Posts made by saburo sakai

@balungaloaf:

sorry, band of brothers was a worthless steaming pile of sh*t.

it was not real.

when they storm a town, they take zero casualties, or maybe one or two.  but kill like um 35 germans.  what bullshit.  the germans tore through americans every step they took.

the show makes the germans look inept. probably done purposely or by terrible terrible production and directing. even if it was speilburg.

it didnt happen that way.

I think you must have watched a different series.  Plenty of casualties on both sides.  Guys dying for meaningless objectives (e.g., the prisoner snatch episode).  Gliders getting blown up on D-Day with no chance for the soldiers to get out and fight.  Main characters died throughout the series and, if you forgot, it was based on a true story.  The guys who survived the war actually survived the war.  Get the DVD and you can watch all the special features which include interviews with the guys from Easy company who survived.

SS

The one’s I would add to the list are one movie and two mini-series:

The Big Red One

Band of Brothers - incredible realism in this one
The Winds of War/War and Remembrance - this one is truly epic

SS

@Adonai:

I’d like an overall introduction for ‘newbs’… looking at the board on ABattleMap, it seems quite daunting.

By the way, in my experience, the best way to learn the game is to play it.  If you like, I would be happy to play a game against you, to help you learn the game.Â

The other thing I would be willing to do is to provide some Mapview maps of my previous games that will show, turn by turn, how a game was played out.  I will try to pick various types of game (i.e. India Crush, Aus capture, VP game) that will show how the games played out.  In almost all cases, the roll logs for these games will be available at Days of Infamy so anyone reviewing the games will be able to see what role luck played in the outcome.

I’m not sure whether maps can be posted here, but if one of the moderators gives me some instructions on that point, I’d be happy to post some maps.

SS

Lets me ask you regardless of any balancing issues… what issues other than sub stall do you see as problems in the game?

First off, I’d just like to make clear that I don’t think the substall is a problem with the game.  In fact, I think it is one of the key features of the game that makes it so appealing.  As AAPacific is a game that involves so much naval activity and the movement of units by transports, substalling is much more significant then it is in AAEurope.  I think the use of substalling greatly enhances the game.

It may be that substalling was not intentionally put into the game, but I don’t think that it detracts from the game or needs to be “corrected”.

CAP and how its handled?

You raise some other interesting points.  For example, I have always wondered why CAP will prevent surface naval vessels from passing through a sea zone but not prevent bombers and fighters from doing so.  I think the game play reason is that Japan could then put CAP fighters up in sz36 and prevent the US from conducting an SBR attack on Japan which is often a key to Allied victory.  Historically though, CAP fighters were put up to counter enemy planes, not enemy ships, so the application of the rule seems a bit odd.

Issue of India and the trick the Japanese players use to win the game?

The India Crush is a problem for inexperienced players, but by using the Anti-Crush described in Essay#2, this “trick” can usually be overcome.  As for the KIO attack that I have referred to many times without elaborating on, this does take a bit more work.  I haven’t got around to writing the essay on KIO largely because I view it a bit like giving away nuclear secrets to terrorists.  The KIO is an extremely powerful attack that, in many cases, cannot be defended.  Setting out the “how to” of such an attack does encourage new players to try it and not experience the much greater fun and challenge of a VP game.  However, at Days of Infamy, we have come up with the inverse bidding system that effectively discourages the KIO attack.  The Allied player gets some extra IPCs to start the game with which he can buy units that will make a J3 India attack untenable and a J4 India attack very difficult if a proper anti-crush is played.

How russia is handled?

I don’t generally have a problem with how Russia is handled, but I would be willing to consider suggestions around adding Russia as an active side in the game.  This would swing the balance in favour of the Allies, but since I think the OOB rules favour Japan, this is probably not a bad thing.

As for the Atomic bomb, tell me how you think that would work.  I once read a thread about funniest A&A moments and one group of players had the “atomic kitty”.  This was a catnip toy that they would toss onto the map at some point during the game.  Anything knocked over by “atomic kitty” was dead and had to be removed from the game.  Not particularly realistic, but funny as hell!

Daunting is figuring out how you are to spend all that US loot.

This is largely covered in Essay #7.  For the Allies, the key to victory is the defence of India and Australia early and the use of their combined overwhelming resources late in the game.  Therefore, the US purchases are one of the most important features of the game.

I’d like an overall introduction for ‘newbs’… looking at the board on ABattleMap, it seems quite daunting.

This is interesting.  AAPacific was the first A&A game I purchases, learned and played.  I had always played more complicated war games before getting into A&A.  In fact, I resisted A&A because I always thought it was a “beer and pretzels” game without a lot of strategy.  I didn’t start seriously playing until about 3 years ago.  I found the rules of AAPacific quite straightforward after playing war games such as Squad Leader or Third Reich.  The beauty of the game, however, was in the remarkable amount of strategy that went into playing a game that, in many respects, is decided by luck.  This is true of most of the A&A family of games (certainly AAR falls in this category) but I think is most prevelant in AAPacific.  That’s why I like it the most.

But I digress.  Back to the point that learning the game is daunting.  That is true but I think if you review Essay #5 about the differences between AAR and AAP and Essay #7 about purchasing, you are well on your way to playing the game.  The essays about the India Crush and Anti-Crush and the Australia capture will help “newbies” avoid some of the early traps that sometimes discourage players from continuing to play AAPacific.

I think that the next essay will be one about the key territories and sea zones, followed quickly by one on the use of CAP.  In the meantime, I’d be happy to discuss any proposed rule changes or modifications in this thread.

SS

Imperious Leader,

I haven’t really given much thought to alternate rule sets for AAPacific because I think the game is very good as it is. The only change I would make to the out of box rules and AH clarifications would be to give 12 IPCs to the Allies before the start of the game (in addition to the convoy money) and make the VP target 24 for Japan. At that point, I think the game is very balanced. I would play either side against any player with that set up.

As for substalling, I don’t think it is a controversial point since AH issued its FAQ on AApacific confirming that substalling was legal. I certainly understand the difficulties players have getting used to substalling and that may be part of the reason fewer players take up the game, but I believe substalling is integral to the strategy of the game. I wouldn’t change anything about how substalling is currently handled by the game.

On the subject of historical accuracy, I have never been particularly concerned about it in the Axis and Allies games. The games have always placed playability over historic accuracy. Certainly, there are features of the game that simply cannot accord with history. For example, a US bomber stationed in Hawaii can fly all the way to Formosa and it can do it from the start of the war. No bomber used in WWII had that kind of range, but for game play purposes, it is necessary to have these anomalies. One could cite numerous examples.

In the wargaming world, there are the beer and pretel games like A&A and the more detailed simulation games like Squad Leader and the like. I personally don’t think there is much point in attempting to make Axis and Allies historically accurate because it was never conceived in that way. Better to accept that A&A is a very playable game system and look for historical accuracy in other games.

SS

Okay, I’ve produced seven of these essays so far and I have a few more to go.  I’m hoping that I can get some input from those who are reading the essays (if there are any such beings) as to what would be the most useful next topics.

Here are a few possibilities:

• The 4 VP opening and how to counter it
• The most important sea zones and territories and how to control them
• J1 Disasters and how to recover
• Kill India Only and how to survive it
• Effective Use of CAP

If anyone has any other suggestions, I’d be happy to hear them.

SS

It does depend on the relative strength of the Axis and Allied forces and how far Japan has progressed.

@ncscswitch:

If Germany is already trading EE, they are pretty much already toast.

Not if they’re trading it in force with Ukraine.

Germany can move the bulk of its forces between EEur and Ukraine, alternately threatening annihilation of any forces in Karelia or Caucasus.  Meanwhile, the Allies cannot shuttle infantry back and forth between Karelia and Caucasus and may be forced to retreat from one or the other.  Only if the Allies have built up a sufficient force of UK and Russian armor and Allied fighters can they hope to hold both Karelia and Caucasus.

SS

Sea zone 5 is the most important.  If Germany still has units there, Germany and EEur are safe from UK amphibious assault.

If the UK holds it, it can shuttle units to Karelia or Norway and amphibiously assault WEur, EEur and Germany.  sz5 touches 5 crucial territories.

With all due respect, sz60 and 61 only become relevant when Japan has already lost the game.  If the US has occupied it in strength, the game has been over for the Axis for a few turns anyways.

SS

Once Caucasus falls permanently to either axis power, Russia’s days are numbered.

So that’s why you’re not playing our game at FOE.  Since you’ve lost Caucasus, Russia’s days are numbered.  :-)

Actually, I think EEur is a key territory.  As long as Germany holds or can contest EEur, Germany is still in the game and can hold off the Allies until Japan can take out Russia.

The other important territory is Egypt.  Whoever gets there in force first holds dominance over Africa and the extra IPCs that make success in a long game possible.

SS

wow!

I meant to ask.  Do you mean “wow, good essay” or "Wow, this guy is a real geek with too much time on his hands:?  :-D

SS

Yes, it seems to me that the Battleship purchase is rare indeed in AAPacific.  Only the US can realistically afford one and then it really should buy it only in the later stages of the game.  In almost every case, I would rather have 2 DDs or 3 subs than 1 BB.

SS

Purchasing for All Occasions

Sun Tzu said:  In the operations of war,
    where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots,
    as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand
    mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them
    a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front,
    including entertainment of guests, small items such as
    glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor,
    will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day.
    Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.

While nothing in AAPacific costs a thousand ounces of silver per day, the point Sun Tzu is making is that fielding an army costs money.  Further, as with any version of Axis and Allies, the right purchases are the key to victory.  Like the proverbial kid in a candy store, you have all kinds of choices but only a few combinations of AA Pacific “candy” will leave you smiling at the end.

Purchasing for Japan

The principles to apply when purchasing for Japan are relatively simple.  Since Japan can generally only place units in Japan or sz36 (other than in the rare instance when Japan captures an IC and the game doesn’t end as a result), the presence of American bombers on New Britain, Caroline Islands or FIC will generally make the purchase of surface vessels impossible (or at least very unproductive) by J4 or J5.  The US bombers will be in range of sz36 and, unless Japan has retreated its entire fleet there, any new surface vessels are easy and lonely targets for a massed fleet of bombers.

Therefore, if Japan wants to add anything to its surface fleet, they usually must be purchased by no later than J3 or J4.  Fighters can be purchased from time to time depending on losses.  Otherwise, Japan is generally in the sub business.  While this is historically inaccurate as Japan did not have a particularly strong submarine fleet, in AAPacific, the sub gives Japan the most bang for the buck.

Here is a general outline of Japan’s purchase track:

J1 - 2 Transports or 1 Trn, 1 Sub and possibly 1 Inf
J2 - 4 Subs
J3 - 2 Subs and 2 DDs or 2 Subs and 1 DD, 1 Ftr
J4 - 5 Subs or 2 Ftrs and 2 Subs
J5 and beyond - Subs, Subs, Subs and perhaps a fighter or two

The Japanese player may also need to purchase ground units to defend Japan, but only if a US invasion is imminent.  It is much easier to block an invasion by using subs then it is to prevent a successful invasion that gets through to the beaches.

It can be seen from the list of purchases that there are a few things that are conspicuously absent from the list of purchases.  No bombers, aircraft carriers, Battleships or ground units, except for a last ditch defence.  Here’s why.

Bombers are effective in attack but not good in defence.  The advantage they have over fighters is their longer range, but in AAPacific, you don’t need to worry about attacking things at long range because the UK and US forces are coming to you.  You will almost never need the extra range of the bombers after J3, so fighters are much better purchases than bombers.

Battleships are a purchase that Japan simply cannot afford.  Two destroyers are a much more economical use of the money.  The DDs can assist Japan in fending off Allied subs.  Japan starts the game with 3 BBs and should be content to protect those until the later rounds of the game.

New Aircraft carriers are also a luxury Japan can’t afford.  Japan starts the game with 4 ACs and these can all be brought together with the 3 BBs by the end of J2.  With the use of CAP later in the game, usually launched from fighters in the Philippines, Japan can get 12 or 14 fighters in the air over its fleet without extra carriers, so it is simply not necessary to spend the money.

Finally, after J4, Japan should be in full retreat in Asia.  Adding extra ground units to Asia might slow that retreat but will almost certainly mean that you have let the US and UK naval forces advance unchecked in the central Pacific.  Japan has sufficient forces, if properly placed, to hold FIC and Siam until J4 and that is all that is necessary for Japan to win a VP game.  A territory by territory retreat of the ground forces, either towards Malaya or back into China, will preserve the ground forces for opportunistic counterattacks.  So, Japan does not need to build more ground units.

In summary, the Japanese purchases are relatively straightforward - a couple of transports, destroyers and fighters and a large dose of subs.

Purchasing for India

India starts the game as the most likely target of a Japanese ground or amphibious assault, so it is important to strenghten its defences early.  Therefore, for the first round or two, ground units are the required purchases with the addition of a sub if Japan looks to be setting up an India Crush and has taken out the Indian transport.

As the game evolves, India will need to alternate between naval purchases and ground units.  India is the only country that can productively use armor, so by turn 3 or 4, if an India Crush has been averted, 1 or 2 armor units will be a good choice.  India should purchase a transport as soon as the threat of that transport being sunk by Japanese bombers on Philippines or FIC or submarines in sz47 has been eliminated. Towards the end of the game, more naval units and perhaps even a bomber can be purchased.

Here’s India’s purchase track:

UK1 - 9 Infantry or 5 Inf, 3 Rtl (sometimes a sub)
UK2 - Infantry and artillery
UK3 - 1 Sub, 2 Arm (assuming no India Crush)
UK4 - 1 Transport, 2 Inf, 1 Rtl
UK5 and beyond - DD, subs, a couple of ground units, another transport and a bomber

India should not buy a fighter early in the game.  Four infantry are much more effective defensively early on, than a fighter.

For a while, I tried a big armor purchase by India.  I would try to purchase 6 or 7 armor by UK2 but I have since abandoned this purchase strategy because the Allies aren’t able to aggregate enough units in Yunnan to hold off a Japanese counterattack unless there are enough infantry present.  I have found that 2 or 3 armor by UK4 are much more effective then 6 or 7 armor by UK2.

Purchasing for Australia

Generally speaking, Australia’s purchases will always be naval purchases.  Rarely, Australia will purchase a ground unit or two to fill up transports heading for Papua or on their way to take back Java.  As long as there hasn’t been a Japanese landing, Australian ground units will do all of their fighting on Pacific islands and the number of units that can get into the fight is limited by the number of transports Australia can safely build.  Don’t waste IPCs buying ground units that will never leave Australia.

Here’s Australia’s purchase track:

UK1 - AC or 1 DD, 1 Sub
UK2 - 2 Subs
UK3 - 1 Sub save 3
UK4 - Trn and perhaps an infantry or two
UK5 - Trn and DD
UK6 - Subs
UK7 - Bmr or fighter or subs

Purchasing for the US

This is where the game is often won or lost for the Allies.  The US obviously has the greatest range of choices when it comes to purchasing for no other reason than it has more money to spend than all the other powers in the game combined.  Here is where the Allied player must resist temptation, much like the kid in the candy store we met earlier.  Sure, it would be fun to build 3 Battleships on US1.  Sure, it would be fun to do that again on US2.  But if you do that, your six battleships will sail around the Pacific without being able to do much of anything, while Japan quietly piles up the VPs and wins the game or not so quietly crushes India while your BBs are still anchored in Battleship row at Pearl Harbor.

The combination of US units is the most important.  As with Australia, use of ground units by the US is constrained by the number of transports that can get them into the fight, so unless you are planning to do a straight “Japan bash”, lots of ground units are not necessary.  Bombers and submarines are key to the Allied success but the US must also reinforce the carrier fleet to be able to stand toe to toe with the IJN and has to produce DDs to kill Jap subs and transports to take back the islands.  How and when this is done is the key to the game.

Here is an outline of US purchasing.  As the US has so many more choices, the actual purchases will be dictated by how the game is playing out.

US1 - 5 bombers or 4 bombers, 1 DD or 9 subs
US2 - 5 bombers or 9 subs (depending on US 1 purchases)
US3 - 1 AC, 2 Trns, 1 Ftr, 1 DD, 1 Sub, 1 Mar, 1 Rtl
US4 - DDs, Trns, Ftr, Bmr
US5 - Subs, Ftr, Bmrs
US6 - Bmrs, Ftr
US7 - Bmrs, BB (for Tokyo Bay surrender ceremony)

The early purchase of a large group of subs by the US is a critical step towards victory.  Used in combination with US fighters and bombers, the subs can be a great way of directly attacking the combined IJN by US4 or US5.  Alternatively, the subs are used to capture convoy routes all over the map, forcing the Japanese player to split off IJN units to retake the convoy routes and the IPCs they represent.  The isolated Japanese units can then be picked off by follow-on air attacks from the UK or US.  Once the IJN has been whittled down enough, it can be directly confronted and destroyed.

Another purchase I haven’t listed for the US is the Industrial Complex.  The U.S. should always, always, always build an IC as soon as it is permitted.  If the UK captures the Philippines on its turn, the US should build an IC on its turn.  If the US is able to capture and hold Ryukyo or Bonin Is, it should build in IC there as well.  The IC will allow the US to bring units closer to Japan faster and, if recaptured by Japan will provide the perfect SBR target for the US bombers.

Conclusion

Purchasing will often be the key to victory in AAPacific.  It’s probably as important a factor as luck.  The worst feeling is getting to Round 4 and wishing that you had purchased just one more sub in Round 2 to avoid the imminent doom of a successful attack from your opponent.  Purchase wisely and you are well on your way to victory in AAPacific.

Saburo Sakai

3 Infantry, 1 Fighter from Karelia to E. Europe
1 Armor from Archangelsk to E. Europe
Overall %*:  A. survives: 51.3%  D. survives: 40.9%  No survivors:8%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Not Stellar odds, I’ll admit, but let’s work through the rest.

3 Infantry from Archangelsk to W. Russia
3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor from Russia to W. Russia
Overall %*:  A. survives: 98%  D. survives: 1.6%  No survivors:0%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Odds are super here!  Might even consider reducing the attack, but I don’t see what else I could use the missing fodder for…

3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor from Caucasus to Ukraine
1 Armor, 1 Fighter from Russia to Ukraine
Overall %*:  A. survives: 63%  D. survives: 32.3%  No survivors:5%

• percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Jennifer, you stole Rainynite’s opening.  I actually don’t think it is very effective unless all the battles go very well for the Allies.  Russia is left far too exposed to counterattack, especially if not all the attacks go well.  And while you are correct that you don’t often see infantry in each of FIC, EEur and Ukraine an infantry or two in Ukraine is quite common, in which case your attack odds decrease significantly.

SS

Great.  I sent you an email.  We need to decide on a bid or choose sides.

SS

There are roads which must not be followed,
armies which must be not attacked, towns which must
not be besieged, positions which must not be contested,
commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.

Sun Tzu - The Art of War

The Battles Japan Should Not Fight

Although Sun Tzu may have said it first, every good commander must know those battles that are worth risking and those battles that, even if they go well, will not help win the war.  In AAPacific, Japan starts the game as the aggressor, just as occured in the real Pacific War, but the Japanese commander must not be so blinded by aggession that he becomes the victim of “Victory Disease” and strays into unwise confrontations.

There are several battles that Japan must avoid.  Some are the result of quirks in the AAPacific rules while others are those risky low odds attacks that leave your units exposed to counterattack that should be avoided in any version of Axis and Allies.  While this list is not intended to be comprehensive, here are the battles I think Japan should avoid and why.

Sea Zone 5

On J1, some players just cannot resist the temptation to attack sz5.  It seems so easy.  Japan has six fighters in range and the US forces defend on a 1.  Wouldn’t it be great to wipe out both the US Hawaiian fleet and the Pacific Fleet in one turn?  Maybe, but in my view, this is one of Sun Tzu’s “roads which must not be followed”.

Here’s why.  Japan can get 8 fighters, 2 subs and 3 ACs into battles in sz9 and sz5.  If more than 4 fighters are committed to sz5, then the ACs cannot be involved in the attack on sz9 and it reduces the total number of fighters that can be used in the attacks.  So, the Japanese player must divide his forces between the sz9 and sz5 attacks.  It is of no use to Japan to wipe out the fleet in sz5 while leaving the sz9 fleet intact.  Even 1 BB surviving in sz9 can completely alter the game.

Let’s assume then that Japan attacks sz5 with 4 fighters and sz9 with 4 fighters and 2 subs.  In sz9, two of the fighters come from Caroline Islands and will land on the ACs moving either to sz9 or sz7.  Two of the fighters attacking sz9 come from sz20 and will land in Marianas or Caroline Islands.  The 4 fighters attacking sz5 will land on the ACs in sz7 or sz6.

The odds of winning the sz9 attack are quite good - well over 99% with the most common result being taking the sea zone with 1 sub and 4 fighters.  On the other hand, the odds of winning the sz5 attack are not as good - only about 70% with the most common result being taking the sea zone with 1 fighter.  Remember also that you can’t kill the US sub because without a spotting Destroyer, the sub can’t be hit by aircraft.

So, at the end of J1, the most common result sees Japan win both the sz5 and sz9 battles with 3 ACs, 5 fighters and 1 Sub.  On many ocassions, the results will be worse for Japan.  In order to consolidate his carriers and fighters, Japan must move them to sz7 or sz4, otherwise the Caroline Is. fighters cannot land.  This leave 3 ACs and 5 fighters exposed to a US counterattack.

On US1, the Americans can attack with 2 Subs, 1 Trn, 6 Fighters, 2 Bmrs against 3 ACs, 5 Ftrs.  The battle favours the US by about 75% and the US should win with 2 fighters and 2 bombers surviving.  If Japan fared worse on J1, the odds are the US will do better on its turn.

So, you’re now wondering why this was a bad battle for Japan.  Japan has inflicted far greater casualties on the US then it has suffered.  That’s a good thing, right?  Well, yes but the US can replace what it has lost in two rounds, while Japan would need 4 or 5 rounds to replace its loses and that’s assuming it does not build anything else.  More likely Japan does not rebuild its carriers and replaces only a couple of the fighters lost.  Without those ACs, Japan’s surface fleet is a sitting duck for US bomber and submarine forces by US 4 or 5.  Even if the battles go much better for Japan and it’s carriers survive to J2, they can’t escape.  They’re too far from support by other Japanese units and not next to any controlled ports, so even if they can escape, they can’t hook up with other Japanese units until at least J4.

This is a battle Japan should not fight because even if it goes well, Japan has likely lost the war.

Hawaii and Szechwan

When discussing Hawaii and Szechwan I am not really saying that this is a battle Japan should not fight so much as it is a battle Japan should not win or, more specifically, a battle where Japan should not capture the territory.  In AAPacific, unlike AARevised, SBR attacks are not limited to the IPC value of the territory attacked (see Essay #5).  This means that any territory with an IC that is owned or captured by Japan can be SBRd by the Allies.  As Japan loses one VP for every 10 IPCs it loses to an SBR attack, capturing territories that makes it easier for the US to conduct an SBR means long term death for Japan.  Hawaii is especially bad for this.

Japan can usually set up to capture Hawaii on J2.  Hawaii can be attacked on J1 by fighters from sz20 which land back on the carriers.  A couple of infantry from Bonin Is. and Marianas will usually combine with a fighter or two to take Midway and are in position to attack Hawaii with air support on J2.  The US player will usually leave Hawaii undefended if any units there (usually a heavy US1 bomber purchase) would be wiped out on J2.  The Japan player can often have Hawaii at no cost.  No cost on J2, at least.  After that, the US will be able to bomb Japan endlessly.  Hawaii is within SBR range of the US.  Therefore, if the US purchased 5 bombers on US1, their first job is an SBR attack against an undefended Hawaii, typically causing 10 to 20 IPCs damage and costing Japan 1 or 2 VPs.  The bombing will continue until the US decides it has built up its forces enough to wipe out the Japanese naval units in sz9 and any defending units on Hawaii, without retaking it.  Japan will continue to be subjected to SBR attacks until the game ends, with the US building several bombers every turn to replace loses to AA guns or defending fighters.

Szechwan is similar.  Japan is usually in a position to capture Szechwan by J3 and the Allies are typically busy defending in Yunnan so that Szechwan is lightly defended.  There is another reason that Szechwan is lightly defended.  If Japan takes it, any US bombers in range will be able to SBR Japan.  By US3, there are often 2 bombers in range.  By US4, there are as many as 7.

In some ways, Szechwan is less bad for Japan to capture but in other ways it is worse.  For example, by capturing Szechwan, Japan deprives the Allies of any Chinese infantry reinforcements and can easily reinforce the territory with other infantry units and fighters.  The bad thing is that, unlike Hawaii, Szechwan is vulnerable to UK strafe attacks that will eliminate defending fighters before the US SBR attack.  The only time Japan should capture Szechwan is late in an India Crush game where VPs are not going to matter to the game’s outcome.  In that case, taking Szechwan, if the units are available to do it, will not hurt Japan’s chances at victory.

Large, Early Round, Close Odds, Air Only attacks

I am of the view that Japan should avoid large, air only attacks early in the game, unless they are directly tied to a India Crush or Australia Crush strategy that will see the game end by US4.  Japan needs to conserve it’s strength for the later rounds of the game.  There will be a number of ocassions during the game where an Allied fleet is vulnerable to an air attack but can’t be reached by any naval units.  This will usually happen in sz14, sz29 or sz32 by J2 or J3.  If the odds of winning this battle favour Japan by only 75% or less, it is a fight that is not worth the risk, in my opinion.  As is the case with all A&A games, naval units typically defend as well as or better than they attack.  The only reason an attack is sometimes better than a defence is if you can bring large numbers of additional fighters or bombers into the battle.  Since Japan typically plays the game with only 2 bombers and with smart use of CAP can get almost as many fighters defending in a sea zone as attacking, it does not often pay for Japan to fight the low odds battle early in the game.

This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of battles that Japan should avoid because each game will present it’s own unique circumstances but it should provide some clues as to the battles Japan should not fight.

Saburo Sakai

Whenever you’re ready PD.  Let me know.

SS

Imperious Leader has suggested a sample game of AAPacific with the turns posted on this board so everyone can get a better feel for the game.

I would be willing to do that.  I would prefer to use a roller other than the one on this site but that shouldn’t be a problem.  Rolls of Infamy (the Days of Infamy roller) can be used without an official DOI game number and we can post the turn summaries at the end of each turn.

Anyone interested in a game?  I won’t be able to start until Monday, but will play against whomever is willing.

SS

I would be willing to do that.  I would prefer to use a roller other than the one on this site but that shouldn’t be a problem.  Rolls of Infamy (the Days of Infamy roller) can be used without an official DOI game number and we can post the turn summaries at the end of each turn.

Anyone interested in a game?  I won’t be able to start until Monday, but will play against whomever is willing.

SS

I have posted these essays to three message boards (Wargamer’s Club, A&A.org and Flames of Europe) and they can be used in whatever manner the owners of those boards choose provided that they are properly accredited and any alterations are properly noted.  I look at them as “scholarly” essays that are now in the public domain.  So, by all means, whatever is of use in the essays can be used as a resource in whatever manner is thought appropriate.

Thanks for the feedback on the essay.  I intend to write several more before I’m finished.

SS