Larry's suggested setup changes

@Koningstiger:

@moralecheck:

I wonder if simply requiring Japan to maintain a garrison (of x units or ipc value) in Manchuria, Korea and maybe Japan itself to watch over the the Russians would do the trick (no actual russian units would be required).  Failure of Japan to maintain this garrison would be a NO for China, unless Japan loses those tts.

That’s actually a very good and simple solution! Historically they did keep the Machukwuo army in Manchuria throughout the war to guard against the Russians. Making The Japanese keep x IPCs worth of (land) units in certain territories could indeed make a big difference and solve the balance issues in Pacific40!

Thank you.  :-)  I was thinking that if this prevented any significant attacks against China on turn 1, that might be all the allies need.

i believe the changes are too much. is there a very experienced player that would like to play me via the forum to test if the changes have gone too far?

@Hobbes:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Monroe:

Does the Global set up already account for the changes recommended by Larry?

Well the 18 inf in Global are accounted for by the 2 free inf Russia gets per turn in Global, which will last more than 9 turns.

This that a Global rule?

The 2 free inf for Russia is only in Europe to represent moving infantry from the Eastern territories back to Moscow.  Krieg has said that it will not be in the global game.

Thanks to both. Meanwhile just figured it out from the preview articles.

In that case there should be a similar mechanism for Pacific. I already mentioned adding Russia but a more simpler way would be for the UK to receive 1 inf per turn on India. At least it might make a J3 kill harder.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Hobbes:

Thanks to both. Meanwhile just figured it out from the preview articles.

In that case there should be a similar mechanism for Pacific. I already mentioned adding Russia but a more simpler way would be for the UK to receive 1 inf per turn on India. At least it might make a J3 kill harder.

By J3, that’s only 2 extra inf. is that enough?

Maybe not. I mentioned 1 inf as a starting point. With 2 inf per turn so close to the front lines it just might prove impossible for Japan to kill India, which would create a new problem.

I’m more inclined to try adding Russia and its 18 inf. If Japan goes India on J1 then Russia can mass the 18 inf on Amur and either Japan pulls back some of its airforce or risks a major problem on Manchuria.

I played two AAP1940 games today using Larrys suggestions. A total of five planes were removed from Japan, the extra infantry were give to China, the UK transport was moved to India, the extra sea base was added to ANZAC and the 10 IPC bonus was given to Japan for not declaring war the first two rounds. The fellow playing Japan did not buy any transports or ICs the first or second round. (Very BAD BAD and BAD) He got the NOs the first two rounds and declared war in the third round. I fell back with the Chinese until I got more infantry and artillary by keeping the Burma road open. Then when he was spread thin I counter attacked and took back almost everything. I have never seen so many Chinese in one of these games. This game ended early as Japan was getting creamed. In the second game I took the Japanese side and purchased two transports and four infantry the first round. Took a couple of Chinese territories, positioned my southern navy and got 10 IPC bonus for not declaring war. I did buy a minor IC for the China coast on the second turn. But I had a case of brain fade or senior moment as I attacked a destroyer and a transport with two infantry that was escaping from the Phil. islands. I lost my 10 IPC bonus as I did not intend to declare war until the third round. The Americans were very aggressive and we had two large sea battles and I won both times but lost a lot of units. I kept a good supply of infantry and tanks in China. Got China down to one territory but the UK built up a sizable force as I tried to rebuild my navy. ANZAC had mostly fighters that could not reach me. All my planes were very busy going from here to there in support of my attacks. I felt like I was hanging on by my fingernails. I did not get the east indies as quick as I wanted to but finally did. As we stopped the game I was up to 60 IPCs. but was being out produced by the combined allies. This is a very close game and we plan to resume next tuesday.

Still feel that of all the suggested changes requiring Japan to keep a border garrisson of x (land) units on the Russian border is the easiest solution of all, although it might not be the most exciting one as far as game play is concerned.

However, I do feel it’s one Larry ought to try out and consider. I would say that AT THE END of the Japanese turn all Japanese held border territories with the USSR should contain at least 9 IPCs worth of land units (tanks, infantry, mechanized infantry or artillery). If you leave out this restriction of those units having to be land units, Japan could easily land one plane there all the time to fulfil the requirement. I guess that’s not the idea. Leaving land units there will doubtlessly ease the pressure on China.

There’s quite a few suggestions for balance all around.  My game buddy won’t help me test any of them until AAE40 comes out.  He’s all about the global game.  :-P

Here’s what I’ve seen that I’ve liked so far:
5 extra China infantry.
2 extra American Infantry in the Phillipines.
Move a UK transport to sea zone 39. 
Add a naval base to South Wales.

I don’t like the idea of taking away from the Japanese air force.  The global game has two allied warships off of Africa that can reinforce India.  The USSR pressence alone would seem to discourage the J3 India crush.  The more subtle the changes the better.  I just don’t know if you can balance AAP40 perfectly by itself w/o the Russians.

Yeah, it seems like anything done to balance Pac without Russia will necessarily become unbalanced with the addition of 18 infantry.  I dunno, though.

What about substituting some Chinese infantry for the Russian infantry north of Manchuria?  Or perhaps a NO like “China gains 12 IPCs per turn while Japan controls Manchuria.  Decrease this NO by 2 IPCs for each Japanese unit in Manchuria.”

@Zarnak:

There’s quite a few suggestions for balance all around.  My game buddy won’t help me test any of them until AAE40 comes out.  He’s all about the global game.   :-P

Here’s what I’ve seen that I’ve liked so far:
5 extra China infantry.
2 extra American Infantry in the Phillipines.
Move a UK transport to sea zone 39. 
Add a naval base to South Wales.

I don’t like the idea of taking away from the Japanese air force.  The global game has two allied warships off of Africa that can reinforce India.  The USSR pressence alone would seem to discourage the J3 India crush.  The more subtle the changes the better.  I just don’t know if you can balance AAP40 perfectly by itself w/o the Russians.

I think that Larrys suggestions are probably for AAP1940 as a stand alone game.

@Fishmoto37:

I think that Larrys suggestions are probably for AAP1940 as a stand alone game.

Difficult to see.  Always in motion is the future.  One quick note - US will not get a dedicated 55+ I.P.C.'s a turn.  A 40/40 split between the fronts will be more “likely.”

How would two extra infantry make a J3 India Crush much harder? It seems like it might just kill one more Japanese unit, that’s it.

The India J3 crush means that there aren’t much options for Japan to reach India other than the initial transports and the Japanese air force. This adds up to 12 ground units + boatloads of planes. The UK has 6 starting ground units on the area plus can buy up to 10 infantry. With 4 more units Japan will have to commit even more planes, some will be shot up by the AA. It might just make Japan think twice. Might.

Just saw this, and wanted too comment. I like the extra chinamen, (I always feel that they underrepresent China, who never saw the kind of sweeping domination that Japan deals it these days) like the downgrade to the jap airforce, (who, although they may have been more militarily active before 1940 than germany and may have had more airpower, there is no way they had 3X as many planes as their far superior (although not often shown in these games) German counterpart) and the moving of the transports and the naval base in NSW. But the 10 ipc NO for not being at war is complete Bullshit. Sometimes I just want a completely historical game with no changes to it than compared to the stupid ways people come up with to balance the game. Japan was dying to go to war b/c they were running out of resources. We weren’t freakin paying them to stay peaceful! That is so… i don’t even know. Those other things should probable turn the balance back to pretty even (that and russians). But, heres a thought. If this was actually play tested properly, and people saw the glitch, then maybe they could think to themselves “well, maybe Japan doesn’t need so many planes…” Or maybe they could actually represent China properly on the board! Does anyone here think it odd that in AA50 China starts out with a territory boardering the coast, but that, apparently, Japan owned it (according to this game) 1 year previously? That could certainly shift some more balance, by actually representing the board correctly! Maybe, since the Italian were weak, we should just let them start of with Egypt! Or maybe it’s only fair that the Germans control all of Scandinavia, so why not just give them Sweden!!! Ok. Rant done. Bottom line, the people who come up with game balancing ideas need to have taken a history lesson or two.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@The:

Just saw this, and wanted too comment. I like the extra chinamen, (I always feel that they underrepresent China, who never saw the kind of sweeping domination that Japan deals it these days) like the downgrade to the jap airforce, (who, although they may have been more militarily active before 1940 than germany and may have had more airpower, there is no way they had 3X as many planes as their far superior (although not often shown in these games) German counterpart) and the moving of the transports and the naval base in NSW. But the 10 ipc NO for not being at war is complete Bullshit. Sometimes I just want a completely historical game with no changes to it than compared to the stupid ways people come up with to balance the game. Japan was dying to go to war b/c they were running out of resources. We weren’t freakin paying them to stay peaceful! That is so… i don’t even know. Those other things should probable turn the balance back to pretty even (that and russians). But, heres a thought. If this was actually play tested properly, and people saw the glitch, then maybe they could think to themselves “well, maybe Japan doesn’t need so many planes…” Or maybe they could actually represent China properly on the board! Does anyone here think it odd that in AA50 China starts out with a territory boardering the coast, but that, apparently, Japan owned it (according to this game) 1 year previously? That could certainly shift some more balance, by actually representing the board correctly! Maybe, since the Italian were weak, we should just let them start of with Egypt! Or maybe it’s only fair that the Germans control all of Scandinavia, so why not just give them Sweden!!! Ok. Rant done. Bottom line, the people who come up with game balancing ideas need to have taken a history lesson or two.

The reason they had no resources was because the US stopped them after they took FIC. Japan only gets the NO if they don’t take FIC(or any non Chinese tt).

Ah, well that makes sense then. But im still pissed off by a underrepresented china, a over represented pre-war U.S., Japan owning China places, and too many freakin Jap planes.

Wait, nevermind. I’m pissed again. It wasn’t b/c of FIC that We all embargoed Japan. It was b/c Japan declared war on China right?