Posts made by Gharen

I understand you are talking about other neutrals but I am talking about the DoW rules, basically wondering if attacking Russia turn 1 with Germany and Italy would bring the USA into the war?  Also I know that taking a major factory reduces it to a minor, but does taking a minor reduce it to nothing?  Like no factory at all?

Since Russia and USA are technically neutral to start the game, does declaring war on either one bring the other into the war?  Like if Japan declares war on Russia, does the USA enter the war?  What if Germany and Italy declare war on Russia, does this bring the USA into the war?

So basically no one plays the out of the box setup anymore?  Why?  Is the alpha setup just that much better?

Even with no experience yet playing the global combined board (hope to get a game in this weekend!!), I agree with most of you in saying the game has only been out a month or so now and its too early to jump to conclusions.  The declaration of war rules are the one thing that makes or breaks the game for each side from what I have been reading.  With no clear cut goals in mind, bad purchases, lack of global vision all lead to skewed views like it always has in previous versions.  I do agree however, that the USA should have some sort of split income but that would make the game too predictable.  America has and always will be the key for the Allies to win, wherever she attacks  that Axis player will be hurting.  Question is, can you win on one front while holding onto the other?  That goes for both sides.

Great to several perspectives on this subject.  I would like to see it run through a couple times with full out war, with the exception of Russia I guess, starting at turn 1, then turn 2, then turn 3.  I understand the point of stalling USA for a few turns globally, but if Russia is only having a minimal impact on the pacific with its 18 inf then I don’t see why not go balls out with Japan on turn 1.  You can take several chinese territories, Hong Kong, Phillipines, destroy 3 allied transports and other sea vessels, and have a mainland factory being constructed.  Even if you bring the USA into the war turn 1, they still have to build on their first turn, then move ships into forward positions on turn 2 and begin actually attacking on turn 3.  If the Japan player plays like they would have if pacific is its stand alone game, then they should be applying enough pressure to keep China and ANZAC basically screwed the entire time, while also keeping India and west coast USA in check.

I do like the comments but I really want to try a turn 1 Japan attack with that Pacific only mentality.  I think it could do enough to help Germany and Italy by making the USA put tons of cash into the pacific.

So I guess the other thing I am wondering about is, does going to full out war later give the Axis the possibility for making a mistake or 2 early on and being able to recover from them?  From what I have read on a lot of threads is that Russia will rarely make it into the war in Europe until turn 4 or 5 or whenever it is they can fight there, basically giving them one attacking front and one bolstering front.  I still find it hard to believe that Japan should not go flat out the first turn and take out those key transports and strongholds of the Allies.  Its interesting to see things done differently I admit, because I have had just the Pacific board to stare at for hours on end.

Thanks for your opinions, I hope more people post what they think on this thread.

As we all know from the stand alone of Pacific 1940 that Japan’s best chances of winning were attacking on turn 1 against everyone.  I still haven’t been able to get a full global game rolling yet, sad I know, but I was wondering what everyone else thought about when is the best time for the Axis to go to “full blown” war against the Allies.  Yes the USA gets a boost for going to war, yes the Germans get money for not being at war with Russia.  I see tons of people waiting til turn 3 if they are not attacked sooner in the pacific portion of the board, to declare war.  Are Germany and Italy not strong enough to handle the USA getting into the war sooner?  I mean afterall, if Japan does its classic turn 1 “I annihilate everything” strategy, then would it not force the USA players hand to devote more resources sooner to fighting back in the Pacific?

I just want to know everyone else’s thoughts on the matter to get a better understanding of the global get scenario for when I actually play my first round of it.

I can understand a slight economy reduction while not being at war as the USA but it was already brought up that Japan is an absolute monster in the Pacific theater.  I think the axis should just play smart and delay getting the USA into the war until turn 3.  Like getting the UK and ANZAC to declare war first on Japan.  If your Russian player isn’t immediately going to war with Japan just to be able to at least bolster China and to take neutrals then the Axis have a huge headstart.  I think the game is fairly balanced after just one run through on it.  Key decisions and common goals are ever the more present in this game than before.  Also, did your German player not realize that with National Objectives that he could reach 50 IPCs at the end of his first turn, on top of the 17 he gets from steam rolling France?  And the fact that Germany can really rip apart the UK navy?  Perhaps a more detailed evaluation of turn 1 tactics might be needing, lots of options out there for everyone.

The infantry road block tactic is wonderful and no one here is denying that, just that one poster made a comment about placing units in territory that Japan just took before China, kinda like thinking of them as seazones as mentioned above.  I agree that it would be ridiculous if you could do that on land, and the rules are clear, you place them in your own territory controlled at the beginning of your turn that has a factory or in China’s case, any territory you control at the end of your turn.

I agree that if anything, just rule out a J1 attack and say the earilest is J2.  That would allow every Allied transport that gets smoked on turn 1 to survive and get somewhere safer.  On the other hand, if you hinder Japan to a turn 2 attack at the earliest, you could very well tip the game too much in favor of the Allies.  I assume most of this reasoning is based around Japan steam rolling China and UK, leaving it a 2v1 game.  If you don’t allow Japan to attack turn 1, UK gets 5 extra from their naval base NO and they would likely also get 7 IPCs or so more from the DEI, ANZAC would get 5 more from holding the other 4 island territory bonus, and the USA would get 5 more for Phillipines.  5 pales in comparison of course to the 40 you would get for next turn, but it is still a key island in Allied control.  I think the Allies get way too many counter moves and way too much build up time if Japan only goes for China, which is why the DOW capabilities are flexible in allowing when and where to declare war.

Granted Japan could still win by going on a J2 attack but wouldn’t you rather attack J1.  A good question to ask yourself is, would you want to play Japan if you had your hands tied from doing a J1 attack and the Allies got a bunch of extra IPCs?  The longer Japan awaits to attack, the greater the chance the Allies win right?  The greatest chance for Japan to win is to attack turn 1 and attack every Allied player.

It has been over 3 and a half months now that the game has been out, and I think the Allies can win this game if Japan attacks turn 1.  People still play the defensive mindset of saving India, you have to go on the offensive against Japan and I truly think you need to attempt to cut Japans forces in half but cutting directly to Phillipines and Guam.  I think people are getting too hasty to put a bid on the game while only trying out a handful of options.

Um the rulebook is pretty clear on this and there is no exception to China, YOU CAN’T place units in an enemy territory.  You can only place units in your own territory which you had at the start of your turn or, as China, you can place units in “freshly taken back territory from Japan”.  I have no idea where you guys are getting that you can place units in enemy territory that is still in the hands of the enemy but you can’t do that.

The unloading action is what stops a transport’s movement capability, whether you bridge and not move, load and move one space to unload or load and move 2 spaces to unload, etc etc.

Its not viable to go for broke and knock out the USA while losing your territory on the rest of the board.  Like I said, if I am playing the USA and see this coming, then I will get the most units possible with the cash I get as USA, and I will be pressuring and pushing mulitple fronts on Japan elsewhere with the other Allies.  It is like Operation Sea Lion but it is telegraphed with more delay time between the actual build up of units versus the actual invasion.  The USA is really the only power that Japan shouldn’t attempt to invade to knock out first.  You have 3 other factions to pick away at that are much weaker and much much closer to destroy.  China, not to mention the other 2 allies, would be a huge thorn in Japan’s side with the ability to deploy on freshly taken territory.

Not to mention that if you can keep at least a ship or so pipeline going to Caroline depending on your Japan strat, you could keep the ANZAC player land locked indefinitely until the USA comes to help out.

The collect income phase is at the end of the turn as stated in the rule book.  So China gets an extra 6 IPCs if the Burma road is completely in Allied hands regardless of what happen in the past.  The game is complicated but always try to approach each question/situation with the simplest solution in mind.  Taking that approach has helped me understand the game better.

I say send the battleship from Caroline there and send the destroyer with maybe a fighter to take out the ANZAC submarine.  You might think its too costly to lose the battleship down there but it would be at least until turn 2 for ANZAC that they could do a naval invasion.  Plus its not like the Japanese can’t replace a few lost ships which you should be doing practically every turn.  I say go for broke.

If you have ever played Total Annihilation or Total Annihilation Kingdoms, or Supreme Commander 1, check this game out.  Its quite different from the first Supreme Commander but actually runs and I think looks better than the first.  Its an RTS game centered around starting off with practically just one unit, your commander and building a base from there.  Mass and Energy are the only 2 resources but research points are technically a resource now.  You can upgrade your structures, units, and commander to help your efforts of winning.

The franchise is known for having gigantic experimental robots and just dominate everything around them with insane weapons and ramped up abilities.  For example, a artillery cannon that is a factory that launches units instead of shells anywhere on the map.  You can build a gigantic magnet to repel or attract enemy units, depending how your mood is  :mrgreen: .  There are 3 factions in the game, all have for the most part unique units that set them apart.

The unit detail is stunning, parts and pieces on all the objects rotate, fold, collapse, transform, move in and out.  Check it out, it got kinda weak reviews, 78 score overall because everyone wanted the same thing remade from the first game which is kinda arrogant I think.

I own it on PS3, call sign is Gharen.  Its the best Battlefield game yet in the series and trumps MW2 by far.  You can’t beat vehicles, destructible environments, and open maps that encourage squad play instead of mind numbing knee jerk reactions to avoid 10 yard melee lunges.

Yeah the issue hear being, even if you take the western US, you have pretty much lost the rest of the board and are letting China and UK do a 1 2 punch on you.  The reward for taking out just the US is not worth the risk of losing all your mainland Asia holdings and the risk of crippling your navy and airforce.  Taking out USA doesn’t guarantee a victory, it just knocks out 1 player.  It really doesn’t make it worth while going only after the USA.

I have stated in a few other threads that I think the backbone of the Pacific rests in the Phillipines, Carolines, and Hawaii.  These three island groups already have airbases and naval bases and can reach most of the board and all but one capital, India.  Sure you could buy more bases for other islands, but this central corridor can be used by both sides as a means to cut off units and IPCs.  I have read that the Japan player uses Phillipines sometimes as a staging ground, then the USA should aim for Carolines if that is the case.  If you build your fleet/taskforce correctly, you can make Japan suffer for going on the offensive against you.  As I have stated before, USA is NOT a supporting power and shouldn’t send everything it has to an already soon to be dead India.  ANZAC can if they so wish but they and the USA should be on the offensive against Japan.  Playing purely defensive just plays into Japans hands since they have a huge amount of assests.

I do think the Scramble ability of airbases needs to be tweaked a bit, whether putting a cap on how many can scramble or by letting any airbase on the board scramble, even land locked ones.  In the end, I think a cap of say 6 planes, 1 plane for each possible damage point on the airbase should be fine.

Also what about naval bases, why not put a cap of only 6 ships being able to benefit from the range increase, this would hinder Japan but also the USA as well.  I don’t think the game is broken, just people are stuck in a one track mindset of bailing your Allies out of trouble like in all the other AAA boardgames where Russia needed help ASAP.