British IC in HK

[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

[MaherC]

@Clyde85:

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.

to beat a dead horse,  none of these changes are “official” until the game is reprinted.  Board games don’t have errata.  This isn’t M:TG.    Having played the Alpha setup now 2x in the G40 game, the only way to balance this game is going to be on a per group basis, as one setup fix won’t do it.

[Clyde85]

@MaherC:

to beat a dead horse,  none of these changes are “official” until the game is reprinted.   Board games don’t have errata.

Who says they dont? There were some clear errors in the A&APAC40 game and an FAQ was offically made to tell us that the IC in Australia was supposed to be a minor, and that there wasnt supposed to be an IC on New Zealand at all, and that the Phillipines was ment to have an AB and a NB. I really think were splitting hairs here on what we call it, but its pretty much the same thing as an errata. As of right now, this “Alpha scenario” is an alternate set-up posted in a thread on Larry Harris’s personal web-site, and until it is posted like the FAQ for PAC40 was, I dont feel compelled to use it.

[spectre_04]

@Clyde

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

Uhhhh, did you ever play PAC 1940 by itself???  Its completely disadvantageous for Japan to wait to attack, they are set up to deal a serious blow to America in the Philippines and the UK, especially their battleship and transports, in the first round, not to mention capturing Hong Kong, making it impossible for the brits to even take it back, let alone build a factory there.  If you are not attacking on J1 and winning games as Japan, you must be playing against Forest Gump.

[Clyde85]

@Spectre

As the PAC40 game came out first, I am more than fimilar with the standared J1 attack from that game. However, as the forum titles suggest, this stratgey is suggested for the Global game only. If Japan were to do a J1 attack in the Global game, and bring the 80IPC monster that the US is, down on the Euro-axis, Im pretty sure the other axis players would be pissed, as the US can start landing troops in Africa by turn 2 and be i Europe by turn 3. Japan has to wait till atleast turn 3 to attack the western powers, and give Germany an chance to knock Britian out in Europe.

Therefore, if we consider that Japan wont attack before turn 3 in Global, then Britian has more then enough time to build Hong Kongs defenses

[spectre_04]

I don’t see any advantage to the Axis waiting to attack on J3, even in the global game.  I also usually only play 1 on 1 games so upsetting another player isn’t often an issue for me, and even so, my object is to win the game, not do whats best for just my country, but to ensure my entire SIDE has a collective victory.

That being said, I am not saying your strategy is bad, I’m just saying it isn’t what I would do.  I think that the advantages gained by a J1 attack, including an attack on Sydney (mind you this is with the standard setup), far outweighs any threat that might be posed by the US getting their income bonus.  This isn’t a FACT, it’s just my opinion.  So if you were playing me, I am just saying that you wouldn’t even get a chance to put an IC in Hong Kong unless you got some insanely luck dice rolls on J1.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@spectre_04:

I don’t see any advantage to the Axis waiting to attack on J3, even in the global game.  I also usually only play 1 on 1 games so upsetting another player isn’t often an issue for me, and even so, my object is to win the game, not do whats best for just my country, but to ensure my entire SIDE has a collective victory.

That being said, I am not saying your strategy is bad, I’m just saying it isn’t what I would do.  I think that the advantages gained by a J1 attack, including an attack on Sydney (mind you this is with the standard setup), far outweighs any threat that might be posed by the US getting their income bonus.  This isn’t a FACT, it’s just my opinion.  So if you were playing me, I am just saying that you wouldn’t even get a chance to put an IC in Hong Kong unless you got some insanely luck dice rolls on J1.

Attack on Sydney? 1 inf vs 1 inf?

[spectre_04]

yep, battleship shore bombardment.  It’s a bitch move, they always take it back, and your fleet gets stranded down there, but it does get you 10 extra bucks and slows down ANZAC significantly. 
I don’t always do it, but if I go all out I usually do.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@spectre_04:

yep, battleship shore bombardment.  It’s a b**** move, they always take it back, and your fleet gets stranded down there, but it does get you 10 extra bucks and slows down ANZAC significantly. 
I don’t always do it, but if I go all out I usually do.

You can’t do bombardment since there’s a DD there

[spectre_04]

The DD is killed by my Carrier and aircraft that accompany the battleship.

[Clyde85]

Umm… I dont see how you would get a BB bombardment, all combat moves are made simultaniously, so you would have to move you BB into a combat situation with the ANZAC dd, there by forfiting you bombardment.

Now explain to me how bring the US in on the first turn of the game benifits the axis as a whole? How dose having an 80IPC country being able to attack the Euro-axis and Reinforce the British in Europe and africa benifit the whole side?

[spectre_04]

OK Clyde,

Because waiting, especially in the east, totally ruins you as Japan, that’s why.  You guys are way too scared of the US’s money, so scared.  Why don’t you play like you got a pair.  I still think that if you pussyfoot around in Asia to have this all precious sealion strategy pan out, your gonna end up getting clobbered after the Brits, ANZAC and US can reposition and build up in the Pacific.  Just my opinion.  I always take Hong Kong on turn 1, so only Japan would ever place an IC there if I was playing.

Also, your right about the shore bombard rule, I checked the rulebook.  However, didn’t it used to be allowed?  As long as the Battleship didn’t participate in the sea combat, couldn’t it still bombard?? or was I playing it wrong the whole time??

[Clyde85]

No, the rules have always been like that, you have just been playing it wrong.

Now, there is a difference between playing boldly, and being wreckless. Unless your playing against a total novice, which given your misunderstanding of the rules it wouldnt suprise me, a turn 1 US entry into the war equals death for the Axis. You are correct that a J1 strike gives Japan great odds, but, if you plan correctly, you can have a much more powerful and far reaching attack by waiting until turn 3. Also, by giving Germany, and more importantly Italy, 2 turns to better position and strenght themselves, you can have a far more successful game as the Axis.

Can you please explain, in detail, what your greater axis stratgey is? How do you compensate for the sudden shift in the allied strength? How do you maximize the axis material strenght before the US’s economic strenght can be brought to bear?