What are some clever bids for the Pacific board?

It would be interesting to test out. A set J3 and G3 would make it easier for the allies to make plans.

@shadowhawk

Easier said than done though.

Right off the bat Germany will be consistently making more money than both Britain and the Soviet Union having taken out the rest of Europe and thats before they start attacking the Soviet Union.

Keeping the income advantage really only rests on America since the only change in their income will be losing the Philippines islands, as for everybody else, they can expect their IPC count to plummet with the combined strength of the Germans and Italians.

Also, like I said, taking Rome and Berlin is on the table to accomplish, taking Tokyo however not so much since A) it’s on an island B) It’s gonna have lot’s of dudes on it and C) the Pacific is too big to build any assortment of floating bridge and would be too expensive, hence why we would end the game if Japan is limited to their home island plus maybe Korea since they’re pretty much dead in the water so there is no point in playing any further.

@GEN-MANSTEIN oh I thought you had a rule set. I didnt know you meant you made an entire game. LOL. Nice

I see a few problems here, depending on when Japan declares war.
J1 DOW: Japan will sink the SZ35 ships and take the Philippines before you can do this.
J2 DOW: While the US ships are probably safe in SZ54, Japanese naval presence will be such that you can’t safely move to SZ42.
J3 DOW: in this case, Japan will probably sink the US ships in SZ42 and may well take Java.

With a later DOW (US3, because there’s no reason to postpone it), it could theoretically work if Japan has already taken FIC. But with no early Japanese DOW, Japan probably won’t do that because it would lose the 10 IPC NO. So in that scenario, Japan would need to take FIC on J4. That implies the presence of at least one Japanese unit in FIC, which would have to be defeated by the single US infantry you’ve brought.
Even if Japan had already captured FIC earlier and then vacated it (not very likely, because it’s a popular spot for Japan to build and IC of its own), they could easily kick the US and the British out again. Though if I were aware of your plan as Japan, I would happily wait until the US kindly built that IC for me to capture……  :-D

This is why I interpret IPCs in A&A as abstract and flexible. Lets looks at some examples by Region from Revised up to G40…

Canada: from 4 ipcs up to 7 ipcs
America (the continental USA): from 28 ipcs up to 45 ipcs
Africa: from 11 ipcs up to 20
China (unoccupied): from 4 ipcs up to 12 ipcs
Western Europe (France/Holland/Denmark): from 6 ipcs to 14 ipcs
Germany: from 10 ipcs to 14 ipcs
Australia: from 2 ipcs to 8 ipcs

United Kingdom: from 8 ipcs to 8 ipcs
Japan: from 8 ipcs to 8 ipcs
Hawai: from 1 ipc to 1 ipc

Philippines: from 3 ipcs down to 2 ipcs

I could go on, but the point here is that there is no hard and fast relative scale for how these values are being worked out over successive boards. Sometimes the same region nearly doubles in value, sometimes it triples, sometimes it stays roughly the same.

This is a very strong indication to me that IPCs are not the iron values sometimes suggested, or that IPC values in A&A are somehow set in stone. They have been changing to suit the gameplay for a while now.

I want to point this out because I think it speaks to a more general feeling I get, that money/production should be flexible, to suite the needs of the gameplay, rather than something highly rigid or that must somehow retain consistency along historical lines, or to match up with previous boards. It just seems arbitrary for the most part, and more so when you look at the values side by side for successive boards. Clearly IPCs are there for the gameplay. They are distributed in the way they are for gameplay purposes, not in some highly fine tuned or particularly accurate spread for historical or “real world” reasons.

If for example, China’s total value can increase by 300%, or Australia can go up by 400%, while Hawaii stays exactly the same, and Philippines is decreased by 33%, then why should we expect anything consistent out of IPCs anywhere on the gamemap?

To me this is encouraging, because it suggests that IPC value and “collect income” can be tweaked for game balance (on a regional basis) without upsetting some underlying foundation. The fact that these values have changed so much over time, indicates a high level of abstraction going on.

The thing to notice is that IPCs are already being counted differently (in terms of relative value) depending on where they are located on the gamemap. I think this is an important thing to bear in mind when considering what IPCs really represent, and to see why gameplay (and not necessarily historical production analogy) is the critical factor in determining how these should be distributed across the map on any given board.

You can find an example here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31303.0

The sub can take the hit from bb and cruiser. of course it depends if the axis save their bb or not (if they do I keep the sub and lose dd instead).

so your losses if they scramble generally go carrier sub or dd cruiser fighter tactical bomber.

this is a good attack, bring in an extra fighter from london if you want to.

how is that good for germany to see bombers take out his naval? you get like 1 or 2 drops in before usa slams it… that sets you back from the VC win… with the naval and air lost there and the cost of the airbase is enough mech to just have shoved down there anyway.

Not to mention bombers take 1 round to get in position then it hits… it is the fastest way for USA to have an impact. bombers hitting stuff is fast and furious in an otherwise slow process.

there is no infrastructure required for bombers either. you just buy one beer and GO, epic winning, it is bi winning. who needs to drop men to trade ipcs with germany/italy? when you can just blast their stuff in the ocean?

Romania minor is ok for ground units. the naval and airbase is not going to pay for itself.

how many rounds can you get swinging at russia with just carrier 2 transports? and say you pull your air back before the bombers hit? I’ll give you round 1 place romania round 2 drop the 3 naval pieces (30 ipc and + airbase cost which is not really lost and has somewhat a tactical advantage from there… but it can be bombed later).  Anyway caucasus is worth 7 so you would need a good 4 rounds of drops to pay for itself in theory.

trying to defend it is a dumb idea, you’ll typically lose even more out of it and it stalls you from taking russia and reduces threat levels from axis on sz 97.

not to mention bombers are up there in optimal buys for USA anyway. they do lots of things and can switch fronts pretty fast. plus if you shove 7 bombers at 2 tanks, you break even in terms of IPC (1 bomber for 2 tank).

Giving usa a reason to give russia the ability to call in an airstrike on whatever he could not get to… iz not like a good outcome for axis.

It is like call of duty man, spetnaz will air strike the flag and cap it. Allies get gangsta like that when you throw naval down in the black sea.

Trust me, someone did this to me and bombers own. In all fairness I like having some bombers around… mmm munch that naval.

usually bombers are a part of my opener because usually people like to sea lion feint… if they do go through with sea lion I can at least rest assure that japan won’t declare war or 4 bombers fly into uk. Before 3.9 bombers just increased the casualties of germany in taking uk, now it just too much fodder for germany so it actually delays japan if germany wants to go through with it.

if I see a romania IC early on and no naval buy in the baltic… I’ll only have a couple bombers. if naval is bought in the baltic I’ll still get 3 bombers and a couple dds and a carrier.  It’s the typical reaction from usa. bombers can hit naval up top and land in belarus. 3 bombers layin around is never bad either it can hit an italian fleet that moves out. or industrial bomb an airbase before uk attacks italy fleet so no scramble. or bombers can just strafe italian guys between algeria and egypt… so all russia has to do is blitz a tank through tobruk and that other spot for +7 russia.

bombers are good units to have for usa. I don’t see how they are bad.

Russia’s NO has changed so that bombers are more optimal to have so you can just blast all that stuff and clear it out for russia if there is nothing better for them to do.