Posts made by Carnage

@Clyde85:

Threads on Japanese stratgey are always intresting to me as opinions tend to fall into the same to camps that existed in Japan historically.

So when you play you first need to decide which of these two camps you fall into and play to that. So, will you fihish off Japans old regional rival in the Soviet Union and Hokushin, or will you choose to not “miss the bus” as they called it then, and take advantage of the weaking Europeans and Nanshin? Best of luck either way!  :-D

This is easily the best articulated comment I’ve read in any of the forums regarding the strategies of various countries. I couldn’t agree more

C

lol, me as well.

Very Awesome mate! I love the desert colors, very very cool, I’d love to do this myself and hopefully I’ll be able to find the time.
I was wondering about the stands myself. Are they rubber that you paint? Also, is that a bi-plane I see in with your french pieces?

Also, if you were wondering why Japan has so few Tac Bombers it’s because the Pacfic game ships with 6 less and the wrong battle board. If you e-mail Wizards of the Coast they should send you replacements. I was able to get mine without having to provided a recpit. Simply explained I’d gotten the games as a christmas present.

As I’m not allowed to post links either go to Wizards.com and under contact us there is an e-mail selection on the left side click it and then in the search bar type in “Axis & Allies Pacific” And you should be able to find it.

C

@Cmdr:

I’ve done the seperate boards thing.  It was with vanilla, but it worked out nicely.  We tried it once with AA50 but after buying three sets (1 for the moderator, 1 for the axis and 1 for the allies) we were not too happy with the results.  Then again, after everyone was drunk and high on pepperoni, mistakes started to happen and it spiralled out of control.

I would imagine things like that would be difficult to manage. In one respect I think it’s fair your enemy see some of things you have avaiable. What units are on your airbases, what’s in your harbours that sort of thing. I don’t think enemy should be able to see where my Navy and full armies are that aren’t acvtively engaged somewhere. I don’t think he should get to see where any of my subs are until they’ve attacked something. And after that he should only know their last known location.
Would be very hard to administer, but it would add an interesting mechanic as well.

@The:

@Carnage:

Just saying… but you include yourself in that.

Fair Point

I’ve never played a game with a true neutral invaded. In most cases it’s not worth the risk of activating all the others and usually the units are better off hitting an enemy territory. That’s what seems to be the trend in my group anyway.

C

I just can’t see a game panning out the way you’ve described. While I do think the rule should be adjusted I don’t think that it’s in any real danger of being abused until well after the games been decided.

C

I think that’s a really interesting idea. Jen’s solution I think would be a good alternative, giving a set number of units free to each country because Garg is right why spend IPC’s on fake units when you can buy real ones.

I’ve wondered frequently about how to create that ‘fog of war’ atmosphere but short of having to seperate boards I haven’t really come up with anything. It would allow for scout planes and recon units, spies and the like. But it would make the game that much more complicated. In Panzer Blitz you can create it by keeping the tiles picture down, but turning a tank upside down is still an upside down tank ;).

C

I’ve never had a game go to round 11…
What is Japan doing while the US focused so intently on Europe?
My read of the situaion (without knowing in detail what Germany has) is the game was over turns ago unless Japan is ready to land on the Western USA. Even if they can I’m not sure that the Axis could even dream of coming back.

C

D-Day was fun to play for a change of pace, it only takes a fraction of the time to play that Global does. But I think of it more as a kid version of the full thing, would make a brilliant gift. Larry’s 100% right on there.

C

I like orignal Alpha +3 setup, and absoultely hate some of the rule changes. I love this site, and will continue to use it as it’s a great source for game aids and strategy discussions, but I’m hopping off the changes for the sake of making changes train. I’m going to play with the Alpha +3 setup, minus the airbase deductions in the med and the changes made to France and the Soviet Navy. I’ll take the rule variants I think make sense and with a few additions I’ll have my own setup.
Enough’s enough, stop fussing over a game that doesn’t need it and make something new. Make a game based on Korea, American Revolution, or American Civil War.

C

Don’t forget all the Neutral countries in South America Jen, that’s another what… 9 territories? What 3 islands in the Med would Russia take?
This rule needs to be changed.

C

@special:

@Carnage:

but I also think that Italy should go before the UK so they aren’t effectively neutered before their turn even starts.

I don’t.

Seems much simpler to me to change the set up then the order of playing. If the UK is too strong in the Med in the opening turn, move a few units further away so their first attack is weaker.

Edit: although with the already changed rule that USA plays much sooner i suppose it is acceptable

I’m not sure which I would prefer. Italys navy was substancially larger in the Med than Britians, with the exception that Musolini (and thus the Admiralty) didn’t believe the era of the Battleship was over and didn’t think Carriers were worth investing in. Until late 1941 they held the initive, a combination of poor leadership, unwillingness to commit to battles and a lack of interest in the war itself saw them outclassed by their British counterparts.
Also Musolini thought land based fighters and bombers were enough to provide air cover to his naval forces. They also didn’t like to send their fleet out past the protection of that aircover, this should illustrate the importance of the airbases on Malta, Gibralter and Crete. Because the map isn’t actually to scale for the game you don’t need all of them but Malta or Crete should be represented.

Turn order could be Germany, Soviets, Italy, UK, Japan, US, ANZAC, China, France. I’m not sure what the rammifications of the UK going before Japan would be, would need to be tested. Changing the units Britian has in the Med would be simpler, placing them further away (around the west or east coast of Africa maybe) would be better maybe…

C

Some of these changes look like changes just for the sake of making changes…
No airbase on Gibraltar I can understand, but the airbase on Malta was incredibly significant to the battle of the Mediterranean, almost all of the problems Germany faced in the Mediterranean can be laid at Malta’s feet.
The British units in France aren’t nearly enough to hinder Germany’s push, so what’s the rational behind moving them? Historically the UK lost almost all their heavy equipment and a lot of their general material when the BEF was pulled off the beach at Dunkirk. Frankly I think that England proper should have less to start with than it does, but I also think that Italy should go before the UK so they aren’t effectively neutered before their turn even starts. So I’m obviously crazy.
I get that Axis & Allies is a board game and isn’t supposed to be 100% historically accurate, but there’s something to be said for balance, and something to be said for realism and accuracy. I play Axis & Allies because World War II is fascinating, I enjoy the challenges both sides faced. If the game is based on World War II, then it should reflect what key aspects it can. Fundamental changes (IE: removing the airbase on Malta would have dramatically changed the campaign in the Med) to things that are incredibly important to this period in time take away from the games namesake. Too many more and you should change the name from “Axis & Allies” to “Global War in/around 1940”, people could make their own alliances and stab each other in the back, it’ll be a glorified game of Risk.
The point of my post isn’t to be rude or troll anyone, so I hope it isn’t taken that way, I just wanted to bring somethings to your attention that maybe you hadn’t thought of. I’m 100% sure that I’m not the only person that plays this game because I enjoy this part of our history, in fact I’m sure the vast majority of people playing the game do (otherwise why would you pick up the box in the first place). Don’t trade away the history, make changes that are NEEDED for balance or to work out a kink in game play, don’t try to please everyone by dumbing the game down. It should be complicated, it should be difficult and above all, it should be fun.

C

We haven’t really run into the problem of Russia attacking Japan Turn 1, mostly because of what Japan starts with in Korea and Manchuria would obliterate the Inf they could use.
Japan usually attacks Russia on their first turn (at least in the group I play with), so it’s almost always Russia getting the fuzzy end of the lollypop.

C

Something we’ve played with has a house rule (still trying to work the kinks out), if the terms of their non-aggression pact are violated and Japan attacks Russia, Russia gets 20-25 IPC’s (we’re having a bit of a hard time deciding what’s balanced) worth of units to place in any Russian territories they originally control on the Pacific board.
We also haven’t worked out something for Japan in the event Russia attacks Japan early, not that that is likely to happen often.
We ignore Mongolia because I think it’s a completely ridiculous rule. And Mongolia would never have sided with Japan.
I’m open to suggestions and ideas, so lemmy know if you have any thoughts.

C

Very good or very bad is my read of how it usually works out for them as well. Your inital engagements with the USN especially are generally pretty even in terms of unit composition a lot of how things will develope is hinged on how the dice fall.

C

I’m a fan of going a naval route with Germany as well. Convoy hits are a great way to safely damage and isolate the UK, and Italy can really use the help in the Med. I like taking Southern France with Germany and using it’s minor IC to drop German ships right in the med, gives Italy a breather and opens all of African to serious pushes. Takes a little pressure off Japan because the Americans should have to focus some of their money in the Atlantic.

C

I’m always very pleased when my territories fall apart around me for no real purpose as well. The only units you’d be tying up would be my land units, and frankly they’d still be gaining IPC’s every round. My aircraft would be tied up for a maximum of 2 turns and it’s incredibly worth while.
I’d covered the Mongolian question in my previous post but I’ll reiterate:
I could do 1 of 2 things, either leave some Inf in Manchuria as it starts with 6 and not all of them are needed to wreck Russia, moreover any planes I use in the battles have to come back to a friendly space in my non-combat move phase, so putting 1 or 2 of those fighters/tac bombers back in Manchuria would be MORE than adequate to deal with the 2 Infantry that could attack me in response.
The other option would be to simply attack Mongolia at the same time that I attack Amur. The units in Jehol would be enough if I contributed 1 or 2 infantry from Manchuria.
Going through China and attack Stalingrad would A) take a hell of a long time to even get there and B) leave 18 Infantry sitting on my boarder.
With me focusing some aircraft north for a turn or two doesn’t tie up my entire army in Asia, if you look at Japans troop allocations in other zones it’s certainly not left wide open for China to go on an offensive and there is plenty left to attack the infantry china has to defend.
It doesn’t tie up my navy, doesn’t limit me too much in terms of my other objectives in Asia. I don’t see any reasons why doing as I’ve described is a bad strategy for Japan.
Also, Russia can’t take control of Chinese territories, the most they could do is help defend them, and if you think a max of 6 infantry is going to keep China safe you shouldn’t be playing Axis & Allies.
C

10 Inf / 1 MInf / 1 Tank / 1 Arty / 5 Fighters / 4 T Bombers and 2 Heavy Bombers all together is what Japan can bring to bare Turn 1. If I chose to leave 2-3 of the Inf in Manchuria to protect my flank that resolves the Mongolian threat. I have to land the fighters in a friendly space so they come back as well. Defending fighters are pretty good against Infantry.
If I were playing Japan and my Russian opponent didn’t stack his Inf together and I wanted to push that direction I would push into Amur steam rolling anything there, if he left Inf in Siberia, they’re gone as well in a seperate attack with (if I felt it was prudent) a bombardment in addition to the amphibious assault. That’s 2 IPC’s I gain first turn and Russia loses at least 6 Inf depending on how they positioned. They get Mongolia with it’s 6 Inf (in deposits of 2, 2, 1, and 1 it’ll be very helpful…) Russia can’t hope to gain anything back by attacking so their next turn is spend either consolidating their units, doing some sort of delaying tactic, and if they want they could send the Mongolian Inf into China. The closest reinforcements they have are 3 turns away(in Moscow with their 1 tank and 1 Mech Inf that should turn the tide right?) and 2 turns away by air (also from Moscow 1 fighter and 1 tac bomber). Those units are not only required in the west should Germany attack, but also aren’t nearly enough to push the Japanese away.
J1 - Amur and Siberia (or Soviet Far East if the Russian player didn’t put Inf in Siberia)  2 IPC’s and the loss of at least 6 Inf to the Russians.
J2 - Siberia (or Soviet Far East if I amphibed here last turn), Sakha, Buryatia and possibly Buyant-Uhaa through Jehol and Inf left in Manchuria (Depending on what Russia decided to do with them)
      That’s 3 more IPC’s and again depending on how the Russian player positioned their forces another 6 or 12 maybe 13 if the 1 Inf from Ulaanbaatar was moved and 2 AA Guns.
And now there is 3 lets say 3 more in in Yenisey that was moved from Mongolian Dzavhan Olgiy.
J3 - Yakut, the Tank and the Mech Inf in Moscow could have arrived if the Russian player happened to have moved them this way BEFORE the Japs attacked turn 1 so lets say they’re there, and the plane could be here as well. So this is the only battle that could hurt Japan.
So this battle would be the Russians with probably 3 Inf, 1 Tank, 1 Mech Inf and lets say the plane. Japan could attack with 1 Tank, 1 Mech Inf, 4 Fighters, 4 Tac Bombers and 2 bombers.
Japan probably wouldn’t need to commit so much aircraft to this because A) it’s unlikely the tank and MInf were moved east first turn, in fact they were probably moved west towards Germany which would make it turn 5 before they could arrive. B) It’s also not too likely they would have moved the plane either, it’s a suicide mission and the plane is needed in the west.
Japan would probably lose the Mech Inf and 1 or 2 aircraft, Russia, loses what’s in the territory, and now there is nothing between the Japanese and Moscow (in terms of units in territories, things would be purchased and placed in Moscow) but it’s also almost assured that Germany has attacked Russia this turn or the previous turn preemptively so they’re going to be a little busy.
You tell me how a ‘solid Russian player’ prevents it, or doesn’t take serious Economic damage because of it.