Does J1 Attack "Break" the games?

My buddies and i just finished our 7th game and have yet to have Japan win despite India falling.  ANZAC strategy has revolved around liberating the phillipines and taking the DEI back from japan.  China strategy has fallen away from defending the burma road and more becoming an economic nuisance.  With US control of the Carolines, it has been impossible for japan to kill china and maintain control of hong kong, phillipines, and shanghai.  We have gotten very close to a Japan victory but still haven’t seen one yet.  India has been the easy part but the US and ANZAC have turtled sydney and honolulu well enough to prevent the victory.

@mike2swift:

My buddies and i just finished our 7th game and have yet to have Japan win despite India falling.  ANZAC strategy has revolved around liberating the phillipines and taking the DEI back from japan.  China strategy has fallen away from defending the burma road and more becoming an economic nuisance.  With US control of the Carolines, it has been impossible for japan to kill china and maintain control of hong kong, phillipines, and shanghai.  We have gotten very close to a Japan victory but still haven’t seen one yet.  India has been the easy part but the US and ANZAC have turtled sydney and honolulu well enough to prevent the victory.

Perhaps Japan is putting too many resources into the India conquest?

Once UK is bottled up in India with a sub or 2 in the sea zone the british are neutralized.
No need to take India turn 3 or 4 if UK income is 1 ipc.
Eliminate China and concentrate on ANZAC and USA.
Take India at your leisure.

Well, it is worth 8 ipcs to you. So not quite at your leisure. But don’t kill your whole air force to do it.

@The:

Well, it is worth 8 ipcs to you. So not quite at your leisure. But don’t kill your whole air force to do it.

I do take it at my leisure, like Van Trump said.  The game I’m in right now, I just took it on J10, had a 97% chance of winning, and was able to take in less air, by forgoing the 8 IPC’s per turn.  If you take it earlier, you risk a lot more air to AA fire, you give the other Allies a turn off, early in the game, and as Van Trump said, there’s no pressing need to do that when the UK is totally neutralized, boxed in, and can do absolutely nothing.

If you focus too much on the UK early, you also give the other Allies too many opportunities and inroads.

Mike, try being less urgent with taking India fast, and focus more on keeping ANZAC and China down and the US at bay, and see how that goes.  It’s not the best to have too many fighters and tacs way down in the corner of the map for too many turns.  Take your time.  It’s tempting to keep a lot of fighters and tacs together for simplicity sake, but they need to be spread out more to project a threat radius to various important areas of the map.

@idk_iam_swiss:

be cheap as the UK stop buying normal units ONLY buy people reinforce the burma road and shan state, take the dutch islands as america put everything in pearl harbor expect a loss thats fine, reinforce it with bombers

You obviously are not playing vs J1 attack. There would be no UK APs to take the DEI.

@idk_iam_swiss:

realize japan cant afford re resupply itself. if you hold out on the first three turns the game is yours JAPAN IS A GLASS CANNON. yes they are crazy strong but hold out. Stop thinking agressively

If Japan is a glass cannon, then the Allies are wisps of smoke. It doesn’t take long for Japan to achieve 60 IPCs with which to easily rebuild aircraft, ships, tank armies or to defend Japan.

@idk_iam_swiss:

As america you have 4 strategies

ONE: Buy bombers put them in queensland, have anzac pile its fighters to back you up. then defen the UK

This strategy has already been debunked. This only works if the Japanese player is dumb enough to linger around for this slow strategy to develop. The US can NOT spend its bonus IPCs from a J1 declaration of war until US2. With the loss of the US bomber in the Philippines, it starts with only two that can’t attack until turn 2 and it takes several more turns for enough bombers to be built to take on the IJN. By then the IJN is safely out of harms way or based at Truk with a nice big air defense umbrella. Sending US bombers to bolster India with their paltry defense is just throwing good money down the Black Hole of Calcutta.  @idk_iam_swiss:

TWO: as america keep buying fleet after fleet japan CANT fight a two front war. never forget this. all you have to do is take the island tough to do i know, but YES it can be done.

I thought they were supposed to be buying bombers. I guess you could do both if the game lasts for 20-30 turns.

@idk_iam_swiss:

THREE: As the Chinese concentrate your attack in the north. it will force the japanese to make a decision. either attack china or the UK.

See below.

@idk_iam_swiss:

Four: worst of all but try it anyway…ignore the japanese navy defend where you need to of course, but let the water crash upon the rocks hold out for a few turns and THEN build you make more then them when combined.

Time is really on the Japanese side with a J1 attack. The Allies can’t afford the time lost it takes hoarding IPCs, unless the US is concerned about a US first strategy. But your better off building land/air defenses anyway.

@idk_iam_swiss:

OR just join UK and ANZAC…its cheap i know but treat them as one power…

Like to try to come up with a solid strategy before house ruling.

@mike2swift:

My buddies and i just finished our 7th game and have yet to have Japan win despite India falling.

These types of posts always baffle me. And then I read on and grow even more confused.

@mike2swift:

ANZAC strategy has revolved around liberating the phillipines and taking the DEI back from japan.

Uh, so exactly what happened to the Japanese navy/air force that they couldn’t take out a single DD and AP around turn two? And if your turtling in NSW, then what ANZAC forces are doing all this liberating? Is the Japanese attacking J1 or waiting?

@mike2swift:

China strategy has fallen away from defending the burma road and more becoming an economic nuisance.

China abandoning the Burma road just means the UK falls that much faster. Economic nuisance? By ordering Sushi and not paying?  :lol:  Japan has more than enough assets (that were going to get burned in Yunnan anyway) in the north to deal with any northern Chinese strategy.

@mike2swift:

With US control of the Carolines, it has been impossible for japan to kill china and maintain control of hong kong, phillipines, and shanghai.  We have gotten very close to a Japan victory but still haven’t seen one yet.  India has been the easy part but the US and ANZAC have turtled sydney and honolulu well enough to prevent the victory.

Sounds like you are letting the Japanese navy be killed off piecemeal. Heck, not even then. I’ve lost my entire IJN before and STILL won the game! Your strategies conflict, there is no way the US/ANZAC can go on the offensive and then suddenly “turtle…well enough to prevent the victory.” Unless your games are lasting more than 10 turns. Then that might be your problem.

@kaufschtick:

I have to say that I agree entirely with the post & comments above by Autarch.

They were good, yes.  I sent him a PM earlier, but now that you mention it, thought I’d post my agreement as well.

The game is clearly not balanced no matter what round the Japan attack. The only win we have had as allies, was when Japan waited til turn 3 and also suffered from bad dice, UK got rich and he was never able to break India.

The balancing issue could be easily adjusted in my opinion. What were the gamedesigners thinking of giving Japan that air-armada? Japan is able to overwhelm every UK/China attempt to make a stand with some ground troops and 10+ planes and Japan has plenty more for eqiupping new carriers and safeguarding Japanese homeland.

I think that removing 5-6 planes from Japan could make the game a lot more balanced.

it is good to see that some people are finaly starting to make sense. i thought the axisandallies.org community had become stunted with wishful thinking that they want a japan(j) first round(1) attack to be balanced so they keep telling themselves andd posting that the game is blanced.

it is clear to those that have played the game many times that a j1 declaration of war(dow) always leads to a japanese victory.

i think the game is unbalanced in 2 ways. j1 dow is far superior to j2, j3, and j4 dow. and japan is far superior to allies.

the latter issue can be fixed with a bid, like all axis and allies versions before it. the former issue is more difficult to fix.

i have started a thread for possible fixes. unfortunatly for me no one has commented possitivly or negativly on my ideas. wild bill and variable have offered up new ideas aswell, but no one has commented on thier ideas either. robbie358, gharen, and variable have said to ignore the problem by barring a j1 attack. frontovik has said japan needs help on a j1 dow. bube has said all dows are balanced. kaufschtick (who has made many insightful and entertaining posts on other threads) and silverangel surfer have also said to ignore the problem as this is more historical.

@allweneedislove:

i have started a thread for possible fixes. unfortunatly for me no one has commented possitivly or negativly on my ideas. wild bill and variable have offered up new ideas aswell, but no one has commented on thier ideas either. robbie358, gharen, and variable have said to ignore the problem by barring a j1 attack. frontovik has said japan needs help on a j1 dow. bube has said all dows are balanced. kaufschtick (who has made many insightful and entertaining posts on other threads) and silverangel surfer have also said to ignore the problem as this is more historical.

I did not say to “ignore the problem as this is more historical”, I only suggested that perhaps there’s another strategy related to the way the war went historically since the game designers have been going for better historical accuracy in general.  Ignoring the problem and having Japan over-run the Pacific, especially China and India, is in no way historical.  However, I have no further insight to add to the discussion as I have yet to do more than work out my own J1 DoW in the only Pac40 game I have played yet, hence my question that was in response to variable and gharen’s comment on the game.

@SilverAngelSurfer:

If that’s the case, maybe the designers left it that way so the game could follow relatively accurately the historical playout?  In which case can we learn anything from the strategies actually used by the Allies in WW2?

@allweneedislove:

it is clear to those that have played the game many times that a j1 declaration of war(dow) always leads to a japanese victory.

Always is a strong word.  I think some would strongly disagree with your statement that J will win 100% of the games.

@SAS:

@allweneedislove:

i have started a thread for possible fixes. unfortunatly for me no one has commented possitivly or negativly on my ideas. wild bill and variable have offered up new ideas aswell, but no one has commented on thier ideas either. robbie358, gharen, and variable have said to ignore the problem by barring a j1 attack. frontovik has said japan needs help on a j1 dow. bube has said all dows are balanced. kaufschtick (who has made many insightful and entertaining posts on other threads) and silverangel surfer have also said to ignore the problem as this is more historical.

I did not say to “ignore the problem as this is more historical”, I only suggested that perhaps there’s another strategy related to the way the war went historically since the game designers have been going for better historical accuracy in general.  Ignoring the problem and having Japan over-run the Pacific, especially China and India, is in no way historical.  However, I have no further insight to add to the discussion as I have yet to do more than work out my own J1 DoW in the only Pac40 game I have played yet, hence my question that was in response to variable and gharen’s comment on the game.

@SilverAngelSurfer:

If that’s the case, maybe the designers left it that way so the game could follow relatively accurately the historical playout?  In which case can we learn anything from the strategies actually used by the Allies in WW2?

sorry sas, i guess i did not understand your post and jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

@gamerman01:

@allweneedislove:

it is clear to those that have played the game many times that a j1 declaration of war(dow) always leads to a japanese victory.

Always is a strong word.  I think some would strongly disagree with your statement that J will win 100% of the games.

you are right always is a strong word, and is a slight exaggeration.

in games with highly skilled opponents and fairly even dice a j1 dow will mean j always wins.
i estimate that in games with highly skilled opponents, a j1 dow would lead to j victory 95% of the games. early round bad dice for japan could cost them the game, but it would have to be very bad dice, thats how i came to my 1 in 20 games estimate.

I’ve just been thinking about how this will relate to the global game. Since Germany starts off only at war with France and UK, a J1 declaration would probably also bring Germany into war with the US round one, which while it may be advantageous for Japan it could be fatal for Germany. If it’s better, at least on the Europe side, for the Axis to declare war later on then this may debunk the J1 attack strategy, at least in the global game.

@SAS:

I did not say to “ignore the problem as this is more historical”, I only suggested that perhaps there’s another strategy related to the way the war went historically since the game designers have been going for better historical accuracy in general.  Ignoring the problem and having Japan over-run the Pacific, especially China and India, is in no way historical.

perhaps its the movement values of Jap forces across the ground in Asia is a-historical, but they certainly did over-run the Pacific, at least “for six months” that they predicted.  The historical angle lasts in the game truly as long as it takes to set the game up, once it starts history is rewritten.  If they wanted to design a historical game they wouldn’t give you the option to attack earlier.

@bennyboyg:

I’ve just been thinking about how this will relate to the global game. Since Germany starts off only at war with France and UK, a J1 declaration would probably also bring Germany into war with the US round one, which while it may be advantageous for Japan it could be fatal for Germany. If it’s better, at least on the Europe side, for the Axis to declare war later on then this may debunk the J1 attack strategy, at least in the global game.

that’d be an interesting idea, but it seems more likely that Germany will have to be ready on turn 1 to fight (hence the ability to take out France turn 1) just as Japan is, and if the US isn’t ready to take on Japan round 1 then they would be even less prepared to face the combined forces and the odds would be even worse.

@murraymoto:

@SAS:

I did not say to “ignore the problem as this is more historical”, I only suggested that perhaps there’s another strategy related to the way the war went historically since the game designers have been going for better historical accuracy in general.  Ignoring the problem and having Japan over-run the Pacific, especially China and India, is in no way historical.

perhaps its the movement values of Jap forces across the ground in Asia is a-historical, but they certainly did over-run the Pacific, at least “for six months” that they predicted.  The historical angle lasts in the game truly as long as it takes to set the game up, once it starts history is rewritten.  If they wanted to design a historical game they wouldn’t give you the option to attack earlier.

@bennyboyg:

I’ve just been thinking about how this will relate to the global game. Since Germany starts off only at war with France and UK, a J1 declaration would probably also bring Germany into war with the US round one, which while it may be advantageous for Japan it could be fatal for Germany. If it’s better, at least on the Europe side, for the Axis to declare war later on then this may debunk the J1 attack strategy, at least in the global game.

that’d be an interesting idea, but it seems more likely that Germany will have to be ready on turn 1 to fight (hence the ability to take out France turn 1) just as Japan is, and if the US isn’t ready to take on Japan round 1 then they would be even less prepared to face the combined forces and the odds would be even worse.

I’m not really sure I understood the wording of your last part, but Germany will obviously be in a position to take on both UK and France, but adding Russia and the US into the mix changes things drastically. Germany (I’m assuming) starts off with significantly less IPCs than the allies nations do, and will need to spend at least a few turns taking territories to bolster it’s economy, much like Japan. The difference with Japan and Germany though is that Germany can start expanding without bringing the US (or the USSR) into the war, whereas Japan cannot, so my guess is that it’ll be worth it for Japan to hold off it’s attack for at least a turn or two so that Germany can wipe out France, slap Britain around a little, and get all the pro-axis neutrals. If Japan attacks right off the bat, the US not only gets the extra 40 IPCs in Pacific (which granted Japan is able to deal with) but also, if I’m not mistaken 30 IPCs in Atlantic, and also keep in mind that there is no split income for US and it, with the aid of Britian and a few leftover French units that may have survived the first turn, could start pounding Germany even before it’s declared war on USSR.

@bennyboyg:

If Japan attacks right off the bat, the US not only gets the extra 40 IPCs in Pacific (which granted Japan is able to deal with) but also, if I’m not mistaken 30 IPCs in Atlantic, and also keep in mind that there is no split income for US and it, with the aid of Britian and a few leftover French units that may have survived the first turn, could start pounding Germany even before it’s declared war on USSR.

The US will only get one 30 IPC wartime NO in Global.  The current 40 IPC wartime NO from Pacific will be obsolete in the Global game, as apparently the Global game will have different NOs than either half-game.

@murraymoto:

perhaps its the movement values of Jap forces across the ground in Asia is a-historical, but they certainly did over-run the Pacific, at least “for six months” that they predicted.  The historical angle lasts in the game truly as long as it takes to set the game up, once it starts history is rewritten.  If they wanted to design a historical game they wouldn’t give you the option to attack earlier.

Granted.  I was thinking more about their progress in Asia, so I probably shouldn’t have included the part about the Pacific, since they did over-run the Pacific islands, but not to the extent that the Allies were unable to mount a reasonable counter-attack like it is in the Pac40 game.

However, maybe the point of the Pac40 game is that if Japan hadn’t been tied to the other Axis powers and been able to attack full-out they would’ve done much better… :-P  Still makes for a lopsided half-game though.

@bennyboyg:

I’m not really sure I understood the wording of your last part, but Germany will obviously be in a position to take on both UK and France, but adding Russia and the US into the mix changes things drastically. Germany (I’m assuming) starts off with significantly less IPCs than the allies nations do, and will need to spend at least a few turns taking territories to bolster it’s economy, much like Japan. The difference with Japan and Germany though is that Germany can start expanding without bringing the US (or the USSR) into the war, whereas Japan cannot, so my guess is that it’ll be worth it for Japan to hold off it’s attack for at least a turn or two so that Germany can wipe out France, slap Britain around a little, and get all the pro-axis neutrals. If Japan attacks right off the bat, the US not only gets the extra 40 IPCs in Pacific (which granted Japan is able to deal with) but also, if I’m not mistaken 30 IPCs in Atlantic, and also keep in mind that there is no split income for US and it, with the aid of Britian and a few leftover French units that may have survived the first turn, could start pounding Germany even before it’s declared war on USSR.

I said that as Japan can start attacking right away without a buildup, so can Germany, and likely Italy for that matter.  As they will have that advantage they will be able to start taking Allied holdings, because all the Allies, UK, US, France, and yes, the Soviet Union will not be in the fighting position that the Axis will be in.  This means that as Japan can lash right out, so can the other Axis.
  I haven’t seen for certain that Japan attacking the US will bring them in against Germany (same with the non-split income of the US), that may well be, I just haven’t read it as yet.  After all, Germany declared war separately against the US from Japan.  It was Germany’s declaration that truly brought them into the European war, not Pearl Harbor.
  As for split income of the US or not, gaining the extra production still likely won’t mean they get to the units it buys before US3, and they would just face the same problem that they faced historically.  “Gee, it’s great to have all this production, but where do we spend it?”  Hence the reason that they chose Europe predominantly and with the Godzilla that Japan can become in P40, that means the US would unwise to not split their income to both fronts again.  And again leaves them without a dominant position at the start against the Axis.

This thread is an example as to why I really need to find people that live around here capable of playing A&A. :(