To answer the original question of this thread, I think that the game was developed as AA40 global first, and then the board was “sawed in half” to create the two theater games. From other comments I’ve seen on other threads here, it seems that Japan wants to start the war as early as possible and Germany wants to delay it as long as possible. This would provide an exciting tension between the Axis powers in the global game, but could easily with insufficient playtesting create the issues we’re seeing here in AAP40.
Kaufschtick, the Midway threat to Japan IS a feint(unless something presents itself). US true objective should be China, as you surmised.
I wouldn’t exactly call it a feint. What it represents is another thing the Japanese have to defend against. As the US, you don’t want to put all of your offensive “eggs” as it were, in one basket. Part of the Allied goal is to try to spread out the Japanese and make them defend more area than they are capable of doing. So a naval base on Midway forces Japan to keep some naval presence in SZ 6 to prevent US units from passing through and hitting SZ19.
Any position that the Allies, or the US, can take up that forces the Japanese to defend against multiple threats or avenues of attack is key. Just as the Japanese are able to defend island airbases and have their air units force the Allies to commit twice the number of attackers to cover the possibility of the air units defending either the SZ or the land territory. The Allies need to take up possitions that force the Japanese to defend against multiple threats.
Midway is still quite capable of sailing troops down to attack Truk.
I kinda like having the US develope Midway and the Allies getting SZ54 into action. That allows the Allies to spread out the Japanese and still have the option of putting Truk right in the middle of the two bases for a squeeze attack if the Japanese let it get a little weak.
Speaking of Truk, it brings up a good point of how playing US immediate 40 helps the game, and how the OOB rules dont cut it.
In our many games of playing the OOB rules, we’ve had many a game where the Allies have taken Truk. With the OOB rules though, every time this has happened, it has taken all of the Allies collective strength to take Truk, and the win unfortunately leaves the Allies too weakened to take advantage of the situation.
With Truk being just one move from Japan and two moves from the US, the Japanese have always been able to beat the Allies back and retake Truk.
With immediate 40, the Allies, the US in particular, have just enough umph to hang on and and makes taking Truk for the Allies a game winning strategy.
This as opposed to the OOB rules where taking Truk winds up being the Allied victory that costs them the game. :x
Japanese player always overprotects Japan against Midway buildup. They have no choice.
If US is earning 55 ipcs, and already has a sizable navy(mainly cheap subs), they can funnel 4 TTs, 5 inf + 3 art per turn. That’s 8 ground units + transport capacity landing in Midway each turn. Quite a bit of pressure for Japan to worry about. At the very least, Japan spends a couple of turns buying 10 inf for defense in Tokyo. Psychological warfare at its finest.
Japan may even bring the bulk of her fleet back home to defend.
At that point US can go TRUK–>PI and/or Asia mainland and/or DEI, blocking IJN from retaking TRUK with DD’s(can be ANZAC DD’s).
Japan will probably move back to PI.
Then US lands TT’s only all over the map like a bad rash, retreating the fleet back to Midway or Hawaii.
This is not an easy task for the USN. Japan probably has 5-6 loaded carriers at this point.
For a change, Japan has to play with precision. But, with precise play, win they do unless the caveman has anything to say about it.
Has anyone tried moving the starting US fleet to SZ 7 on turn 1, to go for a turn 2 Korea takeover? I have a feeling this will be much scarier in global as well with the 18 russian inf to back it up. Even if you don’t get to nab Korea it should send a large amount of the japan fleet back to SZ 6. And if the allies can convoy raid in SZ6 japan is in serious trouble.
Also, against the india crush, with gobal it will not be doable on turn 3 anymore as the UK blockers can hide in the left side SZs.
Lastly, has anyone tried putting Russia into the game? Giving them there Inf, as well as collecting IPCs and building in the far left? I have a feeling this would really make the India crush a bit less desireable for Japan.
Japanese player always overprotects Japan against Midway buildup. They have no choice.
Very right you are, sir. :evil: :-D
If US is earning 55 ipcs, and already has a sizable navy(mainly cheap subs), they can funnel 4 TTs, 5 inf + 3 art per turn. That’s 8 ground units + transport capacity landing in Midway each turn. Quite a bit of pressure for Japan to worry about. At the very least, Japan spends a couple of turns buying 10 inf for defense in Tokyo.
Yes, but the trouble here is that the cheap subs don’t help those transports one bit against defending fighters on the Japanese home islands. As we’ve played the game, the Japanese have loaded the home islands and Truk with planes. The planes can jump back and forth between the two depending on the prevailing threat from the Yanks.
Psychological warfare at its finest.
LOL! So true! :lol: That’s the best part of the Midway NB. The Yanks can use it to leverage the Japanese defences on Truk back to Japan, and possibly grab Truk.
Then US lands TT’s only all over the map like a bad rash, retreating the fleet back to Midway or Hawaii. This is not an easy task for the USN. Japan probably has 5-6 loaded carriers at this point.
A bad rash indeed! :-D :lol: We had a game of immediate 40 where the US was able to take Truk with enough force to win the initial attack (Japanese air came out to defend the SZ, 4 fully loaded US transports took the island after the naval battle win) and just barely enough to hold off the Japanese counter attack.
Those transports then went; three to SZ19, landing troops in Jehol, Shantung & Kiangsu. The fourth went to liberate Hong Kong, and the Japanese folded at that point. The deal with that move was that the Japanese were going to have but one chance to counter attack those troops. The next US move would see them move into China and off the coast.
“If you wanna live, get off the beach!”
That’s the trouble with Korea. Even if you see, as the US, that you aren’t going to be able to bring in more reinforcements in to Korea from sea, it’s three turns before you can move your troops off the coast from Korea, giving the Japanese plenty of time to round up a naval force with troops to cut the US force to ribbons.
For a change, Japan has to play with precision. But, with precise play, win they do unless the caveman has anything to say about it.
LOL!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well, the Caveman (whatever happened to that thread? :wink:) says that if you play immediate 40, both sides suddenly have the same feel about them. There’s a little more forgiveness in play for the Allies, and a little less in play for the Japanese, making them fairly close to equal.
As you’ve very nicely stated before, the Allies have to play perfect each move just to stay alive in the OOB games. The other thing that has to happen for the Allies to stay alive in the OOB game, is that they can’t have anything less than average dice, and they also need the Japanese to have nothing more than average dice.
Lady luck has to stay neutral or in the Allied camp. We’ve had many a OOB game end real quick just because the Allies had a run of bad dice in the begining, or the Japanese had a run of good dice. Either one of these is not good for the Allies in OOB.
This is a post by Larry Harris on his website that I felt I should post regarding this topic since I kind of feel the same way about it that he does. http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2409
Hi Urjohn
Great questions - let me try to answer them…
Quote:
I have seen a lot of people complain in forums about Japan being overpowered in AAP: 40. But it seems to me that your team most likely allowed that intentionally. How are my guesses and assumptions?
By my team I assume you mean playtesters. My playtesters don’t make the final calls on set up, I do. I test certain aspects of the game, or rather they do and I make the final game decisions based on what I feel the game needs. Especially how it should be setup. What guides me is first and foremost the actual history of the issue or situation in question. I’m no slave to history, however. That’s just where I begin. As for Japan being too powerful…Look, in AAP the Japanese have a 2:1 air force advantage over the allies. At the beginning of the war Japan was truly a supper power in the pacific. It actually had a 6:1 advantage in aviation. It had the Zero which was arguably the best fighter in the world at the time. 6:1!? I could not let history guide the setup to reflect a 6:1 advantage. I’m sure you’ll agree. So I made it a 2:1 advantage, and you lily white pansies are still complaining. Come on… if the real allies could do it (beat the Japs) so can you. Personally I enjoy the challenge.
Quote:
Quote:
2) I figure the European Axis will not want to go to war with the USA any sooner than they have to, and this will put pressure on the Japanese not to attack on J1, which gives the allies a chance to catch up in the Pacific theater.
Bless your heart… Right you are. The last thing the Germans want is to have a premature two front war with the US bringing to bear all that industrial power it has. The Germans and the Italians would like to limit their world war to Europe at least until the Soviets are on the ropes.
Quote:
3) I assume the reason the European Axis will want to avoid war at least in part due to a USA NO for being at war on the Europe map.
Yep.
Quote:
4) My guess is this NO will be 40 IPCs / turn.
Almost…You’re about 10 IPCs too high.
Quote:
5) I think your team had planned this out before the AAP: 40 game was even complete. It seems logical that balance and elegance in the G: 40 game take precedence over balance in the P: 40 game.
No, not really. The G40 game took absolutely no precedence or priority over P40. P40 is very much its own independent game seeking its own excellence in every way. Dependent on no other game for how it stands on its own two feet. The big compensator for P40, in terms of balance was primarily based on two things… I wanted an early allied challenge – thus reflecting the difficult task they had to deal with – namely a very militarized Japan. The 2nd thing was the US Economy. Which I must point out is 20 IPCs more than they receive in the G40 game. In the P40 game the US also has the potential of picking up even 10 other IPCs that they won’t have in G40.
It could end up that indeed Japan has turned out to be too strong in P40. I don’t really know yet for sure. I can tell you this… in the circle of people I play the game with it has been our feeling that, yes Japan is powerful (I like that and it probably is totally my fault if it is) but in no way is there anything automatic about their victory. See if you can find your own way of beating Japan. I’ve done it
P.S.
kaufschtick, my invitation to play you and your super/uber/unbeatable moves still stands, even if just so that I can see how exactly the whole thing plays out so I can try to think of how I would kick you in the pants if you used it a second time. :p
Thanks for posting that, kung fu, but there is one glaring omission!!
What about a question about the J1 attack, the actual subject of this thread?? Why would the Axis player ever not attack on J1 in the P40 game?? By his answers, it sounds like the P40 game was unduly affected by the Europe game, where the European Axis doesn’t want the USA at war in round 1. But if you take Europe out of it, as in P40, I don’t see any reason for Japan to wait, and then it has a much bigger advantage and can use that airforce right away!
OK, I asked this question on Larry’s Game Design site, in the same thread. If he responds, I’ll copy the response over to here. (Response to the original question - How did playtesters (and Larry!?) miss the J1 attack?)
I deleted my post, because I found some good discussion at Harris Game Design on a different thread about this topic, complete with pictures or a P40 game (with very cool, expensive miniatures :|)
Okay, what he’s actually saying is that regardless of what anyone else thinks, Pacific 1940 is it’s own stand alone game that does not need another theater to balance it. Furthermore, if you constantly (and I say constantly because if you do anything over and over and over again it’s boring as poop and you’re hamstringing your self strategically), attack on round one then you’re forced to fight India generally the same way every time. You have 26 IPC’s on turn one alone. Try buying ACs and subs or destroyers for the first few turns and deploying your fleet strategically. Even is you just wait one turn you still have a huge advantage over the UK in terms of boats and you can set up almost two turns worth of attacks without worrying about the Americans at all. If you’re playing against opponents who have no variation in their strategies than use the same “victory” moves over and over, by all means. My favorite opening moves are Japanese turn two or three attacks that confuse and mislead the allies as to my real initial objectives. It could just be that my opponents and I are better Allied players than yours are, so unless I make interesting and novel Japan turn two and three moves/attacks then they are able to defend aaginst an attack they see comming a mile away Or at least a fwe turnss before.
Okay, what he’s actually saying is that regardless of what anyone else thinks, Pacific 1940 is it’s own stand alone game that does not need another theater to balance it. Furthermore, if you constantly (and I say constantly because if you do anything over and over and over again it’s boring as poop and you’re hamstringing your self strategically), attack on round one then you’re forced to fight India generally the same way every time. You have 26 IPC’s on turn one alone. Try buying ACs and subs or destroyers for the first few turns and deploying your fleet strategically. Even is you just wait one turn you still have a huge advantage over the UK in terms of boats and you can set up almost two turns worth of attacks without worrying about the Americans at all. If you’re playing against opponents who have no variation in their strategies than use the same “victory” moves over and over, by all means. My favorite opening moves are Japanese turn two or three attacks that confuse and mislead the allies as to my real initial objectives. It could just be that my opponents and I are better Allied players than yours are, so unless I make interesting and novel Japan turn two and three moves/attacks then they are able to defend aaginst an attack they see comming a mile away Or at least a fwe turnss before.
What would your allied players do against kauf’s strat?
Also, have you heard of the J3 India crush?
What would your allied players do against kauf’s strat?
Also, have you heard of the J3 India crush?
I’m with calvinliker on this. Interesting to finally hear someone say they attack on J2 or J3 or whatever, but I can’t imagine. There are so many targets of opportunity that far outweigh the little 40 IPC to the USA “deterrent” it’s not even funny. Shoot, the British BB and 2 transports, Hong Kong, the Phillipines, complete with a US fighter and bomber….
Phillipines value to USA - 7
Value to Jap - 2
Bomber and fighter on Phillipines - 22
Transport and destroyer at Phi - 15
UK 2 transports and battleship (less 2/3 chance at losing bomber) - 26
US transport at Hawaii - 7
ANZAC sub - 6
ANZAC transport and destroyer - 15
Taking away the UK’s ability to take money islands - 8 (or more - Jap doesn’t have to kill infantry on said islands later on, and UK could earn it more than 1 turn, I suppose)
Hong Kong to Japan - 8
Hong Kong denied to UK - 8
Annihilating most of the Allied starting boats and demoralizing them pretty much all around - PRICELESS!
Are we past 40 yet???
Seems like a no-brainer to me. J1 attack all the wayyyyy!!!
What would your allied players do against kauf’s strat?
Also, have you heard of the J3 India crush?
I’m with calvinliker on this. Interesting to finally hear someone say they attack on J2 or J3 or whatever, but I can’t imagine. There are so many targets of opportunity that far outweigh the little 40 IPC to the USA “deterrent” it’s not even funny. Shoot, the British BB and 2 transports, Hong Kong, the Phillipines, complete with a US fighter and bomber….
Phillipines value to USA - 7
Value to Jap - 2
Bomber and fighter on Phillipines - 22
UK 2 transports and battleship - 34
Taking away the UK’s ability to take money islands - 8 (or more - Jap doesn’t have to kill infantry on said islands later on, and UK could earn it more than 1 turn, I suppose)
Hong Kong to Japan - 8
Hong Kong denied to UK - 8
Annihilating most of the Allied starting boats and demoralizing them pretty much all around - PRICELESS!Are we past 40 yet???
Seems like a no-brainer to me. J1 attack all the wayyyyy!!!
Yeah, J1 is the best OOB.
What would be your strategy against kauf’s one? The J3 India crush?
Yeah, J1 is the best OOB.
What would be your strategy against kauf’s one? The J3 India crush?
Actually, I didn’t read all of his strategy.
But generally, I prefer letting India earn their pathetic 3-5 IPC’s per turn and crushing it when I can do so without risking as much air to AA fire, and can hopefully lose mostly infantry. I’d rather forgo the 8 income for a few turns if it’s going to save me several aircraft and leave them free to do other things… Sometimes I disrupt India’s convoy, too, so that they’re earning pretty much nothing. If India’s no threat, the only reason to take it is to get the 8 IPC’s of income. If this is going to cost a lot of planes or tanks, or has a risk of actually failing, I will build up and wait. With a major complex in Singapore, this is no problem. I think it’s best to take India on Japan’s terms, at her leisure… in general…
Yeah, J1 is the best OOB.
What would be your strategy against kauf’s one? The J3 India crush?
Actually, I didn’t read all of his strategy.
But generally, I prefer letting India earn their pathetic 3-5 IPC’s per turn and crushing it when I can do so without risking as much air to AA fire, and can hopefully lose mostly infantry. I’d rather forgo the 8 income for a few turns if it’s going to save me several aircraft and leave them free to do other things… Sometimes I disrupt India’s convoy, too, so that they’re earning pretty much nothing. If India’s no threat, the only reason to take it is to get the 8 IPC’s of income. If this is going to cost a lot of planes or tanks, or has a risk of actually failing, I will build up and wait. With a major complex in Singapore, this is no problem. I think it’s best to take India on Japan’s terms, at her leisure… in general…
His strat is basically take the DEI by J2, Malaya on J3, and build a major there J4, while keeping the fleet together and never splitting it
His strat is basically take the DEI by J2, Malaya on J3, and build a major there J4, while keeping the fleet together and never splitting it
Oh - yeah - I misunderstood your question.
I have very little experience as the Allies. I’ve only played them maybe once to demonstrate that KUSAF is not a good idea. I am looking to play as Allies a few times in the near future… And I’m expecting to get smashed. :-)
This is a post by Larry Harris on his website that I felt I should post regarding this topic since I kind of feel the same way about it that he does.
“It could end up that indeed Japan has turned out to be too strong in P40. I don’t really know yet for sure.”
He doesn’t know for sure!?!
It seems to me that before you release a $100.00 game that one might want to answer this question first, before you put the game out there and start taking people’s money.
Okay, what he’s actually saying is that regardless of what anyone else thinks, Pacific 1940 is it’s own stand alone game that does not need another theater to balance it.
That’s not how I read it. Sounds to me like he’s saying that Japan could end up being too strong.
KungFu, did you bother to take the time to read your own post?
This is a post by Larry Harris on his website that I felt I should post regarding this topic since I kind of feel the same way about it that he does.
“It could end up that indeed Japan has turned out to be too strong in P40. I don’t really know yet for sure.”
He doesn’t know for sure!?!
It seems to me that before you release a $100.00 game that one might want to answer this question first, before you put the game out there and start taking people’s money.
I know, right? I guess he expects the players to figure out the balance and make house rules or bids to balance it for him.
He talks like it’s not supposed to be balanced. He said “he’s done it” (beaten the Axis with the Allies) which I interpret to mean it doesn’t happen half the time. I guess the Jap player is expected to win, and if he doesn’t, he got unlucky, or he sucks, or is inexperienced, or some combination. :-D
This is a post by Larry Harris on his website that I felt I should post regarding this topic since I kind of feel the same way about it that he does.
“As for Japan being too powerful…Look, in AAP the Japanese have a 2:1 air force advantage over the allies. At the beginning of the war Japan was truly a supper power in the pacific. It actually had a 6:1 advantage in aviation. It had the Zero which was arguably the best fighter in the world at the time. 6:1!? I could not let history guide the setup to reflect a 6:1 advantage. I’m sure you’ll agree. So I made it a 2:1 advantage, and you lily white pansies are still complaining. Come on… if the real allies could do it (beat the Japs) so can you. Personally I enjoy the challenge.”
Lily white pansies!?!
I don’t think Larry has a leg to stand on if he’s actually trying to connect the dots from actual history to Axis & Allies.
Axis & Allies is a game, and it’s connection to how it portrays actual events can only be described as loosely abstract, and that’s being generous.
The airbase rule is a great example of a rule introduced into the game as a game mechanic first, solely for game balance, and a representation of actual history second.
For example: New Zealand, an island. Malaya, not an island.
Japan, an island. New Guinea, not so much an island.
China falling entirely to Japan?
A fun game to be sure, but as a simulation or a study in the actual historical situation, I think not.
This is a post by Larry Harris on his website that I felt I should post regarding this topic since I kind of feel the same way about it that he does.
“I could be wrong but I think there will not be too many early game Russian/Japanese attacks. Why should there be.”
He could be wrong!?!
Not again!!! :-o
Didn’t he ever hear about the JTDTM!?!!! :-o
I found a much better discussion on this J1 attack business at Harris’ site, complete with pictures :-)
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2155
There are actually some allied strats and justifications for waiting to attack as J on this thread…
Although the conclusions are still - J1 Jap advantage, J delay Allied advantage, which brings us full circle. Why in the world would you wait as Japan?? Maybe I’ll try it when I play a newbie or something.
For those interested, I have some ideas as the allies I’d like to try out. Let me know if you are interested.
P.S.
kaufschtick, my invitation to play you and your super/uber/unbeatable moves still stands, even if just so that I can see how exactly the whole thing plays out so I can try to think of how I would kick you in the pants if you used it a second time.
I’ll play you KFJ, but it won’t be Kauf’s tactics, as I prefer my own. Let me know.
I found a much better discussion on this J1 attack business at Harris’ site, complete with pictures :-)
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2155
There are actually some allied strats and justifications for waiting to attack as J on this thread…
Although the conclusions are still - J1 Jap advantage, J delay Allied advantage, which brings us full circle. Why in the world would you wait as Japan?? Maybe I’ll try it when I play a newbie or something.
Well, I mean, if that thread just goes full circle, it’s more of the same as we have here.
If the best Japanese move is to attack J1, and Japan goes first in the game…
P.S.
kaufschtick, my invitation to play you and your super/uber/unbeatable moves still stands, even if just so that I can see how exactly the whole thing plays out so I can try to think of how I would kick you in the pants if you used it a second time. :p
Look, I came on here to find strategies for the Allies in this game, and to see if others were seeing the same high ratio of Japanese wins in the game as we were. To reinforce or debunk our suspicion that the game was broken. If you want to see how this thing plays out, I hate to tell you that there is no script to what we’ve seen. I’ve laid out the basics of what the Japanese pursue already, you can go back and read them.
I’ll play you KFJ, but it won’t be Kauf’s tactics, as I prefer my own. Let me know.
See, Jim is doing the same type of thing, different meathod.
As far as the moves I have described in my posts, they are not my “super/uber/unbeatable” moves. They are moves that my friend and I (mostly my best friend) came to develope over many playings of the game. It’s not the moves that are so tough for the Allies to overcome, it’s the general situation and strategy.
You seem to be missing the point that I didn’t come here looking for an opponent, although I’m not opposed to the idea if friendly relations develope with folks on here. :-)
When my friends and I play, we play to have fun, we drinks lots of beer, smoke a lot of cigars (usually), and have a blast. We aren’t worried about super/uber moves, or really who wins or looses. We do like to play the game well, don’t get me wrong, but mostly we’re looking for a good game and good company.
In answer to your “invitation”, I only play games amongst friends.
So if I don’t accept your invitation, you’ll know why.
