Thanks Panther that is what I thought.
Pointlessly Broken
-
I agree with the point you make there; as I said, there were some minor deployment differences that had major consequences. I do have Triple A, and any chance to gain some insight will benefit me in the long run. I am intrigued at trying to figure out a possible counter.
-
Report from a game where USA blocked Aleutians and Alaska US1. Japan waited until J3 to DOW.
UK/ANZAC got 5 ftr/1 tac to USA
Japan Attack on USA J5
Japan: 24 inf, 1 mech, 1 tank, 6 art, 11 ftr 8 tac, 2 bomber.
Allies: 24 inf, 1 mech, 1 tank, 1 art, 11 ftr, 2 tac, 2 aa76%, avg keep 8 units.
84%, avg keep 11 units if bomber bought on J4. (63% if Japan took hawaii)Japan can bring more arty if they sell out for the USA crush Japan 1 expecting Aleutians block. I was playing from the perspective that Japan was NOT expecting an Aleutians block, if the same strat would work, but it seems Japan needs to expect it.
Aleutians block has some merit, it seems. China has all of china, UK/ANZAC gobbled up most everything in the sea. However, China really only helps against Japanese attacks on Hong Kong or Shanghai. Plus to reduce Japan’s odds to a measly 76%, ANZAC had to give up 4 ftrs. Even with blockers, it’s not too long before Japan can simply control the seas, and once that happens, convoy damage and eventual landings with expendable transports will take their toll.
But it is possible that a suicide attack on turn 5 on Japan might succeed.
-
One thing to note, if USA stacks aleutians with only 2 land units instead of 4, Japan has about a 2 in 3 chance of winning that battle with 1 land unit left.
-
Just played a game against sword with my refined Japanese strategy.
If Japan gets their hands on Aleutians or Alaska (or W canada I suppose) J2 it’s hopeless for the allies. The J4 attack is all but unstoppable with odds in the high 90’s. US attacking W canada US3 has about a 2% chance of killing every land unit, and all Japan needs is 1 with the depleted US army.
At least 3 major issues: Allies leftover after US falls pretty much have to go naval or they can’t ever pressure Japan of course, but also Japan can quickly gobble up valuable islands or rush Australia with their J5 buy. The Allies can defend together, which can be nice, but they would have to attack separately. Japan can always just go around them unless they are sitting on the SZ outside of calcutta or sydney
Japan can win with Manila, Tokyo, Honolulu, San Diego, Calcutta, and Sydney. They don’t need Hong Kong or Shanghai.
China is practically useless, as Japan with this strat has no need to attack the places china can actually go. Sure, the allies are making 80+ per turn right after USA falls, but 35 or so of that is chinese infantry and artillery sitting around.
One thing that might help Krieg, since you are looking for rules changes, is to remove the movement restrictions for china when USA falls. This would help out india a lot.
If we wanted to get really crazy china could take over all remaining US units (or US could take over chinese units), and china can build any units they want, using US units. Sort of like a government in exile alliance whosamacallit.
-
One thing that might help Krieg, since you are looking for rules changes, is to remove the movement restrictions for china when USA falls. This would help out india a lot.
There is some discussion on this in the global thread. I think it would help both variants if there were some circumstances where China can actually do something. Like maybe if the Allies take Shanghai, then Chinese units can move anywhere on the Asian landmass in the Pacific board.
-
I don’t know if Robyn would be mad for me mentioning, but he showed me something with Pacific to fix it.
I hope I have this correct (this was for original edition, so I’m not sure how it carries over)
Choose two of three options:- China gets 1 extra inf in each territory
- US gets 40IPC bonus turn 1
- Uk gets a CV with a FTR and a Tac
I’m sure something like this has come up before, but this evened out the games in 1st edition, so I’m curious on how it would work in A3.
-
Even with the 5 ships aleutian block, it doesn’t look good for USA.
Turn 1
Japan buys 3 transports, usual moves.
USA blocks Aleutians/Alaska.
UK/ANZAC DOWTurn 2
Japan buys Carrier, 4 trn. DOW USA, eliminates the 5 ships, lands hawaii/Phillipines. Acts like it is shifing gears and going south.
USA buys cautiously, fearing still USA crush, but if not it cannot afford to go just inf… (3 inf 1 ftr)
UK ANZAC get DEI, block Japan with DD’s from going to Java, sumatra, or malaya. China starts rolling.Turn 3
Japan buys 5 trn/ 1 inf 1 art. Invades alaska with hawaii fleet (USA had nothing left to block) and 1 ship from Japan. Other Trns on Japan pick up Japanese from mainland. Trns in Phillipines leave a few and pick up the guys in hong kong.
USA buys full defensive, sends ftr to samoa. China continues to roll.
UK builds airbase on samoa, moves in to threaten carolines/philippines. Moves tac ftr to samoa
ANZAC sends 4 ftr to samoa.Turn 4: Japan buys 3 bmb, 1 inf. Lands hard on canada with 15 trns. Moves all planes to alaska.
USA full def
UK ANZAC move into position to attack Japan round 5, move planes to USA.Turn 5.
Japan buys home defense. (not much is needed). Attacks USA. Avg result keeps 15 units. (13.5 if USA had bought 6 inf instead of 3 inf ftr US 2).Overall, the Japan move south prevented UK from getting too close, and made allies prepare for something other than the USA crush. When USA blocks aleutians, it’s actually good to go south.
With this strat, it’s actually better to attack USA when they do the 5 blocks it seems. If I have time the next report will be what Japan does if UK DOW’s UK 1 and Japan decides to ignore USA and beat up on UK for a bit.
If USA doesn’t block the Aleutians, they fall turn 4. But to block the aleutians, they are in an almost as bad situation. Japan can feint (or mean it) when they attack the us ships and then head south J2 to Australia or Sydney.
Long story short, it’s almost time to give up completely on counters and start looking for fixes.
-
One thing that might help Krieg, since you are looking for rules changes, is to remove the movement restrictions for china when USA falls. This would help out india a lot.
We might consider allowing Chinese units to leave China if all Chinese territories are controlled by China. Do you think that might help?
-
I think it would help a bit. It doesn’t help with the 5 VC’s off of mainland Asia, but it could help out India and they can take Korea. I am not convinced, however, that that would help the allies (without the USA) have a chance against Japan navally, and Japan doesn’t even need to attack the allied navy as they can almost always go around.
But, China being allowed to go to India could let UK india buy more navy.
I am pretty sure that it would not be enough though, since once Japan starts getting the DEI the IPC swing gets dramatic.
The US Remnant/ANZAC/UK Navy might be able to weather an attack from the Japanese Navy, but they won’t ever be able to challenge it as they would have to attack 3 separate times.
I was just spitballing when I was thinking of china being allowed to leave, i don’t think it’s near enough.
It might be too weird, but if USA is taken, once per game, on USA’s next turn, USA can place 20 IPC worth of units in W USA during their combat move. Of course, with this, Japan could just retake USA soon after.
Another idea is if USA is taken, UK/ANZAC each get an extra 5 if they control all of their original territories, and UK/ANZAC buy and place separately but move and attack together.
Again just throwing things out there.
-
I bounced this idea off of my other players, and we had tentative agreement. Let me know what you think:
If the USA falls, Japan gets the IPCs as normal less the 30 that come from the national objective. That puts the Japanese gain at only 17 or so IPCs, which leaves the UK and ANZAC on more even terms. So in a nutshell, national objective income disappears instead of changing hands.
Does this sound tenable as a house rule? I think it may need a bit of refinement, but the concept is justifiable.
-
Just to be clear, you know that Japan only gets 10 IPCs of income from Western United States, right? Or are you just talking about plundered IPCs?
-
I bounced this idea off of my other players, and we had tentative agreement. Let me know what you think:
If the USA falls, Japan gets the IPCs as normal less the 30 that come from the national objective. That puts the Japanese gain at only 17 or so IPCs, which leaves the UK and ANZAC on more even terms. So in a nutshell, national objective income disappears instead of changing hands.
Does this sound tenable as a house rule? I think it may need a bit of refinement, but the concept is justifiable.
It helps, but honestly it’s still no enough from where I am standing.
-
I bounced this idea off of my other players, and we had tentative agreement.� Let me know what you think:
If the USA falls, Japan gets the IPCs as normal less the 30 that come from the national objective.� That puts the� Japanese gain at only 17 or so IPCs, which leaves the UK and ANZAC on more even terms.� So in a nutshell, national objective income disappears instead of changing hands.
Does this sound tenable as a house rule?� I think it may need a bit of refinement, but the concept is justifiable.
It helps, but honestly it’s still no enough from where I am standing.
I agree that this is probably not enough if China still can only produce infantry and artillery. Japan can ignore mainland china altogether. Maybe allowing them to produce airplanes if they capture Shanghai, Jehol (Beijing) and Hong Kong is under allied control would help.
-
Even if it isn’t the fix for this, China really needs to be allowed to leave China in some circumstances (this includes Global '40). The way it is now, the Chinese player is punished for being successful- once China is safe or safe enough, they really don’t get to do anything except keep placing units that won’t get attacked and can’t attack 99.999999% of most games. This isn’t a lot of fun for that player and seems like a poor game design decision.
Regarding the USA issue, you could allow the US Player to make a one-time placement
XIPCs worth of units into the W.USA during their first combat move after San Francisco is lost. Just low enough that they have maybe a 50% chance or so of defeating whatever Japanese units are left assuming the Japanese had average dice. You can say this represents the diversion of US forces from the East Coast. This seems reasonable since as a historical boardgame, we know that losing San Francisco would not take the US out of the war. An alternative (or something else to work in concert with the previous idea) is to allow the US player to dropXIPCs worth of units into Canada, W.USA, or Mexico every turn that Japan holds San Francisco. This would force Japan to keep some of this extra income tied up defending the West Coast.I’m still not 100% sold on the idea that it is utterly impossible to prevent the guaranteed loss of San Francisco, but the real people to ask are the league players who are undefeated or nearly so. If anybody has the brains to see if the US can be saved, it would be them.
-
I wouldn’t exactly say they are punished for being successful; they can lock down 2 VC’s on the pacific map. That’s more than ANZAC can generally do. From my understanding, China isn’t supposed to be a player’s only power. I will not speak for Global, but like I was saying I think it can’t hurt to allow china to leave if certian conditions are met. Like I was saying earlier, it might be a little crazy, but once USA falls, china could be allowed to open up its buys.
When I first proposed the idea of USA getting X IPC worth of units in USA after USA falls on their next combat move, the problem I saw was that when USA takes W USA back, they all of a sudden make money again, and japan might be in a position to retake easily. I too was thinking about the fact that the rest of the USA was P.O.ed and a little to the East, but again I don’t see it solving the issue.
I think you might be onto something with the trickle of units into the other territories. Japan has to address it, but US isn’t forced to take W USA back before they are ready.
We can put all the faith we want in the “league players,” but the important thing to remember is that the person who first did a version of this strat, Sword, was in his first game on the Pac map. Conventional thinking isn’t what exposed the problem, and I have my doubts that it will be what solves it.
The biggest problem I see for the Allies after the US falls is their naval inferiority that is nigh insurmountable. They might be able to stack and defend one SZ, but they can’t attack.
3 things that I think would be good but might not be good enough (Assuming further restricting Japanese SZ movement is not desirable):
1. Chinese units can move out of China if Allies control all Chinese territories. (If China loses a territory after this, Chinese pieces can still move anywhere)
2. If USA falls, ANZAC and UK are combined into one power. (They still buy and place separately in the manner of UK in Global. Not sure if tech is an issue since it technically is only in the Global game officially in my understanding).
3. USA has an income of 10 IPC per turn while under Axis control. On their turn, they may purchase units and then place them in British Columbia, Mexico, or West USA during their combat move. They may save the IPC if they wish.One thing I don’t want to see but might solve the issue instantly and simply is that Japan may not move land units onto West USA unless they control Sydney or Calcutta.
-
Could the US pull back to Mexico to put its ground forces out of range of being crushed and then retake Western US?
Just an idea.
Otherwise, you could use the old World at War rule and give the US 6 or more infantry the first time the US mainland or Alaska is attacked, representing the National Guard. You could maybe put a time restraint on it. Say, the attack must be before turn 5 or something.
Otherwise, put 3 more aa’s in Western US and an some units in Alaska and Mexico.
-
If Japan saw USA pull back, they could either attack and select only planes (3 or 4 with what the USA will have built), or even attack USA lightly, wait for US to reenter, and then attack them again and double their money (not advisable, but I see its merits)
USA did not have enough strength to attack Japan US3, so they won’t be much better US 4 (maybe 1 plane more
-
I haven’t scoped it our yet, but the other allies are just not able to build up strong enough to stop Japan after US crush?
They need Haw and one more VC right? Hm, I’d think they could hold Hong Kong and Shanghai. But maybe not.
-
I haven’t scoped it our yet, but the other allies are just not able to build up strong enough to stop Japan after US crush?Â
They need Haw and one more VC right? Hm, I’d think they could hold Hong Kong and Shanghai. But maybe not.
The Axis doesn’t want to bother with Hong Kong or Shanghai from what I have seen. Those are the only two China can defend, so why bother fighting china?
The Allies have to be able to challenge the IJN after USA falls or there is no point in playing. Japan has transports up the wazoo and starts gobbling up territory. ANZAC and UK can’t just stack their VC’s obviously, or Japan will never be threatened and Japan takes the DEI which really tips the Allied apple cart of IPC. Problem is, Japan can just take the DEI anyways as the Allies can’t actually attack the IJN and they can only really defend 1 SZ at a time.
This strat doesn’t win with Hong Kong or Shanghai, it’s Tokyo, Manila, Honolulu, LA, Sydney, and Calcutta.
-
This strat doesn’t win with Hong Kong or Shanghai, it’s Tokyo, Manila, Honolulu, LA, Sydney, and Calcutta.
That’s why it’s irrelevant if China can stack those places with infinite infantry or not.
I’m actually wondering if Japan can win without buying a single ground unit. After the DEI is claimed they don’t need China’s income anymore and can just convoy the rest of the players out of the game.
Suggested Topics
