Posts made by kaufschtick

42.9% have voted that the game is balanced or Japan should receive the bid.

sigh

@Imperious:

AAp40 did not consider any historical setup and instead tried to impose a new set of victory conditions that could make it compatible with a global game concept as a plug and play. With no need for ‘special rules’ That game needs new victory conditions akin to AAP and a historical setup. Balance would come from raising or lowering the US wartime income IMO.

So i advocate the solution is an entirely new setup ( definatly less pieces) and Historical, with the balance hinging on how much US wartime income will balance. Japanese VC would be for X points with every 10 IPC a turn generating 1 Point and no NO’s National Objectives are a cheesy way of rewarding historical play patterns and awarding cash if you ‘perform’ like Japan did in the war.

Where do we go to start “chanting” for this to happen? The Harris website?

@allweneedislove:

i made this poll not only for my own interest but for kaufschtick, as i think it is important that people know the rules of the bid they are voting on.

one thing to remember is that not all player have played the same amount of games or are as skilled as each other so take the results with a pinch of salt.

Thanks awnil, I appreciate the help.

Has anybody been over to the Larry Harris website? Is there any kind of “official” suggestion as to a fix for this game?

I love A&A, so don’t get me wrong with my next statement, but it kinda puts me off to shell out $90 for a game that has misprints on the set up info, large gaps in the rules, and that apparently hasn’t been playtested very well.

It seems to me that the folks responsible for that in the first place ought to make an effort to address the problem. Otherwise, there is really no point in having a forum here like A&A.Org, because it won’t be too long before we’re all playing by our own house rules and none of us will be playing the same game.

Kinda like we bought a box with little army men in it, and we all have to come up with our own rules.

It’s not much of a game if that’s the case. We played the original AAP & AAE to the same conclusion way back when. Those went to the “not playing these anymore shelf” (I took mine to my FLAGS and traded them in for store credit), and this one’s only saving grace is that it will be needed for A&AG…unless a reasonable fix is brought up.

@Redjac:

Our little gaming group (all three of us) played A&A P40 tonight. After the last few defeats the Japanese countered my strategy of attrition in the Sea of Japan pretty well.

The Japanese bought a lot of fighters and a only a few destroyers a turn. He kept the fighters in Japan. I never attacked the Sea of Japan because I was never able to get sufficient forces to attack to begin with. With the remaining money he overran the mainland of Asia.

While the submarine attrition strategy is a tool in the toolbox, to be used when appropriate, it may be simply too slow in the build up to work as a main strategy.

I think Uncle_Joe summed it up pretty well in another thread. There are some things the Allies can do from time to time, but once the Japanese player sees them, they are able to counter quite readily, and then you’re back back to square one.

Hey this actually a very good thread started, I hope my amigo Buckeyeboy runs across it. There is some good stuff here.

It’s late, and I’ve got to work early, but I’ll be back tomorrow with some thoughts of my own.

@Van_Trump:

What are you trying to accomplish with the bid?

We just want to be able to move the game into the mid game where it is actually still a game.

My friend Tim has the notion to just give the US their extra 40 IPCs to spend right away on the turn the Jpanese decide to attack, instead of just collecting it on the turn Japan attacks. I like that the bast so far, and if 40 is too much, then we’ll see what a good number would be.

I mean, for all practical intents and purposes, we’ll never see another J2 or J3 attack in this game on its own. J1 is too much for the Japanese too pass up.

@Funcioneta:

@SAS:

Some problems I can see are that the rules (as far as I know) disallow us to place an officially Chinese AA gun for one thing; so we still would have the issue of China not having an AA gun until UK is at war anyway… :|

There is no point in the game rules where says that China cannot have aa guns. Simply, chinamen have jedi lightsabres that can destroy ICs for some odd reason, but ABs, NBs and aaguns are inmune to this jedi trick. As much, they cannot purchase aa guns, but the same could be said about the starting fighter. But bids are not covered by the rules so you could bid even bombers if you really want.

I’d suggest giving 1 free chinese aagun for Szechwan and then start bidding for chinese units as you would do for another power … China had some crappy old tank corps anyway so I don’t see any problem if someone wants risk money in such costly unit: China will need artillery and infantery, and 1 tank now costs the same as 2 infs

And ACME wall must be destroyed

Funny stuff there, but those are some of the issues that I was afraid were going to rear their ugly heads as far as how the bid mechanism  was actually going to work out.

I’ll follow the discussion here to see how some of these issues are being dealt with by various groups and players.

@BadSpeller:

….or, some do a sealed bid.

Each person writes down a number and then reveals the bid. (The lower number plays the Allies and places units and/or cash as outlined by jim010)

This prevents auctioning the bid down because you know you can get your opponent to go lower. (even though you may not want to win the bid to play the Allies.)

Hey, that’s a good idea, I kinda like that.

@jim010:

You bid for the allies.  It is money that is used to buy units and place on the board before the game starts.  The money can be divided up among the allies, or saved among the allies as you see fit.

Placement of units can only be in a land space you already own with that power, or in a sea space you already have units with that power.

You start bidding at what you want to take the allies with.  Then the opponent counter bids lower, if he wnats the allies for less.  Then you can bid lower again, if you want.  Bidding continues until someone is not willing to bid anymore, and the lowest bid takes the allies plus the bid money.

Fairly simple, thanks for the run through. :-)

@jim010:

I won’t play allies without a bid.

Both here (unless my opponentjust gives me Japan) and face to face I play we bid for pregame placement.  Bids started at $9 and are now around $24 - and I’m finding that is still not enough against a turn 3 India.  I say pregame placement bids are closer to $30.

Doing it your way, you could just say everyone starts with their bonus money?

Either way, I prefer bid, as it also balances players, not just the game.

How do you guys do the bid?

Who gets the IPCs?

When do they get to spend them?

@jim010:

I say 25 to 30 is needed to counter the India turn 3 collapse

I guess I have to clarify. The game we started, we gave the US their bonus 40 points to spend right on US1.

So that was effectively a 40 IPC bid to the Allies, but only for the US.

I’ve never played a bid game before, and as we started this game, I convinced Tim to play without the bid again, as I was still sure that I’d just not found the right combination of buys, moves and build s for the Allies.

I lost again as the Allies, but as we started the game with the extra 40, it didn’t really seem that far off course, but that is impossible to say after just one turn.

Tim said that he had been exchanging a few PMs with a fellow on here who said he was getting beat as the Allies with a 20 IPC bid though.

So that’s how we started, just give the US their 40 bonus income right out of the chute to spend on US1.

@SAS:

Well, considering you’re probably the player most experienced with Pac40 (30+ games :-o), what do you think the Allies need to have a chance against Japan?

All I’m trying to convey with the whole “150+ hours, 30 games” thing is that I’m not throwing out my opinions after just 2 or 3 games.

I’m not trying to impress anyone with that. When we started playing this game, I was convinced that the game must be balanced and had been thoroughly playtested.

There are a lot of folks that have only gotten to play the game a few times, and I’m sure they must still feel as I did, that they just hadn’t figured out the Allies yet.

Between my best friend Tim, a supervisor in a steel plant here in Ohio, and myself, we’ve both been the Allies as well as the Japanese. The Allies aren’t winning by either of us. Anything we’ve come up with new as the Allies, the Japanese compensate for in short order.

Tim even started a thread on here soliciting for Allied strats. There were folks who were more than happy to discuss how they’d win as the Japanese in good detail. The only thing we heard supporting Allied strats were vague comments that the Allies could win. No detials or thoughts beyond that as to how they were going to do that.

There was some stuff we’d read about things we’d already tried and countered as the japanese.

Tim said to me on the phone one day, “Those guys have no clue how to win as the Allies on there. They get on and say the Allies can win, and that’s it. If there’s a way to do it, we’re going to have to figure it out ourselves.”

Well, we’ve given up trying. But if someone wants to step up to the plate and lay out their strat, we’re all ears!

Until then, we’ll start using bids and see what happens.

@SAS:

Well, considering you’re probably the player most experienced with Pac40 (30+ games :-o), what do you think the Allies need to have a chance against Japan?

Well, my best friend feels that 40 is a good starting point to begin playing with.

He’s a much better player than I am, and that seems to be a good place to start, IMHO.

I was hoping that others had already come to the conclusion that a bid was needed, and to see what kinds of numbers they felt were working.

I could swear that I saw a thread on here titled “What kinds of bids are you using”.

Can’t find it now. I’d love to check it out and see what info it contained.

I believe the answer is yes, Japanese a/c in Japan can scramble out. :-)

There used to be a thread on here about starting bids for the Allies.

I can’t seem to find it any longer?

My best friend and I have given up on the game as is, and have decided to start playing the game with a bid for the Allies.

I’ve never played Axis & Allies with a bid before, and so I thought I’d post a thread on here to solicit your thoughts and ideas on the matter.

I put the poll in just for those who have an opinion on a bid, but are not decided.

I’ll ask for the exact bid from those experienced, and also your hints and tips.

Thanks in advance! :-)

@calvinhobbesliker:

Japan would only have 78 since Borneo is both a DEI and a British territory

Yeah, that’s right, I sometimes forget that in mulling things over and adding them up. That’s a four point difference.

@Redjac:

J1 3 TR or 2 TR and a minor industrial complex.
J2 Inf and/or tanks for the industrial complex and a few destroyers. Maybe another industrial complex for Hong Kong.
J3 3 tanks and some more inf/art for finishing off China and an assault into Burma and India.

The Japanese can do better by taking the PI & Celebes on J1. On J2 take the rest of the DEI. J3 take Singapore. J4 place a major IC in Singapore, instead of the minor ones further north.

Instead of buying minor ICs for Asia, buy transports the first three turns and use them to move troops down from Japan. The transports will come in handy later for the Japanese after a major IC is placed in Singapore. They can then employ the transports against Australia and the Solomons.

The strat you suggest with the minor ICs is sound, and will produce the same result against India & China. However, a major IC in Singapore is in perfect position to spell the end of Australia after India goes away. The transports are also better suited to counter any Allied excursions into the DEI, which they may be inclined to do from time to time.

I think a major IC in Singapore is faster at ending the game than a couple minor ICs along the Asian coast.

Japan can easily use its massive air force to defend Truk & Japan. These planes can shuttle back and forth between these two locations to respond to Allied threats, and to also attack Allied units foolish enough to wind up in between these two points.

Buckeyeboy (Tim) and I have played well over 30 games now, at something at just over 150+ hours of actual game time. We’ve tried all sorts of Allied strats, combinations of buys, and the games all come back to the same ending.

For the first three turns, the game looks like its going to be a good game. But after the main at start Japanese forces finish annihilating the Allied forces in and around the DEI and the Chinese & British IPC levels fall to around zero, the bottom falls out for the Allies.

If the Japanese keep their main navy around Singapore, India can be knocked out of the game as early as turn 6.

A smart Japanese player will leave no easy targets on the gameboard for the weaker Allied forces to pick off, thus allowing Japans strength to grow to match the Allies. Thus, the Allies never gain an upper hand, and are always facing an enemy with superior strength.

Some things that really make no sense in the game design.

#1.) India gives Japan an extra 5 IPCs. This little extra boost means that if India falls, that extra boost in IPCs will mean that the Allies are just falling further and further behind if the players choose to continue the game.

Let’s see here. Japan’s starting 26, + China’s 12, + 15 of Britians 16,+ the 5 IPC kicker for India, +2 for  Vietnam, +20 for the DEI, +2 for the PI all comes to 82 IPCS!

The Allies would be at 65-70. Without that silly +5 kicker for India, and if the US grabbed Iwo,  the Japanese could be at 76 with the Allies right on their heels at 71. But at 82 to 65, the game is over.

#2.) Kamikazes. Why in the world do you need to introduce a rule that gives Japan yet another advantage. That’s like giving the New York Yankees more money. Dude, they’ve got enough already. Japan already has enough of an advantage in the game, why give them six free shots on Allied ships? Ridiculous.

#3.) British Bonus Income. The British gain 5 extra IPCs if the Allies control Hong Kong & Singapore at the same time, and another 5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control all of the DEI.

Really, really…

Why not just make it this: The British gain 5 extra IPCs if they control every land territory on the game board. Again, this is just ridiculous.

#4.) US bonus income. The US should get 5 extra for Iwo, and 5 for Okinawa, not 5 for both of them together. Instead, what happens is that if the US goes for Iwo, the Japanese get a bonus in the form of 6 free shots!

Have I said it before?

Ridiculous!

The Japanese get 5 extra for Hawaii, but the US gets zero for Truk!?! Ridiculous!

#5.) The Chinese. China starts so ridiculously weak, and gets whipped every single game. In short order, no less. The fact of the matter is that Japan never defeated China…ever.

Ridicul…

Ah, enough of that, you get the point.

@Redjac:

They cannot be that strong everywhere.

But they can be strong everywhere that matters.

The problem you are missing is that the US has more IPCs to spend than Japan only on turn 2.

Every other turn of the game, Japan will have more IPCs to spend than the US, or at least just as many.

Unless the Japanese player is completely stinkin’ falling down drunk, it’s pretty hard to for the US player to suprise and over take an opponent who has just as many, if not more IPCs to spend than you do.

J1, Japan is at 26 IPCs             US1, US is at 17IPCs
J2, Japan is at 40/41               US2, US is at 55/56
J3, Japan is at 60/61                US3, US is at 55/56

The total spend for Japan over the first three turns is 106 IPCs, 127 for the US. A whole 21 more IPCs.  After that, the US just falls further behind in IPCs.

By turn 4, Japan will be sitting on 65+ IPCs, the US at 55, China on maybe 3, Britian on Maybe 5, and the ANZAC on 10-15. The Chinese & British IPCs are irrellivant, and so by turn 4, the two sides are basically equal in IPC expenditure.

Consider that Japan starts the game with enough units to take out China, and only needs a few more infantry in order to take India out, Japan can use it’s at start military might along with it’s new builds to counter whatever the US/ANZAC forces are able to do.

Consider also that Japan starts the game with something in the neighborhood of 100 IPCs more in aircraft units, 67 IPCs more in ships than all of the Allies combined, you can see how absurd the Allies position is.

J1, Japan takes the PI & Celebes. J2 Japan takes the rest of the DEI. J3 Japan takes Singapore. J4 Japan places a major IC in Singapore. India will fall within 4 turns of this. Japan has more than enough to defend Japan & Truk, and to send excursions into the Solomans.

We’ve even had games where the US has taken Truk, but in doing so lost so many units, that it essentially won the game for Japan. Won the battle, lost the war.

Nearly all of our games have gone the same way. The first three turns of the game seem fairly exciting and balanced, but this is an illusion. The reason for this is that the main bulk of the Japanese forces spend the first three turns smashing through the PI, the DEI & into Singapore.

While these forces are tied up, the Allies feel that they might have a chance to catch up to the Japanese in strength and make a game of it.

After turn three, the at start Japanese forces are finished securing the Japanese economy and a location for their major IC to finish India, and are then free to join whatever the Japanese have been building over the first three turns to go against the US/ANZAC forces.

Now the real zinger for the Allied player is this, at the same time as Japans main at start forces are freed up to go back against the US/ANZAC forces, the IPC level of the Chinese & British have crashed to nearly zero, and their board positions nearly wiped out.

So starting turn 4, the poor Allied player gets the double whammy. The main at start Japanese forces now turn their full attention toward the main Allied force (the US), and the Allied player finds that 2 of it’s players, the Chinese and the British, are reduced to the point of waiting to be conquered.

Oh, and speaking of the Chinese. I saw a thread here that suggested that the Chinese player go with a “go north”  defensive game plan. I tried it, and the first game it gave the Japanese a little suprise, and China actually survived a couple turns longer than it usually does. After that, the Japanese player adjusted for this new strat, and pounded the Chinese just as before.

The starter of this thread, Buckeyeboy and myself have now completed just over 150 hours of gametime playing this game. Virtually no Allied wins.

We are now switching over to playing this game with a bid for the Allies.

I have to say that I agree entirely with the post & comments above by Autarch.

Well, for what it’s worth, I still can’t help thinking that I’m missing something with the Allies in this game.

I was looking at the board again tonight (Buckeyeboy on here and myself both are thinking that we’re both spending way too much time thinking about this game!  :-o).

The last game we played, the Japanese went J1 of course, and the DEI was the target of J2 moves.

As the Allies, I spent a game trying to build up at Hawaii, and it caused me to have to waste a US turn with the US hanging around Hawaii, waiting for reinforcements to arrive before pushing on.

A couple games I tried adding a naval base to Wake, but it also caused the US to have waste a turn before pushing on. The US is so weak to strat out too, that it really can’t afford the base early on, it needs to make combat units.

It kept bugging me that on US2, I really wasn’t doing anything with the US fleet.

My best friend, TA in Dayton, likes to build a British CV on B1, to use as a battering ram against any stray Japanese fleet fragments that may present themselves in the reach of the British ships & air units from India.

It got me to thinking again about moving the US fleet down to SZ54 on US2. This would be right after the Japanese make their move into the DEI, possibly splitting up, or at least exposing some transports.

If the ANZAC’ers build a sub on ANZAC1, and bank the other 4 IPCs, then they could plop down 2 more subs on ANZAC2, the turn the US fleet moves down to SZ54. The ANZAC DD could move into SZ55 if needed, which would potentially block any Japanese ships from moving into SZ54 on J3 from Java. If the Japanese are spread out in the DEI, then SZ54 would only be able to be attacked from air units, as SZ54 is not reachable from Borneo or Sumatra by ships. If there weren’t any Japanese ships in Java, then the ANZAC DD could join the US fleet in SZ54.

If the US transport were to survive in SZ54 to the US3 move, it may have a path open to either the PI or to Guam, where ANZAC air could follow up.

If the ANZAC forces have 3 subs ready on ANZAC3, with their 4 fighters, they could also counter attack Japanese surface ships in either SZ55 or, I think it’s SZ46 (the one adjacent to SZ55, to the north). These would be the spots Japanese CVs may have to position themselves to recover the air units from a Japanese SZ54 attack on the US.

The British could, from India, counter attack SZ55 (north of Australia, the little skinny SZ) in conjunction with British air out of India too.

The US could position 2 bombers, 1 fighter & 1 TAc in Australia too. If the US fleet bit the dust from air attack, the US sub would still be alive in SZ54 to counter attack with the planes.

If the Japanese stage a J3 attack on the US fleet in SZ54, and choose SZ55 as the spot to recover planes from, then the Allies could pull a triple whamy on them there! The US could hit 'em; then the British; then the ANZAC’ers!

The threat of counter attack might just give the Japanese player a little trouble from simply swatting down the intrusive American Navy.

Either way, if the Americans are in SZ54 with their at start fleet as the Japanese start J3; the British are sporting a loaded CV with their CA & DD just off India; and the ANZAC’ers have 3 subs positioned to counter attack the waters off of Australia with their air force…that’s about as tough as the Allies can make it on the Japanese for J3 in that area.

@Autarch:

I used to think that was a viable strategy, but by the time the see-saw battle for the Burma Road is lost, China doesn’t have enough of anything left to provide but the most minor distraction.

Moving the Chinese army to the north early in the game only hastens the collapse of the UK. Japan has more than enough forces in the north to contain it.

Agreed.

Yeah, this is an interesting thought; going north with the Chinese; but seriously, if anyone is pinning any hopes in strategy for the Allies in Asia on the Chinese…it’s time to cut them off from the alcohol.  :lol:

The Chinese don’t even amount to a speed bump for the Japanese. At least grinding away on the Japanese over the Burma road causes a little attrition against the Japanese.

It’s great that they got the non-aggresion pact represented in the game with Russia here, but that just makes the game situation in China just that much worse as it frees up the Japanese to go all out without any fear of having to deal with the Russians. All the at start Japanese units in Manchuria in the game were there in the first place to guard against the Russians. The way AAP:40 has it, they’ve freed those units up to go after the Chinese and British now.

So they’ve still missed the boat on China. The plain fact of the matter is that Japan never defeated China in the war; yet in every single game of A&A I’ve ever played, China has been little more than an after thought for the Japanese.

It’s almost as bad as the JTDTM.

That and the IPC level between the Japanese and the Allies is just not right. The Japanese have very attainable bonus income objectives to earn and go after, while the British have very nearly impossible ones to go after.

With a J1 attack, Britian will never get the DEI bonus, ever. Britian will also never get the Hong Kong-Singapore bonus, again, ever. Why even bother including them in the game? You might as well put another one in for the British that says, If the British control both Iwo Jima & Okinawa at the same time, gain 5 IPCs.

The problem here is that Japan is going to place a major IC in Singapore. It’s only two spaces away from Australia. The Japanese can place a shuttle service from Singapore to Western Australia, and like with India, it’s just a matter of time before Australia goes away.