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.
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.
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.
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.
@Eggman:
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.
Well, with normal AAP1940 games, Japan is heavily favored so it may balance the whole game by giving the US a bit more money. In global games the US can place more in the Pacific anyway.
I like the fix. I will try it in the next game we are playing this upcoming weekend.
@Eggman:
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.
Well, with normal AAP1940 games, Japan is heavily favored so it may balance the whole game by giving the US a bit more money. In global games the US can place more in the Pacific anyway.
I’m not saying I disagree, but is this coming from an OOB perspective or a 2nd edition perspective?
@Eggman:
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.
Well, with normal AAP1940 games, Japan is heavily favored so it may balance the whole game by giving the US a bit more money.� In global games the US can place more in the Pacific anyway.
I’m not saying I disagree, but is this coming from an OOB perspective or a 2nd edition perspective?
2e.
I did a play test of this +30 IPC bonus. So far I like it.
I did a J1 attack and a conventional Japanese strategy, not invading USA, and while the Allies did win in the end I actually liked giving the US the bonus. It did not seem to break the game but gave the US more teeth and like someone mentioned in another thread “Why NOT attack on J1?” well this might be an incentive not to. I will play it some more but if the consensus among players is positive I would potentially like to see this rule included (for Pac only obviously).
I LOVE Global, but I also like Europe and Pacific individually because you can finish a game in one sitting and less table space is required. I hope after some more testing maybe we can get an amendment to the rule book just like for Europe original.
I don’t think that Pacific is unbalanced per se as it stands but I think the Allies have to play well to win, Japan has more options imo. However in Pacific there are no Russians to worry about, so maybe this +30 IPC helps balance the game anyway.
I believe the missing Russians might be the cause of the problem.
They keep the Japanese player honest. As it stands he can abandon Manchuria and Korea and use the large number of Ground and Air units for aggressive manoeuvres.
Perhaps in Pacific, half the number should be removed as compensation, if it is too complicated to rule some remain as a Static Manchuria Garrison.
Wittmann is right - just because the Japanese were enjoying a Non-Aggression Pact with Russia it didn’t mean that they were confident enough to move large numbers of their land forces away from the Manchurian/Soviet borders. This area has been overlooked, in my opinion…
I agree too
I believe the missing Russians might be the cause of the problem.
They keep the Japanese player honest. As it stands he can abandon Manchuria and Korea and use the large number of Ground and Air units for aggressive manoeuvres.
Perhaps in Pacific, half the number should be removed as compensation, if it is too complicated to rule some remain as a Static Manchuria Garrison.
I see your point but I have to disagree. I am not in favor of changing the setup, it’s too complicated. The rule change needs to be simple, like the one offered. +30 IPCs IS simple and does not change the starting setup.
Just because Russians are stationed near Manchuria in Global does not mean that they will ALWAYS be used to fight the Japs. Some players may wish to pull them back completely and Japan may decide to not invade Siberia, so this said scenario about keeping Japan honest becomes no different from what happens in Pacific anyway. Just saying.
I have played games where Japan sent in the Manchurian garrison and either barely took China or didn’t in the end. You might be surprised how badly needed those extra men are in China.
Has anyone else tried out this +30 IPC bonus yet?
@Eggman:
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.
So just confirming if Japan does not declare war or an unprovoked attack the US does not get the 30 IPC one time payment at the end of turn 3. If Japan makes an unprovoked attack on Anzac or UK, Us gets the bonus.
Our group has only played this version twice and we haven’t stumbled on to this yet. We have come to the agreement that Japan is at the disadvantage but each group Im sure has a different play style.
So just confirming if Japan does not declare war or an unprovoked attack the US does not get the 30 IPC one time payment at the end of turn 3. If Japan makes an unprovoked attack on Anzac or UK, Us gets the bonus.
Correct.
Anyone else have results to report?
I think quite a few (I know I am one) are more occupied with WWI at the moment.
Our group played the other night without the bonus if Japan declares war on the US.
If US doesnt block it falls hard.
If US does block Japan. Japan’s takeover attempt is usually beaten back and it has a broken economy and not making enough money to defend against UK,Anzanc, and the china takeover.
Now I admit we may not have the most dominant Japan moves but blocking usually slows down the USA crush that we have seen and allows the US to rally a defense for Western US.
Each playing group is different but if you are not prepared for a total Japan invasion on the US Japan can dominate.
As we have already seen, even if the US does prepare fully, Japan can still dominate. It’s a lot of reading, but reviewing a lot of the strat descriptions in this thread will probably reveal some Japanese moves that didn’t show up in your game.
Still recommend previous mentioned solution:
Offer 2 of 3 choices for the Allies:
I was taught this and find that it fully balances the game and prevents any Japan US attack.
We’re not changing the setup. Please focus on the officially proposed solution.
