Other than being inexperienced, I can’t say there is anything wrong with your game play. First off, many players have found winning with the Allies to be difficult due to the seemingly easy task a good (or even inexperienced) Japanese player has of gaining the 22 VP’s. There are two things you can do. I have posted a link below to a webpage with the FAQ’s. This will answer many questions you may have on the rules, and will clarify others. Most importantly it has a slightly modified set-up to help balance the game. Avalon Hill admits they may have layed an egg with the VP’s, so make the Jap’s have to gain more than 22, somewhere between 24-28.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axispacific

Secondly,if you wish not to mess with the rules and set-up, I suggest looking under strategies on this website. Under Axis and Allies Pacific you will find nearly a dozen excellent strategies written by Saburo S. Covering both Axis and an Allied strategies.

This is, IMO, the best variant of the Original. It is critical to continue playing it. The more experience you have, the more options you will find yourself finding, and thus the more balance you will find exists in this game.

In my most recent AAP game, I played as the Japanese. We used all standard AAP rules/setups, etc…
On my first turn I captured all of my objectives: Hong Kong, Sumatra, Malaya, Borneo, Celebres, Dutch New Guinea, Phillipines, Java, Solomon Islands, Midway, Shan State, Kiangsi, and Kwangsi.

I attacked Pearl Harbor with three ftrs from the carriers, in addition to two subs. The other three ftrs attacked Hawaii. These two attacks were successful, destroying: 2 battleships, destroyer, transport, 2 inf., ftr, bomber. I lost 1 sub and 1 ftr. I thus decided to keep the carriers off of Midway, returning the five surviving ftrs plus the ftr that had supported the Midway landing (from Marianas). I moved the Battleship from Japan to Midway. This massive fleet now comprised of: 3 full AC, 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, and 1 transport.
I also moved the carrier off FIC to New Britain, joining the battleship there. The third battleship had supported the Java landings.

IMO this is an impregnable force off Midway. The U.S. would be suicidal to attack it, and it is within range of any U.S. fleet come turn two, as well as being within striking distance of the Coral Sea. Its presence will dictate the enemies movements. Are these good locations for my capital ships and Carriers?

And the Allies don’t always win, neither do new players always get crushed…regardless of what has been said

Heres a basic summary of the rules my gaming group uses:
Japan, British Commonwealth, United States, and China all move seperately (US should still play China). The chinese player can use any allied aircraft starting its turn in a space it owns, but must claim the aircraft at the start of its turn. After its turn is over, the aircraft can still be used by the country who owns it. However, china must use the aircraft (on its turn) to support its ground forces. Never can it conduct SBR’s, or attack ships. China plays before the US.

Set up: The set-up is amended to add crusiers: Japan starts with 1 crusier in each of the follwing sea zones: 36, 45, 34, 26, and 25. The British in seazones 50, 43 , and 30. The United States has 1 crusier in seazone 9, and two in seazone 5. They also start with an extra destroyer in seazone 3. Japan doesnt start with the submarine in seazone 20. Add a british destroyer in seazone 54,and remove the british sub in seazone 29. The IC in Chinas capital is removed (China can place its inf. in any terr. its owned since the beggining of its turn) as is the Industrial complex in Hawaii. Japan must also earn 28 victory points to win, or capture BOTH India and Australia to win. Never can Japan win by capturing the Western U.S. All new rules retaining to units in the anniversary edition are also used, with the exception that cruisers can move three spaces. Also, a enemy unit must be present in a convoy route to disrupt the ipc flow (panama convoy, alaskan convoy, etc….).

I can’t disagree with capturing Midway over Wake, or Solomons over Gilbert. It all depends on what Japans strategy is. If Japan fails to capture Midway, than moving the CV’s to seazone 25 is a viable option, however. I think that if Japan captures Midway the CV’S should remain in season 20. The battleship from Japan should be moved to seazone 20. This force will decimate any U.S. air attacking force on turn 1, and leave open more options for this fleet to destroy the U.S. navy on turn 2.

Playing with the new rules advises the Japanese to eliminate all potential allied air bases (Guam, Wake) behind the front. If not accomplished, the Americans can terrorize Japanese transports, or even bomb Japan if the Chinese capture Shangtung or Manchuria.

Japan can take the following turn 1 with relative assurance and ease (for ipc value): Malaya(4), Java(4), Sumatra(3), Borneo(3), Phillipines(3), Hong Kong(2), Celebres(1), and Dutch New Guinea(1). Total ipc gain: 21 ipc’s; for a total of 40. For strategical purposes, the following: New Britain,Wake, Guam, Gilbert Islands,and (if possible, not crucial): Kiangsu, Kwangsi, Shan State, Anhwe, or Solomon Islands.

After raiding Pearl Harbour, return the carriers to the Marianas. Move the other carrier to join the Battle ship off of Java. Move the battleship from Japan to the Caroline Islands. The other battleship should already be off of New Britain.

I will be posting a detailed Strategy for all three(four) countries under ‘strategies’ soon.

Bear in my mind that I am playing Pacific with added cruisers from AARe, and with the amended prices, defense/attack values, as well as the new sub and transport rules.

Poor Review

@italiansarecoming:

ahh like my bnet game i get the subs just to make my oppenent to buy destroyers
(when im naval japan i get subs for like 1340gold anyways and i make 2 so my oppenent makes like 3 destroyers that i pick off with plaens at the earily yeard 1941-1942 after that i lose unless asia is taken (india is a choke piont)

Dude, take your time when you type. Relax…It helps when we can read and understand what you are trying to say.

@Bluestroke:

, the Russians, can you imagine being told to charge across a battlefield without a weapon and told to pick one up from your dead comrade, ouch.

It was more likely that Russian soldiers were sent into battle ill-equipped in WW1. Rare was it when Russian soldiers were sent to fight weapon-less in WW2. In fact, it almost never occured. I hope you aren’t getting your history from movies such as ’ Enemy at the Gates '…

Is anybody familiar with the game ‘Case Blue’ or any other games that use the Operational Combat System for game play?