How to balance a round 1 Japanese Declaration of War

Simple, just make it a rule that Japan can only declare war from turn 2 on.

I just never do a J1 attack when I play Japan.  I play to have fun not to win.  A J1 attack makes sure the allies have no possibility to respond, let alone get UK the much-needed IPC boost from taking Sumatra and Java.  Also, Australia can be attacked from the Carolines on turn 1 to make sure they can’t interfere either.  USA doesn’t even get to place any of it’s wartime units until the end of turn 2 so it’s just not any fun to be the Allies. It’s still easy as hell to win with Japan on a J2 attack, but it takes awhile longer and there are more pieces on the board.

I’ve said my peace.

@robbie358:

Simple, just make it a rule that Japan can only declare war from turn 2 on.

I just never do a J1 attack when I play Japan.  I play to have fun not to win.  A J1 attack makes sure the allies have no possibility to respond, let alone get UK the much-needed IPC boost from taking Sumatra and Java.  Also, Australia can be attacked from the Carolines on turn 1 to make sure they can’t interfere either.  USA doesn’t even get to place any of it’s wartime units until the end of turn 2 so it’s just not any fun to be the Allies. It’s still easy as hell to win with Japan on a J2 attack, but it takes awhile longer and there are more pieces on the board.

I’ve said my peace.

I like this idea best so far. It doesn’t change any of the OOB play rules and it would seem to fix the balance issue. Unless you think a J2 attack is still too powerful.

I wonder if simply repositioning the UK navy to India would give you what you want. At least the UK would have some options. I have always disliked the fact that the UK can lose a BB rd #1 no matter what AA game you play.

I also think that a J1 attack may be less likely in the global game, as the UK will be able to counter/reinforce from Africa/Mid East. Plus Jap could get overwhelmed if it takes on to many enemies, as Russia could turn on them as well.

I agree that if anything, just rule out a J1 attack and say the earilest is J2.  That would allow every Allied transport that gets smoked on turn 1 to survive and get somewhere safer.  On the other hand, if you hinder Japan to a turn 2 attack at the earliest, you could very well tip the game too much in favor of the Allies.  I assume most of this reasoning is based around Japan steam rolling China and UK, leaving it a 2v1 game.  If you don’t allow Japan to attack turn 1, UK gets 5 extra from their naval base NO and they would likely also get 7 IPCs or so more from the DEI, ANZAC would get 5 more from holding the other 4 island territory bonus, and the USA would get 5 more for Phillipines.  5 pales in comparison of course to the 40 you would get for next turn, but it is still a key island in Allied control.  I think the Allies get way too many counter moves and way too much build up time if Japan only goes for China, which is why the DOW capabilities are flexible in allowing when and where to declare war.

Granted Japan could still win by going on a J2 attack but wouldn’t you rather attack J1.  A good question to ask yourself is, would you want to play Japan if you had your hands tied from doing a J1 attack and the Allies got a bunch of extra IPCs?  The longer Japan awaits to attack, the greater the chance the Allies win right?  The greatest chance for Japan to win is to attack turn 1 and attack every Allied player.

It has been over 3 and a half months now that the game has been out, and I think the Allies can win this game if Japan attacks turn 1.  People still play the defensive mindset of saving India, you have to go on the offensive against Japan and I truly think you need to attempt to cut Japans forces in half but cutting directly to Phillipines and Guam.  I think people are getting too hasty to put a bid on the game while only trying out a handful of options.

@Gharen:

It has been over 3 and a half months now that the game has been out, and I think the Allies can win this game if Japan attacks turn 1.  People still play the defensive mindset of saving India, you have to go on the offensive against Japan and I truly think you need to attempt to cut Japans forces in half but cutting directly to Phillipines and Guam.  I think people are getting too hasty to put a bid on the game while only trying out a handful of options.

This is where I’m coming from too. I don’t believe there are any changes needed in the game to fairly use the J1 attack. We, as players, need to find the strategies necessary to make the J2 attack as viable as the J1 attack; whether that means better J1 Allied defenses, or better J2 Axis attacks, to maintain the variability in playout that we seek.

@Variable:

@Gharen:

It has been over 3 and a half months now that the game has been out, and I think the Allies can win this game if Japan attacks turn 1.  People still play the defensive mindset of saving India, you have to go on the offensive against Japan and I truly think you need to attempt to cut Japans forces in half but cutting directly to Phillipines and Guam.  I think people are getting too hasty to put a bid on the game while only trying out a handful of options.

This is where I’m coming from too. I don’t believe there are any changes needed in the game to fairly use the J1 attack. We, as players, need to find the strategies necessary to make the J2 attack as viable as the J1 attack; whether that means better J1 Allied defenses, or better J2 Axis attacks, to maintain the variability in playout that we seek.

I’m in the same camp. I don’t think any changes are needed, and I think the J1 attack probably always was what the designers thought would be the best option for the Japanese.

The Prince of Wales & Repulse were sunk by Japanese Nell bombers right at the outset of the war, the PI fell, and Singapore shortly after that.

My bud Buckeyeboy on here and I have have both commented how historically accurate the J1 attack appears. The US transport getting zapped at Pearl kinda represents the situation after Pearl Harbor without actually having to recreate that disaterous chapter of the war for the US.

I think if the US can get into the Marshalls, or back into Guam, then the Allies threaten Hong Kong, ShangHai & Manilla, as well as the vital area of Manchuria, which leads to Korea.

I’m also leaning heavily in favor of bringing out the at start air in India to be used just like the ANZAC air can be, leaving just one fighter back for the British. The British air can function just like the ANZAC air by immediately following up a US amphibious attack.

@kaufschtick:

@Variable:

@Gharen:

It has been over 3 and a half months now that the game has been out, and I think the Allies can win this game if Japan attacks turn 1.  People still play the defensive mindset of saving India, you have to go on the offensive against Japan and I truly think you need to attempt to cut Japans forces in half but cutting directly to Phillipines and Guam.  I think people are getting too hasty to put a bid on the game while only trying out a handful of options.

This is where I’m coming from too. I don’t believe there are any changes needed in the game to fairly use the J1 attack. We, as players, need to find the strategies necessary to make the J2 attack as viable as the J1 attack; whether that means better J1 Allied defenses, or better J2 Axis attacks, to maintain the variability in playout that we seek.

I’m in the same camp. I don’t think any changes are needed, and I think the J1 attack probably always was what the designers thought would be the best option for the Japanese.

The Prince of Wales & Repulse were sunk by Japanese Nell bombers right at the outset of the war, the PI fell, and Singapore shortly after that.

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?

@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?

Well, one thing I believe happened was that Truk got bypassed, if I’m not mistaken.

New Guinea was a pretty big deal too.

I know that one thing we’ve been taking a close look at is the situation where the US builds 2 transports on US1, then on US2 they place a naval base on Wake Island and the fleet moves there on US2. Now, you don’t have to place a naval base on Wake Island unless you, as the Americans, are trying to position yourselves in such a way as to have a shot at getting into Guam on US3. I think the main thing with this particular move is to try to maximize your options as the US for US3.

But getting back to historical things and how they might relate to the game, I also thought that while the US is setting up at Wake (or you could set up at Hawaii too; like I said, Wake isn’t a must), that the US could send it’s 2 bombers to Queensland on US1, and from there, they have a pretty good reach, in particular, they could kill any unescorted transports trying to sneak into Guam on J2 from Japan. They would have to land in, of all places, New Guinea. But from ANZAC New Guinea, they are in a perfect position to hit Truk on US3, in the land portion, if that becomes an option. The US will have 3 fully loaded transports that could invade Truk as well, again; if the opportunity presented itself.

Japan’s going to set the tempo of the game out of the gates, but I think it’s just a matter of taking in all the possibilities the Japanese can throw at the Allies, before the appropriate Allied responses start to become apparent.

My best friend and I had the game to a point were we felt it was pretty even when we were playing the J2 & J3 attacks.

Then we started looking at the J1 attacks and all, the whole time thinking that the game must surely take on some new direction or look. Well, to be honest with you, I’m not seeing the game being any different with the J1 than a later attack. Oh sure, the situation is different as far as pieces present on the board, but the overall position isn’t any different. Japan still has some choices to make as far as what direction they want to go, and the Allies have to respond.

give japan more ground forces on the mainland is the key to balancing the game
or extra transport at first round

@Frontovik:

give japan more ground forces on the mainland is the key to balancing the game
or extra transport at first round

Frontovik LMAO, I don’t think that’s exactly what allweneedislove had in mind. Of coarse it might not be as funny an option in the global game.

@allweneedislove:

@Frontovik:

give japan more ground forces on the mainland is the key to balancing the game
or extra transport at first round

hi front thanks for the input. however, i am looking at how to balance a j1 dow to a j2 dow. your suggestion does not do it.

it sounds like you think allies are favoured and are trying to balance the game. i am not so worried about balancing the game because a bid can be done for that.

Now I am confused, your first two options are just that a built in bid.

I know I mentioned what has become the third option (move UK navy), to aid in your quest. I will say most games I’ve played to this point have favored axis w/J1 attack. I have not played enough games yet at this point to see if anything needs to be done however. I am still playing OOB/Errata looking at other (legal) ways to hinder Japans J1 attack. I feel its more fun/challenging to over come the odds when some people are saying “the odds are stacked against you”.

This game is designed for house rules. Some houses will lean in one direction, and will need a fix, others won’t.

@allweneedislove:

@Frontovik:

give japan more ground forces on the mainland is the key to balancing the game
or extra transport at first round

hi front thanks for the input. however, i am looking at how to balance a j1 dow to a j2 dow. your suggestion does not do it.

it sounds like you think allies are favoured and are trying to balance the game. i am not so worried about balancing the game because a bid can be done for that.

J3 is usefull for australia
2 is in my games the only alternative for J1
but i have to admit: i tried J1 without attack phillipines, and had some very good dice, so i almost won
but if would had a bit more 6’s than 1’s it was again total defeat
i just can’t get how people win so easily as japan

How about move the Japanese transport from SZ33 to SZ6. Makes Japan choose targets on a J1 attack, or set up for a J2 attack. Is that more of what you had in mind?

IMO The game is balanced.  J1, J2, and J3.  I have won with Japan on all DOWs and beat other players on all DOWs.  After UK and China falls there is only an 8 dollar difference between Japan and the Allies.  Having 30 or so live games Im tending to think that the balance is good.  The J1 attack is hard to beat, The US and ANZAC players from the start have to  plan their game for when UK is gone.

One of my fav moves for US after a J1 DOW is

destroyer/trany to midway with 3 fig, 3 tac, 2 inf
rest of navy moves to Hiwaii

This does a couple things.  If japan attacks the midway destroyer light (scramble airforce) if they go heavy (dont scramble) and counter with everything in Hiwaii, airforce from midway and what ever you built last turn.  Most of the time they wont attack.  so now your navy is ready to attack Japan and cant get attacked. Your free to move stuff down to help ANAZC or take forward islands.  The destroyer “blocker” is a great move for US.  Japan might try to set a “blocker” of their own…. if they do the blast it with your bombers the destroyer wont hit that often and every destoroyer you kill evens the economy.

I know there is lots of holes in any strat and will prolly get picked apart take it or leave it.