Pointlessly Broken

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Gamerman, Zhukov gave his opinion that a bid of 17 and 18 was looking right, and then it looked like he was thinking the bid needed to be increased even more. It’s only 1 more inf before that bid of 17-18 is in the 20’s. Since he has actually shown that he has talent in this game (rather than putting up an easily defeated strat while calling it the best possible strat for the Allies), he has shown that he actually knows what he is talking about.

Where are your play reports detailing that Pac 2nd edition is too easy for Japan going the traditional route? I am not saying it isn’t too easy, I just have seen 0 evidence actually related to that yet.

Maybe you haven’t been around lately, but IL looks for any opportunity he can to attack me due to an unfortunate series of embarrassing run-ins he had with evidence I have provided in the 1914 forum. If his presence is anything other than a troll finding excuses to try to make me look bad, he hasn’t shown it.

Of course it MY fault that you were not able to come up with the strats before Zhukov even though you just quit the game we were playing after J2. � :roll: I “wouldn’t work with you” when I spend 3 hours trying to accomodate your pushiness to start play by forum and then after I post my J2 you just drop out? � :roll: I “wouldn’t work with you” when I repeatedly offered to play live at a time that works for you, while you repeatedly refused to even try it?

Had you read � the thread or been present in a few TripleA playtests, you would have seen that Japan parking its fleet in SZ 10 is nothing new. Neither is ANZAC attempting to get inf to W USA. You come after me for allegedly acting like I invented this strat (which in the very first post it’s clear I was not saying that at all), but it’s totally OK for you act like the idea of moving ANZAC inf to W USA is yours. � :roll:

You STILL haven’t acknowledged that your analysis was erroneous because it did not account for the J3 bomber(s) purchase, the potential for Japanese bombardments, or the ability for Japan to fairly easily block at least 2 of those ANZAC infantry.

You say that a couple of inf are all that is needed. That’s a far cry from you coming on a few days ago like you would shortly be trashing some noob and showing no changes were needed like you acted like you were going to do . That also doesn’t address the claims you made about it being too easy for Japan going mainland. You still haven’t addressed how a few US infantry helps with the potential problem of the mainland strat. You still haven’t addressed why you claimed that this strat doesn’t matter because a bid was needed anyways, but then said that the bid should go towards US infantry. You ignore this questions, but then have the audacity to claim that I am the one not reading YOUR posts. � :roll:

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Gamerman01:

I understand the fun of trying to solve a puzzle, and I’m not laughing at you guys for doing that. � But vonLettow, you shouldn’t have been such an a-hole when I came along wanting to enjoy trying to solve your puzzle.

Oh really? That’s what happened?

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Honestly, this is all quite a lot of hassle to test a strat in a game that I am not convinced more than 11 people worldwide actually play. I am literally the only person I know of who hosts pac games on TripleA. PM me when you have a 2 hour block to test this out. I see no point in waiting for forum posts constantly when it is much easier to play live.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

I was up intially for trying it once, but after twiddling my thumbs for the past two hours while getting exactly 0 rounds of the game in where we could be at round 6 in a live game, I feel severely frustrated and like I am wasting my time.

Constantly checking back in the forum is cool if you don’t have the time to lay aside a couple hours to play or if you are a notoriously slow player, but I want nothing to do with it. It’s been almost half an hour since I posted the issue I was having with dice, and in that half hour we could have done a round.

Gamerman, again, lmk when you got a few hours. It’s nothing personal, but I am very frustrated for this immense waste of my time.

I then posted the J1, finally.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

There it is. If this starts stretching into days what can be done in a couple hours I might just bow out.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Is it possible to unsubscribe from the dice emails spamming up my inbox without unsubscribing from the dice service? I want to make sure before clicking the unsubscribe link.

@Gamerman01:

Just create a rule in your e-mail program to automatically route all e-mails from “MARTI” to a separate folder, and then they won’t be filling your inbox.

Dude, quit your whining!

First of all, there are a lot more than 11 interested players in the world.
Second of all, Krieghund is about to change the rulebook after one player presents a strategy, with no demonstrations?  And now you’re not willing to play a game or two on a format you’re slightly unfamiliar with to prove it?

What’s the deal, man?  Are you for real?

@Gamerman01:

I’m beginning to wonder if you’re doubting your bullet-proof strategy now!

If it’s so great, put in a little time to prove it to all of us other A&A fans!  This game has been out for 2 1/2 years (it’s still basically the same thing).  If you can’t wait a week or two to play through a game claiming that it’s all busted, I don’t know what to say.

@Gamerman01:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

There it is. If this starts stretching into days what can be done in a couple hours I might just bow out.

:? Not showing a lot of belief in the strategy you spent hours typing out for everyone to see.  Put up or shut up.

Yes, that’s all you were doing, trying to enjoy solving the puzzle. After I spend 3 hours trying to accomadate you, you call me a whiner and telling me to put up or shut up because I was frustrated for doing in 3 hours what takes me 5 minutes in a live game. And yet I am the A-hole.  :roll:

[Karl7]

What happened in the match off between Von Lettow and Gamerman?  Did it conclude?

[gamerman01]

Way to stir the pot, Karl.

Why don’t you just go to the thread and read our conclusions on that thread?

[Zhukov44]

At this point I see no effective counter.  For the game to be playable, Allies need to insist on a bid (presumably 18+) and at least 11-12 ipc of it should go to land units for USA.  That gives USA a chance at countering Western Canada on USA3 if Japan lands in British Columbia with up to 24 units on J3.

However, if Japan can get hold of Alaska on J2, then they have a chance at taking out USA via a J4 landing (with 24 units plus aircraft).  But in that case Japan can’t use bombers bought J3 in the attack, so surely its odds will be less than 95%, perhaps as low as 50-60% depending on whether it’s possible for Japan to hold sz10 on J3.

It’s worth testing out the latter strategy to see if USA needs to sacrifice the blockers on USA1 to hold Alaska in order to survive.  If they do, I would probably want an additional inf or two added onto my USA bid to persuade Japan to try to win using another strategy (and to not have to sacrifice the USA navy early in the game).

Naturally that isn’t the last word…I’m running short of ideas for the time being but I encourage others to try to find a way to prevent USA’s defeat that doesn’t require the 15+ ipc bid.

[gamerman01]

Well if that’s truly the case (although I think a 9 bid of 3 extra infantry is sufficient - I did not spend as much time studying as you), then that’s pretty pathetic, because the KUSAF is much MORE viable than it even was in OOB.

I thought 2nd edition was supposed to be an improvement.

[ch0senfktard]

@Gamerman01:

I thought 2nd edition was supposed to be an improvement.

Well, the Alpha rules were tested with Global in mind, so… yeah…
I really wasn’t expecting identical set ups in the theaters with Alpha 3+ rules when the 2nd edition came out.

[gamerman01]

@ch0senfktard:

I really wasn’t expecting identical set ups in the theaters with Alpha 3+ rules when the 2nd edition came out.

Exactly.  Jeez, put in another couple of hours and tweak the E40 and P40 setups.  If it works for global, it ain’t gonna work when you slice off the other half of the board.

I’m sorry, but it looks like just a money-grabbing technique to me….

Although it’d be fun to play a couple games of E40 some time…  Like I said, it only made sense to play a bunch of games of P40 when we were still waiting for E40 to play global.  Ah, well.

[Zhukov44]

@Gamerman01:

@ch0senfktard:

I really wasn’t expecting identical set ups in the theaters with Alpha 3+ rules when the 2nd edition came out.

Exactly.  Jeez, put in another couple of hours and tweak the E40 and P40 setups.  If it works for global, it ain’t gonna work when you slice off the other half of the board.

I’m sorry, but it looks like just a money-grabbing technique to me….

Although it’d be fun to play a couple games of E40 some time…  Like I said, it only made sense to play a bunch of games of P40 when we were still waiting for E40 to play global.  Ah, well.

E40 came out pretty good.  Shorter than Global; it plays well live.  While I think it favors Allies, a pro Axis is extremely difficult to beat.  So it’s basically even, with a slight advantage to the more challenging side.  It’s a better game than OOB where Germany played Sea Lion every game.

With Pacific, the Allied player needs to be either more skilled or more lucky to win.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Zhukov44:

At this point I see no effective counter.  For the game to be playable, Allies need to insist on a bid (presumably 18+) and at least 11-12 ipc of it should go to land units for USA.  That gives USA a chance at countering Western Canada on USA3 if Japan lands in British Columbia with up to 24 units on J3. Â

However, if Japan can get hold of Alaska on J2, then they have a chance at taking out USA via a J4 landing (with 24 units plus aircraft).  But in that case Japan can’t use bombers bought J3 in the attack, so surely its odds will be less than 95%, perhaps as low as 50-60% depending on whether it’s possible for Japan to hold sz10 on J3.

It’s worth testing out the latter strategy to see if USA needs to sacrifice the blockers on USA1 to hold Alaska in order to survive.  If they do, I would probably want an additional inf or two added onto my USA bid to persuade Japan to try to win using another strategy (and to not have to sacrifice the USA navy early in the game).

Naturally that isn’t the last word…I’m running short of ideas for the time being but I encourage others to try to find a way to prevent USA’s defeat that doesn’t require the 15+ ipc bid.

It’s not so bad if after the fix only 2 ships are needed to be used as blockers (of Alaska) IMO. The fact that 6 wasn’t enough before was really terrible (even if that countered the strat, it is not an acceptable game if US needs to throw away every ship rd 1 IMO).

Something that still is lacking in evidence is Japan’s fortunes using the traditional strat. It’s hard to say how much help the non-US Allies need at this point. Another important question is, if after the fix, Japan can still force US into buys it doesn’t like doing (inf) and then go for the other Allies and still have great success.

[BJCard]

How well would this work in Global-  If Germany buys were:

G1: 1 AC, 1 DD, 1 SS
G2: 10 Transports
G3: move fleet from SZ 111- 103
G4: Attack Central or Eastern US with 11 full transports and 1 Ftr, 1 Tac?

What turn is Japan taking Western US?

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@BJCard:

How well would this work in Global-  If Germany buys were:

G1: 1 AC, 1 DD, 1 SS
G2: 10 Transports
G3: move fleet from SZ 111- 103
G4: Attack Central or Eastern US with 11 full transports and 1 Ftr, 1 Tac?

What turn is Japan taking Western US?

It would be J4 that Japan lands.

If Germany is in SZ 103, the allies need only 1 blocker to prevent your landing. I am not very confident that the Allies will be incapable of blocking the Germans. I haven’t played it out, buy my guess would be that US would stack East and Central, letting Japan have West, while buying for the counter

[Zhukov44]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Zhukov44:

At this point I see no effective counter. � For the game to be playable, Allies need to insist on a bid (presumably 18+) and at least 11-12 ipc of it should go to land units for USA. � That gives USA a chance at countering Western Canada on USA3 if Japan lands in British Columbia with up to 24 units on J3. �

However, if Japan can get hold of Alaska on J2, then they have a chance at taking out USA via a J4 landing (with 24 units plus aircraft). � But in that case Japan can’t use bombers bought J3 in the attack, so surely its odds will be less than 95%, perhaps as low as 50-60% depending on whether it’s possible for Japan to hold sz10 on J3.

It’s worth testing out the latter strategy to see if USA needs to sacrifice the blockers on USA1 to hold Alaska in order to survive. � If they do, I would probably want an additional inf or two added onto my USA bid to persuade Japan to try to win using another strategy (and to not have to sacrifice the USA navy early in the game).

Naturally that isn’t the last word…I’m running short of ideas for the time being but I encourage others to try to find a way to prevent USA’s defeat that doesn’t require the 15+ ipc bid.

It’s not so bad if after the fix only 2 ships are needed to be used as blockers (of Alaska) IMO. The fact that 6 wasn’t enough before was really terrible (even if that countered the strat, it is not an acceptable game if US needs to throw away every ship rd 1 IMO).

That is a good point–it’s only 2 ships after all.  Or just 1 ship if Japan’s only threat to Alaska is sz6.  If they do send the fleet out to 13 or 14, then that comes at an opportunity cost to Japan if they are merely faking it.  These are good reasons to think I could be exaggerating the necessary bid.

Re. the traditional strategy, my problem is China has virtually no chance of survival w/o Russian assistance.  It’s pretty hard to hold India too.  Can Allies win anyway?  Its possible.  But my experience in Global tells me Japan has the tactical edge in the war for the money islands.

Bid numbers are only speculation without a solid sample of expert games.  I would say USA needs at least 9-12 bid (approx 55-65% odds on the Western Canada stack with it) to survive Hollywood, plus an unspecified additional (more strategic) bid to even out the game in general.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Going the bid route, I think I agree with your assessment. It’s a little scary still that if USA doesn’t attack canada, they are  in deep trouble. The attack’s odds aren’t exactly without some nail-biting for the US, but it does help.

But like Larry once said, he hates bids, so there are other solutions that I think we should consider. As much as sealion got nerfed from A2 to A3, it would not surprise me if Larry was interested in making this not even a realistic option for Japan, instead of changing it from slam-dunk to ill-advised.

With Russia you touch on why I think pac is played so little by itself. In Global. Japan has to choose to go after Russia or not. US has to balance Atlantic and Pacific purchases. UK has to decide whether anything from India needs to go to Egypt or vice-versa. In just Pacific, there aren’t really many decisions. That’s not really a ton of fun.

Regardless, going the bid route, if the non-USA allies also need help, a bid nearing/exceeding 20 is hardly unreasonable, especially if USA’s only hope with the 12 bid is a 65% attack. IMO Japan having easily an easily 75+% chance of taking USA is far too much when USA has no choice in the matter, USA having a much stronger chance than 65% on the Canada attack is OK because Japan has the choice of not putting itself in that position. I think I wrote that sensically, let me know if not.

[BJCard]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@BJCard:

How well would this work in Global-�  If Germany buys were:

G1: 1 AC, 1 DD, 1 SS
G2: 10 Transports
G3: move fleet from SZ 111- 103
G4: Attack Central or Eastern US with 11 full transports and 1 Ftr, 1 Tac?

What turn is Japan taking Western US?

It would be J4 that Japan lands.

If Germany is in SZ 103, the allies need only 1 blocker to prevent your landing. I am not very confident that the Allies will be incapable of blocking the Germans. I haven’t played it out, buy my guess would be that US would stack East and Central, letting Japan have West, while buying for the counter

The other option is to take Gibraltar G3 and then the US needs two blockers (three if they want to block canada).  Hell, if any Italian transports survive in the Med, they could come along too.
If Japan is attacking WUS with 24 land units + all of its fighters, the fighters could land in Central US is Germany took it G4 (Or if Germany could take EUS then the point is moot). 
The advantage to this plan is that for the first two turns, it is unlikely the USA builds anything on the Atlantic side of the map if Japan is threatening.  In fact, I would suppose that on A1 they will probably buy all Naval regardless, and perhaps on A2 as well. That doesn’t leave a ton of money/time to defend the Axis onslaught.

Granted, this is a one time gambit against any player, but it would be shocking for anyone playing the Allies on turn three when they see the Gibraltar and Alaska/WCan take.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

For this Japan move to be successful and land W USA J4, Japan probably needs to move to SZ 14 J1. If the US player still doesn’t know what’s going down at that point, then I think you have a shot.

[Gargantua]

@Zhukov44:

At this point I see no effective counter. � For the game to be playable, Allies need to insist on a bid (presumably 18+) and at least 11-12 ipc of it should go to land units for USA. � That gives USA a chance at countering Western Canada on USA3 if Japan lands in British Columbia with up to 24 units on J3. �

However, if Japan can get hold of Alaska on J2, then they have a chance at taking out USA via a J4 landing (with 24 units plus aircraft). � But in that case Japan can’t use bombers bought J3 in the attack, so surely its odds will be less than 95%, perhaps as low as 50-60% depending on whether it’s possible for Japan to hold sz10 on J3.

It’s worth testing out the latter strategy to see if USA needs to sacrifice the blockers on USA1 to hold Alaska in order to survive. � If they do, I would probably want an additional inf or two added onto my USA bid to persuade Japan to try to win using another strategy (and to not have to sacrifice the USA navy early in the game).

Naturally that isn’t the last word…I’m running short of ideas for the time being but I encourage others to try to find a way to prevent USA’s defeat that doesn’t require the 15+ ipc bid.

I haven’t played pacific on it’s own since OOB…

But there has got to be a way to pull off this counter.

I believe in -crazy-, let me see what I can put together.

[Cow]

Whenever my group played p40 we always played no taking west usa before it collects and spends money. All the alpha changes did not change West USA being dominated, 2e did not change this as well.

On all versions of p40 you can take West USA without a hitch. After A+3 and 2e it got easier simply because aa guns do not shoot at everything instead they shoot 3 per, so only a limited amount of air gets shot at. Usually you just house rule it, but I can see USA starting with more AA guns without impacting global much. 5 starting aa guns should be good. Japan can still do it, but at least USA gets some shots off.

As far as global goes, lots of fun taking the axis up against USA.

I made the suggestion to allow China to leave China once it has all its territories for global.
~
I think 5 aa guns for west usa and China leaving China should suffice. You can experiment with that or at least allow China to secure the last part of the Burma road, which is India, but only if it meets certain conditions like reclaiming puppet state manchuria.

[Krieghund]

A few days ago, I posted our potential solution for this on Larry’s site.  Please take a look at it and let us know your results.

[Eqqman]

Here’s the updated rule from the other website:

The United States begins the game neutral. It may not declare war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or ANZAC. Following any such unprovoked declaration of war by Japan, the United States will receive an immediate one-time bonus payment of 30 IPCs, representing the total mobilization and transfer of military assets within the continental United States. However, if the United States is still not at war with Japan by the Collect Income phase of its third turn, it may declare war on Japan at the beginning of that phase. This is an exception to the rules for declaring war (see “Declaring War,” page 11), which may normally be done only at the beginning of the Combat Move phase.

Extra money is nice, but it can cut both ways.  If the Japanese skip the USA attack and do more traditional attacks, then the USA is free to spend all that cash on extra ships.  Who knows if that is going to be unbalancing, or not.  If we test this out, we have to look at both scenarios: does this bring the USA attack closer to 50/50 and does it imbalance the game if Japan skips the attack.