How did playtesters miss J1 attack?

Formosa = Taiwan

@gamerman01:

Formosa = Taiwan

Thanks, correction noted.

@calvinhobbesliker:

How does Japan make 42? They start with 26+2 for Phil+3 for Hong+ 3 for Cel+2 for FIC+4 Chinese tt=40+1 saved=41

Stop doing that!  :-D :oops: :-D :-D :-D

You’re right again of course, 41 if Japan takes Hunan. I’m no good at this when I’m sober. :-o

Correction noted…again.

By Calvinhobbesliker…again.  :-D  :-D  :-D

Look, I’ll buy you a 6 pack if you stop finding mistakes! :-D :-D :-D

Other than minor differences here or there, Kaufschtick has outlined the J1 “Book Move”

I prefer to use the 4th bomber against Yunan instead of the New Britain SS, for example.

Allied response should be aware of the fact that the Japanese TT’s at PI sea zone can move 3 spaces next turn because of captured seabase.

@Van_Trump:

Other than minor differences here or there, Kaufschtick has outlined the J1 “Book Move”

I prefer to use the 4th bomber against Yunan instead of the New Britain SS, for example.

Allied response should be aware of the fact that the Japanese TT’s at PI sea zone can move 3 spaces next turn because of captured seabase.

You know, the only thing remotely tricky about the way we do it is the fighter “swap” from the planes hitting the PI.

The rest of the move is straight forward. Where you want the second sub to go, do you attack the ANZAC sub, how do you distribute your air in China, do you leave an inf in Siam, stuff like that…well, there are a lot of little considerations in there that make the opening Japanese move a matter of preference, not a stone cold script.

I think some people see my posts in particular and think, “Oh, this guy thinks he’s a Billy Bad A$$, eh? Well, we’ll see about that! Show me your move and I’ll show you how I’d beat it!”

But it’s not about a particular move. Its the general situation on turn one. The Japanese are in such a strong position that they are able to accomplish several very important goals that will lay the groundwork for a Japanese win. This may not happen until around turn 7-9, or even a little later depending on events.

You still have to play the game, but it gets old having to make perfect move after perfect move for the Allies just to get to the next turn, and if the Japanese player is good, you’ve got long odds of having any chance to win at all.

Another good post, Kauf…

I agree that the effective J1 (achieving all those objectives - I think it was you who put them up) is pretty straight-forward and not real hard to see.  I think Van_Trump just meant that your move does pretty much all the things that need to be done - that’s what he meant by “book move”, I think.  If a textbook was written about this game, it would say to make pretty much all those attacks (definitely Phillipines, Hong Kong, Yunnan, take empty Chinese TT, sink American transport, probably even ANZAC DD and TP…).  I mean, I made all those attacks (except on ANZAC) the very first time I played this game, without reading anything before hand, and I’m sure almost all experienced A&A players would do the same.

Van_Trump, I actually took all 4 bombers after the battleship on J1 the last time I played, to ensure it didn’t get two shots off.  I lost one bomber, so could land the rest in Kwa.

Also, I took CV, BB and FTR down to ANZAC “fleet” (snicker) along with the Tac that had finished toasting the ANZAC sub.  My capable opponent chose not to counterattack with ANZAC air, even though my BB got dinged.  It eventually got repaired at Singapore…

I think I’ll play a delayed J attack when I want higher difficulty, like one of you guys had suggested.  It’s just that I am sure the designers meant for it to be a hard choice of when to attack, but it appears to be a no-brainer (not a hard choice at all).  J1 is easy setting, J2 is medium, J3 is hard, J4 extreme  :lol:

I will have to try them, but I cannot imagine how you could gain a better position on the Allied players by waiting, when they’re earning so much more money than you.  The best position you’re gonna get is gonna be right there at J1 - Phillipines, Hong Kong, British and ANZAC fleets all served up for you on a silver platter!!  :lol:

If the designers wanted to make a J1 a hard decision, maybe they shouldn’t have put a Strat bomber on the Phillipines, or two UK transports and a BB sitting at Singapore, or making it necessary for the UK to have Hong Kong to get an NO!

Hmmmm…  I can’t remember - I know I’ve seen the history of a BB battle between the UK and Japan around Singapore…  Anyone remember how that went?  I should look it up, here…
OK, got it.  It was the Prince of Wales and it was sent to Singapore in October of 1941, sunk on December 10, 1941 by Jap 86 land-based bombers and fighters……

Now that I found that out, I’m wondering what naval force the Brits actually had stationed at Singapore in 1940!  Looking it up next…

@gamerman01:

Another good post, Kauf…

I agree that the effective J1 (achieving all those objectives - I think it was you who put them up) is pretty straight-forward and not real hard to see.  I think Van_Trump just meant that your move does pretty much all the things that need to be done - that’s what he meant by “book move”, I think.  If a textbook was written about this game, it would say to make pretty much all those attacks (definitely Phillipines, Hong Kong, Yunnan, take empty Chinese TT, sink American transport, probably even ANZAC DD and TP…).  I mean, I made all those attacks (except on ANZAC) the very first time I played this game, without reading anything before hand, and I’m sure almost all experienced A&A players would do the same.

Oh yeah, I’m right with you on Van Trumps post, thats how I took it too. Its just that I thought it was interesting that when he said “book move”, and it is, that when you stop and think about it, there are quite a number of little decisions in there that many people will play differently.

Van Trumps right, over all its the “book move”, but its not a locked in stone kinda deal, and I think some folks may read it that way, like some kind of super move.

From some of Van Trumps posts, it almost feels like he’s been playing games with Tim and myself! I think my view of the game is very nearly the same as his though, at least many of his comments and opinions are dead on the same as my own.

And you yourself said that you made many of those same moves right out of the gates, so it’s not like there is some kinda diabolical move going down on J1. And its certainly not the case that I’m trying to brag myself, about the Japanese being so tough, it’s just the way it is.

There have been a couple people that have posted in the threads and all they want to bring to the conversation is “Aw hell, I’ll beat you”, and they have no clue as to what the actual discusion is.

Anyway, this time tomorrow night, I should be 3/4 turns into game 01 of maybe 5/6, or even more. We’re going with the US immediate 40. :-)

@kaufschtick:

And you yourself said that you made many of those same moves right out of the gates, so it’s not like there is some kinda diabolical move going down on J1. And its certainly not the case that I’m trying to brag myself, about the Japanese being so tough, it’s just the way it is.

There have been a couple people that have posted in the threads and all they want to bring to the conversation is “Aw hell, I’ll beat you”, and they have no clue as to what the actual discusion is.

Yes, I understand you.

It’s not easy to find the UK naval strength at Singapore in 1940….  but it was interesting reading about how the Jap leader just totally bluffed the Allied forces into thinking they were vastly out-numbered, when in fact they had 3 times the forces…  Seems there were disagreements among British command, and the guy who said they needed to fight to the bitter end was not listened to… etc etc

But in my P40 game the Allied troops listened!!  Good grief, I wiped them out in one round of combat, but the Allies hit me 4 out of 5 on 2’s!  So much for history - hehe.

But given the 1940 setup and how a J1 attack accomplishes so many vital objectives, while the game mechanic gives you some reasons for delaying that attack, it’s very disappointing to find out that a J1 attack is so superior - taking the hard decision out of the game (that was intended to be there).  So I’m curious now, about what kind of navy the UK actually had at Singapore in 1940.  Maybe their fleet should just be relocated.  Not as dramatic as giving the US an immediate 40, but is along those lines, kind of.  Actually, maybe it’s more similar than it seems…  2 transports and all those money islands…

I think that with the introduction of the global version of the game that it will make that decision a lot more difficult than it is now. I think that is the problem with the game, it was designed as a global game but sold piecemeal instead. I still think that the allies can win without a bid but like many people have said that the only way that happens is if the Japs make a mistake or two. Without that Russian horde threatening invasion it allows Japan to run wild around Asia with no recourse.

@maverick_76:

I think that with the introduction of the global version of the game that it will make that decision a lot more difficult than it is now. I think that is the problem with the game, it was designed as a global game but sold piecemeal instead. I still think that the allies can win without a bid but like many people have said that the only way that happens is if the Japs make a mistake or two. Without that Russian horde threatening invasion it allows Japan to run wild around Asia with no recourse.

I think you’re right about the global game being sold in 2 halves, but the makers were adamant that P40 was fine as a stand-alone game.  Well, it would be fine if the rules and setup were customized a bit more (for a Pacific only game).  But as it stands now, they appear to have failed in “missing” the J1 attack as being the most desirable choice for the Axis player (the subject of this thread).

There’s a very good summary of the game on board-game geek.com - look for the summary with the most votes.  He estimates 60% Jap victory, and that they need to attack on J1.  Others are disagreeing with him, saying 60% Allied victory, but not saying if that’s with a J1 attack!  Check it out…

I did research 1940 naval forces of the Allies…  Can’t find anything about transports, because the focus is on warships, but I don’t see anything about any battleships being in Singapore in 1940.  There were some warships, but not battleships.  Also, Australia had heavy and light cruisers, etc.  India had various warships as well (DD and CA seems about right - as in the game)

So…  It does seem we’re playing only half of a game, and the rules were not adequately customized to really make this one stand on its own as intended!  :x  This seems to be the conclusion of many of us here…  Is it August yet?? :lol:

Almost.  :-o

@kungfujew:

Also, you want more than vague assurances of pairity, give me a detailed script to follow and I’ll give you back what I would do to counter it.

Well?!

Still waiting here.

Sorry to not reply sooner, I was working all weekend and my 10 month old is sick so this is my first few hours free to sit and type in a few days.  Keep in mind, I don’t actually need to brainstorm strategy with you, since my gaming group isn’t having balance issues.  I’m just trying to help out a fellow war gamer because he asked for it.  And no, I’m not going to mistake your list of moves as anything resembling an invitation to play online.

That said, have you tried moving all the UK and ANZAC planes to Java, and putting the destroyer there to stop any bombards and the cruiser off Malaya.  If I’m not mistaken, while the three starting transports are all in range only the planes already on the carriers can attack as well.  This works very well if the Japan lost at least two infantry attacking the US as they will have to pick up two more infantry off the mainland to make a full attack on Java.  So it would be 6 inf, 2 art, 3 fighters, and 3 tac bombers vs 1 tac bomber and 8 fighters.  That if that attack fails or succeeds but costs Japan dearly in planes and or men then their initial position is severely weakened and that buys the US a turn or two to get their fleet one step closer.  On UK1 buy a fighter and a tank, on US1 buy a carrier and move your fleet and bombers to Hawaii, taking an inf and a tank, but put your sub in another sea zone 2 spaces away from Japan, and move no more than one fighter and one tac bomber to Queensland or leave them all on Hawaii or New zealand or whatever your preference is.  Build either a transport, 2 men and 1 art or a fighter as ANZAC and move the transport to New Zealand and move the whole Malaya stack to Shan State.  It might not seem like the best trade at first, even if Japan attacks Java, but the odds are that it will either cost Japan dearly to take or it will hold.  And it seems to really pay off down the line as it makes Japan pull significant air power out of either Japan, the Carolines or China to defend it’s fleet, making any of those important allied objectives easier to strike/threaten.  If Japan decides not to attack, depending on the disposition of the rest of their airforce  and your initial allied buys, you can either attack elements of the Japanese fleet, it’s transports or it’s men on the mainland.  In any event, you can land all nine planes in India if you like on the nest turn.

We’ve found that as long as Japan is left with the initiative then they will win more often than not, regardless of what turn the war starts at.  If the allies can disrupt the initial Japanese plan then it opens up the game and forces Japan to make on the spot changes to  adapt to the evolving situation and that is what gets the allies their opening.

So to answer the question posed when this all started…  How did the playtesters miss the J1 attacks?  I don’t think they did.  I think that, like most axis and allies games, they saw that Japan was much more straightforward to play and therefore would win more often then not initially.  But as you play more and more you find that, while a good change of pace, the J1 attack pigeon holes you into a type of attack that is telegraphed and can be countered more easily than if the allies are sh**ing themselves wondering where the hammer will strike cause Japan is poised to strike in any number of places and China is truely reeling.  If you play more than just one opening and play the game through to the bitter end then you learn how to beat Japan as the allies.  You won’t be able to do it every time, but you’ll have a fair shake at it as long as the dice don’t punch you in the testicles and laugh at you.

It depends on how that battle goes.  Obviously the dice are a huge factor, but the game effect depends on how the battle goes.  To my eye, Japan should expect get 4, 5 or 6 hits and the uk/anzac 5,6, or 7 in round one.  The point is to kill land units and a few planes.  Even with bad luck you should kill all the Japanese land units.  When the Japanese soldiers die, the three or two transports that were bought on turn one then have to be used to either reinforce the land OR take the islands.  That means that you’ve bought the US a whole turn.  Also by buying a carrier on turn one for the US you can hit the Sea of Japan with 2 fighters, two tacs and two bombers and possibly a sub.  If there are no targets there you can move to the Carolines or Queensland.  If you end up killing Japanese planes in their attack, then Japan has to pull planes out of china to defend against the US fleet.  Most likely Japan will also have pulled one or two inf off of the mainland for the attack, so now that whole area is weakened  all these little things add up.  If Japan attacks you in Java then you save the 5 men from the Malaya stack.  Also there’s a turn that the UK can buy without losing borneo and if you depending on what you put in Queensland, anything that Japan leaves in Borneo to convoy raid, might be killed.  The idea is to get them reacting instead of acting.  I’m not giving you a step by step instructions on how to beat Japan, cause I don’t have any.  :)  Remember, on the first 2 turns, Japanese ground troops are just as valuable as planes are to you.  Be aggressive when you can make it pay off.  And play China well.  If you don’t then that’s the biggest gift to Japan.  All I can tell you is our group has found that by mixing it up sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but as long as the dice don’t hate on you the whole game you have a chance.  :D  I find it’s best to assume that it’s going to come down to a fight between the US and Japan.  So any edge you can give the US at the expense of the other three just might be worth it down the road.

Oh, and about “Truk”, they’ll have to pick between weakening their offence against China or their defence against US.  Either way, you win.  Also, if you hold up Japan for a turn then you are effectively combining your 2nd and third  US purchases. So suddenly your reinforcements are on the same timeline as Japans instead of a turn behind.  Really, I don’t know the “perfect” move, I just try to think of what will delay Japan just one turn in those crucial first few turns.  That’s what has been the deciding factor in my groups’ games.

Play well and be victorious.  ;)

By my calculations the Java battle gives the Allies 6 hits 1st round vs 5 hits for Japan.
Japan loses 1’s and 2’s; Allies lose fighters. Unless the allies get lucky round 1, round 2 has Japan with a decided advantage. This assumes Japan doesn’t get lucky. They are rolling more dice after all.

Is there something I’m missing here? Whenever UK offers it’s planes up on a silver platter I take the bait. Now you’re offering up ANZAC fighters as well?

If Japan loses 3 fighters, 3 Tac to take out that fighter stack that’s a win for Japan. Japan is always to trade fighters with UK 1:1. Even if allies survive with 1 or 2 fighters it’s a win for Japan.

Once UK fighters are gone they have eliminated themselves as a threat.

This is a recipe for disaster for the allies. And that’s putting it diplomatically.

Assuming Japan is being played by a brain-dead zombie, and he doesn’t attack Java, where will the allies move the planes next turn after 3 more loaded transports are in the vicinity?

If Japan attacks, they’ll lose their valuable land units and won’t be able to attack any of the other islands that turn, plus they will most likely need to pull one or two infantry off the mainland for the attack.  If the UK buys planes and tanks then they’ll get the chance to rebuild a fair sized force.  Also, they save 4 infantry that would otherwise be dead and ANZAC should get both their NO’s that round.  That will also buy the US a turn to consolidate and advance.  Instead of just poo pooing the idea, try it.  My assumption is that India will fall regardless so I try to weaken Japan’s position in relation to the US.  It’s a short term hit for a long term benefit.  The UK’s fighters aren’t just for show so that you can score 5 or 6 hits on Japan after they have a huge land army attacking India.  Try being unconventional and attack with the forces you have when you can do some real damage.  If Japan has only 6 land units in the area, then killing them is a huge priority.  if you clear southeast Asia of Japanese men then how does that not benefit both the UK and china???  That’s what you’re missing.  Suddenly Japan’s first buy is now needed to do the work that should have been done by the time they arrive in the Dutch East Indies and the US fleet reinforcements is now only one turn away from the action, OR if the battle goes well then the US fleet is now on the attack depending on what Japan pull out of where to off-set their losses.  On the other hand, if Japan doesn’t attack then you’ve just doubled the fighter content of India as it’s only 4 spaces from Java to India; it’s much easier for the US to help the Aussies that the Indians.  If you’re always losing against a Japan turn one attack, maybe things that you think aren’t good moves might change the tactical landscape in a way that would benefit you in the long run.  Play ideas out to see what the long term effect is instead of just looking at what happens on that turn, to put it diplomatically. :-D

I agree that this gives the allies a lot of flexibility with the final disposition of the their fighters, IF Japan does not take them out.

In the games I have played, whenever the allies squander their fighters the game is over.
The US cannot defeat Japan on its own. If Japan can ignore UK, just whittle down the British IPC territories, it means Japan can concentrate on naval builds.
Once UK loses its fighters, they’re never going to be rebuilt.

3 loaded transports empty themselves into FIC J2.
The Manchuria stack continues to move closer to the front lines.
Japan has nothing to fear from China, as long as Japan doesn’t do anything foolish like attacking inf with just fighters.
btw, Japan will not miss those fighters, if they took out all the UK/ANZAC air.

Whenever US takes TRUK, wouldn’t it be nice to have 4 ANZAC fighters as reinforcements (with their ability to scramble)?

Without those fighters, US has to take 2 extra turns of naval builds to make sure capturing TRUK isn’t suicide.

Losing your fighters in this fashion assures the Japanese victory. It is true Japan has temporarily moved their fleet out of position. And the crushing of UK/China will be delayed.

But strategically, the fact Japan does not have to worry about those fighters is a huge advantage. So what if UK and China take longer to fall? Fall they will. Meanwhile, Japan’s 90-100% Naval builds are easily holding off the Americans.

In fact, Japan may not have to build a factory on the mainland at all, because there is no urgency to destroy UK/China. You have reduced the allies to a one front war.