@midnight_reaper This is a old thread but TBH they should of kept the design for some of these charts. They are beautiful and the cherry red for Japan looks gorgeous (but it makes sense they wouldn’t do it for Pacific 2nd Ed. because of obvious reasons.
It's impossible for Japan to win in A&A Pacific
-
Doug, I thought the same as you when we first got the game. How many games have you played so far? I think that as time passes and Japan works out all the myriad moves of first turn, you will find that the allies can easily blow the game by one false move, whereas Japan can choose its battles. Japan was winning so steadily in our group that we took up bidding VP’s to see who got to be Japan. 25 to 30 victory points is not unheard of.
-
Hey Bossk (and everyone else),
Maybe the problem is my understanding of the CAP - I need your help to figure out if this is the case.
I don’t have the rules in front of me, but I remember the CAP section only stating that it prevents ships from moving through a sea space - a way of slowing down Allied ships.
How does a CAP work if it is in the same seas space as the ships I want to attack? Let me give you an example, tell me what you think.
Japan has three carrier and six planes at Midway to start the game. After the first move, these ships are located somewhere (where is unimportant). Under my plan, the Allies build a bunch of bombers, and using the airbase on Hawaii or some other island, can attack this fleet.
Now if I understand your take on the CAP rule, the Japanese can set up a CAP with a single fighter directly above its three carrier and remaining five fighters. Therefore, when I try to attack the carrier group with just bombers, they all get stopped by the single CAP fighter. The battle is obviously lopsided - 12 bombers against the single CAP fighter - but it costs the Allies a turn and prevents them from getting at the Japanese ships. Since the Japanese have a bunch of carriers and enough fighters, they can defend their fleet very effectively.
If that is the case, then I will have to agree with you that it would extremely difficult to sink the Japanese navy - and for that matter, for the Allies to win.
So how does it work? I’ve got 12 bombers attacking a Japanese fleet where they have a CAP in that sea zone.
The way I understand it is that the CAP in the same space as Japanese ships defends normally - that there is no layering type effect where I have to defeat the CAP before I can attack the ships (a sort of oceanic “amphibious” assualt where I have to attack in two steps - forcing me to split, and weaken, my total attack).
I’m pretty sure that aircraft can fly through a CAP when their aren’t ships, so why wouldn’t the same apply for when their are ships (therefore allowing me to fly through the CAP and attack the ships and planes - CAP units included - in a combined attack)?
So what are your thoughts on this CAP scenario? I think this might be the culprit.
-Doug
-
I just reread the CAP rule, and I think the CAP defends along with any units in the same sea zone.
-
Aircraft can fly through CAPs to attack another sea zone, but what I’m saying is that a CAP can defend in the sea zone your attacking. Therefor the Japanese can have much more defensive power than just their navy and whatever fighters can fit on their carriers.
-
See the problem with your Strategy is eventually Japan will get the 22 Vps. I go right for Japan, but the first turn I agree building all bombers is the best choice. Why? Because you need to take out the Japaneese fleet first then bring your own into the fray. Second turn I build Destroyers, Third Turn I build transports and Infantry. Fourth turn, the british have already started to capture ports on the way to Japan. Build Transports + Marines + Artillery for awhile, Turn 6 or 7 or so I take Japan.
-
Hey Everyone:
Thanks for the responses. I sent an email to Avalon Hill/Hasbro asking them to clarify if the game(s) had been designed to favor the Allies. Here is my question and their email response:
My Question for game designers Larry Harris, Stephen Baker, or Rob Daviau (names found on the bottom of the Pacific box):
Is Axis & Allies (Pacific) designed to be a fair game, or is the game lopsided in such a manner to ensure the Allies always win?
My dad and I (age 61 and 29, respectively) have enjoyed playing all of the A&A games over the last several years. We have analyzed the game(s) extensively and have not been able to find a scenario where the Axis has a realistic chance of winning.
Any input into ways to make the two sides more evenly matched would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
-Doug
Question Reference #011228-000082
Suggested Answer
–-------------------------------------------------------------
At 01/04/2002 02:38 PM we wrote - Thank you for contacting us. The Axis and Allies board games are designed based on the wars that were fought in real life. These wars were won by the Allies and that is how the game is based. However, the Axis can win the game, it is just more difficult. We apologize for any confusion.From my end, this pretty much slams the door on the issue. If Hasbro/Avalon Hill admits that the game is designed to favor the Allies, that’s good enough for me. I sent this questions as part of the customer service section of the axisandallies.com webpage. Feel free to send your own question and pass along any contradictory responses you receive from Hasbro/Avalon Hill.
My suggestion to everyone on this web page: Before you go and make it harder for the Axis, Germany, or Japan to win in each of the respective games - take heed of Hasbros own opinion of the game and try to figure out what inefficiencies you have in your play for the Allies. I firmly believe - and the game creator appears to support - that a good player should not lose when playing the Allies. In the end I think you will find you need to make it easier for the Axis to win, not the other way around.
-Doug
-
does anyone really care about pacific.let’s face it it’s a bad game. iused to like it but now i can’t stand it.
-
Unless the good allied player is playing an exceptional axis player, Doug.
-
Pacific and Europe are cheap imitations of original A&A. Play that its better
-
I still say both AAE and AAP are slanted toward the axis****(accidently put allies in original post). In AAE, its a race, and Germany can have a big advantage in that race. In AAP, its whether Japan can hold off the Americans long enough to get the needed Vps.
“History is just a set of lies agreed upon”
- Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte
“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by. And that has made all the difference”
- Robert Frost
[ This Message was edited by: Yanny on 2002-02-13 11:43 ]
-
btownthug16, the original is not better than AAe or AAp it is more basic. it is dull, certainly if you have played it for years.
-
Where are all the conversations about AAP?
-
I would post some stratagies if I could ever find the time and people to play with; then perhaps I could actually make some up. I should have one ready by next week for your critical evaluation.
-
lol, tight AAP is fun, its like the peeps on this site dont enjoy it.
-
I don’t understand how anyone could not enjoy playing anything related to axis & allies.
-
AAP is not a bad game, just I prefer the longer games of Axis and Allies regular.
-
Winning with Japan is easy if you hold out for victory points avoid direct conflict with the US Navy (That is after you wipe out what you can after on the first turn) fighters defend at 4 instead of 3 and Carriers defend at 3 instead of 1 so pick your spots and force the US player to attack your units on the defense are stronger.
-
Not only that, Anonymous dude, but the CAPs add greatly to the defence of navys stationed around islands. Bonus!
-
I’ve only played AAP 4 times, all as Japan and I am 4-0 with 4 fairly easy victories, 3 from VPs and 1 from getting India via a brutal allied error. As stated earlier, hit the US then slowly give up ground. If Japan ensures that most of the airforce/navy can hit any advancing allied navy you can easily hold them off for long enough to get your VPs. Japan really only needs to build subs and the odd fighter perhaps a transport if most of them are tied up south maintaining VPs. I love it when my American foe looks to a forward sea zone then counts 8 fighters from the carrier to battle to land and 8 more fighters from land to battle to the carriers, toss in 4 destroyers… 20 times 3 is oh my 60 offense in fighters/Destroyers alone, 20 from 3 battlewagons and 2 bombers, 15 more offense from say carriers and subs gives 95 offense, 15 hits on round #1. Since land based US bombers are useless for US fleet defense and with my transports and battleships absorbing US hits the Japs do 15 more hits on round #2. For US bombers to be of use you must get them close to Japan. To do this you have to sail up against the combined Jap fleet and be tough enough to survive their first strike. Since the Japs really don’t need to build any more land units when going for VPs they can build all subs save a few fighters (not as cost effective as subs but are more mobile and can attack land).
It just takes too long to build a navy strong enough to withstand everything the Japs can toss at it and be strong enough to capture convoy routes fast (lots of subs left…).
-
To counter the Japanese, I would recommend the following courses of action, that go a long way toward balancing the game.
UK Player strategy:
As the British, play on the defensive for the first turn, assuming the Japanese are going for a knockout punch against India or alternately Australia. With this in mind, I would use India turn 1 money to build infantry, moving the Burma forces to India and all possible Chinese (+US fighter) infantry in the same direction. I would also speed bump the Sumatra sea hex with India transport, leaving sub behind it. With Australia, I would contemplate building subs/fighters on Turn 1. Save the UK convey money on the 1st turn, and wait to see which way the Japanese start to commit on Turn 2 (India, VPs, Australia). The UK money can be used to quickly respond to the developing threat on turn 2.UK Response to Japanese India attack
If the the Japanese commit to India, speedbump the India battleship on Turn 2, leaving the sub behind it and try to shuttle Australian fighters via the A.C. to India with the hope that the Japanese will concentrate on the BB and India. All UK money (T1 + T2) + India T2 income goes to India INF, + India money).UK response to Japanese VP approach
India should go on land attack in SE Asia mainland. Australia should secure SW Pacific island air/sea bases with transports/subs/fighters. Use UK money for supplemental air/sea power with Australia or India, depending on where Japanese naval mass in concentrated.UK response to Japanese Aus attack
Concentrate all Aus INF on S Wales and adjacent sea zone (adding transported US infantry. Use joint Aus subs/transports to speed bump Japanese navy. Use joint Aus/US occupied island sea/air bases in SW Pacific to delay/counter Japanese navy thrust.US move (all three scenarios)
On Turn 1, I like to buy 9 subs. The main reason is that, coupled with the two subs likely to survive T1, I have 11 subs at my disposal as a cheap yet large force that is largely immune from Japanese air attack. I would make more sub purchases on Turn 2 (maybe 3-4, with a mix of surface ships/aircraft).US KEY POINT - The fundamental US strategy with subs is to force the Japanese fleet to commit to full battle or retreat and give the US fleet offensive momentum. Either the Japanese have to quickly fall back, engage, or simply go all out after India (not much the US can do in this case, even with an attempt to invade Japan).
My rationale is that the US subs in masse enjoy the benefit of generally avoiding the mass of Japanese air power , unless the Japanese destroyers are brought to bear, meaning their surface fleet must engage. If they retreat, I spread subs all over the Western Pacific Japanese convey lanes and Japanese captured islands, with particular emphasis on Japan home waters. There are several specific approaches to this strategy, which I don’t have the time to delve into currently.
Overall, I find that an allout Japanese attack on India depends on how clever and lucky the UK player performs. The US simply cannot make a fundamental difference in time. However, the use of subs can make Japan’s effort a one shot deal and game over (by occupying every convey sea lane on the board with massive sub concentrations. I once won a game by knocking out the Japanese destroyers that were unwisely dispatched from the main fleet. Remember, when Japan masses its fleet, it must disperse it again to effectively county the large number of Allied subs causing economic havoc to Japan income. By forcing the Japanese armada to disperse, you take away their best chance of victory.
I am sure there are a number of counterarguments to these strategies, however, I generally do not believe the game is a slam dunk for the Japanese, although it does slighly favor them (60-40?).
Any thoughts?
Suggested Topics
