First impressions

[Krieghund]

Most rules errata are not rules “bandaids”, but simply mistakes that were made in the production of the rulebook.  A missing word or sentence can make a big difference in the interpretation of a rule.  Personally, I would rather play a game the way the designer(s) intended it, rather than based on an error in the rulebook.

I’ll warn you in advance, this one does have a few errors.   :oops:

[idk_iam_swiss]

such as?

[Razor]

I dont care as long as the global game is gonna be balanced and perfect.

[Viracocha]

@Krieghund:

Most rules errata are not rules “bandaids”, but simply mistakes that were made in the production of the rulebook.  A missing word or sentence can make a big difference in the interpretation of a rule.  Personally, I would rather play a game the way the designer(s) intended it, rather than based on an error in the rulebook.

I’ll warn you in advance, this one does have a few errors.   :oops:

I did not directly refer to erratas as “bandaids,” you did.  To reiterate, I personally don’t like it when bids and “add-on rules” are needed to balance a game.  An “erratum” or errata, is a list of errors or corrections in regard to a body of text.  These are prone to happen (though too many makes me think that the company needs to hire competent or more editors).  But introducing new rules in order to balance a game… well, that shows flaws in the game mechanic itself - which to me is a much more serious issue, and one that shows poor workmanship.  Typos or bad sentence structure - eh, no big deal.

[Lucifer]

There are several reasons why the A&A games are not balanced like chess. But the designers and playtesters could come pretty close if they choose to use veteran A&A players using a software utility, (i.e. TripleA), or something more “advanced”. This is much more effective than 5-6 players playing the boardgame version regardless if the players are experienced or not.
You can play 5 games at the time it takes a playgroup to finish a single game.
There is also differences between 1vs1 games and multiplayer games. 1vs1 games are much more effective in regards to the different tactics and strategies players choose throughout a game.

[bennyboyg]

@Driel310:

One thing I would like to add:

Of course Japan has the option not to attack UK/Anzac and USA the first 3 turns, but I really don’t see why you wouldn’t. You can kill off the planes on Philippines and the UK BB at Malaya on J1. Very juicy targets. Of course, you get into war straight away, but leaving those targets alive and then moving them to safe spots will get you intro trouble later on IMHO.

Also UK will impose a big threat on Southern Asia if you keep those trannies at Malaya alive on J1 and I think UK will attack Japan before Japan does so herself.

But as John said, time will tell. Maybe in a few weeks it proves better to leave the allies alone until J4, you never know.  :-D

Keep in mind: Not attacking as Japan for 3 turns mean allies get 120 less IPCs. You could spend those three turns better positioning yourself to wreak even more havoc on your first assault, and if UK does attack you before hand then all the better. Mind you if US started off with 50 IPCs instead of 10 when it’s at peace there’d be little reason to wait.

[shohoku201]

@JohnBarbarossa:

One other thing. There was some talk (by Larry?) that the USA had a motive to keep a large fleet based at Hawaii (so Pearl would be re-lived again). Our US player thought differently and kept the fleet safely at the west coast to build it up first. But when we finised our test game we saw that there was a route from Japan to Hawaii of only 3 spaces (with a naval base). This means that Hawaii is constant at risk and this is probably the reason why you have to base a fleet there (or at least make it a deadzone for Japan).

I don’t like the idea of Hawaii within a single move (with a naval base) from Japan and vice versa.

[ksmckay]

Since US goes to war at beginning of collect income phase turn 3 then there will only be two turns when US can make the 10 rather than the 50, not 3.  So Japan might as well attack whomever on J3.

[bennyboyg]

@ksmckay:

Since US goes to war at beginning of collect income phase turn 3 then there will only be two turns when US can make the 10 rather than the 50, not 3.  So Japan might as well attack whomever on J3.

Oh yeah, still. 80 IPCs is nothing to scoff at.

[Kilukru]

Anyone got the total starting IPC for Japan and combined allies?

I’m trying to figure out the starting situation of the game and cannot wait for my copy to arrive.

From what I’ve seen and heard so far, Japan can choose to do a fast or slow game by choosing when to start the US machine.

[djensen]

@JohnBarbarossa:

We got the game yesterday. We did not have time to schedule in a full game but we played a short game of 2 rounds.

Only playing 2 rounds you only see the massive potential power of Japan. You fail to see the downside, which is getting spread too thin too fast. You just cannot cover the entire Pacific and Asia with your supply lines. Something will be missed and it gives the USA the chance to move in and dominate.

In my game, I probably didn’t attack fast enough but I still was stretched thin. There’s just not enough boats to keep all of your transports safe. But to rapidly expand to get the National Obective bonuses, you need to use all of those transports.

In my opinion, I think it is a false to say the game is unbalanced after 2 rounds of play.

[djensen]

I don’t like the idea of attacking Hawaii only to have my Japanese navy destroyed the next turn.

@shohoku201:

@JohnBarbarossa:

One other thing. There was some talk (by Larry?) that the USA had a motive to keep a large fleet based at Hawaii (so Pearl would be re-lived again). Our US player thought differently and kept the fleet safely at the west coast to build it up first. But when we finised our test game we saw that there was a route from Japan to Hawaii of only 3 spaces (with a naval base). This means that Hawaii is constant at risk and this is probably the reason why you have to base a fleet there (or at least make it a deadzone for Japan).

I don’t like the idea of Hawaii within a single move (with a naval base) from Japan and vice versa.

[bennyboyg]

I’m thinking as Japan an invasion of New Zealand could be a viable option. Stationing a fleet at the sea around New Guinea in the first two turns then invading on the third. Gives you a free Minor IC right off Australia and provides a good distraction to US.

[rmorel]

Ive only played the game once, as the Allies, so I dont have the Japanese perspective yet, but I must agree with DJensen’s post.    Japan was spread way too thin, and even though they looked after rounds 3-5 like a win was inevitable, the game started slowly tu torn after that and the Allies eventually won in the 9th round.

The American Juggernaught is just ridiculous once they have a supply line established, and Japan has to get just enough cities that it makes it hard for them to get that last one.  India is not a piece of cake, and Austrailia is fairly close to the US that once they are in the war they can easily fortify.  It seems like Japan is always one city short of victory, and they just dont have the resources to get it.

I’d be very curious if i could win the game with Japan.

[djensen]

Roland, it was the 11th round where I gave up. But the outcome was really obvious by round 9 or 10.

[bennyboyg]

@rmorel:

Ive only played the game once, as the Allies, so I dont have the Japanese perspective yet, but I must agree with DJensen’s post.    Japan was spread way too thin, and even though they looked after rounds 3-5 like a win was inevitable, the game started slowly tu torn after that and the Allies eventually won in the 9th round.

The American Juggernaught is just ridiculous once they have a supply line established, and Japan has to get just enough cities that it makes it hard for them to get that last one.   India is not a piece of cake, and Austrailia is fairly close to the US that once they are in the war they can easily fortify.   It seems like Japan is always one city short of victory, and they just dont have the resources to get it.

I’d be very curious if i could win the game with Japan.

Yeah I had the same problem with original Pacific. I never played a game where Japan won.

[JohnBarbarossa]

@djensen:

@JohnBarbarossa:

We got the game yesterday. We did not have time to schedule in a full game but we played a short game of 2 rounds.

Only playing 2 rounds you only see the massive potential power of Japan. You fail to see the downside, which is getting spread too thin too fast. You just cannot cover the entire Pacific and Asia with your supply lines. Something will be missed and it gives the USA the chance to move in and dominate.

In my game, I probably didn’t attack fast enough but I still was stretched thin. There’s just not enough boats to keep all of your transports safe. But to rapidly expand to get the National Obective bonuses, you need to use all of those transports.

In my opinion, I think it is a false to say the game is unbalanced after 2 rounds of play.

Mind I did not say the game is unbalanced. Noone can come to that conclusion after 2 rounds. I just find it hard to see how allies can win at this point. And of course we need more playhours under the belt but I also wanted to give the people who were waiting for their copies some information.

@bennyboyg:

@rmorel:

Ive only played the game once, as the Allies, so I dont have the Japanese perspective yet, but I must agree with DJensen’s post.    Japan was spread way too thin, and even though they looked after rounds 3-5 like a win was inevitable, the game started slowly tu torn after that and the Allies eventually won in the 9th round.

The American Juggernaught is just ridiculous once they have a supply line established, and Japan has to get just enough cities that it makes it hard for them to get that last one.  India is not a piece of cake, and Austrailia is fairly close to the US that once they are in the war they can easily fortify.  It seems like Japan is always one city short of victory, and they just dont have the resources to get it.

I’d be very curious if i could win the game with Japan.

Yeah I had the same problem with original Pacific. I never played a game where Japan won.

You are all talking about spreading out but I was talking about a concentrated attack. First take out India and then Australia (and MAYBE both at the same time).  How can India not be a cakewalk when Japan throws everything they have at it?
Has this been tested by the playtesters btw? The former India crush tactic from AAP.
I admit Australia could be a serious problem (due to its relative proximity to the USA) when you go after India first.

[tloger]

It seems from the hi res photos that the quality of the pieces are better compared to AA50.  They seem like the quality from AAE, AAP, AAR and such.  Would that be a fair assumption?

[Canuck12]

@JohnBarbarossa:

You are all talking about spreading out but I was talking about a concentrated attack. First take out India and then Australia (and MAYBE both at the same time).  How can India not be a cakewalk when Japan throws everything they have at it?
Has this been tested by the playtesters btw? The former India crush tactic from AAP.
I admit Australia could be a serious problem (due to its relative proximity to the USA) when you go after India first.

I recommend you hold your projections at the VERY least until you have played a whole game, and would probably reserve my own judgment until I had played at least a couple games as EACH side.

Furthermore, the reason it’s very difficult for Japan to win once its forces are spread across Asia and no matter how big it’s economy becomes, is because it was very difficult for Japan to win once its forces were spread all across Asia… no matter how big its economy was. This is a reality of war. It’s  why the success rate of empires is, as of yet, Zero. Because vast territory is very difficult to supply and easily susceptible to attack.

I like that about the game: the fact that you can never take victory for granted. And I think it represents a big improvement on the old “race for Moscow” games that we always see in the global games. The dynamics of the 1940 global game remain to be seen…

All that being said, I will still reserve judgment until I have played a few…

[Krieghund]

@RogertheShrubber:

It seems from the hi res photos that the quality of the pieces are better compared to AA50.  They seem like the quality from AAE, AAP, AAR and such.  Would that be a fair assumption?

Yes, they are of the same quality as AA42.