British IC in HK

[Clyde85]

I’ve been testing a stratgey where the British in India builds an IC in Kwangtung on turn 1 and reenforces it with some troops from Malay and eventually moving its entire airforce to Kwangtung as well. This is done along with the US building a Airbase in the Philipines and reenforcing it with its starting airforces and troops from Hawaii. The US also builds a naval base on wake and concentrates its navy there.

What do you guys think?

[marechallannes]

There is an airport and a habour on the phillipines.

[Arminius Germanicus]

I think this IC would only be a lavish present for the Japs.
You only have to gift-wrap it  :-D

I think it dosen´t matter how much units you can bring in there on Turn1,
Jap will take it with combined forces on J2 or J3 and saves in addition the IPC for building a (major?) IC in Asia. While UK just spends money 12/30IPC for the IC wich will belong to japs 1 or 2 turns later.
So in therory it doesn´t make sense for me, but I admit that sometimes it´s very good to surprise your opponent with unconventional ideas/tactics. Maybe this will break his long term plan (to take India or Australia), b/c of the new situation. So give it a chance,
but for me playing as Jap a would make a joyful leap if UK builds an IC (major or minor) in Hong Kong for me…. Excellent the Tenno would say  :evil:

[Clyde85]

@marechallannes:

There is an airport and a habour on the phillipines.

Where dose it say this? The initial set-up card dosnt mention this.

@Arminius:

I think this IC would only be a lavish present for the Japs.
You only have to gift-wrap it  :-D

I think your missing the point. Its not ment to be a war winning offensive spring-board, but a place that Japan has to attack and send a good chunk of dedicated offensive resources and where the British can hope to inflict serious casualties. In this way, it keeps Japan from running amuck in the DEI for a turn or 2. In conjunction with the US move in the Phillipines, it forces Japan to attack these very strong defensive positions, where casualties could be very serious. Now Japan is forced into playing a reactionary game, as opposed to the allies. I supppose Japan could attack the US and UK on turn 2 if they wanted, but they would then have to deal with the other axis players wanteding to smack him more than likely  :-D

[Spade632]

Clyde,

It’s in the Pacific '40 errata.

Errata
Setup: The following errors exist in the setup cards:
United States: Add an airbase and a naval base to the Philippines.
ANZAC: Remove the minor industrial complex from New Zealand, and change the major
industrial complex in New South Wales to a minor industrial complex.

PDF version here > http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AA Pacific 1940 FAQ_VER1.pdf

Cheers.

[Clyde85]

Ok I had heard about the changes to the ANZAC but I somehow missed the additions to the Phillipines, thanks  :-)

Also, I have heard a bunch of people mention something about reducing the starting Japanese airforce by 7 planes, dose anyone know where this is comming from or if this is offically posted?

[Arminius Germanicus]

I think your missing the point.Its not ment to be a war winning offensive spring-board,

I am aware of this… it uld rather be a war winning defensive as you described it.

but a place that Japan has to attack

Japan attack HK anyway with or w/o IC - b/c of the NOs.
Ignoring HK with Japan is simply not possible I guess…

and send a good chunk of dedicated offensive resources

enough offensive resources are already there at the start,
it only delays striking china for 1 (maybe 2) turn(s)

and where the British can hope to inflict serious casualties.

thats the only good point, but if it fails you loose much IPC you could have spend in India for 1-3 turns. It leaves you with no significant defense forces to stop the japs from going to india. In fact it makes them easier for it - at least thats my evaluation.

In this way, it keeps Japan from running amuck in the DEI for a turn or 2. In conjunction with the US move in the Phillipines, it forces Japan to attack these very strong defensive positions, where casualties could be very serious. Now Japan is forced into playing a reactionary game, as opposed to the allies. I supppose Japan could attack the US and UK on turn 2 if they wanted, but they would then have to deal with the other axis players wanteding to smack him more than likely  grin

OK from this point of view I understand your idea, but I am not really convinced…
In the end all Allies (except US) to their best to slow down the axis (at all costs) until US joins the war… This way you will win nearly every game as allies, extremly boring I think, but thats how the game works. So Yes this strat could work BUT in AAGlobal it depends on how your Co-Axis player will act or react, so your question cannot really be answwered I think…

It’s in the Pacific '40 errata.

Indeed it is, a longt time now - bought Pacific in Feb/March this year,
the errata was already available at this time,
so look out for it  :-D

Also, I have heard a bunch of people mention something about reducing the starting Japanese airforce by 7 planes, dose anyone know where this is comming from or if this is offically posted?

It called the Alpha Scenario, you can find it on Larry Harris Site or here somewhere
(sould have been made sticky thread from the admins  :roll:)
There is alo more changed, additional Inf for China, moved UK ships (so Japs cannot kill transports in J1 attack) but also the Aircrafts of the allies were reduced in the same scale.

[Spade632]

@Clyde85:

Also, I have heard a bunch of people mention something about reducing the starting Japanese airforce by 7 planes, dose anyone know where this is comming from or if this is offically posted?

That would be Larry’s “Scenario Alpha” which is being considered as a fix to Pacific '40. It’s not an official change yet.  Still, many people are using it as they’ve found Japan’s airforce too powerful.

It can be found here > http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2568 (it’s also been posted elsewhere on these forums).

[Clyde85]

Im not to sure Axis move in Europe will greatly effect how the British India player moves. I suppose you could get Italy looming menaceingly in the Mid-east, but thats a maybe. Also, given the odds, having 4inf, 4ftrs, 3arm and a tac, is going to be a tough nut to crack, espically with the high defensive value of the fighters. If Japan wants to win, it has to attack Kwangtung, because it need the VC of hong Kong. Japan is in a similar situation with the Phillipines, as it HAS to take Manila in order to win. The US, in this scenario, will have 4inf 5ftrs and 4tacs in the Phillipines, which according to odds, is a very potent force, and it should inflict several casualties, in several rounds of fighting, similar to the HK force.
Now, keep in mind, the US will have a naval base and its entire starting Navy off of wake, which will have a naval base built turn 1, and any secondary buys at Hawaii by the end of turn 2, forces which Japan cant excatly afford to ignore. Also, British Forces will have concentrated in Burma, oppsite Yunnan around the same time, threating to enter into that conflict and prop up the Chinese around turn 3. All of these will require Japanese attention, and while Japan may have the strenght to deal with them all, doing so might exaust Japans offensive resources. It will also pull them in different directions, spreading themselves thin and opening them up to counter-punches, which they may not be able to stop. Of course, all this hinges on what the dice Gods decide to do  :-D

[Arminius Germanicus]

I am not to sure Axis move in Europe will greatly effect how the British India player moves.

Think Global  :lol:

I don´t had a special move or something in mind,
but I am convinced that Axis (especially Italy and Germany) had to coordianate their actions if they want to have a chance to win the game. The allies aren´t depending (except sea lion was sucsessful) on each other in such a scale.
Germany and Italy has to hold long enough that Japan can become that beast
wich will help bring down russia. With experienced players as russian it´s nearly Impossible for Germany to sucsessfully conduct Barbarossa alone.

1. Russia has more IPC to spend
2. Russia has no real enemy but 18 Inf in the east.
3. If Japs are stupid enough to attack Russia J1 instead of heading to India or Australia,
   that would break their back IMO. You cant take away Russia enough IPC while loosing
   valuable territories in the pacific b/c you used too much units in the north.
   I think this didn´pay out.
4. US has more IPC (especially pre-war +17IPC)
5. Germany gets NO Damn Bonus for Global, people who say they can easily preform
   sea lion are rediculous. You can never defend London against the US in Gobal.
   So that dosen´t count as advancement for me…

Also, given the odds, having 4inf, 4ftrs, 3arm and a tac, is going to be a tough nut to crack, espically with the high defensive value of the fighters.

Alpha Setup reduces Fighters for UK US and ANZAC too, so count again whats left for defense.

The US, in this scenario, will have 4inf 5ftrs and 4tacs in the Phillipines, which according to odds, is a very potent force, and it should inflict several casualties, in several rounds of fighting, similar to the HK force.

How that when half of the US AirForce is gone trough Alpha Scenario ?

doing so might exaust Japans offensive resources.

Thats how the war is won for the allies

BTW.
IS the US allowed to land Units in Hong Kong on US1 while not at war with Jap ?
I don´t think so…… and if Jap Attack UK on J1 you probarbly dosen´t have Hong Kong anymore when your turn starts  :-D

[Clyde85]

I am thinking global, and I dont see the Euro-axis threating India in the first 3 turns of the game. Once you add in the Soviets 18inf in the north, you add another direction, away from the south, that will pull in Japanese offensive resources. I agree that its unwise for Japan to do so, but most players wil disagree, and insist that attacking Russia is the only way to go as Japan. Also, If China is able to make enough of a nuisance out of itself, by keeping Japan bogged down trying to take and hold Yunnan for 2 turns, Japan will be in an even more untenable position.

And Just so we’re clear, this stratgey dose not account for the changes made by the “alpha scenario”. I dont think the game in the pacific needs to be changed that much, outside of what is listed in the offical errata.

[Bruda_Iz]

another point to consider is would Japan attack the British early to get the IC if it meant bringing the US into the war early?

[Clyde85]

@Bruda_Iz:

another point to consider is would Japan attack the British early to get the IC if it meant bringing the US into the war early?

Now this is a really good question, because the longer Japan waits, the stronger the allied position becomes. The only reason Japan has to wait to attack is so the US wont be able to come in against the euro-axis too soon. It puts a serious strain on the axis “alliance”

[Arminius Germanicus]

I am thinking global, and I dont see the Euro-axis threating India in the first 3 turns of the game.

That wasn´t my intended point.

Once you add in the Soviets 18inf in the north,

What do you mean with add ? Attack Jap with 18Inf ?

but most players wil disagree, and insist that attacking Russia is the only way to go as Japan

I think thats a result of the previous AAA games,
especially in the 2nd Edition (we played most in our group) it was the way to go.

And Just so we’re clear, this stratgey dose not account for the changes made by the “alpha scenario”.

OK

I dont think the game in the pacific needs to be changed that much, outside of what is listed in the offical errata.

So you one of a few who believe that….
Personally I think once the Alpha Scenario (or Beta, gamma, delta whatever will maybe follow) is approved by most of the gaming comunity, WOTC will follow and make it “official”.

[Clyde85]

I mean that if you account for Japan sending resources to fight the Soviets. Even if its just for 1 turn its still moving Japanese offensive units away from the allied build-up in the south.
I agree, attacking the soviets as Japan is indeed a hold over tatic from the older games, and it really hampers Japan more often then not, if nothing else by just putting them out of position for a turn.

I think the axis, espically Japan, have it hard enouh and dosnt need to have its critical airforces taken away and given more land forces. Until the “alpha scenario” is made official, we’ll continue to use the set-up we have.

@Arminius:

I am thinking global, and I dont see the Euro-axis threating India in the first 3 turns of the game.

That wasn´t my intended point.

What was then?

[oztea]

I did this in a game, results were mixed

The important thing is that it took almost the entire Japanese force earmarked for the DEI off course to take out Hong Kong. It was a bloodbath, the UK-Pacific Command lost more than it could afford to replace, but gained immense ammounts of time in exchange. The threat it presented to Japan meant they had to leave the DEI alone untill their 5th turn, and couldnt attack Russia, or threaten the US or ANZAC.

Combined with moving the US fleet to Hawaii on US1, it presented the Japanese with an overload of threats, none capable of attacking Japan, but all needing the bulk of the Japanese millitary’s attention.

China also faired well because of the lack of attention Japan could focus on it.

But in the end the Allies still lost……hard to say why. It was a loss in the European theatre, the US had to pump money over there and couldnt keep up the threat to japan…also, the US built too many transports in the pacific…I think im done building transports in the pacific for a while…at least untill turn 10. I spent 14 a turn on a TRN, INF, ART. That could have been an extra cruiser every turn there, or 2 subs.

[sanya33]

@marechallannes:

There is an airport and a habour on the phillipines.

There were mistakes in AAP40, but when setting up Global presumingly it’s how it is with nothing in Phillipines.

It is correct that China Can’t go into Korea isn’t it at all to fight or stay or enter?

[Clyde85]

@oztea:

The important thing is that it took almost the entire Japanese force earmarked for the DEI off course to take out Hong Kong. It was a bloodbath, the UK-Pacific Command lost more than it could afford to replace, but gained immense ammounts of time in exchange. The threat it presented to Japan meant they had to leave the DEI alone untill their 5th turn, and couldnt attack Russia, or threaten the US or ANZAC.

That was my thought process with it. I also do this in conjunction with the US airforce build up and the phillipines, and Naval base built turn 1 a wake, and concentrating the US navy there. I also concentrate the Briths navy at Malaya. Its an attempt to create a defensive line in the central pacific and hold the Japanese up there, giving the allies time to build up offensive forces, and spread the Japanese thin. I dont think the US really needs to build large landing forces, they should concentrate on a fleet and let the ANZAC build up the ground forces.

An odd thing i’ve noticed in my games is that the Japanese tend to abandon the caroline islands, and the ANZAC, if their paying attention, usually grab it, anyone else seen this?

[spectre_04]

Unless Japan doesn’t want to attack until turn 3, then its a total waste of money, IF you even have the chance to build it there in the first place.

[Clyde85]

@spectre_04:

Unless Japan doesn’t want to attack until turn 3, then its a total waste of money, IF you even have the chance to build it there in the first place.

you would build it on UK1, why wouldnt you have time? I dont really think Japan would attack any earlier then turn 3, unless it wants the other axis power players to beat him up  :-D