Which means its up to the Soviets to slow down Japan. If done right, this could be an interesting balancing act: keep Japan threatened and tied down giving the Pacific Allies a chance to recover before the Germans attack forcing the Soviets to turn their focus back to Europe.
In a way, it was a mistake not to include them in Pacific to help slow down Japan. On the other hand, they would be hamstrung like the UK, with two income sources that must (inexplicably) be kept separate.
If it takes 7 turns to take out India after a J1 attack, you or your opponents aren’t playing Japan correctly. It should fall on J3 or J5 at the latest. All these strategies about bleeding Japan of IPC’s via convoy attacks is amusing. The game should be over by the time anything is in position to attack the convoys in sufficient strength to hurt Japan.
- I think your win was due Japan’s playing/strategy.
Or lack thereof. I question a Japanese strategy that would leave so many Allied assets intact to result in such lofty achievements so quickly. Seems like a run of bad dice would have been mentioned. Or maybe
Other than that, sounds like the op’s response to Japan’s epic fail was adequate. And fun! :evil:
Well, I’m hopeful in seeing the poll results here, 63% percent think that a J1 attack does not break the game. The problem is, I’ve seen absolutely no strategies outlined that subscribe a US course of action or strategy to follow.
The problem here again is, that we see people express their opinion that the Allies can win, that Japan is not so super unbeatable, but we see absolutely no strategies discussed beyond the vague. It’s like there are a lot of folks saying the Japanese are beatable, but nobody really has any idea how to do it!
You are correct sir! That’s because there currently are no such strategies. Poor Japanese play, horrendous dice runs and incorrect rules interpretations are not sound Allied strategies. Anyone attempting to codify them as such are quickly revealed and easily shot down. That’s why no one posts these strategies because they all hinge on opportunism. No one admits to it other than through anonymous polls.
My own thoughts for the general Allied strategy are along these lines. If Japan wants India, then Japan is going to eventually take India, and there is nothing the Allies can do to prevent this. The British should make every attempt to make this as slow and as costly a proposition as possible for the Japanese player.
Also correct. For the latter, I’m currently developing a strategy that runs counter to this by moving as much UK forces to Australia as possible. China and India are going to fall. Period. No point in building infantry that are just going to be exchanged for Japanese infantry that if it survives will end up being left behind anyway when the war turns back East. Better to turn those IPCs into aircraft that can fly out of harms way and live to fight another day.
Australia should begin building for it’s defense from the onset, but the Allies should strive to control the Solomons to gain Australia the bonus IPCs.
Good point. Should be part of any winning Allied strategy.
The US should move toward securing one of the following islands as a base to move against SZ19 with the aim of getting at Korea through the backdoor route via Manchuria. Iwo Jima, Guam or the Marshalls will work, but an airbase is going to be needed regardless.
Right now I’m focusing on how to hold on to Sydney and Honolulu or at least set up a fork to retake them. Once Japan’s power is broken, it should be easy to map a way back. The key seems to be to play this game more like the Russians on the Eastern Front in 1941 than the Germans on the Oder in 1945…
Once India falls, the Japanese most likely are going to turn on Australia. So I think the Allies should choose one of the above bases as a potential threat to the PI as well. With the Japanese needing 6 VCs to win, the Allies are going to need to make the Japanese protect the PI as well as Japan & Korea as they move toward Australia.
I’m thinking it may be better not to threaten Japan at all. Better to concentrate all Allied forces out of their reach than let them be destroyed piecemeal by Japan on their way to taking the final victory city.
One problem we’ve encountered as the Allies is selling out on Allied builds in an all out attempt at saving India. Nothing we’ve been able to do has stopped India from falling. So I believe in our games that we will try a switch in Allied thinking to one of thinking about making the final stand in Australia instead of trying to hold the line in India.
Don’t forget Honolulu. I’m not sure you can defend both against a concentrated attack. The only bonus is that the Allies could use the airbase on Honolulu to scramble, but it might be better just to hold the planes back for the land battle. Anyway a dual defense would allow Japan to concentrate their forces to annihilate one defending force then then hold off the other when it counter attacks. That’s why I’m thinking it’s better to lightly defend both but keep a force capable of destroying the IJN and retaking the last VC. No doubt some forces will be needed to block to keep sea lanes open, but these can participate when the tide turning battle is joined.
The main point for the Allies here is going to be deciding on what island base it’s going to go after to make its forward operating base.
At this point, I’d just be happy to devise a strategy to get the Allies to a Midgame and worry about the Endgame later.
So here is the strategy I will follow in our next series of games when BB & I get together again in Dayton, hopefully on 4/20-21. We usually get in at least 15 solid hours of game play, and sometimes as much as 18. Lots of beer drinking the first night too! :-D
My overall strategy for the Allies will be:
1.) Make India as slow and as costly as possible
2.) Build to defend Australia as best as possible
3.) Secure a forward base for the US, hopefully Guam, or the Marshalls with the goal of getting at Korea via Manchuria or to take back Manilla
4.) Force Japan to defend SZ 6, SZ19, Truk, the PI & the DEI
Let us know how it goes. I’m opposed to house ruling at this point. There’s still a few things left to try. I’m going to test some of these ideas I posted at my next opportunity.
I agree Fish, I think there are a number of things they got right with the original Pacific that didn’t carry over to the 1940 version for some reason. They could have used the Hellcats for Pacific 40 and the P-38s for Europe. They could have come up with another ability or bonus for the Marines since artillery now pairs with any infantry. I liked the way China, airbases and convoys were handled, as well as the red color of the Japanese pieces better.
I think this was one of the earlier strategies proposed. IIRC, it just takes too long. By the time you get enough subs in place to start seriously impacting income, India has already or is about to fall and then its a cake walk to Australia or Hawaii since there is no substall.
There’s been a number of different Allied strategies examined:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4mY7o0GhHA
:lol:
I think he’s right, Europe is needed to balance this game. Russians on the north and Commonwealth units from the Mediterranean to bolster India is what is needed.
I had actually bought two copies of the game and they sent me one set of replacements without having to send in the battlestrip. But the bombers were broken and bent and the battlestrips was all beat up so I sent them back with a written request for undamaged replacements. After almost three weeks of waiting, I emailed them again and they said there was a problem processing my request and they’d send them out immediately. That was almost two weeks ago…
IC’s are supposed to be gateways for new units. I always envisioned them not as factories but as major transportation terminus’ such as rail heads or ports where combat units were transported, offloaded then assembled for battle. There is far too much involved in building armaments and recruiting, training and supporting major combat formations for factories and other infrastructure to be built from scratch on war torn front line territory.
Thats a fair rationalization of what IC might represent. However, I still think it doesn’t cut to the core issue, that with an IC on the mainland, Japan becomes too powerful. The IC build is pretty much an automatic build at this point with my group (and I assume, others) because it eliminates so many of japan’s logistical problems (and those logistical problems are fun).
I guess a question I still need to answer is if Japan decides not to build an IC on the mainland are they shifting the balance of power too far to the Allies or does it (as I suspect) shift the balance more to the middle?
It certainly would make it more difficult for Japan. A major IC in Asia is more than twice as efficient as the same amount spent on transports. If your going to houserule this away, you better do something to (further) hamstring China and the UK/Anzac as well.
I stopped watching Spielberg projects after AI.
I did hold my nose and watch BoB after several friends assured me it wasn’t some leftist revisionist effort. I watched the interviews with some of the soldiers involved and when they only panned some of the inaccurate historic aspects I decided to watch it. I was going to do the same here until I read a recent Hanks’ interview where “he wanted to emphasise(sic) the way the Japanese had been treated by American soldiers” and “also wanted to have people say, ‘We didn’t know our troops did that to Japanese people’.” He then implied that same racial hatred of WWII soldiers was present in Iraq and Afghanistan today…
Yup. I’m done with this. Needless to say I decided to read Sledge’s book instead. Rather get the straight story from someone who was there instead of a revisionist retelling as seen through PC colored digital camera lenses.
Lol, if your in a position as China to invade Korea, I think the game is already over anyway.
Historically, Chinese forces were made up of several different types of components, unlike Western or Japanese armies. Other than the better organized Nationalist and Communist armies, most of the Chinese army consisted of and was heavily dependent on local and regional militias. Both parties were always vying for control of these forces which were only interested in defending their own territory and would have no interest in marching into another country.
It’s interesting to note that in the foreign territories in the game where the Chinese army is allowed to operate, the Nationalist army was withdrawn before the conclusion of the campaign to the detriment of their US/UK allies.
I think this restriction is actually historically accurate.
IC’s are supposed to be gateways for new units. I always envisioned them not as factories but as major transportation terminus’ such as rail heads or ports where combat units were transported, offloaded then assembled for battle. There is far too much involved in building armaments and recruiting, training and supporting major combat formations for factories and other infrastructure to be built from scratch on war torn front line territory.
What happened, did Japan completely abandon Asia? The UK load up a bunch of transports with Chinese infantry and artillery? :-o
:lol:
@Texas:
I am certainly not suggesting to buy another game JUST for the chips. But if someone happens to have both, the chips are interchangeable. In some long A&A games, more chips might be handy. You could also use the Warlords black chips as 10s or to mean something else.
Multicolored mini poker chips rock. I use the crap out of them in my own game designs. In Pacific I use orange and yellow chips to indicate damage on installations. I match colors with counters in A&A minis land and naval to use as backings for the micron thin counters, or just by color in very large battles when I run out of counters.
@Texas:
Of course, it might be more trouble than it is worth to sort them or whatever. I know some gamers combine game parts from different games into a big “pool” of game equipment. I usually keep games and their parts separated, so it will take a bit of extra effort to dig out two games to play just one game but wanting extra chips.
Back in the day a friend of mine had a bad habit of “pooling” game equipment. He had a huge collection (thousands) of the airfix/revell 1/72 world war 2 soldiers all mixed together in a freaking tackle box. Most unpainted. It took hours to sort through them when we wanted to table top battle or “enhance” the original A&A. Not a fan of pooling.
@Texas:
Anyway, it was just an FYI.
Thank you for adding another board game to my want list…
This looks like a great game! Was just checking it out at BGG:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/46323/warlords-of-europe
However, there are several places online you can purchase mini poker chips from for a lot less than a new game. I actually found some once being sold by a charity that were in multiple colors and were compatible with A&A chips. Sadly they no longer sell them (knew I shoulda bought two bags worth!).
Though I’m not sure why anyone would want to use the chips that come with A&A games, let alone to use those from another game. :?
Considering the Soviets attacked Manchuria from Mongolia, it’s just another example of a number of historical details that get steam rolled under by balance and playability. Three fighters in New Zealand, contiguous Japanese control of the Chinese coastline, Siam depicted as a puppet of Japan in 1940 are also some examples.
An effective US first strategy requires some deception but also depends on what the US player does. J1 US attack is too easy to counter. I make the normal J1 purchases (minor IC and 2 AP) and keep the IJN in home waters. That way I can either fork SZ1 and Hawaii, or continue my normal J2/J3 attacks depending on the US player’s action.
Though I do question starting Siam under Japanese control….
I imagine this will change with the Global game as it depends on what happens to France.
#501
I’m not talking about FIC. Siam had a favorable view of Japan’s opposition to Western Imperialism and their diplomatic assistance in settling border disputes with France, but was not interested in becoming part of the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japan landed troops there during the opening days of the war to secure passage into Malaya. Realizing there would be no help from the west, Siam negotiated a truce and allowed Japanese access to railroads, harbors and airfields.
Kiangsi and Kwangsi were invaded by Japan in 1938 but only in several small coastal pockets at that and were non contiguous. None of these territories should start under complete Japanese control in 1940.
This really is a fun game, despite a few annoying problems. They got more right than wrong. Though I do question starting Siam under Japanese control as well as Kiangsi and Kwangsi.
I think I’ll call this the Roosevelt Keeps His Campaign Promise strategy. :lol:
