So how do the Allies win again?

[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.

[Uncle_Joe]

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.

Yeah, that is our next try - a UK ground heavy strat. Trying to build a navy is folly at this point. And in my experience, Japan doesnt NEED to ‘defend their island’…I mean, from what? The US isnt going to have anything in the first 5-6 turn to threaten Japan. Heck they can barely threaten TRUK in that time period. Given that, I think the Japanese have PLENTY to take Calcutta with little issue. Buying a horde of Brit troops might change that though (at least delay it). Japan always seems to be tight on boots on the ground in China despite building a factory and shipping in men from Japan. Still, if the Brits dont make any effort to the navy then they will soon be making single digit income and I’m not sure how useful that will be either.

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?

Well, we are also 5 games in (switching up sides and player mix) and so far the Japanese have won every time and each successive time has been easier as they refine their strats. The Allies are still thrashing around trying to come up with ANYTHING to annoy the Japanese and so far are batting 0.

IMO, the ‘winning’ point for Japan is when they are outproducing the US and they completely winning when they are outproducing the Allies as a whole. To do that, they can afford to ignore 3 VCs (Australia, Pearl Harbor, San Fran). Sure they’d need to take one of those to get the ‘official’ win, but the game is over before any of the three fall if Japan has taken out the Brits.

As far as the NOs, in AAP40, they dont really drive you to place you wouldnt be going anyways. The only Japanese ‘stretch’ goal is the Coral Sea area and IMO it’s simply not worth the bother. 5 IPCs is not worth trying to spread out to take that area IMO. If the counter-balancing NO went to the US not the Aussies, then it MIGHT be worth bothering with at least denying it to the Allies.

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!

It sounds like you are coming from a pre-AA50 background. Sub stalling died with AA50 (as did TR ‘armor’ etc). And personally I think the game IS still a sprint for Japan. If they can take the Brits and Chinese out in 6-7 turns, the game is effectively over from what I’ve seen so far. If they take longer, they might have problems but even there I’m not sure. In the end, any version of A&A is about economic power. Japan starts with a considerably weaker econ but a massive advantage in forces, position, and coordination. She has to trade on those advantages to overcome the econ disadvantage within the first 8 turns or so or things will start to go south. Everything else is simply window-dressing IMO. That makes it very much a sprint IMO.

Merry Christmas guys!

And the same to you :) Hopefully you get a chance to play a few games and see what you think. Dont get me wrong, we are still having fun and it’s being an interesting puzzle trying to think of ways for the Allies to a have a chance.

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.

Ditto, and as I said above, I think the game is going to be at least slightly slanted in favor the Japanese at this time. But when the global game hits, it’s going to be a LOT tougher going for the Japanese.

Some thoughts on that:

1. The Brit Indian Ocean squadron will be able to RUN to avoid any massed Japanese fleet. Right now, the Brits are forced to sit at the edge of the board and take it in the face. In the global game, you can bet your butt they’ll be running for the Cape and if Japan pursues, that leaves the rest of the Pacific wide open for the US. Currently in AAP40, the Japanese can kill the Brits and then turn and deal with the US.

2. Japan can COMPLETELY leave Manchuria and all of conquered China ungarrisoned. I’m going to guess that Russia wont mind taking those high value provinces if Japan leaves them open. :)

3. Japan has no ‘global responsibility’. In all other global A&A’s, Japan needs to be taking out the Russian econ from behind. She also needs to keep the US occupied at least to some degree in the Pacific. I’m not really sure how easy the latter will be in the global game, but if Russia is completely untouched the Germans might have a rough time. I do hope there is some rule for the US in the global game that prevents them from simply dumping that 55 IPC’s/turn into Europe though. Initial experience with AAP40 is that the US struggles to make a meaningful impact on Japan with that money. I’m going to guess that the same is NOT true in Europe. And the US has nothing vulnerable in the Pacific once they lose PI anyways. They dont have another island bonus to lose as they did in AA50 so there is little use in defending in the Pacific if those extra IPCs can be used to crush the Germans and Italians.

4. The UK and Anzac players will be combined. At least I think I remember reading that somewhere. Now whether that means that they’ll be able to 100% coordinate or not I dont know but if so, that will make life harder on the Japanese as well.

All of the above should combine to make Japan’s life a LOT harder in the global game. Given that, it’s not unreasonable to think that she is having an artificially easier time in the theater-level game.

[Funcioneta]

Mmm… not sure if this can save allies but at least can cancel a gamey strat: ignore that rule that limits China’s movement (the one I call ACME wall)

I’ll explain a bit: economics mean Japan just have to toast both China and India to win, while keeping Dutch East Indies. DEI are not very difficult to hold for Japan if it’s true best USA can do by round 5-6 is menace Truk, so a gamey strat for Japan would be sending all to India, keeping only token forces in China. Since China cannot, for some strange reason, attack Japan out of China, Japan can left Korea and FIC ungarrisoned and focus 100% in India. Only units that cannot early fight India should be left to annoy chinamen. Since Burma Road will be covered by your offensive and Manchuria is easy to hold (with reinforces from Japan), Japan can shift to China after toasting India, and can do it whitout fear of losing Indochina or Korea. Allow China attack their enemies in any place, as it should be, and prevent this gamey approach: if Japan is forced to fight both countries at the same time, they could have a chance of holding enough

[Vareel]

US can start trading in Indies turn 2, or turn 3 if desired.  Perhaps only Java but still a distraction.

[MaherC]

@Uncle Joe:

This is supposed to be a stand alone game.  So waiting for Europe to come out in 6 months to make this game work is BS.  This could be someone’s first AA game and like it or not if we want games to keep coming out in this genre we need new blood.  If this is their first, it could very well be their last due to the broken nature of the game.  $90.  $90 dollars for a board game it should work.  There shouldn’t be pages of omissions from the rule book, “wrong inserts” included, TYPOS galore, and boxes half full of plastic pieces to put on a shoddy quality board.

[Uncle_Joe]

@Uncle Joe:

This is supposed to be a stand alone game.  So waiting for Europe to come out in 6 months to make this game work is BS.  This could be someone’s first AA game and like it or not if we want games to keep coming out in this genre we need new blood.  If this is their first, it could very well be their last due to the broken nature of the game.  $90.  $90 dollars for a board game it should work.  There shouldn’t be pages of omissions from the rule book, “wrong inserts” included, TYPOS galore, and boxes half full of plastic pieces to put on a shoddy quality board.

Oh trust me, I’m with ya 100% on that. But in playing I just couldnt help but notice all of the things that would be different in the global game. I’m just not sure how it’s all going to work…

[spectre_04]

as soon as one of you finds a good Allied strategy, be sure to share dat!!

[Uncle_Joe]

Yeah, but it seems that sharing strats and ideas around here gets your karma smited… ;p

I find it amusing that anyone who advances the opinion of Japan being too powerful has quite the negative karma by now.

[gamerman01]

@BadSpeller:

Some (Cough, IL, cough) create another profile to give themselves many +karma.

What??  IL does that?  He keeps saying “karma doesn’t mean anything”  :lol:

[Real Life Rorschach]

I won as the allies but I did get a little bit lucky.
First off, The Japs didnt attack till turn 2 and they consolidated a large amount of forces in China their first round and smashed it alot.  Also it took Japan 3 turns to capture Hong Kong, due to some skilled defense and a big reinforcement from Malaya with my battleship.  The Japs placed a minor IC in the terrotory south of Hong Konh and made mostly infantry from there  and pushed the Chinese all the way back to the Burma Road nearest the Brits.  
The British build all men and used their planes and men to retake the Burma Road and let China place a few infantry which grew like a forestfire in a few turns.  The one man on Java did defend against 2 successive attacks involving at least 2 units.  He was my Rambo unit.
The Americans built a strong Navy with 4 carriers and headed South to New Guinea and met with what was left of the Austrailian navy and Japan massed in the Carolinas.  When the USA navy was slightly stronger on defense they moved their navy and retook Java, forcing Japan to move a large amount of its planes to a new airfield at Borneo.  While this was happening the USA built a large navy with the aim at attacking Japan.  
Using planes and ships the Japanese Navy crushed the American navy but it was subsequelty wiped out by a few American fighter planes on the next turn.  America then moved in a lot of troops from Pearl Harbor to Japan and took their capitol with the navy built(if Japan were to build all men I would have taken Korea and placed a major IC there.

It was a heck of a close game, but the Allies won because Japan didnt take Hong Kong the turn it attacked, China was a problem, Jappan never got any of its NO’s, and the British bought all men.  Im the better player of the two of us, and I think I could clean house if I was Japan.  Just giving the story of a win, not a strategy.  Take from this what you want.

[gamerman01]

@MaherC:

@Uncle Joe:

This is supposed to be a stand alone game.  So waiting for Europe to come out in 6 months to make this game work is BS.  This could be someone’s first AA game and like it or not if we want games to keep coming out in this genre we need new blood.  If this is their first, it could very well be their last due to the broken nature of the game.  $90.  $90 dollars for a board game it should work.  There shouldn’t be pages of omissions from the rule book, “wrong inserts” included, TYPOS galore, and boxes half full of plastic pieces to put on a shoddy quality board.

A-MEN

[Vareel]

I think people are looking at the map incorrectly.  Everyone can see that japan has alot of airpower and with airbases can defend specific hardpoints fairly easily such as carolines and the home island.  But, the southern islands are only 1 turn further away for the US than Japan, and they do not have airbases at the start to defend them.  The allies, in my opinion, have to draw Japan into attacking there fleets, instead of the other way around.  Get the ANZAC NO early and then head for the indies for all your worth.

Japan starts with 3 carriers, 2 bbs, 2 cruisers, 4 destroyers, 2 subs, and 3 transports.  They also start with very little manpower in south asia.  Japan is forced to build factories and transports and men with her early income, the US has no such problems.  Sure they need an extra couple of transports  but that is about it.  Japan doesn’t have a large naval advantage and really cannot afford to invest significantly into boats for the first few turns, by then the US should catch up.  Not enough to offset the airpower, but you don’t have to attack japan directly, attack her income.

Still lookin to play allies if anyone is up for smashing me with japan  :-D

[oztea]

If you want to FORCE japan to attack you turn 2
transport the 2 us infantry from hawaii to the mariannas sea zone, move a destroyer from phillipines to meet it

if they attack it, its war turn 2
if they dont attack it get those units to the phillipenes, with some bombers as well

put so many units on the phillipenes that japan has to use most of its transports on the attack there to take it

then they have to go back to japan to refill some of those transports, it slows them down
and if the japanese player ignores the phillipines, then collect your bonus as US all day and be at 60IPCs!

[Uncle_Joe]

Everyone can see that japan has alot of airpower and with airbases can defend specific hardpoints fairly easily such as carolines and the home island.  But, the southern islands are only 1 turn further away for the US than Japan, and they do not have airbases at the start to defend them.  The allies, in my opinion, have to draw Japan into attacking there fleets, instead of the other way around.  Get the ANZAC NO early and then head for the indies for all your worth.

Japan starts with 3 carriers, 2 bbs, 2 cruisers, 4 destroyers, 2 subs, and 3 transports.  They also start with very little manpower in south asia.  Japan is forced to build factories and transports and men with her early income, the US has no such problems.  Sure they need an extra couple of transports  but that is about it.  Japan doesn’t have a large naval advantage and really cannot afford to invest significantly into boats for the first few turns, by then the US should catch up.  Not enough to offset the airpower, but you don’t have to attack japan directly, attack her income.

I agree with most of this. The US HAS to get into the DEI area. There is nothing else that they can take that is worthwhile short of Japan herself and that is not a realistic goal in a competitive game. The problem is how to do it without trading too unfavorably.

Contrary to what people think, the Allies do NOT enjoy a huge economic lead over the Japanese. Sure, they make more income, but the Japanese are trading on a surplus of high-cost units. At the start of the game, the Japanese have plenty of aircraft with which to mate up with newly created CVs for naval power. Every 16 IPCs Japan drops is 37 the US has to drop to match, at least until the Japanese run out of surplus planes. With that in mind, it is going to take US quite a long time to overturn Japan’s naval advantage. And IMO, the US doesnt really have all that much time. I think the pressure is on the US/Allied player to stop Japan before she takes out the Brits. Once that happens, it’s all over but the shouting unless the US is in position to do major damage within a turn or so.

Even at the beginning of the game when Japan has to invest in TRs and an IC for China, it’s still not all that heavily in the US favor. The US is only making 22 at that point and Japan is likely making in the mid-high 30s. So Japan can put 10-15 into the ground war and still keep parity with the US (although I dont think that is her most effective play).

I think the goal of the Allies is to strain Japan’s available combat power every turn, as much as possible. It’s similar to AA50 (but harder for the Allies IMO) in that Japan can do anything, but Japan cant do everything simultaneously. Many times it will be necessary as the Allies to make spoiler attacks or moves that Japan can easily thwart, but when taken as a whole, all three Allies can make Japan spread her combat power. Unless they can do that, I think the Allies are doomed. None of them can stand up to the full weight of the Japanese attacks so all of them have to nibble around the edges and force responses. A sub here, a minor landing an island there, and show of force in another area will add up headache for Japan (I’ve been on both ends of that!).

Goals for the Allies as I see it at the moment:

China - spread out, counter-attack the weakest spot once per turn to kill off Japanese ground forces. Do NOT mass up anywhere. That is just an invitation to be slaughtered by airpower.

Britain - boots on the ground. Take as much of the DEI during peace as Japan allows and invest in troops. If Japan delays until J3 (which I think is solid), then maybe a sub or a DD, but beyond that - grunts and guns. The goal is as per China - make the Japanese spread out and bleed off ground forces. AA guns are a good investment for the UK since it makes Japan have to really worry about having her combat power diluted.

US - get into the DEI. If Japan heavily defends against that, a surprise raid into Manchuria/Korea can be very damaging. Usually that is just a threat though. I can’t imagine a competent Japanese player allowing it, but he DOES have to honor it and that draws off forces. The US should be staging out of Australia so they can reach the DEI in two moves from Pearl. Taking the Carolines is nice, but it is often a trap too. Japan can bring a LOT of firepower to Truk (which is what makes it an appealing base). Take it if it’s safe, but otherwise ignore it and focus on the Australia to DEI line.

Anzac - support the US. Build them a naval base if they want it and stage aircraft and subs in Western Australia. Always be in position to threaten the DEI as well. If Japan moves out of the area to hit the US, move in and take an island. Japan will HAVE to try and take it back and that siphons precious ground power away from the Brits. Anzac money is worth less than Brit money IMO so even an unfavorable trade is usually OK here (ie, losing the TR).

Goal as all Allied powers: Stretch Japan to the limit each turn. You would rather see Japan making more numerous low-odds attacks than getting away with being able to mass overkill in her fights. Mass overkill results in fewer Japanese casualties and the way I see to hurt Japan is to force her to constantly be losing men and guns in Asia.

[Vareel]

I agree with most of what you are saying, aside from the carriers.  Even if japan builds more carriers it does not add any offensive firepower, instead defensive, as carriers are crap on the attack.  The planes are nice, but for 16 you can have a carrier or two destroyers, both can take two hits, the carrier defends on a 2 and the destroyers attack AND defend on a 2.  Also, soaking hits on your carriers when there are allied units to counter attack you, like ANZAC fighters and subs, is not a good idea.  Carriers favor the defender, and Japan cannot defend every single territory they need to hold.

[Uncle_Joe]

The CV piece itself is not as powerful of an attacker as a pair of DDs, that much is true. But CVs let you play all the fun little games with aircraft which are necessary to get overwhelm kill power on an attack. Using CVs can GREATLY magnify the range of land based aircraft.

For example, you have 2 CVs (fully loaded). Those 4 aircraft all join a nearby battles and then plan to land on an island or close land base. That clears the decks to allow any OTHER planes within 4 (or 5 now) to join the same fight and then land on the CVs. That rotation increases you potential for massed sea firepower in a way that DDs can’t hope to provide. And that is offensive firepower, not defensive. CVs are the single most flexible naval units you can buy.

[spectre_04]

I couldn’t stress the importance of DD’s enough in this game.  I think that their blocking ability and cheapness make them just as powerfull defensively as a loaded carrier is.  You cannot waster carriers each turn to block the enemy without bankrupting yourself.

[Vareel]

@Uncle_Joe:

The CV piece itself is not as powerful of an attacker as a pair of DDs, that much is true. But CVs let you play all the fun little games with aircraft which are necessary to get overwhelm kill power on an attack. Using CVs can GREATLY magnify the range of land based aircraft.

For example, you have 2 CVs (fully loaded). Those 4 aircraft all join a nearby battles and then plan to land on an island or close land base. That clears the decks to allow any OTHER planes within 4 (or 5 now) to join the same fight and then land on the CVs. That rotation increases you potential for massed sea firepower in a way that DDs can’t hope to provide. And that is offensive firepower, not defensive. CVs are the single most flexible naval units you can buy.

Oh I don’t disagree with you at all, esp for japan.  My J1 places 2 carriers in SZ 31 just for that purpose with my J2 strike on pearl.  But for the allies, I just don’t think they are worth it beyond one or two extra.  Esp as in the DEI area the allies don’t have a hard time getting land based planes into the fight.  To me though to spend 16 for a carrier than another 20-21 for the planes just isn’t worth it compared to the 4 or 5 destroyers and subs I can get for the same price.

Also, the carrier lost it’s number 1 ability in this game, in my opinion, its 3 range strike ability.  Its not that carriers don’t have it anymore, its just that every other boat in a naval base has it as well.  It is great that you can’t block the carrier’s planes, but with this many SZ blocking is more of an allied tactic than a Japan tactic.

[spectre_04]

very true, but towards the end Japan has to do some blocking to protect the DEI, Victory Cities, or the Japanese home Islands.

It is great that you can’t block the carrier’s planes, but with this many SZ blocking is more of an allied tactic than a Japan tactic.

[Uncle_Joe]

To me though to spend 16 for a carrier than another 20-21 for the planes just isn’t worth it compared to the 4 or 5 destroyers and subs I can get for the same price.

Whether or not that is true for the Allies, it certainly isnt for Japan who starts with a large surplus of aircraft. For 16 IPCs Japan can easily magnify her combat power FAR in excess of 2 DDs. The Allies have to build the planes as well so they might be better suited with surface ships, but even there I think a good mix is going to be preferable to an excess of either.

I’m a big fan of strategic blocking as well, but over time that will dilute your combat power as well. I find it desirable to set up kill zones where I can mass LBA and CV-based planes in tandem to thwart any attempts on the DEI.