pact in 41.  However, since the Tigers weren’t in China until 41 (essentially taking over for the russian air group), the single fighter can be abstracted to be considered the Russian air group at the beginning of the game

E) OOB political rules for Italy/Germany.

@molinar13:

Seeing that Axis and Allies does not use rules such as terrain effects, experience of troops, or weather effects I consider the luck of the dice to compensate for these items.

I tend to view it the same way. Axis and Allies does not take a lot of things into account… including scouting and supplying your armies. I always viewed these things as being incorporated into the game, sort of expected and assumed.

For example, many times neither side knew where the other’s forces were. They needed scouts and intelligence organizations to figure it out. There is no “fog of war” in a boardgame. You can see everything that everyone does.
Also armies/navies needed to be supplied. Axis and Allies does not require you to maintain a merchant fleet or a force of supply trucks. It is sort of given and expected.

Now these things do not directly relate to your die rolling, but it shows that not everything needs to be accounted for by the player… including the fixing of his odds. Dropping a (fair) die and letting it bounce and roll is entirely fair and just. It is random, and that is the purpose.

Artificially compensating for losses due to bad rolling just seems like diluted cheating to me.