• @djensen:

    @JohnBarbarossa:

    We got the game yesterday. We did not have time to schedule in a full game but we played a short game of 2 rounds.

    Only playing 2 rounds you only see the massive potential power of Japan. You fail to see the downside, which is getting spread too thin too fast. You just cannot cover the entire Pacific and Asia with your supply lines. Something will be missed and it gives the USA the chance to move in and dominate.

    In my game, I probably didn’t attack fast enough but I still was stretched thin. There’s just not enough boats to keep all of your transports safe. But to rapidly expand to get the National Obective bonuses, you need to use all of those transports.

    In my opinion, I think it is a false to say the game is unbalanced after 2 rounds of play.

    Mind I did not say the game is unbalanced. Noone can come to that conclusion after 2 rounds. I just find it hard to see how allies can win at this point. And of course we need more playhours under the belt but I also wanted to give the people who were waiting for their copies some information.

    @bennyboyg:

    @rmorel:

    Ive only played the game once, as the Allies, so I dont have the Japanese perspective yet, but I must agree with DJensen’s post.    Japan was spread way too thin, and even though they looked after rounds 3-5 like a win was inevitable, the game started slowly tu torn after that and the Allies eventually won in the 9th round.

    The American Juggernaught is just ridiculous once they have a supply line established, and Japan has to get just enough cities that it makes it hard for them to get that last one.  India is not a piece of cake, and Austrailia is fairly close to the US that once they are in the war they can easily fortify.  It seems like Japan is always one city short of victory, and they just dont have the resources to get it.

    I’d be very curious if i could win the game with Japan.

    Yeah I had the same problem with original Pacific. I never played a game where Japan won.

    You are all talking about spreading out but I was talking about a concentrated attack. First take out India and then Australia (and MAYBE both at the same time).  How can India not be a cakewalk when Japan throws everything they have at it?
    Has this been tested by the playtesters btw? The former India crush tactic from AAP.
    I admit Australia could be a serious problem (due to its relative proximity to the USA) when you go after India first.


  • It seems from the hi res photos that the quality of the pieces are better compared to AA50.  They seem like the quality from AAE, AAP, AAR and such.  Would that be a fair assumption?

  • '20 '18 '16 '13 '12

    @JohnBarbarossa:

    You are all talking about spreading out but I was talking about a concentrated attack. First take out India and then Australia (and MAYBE both at the same time).  How can India not be a cakewalk when Japan throws everything they have at it?
    Has this been tested by the playtesters btw? The former India crush tactic from AAP.
    I admit Australia could be a serious problem (due to its relative proximity to the USA) when you go after India first.

    I recommend you hold your projections at the VERY least until you have played a whole game, and would probably reserve my own judgment until I had played at least a couple games as EACH side.

    Furthermore, the reason it’s very difficult for Japan to win once its forces are spread across Asia and no matter how big it’s economy becomes, is because it was very difficult for Japan to win once its forces were spread all across Asia… no matter how big its economy was. This is a reality of war. It’s  why the success rate of empires is, as of yet, Zero. Because vast territory is very difficult to supply and easily susceptible to attack.

    I like that about the game: the fact that you can never take victory for granted. And I think it represents a big improvement on the old “race for Moscow” games that we always see in the global games. The dynamics of the 1940 global game remain to be seen…

    All that being said, I will still reserve judgment until I have played a few…

  • Official Q&A

    @RogertheShrubber:

    It seems from the hi res photos that the quality of the pieces are better compared to AA50.  They seem like the quality from AAE, AAP, AAR and such.  Would that be a fair assumption?

    Yes, they are of the same quality as AA42.


  • Hi all,

    My first post…

    I haven’t played the game in years, but I played pretty much every weekend for several years in my teens, and I have treasured memories playing the original.  Can’t believe the number of games that have sprung up, but with this new “monster” game (when both 40’s are combined) has got me to get back into the fold.  Hopefully, I’ll get mine before Christmas.

    Having said that, I would like to comment on strategic-level Pacific games.  The strategic position of Japan is similar (in fact, if not for the same reasons) as the South in The Civil War, and presents tough design choices.  In both wars the strategic position of both guaranteed an uphill battle against an enemy who was more numerous, and had access to vastly superior resources and infrastructure.  Therefore, these types of games are very hard to model with realism as it’s main goal because the fact is both underdogs had little chance for a favorable outcome.  In other words, where is the fun in playing a country who has no chance of victory without resorting to laughable gaminess in order to achieve a sense of hope?

    I am very interested in seeing how this design handles this tough obstacle.  I don’t want over-complication which is why I have stayed away from some interesting titles (like Empire of the Sun, Asia Engulfed, War in the Pacific) because I have a family and job that keeps me very busy.  I would like to have FUN, too, along with a design that gives a nod to actual historical believability.

    What I have seen so far looks good, but I don’t think the game will see it’s full potential until it mates with it’s brother next year.  Now, I can hope to finally have my World in Flames-lite, and not have to spend weeks (or years, in the case of WitP) playing out my warlord dreams.

    Jim

  • Customizer

    how many NO’s does each country/player have?  And what are each of them worth?


  • how many NO’s does each country/player have?  And what are each of them worth?

    check them out here, in the latest preview…

    http://www.axisandallies.org/node/408


  • I say do away with the NO’s. Production value for territories is enough of an incentive.


  • Japan has a lot of NO 😮

    Djensen, how high did Japan peak before getting crushed by superior allied numbers?

    50+ ipc from USA

    3x 10-20ipc country (China, UK and ANZAC)

    that’s alot of trouble to handle 😮 And I’m quite sure Japan needs those IPC!


  • Japan needs an ally.

  • Founder TripleA Admin

    This comes from a person who has clearly not played this game yet. The NOs are essential for both the Axis and the Allies.

    @Brain:

    I say do away with the NO’s. Production value for territories is enough of an incentive.

  • Founder TripleA Admin

    I think the most that Japan collected was 68 IPCs. I shot up over 60 IPCs fairly quickly. dipped below once in the middle. Even at the end it was still getting over 50 IPCs.

    @Omega:

    Japan has a lot of NO 😮

    Djensen, how high did Japan peak before getting crushed by superior allied numbers?

    50+ ipc from USA

    3x 10-20ipc country (China, UK and ANZAC)

    that’s alot of trouble to handle 😮 And I’m quite sure Japan needs those IPC!


  • @djensen:

    This comes from a person who has clearly not played this game yet. The NOs are essential for both the Axis and the Allies.

    @Brain:

    I say do away with the NO’s. Production value for territories is enough of an incentive.

    How could I have played the game yet. You are the only one on the planet that has one.


  • Also if the NO’s are needed to be competitive, then the game is flawed.


  • @Brain:

    Japan needs an ally.

    I’m curious to know if there were any other minor pacific countries allied with Japan?

  • Customizer

    @bigopfer:

    @Brain:

    Japan needs an ally.

    I’m curious to know if there were any other minor pacific countries allied with Japan?

    i don’t think so, some of them may have surrendered like the french and had a few units that went on to fight with the japs, but i do not think they had any actual allies.  All the other countries really hated the japs back then (and quite a bit now still), and I really can not blame them either, as the japanese were more ruthless than the germans or russians had ever been.  The Japs attempted genocide on every chinese population center they controlled, the only thing that prevented there from being another holocaust was that the japs were complete disorganized and that the genocide was perpetrated from the ground up instead of being orders from the top down.


  • It’s  why the success rate of empires is, as of yet, Zero. Because vast territory is very difficult to supply and easily susceptible to attack.

    I’d say it has more to do with the people’s in those Empires no longer wanting to be ruled by other people, and/or a lack of will from the ‘head’ nation to send people out to die for territory that holds nothing but prestige and offers no real returns. The military threat from the outside is just one factor.

    I would say that one thing which has almost never historically worked is the ‘rapid’ building of an Empire. An Empire must be built up step by step with strong controls on all aspects rather than just military. Almost every attempt throughout history by one people to rapidly expand has met with disaster, since rapid expansion brings with it a rapid increase in enemies. Examples of this are the German’s/Japanese in WW2, France during the Napoleonic wars, and even as far back as Alexander the Great’s Empire, which expanded rapidly and then after his death crumbled almost as rapidly.

    Examples of ‘successful’ Empires would be the Roman (their military and social organisation was exceptional, as was the political setup that backed it) and the British (Australia/Canada, etc, as well as a democratic and united India are testaments to it’s legacy). I would also say the Spanish/Portuguese Empires did ok, except that they had a habit of asset-stripping their territories, and the home nations were poorly organised.

    I think that one of the greatest things Empires did, and something which has been forgotten in the modern politically correct world, is unite people and thread a link through disparate and distant parts of the world. Each successive period of Empire grew in distance due to technology and knowledge, and this has spread things (like technology) around the globe. We live in a globalised world today because we have reached the top of a ladder built by a series of Empires. Whenever each Empire came into conflict with each other, then the smartest/strongest survived and came to dominate the era, when their power ebbed the world took what they had learned from them and moved on… until no one nation was really that far advanced over any other. To put it another way; we know what we know only because Imperialism carried knowledge around the world.

    The exception for the modern world is China still squatting in Tibet, something which the western world should have done something about when it happened.

    i don’t think so, some of them may have surrendered like the french and had a few units that went on to fight with the japs, but i do not think they had any actual allies.  All the other countries really hated the japs back then (and quite a bit now still), and I really can not blame them either, as the japanese were more ruthless than the germans or russians had ever been.  The Japs attempted genocide on every chinese population center they controlled, the only thing that prevented there from being another holocaust was that the japs were complete disorganized and that the genocide was perpetrated from the ground up instead of being orders from the top down.

    True, and the Japanese are still a highly racist people who will not allow immigration, yet oddly, we think it’s cute or interesting because they aren’t white. People seem to love their eccentric culture, which is to be some kind of twisted hybrid of Western culture and ancient Japanese culture filtered through the lens of a schizophrenic people. We think it makes them unique. Yes, and Britain would seem just that unique it they didn’t allow any one who wasn’t white to settle there, but would we be as forgiving?


  • @bigopfer:

    @Brain:

    Japan needs an ally.

    I’m curious to know if there were any other minor pacific countries allied with Japan?

    Thailand was, but their main intention in doing so was to maintain independence, as they were the only non-colonized SE Asian country.  They felt siding with Japan was the best bet.


  • Saim was also allied with Japan, and the Pupet regime in Manchuria….if you want to count them.
    The Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere…


  • Quote
    It’s  why the success rate of empires is, as of yet, Zero. Because vast territory is very difficult to supply and easily susceptible to attack.

    As far as Empires, the common thread is they always come to an end. The last being the British. Most of the Commonwealth has gained independence (although still very loyal). WWII marked the batten being past to its offspring. The US is kinda at an economic and political crises right now. I hope we have learned from the past as we seem to be spread a little thin in world affairs, as things at home are also under a great deal of pressure.


  • I don’t think there will be any wars over territorial expansion anymore. The US, China, Russia, Australia, Canada, etc, will all stay as they are - huge. Part of the role of Empires is to explore and ‘civilise’ with some degree of safety. The reason Empires don’t last is that by their very definition they are temporary things.

    The US is itself is an Empire built on the land taken from Indians as well as that captured from Mexicans/Spanish and bought or traded from the French/British. The south might even argue that the north colonised it following defeat in the ‘civil’ war. But the point is moot; the US is here to stay, Russia - on its conquered Asian land - is here to stay. Nations like Britain and France are not going to get larger, and nobody would stand for them trying to ‘conquer’ anyone else. In a way, the world has - despite some continuing conflicts in certain areas - never been so stable as it is today.

  • '20 '18 '16 '13 '12

    @Army:

    In a way, the world has - despite some continuing conflicts in certain areas - never been so stable as it is today.

    Ah the end of History argument. A student of Fukuyama I see…

    All wars are fought over gold. (Perhaps a ridiculous generalization but hear me out.)

    I think the biggest reason we wont see too many more changing borders is because originally, when wars were fought, they were fought for wealth, which at the time was tied to natural resources, which was tied to land which is territory. These days there is no need to conquer territory by military means in order to obtain wealth. Wealth is not tied to territory anymore. The wars that are being fought and continue to be fought are economic wars. Wars over markets, over trade or over tariffs and subsidies.

    Did you know the United States government imposes over 400% import tariffs on textiles from sub-Saharan African countries? This, along with the dumping of surplus second-hand clothes, completely destroys any possible textile industry (the first step for nearly all nation to industrialization) by eliminating both the domestic and foreign markets. This keeps Africa poor and undeveloped and ensures the squalid living conditions and remarkably high death rate of people there. This situation can easily be looked upon as an act in parallel to an act of war. They, as well as the EU and other developped countries, do the same thing with agricultural subsidies, which is generally looked upon by economists as one of the primary causes of poverty in the third world.

    Just because there are fewer shooting wars going on certainly does not mean we have come to a time of stability. The battle ground we need to be thinking of in the 21st century is on wall-street, in the Nikkei and Swiss banks.

    Geopolitically yes, there is likely more territorial stability than ever before. However, this is not the only kind of stability out there. Everyone is still looking to crap on whomever they have to in order to get a bigger piece of the pie and just because they don’t use tanks to do it anymore does not mean its not going on. All we have really seen is a shift in methods.

    P.S. Thailand was called Siam in 1940, so there was really only one ally of Japan. Unless you want to count the conquered colonies like Formosa, Korea or someone mentioned Manchuria, conquered only a few years earlier.

  • '19

    little off topic maybe?


  • although slightly off topic, Canuck12 took some time to refute someone’s ideas and did it in a proper manner.

    Let’s not forget that the discussion on the empire began when we were saying that Japan was weak when spread too thin. Then someone brought in the empire parallel


  • Let’s not forget that the discussion on the empire began when we were saying that Japan was weak when spread too thin. Then someone brought in the empire parallel

    Exactly. Japan’s problem in WW2 was essentially the same as Germany’s; they expanded too fast and made too many enemies. Their supply lines became thin and all it took was some concerted effort to drive them back. That was my point; the Japanese thought that military power alone could build an Empire, but that has seldom been the case. The game displays that very well.

    If Britain and France (essentially out of the war by then) hadn’t been fighting Germany, the Japanese wouldn’t have stood a chance. Britain without its back against the wall at home, and a free France would’ve taken down Japan as quickly as they were taken down in real history.

    Ah the end of History argument. A student of Fukuyama I see…

    Well… not really. I’m aware of his theory, but I think that the internet (which I believe came later) has closed down nationalism in the old sense. The new ideologies are borderless; religion, politics, ecology, etc.

    All wars are fought over gold. (Perhaps a ridiculous generalization but hear me out.)

    I hear you. But ‘gold’ changes depending on what each nation needs or wants. ‘Power’ or ‘control’ would be better words (especially since they’re vague!)

    I think the biggest reason we wont see too many more changing borders is because originally, when wars were fought, they were fought for wealth, which at the time was tied to natural resources, which was tied to land which is territory. These days there is no need to conquer territory by military means in order to obtain wealth. Wealth is not tied to territory anymore. The wars that are being fought and continue to be fought are economic wars. Wars over markets, over trade or over tariffs and subsidies.

    Agreed.

    Did you know the United States government imposes over 400% import tariffs on textiles from sub-Saharan African countries? This, along with the dumping of surplus second-hand clothes, completely destroys any possible textile industry (the first step for nearly all nation to industrialization) by eliminating both the domestic and foreign markets. This keeps Africa poor and undeveloped and ensures the squalid living conditions and remarkably high death rate of people there. This situation can easily be looked upon as an act in parallel to an act of war. They, as well as the EU and other developped countries, do the same thing with agricultural subsidies, which is generally looked upon by economists as one of the primary causes of poverty in the third world.

    I agree… partly. The massive levels of corruption, coupled with African leaders seeming lack of concern over their peoples welfare, as well as the conflicting tribes that often still dislike each other under one national roof, as well as the international arms trade - all of these things keep Africa (much of it) poor. Zimbabwe is a prime example. Even the removal of Apartheid in South Africa has mostly broken what was a functioning country (if you know what I mean).

    Just because there are fewer shooting wars going on certainly does not mean we have come to a time of stability. The battle ground we need to be thinking of in the 21st century is on wall-street, in the Nikkei and Swiss banks.

    True, but I still think that even with things as screwed as they are in some parts of the world; a human born today has more chance (proportionately) of living a long and healthy life than ever before.

    But I do agree it’s all about big business and international trade now. The world is owned by massive corporations.

    Geopolitically yes, there is likely more territorial stability than ever before. However, this is not the only kind of stability out there. Everyone is still looking to crap on whomever they have to in order to get a bigger piece of the pie and just because they don’t use tanks to do it anymore does not mean its not going on. All we have really seen is a shift in methods.

    I think that when people have their basic needs met they can become apathetic. Large amounts of the western world are like that, people just doing what they need and little more. If you look at India and China where there is still huge amounts of poverty, you see people with real drive. Unfortunately you also see people who are super-rich not giving a fig about their own people’s plight. Modern Asia resembles (socially) Europe 300 years ago. That’s why talk of old ‘Imperialism’ always makes me laugh - it’s about time Indian billionaires admitted that part of the problem of poverty in India (for example) is their own indifference to the plight of their own people.

    But I agree with your point. We’re all human beings, and one way or another their will always be some people willing to scramble over others in order to get to the top of the pile.

    On a slight tangent… I’d love to see a WW1 A&A style game which included diplomacy as part of the process.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 15
  • 13
  • 3
  • 4
  • 16
  • 81
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

45
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts