Posts made by kungfujew

Just so that everyone knows< we’re coming very close to a finalized set of changes.  And Jim, if you wouldn’t have perfected such a devastating set of moves we wouldn’t have to do this.  :p

Did you want to try it out calvinbobbesliker?

Rolls: 2@2; Total Hits: 02@2: (6, 5)

So, let them land at Queensland.  Japan has then traded the DEI for an improvised attack on Australia.  The allied main goal of messing up Japan’s entire war strategy was worked.  Now the game can begin.

I have a question about strategic bombing and scrambling to defend a sea zone.
Kreig, I have a question that came up in our last game and we were so stumped that we had to flip a coin to decide.

If I’m attacking an island the has 5 fighters on an airbase, what happens if I send in an amphibious assault and strategically bomb the airfield at the same time?  For example, I send in 2 fighters to escort the bomber on the raid and “x” number of transports and warships to assault that same island.  2 fighters scramble to defend vs the strategic bombing and 2 fighters scramble to defend the sea zone leaving one fighter to defend vs the land units.  The dogfight kills no fighters on either side and the bomber does 3+ points of damage to the airbase, meaning no air units can scramble to defend the sea zone.  What happens to the 2 fighters that were assigned to scramble to the sea zone now that the airbase is too damaged to let them do that?  Do they do nothing that round since they were assigned to scramble before the bombing raid, or do they get to defend in the land battle (which also doesn’t seem right since dogfighting planes don’t get to do two things and that gives less incentive to scramble to defend the airfield since you have a safety net of “if the bombing is successful, at least I can still automatically fight in the actual island defence”)?

Thanks in advance

I’m glad to see that unconventional thinking is now in.   :-D

If Japan takes Java, then it’s fleet can be hit by all UK air and the UK navy.
If Japan takes Java with just a transport and keeps their navy in the Phi then you can still make the same blocks and move US planes and ANZAC planes to land on and defend Sumatra on turn 2, which can be attacked by two less infantry, because of the lost transport and can have either an extra UK plane…. or you can build one or two transports and move in some men.
If Japan moves to the Celebs in case you build transports so that it can hit them with planes from the only carrier in range then they can still be hit with the UK surface fleet, which ignores the transport, and all the UK air but one plane.  PLUS they’re fighting over a hostile island so if the Carrier soaks any hits before the planes are dead…the planes are dead.  AND then you can set up the defence of Sumatra by ANZAC, US and the UK fighter.
OR
If Japan doesn’t take Java you can even buy a transport as he UK for a two fold kicker.  If they move the only carrier in range to kill the transport then that weakens the Java attack by one plane and the US can hit that carrier floating over hostile territory with 2 bombers, a dive bomber and a fighter.  If they don’t attack it, you can set up another line of defence at Sumatra with UK infantry and the US planes.

etc…

Like I said before, there is no one SUPERMOVE to kill either the Allies or the Axis.  But there ARE tons of options, especially if you consider that this game is different enough from any other A&A game that I’ve played that new strategies are needed to succeed.  The whole point of any early moves by the Allies in a J1 attack game is to slow down the advance.  Any kind of delay for Japan is a huge problem when their whole strategy is focused on deadly speed (ie. on any J1 attack).

Once again, try it out as a serious strategy in a game since it’s not a one shot gimic move, but part of an overarching plan.  As long as the dice aren’t crazy out of whack, you’ve killed off the whole Japanese invasion force, including the one or two infantry they brought from the mainland.  And I miscalculated the numbers, it’s 4 infantry and 2 art or 1 art and 1 tank.  If Japan hits 5 and UK/ANZAC hit 6 in the first round there are 4 UK or ANZAC fighters left and Japan has lost either their whole ground forces or has kept one land unit and taken an extra air hit.  Next round the fighters could all be dead, but Japan also loses three fighters on fairly average dice, making a total of 4 planes and almost all their land units in the area.   ANZAC also could have built a fighter round one and two as well as hitting both their NOs on round two means that if you want by turn three their back to 4 fighters or a mix of fighters and subs with maybe even a transport.  The UK is already removed from the naval game with a turn one attack so build tanks and planes or just tanks and men.  You can still prosecute a ground war as India if you have at least a few tanks/planes and artillery.  The main goal is for Japan to take them out on Java, making them actually fight for the DEI.  And I’m not sure why you say that about China, because they can be a huge thorn in the Japanese side the whole game, unless a large amount of manpower is sent at them.  If Japan skips attacking them, then because of your blockers, they’re two territories less and you’ve actually slowed Japan down with your mad intimidation skills.

The ONLY benefit of a round one Japanese attack is the easy victories that put them into a good position for turns 3+ The whole point is to make Japan pay for it’s early conquests, changing the whole game.  Setting Japan back one turn on turn 6 isn’t all that huge cause at that point it’s only one sixth of the game.  Setting them back a turn on turn 2 has a much larger impact.  The main problem I hear from people on this site is that the US is always one turn behind Japan.  If you can buy the US a turn to get their 17IPC build up to their starting fleet and their 55 IPC builds one turn behind the action you’ve just made your life a lot easier in the opening stages of the war.  For example, the US can move from Hawaii to Queensland, have their last 55 build move to Hawaii and drop down another 55 IPC build in San Francisco.  If you assign your forces and buys well then that train threatens the Sea of Japan and any new builds there, the Carolines and the  strategically places bases there AND the DEI.  Talk about spreading Japans fighters and Navy out, especially since Japan still needs fighters to combat both China and the UK.  Not only that, but you can combine fleets at the Caroline Islands for a huge whomp if it’s well defended or slip in on the way down if they pull back from there, and you’ll still have reinforcements in place for a counter attack next turn, and if Japan counters, you can the turn after that.  The US will be building for Naval superiority anyways so drawing Japan into a war for the sea away from China/India only helps.  Especially if you have a good helping of US and ANZAC subs floating around.  Japan is only one player and it’s harder for them to be everywhere at once, especially when the shooting starts in ernest.  Aside from killing a few stray transports, Japan’s fleet, once combined, usually doesn’t fear the UK fighters as their capital ships can soak too many hits for that small airforce.  After turn 2 are there even a lot of Japanese transports just floating around for no reason and undefended anyway?  One plane can kill them just as good as five.

Personally I don’t like the J1 attack as it is the least flexible of all the Japanese possible openers (ie. J2 or J3 or J4), and while I 100% agree that the UK transports, or at least one of them, should have started next to India, I don’t think the playtesters “missed” the J1 attack.  If you have a different Allied style of play then that’s cool, but if you’re finding that you can’t hardly ever stop Japan then you should probably try making a few drastic changes to your moves and do some serious experimenting.  You never know what you’ll learn from yourself. 8-)

P.S.

As a neat follow up, the US can also bomb the snot out of surviving land forces on Java with strategic bombers based out of Queensland.  Since it’s two turns back to the Phi, Japan has to use two of it’s newly arriving transports to secure the whole DEI and can’t threaten even an undefended India on turn three, and that also helps out a lot in the following few turns. Then you can bomb those transports out of spite unless the Japs split their fleet to protect them.

If Japan attacks, they’ll lose their valuable land units and won’t be able to attack any of the other islands that turn, plus they will most likely need to pull one or two infantry off the mainland for the attack.  If the UK buys planes and tanks then they’ll get the chance to rebuild a fair sized force.  Also, they save 4 infantry that would otherwise be dead and ANZAC should get both their NO’s that round.  That will also buy the US a turn to consolidate and advance.  Instead of just poo pooing the idea, try it.  My assumption is that India will fall regardless so I try to weaken Japan’s position in relation to the US.  It’s a short term hit for a long term benefit.  The UK’s fighters aren’t just for show so that you can score 5 or 6 hits on Japan after they have a huge land army attacking India.  Try being unconventional and attack with the forces you have when you can do some real damage.  If Japan has only 6 land units in the area, then killing them is a huge priority.  if you clear southeast Asia of Japanese men then how does that not benefit both the UK and china???  That’s what you’re missing.  Suddenly Japan’s first buy is now needed to do the work that should have been done by the time they arrive in the Dutch East Indies and the US fleet reinforcements is now only one turn away from the action, OR if the battle goes well then the US fleet is now on the attack depending on what Japan pull out of where to off-set their losses.  On the other hand, if Japan doesn’t attack then you’ve just doubled the fighter content of India as it’s only 4 spaces from Java to India; it’s much easier for the US to help the Aussies that the Indians.  If you’re always losing against a Japan turn one attack, maybe things that you think aren’t good moves might change the tactical landscape in a way that would benefit you in the long run.  Play ideas out to see what the long term effect is instead of just looking at what happens on that turn, to put it diplomatically. :-D

It depends on how that battle goes.  Obviously the dice are a huge factor, but the game effect depends on how the battle goes.  To my eye, Japan should expect get 4, 5 or 6 hits and the uk/anzac 5,6, or 7 in round one.  The point is to kill land units and a few planes.  Even with bad luck you should kill all the Japanese land units.  When the Japanese soldiers die, the three or two transports that were bought on turn one then have to be used to either reinforce the land OR take the islands.  That means that you’ve bought the US a whole turn.  Also by buying a carrier on turn one for the US you can hit the Sea of Japan with 2 fighters, two tacs and two bombers and possibly a sub.  If there are no targets there you can move to the Carolines or Queensland.  If you end up killing Japanese planes in their attack, then Japan has to pull planes out of china to defend against the US fleet.  Most likely Japan will also have pulled one or two inf off of the mainland for the attack, so now that whole area is weakened  all these little things add up.  If Japan attacks you in Java then you save the 5 men from the Malaya stack.  Also there’s a turn that the UK can buy without losing borneo and if you depending on what you put in Queensland, anything that Japan leaves in Borneo to convoy raid, might be killed.  The idea is to get them reacting instead of acting.  I’m not giving you a step by step instructions on how to beat Japan, cause I don’t have any.  :)  Remember, on the first 2 turns, Japanese ground troops are just as valuable as planes are to you.  Be aggressive when you can make it pay off.  And play China well.  If you don’t then that’s the biggest gift to Japan.  All I can tell you is our group has found that by mixing it up sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but as long as the dice don’t hate on you the whole game you have a chance.  :D  I find it’s best to assume that it’s going to come down to a fight between the US and Japan.  So any edge you can give the US at the expense of the other three just might be worth it down the road.

Oh, and about “Truk”, they’ll have to pick between weakening their offence against China or their defence against US.  Either way, you win.  Also, if you hold up Japan for a turn then you are effectively combining your 2nd and third  US purchases. So suddenly your reinforcements are on the same timeline as Japans instead of a turn behind.  Really, I don’t know the “perfect” move, I just try to think of what will delay Japan just one turn in those crucial first few turns.  That’s what has been the deciding factor in my groups’ games.

Play well and be victorious.  ;)

Sorry to not reply sooner, I was working all weekend and my 10 month old is sick so this is my first few hours free to sit and type in a few days.  Keep in mind, I don’t actually need to brainstorm strategy with you, since my gaming group isn’t having balance issues.  I’m just trying to help out a fellow war gamer because he asked for it.  And no, I’m not going to mistake your list of moves as anything resembling an invitation to play online.

That said, have you tried moving all the UK and ANZAC planes to Java, and putting the destroyer there to stop any bombards and the cruiser off Malaya.  If I’m not mistaken, while the three starting transports are all in range only the planes already on the carriers can attack as well.  This works very well if the Japan lost at least two infantry attacking the US as they will have to pick up two more infantry off the mainland to make a full attack on Java.  So it would be 6 inf, 2 art, 3 fighters, and 3 tac bombers vs 1 tac bomber and 8 fighters.  That if that attack fails or succeeds but costs Japan dearly in planes and or men then their initial position is severely weakened and that buys the US a turn or two to get their fleet one step closer.  On UK1 buy a fighter and a tank, on US1 buy a carrier and move your fleet and bombers to Hawaii, taking an inf and a tank, but put your sub in another sea zone 2 spaces away from Japan, and move no more than one fighter and one tac bomber to Queensland or leave them all on Hawaii or New zealand or whatever your preference is.  Build either a transport, 2 men and 1 art or a fighter as ANZAC and move the transport to New Zealand and move the whole Malaya stack to Shan State.  It might not seem like the best trade at first, even if Japan attacks Java, but the odds are that it will either cost Japan dearly to take or it will hold.  And it seems to really pay off down the line as it makes Japan pull significant air power out of either Japan, the Carolines or China to defend it’s fleet, making any of those important allied objectives easier to strike/threaten.  If Japan decides not to attack, depending on the disposition of the rest of their airforce  and your initial allied buys, you can either attack elements of the Japanese fleet, it’s transports or it’s men on the mainland.  In any event, you can land all nine planes in India if you like on the nest turn.

We’ve found that as long as Japan is left with the initiative then they will win more often than not, regardless of what turn the war starts at.  If the allies can disrupt the initial Japanese plan then it opens up the game and forces Japan to make on the spot changes to  adapt to the evolving situation and that is what gets the allies their opening.

So to answer the question posed when this all started…  How did the playtesters miss the J1 attacks?  I don’t think they did.  I think that, like most axis and allies games, they saw that Japan was much more straightforward to play and therefore would win more often then not initially.  But as you play more and more you find that, while a good change of pace, the J1 attack pigeon holes you into a type of attack that is telegraphed and can be countered more easily than if the allies are sh**ing themselves wondering where the hammer will strike cause Japan is poised to strike in any number of places and China is truely reeling.  If you play more than just one opening and play the game through to the bitter end then you learn how to beat Japan as the allies.  You won’t be able to do it every time, but you’ll have a fair shake at it as long as the dice don’t punch you in the testicles and laugh at you.

Plain and simple, if you think that the Japanese turn one attack is to powerful then make a Japanese turn 2 or 3 attack.  If you beat a videogame on easy mode and keep playing it over and over again on easy mode you can’t really complain.  The option is already there to up the difficulty.  Our gaming group have never once used the same opening attack twice in a row so we don’t have that issue, and we’re not the biggest fans of the turn on attack anyways, cause we find it forces Japan to race forward before all it’s peives are in place

Also, you want more than vague assurances of pairity, give me a detailed script to follow and I’ll give you back what I would do to counter it.  You gave a basic 10 point 10 turn summary and we tried it out four times and the allies won three times.  I’m not offering to play you to just to beat you, but because you asked for help and I was interested it helping you figured out an allied plan to beat you Japanese moves.  That’s the only way I’ll be able to remotely convince you, 'cause no matter what anyone says you keep replying “the Japanese can counter that”.  So either have a game/strategy session or stop asking.

Jim, I’ll play you to try out new moves if you like, let me know when and how and we’ll do battle.

Okay,  what he’s actually saying is that regardless of what anyone else thinks, Pacific 1940 is it’s own stand alone game that does not need another theater to balance it.  Furthermore, if you constantly (and I say constantly because if you do anything over and over and over again it’s boring as poop and you’re hamstringing your self strategically), attack on round one then you’re forced to fight India generally the same way every time.  You have 26 IPC’s on turn one alone.  Try buying ACs and subs or destroyers for the first few turns and deploying your fleet strategically.  Even is you just wait one turn you still have a huge advantage over the UK in terms of boats and you can set up almost two turns worth of attacks without worrying about the Americans at all.  If you’re playing against opponents who have no variation in their strategies than use the same “victory” moves over and over, by all means.  My favorite opening moves are Japanese turn two or three attacks that confuse and mislead the allies as to my real initial objectives.  It could just be that my opponents and I are better Allied players than yours are, so unless I make interesting and novel Japan turn two and three moves/attacks then they are able to defend aaginst an attack they see comming a mile away Or at least a fwe turnss before.

This is a post by Larry Harris on his website that I felt I should post regarding this topic since I kind of feel the same way about it that he does.  http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2409 
Hi Urjohn
Great questions - let me try to answer them…

Quote:
I have seen a lot of people complain in forums about Japan being overpowered in AAP: 40. But it seems to me that your team most likely allowed that intentionally. How are my guesses and assumptions?

By my team I assume you mean playtesters. My playtesters don’t make the final calls on set up, I do. I test certain aspects of the game, or rather they do and I make the final game decisions based on what I feel the game needs. Especially how it should be setup. What guides me is first and foremost the actual history of the issue or situation in question. I’m no slave to history, however. That’s just where I begin. As for Japan being too powerful…Look, in AAP the Japanese have a 2:1 air force advantage over the allies. At the beginning of the war Japan was truly a supper power in the pacific. It actually had a 6:1 advantage in aviation. It had the Zero which was arguably the best fighter in the world at the time. 6:1!? I could not let history guide the setup to reflect a 6:1 advantage. I’m sure you’ll agree. So I made it a 2:1 advantage, and you lily white pansies are still complaining. Come on… if the real allies could do it (beat the Japs) so can you. Personally I enjoy the challenge.

Quote:

1. It seems that the USSR troops which will be included in the global game in the Pacific theater will weaken the Japanese position in Asia.
   Yes indeed. I think the way the game is setup the Japanese and the Russians will both be hesitant to mix it up. They both have too many other opportunities and/or needs to willfully go to war off the bat. I could be wrong but I think there will not be too many early game Russian/Japanese attacks. Why should there be. In the mid game and especially the end game, however, I’m very sure the stronger – the one with the greatest to gain and least to risk, will launch an attack against the other. This is kind of what happened historically. In the last days of the war Russia ended up attacking the Japanese in Manchuria, or as the Russians called it – the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. That attack did not come till August 9th 1945. The war in Europe ended on May 8th. The Soviet attack was right on time! You see, during the Tehran Conference in ’43 and finalized at the Yalta conference ’45, the Russians agreed to go to war with Japan within 3 months following the conclusion of the war in Europe.

Quote:
2) I figure the European Axis will not want to go to war with the USA any sooner than they have to, and this will put pressure on the Japanese not to attack on J1, which gives the allies a chance to catch up in the Pacific theater.
Bless your heart… Right you are. The last thing the Germans want is to have a premature two front war with the US bringing to bear all that industrial power it has. The Germans and the Italians would like to limit their world war to Europe at least until the Soviets are on the ropes.

Quote:
3) I assume the reason the European Axis will want to avoid war at least in part due to a USA NO for being at war on the Europe map.
Yep.

Quote:
4) My guess is this NO will be 40 IPCs / turn.
Almost…You’re about 10 IPCs too high.

Quote:
5) I think your team had planned this out before the AAP: 40 game was even complete. It seems logical that balance and elegance in the G: 40 game take precedence over balance in the P: 40 game.
No, not really. The G40 game took absolutely no precedence or priority over P40. P40 is very much its own independent game seeking its own excellence in every way. Dependent on no other game for how it stands on its own two feet. The big compensator for P40, in terms of balance was primarily based on two things… I wanted an early allied challenge – thus reflecting the difficult task they had to deal with – namely a very militarized Japan. The 2nd thing was the US Economy. Which I must point out is 20 IPCs more than they receive in the G40 game. In the P40 game the US also has the potential of picking up even 10 other IPCs that they won’t have in G40.

It could end up that indeed Japan has turned out to be too strong in P40. I don’t really know yet for sure. I can tell you this… in the circle of people I play the game with it has been our feeling that, yes Japan is powerful (I like that and it probably is totally my fault if it is) but in no way is there anything automatic about their victory. See if you can find your own way of beating Japan. I’ve done it

P.S.
kaufschtick, my invitation to play you and your super/uber/unbeatable moves still stands, even if just so that I can see how exactly the whole thing plays out so I can try to think of how I would kick you in the pants if you used it a second time.  :p

It’s very clear that no allied strategy will be able to, in your opinion, counter the Japanese plan that you’ve fine tuned over 150 hours of game so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.  I find making the same moves over and over very boring so I’ll continue to enjoy the variety and challenge offered by the game and if we ever get a chance to play you can show me your unbeatable strategy.  I mean at this point I can’t really lose.  What your implying is that if you win using those moves it’s not that you’re  good, the  game is just broken.  But if I win then it’s because I managed to outplay and outmaneuver you in spite of your broken game plan.  Game on!!!  8-)

Oh and they’re not assumptions if that’s what I would be building. ;)  I’ve personally never tried building an new complex in Korea, I never really like to build new ones, but now that you say it’s impossible to pull off I kind of want to.

But you should certainly do what Whackamatt suggested.  Post your planned moves.  I’m very curious to know where all your planes and naval ships are when you’re setting this plan in motion over the first few turns.  Feel free to explain why you’re positioning where you are and what kind of Allied moves you’re expecting to be able to counter.  You never know maybe you’ll convince me and I’ll sign your petition to make the immediate US bonus on a Japanese turn one attack.  I’m almost always in favour of making a game more challenging.

I wasn’t going to say anything,  but I like that fact that you seem to be trying to learn and I’m getting tired of what seems like every strategy session devolving into talking about how all sorts of hypothetical reactions can/will completely cancel this or that so 'll help you out, Kaufschtick.  Oh and I played four games against one of my buddies who read your strategy.  He tried it all four of the last games he’s played as Japan.  The first one, the dice favoured me almost the whole game and I won rather handily.  The second game he won with India and ANZAC falling from simply outmaneuvering me and tricking me to overextend and then destroying my combined allied fleets completely.  The third game was close but also an allied victory with the Americans remaining elusive until the Japanese player was forced to commit to an attack or lose the initiative and then being attacked once their fleet was out of position to counterattack, and the fourth one was very close until I cornered his fleet with the Americans and then crushed it, great dice adding very nicely to my naval superiority (which the anzac bought dearly with the lives of their pilots).  While this might be a long post, don’t worry I’ll keep it to a bare minimum of actual points to decrease the opportunities for you to highlight my real points and tell me I’m stupid 'cause you disagree/don’t get them.  :p

Also keep in mind to read my post as if my tone is friendly and sincere, 'cause it is.  I’m a little too old and don’t care enough for a flame war.  :)

Your plan stated that you’re leaving your fleet based in Malaya.  You can’t counter a North Pacific American fleet with any boats if you do that, just your planes; AND only the planes that you pulled out of attacking India/China to defend the home islands or the ones you still have in range after your last turn of attacking India.  If you’re using your airforce to take India on turn X, then they are well out of range to threaten an American fleet in sea zone 6 that just landed 7 units and an AA gun in Korea also on turn X.  Plus, assuming a balanced American fleet there would be destroyers to act as blockers to hold up your Jap fleet from returning to face this threat and hold on I’ll get you my calculator… there would be at least one turn of income disruption from the initial landing of the navy at Korea, so that’s -8.  Then, assuming there are also subs and your returning fleet has been stalled or reinforcements built in Malaya, the American subs will cause ANOTHER round of income disruption, also -8.  That’s just like taking Borneo for two turns in terms or relative IPC’s.  Subs, trading subs for destroyers and convoy disruptions are the key to your income disparity problem.

Assuming the Americans stay out of trouble (which they probably won’t), and suffer no gains or losses, by turn 5 their fleet could consist of 1 battleship, 11 subs, 6 destroyers, 5 cruisers, 4 fully loaded carriers (5 fighters and 3 tactical bombers), plus 2 bombers and 4 fully loaded transports.  Just to give you an of what can sail from Hawaii the turn you’re taking India.  Hell, if you build them in a particular order you can drop 3 carriers and a fighter on turn 5 in San Fran and still be able to land planes based in Hawaii on them after taking part in an attack on sea zone 6 the next turn.  Oh and basing out of Hawaii and having transports is not telegraphing anything.  It threatens many different important areas and transports are need to take anything.

As the allies, always try to set up a 1-2 maybe even 3 punch with India, ANZAC and the US.  If the Japs move in force to something like Java with a Battleship, and two carriers and a destroyer early on, and the American planes are based in Queensland, why not attack them.  If the Japanese take three hits and soak all three, then if you lose your planes fine, but if you still have any retreat.  Then the Brits go and lo and behold, now it’s 4 fighters and a tac vs. a damaged bb and two damaged carriers and a destroyer.  Plus ANZAC still goes.  If they lose navy and keep the carriers undamaged then they’re taking casualties so good for you!  You need to understand the the Japanese power lies not in their airforce but in their navy.  If you can knock out Japanese fleets DO IT Especially if it only costs you Indian or ANZAC units.  America is the important power for the allies and they need naval superiority, so have the other two help them get it instead of just building for it.  This isn’t Seafarers of Cattaan (or however it’s spelled).  If Japan sends a Battleship and a destroyer to take out the ANZAC transport on turn one, send in the fighters.  Every fleet you destroy could be one turn earlier that America can make a push.

Finally and most importantly learn to lose to learn.  If you’re probably sure that you’re going to lose a game don’t concede, play it out.  That is where you learn the really good moves, the clutch plays that turn tides and slow enemy advances to a crawl.  I win many more of my games than I lose simply because I play them out.  I learn new ways to turn tides, predict enemy moves and buy time to regroup. You can learn this too, but not on a forum, not by winning easily and not by reusing and perfecting one stupid set of moves over and over and over.  The best part is as you do this more and more, you end up being able to win games that many others would either have conceded or had been impossible without your hard earned hard fighting never roll over skills.   If you find Japan turn one attacks end you up with too easy a victory, play a Japan turn 2 or 3 attack.  It’s not going easy or pitying your opponent your making the game more interesting for yourself and it’s a game so why play it if it’s not fun.  If you want a challenge, before you start making changes to the rules, play a more challenging version of the game, you’ll be happier and better experienced for it.

P.S.
Go out and find the game TACTICS II.  It’s awesome.

P.P.S.
I don’t know how you guys play China, but I can’t figure out how people think it’s a pushover.  I always make them do extremely well or make the Japs spend way too many plastic lives on taking them out.