Thanks Panther that is what I thought.
Pointlessly Broken
-
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.
-
If Japan saw USA pull back, they could either attack and select only planes (3 or 4 with what the USA will have built), or even attack USA lightly, wait for US to reenter, and then attack them again and double their money (not advisable, but I see its merits)
USA did not have enough strength to attack Japan US3, so they won’t be much better US 4 (maybe 1 plane more
-
I haven’t scoped it our yet, but the other allies are just not able to build up strong enough to stop Japan after US crush?
They need Haw and one more VC right? Hm, I’d think they could hold Hong Kong and Shanghai. But maybe not.
-
I haven’t scoped it our yet, but the other allies are just not able to build up strong enough to stop Japan after US crush?Â
They need Haw and one more VC right? Hm, I’d think they could hold Hong Kong and Shanghai. But maybe not.
The Axis doesn’t want to bother with Hong Kong or Shanghai from what I have seen. Those are the only two China can defend, so why bother fighting china?
The Allies have to be able to challenge the IJN after USA falls or there is no point in playing. Japan has transports up the wazoo and starts gobbling up territory. ANZAC and UK can’t just stack their VC’s obviously, or Japan will never be threatened and Japan takes the DEI which really tips the Allied apple cart of IPC. Problem is, Japan can just take the DEI anyways as the Allies can’t actually attack the IJN and they can only really defend 1 SZ at a time.
This strat doesn’t win with Hong Kong or Shanghai, it’s Tokyo, Manila, Honolulu, LA, Sydney, and Calcutta.
-
This strat doesn’t win with Hong Kong or Shanghai, it’s Tokyo, Manila, Honolulu, LA, Sydney, and Calcutta.
That’s why it’s irrelevant if China can stack those places with infinite infantry or not.
I’m actually wondering if Japan can win without buying a single ground unit. After the DEI is claimed they don’t need China’s income anymore and can just convoy the rest of the players out of the game.
-
Wow! Sydney can’t defend itself?
I’d think that they’d be able to get the DEI with UK with Japan so heavily invested with the US.
Yet, I guess with the dumb minor IC they’d be limited in their build up…
Very interesting post. When I get a chance I’ll set it up. I play almost all global and played pacific only once. So it being flawed doesn’t really change anything for me other than present an interest problem.
The one time i played pacific was 1st Ed. OBB and Japan was a monster. Totally unstoppable.
-
I guess the easy fix for this would be to change the rule so that at least 1 VC has to be on the mainland. At least that will put Hong Kong/Shanghai in the mix.
-
Wow! Sydney can’t defend itself?Â
I’d think that they’d be able to get the DEI with UK with Japan so heavily invested with the US.
Yet, I guess with the dumb minor IC they’d be limited in their build up…
Very interesting post. When I get a chance I’ll set it up. I play almost all global and played pacific only once. So it being flawed doesn’t really change anything for me other than present an interest problem.Â
The one time i played pacific was 1st Ed. OBB and Japan was a monster. Totally unstoppable.
ANZAC/UK can get the DEI easily, HOLDING it once Japan gets back from its vacation in California is a different story. The Allies need to be able to challenge Japan’s navy to have a chance at doing, well, anything important. Every ship they buy is at least 1 less land unit, and every land unit they buy is less going toward ships, and they need a lot of both.
-
Very interesting problem. I am interested to see what people come up with.
Although if Krieghund is stumped…. who knows!
-
The Allies need to be able to challenge Japan’s navy to have a chance at doing, well, anything important. Every ship they buy is at least 1 less land unit, and every land unit they buy is less going toward ships, and they need a lot of both.
If Japan is sending everything after the US, doesn’t that at least mean that ANZAC can buy only ships? And possibly the UK? If Japan isn’t sending more ground down south, then what the Allies start with should suffice, or nearly so.
-
@Eggman:
The Allies need to be able to challenge Japan’s navy to have a chance at doing, well, anything important. Every ship they buy is at least 1 less land unit, and every land unit they buy is less going toward ships, and they need a lot of both.
If Japan is sending everything after the US, doesn’t that at least mean that ANZAC can buy only ships? And possibly the UK? If Japan isn’t sending more ground down south, then what the Allies start with should suffice, or nearly so.
Suffice for what? Definitely not attack on what will be at least 3 loaded carriers, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, and handful of smaller ships, and whatever Japan buys J5.
-
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 DOWIf you have time, can you clarify what are the
usual moves? -
What baffles me most is no one noticed this when the game came out. I remember “Operation Hollywood” being quite popular in Revised…so it’s surprising no one tried it early on.
-
Or even better, you can run through this in TripleA and upload the file.
-
Eggman this is what I meant by “usual moves.” It might be a little different in china, more might be moving to Manchu/Korea.
You are starting the game with a major IC in Western United States, right?
Yes.
Good timing, I just got done writing it up.
Buy: 3 trn
Combat Move
Chahar: 1 inf (Jehol)
Anhwe: 4 inf (3 Shantung 1 Jehol),�  Mech (Manchu)
Hunan: 2 inf (Kiangsi) 3 ftr (1 Kiangsu 2 Manchu) 3 tac (ditto)***NC Move
SZ 6 Navy to 14 with 1 inf 1 art from Japan (according to the rules this is not within 2 sz’s of�  Alaska or W USA)
SZ 33 Navy to Japan
SZ 19 Navy to Japan (with art from shantung, inf from okinawa)
SZ 20 to Japan (with Art from Kiangsu)
Korea: 6 inf, Art, AA (Manchu)
Manchu: Art (Jehol)
Kiangsi: 5 inf (2 Kwangsi, 3 Kiangsu), Art, 3 tac 3 ftr (all from Hunan)***
Japan: 3 Ftr (Korea, Okinawa, Formosa)Place: 3 trn SZ 6.
-
BTW Krieg, just wondering if this is still an issue in terms of time being devoted to fix it, or if Pacific isn’t played enough by itself to warrant an investment of time. I am up for doing a few more tests if you are still looking for info.
-
We’ve got around half a dozen possible fixes we’re considering, but we’d like to wait a little while and see if someone comes up with a counter (slim chance, I know). If no counter is forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time, we’ll publish a fix for testing.
-
Man, what a lot of reading.
Yes, the KUSAF strategy was touted years ago. I challenged the guy who said it was “unstoppable” and I trashed him. IIRC he had maybe a 40% chance on WUS when it came time to strike. UK and ANZ were going crazy - I won’t just accept the statement that it’s game over if USA falls.
Anyway, as Eggman said, run a few rounds of this “unstoppable” strategy on tripleA and upload it so we can analyze it.
I’m skeptical, but if Krieghund and Zhukov think rule changes are in order to fix this, then I think I definitely need to revisit this issue. Maybe there’s something you came up with that this other guy (forget his handle) a couple years ago did, and 2nd edition is maybe a little different than when we were playing OOB? At least I think it was OOB - I don’t remember.
But I REALLY don’t want to take the time to read all your ruminations. Just show us the “final” “whiz-bang” strat that you’ve “fine-tuned”, and I’ll see if I can stop it.
I’ve never seen an “unstoppable” strategy with 90%+ chance of winning every time like you are claiming, in any of the A&A games that I have played extensively, which would include Revised, AA50, P40, and G40, so forgive me but I find this hard to believe.
-
We’ve got around half a dozen possible fixes we’re considering, but we’d like to wait a little while and see if someone comes up with a counter (slim chance, I know). If no counter is forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time, we’ll publish a fix for testing.
Enter Gamerman 8-)
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17497.0
And the game is decided on J3. US and ANZAC remaining forces - 3 ANZAC fighters, 5 USA fighters, and 2 USA Tac bombers.
One Japanese Strat bomber limps away from the battlefield, and all that’s left of the Japanese fleet, a damaged battleship, a destroyer, a cruiser, and 3 transports face imminent destruction in USA3.
This pretty much concludes the J-1 –>Alaska; J3 Game Over thread.
It’s Game Over, all right. For Japan. Fastest way they could possibly lose.
Thanks for the demonstration, Tragedy, it was fun and interesting.
I recommend strongly against a KUSAF strategy against a good opponent.In the put up or shut up game, Tragedy had to shut up. I completely destroyed his KUSAF strategy. Maybe you have a way better one, I don’t know yet. Show me on a game board (tripleA or a series of ABattlemaps)
Suggested Topics
