Episode 57
Rounds 3-4 from our game of Pacific (2001) Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes of go to my blog to listen to it or download to listen later.
It's impossible for Japan to win in A&A Pacific
-
I gotta go with Doug on this…I’ve played several games of A&A Pacific and, IMHO, if the Allied players are competent there is no way for Japan to take either UK capital or hold out long enough for the VP win. The US just has too much economic power–they can build the bomber fleet Doug described, or several naval task forces to park ships all over the Pacific, or reinforce the UK defenses with clouds of fighters. I don’t think the blocking sub and/or CAP strategy really makes much of a difference, one space at a time doesn’t prevent the Americans from parking offshore and shelling/bombing Tokyo back into the stone age in 4 or 5 turns.
My experience has been that it is not realistic to maintain 40 IPC’s for several turns as Japan; maybe I’m playing it wrong or just rolling too many 6’s but I have yet to see the Allies roll over and play dead long enough to collect that kind of money.
It is, after all, just a game. I’m a big fan of the original A&A and found the Pacific/Europe variants to be fun, which is really the reason we spend so much time playing, right? Gotta say that I was especially pleased with the tanks and planes in the Europe version, the black Stukas looked pretty menacing to me!
Well that’s my two cents.
-
I have yet to try AAE but I’m really looking forward to it! I’m sure I need a better Allied player to go against. I’d agree it’s next to impossible for the allies to lose either capital if played right but the allies MUST commit resources to defending them and since you MUST split the convoy money upon receipt it give Japan the inititive.
If the Jap player believes this (and s/he should) then they will never commit to either capital by threaten either. They will then ensure maximum firepower against the advancing US fleet. Bombers don’t defend fleet well, and ultimately, the US must engage the Jap fleet by sailing within 2 spaces of it with a brit blocker if you think you will be crushed or 1 space away and dare the Japs to either hit you or retreat. I don’t think the US can split their fleet into task forces. Divide and conquer or in this case divide and be conquered. Yes you can and should slip subs in and around the Jap fleet but ultimately, the showdown must occur.
The japs don’t need an additional land forces for the most part and should spend 80% of their IPCs on stuff to delay the US, subs and the odd fighter. The japs should have a force at the Caroline Islands on R3 with an offense and defense in the 80s by R3, it’s the US move, you have done 2 builds and pulled all your fleet together in Hawaii, maybe some with the brits, ya think you’re tough enough yet? I have yet to see a US fleet strong enough not to be crushed if they move into position to be attacked by the Japs at the end of the US T3. The Japs WILL get VPs of 3, 4, 4 with ease. The next 4 might require a sacrifice of an xport or 2, maybe a dd. With 15 VP in 4 rounds nearly guaranteed all the Jap has to do is trade the entire pacific fleet for 2 rounds and 7 VP. Remember, if the Jap player finishes their turn with 22 VP the US doesn’t get a chance to knock them down so forget strategic bombing of Japan unless you own an airbase at the start of the US T4 so ya must take it on T3…… but you won’t…
BB
-
To this last point, I was under the impression that even if Japan reached 22VP on their turn, the Allies could still attempt within the same game turn to either 1) strat bomb Japan below 10 VPs (doesn’t this force them to lose a VP?) or 2) invade and conquer Japan. My friends and I were not able to get clarification to this question upon reviewing the rules.
-
Agreed that the rule book didn’t adequately explain when the VP victory occurs. So I checked out the faq at:
http://www.avalonhill.com/default.asp?x=faq/axispacificI’m a bit confused with the ‘sub stall’ and why it’s called that. You put a sub in against the enemy on offense and submerge right away, defender gets no chance to shoot, presumably even with dds. The rule book does say that on your turn you can move your fleet out of a sea zone even if it prevents combat. Even with combat, transports (and jap destroyers) can move and do there business as if no combat occured.
The problem with bombing Japan after she gets 22VP is that all you need to do is take 1VP. If Japan is at 21 and gets 4 more VPs (won’t happen but….) do they go to 25VPs or only 22 again? You must hold Japan to NO VPs in a round. If she gets 1 and you bomb her for 2 it doesn’t count as zero IPs. Japan must have an income of 9 or less at the end of her turn, not the end of the US of A turn. Since Japan, Manchuria and Siam don’t have convoy routes and have a combined IPC value of 9 all Japan has to do is hold 1 Chineses territory with a value of 1 or hold 1 of the two islands (Ryukyu or Bonin) both worth 1 IPC and neither has a convoy route. If Japan gets VPs of 3,4,4,4,3,3,1 they win and the Allies never get to see turn #7. Nothing you built on T6 for the USA is really of any use except bombers and even then only to knock out the Jap navy for you to take Japan on T6. Don’t bother building land forces or navy past T4 if you won’t see T7.
Better start learning to speak Japanese… :-)
BB
-
I’m a bit confused with the ‘sub stall’ and why it’s called that. You put a sub in against the enemy on offense and submerge right away, defender gets no chance to shoot, presumably even with dds. The rule book does say that on your turn you can move your fleet out of a sea zone even if it prevents combat. Even with combat, transports (and jap destroyers) can move and do there business as if no combat occured.
You have to look at the following points (concerning “is it done in Non-combat movement or comabt movement”):
when are troops loaded onto trannies, when do you move out an enemy occupied SZ, when do you unload troops into a friendly territory.
That should explain how sub stalling works. -
F_alk, I can and have read the rule book. :-) ‘Sub stall’ just seems like a fancy term for a limited effectiveness move. I can still move the entire fleet out then load AND unload that turn without having to fight the sub. Yeah it screws you up if you want to load then move and attack, thus the ‘stall’ portion I presume.
I wonder if you started out the turn with a sub in your fleet, could you just use 1 DD to attack it and NOT the rest of the fleet? You could move the fleet out then 1 DD back to kill the sub I guess.
BB
-
That is exactly the stalling, the delay of one round. If it was more, it would not be called “stall” but whatever mor elike “cancel”.
It may sound not too effective, but if your play A&A:E as Germany and plan Operation Sealion, this can be the saving move for the Pommies. -
If your transports were already loaded you could still move 2 spaces and AND attack. shrugs, sub speed bump seems more appropriate. I could see it making it a bit more difficult for the yanks in AAP. You’d have to keep your xports loaded and in that case just leave the Jap sub behind with no stall at all.
BB
-
You’d have to keep your xports loaded and in that case just leave the Jap sub behind with no stall at all.
But then, you have nothing like cannon-fodder anymore. A fully loaded Tranny is nothing that i’d like to sacrifice.
Unless of course, you build two trannies for each for each you plan to load troops on. -
If you were that worried about being attacked on the round before that you would not load your transports then I would think that it would make more sense to be on the attack so you could use your bombers and the other guy couldn’t.
I’m sure it makes lot’s of sense in AAE, I’ve never played it, you say it’s important in that game and I’ll take your word for it. I read about substall on the AAP faq. In the AAP world sub stalling doesn’t seem like it would ever be used in a good way. The japs are slowly giving up ground by round 4 so they are the one to use sub-stalling for the most part. This against a 2 player foe just doesn’t seem like it would work well.
-
If you were that worried about being attacked on the round before that you would not load your transports then I would think that it would make more sense to be on the attack so you could use your bombers and the other guy couldn’t.
ohm … didn’t understand that … :oops:
In the AAP world sub stalling doesn’t seem like it would ever be used in a good way. The japs are slowly giving up ground by round 4 so they are the one to use sub-stalling for the most part. This against a 2 player foe just doesn’t seem like it would work well.
I haven’t played AAP often enough that i encountered a situation where it would be useful as well. But you never know… i guess it might just be a part of the overall slowdown of the allied advance.
-
OK, I was saying that for instance…. The US fearing a Sub Stall keeps his Pacific fleet loaded up. Your issue with that is that he would then not have cannon fodder against an attack so you’d need double the transports.
My question is why on earth would you ever as the US put yourself in a situation like that to begin with? If the Jap fleet is so big it’s gonna chew up the US fleet you shouldn’t have been building transports and land units… If you’re worried that maybe you might take a single hit on some minor skirmish then build an extra transport or take of a sub god forbid.
If you haven’t find it that usefull in AAP either then what the hell are we arguing about?
Yeah I am sure you could dream up some scenario that in AAP you’d never really find yourself in where it might somehow be usefull in stopping a fleet from loading then moving. You have yet to show me a realistic scenario in that game
I’m just saying for such a fancy name SUB STALL I would think it would be more usefull in AAP and remember, this is an AAP forum so… If you post back that it really is the best thing since sliced bread and I don’t know what I am talking about then I’m just gonna say “You win, you’re right and I am wrong, it’s the best move in the world”.
BB
-
In response to Doug stating that any competent Allies player should “almost” never lose a Pacific edition game, I just don’t see it!!! Now granted I’ve only been playing A&AP for almost 2 years,but I play the original version and have been playing for better than 10 yrs.The groups I play with,in the neighborhood of 20 guys all agree that A&A original, the Allies have an advantage ranging from slight to great.However on the A&AP they again ALL agree that tha Japanese have the advantage albeit differing in the degree of advantage,but nearly all,trace the advantage to the VP potential depending on your individual strategies.Sorry I don’t divulge strategies.I always start a game with the same core strategies if JP in A&AP or if USSR in A&A but the dice and opposing players(hopefully) usually have something to say about about all following moves.
-
RE: ddog not divulging strategies…… Why not, as soon as somebody plays against you then the cat is out of the bag. Besides, who says you have to tell the truth, as long as you can defend a strategy as plausible why not say you do that. I once said that I for the most part hunker down as Russia in AA original, anybody who has been victim to my russians knows otherwise :-)
As Japan I threaten India and Australia and go for VPs as the ultimate victory. I keep the Jap navy and air force forward based to delay the Yanks as long as possible. I never plan to take India or Australia, but you better believe if you leave the door open and the numbers work in my favour I will attack.
Plans are great, but as soon as you start playing the game you end up tossing them out the window.
BB
-
I personally find A&A:E to be the most balanced. The axis might have a slight advantage, but all the advantages/disadvantages are realistic. There’s a reason the axis never won the second world war.
-
I havent had the same problems with the US navy as you guys, i normally keep the Carriers where they are (because they are nicely placed out of US range) and pull subs and destroyers up to support them, build fighters to replace lost ones and hammer the S*** out of everything the US tries to place near the pearl.
the Bombers you fear… well they are on Pearl, attack them (even if they are 12 they only defend with one so against 6 fighters they are dogmeat).
i normally manage to put more or less the US player in defence, since everything he builds gonna be hammered before his next turn.
Well jsut played it a couple of times, my luck might change later :)
-
I would love the Japanese to give me a chance to engage that early in the game! Whatever damage I can inflict will hurt Japan and limit it’s options.
So far I have played AAP about 10 times. Before you start saying that I should play some more to have a serious opinion about AAP, I should tell you that I have played the original A&A countless times for over 10 years. I consider myself better than average with odds and strategy. I made a serious study of A&A, wrote my own odds calculators, etc. The fun for me is not who will win the game but how it is done. In my opinion the Allies need never loose if they use a specific strategy. I seldom use this strategy because it is a sure winner and the game is not much fun. The trick is to win in other ways.
I know that this experience doesn’t make me an expert on AAP strategies. Of course I need to try all possible strategies before I have a final verdict. So that could take some more years… But so far I think I have a pretty could grasp of the basics of the game.
Only 1 AAP game has been lost by Japan by someone new to the game, 1 has been won by Japan by taking India. For the rest Japan wins on VP’s. Also in most games I can barely hold on to India when I play the Allies. It takes all my resources to hold it, and even then I feel I need to be lucky in some crucial battles.
I consider giving any of the convoy centre income to Australia to great a risk. That is even without a full-scale attack including Japan’s navy! I have not tried that myself or played anyone who tried it on me.
On the other end Japan is stalling the USA fleet and regrouping their own fleet on the Philippines or Caroline’s on round 2 or 3. Japan is already having 4 VP/turn. So you need to destroy Japan’s navy and use any means to get the VP’s down at that time. If Japan plays ideally then the VP’s count 3,4,4,4,4,4 = 23 = 6 turns. I don’t play for VP’s in the first turn, I destroy as much material as I can. The ideal run of VP’s will not be achieved by Japan, but it will be close.
So the Allies/USA need to get the convoy routes in turn 3 or 4 at the latest. In order to do that you need to sail directly! Then you could reach for instance the Caroline’s in turn 2 and get any of your fleet reinforcements there by using the harbour. In turn 3 you could get to the Philippines and start taking back convoy routes in a serious manner.
As you probably have noticed I completely neglected Japan’s navy in this scenario. And there you have the problem: even with the USA IPC advantage you cannot build up a fleet that matches Japan’s in that short a time. If you go in too early you get your ass kicked so badly that even the USA economic power cannot compensate for it. If you go in at the right time then at best you destroy each other which gives Japan enough time to gather enough VP’s because the USA has to rebuild. That can still be partly countered or at least slowed down by Japan’s new reinforcements or taskforces/airforces coming back from Sumatra/India area. Remember that they have also around 40 IPC/turn to spend. Of course in the end the USA will win, but it will always be to late. And if you wait with engaging the Japan navy, well then you are too late…
With the USA I lost several showdowns on the Philippines with this way of playing, building several types of fleets (Carriers, subs, battleships), and with the help of UK Always the Japan navy had enough capital warships left to quickly build a new taskforce. But I don’t see any other way of getting there in time. In all of those cases I considered myself lucky to be able to advance that quickly: my opponents did not put up the best fight they could.
Of course I will try a direct attack on Japan, the bomber strategy, and going South to Australia. But I don’t believe that these strategies will be successful against any experienced opponent because they do not change the basic outline of what I have just sketched. The bomber strategy could only work when Japan uses his navy incorrectly. Otherwise I feel it is impossible to decrease the size of the Japanese fleet with bombers so that you can handle it with a USA fleet followed by the capture of the convoy routes, again given the time limit.
To sum up: so far I feel that the Allies have a serious problem whereas the Japanese player has even more options to win the game, which I have not yet experienced. Like an all out attack on India or Australia, using stalling, etc.
Therefore, I would welcome any opportunity to get to Japan’s fleet before it regroups. If it will be enough is another matter….
-
I think that if your going to win with Japan, do it either by capturing India, or victory points. Both of which I’ve seen done. Here’s my views on the following ways of Japan achieving victory. If Japan focuses on….
Australia
Problems with Invading Australia
- America can fly planes down for support by the time Japan has assaulted Northern Australia
- Australia is a richer nation then India, raking in 20 IPCS as opposed to India’s 15
- If you focus on taking down Austrlian IPCS (eg: invading java, and sumatra) in the islands, that by the time you reach New south wales, they have to much defense.
- Harder to get air support for your attack on New South Wales
Good things about Invading Australia
- Going for Australia might be a good idea, only if the British player is anticipating an Indo Swing, and gives all the convoy money to India. Forcing Australia to have less money.
- If the British player makes poor purchases for Australia (eg: subs, and not any land defense units)
India
Problems with Invading India
- Hard to get air support for assault on India, unless you capture Shan State or Yunnan by J2 or J3.
- Chinese forces, seeing a possible Japanese invasion of India, may send infantry to help, or invade your Korean, and Manchurian forces. Not a significant problem, but one to consider.
Good things about Invading India
- You can mass a HUGE fleet in Sumatra, by J2. Composed of many destroyes, battleships (which are good for shore amphibious assaults), and 10-12 transports full of infantry, artillery, tanks.
- If by J2 you can capture Shan State, J3 you can land your planes there, and the planes will be in range of attacking the Indian Capital on J4.
- Even if India moves his forces up to Burma and trys to attack Shan State’s Japanese men, which they wont because they wont have enough men to defend India capital, the Burma forces will treat back to the captial because if they dont the ships and transports sitting in Sumatra sea zone will take the unguarded captial on J3.
- Farthest Capital away from USA, hard for USA to send fighter support
- If you go after India, you might be able to take China as well, not neccessary, but fun taking 2 capitals.
Victory Points
Problems with winning by Victory Points
- Can make the game alot longer
- If you don’t pressure India or Australia, they will attack your helpless stray ships
- America can moblize an attacking force to invade Japan Capital
Good things about winning by Victory Points
- If you can foritfy Java, Sumatra, Malaya, Borneo, with infantry and fighters, it will be difficult to invade them (all these islands and coastline territory have a combines IPC net of 14 IPC
- If you can keep a good supply line of transports going from Japan to the mainland (French Indo China, Siam) you can delay any India mainland attacks
- If you rake in 40 IPC a turn, and are holding that amount for 5 turns, you are almost guarenteed a victory
-
This post is deleted!
Suggested Topics
