Posts made by Uncle_Joe

Japan needs to do two things on their third turn if possible (assuming they didn’t fall into taking the bait), they need to take the Philippines and try and take Hawaii if possible.  This will deny the US the most income

Unless the US player is asleep at the wheel I dont see taking Pearl as a viable T3 Japanese goal. I agree that PI must fall on J3, but all the rest of Japan’s power should be pasting the Brits and Chinese. There is little the US can do that early to make any impact on Japan or her econ without risking catastrophic US casualties. Given that, Japan should spend her time and force on overwhelming overkill on the Brits and Chinese. Once they are dead, the game is effectively over unless the US is in serious positions to overturn the Japanese econ (unlikely from what I can see).

I do agree that the Brits have to do everything they can to simply stay alive and force Japan to keep her airpower focused on land. I think that is going to mean investing a in a LOT of troops and maybe AA-guns. A few more of those floating around might give the Japanese pause about throwing 4 Bettys and 4 Zekes/Vals into the fray….

If possible, I think it would be understandable to bait Japan with a DD or an unprotected bomber or something.  As long as the US loses less than 40IPCs in the bait, they are fine cause they will get a net +.

Yes and no. If you can get the Japanese to jump before they are ready then maybe, but once the Japanese kick off, the Brits are going to lose both of their bonuses (assuming they got the 4 island one) and probably half their base econ as well. That goes a long way towards eating into that +40 for the US and frankly, as Japan I’d rather the US had the money than the Brits at that point. My goal as Japan is to keep every Allied IPC OUT of Asia as I possibly can.

This will reduce the combined income of the Allies by 20 IPCs.  Japan should be able to close the Burma road and take Hong Kong too.  Now the Allies have lost 30 IPCs.  Things look very balanced at this point.

Except that Japan still has considerably more disposable combat power on the board as well as FAR FAR FAR superior interior positions and coordination. To me, that is the real killer for the Allies at this point.

actually i won as the allies today. all i did was have the UK buy nothing but infantry. and china take and hold the burma road. Japan cant replace all the planes they will lose. as america I pretty much bought fleet after fleet and threw it at japan. They cant defend their island AND take calcutta. I have learned it never really matters what anzac does.

Yeah, that is our next try - a UK ground heavy strat. Trying to build a navy is folly at this point. And in my experience, Japan doesnt NEED to ‘defend their island’…I mean, from what? The US isnt going to have anything in the first 5-6 turn to threaten Japan. Heck they can barely threaten TRUK in that time period. Given that, I think the Japanese have PLENTY to take Calcutta with little issue. Buying a horde of Brit troops might change that though (at least delay it). Japan always seems to be tight on boots on the ground in China despite building a factory and shipping in men from Japan. Still, if the Brits dont make any effort to the navy then they will soon be making single digit income and I’m not sure how useful that will be either.

I think we need to be patient before we all start jumping on the Japan bandwagon.  First off, I think a lot of folks are bringing too much baggage to this game, trying to play it the way they played the original AAP or the way they play Revised or something.  For my part, I started by looking at the victory conditions.  As long as the Allies hold 3 victory cities they are still in the game.  In the earlier AAP, the Allies had to get moving or japan would overrun India or win on VPs.  I think US can wait a little to gather a competent navy before throwing itself on the Japanese.

Next I looked at the NOs.  I suspect playing well requires you to maximize your income from the NOs while denying income to your opponent(s).  The NOs do have a tendancy to force you into a particular line of play which follow some historical timeline.  I hope that making the most of the NOs will allow ANZAC to make a difference, but who knows?

Well, we are also 5 games in (switching up sides and player mix) and so far the Japanese have won every time and each successive time has been easier as they refine their strats. The Allies are still thrashing around trying to come up with ANYTHING to annoy the Japanese and so far are batting 0.

IMO, the ‘winning’ point for Japan is when they are outproducing the US and they completely winning when they are outproducing the Allies as a whole. To do that, they can afford to ignore 3 VCs (Australia, Pearl Harbor, San Fran). Sure they’d need to take one of those to get the ‘official’ win, but the game is over before any of the three fall if Japan has taken out the Brits.

As far as the NOs, in AAP40, they dont really drive you to place you wouldnt be going anyways. The only Japanese ‘stretch’ goal is the Coral Sea area and IMO it’s simply not worth the bother. 5 IPCs is not worth trying to spread out to take that area IMO. If the counter-balancing NO went to the US not the Aussies, then it MIGHT be worth bothering with at least denying it to the Allies.

Third, I think these new rules regarding submarines, destroyers and convoy zones will create a new angle on the economic model inside the game.  We can’t sub-stall anymore.  Now we have to “destroyer-stall.”  But Destroyers cost 8 IPCs.  And we can’t use trannys as cannon fodder anymore.  I think there will be a lot of revelations in how certain objectives may be obtained.  Look at the game as a marathon and not a sprint.  Maximize the income from NOs and learn how to use the new units and tactics this game introduces.  And if all else fails, we’ll come up with the Mother-of-all-House-Rules!

It sounds like you are coming from a pre-AA50 background. Sub stalling died with AA50 (as did TR ‘armor’ etc). And personally I think the game IS still a sprint for Japan. If they can take the Brits and Chinese out in 6-7 turns, the game is effectively over from what I’ve seen so far. If they take longer, they might have problems but even there I’m not sure. In the end, any version of A&A is about economic power. Japan starts with a considerably weaker econ but a massive advantage in forces, position, and coordination. She has to trade on those advantages to overcome the econ disadvantage within the first 8 turns or so or things will start to go south. Everything else is simply window-dressing IMO. That makes it very much a sprint IMO.

Merry Christmas guys!

And the same to you :) Hopefully you get a chance to play a few games and see what you think. Dont get me wrong, we are still having fun and it’s being an interesting puzzle trying to think of ways for the Allies to a have a chance.

Have played 5 games so far, with the two of us switching sides each time.    Japs 5, US 0.      Small sample size, sure.  Is it early in the game’s life?  Sure.  But it is shaping up to be an Axis game to us.

Ditto, and as I said above, I think the game is going to be at least slightly slanted in favor the Japanese at this time. But when the global game hits, it’s going to be a LOT tougher going for the Japanese.

Some thoughts on that:

1. The Brit Indian Ocean squadron will be able to RUN to avoid any massed Japanese fleet. Right now, the Brits are forced to sit at the edge of the board and take it in the face. In the global game, you can bet your butt they’ll be running for the Cape and if Japan pursues, that leaves the rest of the Pacific wide open for the US. Currently in AAP40, the Japanese can kill the Brits and then turn and deal with the US.

2. Japan can COMPLETELY leave Manchuria and all of conquered China ungarrisoned. I’m going to guess that Russia wont mind taking those high value provinces if Japan leaves them open. :)

3. Japan has no ‘global responsibility’. In all other global A&A’s, Japan needs to be taking out the Russian econ from behind. She also needs to keep the US occupied at least to some degree in the Pacific. I’m not really sure how easy the latter will be in the global game, but if Russia is completely untouched the Germans might have a rough time. I do hope there is some rule for the US in the global game that prevents them from simply dumping that 55 IPC’s/turn into Europe though. Initial experience with AAP40 is that the US struggles to make a meaningful impact on Japan with that money. I’m going to guess that the same is NOT true in Europe. And the US has nothing vulnerable in the Pacific once they lose PI anyways. They dont have another island bonus to lose as they did in AA50 so there is little use in defending in the Pacific if those extra IPCs can be used to crush the Germans and Italians.

4. The UK and Anzac players will be combined. At least I think I remember reading that somewhere. Now whether that means that they’ll be able to 100% coordinate or not I dont know but if so, that will make life harder on the Japanese as well.

All of the above should combine to make Japan’s life a LOT harder in the global game. Given that, it’s not unreasonable to think that she is having an artificially easier time in the theater-level game.

No, we dont fight it out to the end conditions. There’s a reason that the A-bomb was dropped… ;p

It seems alot of people are struggling with the US, does anyone have some ideas on what the US can do to make an impact sooner?  Is it better for the US to go north after Japan right away, head south to take on carolines, or skip the direct attack and head to new zealand and then after the dutch east indies?

To me it also seems the US would be best served purchasing destroyers and subs primarily with perhaps 1 or 2 carriers, as she lacks the spare aircraft for carriers that japan has, and with carriers being so defensive in nature, it seems better to load up on alot of smaller, more offensive ships.  With the large aircraft force japan starts with, combined with he power of airbases, to me it would seem best for the US to head south, rally with ANZAC forces, and start liberating islands.  This would force Japan to attack a combined allied fleet to keep her income.  Any thoughts?

Yes, I think that is exactly correct. The US also needs to make sure they have troops and transports available in the SoPac area or else the threat isnt ‘real’. In one of our games the US player staged air to Midway and took Iwo and deployed an airbase there with which to threaten any new Japanese builds. But the Japanese were able to relocated about 6-7 Fighters/Tac to Japan and coupled with anything new that was build it was just too tough to kill even with a fleet of bombers and other aircraft. And truth to tell, the Japanese didnt NEED more navy in the south anyways so unless the US was presenting some other threat, there was little need to reinforce the Sea of Japan anyways.

One thing that strikes me as considerably different than AA50 is that the islands around Australia and the Coral Sea dont seem to be importan to Japan (at least not important enough to risk a fight over). Sure there is a bonus there, but 5 IPCs isnt worth overextending and losing even a single unit. This REALLY takes pressure off of Japan to stretch and lets her consolidate defensively after taking the DEI. We thought about a naval base at the Solomons for the US, but if I’m reading the rules correctly, the Anzacs have to build it, not the US (since it is Anzac territory). This seems a little wrong as the US DID build up Guadalcanal past where it was when they took it from the Japanese. But even a naval base in the Solomons (regardless of who built it) is just too little too late. Building it means that the Allies are down a few MORE ships or planes in the area and unless Truk falls, the US can’t easily reinforce to that area anyways.

I like the way they made Truk important. I do NOT like how the Japanese can cheerfully ignore everything south of Truk until the game is essentially over anyways. It doesnt allow the US to fight anywhere NEAR her own lines of supply/reinforcement whereas historically an awful lot of fighting took place at that extreme end of Japan’s logistical pipeline.

But to the point, I still think the US has no choice but to head south. Without that they can never endanger Japan’s econ. Unless Japan’s econ is brought down it’s only a matter of time till she can take out Australia for the win.

bulk up in HAW. an IC and NB in alaska served me well, with subs going to japan every turn, which turned to the odd transport and 1 or 2 men.  I ended up backdooring Korea. Game.

How does this work? Didnt the Japanese leave ANY planes on Japan? If they did, they can simply ‘scramble’ out to sea and kill anything send to that sea zone (unless we are missing something in the rules). Subs are little threat to the Japanese Home Islands if the Japanese build even a single destroyer here and there. One DD + a handful of planes = dead sub investment in Japanese waters.

+1 to Uncle_Joe for his thoughts

What is this by the way? I see mine is going down for some reason? Is this just some sort of way that people can ‘snipe’ at you without having the stones to say something that you can refute?

There is nothing in range other than bombers of the UK fleet turn 1.  After turn 1 UK could have purchased a carrier, an AB on ceylon, or many other things to keep her boats alive.  And no matter what the econ spread becomes even larger after turn 1.

Yeah, we thought the same thing. The UK even bought TWO carriers over 2 turns and had 4 planes, an additional DD and 2 subs. In the end, it cost the Japanese a bit more, but the UK was finished and China was doomed too (since a lot UK money was going to the sea, not the land). Japan was able to bring 4 CVs, 2 BBs, 2 CAs, 3 DDs, 2 SSs and some LBA to the party. The UK rolled well and Japan was really hurt, but still nothing compared to the Brit losses (which were total) and then from there the UK ceased to be a factor. Japan can afford a trade like to for a knock-out blow to the Brits.

Where was the US you might ask? Well, Japan still had a few other CVs and a LOT of LBA to deal with the US forces (which were largely pinned outside of the Carolines). The Allies thought they had an opening when the Japanese fleet was so far West and so damaged, but in the end the US simply couldnt dent the Japanese money without risking annihilation.

Was is perfect play from the Allies? No, not hardly but it certainly proved to us that there is NO WAY the UK can keep the fleet alive if the Japanese are intent on killing it. BTW, the Kiwis had 2 CVs fully loaded supported by a few DDs and SSs, but again, the lack of coordination between the Allies is a KILLER.

Yeah, that’s EXTREMELY one-sided considering all of the advantages Japan enjoys in coordination and position. On top of that, many of Allied assets are going to be killed quickly to little cost for Japan. Finally, the econ, while 2 to 1 at start will not stay that way for long. The Allies will outproduce Japan for a while, but the margin becomes slimmer and slimmer with which to counter that initial advantage.

A quick example would be the UK forces. There is no way to ‘save’ the UK navy if the Japanese want to kill it. That means that the UK will be out 54 IPC worth of ships at a likely cost of under 20 for Japan (losing subs, DDs, or Fighters and less if they take hits on the BBs).  Once that happens, the UK econ becomes virtually non-existent as Japan can quickly secure the DEI and then leave a few subs to blockade the bulk of the rest. Unless the US can mount a credible threat in that region (which I dont see how), Japan WILL kill the Brits as a combat-effective force within the first 4-5 turns with minimal losses. And a 2 to 1 loss ratio for the Allies is not acceptable when they already are trying to play catch-up.

And America can deploy where they want, if Japan has most of their units in the west.

With the FAQ, this does not appear to be the case. From what I can tell, the US cannot put units in any ‘neutral’ country (which would include the UK/Anzac territories). Assuming Japan is smart, even stacking a navy with a future ally (if allowed) doesnt really help because Japan can simply choose to attack the UK/Anzac forces and ignore the US forces.

US navy should be comparable within 2 turns of collecting the large income as the only thing she has to buy is boats, while japan is buying transports, factories, men, etc

Are you kidding? Every time the US buys a CV its 37 IPCs to fully outfit it. For the Japanese, its 16. Japan has soooo many aircraft lying around that she can’t even effectively use them all. You can easily pull 3-4 ‘sets’ off the board to form the airgroups for the CVs.

Even that aside, the US will certainly need more than 2 turns to come anywhere NEAR parity. Assuming Japan spends 10-20 a turn on ground forces that still leaves 25-30 or so a turn (more later) for naval and air forces. The US makes 55 after the fall of PI therefore the US is making up 20-25 per turn. Believe me, Japan has WAY more than a 40-50 IPC edge in starting forces…

Once Japan’s income begins to rival the US income its over. By doing, Britain is largely out of the war and the Anzacs have a tough time mounting any form of a credible threat.

If Japan conquers all China and India plus all Dutch East Indies saving N.Guinea, the economics are 78 for Japan and 70 for allies. So if at least one of China and India can hold enough to make USA and Australia come into the rescue, the game at that point could be balanced: if Japan goes quick, they won and if not, they lost. Any case, I doubt Japan can smash both India and China before those 6 rounds you say with easy

Japan has a few other things going for her:

1. MASSIVE advantage in IPCs in starting forces. Japan has aircraft to burn - many many to burn, in fact. And in naval forces, Japan also starts with a sizable advantage. The spare aircraft means that Japan can freely hold onto Truk and Japan with little to no naval forces. And if naval forces ARE necessary, Japan needs to spend merely 16 IPCs for a ‘fully loaded’ CV while the US has to spend 37 (Japan has more than enough planes floating around to arm 3-4 CVs with little problem).

2. Coordination. All of Japan’s combat power moves at once. She can attack with 100% of her strength in one phase. The Allies, even if they reach naval/air parity cannot use it offensively as easily because it’s going to be split between 3 turns.

3. Interior lines. Japan is centrally located. With the new Naval/Air base in PI, Japan can centralize her strength and deal with any incursions with the vast bulk of her fleet/air arm. The Allies are scattered into 2-3 different power bases. This dramatically weakens there ability to close in with the Japanese as they can be crushed piecemeal.

4. Economic security. Japan’s econ is based as far away from the primary threat of the US as possible. It’s a minimum of 3 turns for anything based in the US (ie, that the US is buying) to reach anything that Japan truly cares about. Holding the Central/Eastern Pacific islands is no longer necessary for Japan. In AA50, Japan got a bonus and the US lost a bonus if the Japanese fought there. Not so anymore. The Japanese DO get a bonus for the Coral Sea, but it’s small beans on this scale. And if they allow it go to the Allies, it goes to the Anzacs, not the US, meaning that’s not a problem to let the Allies have it. The Anzacs make so little money that they will rarely be a major threat.

I dont have the time to do it at the moment, but I would wager that a quick ‘realistic’ econ count of starting units puts Japan SO far ahead that the Allies would need 6+ turns of max production to begin to equal it. That means that Japan has a LOT of free time before she has to start worrying about economic parity at all. It certainly doesnt help the Allies to engage in penny-packets and lose more than they kill (which tends to happen in massed naval battles since the expensive stuff dies last).

I guess a trick will be moving USA fighters to Australia and later to India to help gurkas survive a bit more (probably abbusing of ACs). This move was pretty good both in Revised and AA50, 42 scenario. I guess the same will apply here

So far, our games have ended without the Japanese needing to take Australia. Sure if we wanted to play for 4+ more hours to achieve the ‘book’ win it would have to happen but the games were decided before Japan ever had to set foot on Australia. Once Japan has near economic parity with the US and a clear backfield, the game is over. Everything else is just mop up or hoping for ridiculous luck to turn the tide.

Undediced yet, waiting playing some games to say if this is balanced. At least is a better situation than in AA50

We thought that AA50 was fairly well balanced. The better players tended to win regardless of which side they played. Was it perfect? Maybe not, but none of us ever felt like we won or lost based solely on which side we were playing.

So far in AAP40, the Allied players have been left scratching their heads thinking “Gee, I dont really see what more we could have done except rolled better” and that is not exactly satisfying. I personally think that if the Japanese player is methodical and doesnt take risks that they will win the vast majority of the time barring horrible luck (and I’m not even convinced of that due one of our games WITH horrible Japanese luck still being a win for the Japanese).

Something just occured to me while writing the thread on US options. It really wouldnt surprise me AT ALL if the Japanese DO have a tremendous advantage in the game at the moment. After all, I believe this one was designed from the ground up to be mated with the Europe version due this summer. When that happens Japan will have more ‘responsibilities’ than she has now.

For example, the Japanese can COMPLETELY abandon her backfield borders with Russia giving her a lot more disposable ground forces in Asia. Similarly, once the Brits are down, they are OUT completely in the stand-alone. There is ZERO threat of Brit harassment from Africa which always existed in AA50. Finally, Japan is under no pressure to hit the Russians from behind (a prime goal of the Japanese in AA50).

Taken together, I’m going to guess that Japan has a lot easier time in stand-alone than she would have in the global game. Unless the global game changes the set up for the Pacific I dont see how it’s possible for this NOT to be the case. I guess time will tell on that but I would wager that the idea was to accept less than optimal balance in the individual games in exchange for a better balanced global game…

Ok, so given the FAQ/errata, what are the US options at the beginning of the game?

From what we’ve seen so far, she can try and reinforce PI (which is still undefendable, but can be made more painful), reinforce Pearl, or move towards the Solomons. We’ve tried combinations of all of the above but none seem to be able to put undo pressure on the Japanese once at war.

What other options does the US have? We wanted to base out of Australia, but the FAQ disallows that. Assuming the Japanese leave the US alone for the first few turns, what would you build with your 61 IPCs (17+22+22)?

Where do you position your new forces?

The overriding constraint we’ve seen for the US is that they have about 5-6 turns in which to force the Japanese to commit the bulk of her forces before Japan is finished annihilating the Brits and Chinese. Once that is done, without the ‘global’ game threat of reinforcements from the West (either Russian or Brit from Africa), the Japanese can turn her full econ to the US and Australia. At that juncture the game is likely over since the Japanese econ will be in the same ballpark, she has more forces on the board, she has no vulnerable econ, and she can coordinate far better.

Given that, what can the US do in the first 5-6 turns to engage Japanese attention away from the Brits/Chinese? Keep in mind that IMO in order to engage them the US has to be able to threaten significant Japanese income or else position herself to be able very favorably trade her forces for the Japanese (in an effort to force the Japanese to rebuild a navy with her IPCs).

In this early stage of playing a new game, people always claim its unbalanced and biased. Remember Battle of Bulge ? First people complainet that Axis always won, but later the Allies turned out to be the strongest. If you lose, then you play it wrong.

I’ve been on both sides of it (and another game as an observer after teaching the others how to play). This isnt some whine because I cant win. Even playing the Japanese I felt I had a tremendous advantage that the Allies were going to need a LOT of luck of overcome.

First of all, the Allies get a lot of bonus NO’s at the start. USA get 5 IPC as long he controls the Phillipeans, China get 6 IPC for Burma Road, UK get 5 IPC for control of Kwangtung and Malaya. And in the first turns, ANZAC will easy gain control of friendly Dutch New Guinea and gain 5 IPC in bonus, and UK will do the same with Dutch East Indies, and this is a lot of money if you dont collect it because you neglected the Rulebook

Yes, we know how to read the book for bonuses. At least THAT part of the rules is pretty straightforward. But each of those ‘easily’ controlled areas comes at a price in transports and precious troops. The UK cant defend her TRs if she takes those islands so the Japanese can easily kill them negating a decent chunk of that ‘extra’ money. Ditto for the Anzacs. If they commit to getting their bonus, they’ll lose their TR and strand their INF which negates that bonus for 2 turns. The Burma Road is a crapshoot. Twices we’ve seen the Japanese able to hold it against the Chinese counter-attack on C1 and that spells doom for China right there IMO. Pretty much EVERY Allied bonus is going to be gone within a turn or two of a Japanese DoW and they are unlikely to get any back except possibly for the Kiwi control of the Coral Sea area.

As the strategy is conserned, just play aggressivily and always attack when possible. USA can place bombers on Wake, Guam and Midway and always threaten lonely trannies, and send subs north to threaten Japan convoys. In fact, the Allies can do a lot. This is in fact a very balanced game, man.

And why would the Japanes have lonely TRs up there? There is NOTHING there that they care about. And US bombers on those islands can easily be killed unless defended by units the US doesnt have. And if they DO pile defense there then the Japanese ignore them and pound the Brits/Chinese while the US player sits on his islands. There arent even any convoys in the area. Sure the US can build subs but without fleet support the Japanese detail a DD and a handful of planes to kill them to no gain (except a 1 in 6 luck shot of killing the DD).

I honestly can’t even take your suggestions seriously because I see nothing there that seems even remotely thought out in the face of a Japanese opponent who is playing to win rather worry about a handful of otherwise useless island in the Central Pacific. Japan’s money is in the south and in China - two places where the US player has nearly ZERO power projection until it’s too late (at least from what we’ve seen so far).

It would be impossible at this point to do a blow by blow playback but the general trend has been that Japan can simply mass up a fleet in the DEI area and have a hardpoint at Truk and a hardpoint in Japan and spend the rest of her time mopping up the Chinese and Brits. Japan has so much airpower that she can throw it away for time. Once she reaches the tipping point for the econ, the game is over. There is no ‘late game comeback’ for the Allies if Japan is making as many or more IPCs and has more forces surviving in the field (as well as superior position and coordination).

Unlike AA50, Japan is not totally dependent on getting her bonuses. They are nice, but not required IMO. That means she has little need to spread out to defend. The ‘scramble’ rules mean that take to a defended island airbase requires massive overkill of firepower. It’s VERY easy to stall for time as Japan vs the US and that means the Brits/Chinese are pretty much on their own. We still havent seen much that the US can do to annoy Japan for quite a while in the game. In one game the US tried to move into the SoPac area and was quickly killed off (he exacted a toll, but then he was back to square one rebuilding). In another game, the US player took Iwo and put an airbase their with which to threaten Japan’s home waters in an effort to drag the Japanese fleet away from the DEI area. This failed because of the ‘scramble’ rules. In previous A&As, you needed CVs to have airpower defend a navy. With Scramble, that is not necessary for Japan. A pile of plane (which she starts with plenty which rarely die if the Japanese player has an IQ above room temperature) can make any attack prohibitively expensive.

Dont get me wrong, we obviously have not explored the game fully enough to make a 100% judgement call on balance, but given the length of the game (due to ridiculous win conditions) it’s going to be tough for this game to see repeated play. Without repeated play it’s tough to see if simply bad luck was the cause early on of the Allies’ demise or if alternate strategies might have helped. Yes, the Allied players have made mistakes in our games but so have the Japanese players. The difference is that the Allied mistakes are usually fatal whereas Japan has a very large cushion to play with.

To answer one of the above questions I think we played between 10-12 turns in the games and player fatigue was becoming a factor towards the end of each game. Everyone saw that a comeback might have been possible before the end, but it would have required a lot of luck, some mistakes by the Japanese, and about another 4+ hours of play.

To me, something needs to be done to force the game to a conclusion earlier. In A&A50 we never actually played it out to a ‘real’ win either, but it was easy to see the writing on the wall after a few hours. A&AP40 take a LOT longer to get to that point. The incomes are so high and the individual territory contributions are so low that the game becomes an attritional grind-fest. There is little that the Allied players can do to force the Japanese into a bad spot since there are VERY few places on the board that are worth defending at a disadvantage. This leads to a lot of jockeying but not a lot of outcome. To me, the game needs more decisive areas where the Japanese MUST make a stand. Currently there are not enough of them to stretch Japan out (which is what historically happened). In A&AP40, Japan simply seems to have enough combat power to meet all of her needs for quite a long time. This is the exact opposite situation of what she really faced and leads to the inability of the US to mount a counter-attack that Japan cannot crush out of hand (for at least the first 5-6 hours of play).

Anyways, thanks for the input. I’m realizing in typing this that due the ‘unscripted’ nature of the game it’s going to be very hard indeed for players to relate to each other about how to play. There are simply too many variables involved and once luck enters in at this scale any attempt to relate will be nearly impossible. Ah well. ;)

Ok, so now we have played 3 times (with 4 players and with the players switching out sides). And so far it looks like Japan has a tremendous advantage in the game. We’ve never actually played to a ‘real’ conclusion, but the writing was on the wall. (Honestly playing this game out to a ‘real’ win looks like it would take 10+ hours with competitive players).

Japan simply seems to have too much disposable combat power at the beginning of the game (as well as superior position and political constraints). Unless we are missing something in the rules (quite possible given the state of the rules…), it looks like the US can do almost NOTHING to Japan that she cares about for at least the first 5-6 turns or so. Truk is a tough nut to crack with the Scramble rules and Japan itself is nearly impregnable for most of the game. That pretty much means that Japan is free to pour almost her entire combat power into crushing the Chinese and the Brits. Japan’s navy is sufficient to easily crush anything the Brits or Anzacs can manage while sparing plenty to standoff the US for quite some time.

We just are not sold the game at this point. It seems to lack the elegance that A&A50 had and replaced it with an attritional slugfest. I just dont see how this game can be played to conclusion in a reasonable amount of time. The Victory Conditions completely throw any form ‘history’ out the window and because of that, they’ve had to artificially inflate Japan’s capabilities to ridiculous levels to allow her to actually compete against the Western Powers. I think an alternate ‘time’ victory where Japan can spread out and then stall back to survive would be preferable to this system where the Japanese are turning out masses of combat power that she never could have DREAMED of producing in reality.

But reality aside, we really dont see too much that the Allies can do at this point. In our 2nd game, the Japanese rolled HORRIBLY (like beyond bad) and the Chinese/US player was rolling insanely well and STILL Japan won (although it was a close game due to the BS dice-rolling). In the 3rd game, Japan just played safe and steady and although the game technically wasnt over, Japan definitely had the upper hand.

A&A50 was so well done and so refined that we feel like we must be missing something here. Then again, the production quality of A&AP40 is so lacking that I suppose it’s possible that the game just wasnt developed properly either and it’s possible that there are some glaring holes in the gameplay as well.

So what have people managed to do with the Allies? How did you defeat Japan if you have done so? Was it luck? Was the Japanese player taking risks that burned him? Barring any of that we are pretty stumped…

I’m more concerned that they get the balance right rather than the ‘realism’ of various nations’ capacities right. I mean in reality, the chance of an actual Japanese ‘victory’ over the US in the Pacific was ridiculously small. Japan just had absolutely NO ability to compete in an industrialized war.

The ONLY thing that gave Japan any chance was the US policy of ‘Europe first’. And even with that Japan lasted a whole 6 months before the tide turned. Granted Midway was somewhat of an aberration (although not as much as it has been made out to be, methinx), but still - Japan was doomed in any form of sustained conflict with the US. Japan’s R&D, pilot training/replacement programs, and ship-building capacity were mere shadows of the US capabilities.

Given all that, I’d prefer that they make sure that the game is interesting and not quite so realistic. ;)

Although it is fairly easy to destroy the US fleet if Japan attacks on thier first turn it is also very easy to destory it if Japan attacks on its second, third, or even forth turn since the US is only making 17 IPC each round.

Actually I think the US is making 22 (they get a +5 bonus for holding PI). Similarly, the Brits are getting their +5 for Malaya/Kwangtung. If the Brits push and take 2 of the DEI territories on UK1 I think Japan is left with no choice but to attack by J2. If the Brits can take the last of the 4 islands for their 2nd bonus I dont see any way for Japan to easily dominate the sea of SE Asia. Of course if the Brits move to take those islands they are exposed to Japanese attack piecemeal (which further encourages Japan to hit them).

So far, I think a J2 attack makes the most sense, but of course that is dependent on what the Allies do. If the Allies dont take any over action in the DEI, then Japan might do well to hold off until J3 when she can have all of her duckies in a row.

Yep, it is extremely powerful but I think you should get something for your 15 IPC investment. ;) Granted a lot of airbases are ‘free’ at the start but the Scramble ability actually makes them somewhat attractive to BUILD as the game goes on.

Ok so we finally got a chance to sit down and play our first game. None of us really new what to expect since we hadn’t read much about it in the pre-release.

At first we were sort of overwhelmed - seriously? Japan has THAT many aircraft?!?! ;)

Some initial thoughts:

1. Production quality - this has been touched on by plenty of others, but I guess it’s worth repeating. The production quality is DEFINITELY a step down from A&A50. Not having paper money sucked, but for us we had plenty from other games so not a big deal. The cardboard Ind/AA/bases? Well, at first we didnt like it, but after playing a for bit we realised we really wouldnt want more plastic in some of those crammed territories. Now for the biggie - the game comes with a COMPLETELY inadequate number of pieces for the major combatants. Japan simply does not have enough Tac Air. It’s ridiculous. If Japan tries to scatter out AT ALL, you run out of Tac and there is no Tac in any older sets to help make up the difference. If they are going to START THE GAME with a huge number of these units then the plastic mix should support it. Similarly, the US gets an INSANE amount of income in the game and only 4(!!) CV models? FOUR? Seriously? The lack of plastic for Japan/US is inexcusable IMO.

Also, not have the National Objectives or the sequence of play or the costs on player aid cards is also pretty lame. Needing to reference the rule book for the NO’s sucks.

2. New units - OK, at first we were sort of luke-warm at best for Tac Air. But a number of new dynamics really make them worth it. First of all, there are more territories on the board. This means that that 6-range bomber can no longer span the whole Pacific. Carrier power is definitely the name of the game and if you want a versatile piece that attacks at ‘4’, you’ll need Tac. Secondly, the Air Bases allow tac to scramble which bombers cannot do. Granted fighters can, but a good mix of Fighters and Tac seems required to get the best attacks off. One thing we noticed is that attack power is more expensive now without Tac. Tanks cost more and BBs are simply NOT worth the cost anymore (without the constant free hit). Sooo, if you want offensive power its Tac or Bombers and Tac are more versatile.

For the Mech Inf, we really didnt feel a major need for them (prolly expected for the Pacific).

3. Air/Naval bases - these really change the game a LOT. The ‘scramble’ ability means that a few air units backing up a DD/CA at an island base can be a tough nut to crack. The +1 range for air units gives CV air more flexibility, but doesnt do that much for LBA (that we could see). The +1 range for ships from a naval base is KEY.

4. The new NAs are interesting. I like that there are less of the ‘no brainer’ ones and more that make you reach out a bit.

Overall we were pretty pleased by the gameplay. It took a turn or two for Japan to start to maximize all that air (I think the Japanese player wanted to spread out more, but the lack of models hamstrung him a bit). We are looking forward to playing again and learning from the mistakes made in our first foray. ;)