US Strategy

With conservative play by the British, Chinese and Anzac, the Allies can hold for quite a while. Do the normal stuff, fight for Yunnan and hold the Burma Road as long as possible.

If the the Japanese see that you have a big sub fleet they can and do withdraw to the coastline of China with their navy. But they can only rid themselves of submarines by attacking with some destroyers and something else, usually a bunch of planes. So only bring a few submarines to the Sea of Japan, maybe 2 - 3. Sometimes I leave just 1 submarine. I never leave more than the Japanese has destroyers off the China Coast. If they do not attack they are losing at lease some income. If they do attack, they will lose the destroyers at least from my counterattack.

And they take a risk as well. If they only leave one or two destroyers, they have to be careful when scrambling their planes from Japan. If I hit them with bombers and carrier planes, they may really get wiped, because defenders cannot retreat, only attackers. If they don’t scramble, then I kill the destroyers first round, and I still only swapping 6 point subs for 8 point destroyers.

At some point as the American, the plan is to force the Japanese Navy to go where they cannot retreat and attack them where they are. To do this you have to be able to base and defend your subs for at least one turn from any attack at New Queensland, Iwo Jima or the Caroline Islands.  You don’t have to defeat all their whole force at once, just their surface navy. If you can sink a decent portion of the Japanese Navy, then absent a tremendous income, their ability to conduct offensives is at a standstill.

It does not always work. One has to be careful and not leave the American Navy hanging out for him to destroy you. But the American Surface navy only has two jobs in the beginning. Guard the sub force at Midway and prevent Australia from bring invaded. The only other lesser task is to prevent Hawaii and the Anzac national objective islands from being invaded.

This sounds like a pretty decent strategy but what if the japanese player puts one destroyer in sea of japan and had 10-15 fighters in japan combat would last one round Japan would lose one destroyer and the US would lose 6-8 subs at that point attacking wouldn’t be worth it and japan would be safe for a long time.

@The:

This sounds like a pretty decent strategy but what if the japanese player puts one destroyer in sea of japan and had 10-15 fighters in japan combat would last one round Japan would lose one destroyer and the US would lose 6-8 subs at that point attacking wouldn’t be worth it and japan would be safe for a long time.

As Redjac said the only time you would go into Sea of Japan w/6-8 subs (and air), would be a full scale attack on the Jap surface fleet there. You wouldn’t commit 6-8 subs otherwise (no def). You would sacrifice 1-2 subs there if Jap had no surface fleet, to coax him to bring in a couple dd’s (or more) for a US counter attack. You might also attack a weak Jap fleet there with US subs and air, trying to make sure you will have a couple subs left after the battle that Japan would have to deal with (again forcing him a commit DD’s to your counter attack because of convoys). If Japan chooses not to take out your subs, he loses $ to convoys. If he attacks them, he is leaving more expensive surface ships to allied counter attack. Japan is losing min $8 dd’s, to US $6 subs.

This is a good all around naval strat, and is a cat and mouse game to be played in other area’s at sea as well, by both sides. Sacrificing cheap units to expose the enemies better units in counter attack is just sound strat on land or sea.  It works well in the Sea of Japan because of the convoy zones, and the subs special abilities (and potential invasion).

**Edit:  Germany will be doing the same thing to UK in Europe.

@Redjac:

They cannot be that strong everywhere.

But they can be strong everywhere that matters.

The problem you are missing is that the US has more IPCs to spend than Japan only on turn 2.

Every other turn of the game, Japan will have more IPCs to spend than the US, or at least just as many.

Unless the Japanese player is completely stinkin’ falling down drunk, it’s pretty hard to for the US player to suprise and over take an opponent who has just as many, if not more IPCs to spend than you do.

J1, Japan is at 26 IPCs             US1, US is at 17IPCs
J2, Japan is at 40/41               US2, US is at 55/56
J3, Japan is at 60/61                US3, US is at 55/56

The total spend for Japan over the first three turns is 106 IPCs, 127 for the US. A whole 21 more IPCs.  After that, the US just falls further behind in IPCs.

By turn 4, Japan will be sitting on 65+ IPCs, the US at 55, China on maybe 3, Britian on Maybe 5, and the ANZAC on 10-15. The Chinese & British IPCs are irrellivant, and so by turn 4, the two sides are basically equal in IPC expenditure.

Consider that Japan starts the game with enough units to take out China, and only needs a few more infantry in order to take India out, Japan can use it’s at start military might along with it’s new builds to counter whatever the US/ANZAC forces are able to do.

Consider also that Japan starts the game with something in the neighborhood of 100 IPCs more in aircraft units, 67 IPCs more in ships than all of the Allies combined, you can see how absurd the Allies position is.

J1, Japan takes the PI & Celebes. J2 Japan takes the rest of the DEI. J3 Japan takes Singapore. J4 Japan places a major IC in Singapore. India will fall within 4 turns of this. Japan has more than enough to defend Japan & Truk, and to send excursions into the Solomans.

We’ve even had games where the US has taken Truk, but in doing so lost so many units, that it essentially won the game for Japan. Won the battle, lost the war.

Nearly all of our games have gone the same way. The first three turns of the game seem fairly exciting and balanced, but this is an illusion. The reason for this is that the main bulk of the Japanese forces spend the first three turns smashing through the PI, the DEI & into Singapore.

While these forces are tied up, the Allies feel that they might have a chance to catch up to the Japanese in strength and make a game of it.

After turn three, the at start Japanese forces are finished securing the Japanese economy and a location for their major IC to finish India, and are then free to join whatever the Japanese have been building over the first three turns to go against the US/ANZAC forces.

Now the real zinger for the Allied player is this, at the same time as Japans main at start forces are freed up to go back against the US/ANZAC forces, the IPC level of the Chinese & British have crashed to nearly zero, and their board positions nearly wiped out.

So starting turn 4, the poor Allied player gets the double whammy. The main at start Japanese forces now turn their full attention toward the main Allied force (the US), and the Allied player finds that 2 of it’s players, the Chinese and the British, are reduced to the point of waiting to be conquered.

Oh, and speaking of the Chinese. I saw a thread here that suggested that the Chinese player go with a “go north”  defensive game plan. I tried it, and the first game it gave the Japanese a little suprise, and China actually survived a couple turns longer than it usually does. After that, the Japanese player adjusted for this new strat, and pounded the Chinese just as before.

The starter of this thread, Buckeyeboy and myself have now completed just over 150 hours of gametime playing this game. Virtually no Allied wins.

We are now switching over to playing this game with a bid for the Allies.

As kaufschtick says, the Japanese do get more money than the Americans after turn 2. But in our last few games the Japanese have not been able to conquer the mainland without spending a decent sum of funds on invasion forces.

Usually it goes like this:

J1 3 TR or 2 TR and a minor industrial complex.
J2 Inf and/or tanks for the industrial complex and a few destroyers. Maybe another industrial complex for Hong Kong.
J3 3 tanks and some more inf/art for finishing off China and an assault into Burma and India.

When the Japanese did not buy some ground forces the attack would often stall, even with their large air force.

If the Japanese can take the main land with little or no additional spending on the mainland for ground units, then I know of no way to beat the Japanese, as they will have too much money.

@Redjac:

J1 3 TR or 2 TR and a minor industrial complex.
J2 Inf and/or tanks for the industrial complex and a few destroyers. Maybe another industrial complex for Hong Kong.
J3 3 tanks and some more inf/art for finishing off China and an assault into Burma and India.

The Japanese can do better by taking the PI & Celebes on J1. On J2 take the rest of the DEI. J3 take Singapore. J4 place a major IC in Singapore, instead of the minor ones further north.

Instead of buying minor ICs for Asia, buy transports the first three turns and use them to move troops down from Japan. The transports will come in handy later for the Japanese after a major IC is placed in Singapore. They can then employ the transports against Australia and the Solomons.

The strat you suggest with the minor ICs is sound, and will produce the same result against India & China. However, a major IC in Singapore is in perfect position to spell the end of Australia after India goes away. The transports are also better suited to counter any Allied excursions into the DEI, which they may be inclined to do from time to time.

I think a major IC in Singapore is faster at ending the game than a couple minor ICs along the Asian coast.

Japan can easily use its massive air force to defend Truk & Japan. These planes can shuttle back and forth between these two locations to respond to Allied threats, and to also attack Allied units foolish enough to wind up in between these two points.

Buckeyeboy (Tim) and I have played well over 30 games now, at something at just over 150+ hours of actual game time. We’ve tried all sorts of Allied strats, combinations of buys, and the games all come back to the same ending.

For the first three turns, the game looks like its going to be a good game. But after the main at start Japanese forces finish annihilating the Allied forces in and around the DEI and the Chinese & British IPC levels fall to around zero, the bottom falls out for the Allies.

If the Japanese keep their main navy around Singapore, India can be knocked out of the game as early as turn 6.

A smart Japanese player will leave no easy targets on the gameboard for the weaker Allied forces to pick off, thus allowing Japans strength to grow to match the Allies. Thus, the Allies never gain an upper hand, and are always facing an enemy with superior strength.

Some things that really make no sense in the game design.

#1.) India gives Japan an extra 5 IPCs. This little extra boost means that if India falls, that extra boost in IPCs will mean that the Allies are just falling further and further behind if the players choose to continue the game.

Let’s see here. Japan’s starting 26, + China’s 12, + 15 of Britians 16,+ the 5 IPC kicker for India, +2 for  Vietnam, +20 for the DEI, +2 for the PI all comes to 82 IPCS!

The Allies would be at 65-70. Without that silly +5 kicker for India, and if the US grabbed Iwo,  the Japanese could be at 76 with the Allies right on their heels at 71. But at 82 to 65, the game is over.

#2.) Kamikazes. Why in the world do you need to introduce a rule that gives Japan yet another advantage. That’s like giving the New York Yankees more money. Dude, they’ve got enough already. Japan already has enough of an advantage in the game, why give them six free shots on Allied ships? Ridiculous.

#3.) British Bonus Income. The British gain 5 extra IPCs if the Allies control Hong Kong & Singapore at the same time, and another 5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control all of the DEI.

Really, really…

Why not just make it this: The British gain 5 extra IPCs if they control every land territory on the game board. Again, this is just ridiculous.

#4.) US bonus income. The US should get 5 extra for Iwo, and 5 for Okinawa, not 5 for both of them together. Instead, what happens is that if the US goes for Iwo, the Japanese get a bonus in the form of 6 free shots!

Have I said it before?

Ridiculous!

The Japanese get 5 extra for Hawaii, but the US gets zero for Truk!?! Ridiculous!

#5.) The Chinese. China starts so ridiculously weak, and gets whipped every single game. In short order, no less. The fact of the matter is that Japan never defeated China…ever.

Ridicul…

Ah, enough of that, you get the point.

kausfschtick suggests buying TR in Japan for the first 3 turns and then buying a complex in Singapore to be better able to assault Australia. The Japanese air force is so strong it can defend Truk and Japan. These seems like a sound strategy for the Japanese.

Our gaming group (all three of us) gets together tonight to play A&A P40. I will see if I can build a sub/bomber force fast enough hurt the Japanese before they take Calcutta. My hope is that if the Japanese build only invasion forces, TR and/or troops for the first 3 turns, then the Americans will be strong enough to attack their navy and prevent the invasion of Australia (or Hawaii). Our gaming group makes its’ share of blunders and mistakes but I will post the builds and the results after the game. If this does not work then we will have to adopt the bid system for the game (as kaufschtick and others have done) as I have no other ideas for American strategy.

Despite what I suggest about the Allies having a chance to win the game though the above strategy, I agree 100% with kaufschtick in the above comment. Why give the Japanese kamikazes? Why give them such a massive Air Force? Why do you give them bonus money for India? I have no idea. As it stands now, the Japanese do not really have any strategic decisions to make. This is almost unforgivable in a strategy game. They do not have to decide to whether or not to defend Truk or Iwo Jima when they make their purchases. They can simply fly some of their fighters down there and use the rest in China. One last point, the island scramble rule favors the Japanese as it makes it very easy to defend Truk and Japan. But Australia and New Guinea are not islands, so any invasion force (Transports) has to be defended by navy not adjacent airplanes. I like the island scramble from air base rule. I just don’t know why it is only islands and and not all air bases.

I am new to these forums. I am an old time World in Flames player and started playing A&A when it came out in the 50th Aniversary Edition. I look forward to playing the Global game when it comes out in August.

P.S. Are there any tournaments or conventions that most/some the forum members attend? I would really like to meet and play some of the players from this forum in person.

@kaufschtick:

@Redjac:

J1 3 TR or 2 TR and a minor industrial complex.
J2 Inf and/or tanks for the industrial complex and a few destroyers. Maybe another industrial complex for Hong Kong.
J3 3 tanks and some more inf/art for finishing off China and an assault into Burma and India.

The Japanese can do better by taking the PI & Celebes on J1. On J2 take the rest of the DEI. J3 take Singapore. J4 place a major IC in Singapore, instead of the minor ones further north.

Instead of buying minor ICs for Asia, buy transports the first three turns and use them to move troops down from Japan. The transports will come in handy later for the Japanese after a major IC is placed in Singapore. They can then employ the transports against Australia and the Solomons.

The strat you suggest with the minor ICs is sound, and will produce the same result against India & China. However, a major IC in Singapore is in perfect position to spell the end of Australia after India goes away. The transports are also better suited to counter any Allied excursions into the DEI, which they may be inclined to do from time to time.

I think a major IC in Singapore is faster at ending the game than a couple minor ICs along the Asian coast.

Japan can easily use its massive air force to defend Truk & Japan. These planes can shuttle back and forth between these two locations to respond to Allied threats, and to also attack Allied units foolish enough to wind up in between these two points.

Buckeyeboy (Tim) and I have played well over 30 games now, at something at just over 150+ hours of actual game time. We’ve tried all sorts of Allied strats, combinations of buys, and the games all come back to the same ending.

For the first three turns, the game looks like its going to be a good game. But after the main at start Japanese forces finish annihilating the Allied forces in and around the DEI and the Chinese & British IPC levels fall to around zero, the bottom falls out for the Allies.

If the Japanese keep their main navy around Singapore, India can be knocked out of the game as early as turn 6.

A smart Japanese player will leave no easy targets on the gameboard for the weaker Allied forces to pick off, thus allowing Japans strength to grow to match the Allies. Thus, the Allies never gain an upper hand, and are always facing an enemy with superior strength.

Some things that really make no sense in the game design.

#1.) India gives Japan an extra 5 IPCs. This little extra boost means that if India falls, that extra boost in IPCs will mean that the Allies are just falling further and further behind if the players choose to continue the game.

Let’s see here. Japan’s starting 26, + China’s 12, + 15 of Britians 16,+ the 5 IPC kicker for India, +2 for  Vietnam, +20 for the DEI, +2 for the PI all comes to 82 IPCS!

The Allies would be at 65-70. Without that silly +5 kicker for India, and if the US grabbed Iwo,  the Japanese could be at 76 with the Allies right on their heels at 71. But at 82 to 65, the game is over.

#2.) Kamikazes. Why in the world do you need to introduce a rule that gives Japan yet another advantage. That’s like giving the New York Yankees more money. Dude, they’ve got enough already. Japan already has enough of an advantage in the game, why give them six free shots on Allied ships? Ridiculous.

#3.) British Bonus Income. The British gain 5 extra IPCs if the Allies control Hong Kong & Singapore at the same time, and another 5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control all of the DEI.

Really, really…

Why not just make it this: The British gain 5 extra IPCs if they control every land territory on the game board. Again, this is just ridiculous.

#4.) US bonus income. The US should get 5 extra for Iwo, and 5 for Okinawa, not 5 for both of them together. Instead, what happens is that if the US goes for Iwo, the Japanese get a bonus in the form of 6 free shots!

Have I said it before?

Ridiculous!

The Japanese get 5 extra for Hawaii, but the US gets zero for Truk!?! Ridiculous!

#5.) The Chinese. China starts so ridiculously weak, and gets whipped every single game. In short order, no less. The fact of the matter is that Japan never defeated China…ever.

Ridicul…

Ah, enough of that, you get the point.

Japan would only have 78 since Borneo is both a DEI and a British territory

@calvinhobbesliker:

Japan would only have 78 since Borneo is both a DEI and a British territory

Yeah, that’s right, I sometimes forget that in mulling things over and adding them up. That’s a four point difference.

Our little gaming group (all three of us) played A&A P40 tonight. After the last few defeats the Japanese countered my strategy of attrition in the Sea of Japan pretty well.

The Japanese bought a lot of fighters and a only a few destroyers a turn. He kept the fighters in Japan. I never attacked the Sea of Japan because I was never able to get sufficient forces to attack to begin with. With the remaining money he overran the mainland of Asia.

While the submarine attrition strategy is a tool in the toolbox, to be used when appropriate, it may be simply too slow in the build up to work as a main strategy.

@Redjac:

Our little gaming group (all three of us) played A&A P40 tonight. After the last few defeats the Japanese countered my strategy of attrition in the Sea of Japan pretty well.

The Japanese bought a lot of fighters and a only a few destroyers a turn. He kept the fighters in Japan. I never attacked the Sea of Japan because I was never able to get sufficient forces to attack to begin with. With the remaining money he overran the mainland of Asia.

While the submarine attrition strategy is a tool in the toolbox, to be used when appropriate, it may be simply too slow in the build up to work as a main strategy.

I think Uncle_Joe summed it up pretty well in another thread. There are some things the Allies can do from time to time, but once the Japanese player sees them, they are able to counter quite readily, and then you’re back back to square one.

Our little three man gaming group has played P40 about 30 times. Most of the time the Japanese have won. Lately, we have been experimenting with different Allied strategies to defend Yunnan and Singapore. Out last game was wild, the Allies lost Australia (a first for us) and still won the game.

Our crew leans toward the view that the game is Japan’s to lose. But a few bad moves by Japan and Allies can and do win.

I have a few more ideas about defending the mainland for the Allies. I have not seen the forum games, so I don’t know what has been tried, and what has not been tried for the Allies. When we play them a bit more, I will post my ideas on the forums.

I think the US has two primary options, assuming the Japanese go for a heavy Calcutta push:

1. Blockade the Japanese mainland while simultaneously taking Korea and building an IC there. This way the US can start liberating Chinese provinces (allowing Chinese infantry to be placed also) and pushing down towards Shanghai. The continuous convoy disruptions coupled with strategic bombing raids of the major IC on Japan would limit Japan to it’s mainland minor ICs that it likely built on turns 1-2. I’d imagine that the Japanese player would see the writing on the wall and surrender, saving everyone a few hours.

2. US captures Caroline Islands. The Caroline Islands’ air/naval base lets you threaten Japan and the DEI and Hong Kong, if you decide to go that route. Depending on the Japanese player’s moves, I’d aim for taking back the DEI. This would obviously allow the UK/ANZACs to maintain the IPC bonuses and would force Japanese air assets away from the mainland fight and buy the UK some more time. If the Japanese build naval forces to counter the US fleet, all the better; more ships = less ground troops going after Calcutta. Additionally, Japan focusing on the US navy would allow the UK to possibly launch an offensive into southern China and help liberate some Chinese territories, which can be a nuisance for the Japanese land army as well.

Any suggestions/comments from people are definitely welcome!

I suggest playing the Global game  :-)

Major Problems with Pacific only game in my opinion:
No Russia
Indian fleet is pinned in because it can’t go west of Z39.  Also, Indian ground forces are unable to escape to West India.
USA doesn’t have to juggle priorities with Europe, and California is treated as a capital, with capital rules (can lose all money and production)

An interesting strategic wrinkle I threw into a game last night was a UK/ANZAC attack on Japan at the beginning of turn 3. This caught the Japanese player greatly off guard, as he was still consolidating and prepositioning his forces for the big attack on the DEI and the UK territories on the mainland for the beginning of turn 4. It really messed up the Japanese land war and gave the allies the momentum and initiative that is often ceded to the Japanese.

A Japanese player should NEVER be surprised by a turn 3 unprovoked attack.  There is little deterrent for the Allies by then.  You guys are probably in your first few games - fun times!