Posts made by Praetorian

@robbie358:

I think that Japan going all out for India is suicide… I tried it the first time I played (remembering the old Pacific) and got blasted.
India falls, no doubt, but by then it’s impossible to stop USA and invade Australia.

An all-out attack against India does not necessarily mean also having to fight the US.  As the japanese player one of your advantages is deciding when the US comes into the war.  If its suicide to take on all 3 from the outset, just wait a turn or two and have the American sweat it out as they watch Calcutta fall and can do nothing about it.

@Gravy:

gwlachmai, u must be playing a different game than me then because a good Japanese player should win 80% of the time with the J1 attack, J2 hit philipines, and destroy British Navy leaving two subs on India convoy…bleed India slowly to its death.

With just a minor IC in Kwangtung or FIC, 3 tanks a turn will allow the Japanese player to outproduce the allies in the Pacific, using the Philipines as its main base, the range is deadly.

Sure the allies can hit the Islands here and there  and put subs in convoys but its easily taken back with a good Jap player.

Thats pretty much my conclusion as well.  If you have two equally good players, Japan, I think has a strong advantage.  After 6+ plays I’m having trouble figuring out how to really stop a good Japanese player.  I can get lucky if the Japanese overextend themselves in the first round or two, but it relies heavily on some really good rolls by the Allies to stay in the game.  If the rolls go average, Japan pretty much has the game wrapped up as long as they dont do something monumentally stupid.

@The:

Yes, I like building 3 transports as well as Japan R1. But I believe that the best way to kill the allies is a J1 attack on the 4 chinese territories, Shan State, French Indo-china, Kwangtung, Phillipines, and Celebes. I take all of these on round 1 and then take all of the DEI R@. This skyrockets Japanese income to 41 on turn 2 and like over 60 turn 3. I then steadily make my way through China and into India with a Malayan factory (useful for both an Indian and an ANZAC invasion). Thoughts?

A strong J1 does not need to involve attacking the US1.  Waiting to attack the US on J2 or J3 keeps their economy hobbled while the Japanese player continues to see their economy steadily increase.  By J3 they can be in a good spot looming down on India and building a solid defense against the US.

The problem with an all-out attack against all the Allies is that it quickly overextends the Japanese.  Playing as India, I’m a happy many when the Japanese player gets hyper aggressive as Fire Knight suggests… I can fortify India enough to make it impossible to take Calcutta until J4+ - which gives the US a long time to build up.  This also means that the aircraft the Japanese want to use to ensure victory in India will need to be diverted (at least in part) to the E. pacific to defend against the US.  Worse, it gives the US the time and economy to reinforce Australia.  2 extra turns of 50+ IPC is a big deal - even if Japan is neck-and-neck simply because the US only needs to bring their might to bear in one (maybe 2) places while the Japanese, tied down in Asia, is going to need to have forces in 4 spots (India, S Pacific, E Pacific and usually one other place - often SW Pacific or C Pacific).

So far, I’m not sold that an all-out attack against all 3 Allies is the best idea.

@Autarch:

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?

@The:

And i saw that thread too, and the only reason you guys came to “a conclusion” that Japan shouldn’t be able to build an IC in Asia is b/c many of us saw the thread and though it was such a stupid idea that they didn’t bother responding.

Really?  'cause the best example that was given to suggest that the IC wasn’t unbalanced in the thread was “well, its always been done.”  Feel free to add something useful to that thread.

But y’know, hey, I love it when my idle musings are called dumb.  Happy weekend to you too.

Depending on what the rules are for AA40’s global game, I have been tinkering with a bidding mechanic.  The Soviet Union and US at the start of the Chinese turn, bid for control.  The bid is done in secret and the winner allocates the money they bid to Chinese purchases.  The loser returns their bid to their money stash (they do not lose the money).  In the case of a tie (or if neither country bids a cash amount) then a roll-off occurs to decide which country controls China for that turn.

Thus, at the start of the Chinese turn both the USSR and US bid.  the USSR secretly bids $2.  The US secretly bids $4.  The bids are revelaed simletaneously.  The US wins and now immeditaely transfers the winning $4 to China’s cash.

(the goal of this is to represent the schizophrenic nature of the Chinese forces - its not quite modeling history since it treats the Chinese as a cohesive whole, but does model the conflicting goals of the US and USSR and their intervention in China).

Additionally, both the US and USSR may relocate fighter aircraft to China.  During the Chinese player’s turn the controlling player may choose to “take control” of that aircraft and use it as their own.  From then on, the aircraft is considered Chinese and is subject to the movement restrictions applicable to Chinese forces.

@oztea:

Cruiser + Destroyer = 2 shots, 2 hits, 5/6 combat power, Anti-sub, bombarment at 3
Battleship = 1 shot, 2 hits, 4/6 combat power, bombardment at 4

Both are 20 IPCs
Both are a good purchase

I disagree.  The Cruiser+Destroyer purchase is a sub-optimal build specifically because of the inclusion of the Cruiser.  This purchase only looks good on paper - in the actual game it is a poor purchase choice for a number of roles.

Want to get some combat dice into the water?  2 Destroyers is cheaper and, while you downgrade your dice a bit, the extra benefits that destoryers bring with them outweigh the loss of the 3/3 to a 2/2.  Same goes for Subs - downgrade in dice, but they bring unique advatages that offest those crappier dice.  For my plays, when my opponet purchases 2 subs it is a larger problem to deal with than 2 Crusiers.

Want to get some units in the water for a delaying tactic?  Subs or destroyers are a cheaper way to do so (and, again, bring more benefits for their lesser cost).  Same this goes for if you need to split your navy - what you want are DDs and SSs, not CAs.

Want to get a high kill ratio to beef up your navy?  Buy a Battleship.  You get an upgrade to the dice (2 4s is better than 2 3s, obviously).  It costs the same as two cruisers, has at least as good a chance to survive (its upgrade at attk/def offests the 2 shot/turn advantage the cruisers have).  In a straight up fight of one BB vs 2 CAs, the BB wins.  Oh, and the BB has a batter bombard.

Need to go against sub-spam?  Destroyers are the way to go, obviously.  But because of the sub’s sneak attack, a Battleship is also better than 2 cruisers (someone can do the math, but the sub’s sneak attack means that something like 33% of the time a sub will only face 1 cruiser [on the attack] - and thus only face 1 roll of 3.  Against a BB the sub is assured of facing 2 rolls of 4).

Have 20 bucks to spend and want a navy?  Buy a BB or a couple DDs or SSs.  They all fulfill their role better and do so cheaper (or at cost).

I think its a neat idea - gonna give it a run through on our next play (probably not for a few weeks, sadly).  I too have been looking for a way to  get the US into an offensive posture sooner and this might be the ticket.

@gredert:

Well, in my group I am the Jap player. And so far I have found the best turn 1 move for me is 2 Minor Complexes in asia turn 1, this way starting turn 2 I can pump out mech and tanks and quickly overwhelming china, leaving UK and ANZAC no choice but to attack me, keeping the US out and poor as long as possible, and giving me turns 3 and 4 to spend all my cash on ships. Once I do this and take my combined pacific fleet to hawaii and now US is in big trouble.

Y’know - this gets to my other post of not allowing IC to be built any longer.  If I were the allied player I think I would be pulling out my hair.  Its not a bad move on your part (not at all).

Your point about the navy is valid - but I have never seen a Japanese player play so passive as to allow for either ANZAC or the UK to build a reasonably sized fleet.  Usually, any navy from the UK or ANZAC exists on borrowed time and has to retreat so far from the money islands that they are pretty much a non-factor.

The only scenario I have seen cruisers be useful is in the limited build phases of ANZAC and the UK - and even then the cost/benefit just isnt really compelling enough to purchase them.  If you just need to get some rolls into the water, the destroyer and sub are cheaper and bring more benefits to the table.  If you really need a heavy hitter you save up and get the Battleship, which is cheaper and better than 2 cruisers.

I can imagine some very convoluted reasons when a cruiser might be a non-bad buy (I dont think it will ever be optimal) - but those builds are going to be very rare.

So, any fans of the cruiser out there?  Any reason I should rethink my houseruling it to be more effective?

@Razor:

Your fleet might combat-move out of a hostile seazone, but are not allowed to embark any tranny there.

There it is - we played it wrong.  p12 in the rules.  Thanks.

First time this has come up for my group:

J1: Japan player does not declare war against the U.S.  Japan consolidates its transports into a heavily defended sea zone.  
US1: US player sends the Filipino DD to the area with the Japan super-fleet (including the transports).

Now, if Japan declares war against the U.S. on J2 the transports cannot be used in that turn, or can they?  Or ruling was that if Japan declares war, and it shares a seazone with the power they just declared war upon - then that superfleet is technically locked down in combat and must resolve the combat during its turn.  Since the trannies were (technically) part of the combat where the Japan superfleet will annihilate the US DD they cannot move during the noncom move (or, for that matter, perform an amphibious assault that turn).

Is this legal?

It was an interesting move - because it dared the Japanese to declare war against the US, and if so, it hampered the movement of their important transport assets.  It also kept Japan from invading the Phillipenes on J2 (which was their plan) and forced them to wait until a much less-optimal J4 for the invasion (they still took it, in case anyone was wondering) after spreading out their transports to various seazones.

@Van_Trump:

Hopefully you can survive that long. After a J1 attack the future looks bleak for UK.

I think UK going all out defensive plays right into Japan’s hands - and am not sure its the best way to play.  It doesn’t guarantee the UK’s survival and gives Japan free run on the Asian continent.  Just building INF means the UK has no options except to watch Japan march into SE Asia and sit on the Indian border until they are comfortable to attack… an INF-only build plan leaves India with less than 5 IC and totally defensive by J3 or J4 and little prospect of trying to break out and forcing japan to stay honest (rather than deplete its costal areas since there is no threat to them).

Like you said, UK is a lot like Russia in the global game - just like Russia, the game (IMO) is won or lost depending on when Russia can go from a defensive stance to an offensive one.  Once that shift occurs, Germany is doomed. I am looking for the same timing/feel for UK in AAP40.

An INF build initially is okay and reasonable… but for the rest of the game?  No thanks.  So, assuming a UK1 build of 4+ INF, then UK 2 and 3 should be something else.  The reason I keep toying with a UK Armor build at the outset is that its hard to build anything but INF in UK2 and UK3 - build a TAC or Armor in the first round when the UK has the cash and then shift to a defensive stance in subsequent rounds - you still get 6+ INF to protect the UK plus, 2 more defensive shots at 3+ (via the Armor) and a potential for a viable counterattack (again, via the Armor).

The questions for me is if 2 or 3 INF are worth the trade off of nabbing a couple Armor early.  Are those 2 or 3 INF going to be the units that stop the Japanese from taking India?  Is just building INF and forfeiting counter-attack possibilities a good idea?  (I dunno, just spitballing here)

I’ve been toying with a game mod that would allow Japan to build 1 INF in Siam each turn.  Its not game unbalancing and a fun little addition to represent distinctive Siamese forces allied with Japan.  I would use the black German INF models to represent the Siamese.

I think the Allies win or lose on how the UK does it’s builds.  However, I dont think I have hit upon a good combo (Allies usually lose in my games).  The way I see it, UK has to goals: 1) survive and 2) somehow mount a threat to Japan’s gains by UK 4 (especially if Japan leaves a vulnerable underbelly)

So, here is what I have been playing with:

UK turn 1) 3 ART or, possibly 2 Armor

turn 2) Tac Bomber (with money left over from turn 1)

turn 3) INF (2 or 3 if you are lucky)

turn 4) if things are going well - Transport.  If things are nasty, INF.

The problem is that by turn 2 UK’s income usually looks no better than ANZAC and stopping a concerted push may be impossible and building a navy is straight out.  That said, if things go reasonably well, by UK3 there should be one or two spots along the coast that may be vulnerable to counter-attack and Armor is the best way to exploit that opportunity.

I’m not sold though - anyone have any luck with a particular set of UK builds?

@shohoku201:

1. In general, is it in Japan’s favor to a build an IC in Asia and why?
2. If Japan builds an IC in Asia, should it be a minor or a major and why?

1. Yes.  It makes it so that Japan is no longer fully dependent on transports.  Better yet, it speeds up the turns in which Japan can get forces to the front in Asia.  Using transports means that it takes 1 turn to get forces from Japan to the mainland - but then that transport will take another 2+ turns to return to Japan, load up, and get those forces into the fight in Asia.  Thats a slow process (but one that I think is necessary to balance the IC and force composition of Japan).  With an IC in mainland you can have 3+ units right into the fight.

2. Minor IC will do.  Japan doesn’t need much in the way of land forces in Asia to win - 3 Armor per turn is more than enough.

@robbie358:

So I assume that you include Korea in home territories.

For my games, probably not.  The measure I use if we could reasonably expect those territories could produce numbers front-line INF.  Even slightly industrialized, I just dont see many of the territories you mention being very productive - especially since they already grant income bonuses to their controlling player.  Granting both income and an IC seems to overvalue places like Korea, Manchuria and Hong Kong.

Plus, adding lots of exceptions complicates matters.  I’d just hold it to Japan and Australia and be done with it (those territories having enough built-in infrastructure to be able to justify an IC).

Its simple really, the ability to build minor and major IC is what, in my opinion, unbalances the game.  The Japanese ability to build minor ICs in a captured Alaska or on the Chinese mainland changes the dynamic too much.  Normally, Japan’s major issue is the need to balance its IC and its needs with the reality of having to build in Japan and transfer any land units to desirable locations.  Its a good challenge for the Japanese player - and it makes transports super important.  Moreover, its a fun dilemma.

However, once Japan builds one of those minor ICs the dynamics change too drastically.  Instead of having a key vulnerability, the ability to create minor ICs allows Japan to circumvent the pressing needs of transports and simply produce whatever land units it needs and whatever point it needs.  The challenge of balancing long term strategy and the transport requirements to fulfill that strategy are not eliminated outright, but severely reduced.  For me, this makes the Japan position a lot less fun.

Does Japan need minor ICs to win the game?  No, not in my opinion.  Thus, I’m thinking for all future games of AAP40 my friends and I play we are considering using one or both of these house rules:

1. Only Japan and ANZAC may build new IC - and then they can only do so in their home provinces (Australia or Japan).

2. Building a new IC takes two turns to come into play from the round in which it is paid for.

Thoughts?

@elque:

One alternative for the Anzac player is to build an airbase in Western Australia(Perth). Burma is only five moves away, alleviating the need for a risky stage in SE Asia.

ANZAC doesn’t have the cash from the outset to build an airbase.  If it did have the income, then yeah, it would be a great idea… but until it hits one of those NOs - an airbase is pretty much out of the question.  That means staging in a central location is even more important.

I havent tried this so take it with a grain of salt:

The key to fending off the India Crush, I think, is the ANZAC fighters.  India should not stand on its own, and for it to survive this all-out attack the Allies (capital A) need to actually work as allies (lowercase A).  Thus, how about moving 3 or 4 of the ANZAC fighters to India as soon as it is clear the Japanese are going all-out against India?  This would need the Allies to hold on to Malaya, but if they can do so, its not hard to start ferrying fighters over to India by Allies Turn 2 and fully reinforced by Allies Turn 3.  Now, in my games, Malaya hasn’t always been held, but it does require a concerted effort by the Japanese to take it… and if there are 3+ fighters plus the staring INF sitting there, its a tough nut to crack.

Now, of course the ANZAC player wont want to vacate Australia until its clear that Japan is going all-out for India - so an early relocation of fighter assets to NT or W Australia would be appropriate – with the intention of getting them to Malaya as soon as reasonably possible.  Though inconvenient, Malaya does offer the ability for those fighters to relocate back to Australia for whatever reason.

So, without much work and depending on the builds, India could have 10+ INF and 6+ fighters on point when the India crush occurs.  Thats a lot of dice to roll.  Its no guarantee to hold off the Japanese, but it does but India in a position that if it falls, the Japanese are going to have to pay a dear, dear price.