So how do the Allies win again?

[Uncle_Joe]

Something just occured to me while writing the thread on US options. It really wouldnt surprise me AT ALL if the Japanese DO have a tremendous advantage in the game at the moment. After all, I believe this one was designed from the ground up to be mated with the Europe version due this summer. When that happens Japan will have more ‘responsibilities’ than she has now.

For example, the Japanese can COMPLETELY abandon her backfield borders with Russia giving her a lot more disposable ground forces in Asia. Similarly, once the Brits are down, they are OUT completely in the stand-alone. There is ZERO threat of Brit harassment from Africa which always existed in AA50. Finally, Japan is under no pressure to hit the Russians from behind (a prime goal of the Japanese in AA50).

Taken together, I’m going to guess that Japan has a lot easier time in stand-alone than she would have in the global game. Unless the global game changes the set up for the Pacific I dont see how it’s possible for this NOT to be the case. I guess time will tell on that but I would wager that the idea was to accept less than optimal balance in the individual games in exchange for a better balanced global game…

[Funcioneta]

I have done the preliminar maths

While AA50 economic system makes axis get economic advantage  from round 2-3 (due sparring China and no chance of holding India if Japan plays right), resulting into a default massive advantage to axis, this is not the case for AAP40

If Japan conquers all China and India plus all Dutch East Indies saving N.Guinea, the economics are 78 for Japan and 70 for allies. So if at least one of China and India can hold enough to make USA and Australia come into the rescue, the game at that point could be balanced: if Japan goes quick, they won and if not, they lost. Any case, I doubt Japan can smash both India and China before those 6 rounds you say with easy

So the economic system is indeed way more balanced than the one in AA50. The question is if the setup is well balanced for this task. Again, AA50 setup failed miserabily doing this, and that’s a thing that can be seen at first sight (specially in 1941 scenario, seeing how poor are China, India and Atlantic allied fleets). For AAP40, there are so many units spread for all the board that is difficult seeing it at first sight. So I’ll give benefit of doubt to this setup for Pacific game

Undediced yet, waiting playing some games to say if this is balanced. At least is a better situation than in AA50  :-)

[Funcioneta]

I guess a trick will be moving USA fighters to Australia and later to India to help gurkas survive a bit more (probably abbusing of ACs). This move was pretty good both in Revised and AA50, 42 scenario. I guess the same will apply here

[Uncle_Joe]

If Japan conquers all China and India plus all Dutch East Indies saving N.Guinea, the economics are 78 for Japan and 70 for allies. So if at least one of China and India can hold enough to make USA and Australia come into the rescue, the game at that point could be balanced: if Japan goes quick, they won and if not, they lost. Any case, I doubt Japan can smash both India and China before those 6 rounds you say with easy

Japan has a few other things going for her:

1. MASSIVE advantage in IPCs in starting forces. Japan has aircraft to burn - many many to burn, in fact. And in naval forces, Japan also starts with a sizable advantage. The spare aircraft means that Japan can freely hold onto Truk and Japan with little to no naval forces. And if naval forces ARE necessary, Japan needs to spend merely 16 IPCs for a ‘fully loaded’ CV while the US has to spend 37 (Japan has more than enough planes floating around to arm 3-4 CVs with little problem).

2. Coordination. All of Japan’s combat power moves at once. She can attack with 100% of her strength in one phase. The Allies, even if they reach naval/air parity cannot use it offensively as easily because it’s going to be split between 3 turns.

3. Interior lines. Japan is centrally located. With the new Naval/Air base in PI, Japan can centralize her strength and deal with any incursions with the vast bulk of her fleet/air arm. The Allies are scattered into 2-3 different power bases. This dramatically weakens there ability to close in with the Japanese as they can be crushed piecemeal.

4. Economic security. Japan’s econ is based as far away from the primary threat of the US as possible. It’s a minimum of 3 turns for anything based in the US (ie, that the US is buying) to reach anything that Japan truly cares about. Holding the Central/Eastern Pacific islands is no longer necessary for Japan. In AA50, Japan got a bonus and the US lost a bonus if the Japanese fought there. Not so anymore. The Japanese DO get a bonus for the Coral Sea, but it’s small beans on this scale. And if they allow it go to the Allies, it goes to the Anzacs, not the US, meaning that’s not a problem to let the Allies have it. The Anzacs make so little money that they will rarely be a major threat.

I dont have the time to do it at the moment, but I would wager that a quick ‘realistic’ econ count of starting units puts Japan SO far ahead that the Allies would need 6+ turns of max production to begin to equal it. That means that Japan has a LOT of free time before she has to start worrying about economic parity at all. It certainly doesnt help the Allies to engage in penny-packets and lose more than they kill (which tends to happen in massed naval battles since the expensive stuff dies last).

I guess a trick will be moving USA fighters to Australia and later to India to help gurkas survive a bit more (probably abbusing of ACs). This move was pretty good both in Revised and AA50, 42 scenario. I guess the same will apply here

So far, our games have ended without the Japanese needing to take Australia. Sure if we wanted to play for 4+ more hours to achieve the ‘book’ win it would have to happen but the games were decided before Japan ever had to set foot on Australia. Once Japan has near economic parity with the US and a clear backfield, the game is over. Everything else is just mop up or hoping for ridiculous luck to turn the tide.

Undediced yet, waiting playing some games to say if this is balanced. At least is a better situation than in AA50

We thought that AA50 was fairly well balanced. The better players tended to win regardless of which side they played. Was it perfect? Maybe not, but none of us ever felt like we won or lost based solely on which side we were playing.

So far in AAP40, the Allied players have been left scratching their heads thinking “Gee, I dont really see what more we could have done except rolled better” and that is not exactly satisfying. I personally think that if the Japanese player is methodical and doesnt take risks that they will win the vast majority of the time barring horrible luck (and I’m not even convinced of that due one of our games WITH horrible Japanese luck still being a win for the Japanese).

[Vareel]

Look at the Amap module (slightly wrong but a good start) TUVs are:

JPN: 464 land / 177 naval
US: 180 land / 91 naval
China: 46 land
UK: 136 land / 54 naval
An: 59 land / 21 naval

Allies total TUV: 421 land / 166 naval

Income: 26 to 55

I don’t know, doesn’t look all that one sided to me.  Perhaps if someone would show me a game online I could gain a, clearer understanding.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yeah, that’s EXTREMELY one-sided considering all of the advantages Japan enjoys in coordination and position. On top of that, many of Allied assets are going to be killed quickly to little cost for Japan. Finally, the econ, while 2 to 1 at start will not stay that way for long. The Allies will outproduce Japan for a while, but the margin becomes slimmer and slimmer with which to counter that initial advantage.

A quick example would be the UK forces. There is no way to ‘save’ the UK navy if the Japanese want to kill it. That means that the UK will be out 54 IPC worth of ships at a likely cost of under 20 for Japan (losing subs, DDs, or Fighters and less if they take hits on the BBs).  Once that happens, the UK econ becomes virtually non-existent as Japan can quickly secure the DEI and then leave a few subs to blockade the bulk of the rest. Unless the US can mount a credible threat in that region (which I dont see how), Japan WILL kill the Brits as a combat-effective force within the first 4-5 turns with minimal losses. And a 2 to 1 loss ratio for the Allies is not acceptable when they already are trying to play catch-up.

[Vareel]

There is nothing in range other than bombers of the UK fleet turn 1.  After turn 1 UK could have purchased a carrier, an AB on ceylon, or many other things to keep her boats alive.  And no matter what the econ spread becomes even larger after turn 1.  Japan can get at most around 7 extra without declaring war.  China gets 6 from burma road, UK can gain 8, plus 5 from her NO, or get ANZAC there NO for an additional 5 there, plus the US gets 5 for her NO.  If she does declare war US income goes up by 40, compared to an extra 5 or so Japan gets.  Japan cannot gain eco advantage until turn 3 at the latest, more than likely turn 4 or 5.

And the US can load 2 more carriers with starting plans if desired.

[Uncle_Joe]

There is nothing in range other than bombers of the UK fleet turn 1.  After turn 1 UK could have purchased a carrier, an AB on ceylon, or many other things to keep her boats alive.  And no matter what the econ spread becomes even larger after turn 1.

Yeah, we thought the same thing. The UK even bought TWO carriers over 2 turns and had 4 planes, an additional DD and 2 subs. In the end, it cost the Japanese a bit more, but the UK was finished and China was doomed too (since a lot UK money was going to the sea, not the land). Japan was able to bring 4 CVs, 2 BBs, 2 CAs, 3 DDs, 2 SSs and some LBA to the party. The UK rolled well and Japan was really hurt, but still nothing compared to the Brit losses (which were total) and then from there the UK ceased to be a factor. Japan can afford a trade like to for a knock-out blow to the Brits.

Where was the US you might ask? Well, Japan still had a few other CVs and a LOT of LBA to deal with the US forces (which were largely pinned outside of the Carolines). The Allies thought they had an opening when the Japanese fleet was so far West and so damaged, but in the end the US simply couldnt dent the Japanese money without risking annihilation.

Was is perfect play from the Allies? No, not hardly but it certainly proved to us that there is NO WAY the UK can keep the fleet alive if the Japanese are intent on killing it. BTW, the Kiwis had 2 CVs fully loaded supported by a few DDs and SSs, but again, the lack of coordination between the Allies is a KILLER.

[BadSpeller]

Well, it looks like you are a very good player of A&A.

I had asked how many rounds, because some have said they played 4 rounds and think they know the outcome of the game.

With so many more territories, this game will take longer.

Just think, if there were 5 territories and 3 sea zones, and only 100 IPC of units on the game board–-the game would be shorter. If there were 500 territories and 250 sea zones with 4000 IPC of units the game would be very long.  It looks like now that we will have Papa Bear, Momma Bear, and Baby Bear (1940 Global, AA50, and AA42) to choose from.

[BadSpeller]

@Uncle_Joe:

The UK even bought TWO carriers over 2 turns and had 4 planes, an additional DD and 2 subs.

You are leading us on the right path, with trying different purchasing options and strats for the Allies.
Many were applying their Revised strats to AA50 with wild claims one way or the other with regards to balance.  Then, after some time, people started to try new things a few with success, most not.
One we figure the timing and general strat of Japan, then the Allies can look for weaknesses.

This map is a new puzzle, and where would be the fun if we figured it out in the first 10 times we played it?

+1 to Uncle_Joe for his thoughts

[Uncle_Joe]

+1 to Uncle_Joe for his thoughts

What is this by the way? I see mine is going down for some reason? Is this just some sort of way that people can ‘snipe’ at you without having the stones to say something that you can refute?

[Vareel]

@Uncle_Joe:

+1 to Uncle_Joe for his thoughts

What is this by the way? I see mine is going down for some reason? Is this just some sort of way that people can ‘snipe’ at you without having the stones to say something that you can refute?

Pretty much, although +1 means someone gave you a good karma.

[spectre_04]

Please see my new post about playing the game as the Allies (lost) 1 on 1 with a familiar opponent, without national objectives.

[spectre_04]

Please see my new post about playing the game as the Allies (lost) 1 on 1 with a familiar opponent, without national objectives.

[Razor]

Its the National Objectives that make this game so great. Playing without them is like bathing without your rubber duck, man.

[allboxcars]

@BadSpeller:

Hahaha…Just mentioning IL and he gives me a smite for revealing what goes on.

Well I’ll give you +1 and we’ll call it even.

(And now I’ll drop stealthily to -21 I’m sure.)  :-D

[idk_iam_swiss]

actually i won as the allies today. all i did was have the UK buy nothing but infantry. and china take and hold the burma road. Japan cant replace all the planes they will lose. as america I pretty much bought fleet after fleet and threw it at japan. They cant defend their island AND take calcutta. I have learned it never really matters what anzac does.

[MaherC]

Have played 5 games so far, with the two of us switching sides each time.    Japs 5, US 0.      Small sample size, sure.  Is it early in the game’s life?  Sure.  But it is shaping up to be an Axis game to us.

[dinosaur]

I think we need to be patient before we all start jumping on the Japan bandwagon.  First off, I think a lot of folks are bringing too much baggage to this game, trying to play it the way they played the original AAP or the way they play Revised or something.  For my part, I started by looking at the victory conditions.  As long as the Allies hold 3 victory cities they are still in the game.  In the earlier AAP, the Allies had to get moving or japan would overrun India or win on VPs.  I think US can wait a little to gather a competent navy before throwing itself on the Japanese.

Next I looked at the NOs.  I suspect playing well requires you to maximize your income from the NOs while denying income to your opponent(s).  The NOs do have a tendancy to force you into a particular line of play which follow some historical timeline.  I hope that making the most of the NOs will allow ANZAC to make a difference, but who knows?

Third, I think these new rules regarding submarines, destroyers and convoy zones will create a new angle on the economic model inside the game.  We can’t sub-stall anymore.  Now we have to “destroyer-stall.”  But Destroyers cost 8 IPCs.  And we can’t use trannys as cannon fodder anymore.  I think there will be a lot of revelations in how certain objectives may be obtained.  Look at the game as a marathon and not a sprint.  Maximize the income from NOs and learn how to use the new units and tactics this game introduces.  And if all else fails, we’ll come up with the Mother-of-all-House-Rules!

Merry Christmas guys!

[Butcher]

I believe swiss is on the right track with buying a lot of ground units with Britain. Buying infantry, artillery, and maybe an occasional mech infantry will strech Japan thin fighting both China and Britain. This will allow the U.S. and ANZAC to build and move against Japan.