IC in india?

@03321:

No 3-IPC Kwangtung territory for an IC, no 3-IPC FIC territory for an IC, a longer distance to Moscow, a buffed China (yes buffed), a China full of 1 IPC territories (no possible Sink complex for Japan), an India that is harder to assault with Burma in the way of FIC.  And by the way, I am pretty sure Russia can move whatever it wants to help defend India.  Where is it you are seeing differently?  The only rule I know of keeping Russians and UK/US troops out of the same territory is the Russian bonus that is void if UK/US troops are in a Russian controlled territory.

China is nerfed to death unless the deploy is seriously changed from gameboardgeek pictures. Japan can utterly toast all chinese units even before they have a chance to move, then China can build one lone little inf. This is China toasted, round 2. Congrats, 7 + 5 from bonus = 12 happy IPCs for Japan. Compare this with Revised Sinkiang IC building tanks and other stuff, and surviving tons of turns (yes, it can be done), and giving a mere 4 ipcs for Japan if they conquer China.

Burma territory. Sure, this is handy, but Japan goes before than UK in this game, so in fact they have the same time to defend. Without chineses supporting them, they will fall round 4 or 5, opposed as Revised, where India could resist the whole game if played correctly. And Burma gives Japan the lost IPCs from FIC and Kwa. You can still build IC at India with Japan and I remember that little tech that improves the IC production.

Japan don’t need Sinkiang IC in this deploy. With 60 ipcs, in a KGF game they will aim for Alaska, then IC at Alaska and a 4-4 chain of trannies to invade America, who would gain as much 40 ipcs. If USA, as should, build Pacific fleet, they lose Revised support from India and China (leaving only Australia, a possible but tricky strat), and even if they, I don’t know how, manage outproduce Godzilla-Japan, USA will suffer logistics because you cannot build USA’s ICs at East Indies or Borneo as in Revised, because now revert to UK control  :-P, Philippines cost only 2 ipcs and it’s too near to Japan and Manchuria, the other choice, revert to useless China.

But that deploy cannot be the true deploy

But that deploy cannot be the true deploy

Functioneta, you keep saying this but I’m pretty sure Krieghund or Squirecam or someone else who knows the set-up would correct you if the BGG pics are wrong. So we have some options:

1. An all-out attack on China isn’t a good strategy for Japan, Burma must be taken and India threatened quickly unless a UK IC building 3 tanks/turn would make things difficult for Japan.
2. Even though China will be beaten back on turn 1, they will revive due to Japan’s other targets needing units sent to it, islands to be invaded, fighters for carriers, etc. National objectives of USA might for example dictate Japanese play on the first turns, in that they must be hindered to stop a monstrous American production.
3. China falling doesn’t have that much effect on the game. India and Hawaii are the essential areas in the Pacific. While this is historically skewed, maybe it could make sense in the game.

@Lynxes:

Functioneta, you keep saying this but I’m pretty sure Krieghund or Squirecam or someone else who knows the set-up would correct you if the BGG pics are wrong.

As I’ve said before (somewhere around here), I can’t comment on the setup.  All I can say is what I’ve been saying - any conjecture on whether or not the game is broken is premature at this point in time.

Krieg has reason, until we know the true deployment, we cannot really know if the game is broken.

But the pictures of Gameboardgeek cannot be the true deploy, because China can be toasted the first turn without possiblility of recover unless soviets invest heavy resources (a option many here don’t like).

Many probably don’t know the basis of Pacific fighting. There are two ways of fighting Pacific for allies in revised: by land (ICs at India, China) and sea (Pacific USA’s fleet) or only by sea (Pacific fleet alone or aided by Australian IC). In revised, both strategies work.

If this setup would be the true, it would mean a broken game, needing heavy bids for China. Why?

1. First option, land + navy attack: You need both China and India alive, or Japan can focus on the lone survivor. Killing China in round 1 is too easy to do. Without China, India will fall even with soviet support. With China and India fallen, Japan can focus on beating the Pacific fleet or at least stopping it until Germany and Italy toast soviets. In Revised, a Japan victorious on land could reach about 40 ipcs. Now, with bonuses and additional income from China and Siberia, that cannot be properly defended by soviets with so distance, they can reach 50 even without Australia and N. Zealand. Enough production for, say, spent 40 ipcs to simply match USA’s income and another 10 to send some token forces agains soviets. Probable result is a draw in Pacific and germans conquering Moscow

2. Second option, only navy: now, you don’t need send many troops to conquer India. With about 7-8 guys there (or even worst, zero if they choose escape to Caucasus), even the initial forces can beat easily India, so japanese navy can increase quicker and even beating USA’s Pacific fleet or conquer Australia or Hawaii. Now he have the same Godzilla-Japan we would have in KGF. In revised, it would mean the same 40 vs 40 ipcs, but here it would mean 50 (or more) vs 40. Allies would only have a chance if UK puts more boats on Australia’s IC, but even then is a draw, not a advantage for allies, because of added Japan income

Thus leaves us with all the people using the same old KGF. But now Japan goes to 60+ IPCs, probably near 70, not the usual 45+, and can attack american mainland, spent money on bombers/techs to strategic bombing Moscow, making a Godzilla tank dash to Moscow or any other wicked trick they can create with so many advantage

I think the developers said they wanted make more fights in Pacific, and with so nerfed China and bad logistics for UK and USA, and so many income for Japan there would be so few options for fighting Pacific or even for allies win the game. So, I think this cannot be the true setup. Add this to the fact the developers don’t want talk about setup. Do you really think they would let someone making a photo of the real setup if they want nobody know it until we have the game?

japans fleet is bigger then usas in reallife (usa had 1 aircraft carrier for over a year)
so really america had luck with them if this was real life axis would win seriously they just buffed up usa and buffed up germany but usa and germany realife would be less buff

Do you really think they would let someone making a photo of the real setup if they want nobody know it until we have the game?

Well, after all they did play a game of AA50 at GENCON, and why would that game be played under other than the actual set-ups and rules? The only change was they didn’t play with NOs at GENCON.

I think Krieghund is alluding to something else in the game that doesn’t support your conclusions, Funcioneta. Take a look at the US NOs. Turn 1 they will probably have 10 IPCs of bonuses. They also will survive with 1 CV+ 1 DD in the Pacific. On turn 2 they could start with a fleet of for example 2 CV, 4 ftr, 2 CA, 1 DD on the West Coast. The Japanese, meanwhile, have just 1 BB, 3 CV, 6 ftr, 1 CA, 1 DD, not counting losses on turn 1. They will probably build transports for their 17 IPCs on turn 1 and their fleet is spread out over the Pacific. The US also has 2 bombers and Japan none. Turn 2 production balance would be something like 42 IPCs for Japan and 48 IPCs for USA, including NOs, and US needn’t supply a land front. (If we take the example of US going for an anti-Japanese strategy and UK focusing on Europe & Africa.)

So, even on turn 2 the US will be almost even in the naval balance if they put their production on the West coast, and in time they will get stronger than Japan. USA is much stronger in AA50 than in AAR, where the Japanese naval advantage seemed forbidding in many games. I suspect the initial advances vs. China and India will be checked once Japan will be forced to put production into naval and air units to not be smashed by the US.

Japan needed there advantage :-(

Lynxes

If you have reason about the Japan/USA IPCs and navy balance, I’ll be glad, because it would mean indeed Pacific fighting. USA would still have logistics issue (not being able to build ICs at Borneo/East Indies as in Revised, and China smashed in Japan 1), but at least we would have a chance of people playing Pacific fleet.

And about the photos, sure, GENCON games surely were played by actual rules and setups, but it doesn’t mean the BGG photos are taken from setup. They could be taken in turn 2 or 3 or even simply someone said: “Larry, put some random forces at your pleasure, we need a photo”. The 2 USA’s bomber stuff is too odd for being true. In 1941 USA was not yet at war.

We will be talking for nothing until we have the game in our hands, I fear.

Again, on the set-up issue, take a look at this thread on BGG:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/342710

You see that Krieghund is admitting that the Chinese fighter is placed in a vulnerable position, and then the discussion goes on to what the draw-backs would for Japan to go all-in vs. China on turn 1 (UK being able to build an India IC and starting production, etc). I have no idea how the game plays in the long-run, in that you’re right Funcioneta, we have to wait for playing the game. My ideas on the Japanese / US balance is from the set-up and possible effects of NOs. But we do have the '41 scenario set-up.

The thing I don’t understand is why Krieg says here that he cannot talk about setup and in BGG confirms the fig at Yunnan.

I’ll play a couple of games, at least one with axis and other with allies, but this setup, I fear, will be changed, modded or bidded for China.

Or simply I can bid zero to axis and go party with Godzilla Japan  :-D

Godzilla japan will be no more if… usa takes more action anyways what is nos im learning new terms and stuff and would really like to know anyways usa comes in the pacific finally

I’ll try make sure the same person don’t let me play Godzilla Japan 2 times. I, playing axis, prefer facing a good allied Pacific strat than a gamey KGF. I’m pretty sure KGF is utterly ended in Anniversary, and if not, I will be happy of playing 60 IPCs Godzilla Japan and conquering America with my powered Pikachu … eer… Japan  :mrgreen:

i will not mind either if america ignores me as japan i will just say meh attack asia and russia say germany 1 fornt now and then germany and japan will have 1 front each not 2

/Funcioneta

If you want an impression of how China holds up vs. a Japanese attack given this set-up, please look at this thread (maps use Abattlemap);

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12531.0

We played an AA50 game almost correctly, we missed sub rules a bit and made some mistakes in Russia with the Allies but as for the Pacific it is an OK game I think for both sides (it’s still ongoing, but we will probably be re-playing soon because of the mistake losing Caucasus early on which looks like it lost Allies the game. This can be prevented by the Soviet player). Notice that China is retreating in an orderly fashion and that a break-through on the land front is most likely to come in India. Next game we will try to protect India from the Japs, but we have no idea of how so far!

I don’t think IND IC is a viable strat.
With Italy making 15-20 ipc and Germany 45-50 , Russia will need some heavy backing in order to survive, I think.

BTW - I just can’t see how IND shall survive , with 8 starting Jap ftrs , and 2 bombardment shots available already on Jap2, it looks tough for an IC to survive…

@Lynxes:

If you want an impression of how China holds up vs. a Japanese attack given this set-up, please look at this thread (maps use Abattlemap);

If you want an impression on how to play Allies properly in AA50 , then DON’T look at that game  :-)

/Perry

After this game, I challenge you to a game where I play the Allies…  :wink:

@Lynxes:

/Funcioneta

If you want an impression of how China holds up vs. a Japanese attack given this set-up, please look at this thread (maps use Abattlemap);

This match is pretty odd, but still …

Why let chinese fighter alive? Why let a lone chinese unit alive in round 1? Even ignoring chineses,Japan got Godzilla status pretty soon, go figure killing China round 1. Ignoring soviet front bad choices, I would say China has no chance in your game. At very least, I would kill Chinese fighter round 1, but seems China, then Asia and Pacific and then allies are doomed with this setup. I guess this is not the true setup or that we shall get heavy bids for China, this setup favors japan heavily.

Just a question … why not a saf IC?

I thikn an ic in australia is klooking happier then india. India would makae more land forces for japan and make them have 1 big front.
Why not add a new front so japan would have south isaldns usa and asia hmmsounds like real world war 2 to me.

The only reason why the axis lost was more and more fronts thats what gb should do austrlia ic!

I have played Australia IC few times in Revised, but has a strange effect in Japanese players. They start doing strange things, aiming all to Australia and losing the focus on other zones. It’s a tricky strat because Australia can fall round 2 if allies don’t take care, but if success, it’s very powerful.