I had a buddy try this on me last night– he went hard for Alaska, and waited for a J3 DOW. It changed my purchase strategy, but I still beat him. I bought a lot of subs and destroyers as well as plenty of infantry. It was very close; we traded roughly even on rolls, and it made a difference that the ANZAC/UK gut hopped some fighters over to me-- he started forward deploying all his air cover as soon as Japan went east
How can you buy a lot of all that?
Did Japan try to match you by also balancing their purchases, or did they just go all trns?
What round did attack W USA?
Using blockers effectively can stall the Japanese until after J3, at which point US production evens the playing field.
Â
Please be more specific. Which blocks are you doing? That is critical. Did Japan remember that he can eliminate the blocks in combat and then move through? Was the Aleutians blocked and stacked?
It was fun and unconventional, and he almost had it, but I seriously doubt it is "broken."Â Even if he takes the US, he will take enough casualties that the UK and ANZAC can make an excellent fight.
I disagree; if he takes the US before round 6, it’s game over, unless he threw away his navy somehow or UK/ANZAC win a suicide attack on Japan. Japan gets the 40 something immediate US IPC plus 20 per turn from North America, 26 once they get hawaii. The leftover US navy can sit on sydney or queensland SZ’s, but the allies have nothing that can actually attack the IJN as it continues on it’s merry way to way too many possible destinations. After Japan gets W USA and Honolulu, they need Philippines (easy) Tokyo (of course easy), and the allies would be hard pressed to stack Shanghai, Hong Kong, and India, not to mention sydney at the same time, especially if ANZAC blew its ftrs in WUSA.
The only way the US has a chance (well, better than a 3%) of holding US on J4 is if they stack and block the Aleutians and block Alaska on US 1. This requires 2 destroyers, 2 cruisers, and either the carrier or the battleship. In that case, Japan has a cakewalk for a whole different set of reasons that don’t necessarily include W USA, they can wipe out American ships and blast Sydney.
I need to apologize, the guy who first tried the rough version of this basic strat I have been working on was not saber, it was Sword. Doh! Sorry about that Sword.
Alright, I read your original post carefully, and I believe there were a few more differences. The Japanese player moved his entire navy east except for a few ships to cover the home island and reinforce the mainland. He did not declare war until J3, so the closest her could get according to our understanding of the second edition rules was SZs 4 and 14. Once the UK/ANZAC player saw what he was doing they declared war on UK 1 and gobbled up the southern islands with the ANZAC. I purchased two subs and and infantry, saving 2, and used a transport to to reinforce Alaska (his transports were in the SZ4 fleet) and abandoned Hawaii, bringing those infantry and ships to the western US.
J2, he built mostly transports and I think artillery, and he consolidated his position. I was surprised that he did not hit Kwangtung, but the fighters he left in China were slightly out of position for that. I am a bit fuzzy remembering. He was worried about the other end of the board, but he really wanted to get me (I had cut him off in Catan our last game night, and such things are unforgivable). He was not doing too hot in China, since the Brits kept the Burma Road open and the Chinese were still holding on. The rolls were absolutely vanilla, with no surprises, so he couldn’t blame that. UK2 saw Sumatra and Java taken, as well as Siam conquered, and the British fleet tried to gather most of its strength in SZ20. ANZAC2 took Celebes. My moves were a destroyer and submarine to SZ9. I purchased a fighter, and three infantry.
J3 saw the DOW. He invaded Alaska and the Aleutians and cleared SZ9 taking only one hit to a Battleship. An attack on the Philippines with only one transport was unsuccessful; though he crushed the US destroyer and submarine with no losses, both sides lost all ground units, and the fighter remained. That was a piece of bad luck to him. UK3 liberated Hunan and Kwangsi with light losses, ANZAC reinforced the Philippines after defeating the UK destroyed the Japanese fleet there. China, well, existed and lost an attack on Kweichow. On US3 I moved a destroyer to SZ1 and built 4 infantry and an artillery. Since most of his transports were in SZ2, he would not able to kite past my surface ship in SZ1, which is what I meant by blocking. I left my ships cowering off the coast of Western US. I then gathered my 50 IPCs for holding the US and the Philippines.
J4 saw him leave a small force in Alaska, and he built more surface warships to fight the growing UK/ANZAC threat. He gathered his “escort” fleet and transports to SZ9 and did not waste time killing the destroyer in SZ1. Instead, he killed my fleet off the Western US, and at least we traded roughly even. Both of us were rolling 5s and 6s like they were goin out of style. It took almost 12 rounds of miraculously indecisive combat before he took out my entire fleet. He retook some land in China, but the damage was done. UK4 and ANZAC4 saw a stalemate in China and the ANZAC took the Caroline islands, but only just barely. China finally had a successful attack on Shensi. US4, I bought 2 fighters, 3 Armor, and 4 infantry.
J5, he saw I could stop a bombardment with a quick scramble of a single fighter, so he retired. We then talked about how it might have worked with a few tweaks, and then I saw your thread.
If he had brought more and completely neglected the other fronts, and if he had anticipated the block to SZ1, then it may have been a different story. Our aggressive UK/ANZAC player tipped the scales, though, and may have made even more progress if the Japanese player had gone all in.
I agree that it would be over for everyone if the US falls with full income. I think it more tenable if the Japanese player attacks directly on J3 from SZ13 or 14, bypassing Alaska and Hawaii, but J3 conquering the US only nets them 17 IPCs, and the Western US is only worth 10, since the extra 30 are only from national objectives and are only collected at the end of US3 after a DOW.
A valid tactic, I think, but I still don’t say it is broken. A tip of the hat, though, at it being incredibly ambitious.
If UK DOW’s UK 1, Japan has the extremely valid option of switching gears and fighting against them unmolested for 2 rounds. Or they can just continue for the US. UK1 DOW is risky in that it nets 10 IPC for the UK and ANZAC and you can attack siam. Otherwise it doesn’t change the UK/ANZAC possibilities on UK2.
J2 was his problem; mostly transports doesn’t cut it, it has to be as many as possible. Nothing else the first two rounds. Save the extra 5 J1 for another transport the next round. Were the Aleutians AND Alaska blocked on US1? This is absolutely key.
He should not be going for Philippines. Japan should not be still in Hunan or Kwangsi UK 3. There should be no Japan fleet by Phillipines.
If he has played to the USA crush, he would have not needed to buy ships to combat the at this point irrelevant UK/ANZAC threat. If they can’t actually take Japan, they are not a threat that early. There;s a lot of other stuff he did that goes against the actual goal of taking the US while holding japan, but a lot of that built on earlier mistakes.
Sorry, but IMO you really can’t be in a position say whether or not the strat is broken when Japan didn’t even do the strat in the game. Just because THAT USA crush fizzled does not mean the one I am talking about will. Do you have TripleA? I can show you the strat I am talking about.
I agree with the point you make there; as I said, there were some minor deployment differences that had major consequences. I do have Triple A, and any chance to gain some insight will benefit me in the long run. I am intrigued at trying to figure out a possible counter.
Report from a game where USA blocked Aleutians and Alaska US1. Japan waited until J3 to DOW.
UK/ANZAC got 5 ftr/1 tac to USA
Japan Attack on USA J5
Japan: 24 inf, 1 mech, 1 tank, 6 art, 11 ftr 8 tac, 2 bomber.
Allies: 24 inf, 1 mech, 1 tank, 1 art, 11 ftr, 2 tac, 2 aa
76%, avg keep 8 units.
84%, avg keep 11 units if bomber bought on J4. (63% if Japan took hawaii)
Japan can bring more arty if they sell out for the USA crush Japan 1 expecting Aleutians block. I was playing from the perspective that Japan was NOT expecting an Aleutians block, if the same strat would work, but it seems Japan needs to expect it.
Aleutians block has some merit, it seems. China has all of china, UK/ANZAC gobbled up most everything in the sea. However, China really only helps against Japanese attacks on Hong Kong or Shanghai. Plus to reduce Japan’s odds to a measly 76%, ANZAC had to give up 4 ftrs. Even with blockers, it’s not too long before Japan can simply control the seas, and once that happens, convoy damage and eventual landings with expendable transports will take their toll.
But it is possible that a suicide attack on turn 5 on Japan might succeed.
One thing to note, if USA stacks aleutians with only 2 land units instead of 4, Japan has about a 2 in 3 chance of winning that battle with 1 land unit left.
Just played a game against sword with my refined Japanese strategy.
If Japan gets their hands on Aleutians or Alaska (or W canada I suppose) J2 it’s hopeless for the allies. The J4 attack is all but unstoppable with odds in the high 90’s. US attacking W canada US3 has about a 2% chance of killing every land unit, and all Japan needs is 1 with the depleted US army.
At least 3 major issues: Allies leftover after US falls pretty much have to go naval or they can’t ever pressure Japan of course, but also Japan can quickly gobble up valuable islands or rush Australia with their J5 buy. The Allies can defend together, which can be nice, but they would have to attack separately. Japan can always just go around them unless they are sitting on the SZ outside of calcutta or sydney
Japan can win with Manila, Tokyo, Honolulu, San Diego, Calcutta, and Sydney. They don’t need Hong Kong or Shanghai.
China is practically useless, as Japan with this strat has no need to attack the places china can actually go. Sure, the allies are making 80+ per turn right after USA falls, but 35 or so of that is chinese infantry and artillery sitting around.
One thing that might help Krieg, since you are looking for rules changes, is to remove the movement restrictions for china when USA falls. This would help out india a lot.
If we wanted to get really crazy china could take over all remaining US units (or US could take over chinese units), and china can build any units they want, using US units. Sort of like a government in exile alliance whosamacallit.
One thing that might help Krieg, since you are looking for rules changes, is to remove the movement restrictions for china when USA falls. This would help out india a lot.
There is some discussion on this in the global thread. I think it would help both variants if there were some circumstances where China can actually do something. Like maybe if the Allies take Shanghai, then Chinese units can move anywhere on the Asian landmass in the Pacific board.
I don’t know if Robyn would be mad for me mentioning, but he showed me something with Pacific to fix it.
I hope I have this correct (this was for original edition, so I’m not sure how it carries over)
Choose two of three options:
I’m sure something like this has come up before, but this evened out the games in 1st edition, so I’m curious on how it would work in A3.
Even with the 5 ships aleutian block, it doesn’t look good for USA.
Turn 1
Japan buys 3 transports, usual moves.
USA blocks Aleutians/Alaska.
UK/ANZAC DOW
Turn 2
Japan buys Carrier, 4 trn. DOW USA, eliminates the 5 ships, lands hawaii/Phillipines. Acts like it is shifing gears and going south.
USA buys cautiously, fearing still USA crush, but if not it cannot afford to go just inf… (3 inf 1 ftr)
UK ANZAC get DEI, block Japan with DD’s from going to Java, sumatra, or malaya. China starts rolling.
Turn 3
Japan buys 5 trn/ 1 inf 1 art. Invades alaska with hawaii fleet (USA had nothing left to block) and 1 ship from Japan. Other Trns on Japan pick up Japanese from mainland. Trns in Phillipines leave a few and pick up the guys in hong kong.
USA buys full defensive, sends ftr to samoa. China continues to roll.
UK builds airbase on samoa, moves in to threaten carolines/philippines. Moves tac ftr to samoa
ANZAC sends 4 ftr to samoa.
Turn 4: Japan buys 3 bmb, 1 inf. Lands hard on canada with 15 trns. Moves all planes to alaska.
USA full def
UK ANZAC move into position to attack Japan round 5, move planes to USA.
Turn 5.
Japan buys home defense. (not much is needed). Attacks USA. Avg result keeps 15 units. (13.5 if USA had bought 6 inf instead of 3 inf ftr US 2).
Overall, the Japan move south prevented UK from getting too close, and made allies prepare for something other than the USA crush. When USA blocks aleutians, it’s actually good to go south.
With this strat, it’s actually better to attack USA when they do the 5 blocks it seems. If I have time the next report will be what Japan does if UK DOW’s UK 1 and Japan decides to ignore USA and beat up on UK for a bit.
If USA doesn’t block the Aleutians, they fall turn 4. But to block the aleutians, they are in an almost as bad situation. Japan can feint (or mean it) when they attack the us ships and then head south J2 to Australia or Sydney.
Long story short, it’s almost time to give up completely on counters and start looking for fixes.
One thing that might help Krieg, since you are looking for rules changes, is to remove the movement restrictions for china when USA falls. This would help out india a lot.
We might consider allowing Chinese units to leave China if all Chinese territories are controlled by China. Do you think that might help?
I think it would help a bit. It doesn’t help with the 5 VC’s off of mainland Asia, but it could help out India and they can take Korea. I am not convinced, however, that that would help the allies (without the USA) have a chance against Japan navally, and Japan doesn’t even need to attack the allied navy as they can almost always go around.
But, China being allowed to go to India could let UK india buy more navy.
I am pretty sure that it would not be enough though, since once Japan starts getting the DEI the IPC swing gets dramatic.
The US Remnant/ANZAC/UK Navy might be able to weather an attack from the Japanese Navy, but they won’t ever be able to challenge it as they would have to attack 3 separate times.
I was just spitballing when I was thinking of china being allowed to leave, i don’t think it’s near enough.
It might be too weird, but if USA is taken, once per game, on USA’s next turn, USA can place 20 IPC worth of units in W USA during their combat move. Of course, with this, Japan could just retake USA soon after.
Another idea is if USA is taken, UK/ANZAC each get an extra 5 if they control all of their original territories, and UK/ANZAC buy and place separately but move and attack together.
Again just throwing things out there.
I bounced this idea off of my other players, and we had tentative agreement. Let me know what you think:
If the USA falls, Japan gets the IPCs as normal less the 30 that come from the national objective. That puts the Japanese gain at only 17 or so IPCs, which leaves the UK and ANZAC on more even terms. So in a nutshell, national objective income disappears instead of changing hands.
Does this sound tenable as a house rule? I think it may need a bit of refinement, but the concept is justifiable.
Just to be clear, you know that Japan only gets 10 IPCs of income from Western United States, right? Or are you just talking about plundered IPCs?
I bounced this idea off of my other players, and we had tentative agreement. Let me know what you think:
If the USA falls, Japan gets the IPCs as normal less the 30 that come from the national objective. That puts the Japanese gain at only 17 or so IPCs, which leaves the UK and ANZAC on more even terms. So in a nutshell, national objective income disappears instead of changing hands.
Does this sound tenable as a house rule? I think it may need a bit of refinement, but the concept is justifiable.
It helps, but honestly it’s still no enough from where I am standing.
I bounced this idea off of my other players, and we had tentative agreement.� Let me know what you think:
If the USA falls, Japan gets the IPCs as normal less the 30 that come from the national objective.� That puts the� Japanese gain at only 17 or so IPCs, which leaves the UK and ANZAC on more even terms.� So in a nutshell, national objective income disappears instead of changing hands.
Does this sound tenable as a house rule?� I think it may need a bit of refinement, but the concept is justifiable.
It helps, but honestly it’s still no enough from where I am standing.
I agree that this is probably not enough if China still can only produce infantry and artillery. Japan can ignore mainland china altogether. Maybe allowing them to produce airplanes if they capture Shanghai, Jehol (Beijing) and Hong Kong is under allied control would help.
Even if it isn’t the fix for this, China really needs to be allowed to leave China in some circumstances (this includes Global '40). The way it is now, the Chinese player is punished for being successful- once China is safe or safe enough, they really don’t get to do anything except keep placing units that won’t get attacked and can’t attack 99.999999% of most games. This isn’t a lot of fun for that player and seems like a poor game design decision.
Regarding the USA issue, you could allow the US Player to make a one-time placement X IPCs worth of units into the W.USA during their first combat move after San Francisco is lost. Just low enough that they have maybe a 50% chance or so of defeating whatever Japanese units are left assuming the Japanese had average dice. You can say this represents the diversion of US forces from the East Coast. This seems reasonable since as a historical boardgame, we know that losing San Francisco would not take the US out of the war. An alternative (or something else to work in concert with the previous idea) is to allow the US player to drop X IPCs worth of units into Canada, W.USA, or Mexico every turn that Japan holds San Francisco. This would force Japan to keep some of this extra income tied up defending the West Coast.
I’m still not 100% sold on the idea that it is utterly impossible to prevent the guaranteed loss of San Francisco, but the real people to ask are the league players who are undefeated or nearly so. If anybody has the brains to see if the US can be saved, it would be them.
I wouldn’t exactly say they are punished for being successful; they can lock down 2 VC’s on the pacific map. That’s more than ANZAC can generally do. From my understanding, China isn’t supposed to be a player’s only power. I will not speak for Global, but like I was saying I think it can’t hurt to allow china to leave if certian conditions are met. Like I was saying earlier, it might be a little crazy, but once USA falls, china could be allowed to open up its buys.
When I first proposed the idea of USA getting X IPC worth of units in USA after USA falls on their next combat move, the problem I saw was that when USA takes W USA back, they all of a sudden make money again, and japan might be in a position to retake easily. I too was thinking about the fact that the rest of the USA was P.O.ed and a little to the East, but again I don’t see it solving the issue.
I think you might be onto something with the trickle of units into the other territories. Japan has to address it, but US isn’t forced to take W USA back before they are ready.
We can put all the faith we want in the “league players,” but the important thing to remember is that the person who first did a version of this strat, Sword, was in his first game on the Pac map. Conventional thinking isn’t what exposed the problem, and I have my doubts that it will be what solves it.
The biggest problem I see for the Allies after the US falls is their naval inferiority that is nigh insurmountable. They might be able to stack and defend one SZ, but they can’t attack.
3 things that I think would be good but might not be good enough (Assuming further restricting Japanese SZ movement is not desirable):
1. Chinese units can move out of China if Allies control all Chinese territories. (If China loses a territory after this, Chinese pieces can still move anywhere)
2. If USA falls, ANZAC and UK are combined into one power. (They still buy and place separately in the manner of UK in Global. Not sure if tech is an issue since it technically is only in the Global game officially in my understanding).
3. USA has an income of 10 IPC per turn while under Axis control. On their turn, they may purchase units and then place them in British Columbia, Mexico, or West USA during their combat move. They may save the IPC if they wish.
One thing I don’t want to see but might solve the issue instantly and simply is that Japan may not move land units onto West USA unless they control Sydney or Calcutta.
Could the US pull back to Mexico to put its ground forces out of range of being crushed and then retake Western US?
Just an idea.
Otherwise, you could use the old World at War rule and give the US 6 or more infantry the first time the US mainland or Alaska is attacked, representing the National Guard. You could maybe put a time restraint on it. Say, the attack must be before turn 5 or something.
Otherwise, put 3 more aa’s in Western US and an some units in Alaska and Mexico.
