Has anyone tried a J1 invasion of Alaska?

Thank you for the clarification. :)

@Fatespinner:

I find it quite difficult to keep China from being killed. How would you suggest doing it?

It’s pretty much impossible to keep China alive if Japan focuses on them.  It’s more about prolonging death and being annoying than not dying.

I don’t see how Japan could ever loose unless the dice are god aweful. With Russia not there as a threat and US making significantly less money in the pacific. How does Japan loose, even with the new Alpha 3 setup?

@calvinhobbesliker:

The rationelle is that the defenders of Mongolia don’t defend the country, but their own territory only

Mongolia was a full contry, not a bunch of isolated hordes. Still, any army will attack a declared enemy if has the chance and it gives advantage, no wonder if they enemy is beyond your frontiers

@calvinhobbesliker:

In how many games can China attack a territory it can’t right now?

See the map attached. I had more games where Japan taken advantage of this rule, even in AAP40

@calvinhobbesliker:

Since it is a VOLUNTEER unit, it is controlled by China; otherwise the US would be at war with Japan

The FTs can be China controled but they are still USA’s citizens. You can bet your pants that the real FTs would bomb lone trannies and escape to home if needed in the real war, Chinese civil war or not

@calvinhobbesliker:

No, they destroy IC’s since they can never use them

Well, they should use ICs, even if purchases are limited to inf and art. The current dinamic leads to some wacky situations. Anyway, there is not real world reason why China can destroy ICs and, say, soviets cannot do the same as a scorched land strat. Or all, or nobody

@calvinhobbesliker:

Greece and Spain were industrialized nations

More reasons to ban the ACME wall from neutral powers  :wink:

@calvinhobbesliker:

In history, did any Chinese forces attack the Japanese anywhere outside China besides Burma?

In history, wich army in any epoch would not attack a enemy power for the only reason that the enemy units are outside their frontiers? In real war, China attacked Burma because they had a reason and because they had the chance, and you can guess that they would do the same if Korea or FIC were in the same situation. Why limit chinese options then (that should not be done any case) and at the same time refuse to do a non-agression treaty jap-USSR? The chinese civil war is already represented by the fact that the chinese army is smaller than the real combined armies of KMT, CCP and warlords (China should have more units in game, but is OK that they have a smaller army because half of them are fighting the civil war. I don’t have complaints about the chinese army size in AAP40, maybe about the size of the japanese army, but that’s another matter)

ACME_wall.AAM

@Lozza007:

Hey chaps,

I’ve been looking over these threads for a while now and am keen to work on my Allied strategy.  Also used to play a bit through www.days-of-infamy.org with AAP a few years ago.

So what’s the update on Japan taking Hawaii in the first couple of turns and then working its way south towards NSW on J4?  Has this been discredited at all, with blocking ships perhaps?

Similarly, what are the thoughts on staying alive as UK in India/China?

I’ve only played the game once as I don’t own it yet, but I was rather shocked to see how much firepower Japan can bring to bear on J1.  The J1 attack certainly seems optimal given the IPC/Allied unit/Japan income tradeoffs.  The only plan that seems to get the US into the war quickly and effectively seems to be a northern route, out of Midway or Hawaii and attacking Japan’s new builds and maybe Korea.

I’ve modelled some naval combat a bit and found that the US player only has any hope of victory in the first few rounds if it can nibble off bits of the Japanese fleet.  Fighting battles with extra Japanese air power (i.e. more than the 6 air units from the Carriers) results in disaster, and any battle that sees the US lose the core of its fleet (Carriers, Battleship etc) is a win for Japan - just like in original AAP.  By the time you rebuild and get in position again, Japan has matched you $ for $ and it’s a stalemate.

A couple of questions too (since I don’t have a copy of the rules):

can you build ports and air bases on newly captured territory? (ref: Japanese port in Midway) can you build Industrial Complexes on newly captured territory? (ref: US Factory in Korea).

The latter is important as I can’t understand how a US Factory in Korea would survive if it was built 1 turn after Korea was captured - Japan would surely have units nearby to retake it, or just bomb it to uselessness?

Cheers!

Lozza007

On J1, Hawaii can be hit with 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, if 1 tac is scrambled to prevent bombardment. The defense is 1 bmr, 2 inf, 1 ftr. Both have an attack total of 9, so let’s say both get 2 hits. Then it’s 1 inf, 1 art, 1 tank vs 1 inf, 1 ftr. Each get 1 hit, so it’ll be art, tank vs ftr. Thus Japan can take Hawaii with 1 tank. However, since it used all 3 transports, it can’t take the philippines or any DEI. Thus, the US gets 61 ipcs, and unless Japan moves most of their fleet to that sea zone, the transports will die. After US1, hawaii is defended with the entire fleet in the sea zone, 3 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr, and 1 tac, while most of the Jap fleet is in the Phil SZ, unable to reach Hawaii.

China and UK will die if Japan plays properly. The key is to delay them long enough that the US and ANZAC gain naval and air supremecy in the Pacific. After India falls, Japan collects 78 ipc’s, to US’s 55 and ANZAC’s 15. However, since the US and ANZAC should have naval superiority by now, they can easily attack the DEI, PI, or perhaps Mal or Kwangtung, since they can take control of it and build a major factory. In order to achieve naval supremecy, the US should take Iwo, allowing them to hit SZ6 from WUS with bombers. This will probably catch your opponent by surprise.

The southern route also works to grab the money islands, which forces the Jap navy to block, allowing you to destroy them piecemeal.

For your questions: Both are no.

makes me wonder how much the game was actually “playtested” honestly.  The errata is going to be bigger than the rulebook.

Maher C.

I think that they should re-issue a second edition and provide it to those who bought this shabbily tested game (don’t get me wrong, I like it and it has potential).  The should as least give those that purchased the disaster version with some sort of coupon or rebate.  Yeah right, like that’s ever gonna happen.

Sure, my opponents did in our first game: I was the Japan.

I attacked the US navy at Hawaii with my huge Imperial Navy: obviously I destroyed all while they don’t scrambled any fighter nor tactical bomber. At his turn, the US player counter-attacked my ships, destroying all them… We closed the game and immediately started a second one: there’s no fun in playing Pacific without ships! :D

The second link you sent seems to apply- thanks for clearing this up.  I was rereading the parts in the rule book and it is very unclear and contradicting when talking about the “scrambling” and the “amphibs”

So then even a combat move with no sea combat that results in a amphib is still grounds for scrambling.  I’ll tell Kreighund to clear this up in the FAQs because it is worded very badly.

thanks
:-)