Lets discuss Japan Round 1

yes

Good topic Squirecam,

I definitely think #1 is the Brit fleet over the Chinese ftr because the ftr can’t fly out of China proper anyway.  #2 is Bury (because the main goal is always Russia), then #3 US fleet.

My buy in the 42 is 2trn and 1IC in Manchuria.  I pretty much build an IC every round until the 5th round.  Japan needs major land production to assualt Russia effectively.

With this said though I think the Allies have a 60%-40% advantage over the Axis in the 42.  In the 41, I think it is Allies 55-45 advantage.

@squirecam:

And certainly, there is no difference (from this point on) in the game to say that having the bid “won” it for you.

Bid units generally only make first round attacks a bit better or worse odds wise. The rest of the “effect” is largely inside people’s heads.

If you think I will win largely based on skills vs the best players w/o bids, then why won’t they play w/o bids?

I don’t think emprical date is only “inside our heads”, while I probably lose against some players with 8-9 bids, I will probably win most games w/o bids, you think this is only psychology, and not the effects of the bid itself?

Some players use a fixed $9 bid, and let opponent choose side, and the TripleA warclub ladder have been restored, and they use a fixed $9 bid.

I’m not sure how many games I would lose against the best players, in a game w/o bids, but probably very few, and most interesting is that no player who is regarded as very experienced will play w/o bids.

It’s not about magic numbers, it’s about balance.

A bid is not necessary if balance is not important, but the amount could be lower than $9, although $9 in the former TripleA ladder was 51% axis and 49% allies wins.

I have lost as allies in AA50 41 w/o NOs and no bids. This doesn’t prove anything about balance in AA50 though.

A better player would probably beat me with 6 ipc, maybe 3, who knows, but the premise for this discussion is NO BID!

I have not yet tried to get any opponents in the TripleA lobby with this game description: “no bids, I’m allies.”  :roll:

If you’re trying to be a pain then it’s easy, if I played chess against Kasparov, and he started w/o the queen, he would almost certainly win against me anyway, would you then suggest that the queen in chess is not so important?

How about chess grand masters starting w/o a pawn and still beating newbs?
This happens all the time, but no one is claiming that it is ok to start a chess game w/o all the pieces.

I don’t see why you trying to make this difficult, b/c it isn’t. The A&A balance discussions should only affect how high bid is needed, and what kind of bid is the best option.

@squirecam:

Search the forums. You will find that most people have agree that the Axis can win 40/60 with no bid.

Not against me, and I’m not even among the best AAR players.

I don’t think even best AAR players would win 40% against me, assuming many games, (as axis w/o bid), and they won’t even bother trying…

@squirecam:

@Veqryn:

1 IC, 1 Transport, 1 Submarine, (save 3)

I do not attack the chinese fighter because I play dice and that is a way risky move with full dice.  I crush everything else though.

China has 2 inf and a fighter. Japan can bring 3 Inf + bomber + 1-2 fighters. That’s enough to reasonably guarantee that the china fighter dies.

Wouldn’t you rather kill the fighter than take a 1 IPC China territory? You really reduce China’s offensive punch w/o that fighter…

The only other option is to send 1 less fighter to kill the british (so only 2 total), and send 3 fighters plus 3 inf to kill the chinese fighter.  This means you can not attack Hupeh at all, leaving 1 inf in Kiangsu, and you have to attack Suiyang with 3 inf and 1 fighter, leaving 1 inf in manchuria and bringing back only 1-2 fighter to manchuria too after combat.
This is a good move except that it is more risky, you risk losing 1 fighter or your BB during the attack on the british, and you also may lose all 3 of your inf attacking the chinese fighter. 
You must use the bomber against pearl harbor, or else you will risk losing that btl.  You want your fighter, bomber, and cruiser to live that way the USA can not take the solomons their first turn.

@squirecam:

Sure, people are happy to get bids. Why not? But they are not necessary to having a decent chance to win.

A bid is necessary to have decent chance to win against me, or any decent players.

you guys are way off topic, please continue properly.

For myself, I like to hit the Hawaii and the India fleet, as well as the 4 Chinese territories available to me. This means China is mine! No more qualms. For buying, I like to take 2 tech and 3 trans. Turn 2, I move 2 trans to Philipines, and 2 to FIC, pushing further into China, and moving to Burma as well. This lets me hit both India and Australia turn 3. Of course, this isn’t always an option, depending on how the Allies react, but it is nice :). Say the Americans bolster Australia, I’d move all 4 trans to FIC to absolutely NAIL india. In any case, by turn 4, I usually take control of India, Australia, and Hawaii, and the east coast of Africa. The big trick is getting transports into the sea. People like the industrial complexes, but those can wait. They aren’t mobile. Does it really make a difference if you can produce those 3 tanks in Manchuria turn 2?

What is Japans 3 turn plan?
What is their early goals (besides the obvious 3 Japanese targets for turn 1 (in order of priority):

• Yunnan Chinese ftr
  sz35 UK fleet
  sz53 US fleet

I think the UK india complex is very doable and an extreme pain to japan in 1942.  Russia can stand on her own much easier in 1942.  The chinese are much more powerful in 1942, and USA pacific navy is much more powerful in 1942.  I really don’t see any easy wins for the axis in 1942.  They have a much greater hill to climb than in 1941.

When Japan sends a loaded carrier and BB to SZ35 to sink the UK fleet (necessary), that fleet is way out of position: 2 turns to get home and get cover.

So the Japanese goal is to sit in sz62 and pump units, you better buy some surface vessels (not all tpts).  If you do not buy any navy (surface vessels), the US will come hunt you down.  They have 3 bombers that can be stationed in alaska USA1.  The USA start with so much more and can put incredible heat on SZ62 right away.  Buying a carrier and 2 bombers puts a sub (if Japan does not buy a DD), 2 ftrs, 5 bombers in range of sz62 for USA2.  scary.  That is planes alone, I didn’t even consider any of the starting navy the US may want to risk to threaten/draw Japanese units out as well.

For these reasons (US navy, UK India complex) , I think it might be best to concentrate on the south pacific / southern asia area first.  I think 2 ICs might be a good opening move: French Indo China and Borneo.  Then the SZ35 fleet can move to borneo on J2 and have a DD or two added for safety or two inf, 2 tpt.  This solidifies the southern asia corridor and enables the Japanese to put some great pressure (in 2 rounds) on the UK india complex if desired.

I like these J1 attacks:

*** Indian Ocean Seazone (BEN/Z35)
1 AC
3 Ftr
1 BB

*** East Pacific Ocean (EPO/Z53)
1 Ftr
1 Sub
1 Bmr
1 Des

*** East Chinese Sea (ECH/Z61)
1 BB
1 Trn
1 Cru

*** Fukien (Fuk)
1 Arm
2 Inf

*** Suiyuan (Sui)
4 Inf
1 Ftr

*** Yunnan (Yun)
3 Inf
2 Ftr

Some questions re. NOs…

1. the OP refers to playing w/o NOs.  Does Axis have any chance in this w/o NOs?  I’m thinking probably not.  This looks fairly even with NOs.  Germany’s early strength and its ability to snag all 3 NOs G1 indicates a small Axis advantage, but Japan is in a way weaker position compared to 41.

2. How does the British Pacific NO work in this?  For example, I’ve found that in TripleA, when the USA liberates Solomons, it goes to British control.  Do Borneo and Solomons work the same way?  How do the British get their Pacific NO…does taking Solomons and/or Burma count, or is it necessary to take a territory that starts as Japanese in the 41 version?

I find any Jap attack on Pearl kinda risky, but I suppose it has to be done in some capacity–perhaps simply with a sub and whatever air can be spared.  For the Allies, an India IC is tempting given Japan’s weakness in that region–I’m not sure a FIC factory is Japan’s solution, it could become a liability.  I guess the main advantage to FIC is that unlike Manchuria it can’t be attacked by China.  Fortunately for Axis, Germany should have Russia’s full attention–otherwise the Russians could blitz China and it would be lights out on the mainland for Japan.

Playing w/o NOs is a real dry game- personally I hate in.  I think this is what makes the game.  The tech is great also, though you could live w/o it.  If you don’t play with the NOs, you might as well play Revised or AA42 (The Revision of Revised) :wink:

In my experience with AA50-42 which is with NOs Japan is irrelevant. Germany will have the game won before Japan is anywhere close to getting to Moscow. China is not that much more to deal with than 41. An Indian IC does have a better chance of holding and annoying the Japanese and the US fleet can be a quicker pain, but again none of this matters as Germany will be in London or Moscow very quickly.

As far as the UK Pacific NO it works the same way as 41. These are the territories that UK must take one of, Caroline Islands, Formosa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and French Indo-China. Solomons, Borneo, Philippines, and the East Indies are considered as liberations, not captures.

@a44bigdog:

In my experience with AA50-42 which is with NOs Japan is irrelevant. Germany will have the game won before Japan is anywhere close to getting to Moscow. China is not that much more to deal with than 41. An Indian IC does have a better chance of holding and annoying the Japanese and the US fleet can be a quicker pain, but again none of this matters as Germany will be in London or Moscow very quickly

Mostly agreed. Japan is not irrelevant but Germany has a big chance of arriving Moscow before the western aid comes. I think one of the big problems is that German IC at Karelia. I know, starts as soviet, but there is no way of holding, and as much soviets will trade it one or two rounds. Maybe soviets need a special rule in that scenario to moving ICs as in real life … but I guess the IC would be better at Arkangel or Novo (at start) than in Karelia. I don’t think germans can take London anyway…

The India IC can hold and usually does, just you need also another at SAF if you want fight Europe and Africa at the same time. Also, SAF tanks will arrive to support India or Caucasus soon or later

A uphill battle for allies but better than in fantasy scenario (1941). Seems they tried mimic Revised setup in various points but failed testing Europe (or China for that matters, it still falls too easy even if a bit slower)

However, I think a triple strafe with soviets can work (bel, euk, ukr). I tried some times and usually keeps valuable tanks alive and makes easier trading kar (if you retreat bel attackers to ark)

Yup.  I need to play this game some more before forming any definitive observations, but I’m thinking that if UK goes all in on land ICs then India/Egypt is a better pairing than India/SA.   The rub is that USA needs to have Japan’s full attention right away.  So UK needs to deal with the Italians.  It’s tough to plop down and support a factory in India right away and still get the bombers needed to sink the Italian navy….  Sometimes it should be possible to buy India UK2 but sometimes not.  Late game, if UK has the Egypt/India pairing, while USA makes good progress and China hangs tough, Allies might have a shot at fighting on after Russia falls.  It’s a longshot though–there are soo many ipcs in Eurasia and air smashes navy.

It’s perilous to reccomend a specific UK strategy since both J1 and G1 are extremely variable and Uk strategy ought to play off these turns.

Every game of 42 I’ve played so far has been hella fun…but I’m guessing that a bid to Russia will be necessary, maybe as much as 6-10 like in 41…now that TripleA is back up we will have a better idea soon enough I think.

Usually allies cannot hold Egypt enough to build units there. There is a big menace of a 1-2 punch or even a 1-2-3 punch if Japan is near

However, If it can hold, it’s obviously far better than SAF