Yes, during the collect income phase meaning it is not available to spend until turn two.
Does J1 Attack "Break" the games?
-
OK, I’m heading to Dayton Ohio late tomorrow night after work, to try the J1 attack and see if we can find some way to counter it. From what I’ve seen and read on here, I’m not hopeful. :|
I’m also a little worried, as my friend just bought a copy of the game (the one we’re going to be playing), and if we find out now that the game is broken, I might get broken! I can see it now…
“Why didn’t you discover the Allies can’t win before I bought the damn thing!?!”
:-D :oops: :-D
-
J1 attack does break the game, unfortunately. We had to adopt 2 house rules to rebalance and AFAIK they’ve worked: (1) Japan cannot attack the UK, ANZAC, Dutch or the United States on turn 1 and (2) The UK, ANZAC and United States cannot attack Japan on turn 1. Easy fix.
-
J1 attack does break the game, unfortunately. We had to adopt 2 house rules to rebalance and AFAIK they’ve worked: (1) Japan cannot attack the UK, ANZAC, Dutch or the United States on turn 1 and (2) The UK, ANZAC and United States cannot attack Japan on turn 1. Easy fix.
If that’s the case, I think an official errata should be made to the game.
Something…
Add a US DD to at start transport at Hawaii? Or add a US infantry to Wake, Guam &/or Midway?
I haven’t decided myself, but broken game is not an option, especially for the price tag on this one.
-
Well, it is Pacific 1940.
Lest we forget, in WWll Japan did not attack the Allies until December 1941.
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/pacificwar/timeline.htm
Short of stripping away some of Japan’s overwhelming airforce banning the J1 attack is the way to go.
It has the advantage of simplicity.
-
Way to post a timeline…now you ruined the ending for me.
-
Basically making everyone wait around to fight, other than Japan and China, could be a quick fix to the problem. But sersiously, what is everyone doing with the US, are you guys just trying to get forces into central and south Pacific ASAP? Have you guys tried out muscling the defense force around Japan herself and go for the win? Just curious if everyone playing the USA is more worried about getting everything down to India instead of going for the win and making Japan call units back to defend its homeland.
-
I’ve tried just about everything and I know one thing for sure…you cannot go all out on Japan…all Japan does is scramble fighters and the odds are against the US. With the J1 attack, it just seems like the allies are always one turn behind them all game, always being outnumbered.
I’m a little pissed that this got away from the play testing…not sure how this could be missed so easily.
-
To make matters worse, the best US strategy that we found was to just buy a ton of bombers and send them to Queensland. They have great range from there and can hit Burma whenever Japan masses in that area. Only problem is that it is unrealistic and it costs the US alot of ships so the board looks quite bare, but it does keep the game going for a while before you eventually lose.
-
Basically making everyone wait around to fight, other than Japan and China, could be a quick fix to the problem. But sersiously, what is everyone doing with the US, are you guys just trying to get forces into central and south Pacific ASAP? Have you guys tried out muscling the defense force around Japan herself and go for the win? Just curious if everyone playing the USA is more worried about getting everything down to India instead of going for the win and making Japan call units back to defend its homeland.
Yes, I agree. With me ANZAC from the beginning makes all infantry and artillery until they have a ton (usually like 9 inf and 3 art, maybe a tank) then they start building fighters to help out. Fleets never work b/c they get destroyed to easily at a bad exchange rate (they usually don’t even take out a Japanese ship) but i suppose you could get a fleet if you had a big enough airforce by like round 100 to sit them on a New Zealand ic to protect your fleet. Bottom line though is that Anzac should be pretty much able to cope for a while. The U.S. should try for Korea. If they can secure naval dominance in the SoJ then Japan has lost b/c they will have a ic in korea, china loose in the north, and will earn significantly less. I think that this is a pretty even game. In one game I played, Japan didn’t declare war round 1, but i declared war as britain on round 1 (stupid but i was sleep deprived). That’s a major mistake for the allies and Japan had it pretty good. But in the end, after about 20-30 rounds of play, it was just a cat and mouse game in the Pacific. We both had big fleets and were avoiding game ending defeats. Dead even in ipcs, I had a chance to win it. I attacked with like I think 6 transports fully loaded. I lost the sea battle though and all transports died (forgot that i could retreat them) The U.S. was back on its feet in no time though (on the defensive though) and it was just cat and mouse. It was called a tie. It became quite a boring game actually with no action but floating back and forth all over the board. I think this game is pretty even. You just have to learn a new allied strategy. Spend your time doing that rather than making up house rules. Also, this quote just cam up before i posted…
“I’m a little pissed that this got away from the play testing”
I’m pretty sure little miss Gravy that Larry Harris and the play testers have played a bit more of this game than you have.
-
Fire Knight, I respect your opinion but there is no way a good Japanese player lets you take Korea…and if all your doing with ANZAC is buying ground troops, the DEI will be tough to retake and India’s in big trouble.
With just a minor IC in Asia after the J1 attack…Japan wins 90 percent of times because you will never be able to outnumber her fleet. I still enjoy playing these games and I think Larry Harris is a brilliant man for it…just a little disappointed that we need a few house rules.
Hey this is still a great game with not allowing JAPAN A j1 attack.
-
we did j1 al the time, and japan almost never won
yes, it might get slim overproduction than allies, but allies can easily block convoys, while japan needs a 8 dollar ship to free them, while it only cost 6 to jam them
simple math, and japan ain’t in position to take australia or hawaii -
@Frontovik:
we did j1 al the time, and japan almost never won
yes, it might get slim overproduction than allies, but allies can easily block convoys, while japan needs a 8 dollar ship to free them, while it only cost 6 to jam them
simple math, and japan ain’t in position to take australia or hawaiiElaborate on easily block convoys. Did your Japanese fleet just sit in the Arctic ocean and do nothing? Or perhaps they took a vacation in Samoa? Or did you just scuttle them all in the beginning in favor of world peace? :-D And the math clearly favors a J1 attack. I’m just not sure that it’s unbeatable.
-
In every game I’ve played as the Allies, when the US takes and holds Korea, it’s game over for Japan.
Every time.
US builds a Major Industrial Complex there, then uses its economic might to build a fleet on the spot, blockading Japan and, if necessary, pumping out land units to retake the Asian mainland and/or invade Tokyo if a concession is not forthcoming.
Don’t see what all this fuss about SuperJapan is about.
Seriously, folks.
-
The problem becomes, if India falls on J3 or J4 that’s not really much time for America to build up. It becomes an easy counter to send your fighters back within striking range of Japan. Also Japan in alot of games will keep a few infantry in Manchuria to counter attack with fighters, so the US is delayed in when they can build an industrial complex. I’m not saying it’s not a valid strat, just that it’s difficult if India falls quickly. even more so if the DEI are not being contested…
-
In every game I’ve played as the Allies, when the US takes and holds Korea, it’s game over for Japan.
Every time.
US builds a Major Industrial Complex there, then uses its economic might to build a fleet on the spot, blockading Japan and, if necessary, pumping out land units to retake the Asian mainland and/or invade Tokyo if a concession is not forthcoming.
Don’t see what all this fuss about SuperJapan is about.
Seriously, folks.
I think that this is the mark of a great game. The fact that each of us thinks that one side or another has an unbeatable advantage that needs house rules. The challenge is creativity in overcoming old strategies with new ones, and then overcoming those, and then overcoming those… truly the most versatile game of them all. Global will be ten times better and more versatile.
-
At issue is the speed of Japan’s growth (and the destruction of significant Allied materiel) after a J1 attack.
And there are more than one turn 1 attacks that work for Japan.See the Wake, Midway Naval base thread for a particularly nasty one.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17758.0US taking Korea???
On what turn? I agree if the game lasts past 7 or 8 turns Japan is probably toast.
The one game I played where US took Korea was after a J3 attack.The games I’ve played where Japan attacked on turn 1 were decided by turn 5.
-
Well, I’m hopeful in seeing the poll results here, 63% percent think that a J1 attack does not break the game. The problem is, I’ve seen absolutely no strategies outlined that subscribe a US course of action or strategy to follow.
Take Korea is the only strategy I’ve seen mentioned, but that’s easier said than done.
I went out to Dayton last week, and a good friend of mine and myself logged our 110th hour of playing AAP:40.
We started out using Van Trumps Japan takes Midway then builds a naval base there J1 strategy, and the Allies won both of those games quite easily. We switched sides, so that we could both take a crack at it. Niether one of us liked that strategy for Japan. It took too many of Japan’s resources straight at the US, who have the means to defeat it, with the help of ANZAC forces.
So we were kinda hopeful about the whole game and the J1 attack after that. Those were the first two Allied wins we’d seen in quite awhile!
Then we played two more game using the J1 attack, but this time we decided to use good ole’ common sense with the Japanese, and attacked into the DEI and toward India, the same strategy that had worked so well in all the other numerous Japanese wins we’ve seen, in J2 and a few J3 attacks.
Holy smokes, the Japanese just go through the Allies like a hot knife through butter! I’m not saying Van Trumps strategy won’t work, it’s just not nearly as effective as going after the DEI first though. Japan’s IPC level skyrockets with the DEI first strategy; Singapore gets a major IC extremely fast; and that all spells trouble for Australia after India bites the dust.
I think my friend, who just joined the boards here as Buckeyeboy (BB), as well as myself are leaning heavily toward the opinion that the game is not just slanted toward the Japanese, but possibly broken in their favor.
Before we make our final opinion up on the matter though, I think both of us are extremely interested in hearing from those people who feel that the game is not broken and feel that it is a balanced enough game that the Allies ought to be able to win their fair share of games.
The problem here again is, that we see people express their opinion that the Allies can win, that Japan is not so super unbeatable, but we see absolutely no strategies discussed beyond the vague. It’s like there are a lot of folks saying the Japanese are beatable, but nobody really has any idea how to do it!
With Japan being declared an island for the scramble rule purpose, and it’s having a huge advantage in air units, even a novice player Japanese player is going to be able to hold Korea and Japan from direct attack.
My own thoughts for the general Allied strategy are along these lines. If Japan wants India, then Japan is going to eventually take India, and there is nothing the Allies can do to prevent this. The British should make every attempt to make this as slow and as costly a proposition as possible for the Japanese player.
Australia should begin building for it’s defense from the onset, but the Allies should strive to control the Solomons to gain Australia the bonus IPCs.
The US should move toward securing one of the following islands as a base to move against SZ19 with the aim of getting at Korea through the backdoor route via Manchuria. Iwo Jima, Guam or the Marshalls will work, but an airbase is going to be needed regardless.
Once India falls, the Japanese most likely are going to turn on Australia. So I think the Allies should choose one of the above bases as a potential threat to the PI as well. With the Japanese needing 6 VCs to win, the Allies are going to need to make the Japanese protect the PI as well as Japan & Korea as they move toward Australia.
The game at that point should be fairly even, at least in theory here. IPC levels should be very close with Japan trying to gain Australia as it’s 6th VC while trying to hold Japan & the PI.
One problem we’ve encountered as the Allies is selling out on Allied builds in an all out attempt at saving India. Nothing we’ve been able to do has stopped India from falling. So I believe in our games that we will try a switch in Allied thinking to one of thinking about making the final stand in Australia instead of trying to hold the line in India.
The main point for the Allies here is going to be deciding on what island base it’s going to go after to make its forward operating base.
Guam comes ready loaded with an airbase. It is also just far enough out of the way that fighters & dive bombers coming from Truk can’t overfly and land in Japan, and vice versa. It also doesn’t incure the wrath of the Kamikazies. It requires a naval base on Wake to operate effectively, but this is my favorite choice. It also threatens more of the board without the need for a naval base. Plus, with the airbase already there, the Allies have the chance to grab it, then fly in ANZAC air to reinforce and immediately scramble to protect the ships that brought the invasion troops.
Iwo is just far north enough that IMHO, it would need a naval base as well as an airbase to enable it to threaten the PI. Being adjacent to Japan, it’s also likely to see heavy air attacks against any ships there. I like this as my last choice.
The Marshalls are my in between choice. The Allies can move to this location from Pearl, but it is adjacent to Truk, and so is in a flyover route from Truk to Japan & vice versa.
So here is the strategy I will follow in our next series of games when BB & I get together again in Dayton, hopefully on 4/20-21. We usually get in at least 15 solid hours of game play, and sometimes as much as 18. Lots of beer drinking the first night too! :-D
My overall strategy for the Allies will be:
1.) Make India as slow and as costly as possible
2.) Build to defend Australia as best as possible
3.) Secure a forward base for the US, hopefully Guam, or the Marshalls with the goal of getting at Korea via Manchuria or to take back Manilla
4.) Force Japan to defend SZ 6, SZ19, Truk, the PI & the DEII calculate that for Japan, with all of Britians holdings, minus Canadian BC; with all of China; with all of the DEI+ bonus, Vietnam & the PI…Japan should top out at 73 IPC. 72 if the US takes away Iwo.
The US & ANZAC can be at 70, 71 with Iwo & the Solomons bonus.
In theory, it should be a game still, but BB and I will have to try it out. Van Trumps J1 attack centered on a naval base for the Japanese at Midway sounded like a pretty solid theory too, but that wasn’t the case in actual play.
I’m just hoping that the Allies have a course of action open to them that will make AAP:40 a game, I sure want it to be a good game to play on it’s own, but so far we have our doubts.
BB and I have 110 hours in playing this game, and there have been precious few Allied wins. We’ll see if this general Allied strategy at least gives the Allies half a chance in a few weeks, back in Dayton. :-)
-
Sounds good, kaufschtick, let us know how it works and thanks for actually detailing an Allies strategy!
-
Sounds good, kaufschtick, let us know how it works and thanks for actually detailing an Allies strategy!
Yeah, a new way to die! :lol:
Seriously, thanks for putting the thoughts down. I have also been thinking India should stand on its own. I haven’t actually played the Allies yet (other than that 3 round exhibition game to show that KUSAF is not a good idea), but I’m going to get my first chance very soon. I’m looking forward to getting thoroughly THRASHED.
I got my turn to crush with Japan (took India and New South Wales at the same time in J8), and now we’re switching sides……
I think the USA needs to get a huge force into the Carolines by mid-game. They can threaten nearly everything from there. Japan’s usually too busy to worry about really keeping the USA out of the Carolines at that point - well, it really depends on the Jap player’s style and strategy, of course. But heck ya - the Jap strategy that makes the most sense is attack J1, then quickly take Malaya and the money islands, never to give them up again. Build between 10 and 20 production capacity on the mainland, and then just crush the Allies any way you like, any time you like.
-
I have stated in a few other threads that I think the backbone of the Pacific rests in the Phillipines, Carolines, and Hawaii. These three island groups already have airbases and naval bases and can reach most of the board and all but one capital, India. Sure you could buy more bases for other islands, but this central corridor can be used by both sides as a means to cut off units and IPCs. I have read that the Japan player uses Phillipines sometimes as a staging ground, then the USA should aim for Carolines if that is the case. If you build your fleet/taskforce correctly, you can make Japan suffer for going on the offensive against you. As I have stated before, USA is NOT a supporting power and shouldn’t send everything it has to an already soon to be dead India. ANZAC can if they so wish but they and the USA should be on the offensive against Japan. Playing purely defensive just plays into Japans hands since they have a huge amount of assests.
I do think the Scramble ability of airbases needs to be tweaked a bit, whether putting a cap on how many can scramble or by letting any airbase on the board scramble, even land locked ones. In the end, I think a cap of say 6 planes, 1 plane for each possible damage point on the airbase should be fine.
Also what about naval bases, why not put a cap of only 6 ships being able to benefit from the range increase, this would hinder Japan but also the USA as well. I don’t think the game is broken, just people are stuck in a one track mindset of bailing your Allies out of trouble like in all the other AAA boardgames where Russia needed help ASAP.
Suggested Topics
