In the case of Japan going for Alaska (instead of BC) then it needs to capture it on J2 so that the air units can land there on J3. This leave the US a chance for attacking (since SZ 1 & 2 are adjacent). If the US bought an additional transport on US1, then on US2 it lands 2 inf., 1 art. and 1 tank (+ 4 fighters and 1 tact.) on Alaska and has 40% chance of winning (Here I include bombardment which wouldn’t work if Japan had split its fleet between SZ1 and SZ2; the US might even loose the sea battle to 1/2 the Japanese fleet). In the game I played, the US won with a tank and a fighter remaining.
J3: Japan is now forced to land transported units (using 6 trns bought in J2) on BC. US responds with all out attack on US3 (7 inf., 1 mech., 3 art. 1 tank, 3 ftrs) with 97% success and builds 60 IPCs worth of units in WUS.
Thus with the new fix (i.e. the one-time 30 bonus IPCs for an early Japan attack on the US), the US has good odds (though not perfect) of defeating this direct attack. I’m sure smarter US players than myself with think of ways of raising the odds on Alaska, but I think the KUSAF option is a viable one for some Japanese players depending on the US player’s purchases. In my opinion, having viable, though risky opening move makes the game fun! This might be like the 4-move checkmate in chess: a rare opportunity to win quickly if presented by a player making the wrong moves.
Thanks for the update Krieghund and for vonLettowVorbeck1914 for posting this play!
I just recently heard about this $30 Official Rule Change and did some research that I posted on the Larry Harris Website. Even without the $30 there is a way to get the Japanese attack of Western USA down to 75% for sure and most likely 55%. Still high enough that some Players would still try it.
Here is how you would get more UK and ANZAC units into the defense of the USA with or without the $30.
US moves carrier to SZ30 (Johnston Islands)
UK buys a bomber and flies it to Queensland then USA
UK flies India fighter to Northern Territory, then to US carrier then to USA
ANZAC builds a fighter then flies it to US carrier then to USA
ANZAC takes infantry and AA gun from Australia and moves to Hawaii then USA
With the 2 extra fighters and bomber the 97% result lowers to 75%. If the ANZAC infantry and AA gun can get there then the result drops to 55%.
The Allies do need to bring the house to Hawaii by Turn 2 so they can sink the Japanese fleet if the Japanese try and block SZ10 from the ANZAC transport to get the last two units into the fray. Luckily that is a non-combat move and ANZAC goes last. Since the Japanese Player has to protect the 12 transports in SZ1 there is not enough Japanese defensive force to protect against a US/UK/ANZAC attack in both Sea Zones. If they abandon SZ12 then without transports the Japanese will have a more difficult time winning the game after the US falls; though I am sure they still could win. I have not play-tested out that scenario.
Of course with the $30 one-time bonus the US can now buy enough units on Turn 2 to make the Japanese attack a mere 28% even without the 2 ANZAC land units.
The US Carrier sounds like a sitting duck. Is there no way the Japanese can reach it?
@Eggman:
The US Carrier sounds like a sitting duck. Is there no way the Japanese can reach it?
I wondered the same thing
That, I guess, depends where the Japanese fleet is. According to the strategy as laid out the Japanese move to SZ14 on J1, SZ8 (Aleutians) on J2 and SZ1 (Canada) on J3. On US1 the US carrier hides with the US battleship in SZ10, behind a wall of blockers, with 2 planes plus 3 more planes that can scramble (making it very safe from a 6 plane Japanese attack), moves to SZ30 (Johnston) on US2 out of range of the Japanese fighters where the UK and ANZAC fighter subsequently land on it.
If the Japanese Navy is in a different spot they could reach the carrier but that would mean splitting their fleet and exposing one part of it to attack by US, UK and ANZAC forces as part of it must stay with the transports or they will be sunk.
Of course trying to get extra units to defend Western US is really all based on NOT having the extra $30 one-time bonus which is the official rule change. Without the bonus the best the Allies can do is get the attack down to a 55% chance of success.
With the new One-time Bonus of $30 the easiest thing to do now is simply attack the Japanese landings in British Columbia.
With $49 the US buys 6 artillery and 4 tanks on US2. When the Japanese land 24 troops in British Columbia, only 1 being a tank, the US has a 92% chance of taking/clearing it.
55% is not high enough, because that means probably 80% of the time Japan is losing almost all its air.
This means even without the fix, Japan would have a 45% chance of absolutely losing the game and probably a 30% chance of probably losing the game and 25% chance of probably winning, when trying this assault.
Anyway, P40 is a gimmick afterthought. It’s been changed dramatically from OOB, more than once. Maybe now with this +30 deal it is fun, but why spend hours and hours playing a P40 game that was never the end result that was in mind. Besides, it’s retarded that there are no Russians to deal with. That’s what makes this game a laugher more than the 17 IPC USA income. OK, that’s the other thing. As I said all along, it’s ridiculous that the USA is fighting Japan with basically California alone, and that the UK can’t sail her fleet one inch west of Z39. I guess the world really is flat.
G40 is the game to play.
I’m not saying I liked P40 when Japan didn’t have the 30 IPC bonus to contend with, but Pac alone is now extremely one-dimensional. There is no option of helping the Germans with the Soviets as Japan. There is no balance of deciding where to commit forces between India and Egypt as UK. There is no decision for balancing the pacific and Atlantic as USA. Perhaps Japan can choose between going for Australia or India first, but I really don’t see any other actual strategic choices. And to me that is what makes the game fun, trying new strategies; not trying the same strategies and just adapting them a bit to different dice.
I still think that the 30 bonus is a good thing because before it Japan was far too powerful, but in fixing the gimmicky overpowered KUSAF, it brought the game closer to balance, yes, but still hasn’t made it exciting. I suppose we have the lesser of two evils though.
I’m not saying I liked P40 when Japan didn’t have the 30 IPC bonus to contend with, but Pac alone is now extremely one-dimensional. There is no option of helping the Germans with the Soviets as Japan. There is no balance of deciding where to commit forces between India and Egypt as UK. There is no decision for balancing the pacific and Atlantic as USA. Perhaps Japan can choose between going for Australia or India first, but I really don’t see any other actual strategic choices. And to me that is what makes the game fun, trying new strategies; not trying the same strategies and just adapting them a bit to different dice.
I still think that the 30 bonus is a good thing because before it Japan was far too powerful, but in fixing the gimmicky overpowered KUSAF, it brought the game closer to balance, yes, but still hasn’t made it exciting. I suppose we have the lesser of two evils though.
I whole-heartedly agree with your conclusions.
I’m afraid in reality, the release of P40 and E40 packaged as stand-alone games was little more than a ploy to generate more revenue.
BUT
At least we had P40 to play and start getting used to half of the new 1940 map and the new rules while waiting for the finished product! Except that the product wasn’t finished in September 2010, it was more like October 2011 :-P Or was it 2012 - I’m losing track.
Sure makes a difference when there are Russians on the board, UK is not trapped in Z39, and USA is not playing with one hand tied behind her back!
Europe standalone is OK, but it is still lacking in options. Honestly, I don’t really plan on playing pacific alone ever again.
