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?
How well would this work in Global-Â 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
