Thank you for the clarification. :)
Does J1 Attack "Break" the games?
-
The game is clearly not balanced no matter what round the Japan attack. The only win we have had as allies, was when Japan waited til turn 3 and also suffered from bad dice, UK got rich and he was never able to break India.
The balancing issue could be easily adjusted in my opinion. What were the gamedesigners thinking of giving Japan that air-armada? Japan is able to overwhelm every UK/China attempt to make a stand with some ground troops and 10+ planes and Japan has plenty more for eqiupping new carriers and safeguarding Japanese homeland.
I think that removing 5-6 planes from Japan could make the game a lot more balanced.
-
it is good to see that some people are finaly starting to make sense. i thought the axisandallies.org community had become stunted with wishful thinking that they want a japan(j) first round(1) attack to be balanced so they keep telling themselves andd posting that the game is blanced.
it is clear to those that have played the game many times that a j1 declaration of war(dow) always leads to a japanese victory.
i think the game is unbalanced in 2 ways. j1 dow is far superior to j2, j3, and j4 dow. and japan is far superior to allies.
the latter issue can be fixed with a bid, like all axis and allies versions before it. the former issue is more difficult to fix.
i have started a thread for possible fixes. unfortunatly for me no one has commented possitivly or negativly on my ideas. wild bill and variable have offered up new ideas aswell, but no one has commented on thier ideas either. robbie358, gharen, and variable have said to ignore the problem by barring a j1 attack. frontovik has said japan needs help on a j1 dow. bube has said all dows are balanced. kaufschtick (who has made many insightful and entertaining posts on other threads) and silverangel surfer have also said to ignore the problem as this is more historical.
-
i have started a thread for possible fixes. unfortunatly for me no one has commented possitivly or negativly on my ideas. wild bill and variable have offered up new ideas aswell, but no one has commented on thier ideas either. robbie358, gharen, and variable have said to ignore the problem by barring a j1 attack. frontovik has said japan needs help on a j1 dow. bube has said all dows are balanced. kaufschtick (who has made many insightful and entertaining posts on other threads) and silverangel surfer have also said to ignore the problem as this is more historical.
I did not say to “ignore the problem as this is more historical”, I only suggested that perhaps there’s another strategy related to the way the war went historically since the game designers have been going for better historical accuracy in general. Ignoring the problem and having Japan over-run the Pacific, especially China and India, is in no way historical. However, I have no further insight to add to the discussion as I have yet to do more than work out my own J1 DoW in the only Pac40 game I have played yet, hence my question that was in response to variable and gharen’s comment on the game.
If that’s the case, maybe the designers left it that way so the game could follow relatively accurately the historical playout? In which case can we learn anything from the strategies actually used by the Allies in WW2?
-
it is clear to those that have played the game many times that a j1 declaration of war(dow) always leads to a japanese victory.
Always is a strong word. I think some would strongly disagree with your statement that J will win 100% of the games.
-
@SAS:
i have started a thread for possible fixes. unfortunatly for me no one has commented possitivly or negativly on my ideas. wild bill and variable have offered up new ideas aswell, but no one has commented on thier ideas either. robbie358, gharen, and variable have said to ignore the problem by barring a j1 attack. frontovik has said japan needs help on a j1 dow. bube has said all dows are balanced. kaufschtick (who has made many insightful and entertaining posts on other threads) and silverangel surfer have also said to ignore the problem as this is more historical.
I did not say to “ignore the problem as this is more historical”, I only suggested that perhaps there’s another strategy related to the way the war went historically since the game designers have been going for better historical accuracy in general. Ignoring the problem and having Japan over-run the Pacific, especially China and India, is in no way historical. However, I have no further insight to add to the discussion as I have yet to do more than work out my own J1 DoW in the only Pac40 game I have played yet, hence my question that was in response to variable and gharen’s comment on the game.
If that’s the case, maybe the designers left it that way so the game could follow relatively accurately the historical playout? In which case can we learn anything from the strategies actually used by the Allies in WW2?
sorry sas, i guess i did not understand your post and jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
-
it is clear to those that have played the game many times that a j1 declaration of war(dow) always leads to a japanese victory.
Always is a strong word. I think some would strongly disagree with your statement that J will win 100% of the games.
you are right always is a strong word, and is a slight exaggeration.
in games with highly skilled opponents and fairly even dice a j1 dow will mean j always wins.
i estimate that in games with highly skilled opponents, a j1 dow would lead to j victory 95% of the games. early round bad dice for japan could cost them the game, but it would have to be very bad dice, thats how i came to my 1 in 20 games estimate. -
I’ve just been thinking about how this will relate to the global game. Since Germany starts off only at war with France and UK, a J1 declaration would probably also bring Germany into war with the US round one, which while it may be advantageous for Japan it could be fatal for Germany. If it’s better, at least on the Europe side, for the Axis to declare war later on then this may debunk the J1 attack strategy, at least in the global game.
-
@SAS:
I did not say to “ignore the problem as this is more historical”, I only suggested that perhaps there’s another strategy related to the way the war went historically since the game designers have been going for better historical accuracy in general. Ignoring the problem and having Japan over-run the Pacific, especially China and India, is in no way historical.
perhaps its the movement values of Jap forces across the ground in Asia is a-historical, but they certainly did over-run the Pacific, at least “for six months” that they predicted. The historical angle lasts in the game truly as long as it takes to set the game up, once it starts history is rewritten. If they wanted to design a historical game they wouldn’t give you the option to attack earlier.
I’ve just been thinking about how this will relate to the global game. Since Germany starts off only at war with France and UK, a J1 declaration would probably also bring Germany into war with the US round one, which while it may be advantageous for Japan it could be fatal for Germany. If it’s better, at least on the Europe side, for the Axis to declare war later on then this may debunk the J1 attack strategy, at least in the global game.
that’d be an interesting idea, but it seems more likely that Germany will have to be ready on turn 1 to fight (hence the ability to take out France turn 1) just as Japan is, and if the US isn’t ready to take on Japan round 1 then they would be even less prepared to face the combined forces and the odds would be even worse.
-
@SAS:
I did not say to “ignore the problem as this is more historical”, I only suggested that perhaps there’s another strategy related to the way the war went historically since the game designers have been going for better historical accuracy in general. Ignoring the problem and having Japan over-run the Pacific, especially China and India, is in no way historical.
perhaps its the movement values of Jap forces across the ground in Asia is a-historical, but they certainly did over-run the Pacific, at least “for six months” that they predicted. The historical angle lasts in the game truly as long as it takes to set the game up, once it starts history is rewritten. If they wanted to design a historical game they wouldn’t give you the option to attack earlier.
I’ve just been thinking about how this will relate to the global game. Since Germany starts off only at war with France and UK, a J1 declaration would probably also bring Germany into war with the US round one, which while it may be advantageous for Japan it could be fatal for Germany. If it’s better, at least on the Europe side, for the Axis to declare war later on then this may debunk the J1 attack strategy, at least in the global game.
that’d be an interesting idea, but it seems more likely that Germany will have to be ready on turn 1 to fight (hence the ability to take out France turn 1) just as Japan is, and if the US isn’t ready to take on Japan round 1 then they would be even less prepared to face the combined forces and the odds would be even worse.
I’m not really sure I understood the wording of your last part, but Germany will obviously be in a position to take on both UK and France, but adding Russia and the US into the mix changes things drastically. Germany (I’m assuming) starts off with significantly less IPCs than the allies nations do, and will need to spend at least a few turns taking territories to bolster it’s economy, much like Japan. The difference with Japan and Germany though is that Germany can start expanding without bringing the US (or the USSR) into the war, whereas Japan cannot, so my guess is that it’ll be worth it for Japan to hold off it’s attack for at least a turn or two so that Germany can wipe out France, slap Britain around a little, and get all the pro-axis neutrals. If Japan attacks right off the bat, the US not only gets the extra 40 IPCs in Pacific (which granted Japan is able to deal with) but also, if I’m not mistaken 30 IPCs in Atlantic, and also keep in mind that there is no split income for US and it, with the aid of Britian and a few leftover French units that may have survived the first turn, could start pounding Germany even before it’s declared war on USSR.
-
If Japan attacks right off the bat, the US not only gets the extra 40 IPCs in Pacific (which granted Japan is able to deal with) but also, if I’m not mistaken 30 IPCs in Atlantic, and also keep in mind that there is no split income for US and it, with the aid of Britian and a few leftover French units that may have survived the first turn, could start pounding Germany even before it’s declared war on USSR.
The US will only get one 30 IPC wartime NO in Global. The current 40 IPC wartime NO from Pacific will be obsolete in the Global game, as apparently the Global game will have different NOs than either half-game.
perhaps its the movement values of Jap forces across the ground in Asia is a-historical, but they certainly did over-run the Pacific, at least “for six months” that they predicted. The historical angle lasts in the game truly as long as it takes to set the game up, once it starts history is rewritten. If they wanted to design a historical game they wouldn’t give you the option to attack earlier.
Granted. I was thinking more about their progress in Asia, so I probably shouldn’t have included the part about the Pacific, since they did over-run the Pacific islands, but not to the extent that the Allies were unable to mount a reasonable counter-attack like it is in the Pac40 game.
However, maybe the point of the Pac40 game is that if Japan hadn’t been tied to the other Axis powers and been able to attack full-out they would’ve done much better… :-P Still makes for a lopsided half-game though.
-
I’m not really sure I understood the wording of your last part, but Germany will obviously be in a position to take on both UK and France, but adding Russia and the US into the mix changes things drastically. Germany (I’m assuming) starts off with significantly less IPCs than the allies nations do, and will need to spend at least a few turns taking territories to bolster it’s economy, much like Japan. The difference with Japan and Germany though is that Germany can start expanding without bringing the US (or the USSR) into the war, whereas Japan cannot, so my guess is that it’ll be worth it for Japan to hold off it’s attack for at least a turn or two so that Germany can wipe out France, slap Britain around a little, and get all the pro-axis neutrals. If Japan attacks right off the bat, the US not only gets the extra 40 IPCs in Pacific (which granted Japan is able to deal with) but also, if I’m not mistaken 30 IPCs in Atlantic, and also keep in mind that there is no split income for US and it, with the aid of Britian and a few leftover French units that may have survived the first turn, could start pounding Germany even before it’s declared war on USSR.
I said that as Japan can start attacking right away without a buildup, so can Germany, and likely Italy for that matter. As they will have that advantage they will be able to start taking Allied holdings, because all the Allies, UK, US, France, and yes, the Soviet Union will not be in the fighting position that the Axis will be in. This means that as Japan can lash right out, so can the other Axis.
I haven’t seen for certain that Japan attacking the US will bring them in against Germany (same with the non-split income of the US), that may well be, I just haven’t read it as yet. After all, Germany declared war separately against the US from Japan. It was Germany’s declaration that truly brought them into the European war, not Pearl Harbor.
As for split income of the US or not, gaining the extra production still likely won’t mean they get to the units it buys before US3, and they would just face the same problem that they faced historically. “Gee, it’s great to have all this production, but where do we spend it?” Hence the reason that they chose Europe predominantly and with the Godzilla that Japan can become in P40, that means the US would unwise to not split their income to both fronts again. And again leaves them without a dominant position at the start against the Axis. -
This thread is an example as to why I really need to find people that live around here capable of playing A&A. :(
-
Play here online.
I’m usually looking for a game.
-
-
You need to download the aabattlemap program (which also includes a number of Axis & Allies games and variants) and then download the Pacific40 module. Follow the instructions in the link below:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17808.0
Then you can ask for games and play in the play boardgames section of this forum. You type out your moves, then resolve the combat using the forum’s dice server. When you are finished all your moves, then you save the map (from aabattlemap) with all your finished moves and include it in your final post. Then it is your opponent’s move.
-
^ Thanks a million. Now I just need to get my laptop fixed so I don’t have to use this stupid Mac… :|
So anywhere, here’s the situation in my current Pacific 1940 game.
J1 attack leads to typical results, but I have the houserule of the US getting 40 IPCs immediately, so USA builds up formidable navy. China moves everything it can to keep the Burma Road open, and by J3 there is a seizable British-Chinese presence in Yunnan.
The Japanese player was very hesitant to take Yunnan because of the huge Allied army there; an earlier attack on it crippled the air forces stationed in China. So, to draw some British forces out the Japanese used the infantry it used to capture the DEI and brought them up to Malaya. With the help of two cruisers it took Malaya with no resistance (the single ANZAC infantry being wiped out by the cruiser bombardment). Even though the Brits had to divert some infantry south to Malaya it still looked very much like they could and would take it; two infantry could not and would not hold Malaya against a determined British attack.
That is, until the next Japanese turn, when they transferred the three fighters and tactical bombers from the aircraft carriers stationed at the Carolines to Malaya. On that same turn a major factory was built on malaya, but then something even better for the Japanese happened.
I guess the Japanese player got very gambly (well, can’t expect much more, he’s my friend from Italy :-P) and decided to attack the Allied stronghold in Yunnan with two objectives in mind:
-Close the Burma Road; most of China has already been taken at this point, but with the Burma Road open they’ll just pile up more infantry;
-Destroy the Allied force looming to take back the Chinese coast.
This is like, Battle of Austerlitz-like action: the Japanese, outnumbered and outgunned, sent in 6 infantry, 4 tactical bombers, 4 fighters, 4 bombers, two artillery against double the infantry, 4 British fighters, the flying tigers, a British tactical bomber, three British tanks, and a few other things I can’t remember at the moment.
Point is, only a Japanese artillery was left standing.
Well, the Japanese air force survived, but it lost three of the fighters. I think the Japs had more infantry than 6, but I can’t recall it now. :?
Still, their objective was completed: the Burma Road was shattered, China was done for, and Britain’s power had been shattered. I recall how kauf said that India will always fall. Well, playing as Britain, I thought that to be impossible, and so that’s why I moved the majority of the India forces to Yunnan once the Chinese re-took it, and diverted the Malayan infantry to Yunnan was well.
Big mistake on my part.
Well, today we’re going to be continuing the game, and the situation is now this:
India is about to fall, there’s no doubt about that. Japan has 10 tanks and 10 mechanized infantry in Malaya along with seizable air cover. Their income exceeds that of the US by almost 20 IPCs (around 67 or 68 last I checked, somewhere in the 60s). ANZAC, in all this mess, is now simply building up a bunch of infantry and maybe a fighter or two. The Japanese have already begun building up a massive transport fleet with a big infantry stack in Kwantung. I’m pretty sure he’s going to support them with a bunch of artillery and tanks in the Australian invasion, but the Allies have a seizable force in Australia: the Americans have a large bomber fleet there, and there is a lot of American ground forces stationed there. The British cruiser and destroyer from the Indian coast managed to anchor themselves in Sydney, and is currently there.
With India about to fall I’m building up as many fighters as I can, and right before India falls (which is next turn) I’ll fly them all out to Western Australia.
Man, this is why I wish I knew how to take a screenshot of the board and post it up here. :(
But anyway…thoughts on the situation?
-
In this game, bombarded units get to fire back before they die.
-
In this game, bombarded units get to fire back before they die.
I doubt it would have made much difference. That just means only one infantry would be garrisoning Malaya with three bombers and three fighters protecting it. 4 unsuppored British infantry would not have broken through.
-
I assume the Japs destroying the yunnan stack was lucky.
-
I assume the Japs destroying the yunnan stack was lucky.
Yes, very lucky. I think I remember the proper OOB:
4 fighters (3 British, 1 Flying Tiger)
1 tactical bomber
10 Chinese infantry
4-6 British infantry
3 British tanks
1 British artillery
And for my sniveling Italian friend:
-6-10 infantry, not exactly sure how much
-2 artillery
-4 bombers
-4 tactical bombers
-4 fighters
Japan got 11 hits on the first round, me 9. Despite my attempts at trying to use psychological warfare, he pressed the attack despite the casualties and basically destroyed everything. :-(
He might remember it better than I do though. As soon as we play again I’ll ask him how the battle happened.
Suggested Topics
