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.
1-2 (maybe 3) extra Japanese bombers, 2 less Allied land units, and let’s not forget the possibility of bombardments. Changes the odds up a bit from an already high 72%, eh?
The allied 30% chance of winning is not a very good chance of winning, although Gamerman claims it is. I still have yet to see it justified how the Allies still have a good chance of winning even if it goes a little rough for Japan. When can the Allies actually take Japan? When can the Allies actually challenge the IJN even if Japan needs to buy a couple planes to replenish their carriers if USA goes poorly? When can the Allies hope to retake USA? Do they even want to?
The allied navies, if they were to attack the Japanese, would have to attack separately. This means that even if the Allies have a bigger fleet, it would have to be significantly bigger to actually challenge Japan’s. How will the Allied fleet keep its ship production up while defending Syndey and Calcutta with land units, 0 of which can come from China? How will the Allied fleet stop Japan from taking the DEI? Sure it can stack near sydney or near calcutta, but what happens when the IJN is at Java? If UK is buying a bomber and at least one base, that doesn’t bode well for either the Naval or land situations. Since Zhukov has shown that the J4 is without a reasonable counter (I gave it my best with the Aleutians block, so good catch Zhukov), there just isn’t enough time for the Allies to get a real offensive going, unless they leave USA to its fate and go full offensive which results in a significantly less amount of plane losses for the Japanese, and allows Japan to buy defensively if necessary (as if an invasion were ever reasonable anyways when Japan pulls as few inf from Japan as possible and uses mainland inf.) The questions the Allies face are not like choosing a flavor of ice cream. It’s more like they are choosing the texture and color of their nooses.
Regardless, the evidence that the average result is so devastating is proof enough that there is a problem and it needs addressing. In the put up or shut up game, it wasn’t the 14 move that did any shutting up. Since Zhukov started posting on it, it got even more powerful.
If Japan wins well more than a fair share of their games doing the traditional strat, that should be addressed. But if Japan also wins well more than a fair share doing the USA crush, that also needs to be addressed. The traditional strat being too easy does not mean this one should be ignored, especially when it’s looking ever more like this one is more effective. Is there one simple fix that can address both issues? Who knows. But since the desire of those in authority to fix it is that the fix be rules adjustments, there is a lot of room for innovation. Regardless of which strat has a better chance of winning (although we don’t even have any remotely specific suggestions for how the Allies can win after USA falls), the evidence is pretty conclusive that the USA crush is too good for what a reasonably balanced game would have.
@Eggman:
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.
By going Hawaii to 26 to 12 to 10 to W. USA, Japan’s planes still have 1 movement left.
So here’s where my numbers stand right now on J4 land defense.
I’m basing this on USA collect 17, 17, then 57.
Assuming no Japanese air casualties, Japs bring 18 inf 5 art 1 arm 11 fig 8 tac 2 bmb plus 2 bb 2 cru
Allies defend with 17 inf, 1 art, 1 mech, 9 armor, 8 fig, 1 tac, 1 bmb, 3 aa
I get 87% odds without bombardment. With bb/cru bombardment, Japanese odds increase to 94%
Substituting aas for tanks in the last USA buy only seems to increase Japanese odds, but if one was in this situation it would probably be worth the risk to buy 4 aa instead of 4 armor on USA3, providing for 21 aa shots.
Of course, if USA uses blockers or conducts naval resistance somehow on USA1-2, the Japanese could lose 1-2 planes or more.
Here are some odds with bombardment
minus 1 fighter=89%
minus 2 fighters=81%
minus 3 planes=71%
minus 4 planes=59%
The only silver lining for the game itself is that given how unbalanced Pacific is, it’s questionable whether a Hollywood tactic with as much as 20% to fail is better than a mainland tactic that might offer more favorable odds. Any attrition of Japanese fighters seems to dramatically increase Allied odds of success…AND it is heavily dependent on average AA rolls—this might make a conservative player like me somewhat wary of this strategy.
Of course, in a f2f game the Allies can’t be expected to play perfectly unless they’ve read this entire thread. But not every Japanese player will execute perfectly either.
I suspect a straight bid in this game should be at least 12 anyway–that would be sufficient to try a more ambitious blocker strategy on USA1 where you block all of Hawaii, Alaska, and Aleutians. Or you could just bid 4 inf to WUSA–not terribly strategically useful off the bat but USA would use them to fill transports soon enough.
The defensive challenge for Allies looks to be forcing the Japanese to sacrifice as many planes as possible. My impression is this doesn’t look easy and the Japanese shouldn’t have to sacrifice more then 1 fighter to accomplish their objectives on J2-J3.
Still gotta look into naval strats but there doesn’t seem to be enough time for Allies to accomplish anything via naval consolidation. As early as J2 the Japanese can consolidate into a blob fleet which means they need to be drawn out to suffer losses.
Hi everyone. Have been following with interest
I wonder if the US’ starting income is the problem.
In Europe they have 35, because Central is on that side.
I think the income from Central would be better spent in the Pacific(probably more historically accurate too). Is unfortunate it is on that map.
Does seem like it might have to be a rule change concerning how Far East Japan can move or that no Transports can move that way. The set up seems fine and I think Krieg said Larry does not want to change that again anyway.
Glad you are trying to resolve this and good luck.
@wittmann:
Hi everyone. Have been following with interest
I wonder if the US’ starting income is the problem.
In Europe they have 35, because Central is on that side.
I think the income from Central would be better spent in the Pacific(probably more historically accurate too). Is unfortunate it is on that map.
Does seem like it might have to be a rule change concerning how Far East Japan can move or that no Transports can move that way. The set up seems fine and I think Krieg said Larry does not want to change that again anyway.
Glad you are trying to resolve this and good luck.
I think a movement restriction would be a big help, and there already is one, but that can get kind of clunky. “Japan may not move within 2 of Alaska or W. USA and also may not enter SZ’s X, Y, and Z until at war.”
Not a huge deal if that is what it sounds like, I was just hoping for something more streamlined, maybe.
Restricting loaded transports is very interesting though…
Thank you. Occurred to me as the US has one in the Atlantic and I have understood the problem is one of landing Ground units.
Larry’s call…
Zhukov, agreed on the Japanese not really losing more than 1 ftr, if USA even does block, which might not be as worth it now that Hawaii is also on the list of landing zones for Japan’s ftrs. If USA goes haywire and blocks whatever it can, then they better hope and pray that they get that 1 plane. It doesn’t look even totally necessary to try to go after the battleship J2. There’s not a whole lot USA can do with 1 blocker left. In your opinion, should USA still try to block Aleutians, Alaska, and or Hawaii?
Don’t forget in your calculations the bomber(s) Japan can buy on J3.
Not really sure what the odds of winning with a mainland tactic are; really haven’t seen much anything about Pac 2e balance with that. Obviously OOB had major issues.
Personally, I don’t really see another overpowered Japanese strat in addition to the mainland being a silver lining for Pac 2e. I think the silver lining here is that Larry and Krieg are willing to work on this even after release.
Not a huge deal if that is what it sounds like, I was just hoping for something more streamlined, maybe.
Restricting loaded transports is very interesting though…
Something along the lines of until any nation is at war, no units may be left on Transports in empty sea zones might work.
Just occurred to me that bombers bought Japan 3 can reach WUSA if Japan holds British Columbia!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :cry:
3 extra bombers (though Japan might be able to buy 4) increase the odds with bombard to 100%. To get Japan’s odds below 50%, USA would need 11 additional infantry.
I guess this increases the value of protecting Alaska and Hawaii somewhat because with control of those Japan wouldn’t need to build an airbase J3, allowing another bomber buy.
USA’s best chance seems to be attacking W Canada on USA3 and that’s about 24-25%.
