Each bombing raid is a distinct event. Japan loses no VPs on the UK raid and one VP on the US raid.
Saburo Sakai's AAPacific Essays - #11 - 4 VP J1 Opening
-
“If I am told to fight, I shall run wild for the first six months, but I have utterly no confidence for the second or third year.”
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto to Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe on the prospect of war with America
Implementing and Countering the 4 VP J1 Opening
Japan and the 4 VP Opening
In AAPacific, Japan has two basic paths to victory, the capital capture whether by way of India Crush or Australia Capture or the VP victory. Some aggressive Japanese players who seek a VP victory will try to get a leg up on the game by opening J1 with the objective of capturing sufficient territories and convoy routes to take Japan to 40 IPCs and 4 VPs on the first turn. Not unlike Yamamoto predicted, Japan can run wild at the beginning of the war but it is whether Japan can maintain that through to eventual victory that will determine the ultimate winner. If the 4 VP opening can be achieved Japan has gained a significant, but not insurmountable, advantage on the Allies.
I won’t go into the actual moves that are required to achieve 4 VPs on J1. I will leave that for players to figure out on their own. However, you must capture all of Hongkong, Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, Java, Philippines, Celebes, Dutch New Guinea and all the related convoy routes. In addition you will make one or two limited attacks into China and the obligatory attack to wipe out the US fleet in sz9.
I have seen two versions of the 4 VP opening. The first one, I will call the “4 VP Standard Opening”. I call it Standard because in addition to all the attacks necessary to get to 4 VPs, the 4 VP Standard Opening also sees Japan capture New Britain and Midway. On NCM, the Japanese Carriers in sz20 make the move all the way to sz27 as is typical at the end of almost all J1s.
The second 4 VP opening I will call the “4 VP Modified Opening”. This opening, to the best of my knowledge, was developed by AndrewAAGamer who, as of this writing, is the Fleet Admiral and highest ranking player at Days of Infamy. He also happens to be one of the most creative, thoughtful and friendly AAPacific players around. The “modified” comes from the fact that neither Midway, New Britain, nor sz27 are attacked. At the end of J1 on the 4 VP Modified Opening, Japan cannot consolidate its fleet in sz27. Usually, the ACs are in sz25 and the rest of the major fleet units are spread around sz38, sz43 and sz47.
On balance, there is not a lot to choose between the 4 VP Standard and the 4 VP Modified openings. In my view, in the Standard opening, Japan is a little better positioned to continue to defend against US and UK incursions after J1 than in the Modified Opening because it is able to concentrate its fleet in sz27. However, because there are more attacks to make in the Standard Opening the chance is greater that one of the battles will go bad and Japan fails to achieve the 4 VPs desired.
After a successful 4VP J1, Japan must consolidate its fleet as soon as possible and then hold the middle of the board as it would in any other game. FIC must be stacked and sz28 should be occupied in strength or strongly threatened to prevent an early Allied incursion into the Central Pacific. The extra VP on J1 means that as 24 VP game can play out by round 7 (4-4-4-4-4-3-1 or 4-4-4-4-3-3-2) with the Allies scrambling to regain that “stolen” VP at some point along the way.
The Allied Counter to the 4 VP Opening
Two things will help the Allies successfully overcome the 4 VP opening, luck and aggression.
Unfortunately, the first factor is largely beyond the Allies control. However, do whatever you can. If your opponent declares those J1 opening battles and is going for 4 VPs, pull out the lucky rabbit’s foot and rub it for all its worth. Blow on the dice, pray, look at the dice from between your fingers, revealing each one in turn. Whatever it takes to swing lady luck to your side, do it.
Here’s why. By going for a 4 VP opening, Japan has just made every battle critical. Where there used to be some battles that, if lost, were just inconveniences (see, Essay #10), the 4 VP opening means any loss is a disaster. After all, the difference between a 39 IPC opening and a 32 IPC opening is only 7 IPCs, not even enough to buy a sub. But the difference between a 39 IPC opening and a 40 IPC opening can often mean the difference between a win on J7 and a loss on J8. So, when the J1 dice are rolling, my best advice is get lucky - the luckier the better!
After J1 is done, the Allies have to rely on the second factor - aggressive play. While a 4 VP opening does not automatically mean that Japan will not be able to capture India, it is very unlikely. Indeed, in the 4 VP Modified Opening, the Aircraft Carriers are not positioned to assist a J3 attack on India and likely won’t get there for a J4 attack either. This frees up the Allies to counterattack aggressively with a reduced concern that either India or Australia is at risk.
So, on Allies 1, find the weakest spots and attack. Take back any IPC territory, convoy route or both and kill as many Japanese ships and units as possible. This is not to say that you should take on low odds battles. That is never a good idea. No, it means that where the odds of success are 50% or better - attack. Every island that you take back is an island that Japan must attack again on J2. Every sea zone the you occupy is a sea zone to which Japan must dispatch a fighting unit to retake and which can be picked off by US planes on Allies 2. Every ship that is sunk is one less that will be available to Japan to defend sz38 in the decisive battles later in the game. In short, attack!!
Here’s a note on purchasing as well. As you will likely be playing a VP game, the US does not need to worry so much about buying bombers on US1. A large helping of subs on US1 will be more useful in a VP game. India should still buy land units because they will be needed to dislodge Japan from FIC as soon as possible but Australia can buy subs or a DD and a sub. It does not need to buy the AC that would work to counter an India Crush.
With the 4 VP Modified Opening, there is another opportunity for the Allies to be aggressive. Since the Japanese carriers end up in sz25, they cannot reach sz28 on J2. Further, since the sz27 sub is left alive, it can block any naval units from sz38 from reaching sz28 on J2. As a result if the UK can retake DNG with the units in Papua and a fighter from Queensland on UK1, Japan will not be able to attack Papua on J2. The US and UK can land 6 fighters and 2 Bombers on Papua at the end of Allies 1. On J2, the Japanese fleet will attempt to consolidate in sz33 and the entire Allied fleet can move to sz28 - including the 9 newly build US submarines - and the 6 Allied fighters can be launched into sz28 as CAP. This puts 10 fighters and probably 10 subs, along with 2 ACs, 3 DDs and 6 Transports on the doorstep of Japan’s IPC producing territories. With a 5 bomber buy on US2, the IJN will have no alternative but to retreat and the Allies can begin aggressively retaking territories.
In short, the Allied response to a successful 4 VP opening must be aggressive counterattacks. You have to regain that VP as soon as possible and you must weaken Japan as much as you can before it can consolidate its fleet. If the Allies are slow off the mark, victory for Japan will be assured.
Saburo Sakai
-
Saburo - Thanks for these articles. They’ve inspired me to blow the dust off of my AAP box and have another look at the contents.
-
Saburo - Thanks for these articles. They’ve inspired me to blow the dust off of my AAP box and have another look at the contents.
I’m very happy to hear that. That is why I wrote the articles in the first place.
SS
-
Really well done. I even set up the board so I could get a clearer picture of what you were describing. There were quite a few things I missed in additional rules/nuances during my first (and last) play of this game years ago. I’m looking forward to playing again with a better understanding of the dynamics. Thanks again.
-
SS, you write very well and obviously have a great command of the game. I’m no expert, having played my last game probably 3-4 years ago, but it just seemed like there were severe limitations on the Allies’ strategy in A&AP. For example, if Japan goes KIF, then the U.S. MUST buy bombers on US 1, and so on. The thing I liked about A&A Classic and even more so about A&A Revised is that there is no one single way you “must” play to win. Each player can adopt a strategy that suits him or her best. I just get the feeling if I play A&AP against an experienced player, I would be at a severe disadvantage because it would only take one wrong move on my part and the game would be over by Turn 2. Am I overstating that?
-
Gamer,
There is a certain advantage that accrues to an AAPacific player with experience. But that is the purpose of my essays, to give the novice player a step up on where I was when I started playing the game. You don’t have to learn the India Crush by being crushed 4 or 5 times or learn the Anti-Crush through trial and error. I’ve set them out for you.
The other intent of the essays is to eliminate the mistakes and neutralize the tactics that are game enders. That leaves the players to play a tough, hard fought and close VP game into Round 7 or 8. This is where the game truly becomes great and it is especially so between two equally matched and expert players. In that sense, it is much closer to a true strategic test like chess than it is to A&A Classic which, if not decided by an M84 by US4 usually ends up being decided by who gets cheap tech first.
Once you get into a VP game, the playouts can be very different from game to game. Once again, that’s the beauty of AAPacific.
SS
-
SS, you write very well and obviously have a great command of the game. I’m no expert, having played my last game probably 3-4 years ago, but it just seemed like there were severe limitations on the Allies’ strategy in A&AP. For example, if Japan goes KIF, then the U.S. MUST buy bombers on US 1, and so on. The thing I liked about A&A Classic and even more so about A&A Revised is that there is no one single way you “must” play to win. Each player can adopt a strategy that suits him or her best. I just get the feeling if I play A&AP against an experienced player, I would be at a severe disadvantage because it would only take one wrong move on my part and the game would be over by Turn 2. Am I overstating that?
Yes, it is turn 3! :evil:
(or 4)
Suggested Topics
