Saving the UK if Japan goes all out to capture Calcutta

[WILD BILL]

I like to get my Anz fitrs (at least 4) to India via the Dutch Isles too. It makes a lot of sense because when UK is on the offensive you can cover newly taken tt  w/Anz ftrs. I have also thought about putting an air base on Western Australia so you can fly directly to India in one turn. Has anyone done this, I know you would have to save 5 ipc’s from the turn before or get your NO, then build it round #2. It would be a good path for the US as well. You could go from New Z, to W Aus, to India. Seems like it would speed things up, and you wouldn’t need control of any of the E Indies (later rounds). You could always use the same path back from India if you had to. Is it feasible, or would W Aus w/AB be to big of a target for Jap. I would think it would be easier to hold W Aus then any of the E Indie Isles.

Any thoughts?

Edit: You could also Build AB on Northern Terr (Aus) to get to India in one move w/air. It might be easier to hold N Terr (next to your IC). Later in the game either of these tt w/NB would also get ships back and forth (3 moves).

[elque]

Haven’t built the airbase yet in Western Australia but recognize that it would be a nice response to a fast Japanese takeover of the DEI. If Australia achieves its NO, it wouldn’t even have to save IPCs from a previous turn. Fighters might consider strafing targets of opportunity as they fly over to Burma/India.

[WILD BILL]

Yea that’s what I was thinking regarding an Anz AB on West, or N Ter Aus. At some point the allies might not have control of any of the E Indies, and it would be nice to still be able to send Anz/US ftrs to India later in the game if you need to. All depends on what Jap does of course.

I also noticed your N Zealand ftrs can make it to Java in the first turn. If Jap wasn’t able to attack it, or you could get enough ground cover, I would consider going that route early on. That way those Anz ftrs could be in India round #2 to. Then you could build an AB on the Aussie coast latter to bring in more reinforcements from Anz/US. I like at lot of mobility w/allies.

[elque]

I think that it’s 6 spaces from NZ to Java. The move into the NZ sea zone counts as 1. Though Western Australia is within range. Even without an airbase, there is usually a staging area available to India/Burma unless the Japanese player is methodically trying to foreclose this possibility.

[WILD BILL]

@elque:

I think that it’s 6 spaces from NZ to Java. The move into the NZ sea zone counts as 1.

You fly over the top (north) of Australia. 1-sz63, 2-sz54, 3-sz55, 4-sz42, 5-Java.

[Whitmann]

Robbie take a look in the Play boardgames section, everyone is currently playing a j1 attack swing to India, it is almost impossible to stop.  India falls nearly every game on turn 3 OVER AND OVER AND OVER regardless of Allied strategy, it is so bad that I won’t play the Allies without a significant bid.  Attacking J1 and pushing at India is best tactic BY far.

[Razor]

@Whitmann:

Robbie take a look in the Play boardgames section, everyone is currently playing a j1 attack swing to India, it is almost impossible to stop.  India falls nearly every game on turn 3 OVER AND OVER AND OVER regardless of Allied strategy, it is so bad that I won’t play the Allies without a significant bid.  Attacking J1 and pushing at India is best tactic BY far.

Are you sure you interpret the rules correctly ? Have you read the latest rules errata and FAQ’s ?

[Whitmann]

Pretty sure as everyone playing on this board reads the errata and corrections… The Japanese simpley can not be stopped without a bid.

[Butcher]

I have played one game against a J1 India smash, and that India fell J4 instead of J3 because the U.K. threw it’s planes into a portion of the Japanese navy.  ANZAC then finished the navy, killing two transports and destroyer blocking another three.  So it is possible to save India temorarily, but the other Allies will need to find ways to exploit what may be lost going after India as it won’t hold for long.

[Van_Trump]

I believe UK can delay to J4 at least using his fleet to block movement.

Regardless, ANZAC can all fighters to India before the attack hits by saving 5ipcs & building an Airbase on Northern Territory on turn 2. This enables all 4 fighters to be in India before J3.

[Whitmann]

Although I agree in some games it may be possible to delay Japan to turn 4 before India falls, it is not the case in most games, several things need to go the right way turn1 Japan has a chance of failing to take Phi, which can in some cases slow the Japanese until turn 4 as well the allies can run the Japanese fleet in Jav (assuming the japanese went there) however played correctly the Japanese fleet there survives more often then not (55-60% of games) and even if it’s lost the Uk losses their airforce which means the Japanse don’t need near the units to take india.  As far as the fleet blocking idea we(many of the forum players) have over and over again been able to stop / kill the UK blockers turn 2.  I agree completely there are SOME (a very small some) of games that if the Allies play very agressively and risk a lot and get lucky they can delay lossing India unitl turn 4 however they need a good measure of luck.  Even if you can delay Japan taking India unitl turn 4, at the point they take India they are collecting a massive income 60-70 nature +plus the india money.  I truely feel that if two skilled and evenly matched players are playing without a bid, the Japanese will win 80+% of the time, really mayble even more from what the last 5-10 games online seem to show.

Just my thoughts on it.

[Gharen]

I am more curious as to what the Allied player is doing with the USA.  Have you guys thought about trying to just go for the jugular and hit Tokyo?  I know the IJN is out on the high seas but putting direct pressure on the main island of Japan herself would force him to pull back and divert some forces to deal with the US.  I know there are several different tactics but the Allies win by taking Japan right?  I think it comes down to the crucial first few turns the US has and building a strong naval invasion force could win or at least drag the game out longer, keeping India alive longer, any thoughts?

[Hobbes]

@Whitmann:

Pretty sure as everyone playing on this board reads the errata and corrections… The Japanese simply can not be stopped without a bid.

My question is why Japan taking Calcutta on J3 or J4 means the game is imbalanced. If Japan takes China + UK + Indochina + DEI + PI then it will be earning 68 IPCs + 10 from NOs, while the US + ANZAC have 55 + 15, or 78 to 70. Japan already starts with 704 points of units while the allies have 832 and the Allies will still be making more money than Japan until J3 or J4.
And, as mentioned before the Allies can throw a few speed bumps on the DEI using the ANZAC/US/UK planes and slow the conquest of the islands. Plus, Japan will have to deploy most of its fleet to India unless it wants the UK/ANZAC making combined attacks to sink the transports. This leaves plenty of openings, specially on the DEI since it can be hard/impossible for the Japanese to prevent Allied from retaking islands if they have US/ANZAC transports on Queensland/New Zealand.
And if Japan ignores those DEI islands and concentrates on India, even better for the Allies since Japan will be making at least 9 less IPCs, while the Allies can reinforce the island with further planes and troops.
To me taking India and the DEI as fast as possible is the best way to help Japan winning because of the starting inbalance regarding units and income (and the fact that it is facing 4 powers that need to combine their efforts) but it does not ensure victory.

Or, to conclude, it is pretty much impossible to stop Japan from taking India if he wants to. The question is how much he has to sacrifice elsewhere and if the allied player(s) are skilled enough to take advantage of it.

[Gharen]

Yeah I get the point that whatever Japan wants, she can take with brute force.  Finding the weak hinges and attacking Tokyo itself is what can lead to a victory in my opinion.  Purchases are as crucial as ever with the Allies, I think the sub/DD spamming may not be the most beneficial way to go if Japan is winning most of the games.  I think you go for the head of the snake as America and end it before it gets too out of hand.

[Razor]

@Whitmann:

Pretty sure as everyone playing on this board reads the errata and corrections… The Japanese simpley can not be stopped without a bid.

Yes, we need AA40 Europe to balance it.

[Whitmann]

Razor you may well have hit on the answer, we don’t really yet know how the two games have been developed where they separatly “balanced” and if so are they really balanced once linked or was it developed as a single large “balanced” game which has been split into two spearate games for pricing and sales reasons?

Guess we’ll find out.

No matter how you look at it, the complexity of actually truly balancing a game of the size of these two is nearing impossible, a bid is likely to be required no matter what.

Don’t anybody mistake my suggesting that the game requires a bid as a large critacism of the game, it is a fantastic game prehaps Larry Harris’ best in the series so far.  I’m just sugesting that incredible difficultly boring on imposiblity of seeing every combination of tactics may… will… lead to bids being nessesary to rebalance the game, post release.

I think that played on it’s own that APP40 currently requires  a bid of somewhere between 12-18 IPC to the Allies to be used in the initial setup.

Anyone have thoughts on the bid number? I know 12-18 is a hugely wide range.

[Gwlachmai]

@Hobbes:

@Whitmann:

Pretty sure as everyone playing on this board reads the errata and corrections… The Japanese simply can not be stopped without a bid.

My question is why Japan taking Calcutta on J3 or J4 means the game is imbalanced. If Japan takes China + UK + Indochina + DEI + PI then it will be earning 68 IPCs + 10 from NOs, while the US + ANZAC have 55 + 15, or 78 to 70. Japan already starts with 704 points of units while the allies have 832 and the Allies will still be making more money than Japan until J3 or J4.
And, as mentioned before the Allies can throw a few speed bumps on the DEI using the ANZAC/US/UK planes and slow the conquest of the islands. Plus, Japan will have to deploy most of its fleet to India unless it wants the UK/ANZAC making combined attacks to sink the transports. This leaves plenty of openings, specially on the DEI since it can be hard/impossible for the Japanese to prevent Allied from retaking islands if they have US/ANZAC transports on Queensland/New Zealand.
And if Japan ignores those DEI islands and concentrates on India, even better for the Allies since Japan will be making at least 9 less IPCs, while the Allies can reinforce the island with further planes and troops.
To me taking India and the DEI as fast as possible is the best way to help Japan winning because of the starting inbalance regarding units and income (and the fact that it is facing 4 powers that need to combine their efforts) but it does not ensure victory.

Or, to conclude, it is pretty much impossible to stop Japan from taking India if he wants to. The question is how much he has to sacrifice elsewhere and if the allied player(s) are skilled enough to take advantage of it.

The IPC value of combat units in the game at start are 515 for the Allies and 614 for Japan, of which the allies lose a minimum of 102 in a J1 attack, for very little cost to Japan. If India falls on J3 or J4 and the Japanese are in possesion of the DEI it is extremely difficult to come back from that. Feel free to play a forum game and show us how “skilled” allied players defeat the J1 India rush.

[Hobbes]

@Gwlachmai:

The IPC value of combat units in the game at start are 515 for the Allies and 614 for Japan, of which the allies lose a minimum of 102 in a J1 attack, for very little cost to Japan. If India falls on J3 or J4 and the Japanese are in possesion of the DEI it is extremely difficult to come back from that. Feel free to play a forum game and show us how “skilled” allied players defeat the J1 India rush.

I’ve been reading through your online game with Whitmann and I would have played the 1st Allied round differently, especially the UK and ANZAC. I have never played by forum since I’ve always preferred face to face or using TripleA but I can try it out if it isn’t much of a hassle to use, especially rolling for dice.

I haven’t decided yet if the game requires a bid, I just think that there is more to be discussed regarding it. Imagine the Allies get a bid of 1 inf and place it on Borneo/New Guinea/Phillipines/Kwangung. Would that make a J1 attack more likely to happen? If so, doesn’t that remove a little flexibility to Japan’s options and makes the game more predictable, predictability being the main issue behind the reasoning that Japan can’t be stopped by using a J1 attack.

If Pacific needs some sort of balancing against a J1 attack then it might be better to keep trying until there’s a solution within the game. Someone mentioned on another post that the game testers simply couldn’t have ignored how devastating the J1 attack can be for the Allies without introducing some way to counter it. To me this is like playing Bulge, where I never won as the Allies but I know that there’s something that I’m not getting right, yet.

[Hobbes]

@Razor:

Yes, we need AA40 Europe to balance it.

AA40 Europe will bring some change to the dynamic of Pacific, the only question is if it keeps favoring more the Axis for an 1940 attack that brings earlier the US (and possibly Russia) into the war.

[Gwlachmai]

Obviously Europe will change the dynamics of the game. That doesn’t change the fact that Pac40 was released as a stand alone game. I’m not quite willing to call it broken yet, but, it’s hard not to think that when you see the same attack set over and over with the same end result.