Pretty sure as everyone playing on this board reads the errata and corrections… The Japanese simply can not be stopped without a bid.
My question is why Japan taking Calcutta on J3 or J4 means the game is imbalanced. If Japan takes China + UK + Indochina + DEI + PI then it will be earning 68 IPCs + 10 from NOs, while the US + ANZAC have 55 + 15, or 78 to 70. Japan already starts with 704 points of units while the allies have 832 and the Allies will still be making more money than Japan until J3 or J4.
And, as mentioned before the Allies can throw a few speed bumps on the DEI using the ANZAC/US/UK planes and slow the conquest of the islands. Plus, Japan will have to deploy most of its fleet to India unless it wants the UK/ANZAC making combined attacks to sink the transports. This leaves plenty of openings, specially on the DEI since it can be hard/impossible for the Japanese to prevent Allied from retaking islands if they have US/ANZAC transports on Queensland/New Zealand.
And if Japan ignores those DEI islands and concentrates on India, even better for the Allies since Japan will be making at least 9 less IPCs, while the Allies can reinforce the island with further planes and troops.
To me taking India and the DEI as fast as possible is the best way to help Japan winning because of the starting inbalance regarding units and income (and the fact that it is facing 4 powers that need to combine their efforts) but it does not ensure victory.Or, to conclude, it is pretty much impossible to stop Japan from taking India if he wants to. The question is how much he has to sacrifice elsewhere and if the allied player(s) are skilled enough to take advantage of it.
The IPC value of combat units in the game at start are 515 for the Allies and 614 for Japan, of which the allies lose a minimum of 102 in a J1 attack, for very little cost to Japan. If India falls on J3 or J4 and the Japanese are in possesion of the DEI it is extremely difficult to come back from that. Feel free to play a forum game and show us how “skilled” allied players defeat the J1 India rush.
The IPC value of combat units in the game at start are 515 for the Allies and 614 for Japan, of which the allies lose a minimum of 102 in a J1 attack, for very little cost to Japan. If India falls on J3 or J4 and the Japanese are in possesion of the DEI it is extremely difficult to come back from that. Feel free to play a forum game and show us how “skilled” allied players defeat the J1 India rush.
I’ve been reading through your online game with Whitmann and I would have played the 1st Allied round differently, especially the UK and ANZAC. I have never played by forum since I’ve always preferred face to face or using TripleA but I can try it out if it isn’t much of a hassle to use, especially rolling for dice.
I haven’t decided yet if the game requires a bid, I just think that there is more to be discussed regarding it. Imagine the Allies get a bid of 1 inf and place it on Borneo/New Guinea/Phillipines/Kwangung. Would that make a J1 attack more likely to happen? If so, doesn’t that remove a little flexibility to Japan’s options and makes the game more predictable, predictability being the main issue behind the reasoning that Japan can’t be stopped by using a J1 attack.
If Pacific needs some sort of balancing against a J1 attack then it might be better to keep trying until there’s a solution within the game. Someone mentioned on another post that the game testers simply couldn’t have ignored how devastating the J1 attack can be for the Allies without introducing some way to counter it. To me this is like playing Bulge, where I never won as the Allies but I know that there’s something that I’m not getting right, yet.
Yes, we need AA40 Europe to balance it.
AA40 Europe will bring some change to the dynamic of Pacific, the only question is if it keeps favoring more the Axis for an 1940 attack that brings earlier the US (and possibly Russia) into the war.
Obviously Europe will change the dynamics of the game. That doesn’t change the fact that Pac40 was released as a stand alone game. I’m not quite willing to call it broken yet, but, it’s hard not to think that when you see the same attack set over and over with the same end result.
me personally I am really hesitant to call the game broke(a broke board game….still makes me laugh) If there is anything that me and my group agrees is that it takes more a heck of a lot more skill to play the allies in this game than in any other A&A game we have played. The game is still very new so i wouldn’t give it the official ruling yet as with AA50 there is still no definitive answer if the out of the box set up and rules are broke.
12-18 IPCs is quite a lot, that could be 4-6 more infantry on the board for Asia. I still honestly think that most players aren’t going for broke against the main island of Japan with the USA. Sure he could scramble lots of planes to kill your fleet, but those planes are NOT hitting India and other vital targets. Don’t get sucked into the “cold war arms race” which I have seen happen in several versions of AAA. Not saying that it happens all the time in this one. I think most of you are aggressive at getting America into the war fast after a J1 attack, the question is, are you getting those units to defensive positions only or are you killing Japanese units asap?
I know its redundant that people say just keep playing the game, but not all strategies are figured out in the first 3 months of a AAA game. They take some time, some fresh thinking, because you can easily get sucked into buying the same things the first few rounds while trying a new tactic that still ultimately yields the same end result.
I know that if India falls it really hurts the Allies but if you are trading blows in the Pacific and are wearing down the IJN to practically nothing then the game may not be over quite yet.
Don’t get sucked into the “cold war arms race” which I have seen happen in several versions of AAA.
I know that if India falls it really hurts the Allies but if you are trading blows in the Pacific and are wearing down the IJN to practically nothing then the game may not be over quite yet.
I completely share both opinions. Looking for the ‘mother of all battles’ is exactly what Japan wanted in WW2, in order to be able to crush the Allies into submission. The previous games preconditioned A&A players to seek those battles but to do so with the Allies on Pacific is to play into Japan’s hand.
Someone (I keep forgetting whom grrr) mentioned on another thread a while ago that the key for the Allies to win is to deliberately sacrifice a part of its forces by presenting a target for Japan that it just can’t miss, but that will be then counterattacked by follow on Allied forces. I’ve seen this happening quite a bit in my games, where the Allies will lose a bunch of units due to an amphibious attack but the Japanese usually lose some major naval units and the transports right afterwards, tipping the naval balance to the Allies.
This game is designed and playtestet by people that are far clever than we are. It cant be broken. Actually this game looks like the Bulge game, where Germany startet with ten times as many units than the allies, and of course Germany always won the first year, until people figured out how to play the allies correctly.
I was thinking what did the allies do in the real war ? Well, they did in fact build a lot of subs, and the subs strangled Japan by sinking all the japanese trannies. The war was in fact won by the subs long before Truman dropped “The Bomb”, wich I belive just was a show-off to Stalin.
So back off to our game. How about UK, Anzac and US build nothing but subs the first turns, and place one in each seazone. Either Japan must build a lot of destroyers, and that tradeoff (6 IPC versus 8 IPC) will favour the allies, or Japan will not recive any income from places nearby a convoy center. And in addition, build Naval Bases that push your subs like arrows deep into Japanese home waters.
US subs were attacking Japanese transvestites? I must have missed that on Wikipedia. So basically the counter arguement is that the game is not broken is…we can’t (or won’t) demonstate that it’s not broken, just take our word for it, the play testers are smarter then we are. I’m all for reasoned debate, but, that line of thinking brings nothing to the discussion.
So basically the counter arguement is that the game is not broken is…we can’t (or won’t) demonstate that it’s not broken, just take our word for it, the play testers are smarter then we are. I’m all for reasoned debate, but, that line of thinking brings nothing to the discussion.
So basically some of WOTC’s sharpest brains started to playtest this game back in 2005, and you know what, some of the playtesters are actually lurking this forum, and they laugh at you at this very moment, when they see your level. So let me get you straight, you purchased this game two months ago, right, and how many games have you played, less than 10, right, and now you claim the game is broken ? Dude, come back to me next year, and if you still think the game is broken, I just might wrote you an strategy essay and explain how the allies are played correctly. Obviously you dont have a clue.
Actually this game looks like the Bulge game, where Germany startet with ten times as many units than the allies, and of course Germany always won the first year, until people figured out how to play the allies correctly.
US subs were attacking Japanese transvestites? I must have missed that on Wikipedia. So basically the counter arguement is that the game is not broken is…we can’t (or won’t) demonstate that it’s not broken, just take our word for it, the play testers are smarter then we are. I’m all for reasoned debate, but, that line of thinking brings nothing to the discussion.
Razor’s comments on Bulge might be right on the mark regarding Pacific. I’ve never managed to win with the Allies on Bulge no matter how much I read the forums. But I don’t believe that Bulge is broken, it is simply that I haven’t figured out something important to win that game.
As for demonstrating that the game is/isn’t broken with a J1 attack aiming for India… like it was said before, still early to tell. If I play 30 games with a J1 attack with a lot of different players of all skills and Japan always wins, then yeah I’d say it is broken. Until then the J1 attack on India is a excellent tactic by Japan that requires thinking and reevaluation to try to defeat it. It is like science, you keep trying and trying and repeating the experiment until you figure it out. But changing the initial conditions (e.g. a bid) to get the final result you want doesn’t really get to the root of the problem.
So basically the counter arguement is that the game is not broken is…we can’t (or won’t) demonstate that it’s not broken, just take our word for it, the play testers are smarter then we are. I’m all for reasoned debate, but, that line of thinking brings nothing to the discussion.
So basically some of WOTC’s sharpest brains started to playtest this game back in 2005, and you know what, some of the playtesters are actually lurking this forum, and they laugh at you at this very moment, when they see your level. So let me get you straight, you purchased this game two months ago, right, and how many games have you played, less than 10, right, and now you claim the game is broken ? Dude, come back to me next year, and if you still think the game is broken, I just might wrote you an strategy essay and explain how the allies are played correctly. Obviously you dont have a clue.
I purchased the game the day it arrived in my local game store, so closer to four months ago, I’ve played six forum games and my gaming group was closing in on 20 before some of the guys got tired of it (by it I mean the J1 India rush) and stopped. How many exactly have you played, or are you posting as the manditory WOTC fanboi that seems to pop up in any thread? “Some of WOTC’s sharpest brains”
What the f–k does that even mean? Give me a lesson in strategy right now, let’s see if you can beat me in a forum game, otherwise you’re just here trolling. Dibs on Japan btw…
It seems that coordinated play between the British and ANZAC can get ANZAC fighters to the asian mainland by the end of turn 2 - even without an airbase. Agree that ANZAC fighters could get to Java in turn 1. But let’s assume that Japan takes out the UK BB and Transports in J1 - thus threatening allied planes landing in Java turn 1. It would be inhospitable for ANZAC to land planes there without fodder in turn 1. Nevertheless, the UK should be able to trade the Shan State with Japan for at least 2 turns. In fact, Japan may have to keep its infantry in Siam in J1 as fodder. Otherwise, the UK could counterstrike unprotected Jap bombers/fighter landed there after taking out the british navy in Malaya. In the ANZAC Turn 2, fighters can stage from West Australia to Shan State to support UK inf/art. With three inf/art as fodder there, they can at worst extract valuable planes from Japan’s attack there in J3.
I’m going to keep beating this drum, as it seems that nobody has heard the news:
Korea is the key to winning this game for the Allies. A US Major IC build there stops Japan dead in its tracks: Japan is blockaded into economic submission by newly-built US naval units, while mainland Asia is liberated by newly-built US land units.
I’ve seen the Axis lose this way several times now. Overconfident Japan players rarely guard Korea (preferring to push their forces from Manchuria into China), and even when they do they are rarely able to keep it from a determined US player.
Allow me to iterate:
An all-out India push can and must be countered with an all-out Korea push.
I’m going to keep beating this drum, as it seems that nobody has heard the news:
Korea is the key to winning this game for the Allies. A US Major IC build there stops Japan dead in its tracks: Japan is blockaded into economic submission by newly-built US naval units, while mainland Asia is liberated by newly-built US land units.
I’ve seen the Axis lose this way several times now. Overconfident Japan players rarely guard Korea (preferring to push their forces from Manchuria into China), and even when they do they are rarely able to keep it from a determined US player.
Allow me to iterate:
An all-out India push can and must be countered with an all-out Korea push.
I’m assuming you know that the airbase on Japan can scramble planes to intercept any ships making amphibious landings on Korea, right?
I’m going to keep beating this drum, as it seems that nobody has heard the news:
Korea is the key to winning this game for the Allies. A US Major IC build there stops Japan dead in its tracks: Japan is blockaded into economic submission by newly-built US naval units, while mainland Asia is liberated by newly-built US land units.
I’ve seen the Axis lose this way several times now. Overconfident Japan players rarely guard Korea (preferring to push their forces from Manchuria into China), and even when they do they are rarely able to keep it from a determined US player.
Allow me to iterate:
An all-out India push can and must be countered with an all-out Korea push.
I’m assuming you know that the airbase on Japan can scramble planes to intercept any ships making amphibious landings on Korea, right?
You assume correctly.
The US should be able to take out those few planes that are not employed in the “all-out” India push. Because they are not attempting to take Tokyo, they don’t need many transports, and can instead concentrate on producing warships and planes.
So far from the handful of games I have played, if Japan doesn’t go for India its gonna have a hard time not breaking down and losing. Korea seems like a great tactic for the US. I agree with you Make_It_Round that the US should be attacking in that direction if Japan is going all out for India. Because lets face it, massive amounts of units would be devoted to taking southeast Asia and India while only minimal force would be in and around Japan herself. If there are tons of units defending Japan, then India is taking less of a beating. Basically, Japan can go all out for one faction and risk a massive counter attack and lose the game. Or rather, which I think can work against most convential thinking, go for a steady expansion against all the Allies. ANZAC, UK, and China should work together and support one another while I think the USA should drive right into the heart of Japan. It just seems everyone is playing the USA as a support role to forces in Asia instead of playing it as a “diversion” faction that should be hitting high value Japanese units and should be making Japan divert considerable more forces just to counter US movements.
I’m assuming you know that the airbase on Japan can scramble planes to intercept any ships making amphibious landings on Korea, right?
You assume correctly.
The US should be able to take out those few planes that are not employed in the “all-out” India push. Because they are not attempting to take Tokyo, they don’t need many transports, and can instead concentrate on producing warships and planes.
I had to ask because we made that mistake on our first games. I agree that Korea might be a weak option if you can get past the scramble screen and the IJN and JAF are out of distance to reach Japan. However, the probability of both events to happen might be low. Either way it might force Japan to abandon the Carolines to pull back forces defend the home waters but on the other hand I’m not sure that Japan will require that much airforce to take over India.
Well, I have tried going all out on Japan several times but I wasn’t able to break thru…mind you this gave Japan a free hand in the DEI but did slow down the push to Inida since he was forced to bring fighters home.
I will try this strat a few more times…maybe I’m doing a few things wrong, not making the right purchases,the Allies are a real challenge right now and I’m starting to think that maybe this is what they wanted in the game.
My friend and I had a real blast playing this game…very balanced until we came up with the J1 attack, hit the Philipines in J2, build minor IC in Asia, and the real killer…send two JAP subs to raid the India convoy. Man its tough to beat because now Japan can outnumber the Allies ship for ship…I’ll keep trying.
Sure you can take the Japanese fleets out, as I have many times but Japan can just keep pumping them out while slowly marching closer and closer to India…no need to rush it because the goal is to keep the US contained and man does it work well. Try it,maybe I’m wrong.
My friend and I had a real blast playing this game…very balanced until we came up with the J1 attack, hit the Philipines in J2, build minor IC in Asia, and the real killer…send two JAP subs to raid the India convoy. Man its tough to beat because now Japan can outnumber the Allies ship for ship…I’ll keep trying.
Sure you can take the Japanese fleets out, as I have many times but Japan can just keep pumping them out while slowly marching closer and closer to India…no need to rush it because the goal is to keep the US contained and man does it work well. Try it,maybe I’m wrong.
You are correct. An all-out attack on India is not optimal. ANZAC fighters can reach India by ANZAC turn 2.
Japan can quickly starve UK to death with only a third of its fleet.
DEI, Malaya, Hong Kong in Japanese hands. What does the UK have left? And once the remaining CA and DD are gone Jap subs can reduce UK income to zero. No need to rush. India will inevitably fall.
Where are the other two-thirds of the IJN? Either Truk or Japan. That’s if you don’t avail yourself of the J1 Midway attack.
Are players not aware of just how fast the IJN can move across the board with Naval Bases?
I am aware that if the US takes Korea the allies have won. I simply don’t believe the US can build up fast enough to challenge the Japanese fleet after the J1 attack. On the first turn US has 1 transport left.
Just what are these Korean conquerers buying on US1 with 17 IPC’s?
On US2 and US3 you can build masses of DD’s and SS’s but you also have to find the money to buy additional transports.
From there it takes you 2 turns to get to Japan/Korea, assuming of course that the Japanese player is passive and doesn’t send out any DD screens to delay you an additional turn or 2.
So against a competent Japan player the absolute earliest you could land on Korea is US6.
And only if Japan decides to protect Truk instead of Japan.
And is spending all of their money on the mainland against 2 foes that have near zero income instead building DD’s to defend against a very, very obvious move by the US.
These are major assumptions.
The games I have played after a J1 attack lasted until turn 5; once to turn 6. In every case Japan had a clear path to victory and the allies resigned.
