@Cow:
japan just loses the +10 bonus for fighting UK / ANZAC, it doesn’t throw usa in war.
War on UK or ANZAC puts you at war with both.
Soviet union and USA are exclusive, you only go to war with that country when you declare war on them. you start at war with china.
Page 35 of Europe 1940 Rulebook:
…or Japan makes an unprovoked declaration of war on the UK or ANZAC, the United States may declare war on any or all Axis powers.
hmm I had to think about this a bit. Alpha +1 and Alpha +2 rules are different, also the book isn’t very clear in the japan political situation.
~
I noticed when reading pg 34 that they hint towards war with the usa as well if you declare an unprovoked war on UK/ANZAC.
“A declaration of war by Japan against either the UK or ANZAC will immediately result in a state of war between japan and both of those powers. A state of war between Japan and France or between Japan and the soviet union will not affect relations between Japan and United States, and vice versa.”
I notice that in Japan’s political situation they make no mention of war with UK/ANZAC going to war with USA, but they do hint it at by not including UK/ANZAC in the france/soviet union section.
It’s kind of strange that japan’s political situation makes no mention of USA entering the war if UK/ANZAC is attacked, but certainly doesn’t leave out that possibility.
hmmm this is weird. http://www.axisandallies.org/node/439 . In the japan section it says war is mutually exclusive. Then in the USA section it says war.
the link above is rules preview before game was released. The rulebook is different and supercedes. Now Japan rules don’t even mention it.
It is under USA in PG35 like above user said. Also looked at alpha+1 and +2 and it doesn’t mention any political changes.
I guess USA does enter war if Japan kicks off too soon. HMMMMMMMM I was mistaken my bad. I was allies my first couple games too and japan went nuts on uk round 1. I remember in pacific 1940 usa went to war when japan attacked something other than china.
It should still say a provoked war on UK/ANZAC can cause USA to enter the war in Japan’s political situation. The other political situations were redundant, i am surprised it was not consistently redundant. Otherwise you would print a list of scenarios which cause war.
~
hoho well that changes many things.
If I put usa at war R1 it would be so I can take india round 3-4… but I wouldn’t expect germany on the europe half to be able to take UK over. Just have to wait patiently and hammer away at china/russia, which is what I did the other day. I took kwangtung though without USA going to war, but that is a minor issue.
~
but still you can’t sink USA R1 and expect Sea lion on the Europe half to go well. I imagine you would take philippines over with some guys so that’s 1 transport out of range. how many transports will you have in range of West USA? Maybe 4 land units to try and hold wets usa? stick 2 inf 2 artillery and a tank in central usa with some air on East USA and we’re good to go. save UK right away and fight back against japan later. Simple enough.
~
yeah I guess this game is pretty balanced. assuming italy gets blown out the water by UK ships and UK gets taken over. USA > italy . Germany > Russia. Russia just has to his best till USA shows up for the two front war. If usa spends what he would in a Pacific only map… he should do OKAY. Considering pacific 1940 alone was pretty balanced.
@Cow:
hoho well that changes many things.
Indeed…
The game is fun for the Japanese in the pacific, but is not that easy…Often, you will find that with proper allied play, it is difficult for japan to buy enough ships AND men to win the game.
in pacific 1940 alone. I usually machine gun my way to india let usa do anything except take japan (and hope he gives me kamikaze by taking some of the isles). Take india, wrap up china. then there are just 2 players. Then Either I lost too much stuff in the process or I didn’t. Either way USA has to take the initiative by taking cash islands down south or something.
it sucks when you lose more than what you expect along the way and get set back a round or two from finishing off china / taking india.
~
but historically why would japan fighting brits cause usa to enter the war?
@Cow:
in pacific 1940 alone. I usually machine gun my way to india let usa do anything except take japan (and hope he gives me kamikaze by taking some of the isles).
Man, you should take some time to read the Alpha +2 rules carefully.
You can find them here :
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21859.0
or here :
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4167
Here is Alpha +2 rule 13:
13. Kamikaze Strike: The capture of certain islands (Iwo Jima, etc.) is no longer required to activate kamikaze - they can be used at any time. If an Allied power attacks Japanese units in or conducts an amphibious assault from a sea zone containing the Kamikaze symbol, the Japanese player can announce at the beginning of the Conduct Combat phase, of that round, that he or she intends to launch a kamikaze strike. (Note: Kamikaze strikes are now triggered by combat, not combat movement.) See page 14 (Pacific 1940) for specific details as to how Kamikaze strikes are conducted.
So you don’t have to hope “US gives you Kamikaze by taking some of the isles”.
As for your strategy of letting USA doing anything except taking japan, well, i don’t think it is optimal in G40, and it is clearly bad in P40 .
When you come to think of it, Japan starts with an amazing 21 planes airfleet, when USA has only 4(In Pacific 1940 alone). How well you are going to play with your planes will have a huge impact on your game.
Yes, hitting the British Battleship in SZ 37 will bring America into the war. Granted, America may not declare war against Japan and/or the European powers, but why would they not? It is in their best interest to enter the battle as soon as possible.
It was with this consideration I decided to attack Philippines, Philippines SZ and Hawaii SZ, as America will be in the war anyway (if I hit the British BB in SZ 37, and it so far seems the only viable option is to hit that thing early and neuter the British navy in the Indian Ocean). Since hitting these areas will remove an American NO (Philippines-center of power) as well as destroy their navy in the Pacific, it seemed the best route. Otherwise, they go to war and have their whole fleet.
Dunno. Granted, there can be an arguement for hitting Russia and China and ignoring England, ANZAC and America early.
USA at war R2 is fairly typical in pacific 1940 games. Sometimes R3. Have yet to see R1 work out in pacific 1940.
That’s why I say putting USA at war r1 is bad idea… even if you’re killing more shit than you’re losing, it’s a huge opportunity cost when you compare what you’re doing there to what you could do in Asia.
there is always an opportunity cost.
Axisplaya
I know about the Alpha +2 kamikaze rules. They do not apply to pacific 1940, it applies to global.
i think pacific 1940 was balanced, but the europe half sucks balls.
~
I am surprised allies are getting hit with nerfs in the pacific half of the map. Make UK so it can hold instead of sinking italy. That way italy can play and UK can play. I don’t see how hard that is.
If you don’t hit them on Round 1, there’s really no reward for doing so on Rounds 2 or 3. IMHO, it’s Round 1 and get some really nice kills (and kick the Americans out of the Pacific) or Round 4 before America attacks you.
Well, despite your trollish behavior, Cow, I will answer you in a more hospitable manner.
Players should always worry about the naval supremecy of their opponents when playing an isolated nation such as England (Atlantic), America, ANZAC and Japan. If one allows the Americans to consolidate their forces, they will be too powerful for you to stop. If one attacks them from the outset you severely weaken the British navy in the Indian Ocean (they can hardly afford to replace a Battleship) and you virtually annhillate the American fleet. (What they can build and move to counter you is of no signficance, you can easy swat their new navy aside much like I just swatted your inhospitable, uncouth and vulger assault aside.)
America, with 50+ IPC a round at peace has 200 IPC to spend before entering the war licitely.
Add to that, 2 Submarines, 2 Destroyers, a Cruiser and 1 to 3 fighters that Japan will kill in round 1 and you see a serious dent being formed. (For the price of maybe 1 aircraft, I have now destroyed 57 IPC worth of naval and air forces. Yes, I got a fighter too, the one in the Philippines dies to the naval assault or the ground assault - either way, it dies.)
Now, America has 1 Carrier, 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport in the water as well as 5 Fighters, 1 Tactical Bomber and 1 Strategic Bomber. Hardly enough to sink 3 Carriers, 4 Fighters, 2 Tactical Bombers, 1 Cruiser, 3 Destroyers and a Submarine.
In two turns, they can add 1 more cruiser to their pile, but that is the summation of their starting fleet and it is only 1% odds that America will win such an engagement when attacking, whilst Japan has 100% odds of winning a like engagement. And that is with no investment from Japan or America.
Now, it is obvious to anyone who has ever played this game that America will invest in the Pacific. However, I plan on J2 to take Hawaii and I do not believe there is a build in the world that America can do with 52 IPC to alleviate their odds. (add 2 more Japanese submarines and run the calculator yourself. Maybe I missed something?)
On J3, I have J2’s builds + 3 cover air patrol fighters to scramble as well as any other aircraft I put there to firmly establish that America is not in the war in the Pacific.
Essentially, on a round 1 strike, Japan has removed America from the game. It only remains to gobble up the rest of the Victory Cities needed to win by fiat. Honolulu, Sydney, Hong Kong, Manilla, Tokyo and the one in Kiangsu.
The real question is, why would anyone NOT attack America, England, France and China on round 1?
Now, it stands to reason that attacking Russia is an excercise in futility in most, if not all, cases. Why give them four free infantry (the IPC equivalent at least) and make it harder for Germany? They are ineffectual against Japan and if they do attack you, in their tactical ignorance, you can crush their forces and have the free IPC to augment your own forces.
England is another matter, why bother until you have firmly established control and exploitation of the seas? Taking out America’s ability to distract you in the Pacific allows you to leisurely take out ANZAC and then England. You don’t even NEED China! You start controlling their only VC and you only have to hold it! China cannot leave to help England, and once England is gone, do you really thing a country that can only produce infantry and artillery is going to stop Japan which is probably collecting around 100 IPC a round?
the red road is the burma road. it is red on the map, do you own the board game?
you seem really lost jen. good night.
you’re bad and i am not reading your big wall of text. you have been inconsistent throughout this thread. you say axis is favored, but then go on to say USA makes too much money and america is so great this and that. when america is a boring ass country to play.
play a game or shut up.
Don’t need the Burma road either.
See above.
Honestly, why do you bother debating anymore Cow? We’re getting pretty convinced of your lack of tactical prowess as it is. Ignore America! Lol. Funny. You cannot win with Japan if you attack China. There is no attack, no not one, that Japan can make upon China that will result in the game win. China has literally nothing you need and is well able to be relegated to last place.
If you need a good odds calculator do what I do and open up TripleA. it can simulate 5000 battles by default and give you a % of how many were won or lost.
It’s also a good program to play AA50, classic, big world, revised, or whatever the hell you feel like playing. Pacific 1940 is being developed, because there isn’t likely to be any major changes and if there is we can just save an edit to load.
When tripleA gets global 1940 this forum will be pointless to me. I am just surprised as hell larry harris makes adjustments based off forum feedback.
I just know I go to sleep happy I didn’t buy V4 and a little depressed about global. sht my group played global with classic rules, that sht was crazy as f**k. good times good times. no naval bases, no air bases, no artillery or mech, no national objectives, and we made italy part of germany, no victory cities just play till the other side gives up, ICs make any # of guys on them. that game was just slugs and tanks. it was a grind. it was actually more fun than the last few global games. We kept tactical bombers and destroyers/cruisers around, because we had no idea what to make them. but turning mechs to tanks is not a big deal if tanks are 5 (it balances out IPC wise on your starting units).
taking over uk is hard when you can load either 2 inf or 1 tank.
If I am going to be a guinea pig for this game, I am going to be grouchy as hell on the game’s forum.
I am sure a year from now the game will be done and well we have to do is hand over a country to the lowest bidder for serious games.
You cannot take out India prior to round 4, period. There is no possible way to do so. You cannot use the old 1940 method of having a Major IC in Malaya since Malaya is not orange. The only major IC you can have is in Korea.
You cannot take out China prior to round 4 because it is a waste of manpower and time. You would be FAR better off taking out all the fleets and securing the islands (and thus denying all your opponents their national objectives.) It is superlatively easy to accomplish this, if you strike early and strike hard, it is nigh impossible to do this if you allow your opponents to collect their forces and marshal their strength, for it is you who must attack and it is they who can choose to defend on the ground, or water, of their choosing to set you up at the greatest possible disadvantage.
It is far wiser to destroy them before they have a chance to move, thus destroying their ability to marshal their forces, and deny them the power. China is an after thought. It has always been an after thought, it most likely always will be an after thought. The allies would ADORE it if you wasted time in China. That is more time for them to gather islands, gather their forces, and put you in a significant disadvantage.
Let us look at what China can do to Japan: Nothing. There isn’t a darn thing China can do to Japan. It can liberate some territories and it can turtle. It can do no other thing.
Let us look at what Japan gets from China: +12 IPC a round, great, but hardly outweighs the losses listed below:
Let us look at what Japan loses in China: At the very least, 24 Infantry, 6 Artillery and 1 Mechanized Unit. It is safe to say, you will lose at least every one of your starting ground units in SE Asia going after China. So for +12 IPC a round, you are giving up 100 IPC in ground units. Hardly a wise trade, in my opinion, but if you choose this trade, then it is your choice, is it not?
Meanwhile, while you are dithering in China, England/ANZAC have increased their power significantly collecting the Dutch East Indies and unifying with the Americans. America is a powerhouse because you did nothing to twindle their forces and Japan is well on its way to being kicked out of the Pacific entirely.
I have participated in and seen more games lost by Japan and America because they failed to strengthen their naval prowess early enough in the game to maintain naval supremacy. From the instant they lost naval supremecy, the game was lost. Islands count for: 29 IPC + 20 IPC in NOs (am counting Australia as the island it is, realistically in terms of game play.) You have also denied 20 IPC to your opponent, not including lost land income.
For the investment of a few transports, Japan has kicked America out of the Pacific, consolidated all the islands in the Pacific and sunk every surface ship the enemy has in the water. Now it is only a matter of time before India goes (after all, against 100+ IPC, India’s 15ish IPC isn’t going to do a heck of a lot) and then it’s a matter of tackling the China that cannot leave its shores to do anything to you.
I will gladely, GLADELY, trade you an unrestrained China for no Allied warships, or even no Allied surgace Warships in the Pacific!
As for your game request:
Forum Play
Alpha +2 Rules
National Objectives turned on
Non-Aggression as described in Alpha +2
Low Luck except round 1:
Round 1 Results:
Germany:
Other battles run Low Luck as needed. Results assume Britian does not scramble the fighter in Scotland, there is no point, odds are significantly in German favor anyway, all England will do is trade fighters 67% of the time.
Finland/Bulgaria activated of course.
Italy:
Japan:
Sometimes I toy with taking Amur, usually I do not. For the sake of ease, assume Amur falls and 3 Japanese infantry are lost. Sometimes that works out better, if Russia is one of those players who stacks in Amur.
Allied Attacks, round 1 (except SZ 97) are Low Luck.
From Round 2, all game play is Pure Luck as the dice fall except extremely large battles (any battle with more than 200 IPC worth of ground/air units or 300 IPC worth of naval/air units. To prevent the ridiculous to happen.)
If you accept, and I don’t see why one would not accept, as those are the stastically probable results with the most likely outcomes and a gift of SZ 97 which takes 3 british fighters, tactical bomber, destroyer, carrier and cruiser with it, we can start a thread. I’ll upload the most appropriate map, of course, I do not know how you will wish to use your nations, so I can only adjust the Axis powers.
Below is how I envision the end of Round 1, give or take some NCMs to avoid issues from England with Italy. (Perhaps the 5 infantry stay in S. Italy, in case England goes to SZ 91/92?)
low luck except round 1??? pick one or the other.
in the mean time let me look over this round 1.
@Cow:
low luck except round 1??? pick one or the other.
Allied nations use LL on round 1, Axis use the predetermined calculator odds on round 1, then LL on rounds 2 and forward.
I won’t have some weird fluctuation of the dice allow you to snatch victory from the statistical jaws of defeat. We’ll go with the 10,000 battle odds for the Axis attacks and the mutual destruction in SZ 97 (because that battle has so much flux and I have never seen England not attack nor do well in there anyway, the only real thing is if there is a British ship left or an Italian ship left or no ships left, so just end it now and call it a mutual wipe, for it most certainly usually is anyway.)
I suppose, if you do not want to do the SZ 97 battle, you can move your ships out of the Med. /Shrug. But you’d leave the Europeans a lot more stuff and I think you’d be far happier killing it early…of course, you also said to ignore America with Japan, so maybe you don’t want to cripple the Axis air forces?
we play LL from round 1. fresh. Predetermined calculator odds is a no go. you roll that one die roll out, allies have to do it too.
