I’ve never done it myself, but my impression is that the game is severely imbalanced in favor of Japan, so start with a 30-50 IPC bid for the Allies, and revise from there.
Pointlessly Broken
-
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)
-
Stoney, it’s a bit early to say this, but since you just posted -
I am waiting for J3 in our test game. There is no requirement to attack J3, but as I said in the game thread, it’s probably the best option at this point.
The “all-out” defense of the allies to defend against a possible J3 attack of Wus is really not even that inconveniencing. I sent 3 ANZAC fighters to Wus that don’t have anything to do anyway, and the US has bought 11 infantry and 4 fighters in her first 2 rounds. Units that could be put to good use if the J3 attack does not happen.
No, I think the J1, 2, and 3 attack on Wus is a pie in the sky idea. It’s not practical, and is not high percentage. Whether Japan attacks on round 3 or pulls back like it was one big bluff, Japan is in a poor situation. As you said, an India rush (or really, any combination of attacks on India, China, and ANZAC/USA) is preferable. After 2 rounds, well, let me get the current map for you. In my estimation, it is not looking good for Japan at all.
-
Now if J can get USA’s 60, that will help their cause, but J will lose an awful lot of material taking Wus. China is already getting to be a beast, and without J airpower, will continue to take more territory.
China has 18, UK has 28, ANZAC has 28, and J is clear up in Alaska.
In the 20% or so chance that Wus falls, the minor allies are actually still looking good, I think. But like I said, let’s wait for J3.
-
@Imperious:
LOL. The game was declared broken 3 days after it was released, which began the process of Alpha 1,2,3.
We spent over a year developing ideas for larry, which finally resulted in 2nd edition Pacific and Europe.
-
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.
Nonsense! I guess you missed the big discussion and series of test games. See the link I provided to the discussion thread. Unfortunately, I can’t immediately view the map files that were uploaded, but you can read the commentary. Also, I think the games are old enough that they have been purged from the site? Link Stoney provided was broken, anyway.
This was all hashed out in 2010<yawn></yawn>
-
I guess the main thing I don’t know, is how is the starting setup of 2nd edition different than the old OOB? Didn’t the number of aircraft even get trimmed back along the way? I guess if the starting setup or a rule change has had a significant effect on Kill USA first strategy in P40, then all the discussion and play testing we did a couple years ago is irrelevant to the 2nd edition “problem” you are describing.
Suggested Topics
