Larry's suggested setup changes

The game by it’s nature is difficult to balance.  The allies historically didn’t know that Japan was going to attack.  Here it’s only a question of which turn.  The allies begin to aggressively position their forces for an onslaught they know is coming if Japan does not attack turn one.  J1 attack is the only one that catches the allies with their pants down.

I added the other suggested changes to a global game - 5 extra chinese infantry and a naval base in South Wales - that’s it.  In the global, Germany and Italy are better off if Japan does NOT attack the first turn.  I chose to attack the 2nd turn.  It turned into an incredibly desparate struggle that I might pull off only because the US player can’t seem to stick to any one battle plan.

The plus to this setup is that with three less planes and minus an infantry in Malaya it will be more difficult for the UK/ANZAC player to fortify the DEI if Japan does not attack the first turn.  It will also take the US longer to get into the fray with the loss of four aircraft.

The four extra Chinamen and the loss of seven aircraft make me wince though.  :-o

If you have comments or playtest results to report, it would be most helpful if you would please post them in the original thread on Larry’s site.

these aren’t tweaks

this is a whole new game… call it axis and allies pacific 1939 december or something

it looks like he is taking a sledgehammer to the balance instead of a scalpel

not that that is bad or anything, just that i’d prefer small tweaks to completely re-doing the unit placement

@Krieghund:

If you have comments or playtest results to report, it would be most helpful if you would please post them in the original thread on Larry’s site.

Bleh, Krieg I just spent $70.00 on the game (as of today haha), I’d like to hear how this works out. I’ve visited Larrys site one time (and saw 100 different sub-topics to go to, I perfer this site). Please let people feel free to post their opinions and ideas on this thread so others like myself who use this as their primary site don’t feel it necessary to go through the hassle of finding and navigating to another site to get the same exact answers. Or if the same topics have been brought up, simply delete or sticky one thread to keep it simple (I do see 2 of the same topic on these threads).

By the way, Larrys thread is SEVENTY THREE pages long. Not sure about you but I’d rather get to the point in this 5 page thread.

I just checked out the changes to the AAP40 setup and I have to say they make more sense to me.
1> I’ve always wondered why NSW didn’t have a naval base.
2> 3 fighters on New Zealand just didn’t seem right to me.
3> The US always seemed a little too heavily equipped compared to how things really were in Spring 1940.
4> While I know that Japan did build a very strong war machine, it seemed dispropotionately plane heavy in the original setup.
5> I’ve always thought that China was too weak.  Sure they were struggling with Japan and rather backwards in equipment, but they had a lot of men.

As for the rest of the changes, I’m sure they make better sense too.  I look forward to trying these out in my next AAP40 game or Global 40 game since I guess they work for both.
Any word on if the special NO for Japan is a part of this new setup?  How about the garrison of Manchuria?  I haven’t seen how many units Japan is expected to keep there.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Here are the latest changes:

.AAM  what format is that? Where can I go to download the proper software needed to view it?

It doesn’t seem fair … Japan can afford lose 7 figs easily, but allies cannot. Japan should have more figs deleted or at least add the aa gun for China

We played last night with Larry Harris’s latest setup that removes planes from both sides and makes some other changes in the setup. My conclusion is that Japan still has too many planes (I played Japan). It was just too easy to run over everything.

First turn Japan moved its 2 transports south towards India and built a naval base in Kwangsi that was however not needed as access to India was blocked by allied ships. Most of the aircraft was based in Kwangsi as well.

Second turn Japan attacked various targets (mostly ships) all around Pacific. An airbase was built in Kwangsi to extend the range of Japanese planes based there. US took Carolines for the price of a transport.

Third turn India was almost completely blockaded. Major factory was built in Malay. Forgot to defend the factory however, so British took it, and again on the next turn.

The US however lost its fleet on turn 4 (to Japanese air force and some ships) when it moved it opportunistically to the Carolines on turn 3. That sealed the victory for the Japanese as US was basically out of the game (as were ANZAC and the British from the start) so Japan kept taking everything but the victory cities and went to 72 IPC. US was still at 55 and really had no chance against huge amount of ships and planes that Japan still had.

But even without the move to Carolines, I don’t see how US could have stopped Japan. Well, next game I’ll have to play the allies, hopefully I’ll figure something out then ;)

Welcome, ikaros!

Thanks for helping with this effort!  If you would, please post your results and observations in the playtesting thread on Larry’s site so that he can review them and take them into account.  You may also wish to review other people’s ideas and suggestions there and comment on them.

Has anybody played it where Japan just attacks on J3 and not changed anything?  What happens in these games?

By all accounts, J2 and J3 attacks are balanced with the FAQ setup.

@Krieghund:

By all accounts, J2 and J3 attacks are balanced with the FAQ setup.

Thats good to hear Krieghund. Would that still apply for Global as well or would the new test setup by Larry be needed for Global if Japan waited until J2 or J3?

Global seems balanced with the FAQ setup at this time.

Krieg,

Is there anywhere that revised setups are listed concisely? I have looked through these threads but not found what I am searching for.

I was under the impression that there was an Official revision which included some altering of Naval Bases and ICs in NZ/Australia… Is this accurate? If so can you please list them here when you have the time.

I am not talking about the proposed “revised setups” which seem to be incorporating widespread changes… just the Australia NZ one, and if there was anything that went with that.

Thanks.

@Krieghund:

Global seems balanced with the FAQ setup at this time.

The FAQ set up you are referring to is the one for AAP40, correct?

@LHoffman:

I was under the impression that there was an Official revision which included some altering of Naval Bases and ICs in NZ/Australia… Is this accurate? If so can you please list them here when you have the time.

Add an airbase and a naval base to the Philippines, remove the minor industrial complex from New Zealand, and replace the major industrial complex in New South Wales with a minor one.

@skinny1:

The FAQ set up you are referring to is the one for AAP40, correct?

Yes.