Worth noting that the game also seems to be easy for Japan if it goes the mainland route so it’s not clear yet which way to victory is actually more broken.
That’s what I’ve been trying to say. If going straight for USA is not measurably more successful than the traditional strategy, then this strategy is no great revelation, even in 2nd edition.
To me this sounds like you are trying to find a face-saving way to back out of your stance coming into the thread, where all that needed to be done was to give you this USA crush strat and you would quickly save the day by solving it like you say you did with a version of it in OOB, which since it sounds like this person DOWed J1, it probably wasn’t worth much anyways.
You have yet to explain any possible means by which the Allies can win if USA is taken before the Allies can actually threaten a landing on Japan. Every resource they commit to helping defend the USA is something less to be used to actually play offensively. As you can see from Zhukov’s move, the Japanese Navy is not too hard to keep very much intact while obliterating most of the starting Allied ships.
You keep trying to say that this doesn’t matter at all, the game needed a bid anyways, etc., yet for the bid you recommended 3 infantry for the USA. Are those infantry going to significantly help the Allies with countering the more traditional strat? Not really, if we are honest, so this strat does need to be addressed.
Note also, as I have said, is that as part of this move to 14, Japan can simutaneously threaten USA and the traditional means of victory.
Until proven otherwise, which even an expert with his best possible Allied moves was unable to show, that outside of ridiculously bad dice, Japan’s ability to take (or at least threaten) the US makes this game (the actual, official game, the only game that I have been talking about), pointless to play if the goal is both sides having a decently even shot at winning. Bids may work great in the daily situations, but as long as the designers are up for trying to get a solution that doesn’t require bids, there is no need to be against supporting that effort, even if in so doing one can save face.
I really don’t see any other threads discussing 2e balance, so to act like this is not a big deal is either not looking at what is in front of you, or trying to not have to face the overconfidence you came into the thread with.
Oh, shut up. You are such a blowhard. Did you even comprehend what I just said?
You are unbelievably arrogant. You think you’re the first one to think of KUSAF in P40? What hubris.
You just can’t stand that I said your strategy isn’t the bees’ knees. How proud is that? You’re not considering my arguments and points. I’m not wasting any more time on you.
Zhukov just said it “also seems easy for Japan if they go the mainland route”.
Hello? He just said the same thing I did.
Now I’ll let you get back to kissing yourself.
Oh, shut up. You are such a blowhard. Did you even comprehend what I just said?
You are unbelievably arrogant. You think you’re the first one to think of KUSAF in P40? What hubris.
How ironic. Go to the very first post in this thread. Talk about not even comprehending what other people say. :roll:
We go from “Just give it to me and I will stomp this”
to “Whatever, this game needed a bid anyways, just put 3 inf in W USA”
to “This is hardly a revelation.”
It sounds to me like you are more upset at the fact that someone other than you found this strat for 2e, and that someone other than you brought it to attention. You can’t stand the fact that a player in his first game of Pac opened the door for this one in 2e, and that you, the vaunted expert Gamerman, did not. Once it became clear that you could not “trash” it like you claimed you could, you try to avoid facing up to your claim. After several tests I came on here convinced that if J
Japan did this 14 move, it broke the game. You come on, act like the 4 pages written is beneath you, demand that I supply you with the strat so you can save the day, demand that the game be played as you want, and then don’t even put up a respectable resistance to the strat while claiming they were the best moves the allies had. And then you call ME arrogant!
Cool, Japan has a good chance of winning going mainland. So what? Where did I say differently? What I have shown, and what Zhukov has even more clearly shown is that it is too easy for the Axis to win with the 14 move. As I have said from before you entered the thread as the savior of Pacific, the with the 14 move, Japan either gets the USA or
The USA crush cannot be ignored, even though you came into the thread acting like after you easily trashed one noob, it would be a non-factor.
You still have not addressed why you simultaneously said this strat is not a big deal but then say that the US needs more inf. You still have not shown (forget showing for now, let’s try even a SUGGESTION from the expert for starters), how the Allies can hope to win when against it’s already been shown that Japan can not reasonably be stopped from taking the US by J5 with the IJN and a good chunk of air still very much intact. And you still haven’t admitted that if this strat isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, you have no reason to say that it is not very, very close to being that good.
You are making it sound like the USA crush is irrelevant because Japan can win anyways by going mainland. Wha-?
Save your typin’ fingers. I’m not reading another word you write, including that last one, or most of the previous one.
I guess it’s therapeutic for you to rant, though. It’s all you do.
Save your typin’ fingers. Â I’m not reading another word you write, including that last one, or most of the previous one.
I guess it’s therapeutic for you to rant, though. Â It’s all you do.
Cool. I only put up with your condescension and arrogance this long because I thought you might have a counter, but now that you have shown nothing that could actually stop this strategy about which you are so jealous of Sword for starting, and even though you talked big, your potential to be helpful to fixing this strat (that according to the evidence definitely breaks the game) in any meaningful way is pretty much at zero.
Hopefully someone out there with the talent and/or A&A intuition exists that can come up with something that can stop the optimal USA crush in Pac 2e AND Japan’s responses to the attempts to stop it. I have a feeling that since it was a player in his first game on the map who started this, if it is going to be solved, it will be similarly be by someone who isn’t stuck in complacency that a self-assigned title of “expert” might bring.
It would also help if the person who was trying to find a counter was more interested in actually making the game balanced than in trying to “trash” some “noobs” who dared to bring up an important balance issue before he, the “expert” did.
If anyone would like a game, PM me to set up a time. There are a few examples already posted, but seeing it in action is sometimes more helpful. Just give a little respect and you’ll get plenty more. Please read what has already been written, you will probably learn something and I can guarantee that with a little investigation you will realize that a USA defense has it tougher than it would look just by looking at the starting setup. The time spent reading can actually save time, since it might help you avoid some mistakes that would mean wasted games.
I think it’s safe to say that regardless of Pac 2e’s problems when Japan goes mainland, all the evidence we have points to there being an at the very least equal (probably greater) problem when Japan goes after the USA. The evidence is very strong for the 14 move showing the game to be quite broken. Addressing balance definitely needs to take the USA crush into account, whereas before Sword opened the door for this strat in 2e, if there were any balance concerns voiced, they were about the traditional strat. Neither the traditional nor the crush should be ignored during the attempts to fix this game, and the chances of it not needing a fix have declined much recently.
Whether or Japan’s traditional moves bring too easy a victory doesn’t change the fact that the evidence so far clearly shows an attack on the USA brings too easy a victory. Regardless of whether or not it was an issue in OOB, and regardless of whether or not it was discovered during OOB, it is almost assuredly a MAJOR issue in 2e right now. The whole situation is “darned if I do, darned if I don’t,” for the Allies, but perhaps there is still hope for a reliable counter.
Ok here’s me messing around with J1 and Allies1. This opening at least blocks Hawaii and gives poor odds on Aleutians.
I’m messing around with a Samoa airbase, possibly followed by a Samoa naval base. Krieghund mentioned this idea and its probably been discussed but the thread is 9 pages long lol. I’m dunno whether it’s more important for anzac to seize a money island or get 2 inf out to Samoa.
I’m iffy on sacrificing the 3 inf aa to prevent the J2 Aleutian airbase. But that potential airbase is definitely an issue so in this game Allies are defending it.
Feel free to follow up with a Japanese response!
Here’s an improved version, less errors on both sides (hopefully).
Yeah I think check back around page 2 for Krieghund’s samoa idea. I believe it was only an Airbase, not a naval. Downloading the files now.
Ok here’s me messing around with J1 and Allies1. This opening at least blocks Hawaii and gives poor odds on Aleutians.
I’m messing around with a Samoa airbase, possibly followed by a Samoa naval base. Krieghund mentioned this idea and its probably been discussed but the thread is 9 pages long lol. I’m dunno whether it’s more important for anzac to seize a money island or get 2 inf out to Samoa.
I’m iffy on sacrificing the 3 inf aa to prevent the J2 Aleutian airbase. But that potential airbase is definitely an issue so in this game Allies are defending it.
Feel free to follow up with a Japanese response!
I’m not sure the Naval Base is worth it, mainly for the reasons you stated. But the Air Base seems like a must, especially if you think you will delay Japan long enough for the UK air to make use of it. If the UK air don’t head for Samoa, then you’re basically spending 15 IPC to get 1 more 10 IPC ANZAC fighter over to San Francisco.
Not sure if you wanted comments on the first one, but it looks like by going North Japan can get to aleutians.
On to the second game.
I like the naval split as Japan. Keep in mind this USA move does not block Hawaii, though. 14-13-26. and it’s yours.
Aggressive in china, but one thing to remember is that if you are going for the J5 attack on USA, you will need a lot of the mainland troops to fill your trns. I’m not saying that isn’t possible with your moves; not every transport needs to head to USA once it is built, J3 your trns in 6 can move to 19, pick up a few guys, and back to Japan, ready to land Canada J4. It’s just something to be cautious of; IMO you don’t want to have to build any land units on Japan if you can help it until the turn you attack USA (and only if Allies are threatening Japan).
For about a week I have been moving the ANZAC CA to 27, but with your naval split, that might not be such a good idea anymore.
I don’t think you need to spend the money on the Samoa airbase yet; UK goes before ANZAC so it can be there when it is really needed.
I would also recommend not spending the money on artillery for Japan rd 1; this prevents you from getting the 6th trn rd 2.
Not sure if you wanted comments on the first one, but it looks like by going North Japan can get to aleutians.
On to the second game.
I like the naval split as Japan. Keep in mind this USA move does not block Hawaii, though. 14-13-26. and it’s yours.
Aggressive in china, but one thing to remember is that if you are going for the J5 attack on USA, you will need a lot of the mainland troops to fill your trns. I’m not saying that isn’t possible with your moves; not every transport needs to head to USA once it is built, J3 your trns in 6 can move to 19, pick up a few guys, and back to Japan, ready to land Canada J4. It’s just something to be cautious of; IMO you don’t want to have to build any land units on Japan if you can help it until the turn you attack USA (and only if Allies are threatening Japan).For about a week I have been moving the ANZAC CA to 27, but with your naval split, that might not be such a good idea anymore.
I don’t think you need to spend the money on the Samoa airbase yet; UK goes before ANZAC so it can be there when it is really needed.
I would also recommend not spending the money on artillery for Japan rd 1; this prevents you from getting the 6th trn rd 2.
Thanks for the feedback, good stuff. I can’t believe I missed that the blocker in 13. There doesn’t seem to be enough American units to protect all of Alaska, Aleutians, and Hawaii. Or is there? Japan still gets the 24 units plus mass aircraft attack on J4. I dunno if there’s merit in trying to hold Aleutians if Japan can use Hawaii or Alaska for the same purpose. Looks grim–back to the drawing board.
I’m not sure the Naval Base is worth it, mainly for the reasons you stated. But the Air Base seems like a must, especially if you think you will delay Japan long enough for the UK air to make use of it. If the UK air don’t head for Samoa, then you’re basically spending 15 IPC to get 1 more 10 IPC ANZAC fighter over to San Francisco.
Good points. Ideally Allies could get 6-8 planes there by anzac3–3 anzac, 3 brit, 1 additional anzac bought Anzac1 (though this means forgoing a trn buy anzac1), plus possibly a UK1 bomber. So it looks pretty essential, but probably not sufficient to turn the tide if the Japs get an airbase in range of WUSA.
A naval base is probably worth a look but Jap fleet superiority makes it hard to get good use out of it.
Not sure if you wanted comments on the first one, but it looks like by going North Japan can get to aleutians.
On to the second game.
I like the naval split as Japan. Keep in mind this USA move does not block Hawaii, though. 14-13-26. and it’s yours.
Aggressive in china, but one thing to remember is that if you are going for the J5 attack on USA, you will need a lot of the mainland troops to fill your trns. I’m not saying that isn’t possible with your moves; not every transport needs to head to USA once it is built, J3 your trns in 6 can move to 19, pick up a few guys, and back to Japan, ready to land Canada J4. It’s just something to be cautious of; IMO you don’t want to have to build any land units on Japan if you can help it until the turn you attack USA (and only if Allies are threatening Japan).For about a week I have been moving the ANZAC CA to 27, but with your naval split, that might not be such a good idea anymore.
I don’t think you need to spend the money on the Samoa airbase yet; UK goes before ANZAC so it can be there when it is really needed.
I would also recommend not spending the money on artillery for Japan rd 1; this prevents you from getting the 6th trn rd 2.
Thanks for the feedback, good stuff. Â I can’t believe I missed that the blocker in 13. Â There doesn’t seem to be enough American units to protect all of Alaska, Aleutians, and Hawaii. Â Or is there? Â Japan still gets the 24 units plus mass aircraft attack on J4. Â I dunno if there’s merit in trying to hold Aleutians if Japan can use Hawaii or Alaska for the same purpose. Â Looks grim–back to the drawing board.
Holy balls, good catch! I was so focused on Canada I did not remember that Hawaii is 4 from W USA. Allies cannot hope to block Alaska, Aleutians, and Hawaii from a J2 attack, which means all the planes will be ready J4 no matter what. That is HUGE. Maybe not case-closed huge, but darn close.
If USA just pulls its fleet back, Japan will have not needed to take out the blockers, which means they will have plenty of cheap ships to attack the USN with. The question now is if there anything worth blocking anymore? The allies can’t stop a J4, so will ANZAC need to use its trns to get a jump on territory, or is it still worth it to risk an attempt at landing? UK’s planes are out of the picture. I am almost of the opinion that an Alaska block is worthwhile due to the ease of positioning of Japan’s navy if it is available and the overland connection to the critical BC, but that needs further looks. I am feeling that Japan would want Alaska, and would like the Aleutians position but the fact that Hawaii already has an airbase is tempting too, plus Hawaii is a better staging area if Japan sees the Allies selling out to get to W USA. Unfortunately, the dilemma for Japan is not that they are in a difficult situation, but that they have too many good ones to choose from!
Any good news for the Allies? Since you’ve gotten here Zhukov it’s all been bad for the “good” guys. You should be ashamed of yourself. :wink:
I’m not sure the Naval Base is worth it, mainly for the reasons you stated. Â But the Air Base seems like a must, especially if you think you will delay Japan long enough for the UK air to make use of it. Â If the UK air don’t head for Samoa, then you’re basically spending 15 IPC to get 1 more 10 IPC ANZAC fighter over to San Francisco.
Good points. Â Ideally Allies could get 6-8 planes there by anzac3–3 anzac, 3 brit, 1 additional anzac bought Anzac1 (though this means forgoing a trn buy anzac1), plus possibly a UK1 bomber. Â So it looks pretty essential, but probably not sufficient to turn the tide if the Japs get an airbase in range of WUSA. Â
A naval base is probably worth a look but ��� fleet superiority makes it hard to get good use out of it.
If the attack is J4, the best the other Allies can do is 3 ANZAC planes and the Philippines plane. With the Allied inability to block Hawaii, Alaska, and Aleutians, it’s back to J4 all the way.
Thanks for the feedback, good stuff. I can’t believe I missed that the blocker in 13. There doesn’t seem to be enough American units to protect all of Alaska, Aleutians, and Hawaii. Or is there? Japan still gets the 24 units plus mass aircraft attack on J4. I dunno if there’s merit in trying to hold Aleutians if Japan can use Hawaii or Alaska for the same purpose. Looks grim–back to the drawing board.
I’m not sure why it’s helpful to get Hawaii (solely from the perspective of a follow-on attack on W.USA, obviously it’s nice to nab a VC). All of your non-Bombers need all 5 moves just to get to San Francisco from there, so they can’t attack.
The 4-7-8-9-15 block covers the Aleutians and Alaska. I think it is a smarter move to take out the Aleutians though since the USA would have absolutely zero chance of getting it back.
If USA just pulls its fleet back, Japan will have not needed to take out the blockers, which means they will have plenty of cheap ships to attack the USN with. The question now is if there anything worth blocking anymore? The allies can’t stop a J4, so will ANZAC need to use its trns to get a jump on territory, or is it still worth it to risk an attempt at landing? UK’s planes are out of the picture. I am almost of the opinion that an Alaska block is worthwhile due to the ease of positioning of Japan’s navy if it is available and the overland connection to the critical BC, but that needs further looks. I am feeling that Japan would want Alaska, and would like the Aleutians position but the fact that Hawaii already has an airbase is tempting too, plus Hawaii is a better staging area if Japan sees the Allies selling out to get to W USA. Unfortunately, the dilemma for Japan is not that they are in a difficult situation, but that they have too many good ones to choose from!
Been messing with it for a few hours today and I’m stumped. I can’t get past 14% odds for USA3 attack on W. Canada or 10% of USA surviving J4. Gonna start investigating fleet strats but it looks grim because the Axis fleet superiority can prevent Allied consolidation at key moments.
Been messing with it for a few hours today and I’m stumped. I can’t get past 14% odds for USA3 attack on W. Canada or 10% of USA surviving J4. Gonna start investigating fleet strats but it looks grim because the Axis fleet superiority can prevent Allied consolidation at key moments.
Do you think it’s possible to get 4 ANZ ground units to WUS by US3? As long as USA can clear any Japanese fleet parked in Z10…
Have you not reviewed the game thread?
I’m not seeing a way to stop the landing of 24 ground units on British Columbia on J3.
This means Japan can attack J4 with 16 INF, 7 ART, 1 ARM, 11 FTR, 8 TAC, and 2 BMB. I don’t think that fact can be changed.
However, it is possible for the Allies to get some extra defense to WUS.
- Buy 5 INF US1
- Buy BMB UK1, TP ANZ1
- Buy 6 INF US2
- Buy naval base for Samoa UK2
- Move 2 loaded transports to Samoa ANZ2
- Buy 5 INF, AA, ARM, 3 FTR US3
- Fly in UK bomber
Fly in 3 ANZ fighters- Transport 4 ground units from Samoa
The 4 ground units from ANZAC can probably be stopped? by parking some Japanese fleet in Z10. However, some ships will be needed to protect 6 transports that will be moving into Z1. But maybe the US fleet is sitting in Z10 protected by potential scrambles. I don’t know if the Japanese player would attack the US fleet, but if they don’t, the 4 ANZAC units cannot be stopped from making it to the US on ANZ3.
If ANZAC ground units are stopped, then the Allies are defending with 21 INF, ART, 2 AA, ARM, TAC, 11 FTR, 1 BMB
Assuming 1 fighter shot down by AA, the odds are 95% chance of taking WUS. Median result is Japan survives with the tank and 13 aircraft. Upper quartile is 17 aircraft, 3rd quartile is 9 aircraft.
However, if you have 4 ANZAC ground units on top of that, for a total of 25 INF, then
the odds are only 72.8% chance of victory. Median result is Japan survives with 7 aircraft. Upper quartile is 11 aircraft, 3rd quartile is FAILURE - game over. 70/30 percentile has Japan winning, but with only 1 or 2 bombers remaining.If the Allies build maximum defense builds with the USA every turn, fly in a UK bomber and 3 ANZAC fighters, and get 4 ANZAC infantry in, the Allies have a very good chance of winning. If WUS falls but Japan only survives with a handful of planes, the Allies still have a good chance of winning.
As Zhukov pointed out, P40 has always been unbalanced in favor of Japan. Running the “traditional” strategy of going after India and China first should still be successful a higher percentage of the time than going KUSAF.
Other allies don’t have to “sell out” to try to save WUS, necessarily.
The UK bomber purchase on round 1 and flying to WUS is probably not necessary.
Whether the 4 ANZ infantry can sneak into WUS on ANZ3 is key.
Without them, no, you’re not going to get higher than 10% USA surviving J4.
With them, the strategy fails, as compared to other Japan options. At least, it’s very risky. And why would Japan need to take big risks?
VonLettow stubbornly ignored pretty much everything I had to say. He does not know if the ANZ transports can be stopped. He decided to ignore any ideas I had for stopping “his” strategy, because he’s so proud of it.
I showed him several things he hadn’t seen before, but he stubbornly refuses to admit any skill that I have, because he’s a jerk.
You showed me a fleet move with a Hawaii block, and a UK bomber buy. Neither of those I think are very good, especially when the former leaves Alaska wide open.
Also there was the UK AF move to china, which, yes, I hadn’t seen before, but I did not know what that accomplished since Japan doesnt attack after rd 1 in china anyways. Just because I hadn’t seen it before doesn’t mean it was any good. The ANZAC cruiser to hawaii was decent, but I prefer it just to the East of that. Showing new moves doesn’t make you special. Showing GOOD ones might.
Not really sure what you are talking about with me ignoring your posts; You didn’t evne bother to glance at anything I wrote in the first 4 pages of the thread. The second you left Alaska wide open in our game on US2, you lost the game. Even just skimming the first few pages would have made it clear that that was a big no-no.
Just because you can’t see a J3 invasion of Canada being stopped does not mean the J4 was automatically still on; Japan needs to have gotten a place to get planes within range of W USA too. With Zhukov’s strat, it’s now proven that J2 Japan can always get such a place.
What USA strat is going to actually be able to keep 10 open on RD 3? Every blocker they use to prevent Japan from getting right up next to them is one less that can actually defend that SZ. If they use no blockers, they are also hosed since Japan can bring the full might of the IJN down on them, likely with support from planes from Japan, like I was able to do against your “expert” moves.
Again, you talk big, but don’t actually show us anything. Your best Allied move, as you claimed, left 0 realistic opportunity for those 4 ANZAC inf to reach USA. You act like that ANZAC attempt is something new that hasn’t been attempted in a half-dozen tests already.
Saying I ignored pretty much everything you had to say does not make it true.
Do you think it’s possible to get 4 ANZ ground units to WUS by US3? As long as USA can clear any Japanese fleet parked in Z10…
- Buy 5 INF US1
- Buy BMB UK1, TP ANZ1
- Buy 6 INF US2
- Buy naval base for Samoa UK2
- Move 2 loaded transports to Samoa ANZ2
- Buy 5 INF, AA, ARM, 3 FTR US3
- Fly in UK bomber
Fly in 3 ANZ fighters- Transport 4 ground units from Samoa
In my tests, I did buys similar to yours. Japan parks the bulk of its fleet in z10 on J3 and sacrifices the 2nd transport wave (6 transports). So there’s no way to get through with the 4 inf on Anzac2. I can’t even land in Mexico. Japan is 90% to win against my inf/armor/aa buys with USA.
The best I could do with Anzac would be to sneak in an additional inf/aa on Anzac2 if UK builds a naval base turn 1 or 2. Japs might be able to block it. Gotta have a look at that. If it’s feasible that would improve Allied odds.
Can you get the aircraft there w/o an airbase? I’ll take a look. If Allies can do w/o either the naval base or the airbase, then they can afford that bomber UK1.
This is quite the learning experience and hopefully it will pay off down the road in Global games.
Wake Island is a possibility for Allied planes, but it doesn’t change much other than the UK not needing to build an Airbase.
I also have considered the sacrifice of 6 trns, doesn’t seem like a good move and it doesn’t seem like a bad move. The US navy is really over a barrel; it can’t hope to hold up against the Japanese whether USA blocks or not, and the best USA attack on the IJN is always going to lose more Allied planes than Axis.
If 2 ANZAC guys are able to sneak in ANZAC 2, the Naval base is necessary. From everything we have seen so far, I realize that we don’t KNOW for a fact that ANZAC can’t get 4 there by their 3rd turn, but even the resident expert has no idea how to do it if it is possible with Japan’s available counters.
I have seen in written that Allies have a good chance of winning if Japan takes heavy plane losses, but I have yet to actually see any evidence of that, and have yet to see why that is terribly relevant to the question of whether or not there is a balance issue when the average result is so devastating. Let’s not forget that bombers bought J3 can attack USA J4. That is HUGE. Japan can afford at least 1 bmb on J3, more if they don’t need to buy the Aleutian airbase.
