GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
8,305 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
20 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
40 
 Thumb up
 Hide
35 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Axis & Allies Pacific 1940» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Broken rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: forum [+] [View All]
Fred W. Manzo
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Once again an Axis and Allies variant falls prey to the dread "Christmas Effect" as its positive points are overwhelmed by a tidal wave of mistakes caused by its obvious lack of intense play-testing. Play-testing sessions that would have pushed its release date beyond the 2009 Holiday season and so were never done.

First: its published rules lack complete coverage of neutral's actions from 1940 to 1942 and this in a game that starts in 1940 with most of the players neutral. In fact, the game requires use of extensive major errata.

Second: The Japanese Empire starts much too strong. For example: it has an air force that outnumbers the US, British, Australian, New Zealand and Chinese air forces COMBINED. And remember, for the first three turns the American, British and Anzac air forces are neutral and out of the game.

Third: the Chinese are once again much, much too weak. They are so weak the Japanese can easily conquer China with just the units already there and less than a third of their initial air force. (I.E., they have no particular need to produce much of anything on the Asian mainland).

Four: the American navy and the American economy are too weak. For the first three turns the US produces only 17 PCs per turn and so can NEVER overwhelm the Japanese economy. As, by the time the American economy reaches its peak, the Japanese have had enough time to conquer most of China, the South Pacific and their national objectives and so bulk up its economic muscle virtually to the US level.

Fifth: even beyond this, the game is unbalanced. The Japanese navy starts so strong they can temporarily ignore the Philippine’s garrison and their own national objectives, take the majority of their naval and air forces to the west coast of the US and just anchor off of San Francisco. By the time the US enters the war and defeats this fleet by repeated attritional suicide attacks the game will be over. It simply takes the US much too long to get into the game in any event: three neutral turns, a war-economy bonus build starting at the end of the fourth turn and then two turns to get this fleet into Japanese waters. That's a minimum of 6 turns to affect the game with no particular Japanese actions. And remember a good Japanese player has parked a suicide fleet off San Francisco to delay this action for 2 or 3 more turns anyway.

Sixth: there are physical problems. While the map is beautiful, the game doesn't come with paper money, the set-up and battle board has errors, the cost chart is only shown once in a multi-player game and there aren't enough of the various plastic pieces needed to play the
actual game. All in all the sure signs of a rushed production.

Bottom line: save your money for a game developed and balanced BEFORE it was printed.
24 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Hanson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Harsh review but unfortunately fair. All of your points are completely valid, the game is beautiful and has immense promise but is deeply flawed and, yes, broken. The game appears to be poorly balanced and very ahistorical. The quality control issues are a travesty, and the component shortcomings are genuine.

I'll be writing my own review at some point here, I'm not through evaluating at this point. But I'm deeply disappointed so far. Larry's brilliant yet simple game system is fun to play and is certainly capable of roughly modeling the strategic drama of the Pacific War, but it looks like this particular game is going to need a lot of work to reach a playable, balanced, semi-historical state.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fred W. Manzo
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
If it took anyone a year to come to the conclusion that AA Europe was broken if Germans bought all tanks, all I can say is that there are better players in the world. While I'm not one of them, I do play with some of them and the "all tank" buy was discovered by the second or third time we tried AA Europe. The Japanese San Francisco fleet move was dicovered by 2 of these players (and not me) the first time they looked at this game, as they considered it obvious. And that says nothing about the super-weak Chinese problem, the extensive errata problem, the super-strong Japanese Air Force problem and the weak U.S. economy vs the expanded Japanese economy problem. Yes, there may be fixes for all these problems, but why weren't they found PRIOR to publication? If the "no paper money" problem was the only thing wrong we'd all be more than happy to ignore it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fred W. Manzo
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Yes the US can get to 57 PCs on the third turn but with the Japanese navy sitting off of San Francisco what are you going to do with this money? Build a few ships and planes that are automtaically destroyed when the Japanese turn comes around? Also count up the Chinese and South Pacific and the National Objective PCs. You'd be surprised how much economic strength Japan can accumulate very quickly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jefF, There are some who call me... DuneKitteh
United States
Wood Dale
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dune Kitty really does love you, despite any asshattery.
badge
Useless rollover, booya! Dune Kitty says, "deal with it."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rudolf Jordon wrote:
Paper money was never said to be included in the game. It is not a drawback to a game that simply acknowledges that for the last 30 years people have been WRITING THE IPC ON A SHEET OF PAPER, because the money can be separated, mixed, etc. If you write it down it cannot be disputed.


In almost 30 years and 1500 plays of Axis and Allies and A&A genre games, including tournament play, I have never ever once "written it down" for keeping track of my IPCs. Just because you or your gaming group does it that way, doesn't mean most or even many of us do. Some of us don't care that they "never said" they wouldn't include money and actually see it for what it is, a way to cheap the game out, plain and simple - and I actually do indeed even look at that as a "flaw".

Personally, Cash In Hand has always worked quite well for me and the NON CHEATING (or non stupid) players I've apparently been lucky enough to play all of my games with that have the basic ability to not hide or scam or lose their paper bills... I also kind of like that Cash In Hand feel as well. Casinos could easily put and keep track of all gambling transactions on cards at this point - but there's a reason they still use chips and cash.

Rudolf Jordon wrote:

Also, the game is not broken. Rather you have not played enough to find out that it is not....

Broken claims occur only with validity after about 1 year of playing.


Ummmmm, no my friend, broken can be determined QUITE easily and quickly. A year to determine "broken" is the most utterly absurd claim I've ever seen anyone make on BGG. Thousands of us with hundreds of games have determined "broken" within days or even hours of owning a game. Heck, with WHAT Overlords, I determined that the day I got it. Much of the time all you have to do is read the rules. In fact, broken is usually even obvious in my experience. Rethink / rephrase that, because that's simply the stupidest thing I've seen anyone say on BGG in a LONG time. Whether his DEFINITION of broken is the same may be in dispute, but he has outlined his reasoning for calling it that quite well IMHO (Broken can easily be defined as a manner in which someone can repeat and use a strategy to win that can not be counteracted the majority of the time (if at all) when everything is played according to the rules). however, I've seen YOU do no such thing to dispute it except essentially make "NUH-UH!" assertions.

I, for one, am grateful for these critical looks at the game. One of you causes me to looks critically at the game. One of you comes off as sour grapes. Guess which is which here.
23 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Eldard
United States
Burke
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Fred 100 wrote:
Bottom line: save your money for a game developed and balanced BEFORE it was printed.


How many games did you complete before you came to this conclusion, Fred?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Bisio
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
"Broken claims occur only with validity after about 1 year of playing."

Which planet is this guy living on ??---Anyone can see out of the box the Chinese have no chance against Japan---They start with only 12 infantry on the map and these don't even cover their own front line with their Japanese enemy. Historically the Japanese were in a stalemate situation in China in 1940.The Chinese also had aircraft and artillery--about 1,000 of each of these were provided to the Chinese by the USSR alone between September 1937 to June 1941.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Shaw
United States
North Dakota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rudolf Jordon wrote:
Quote:
Personally, Cash In Hand has always worked quite well for me and the NON CHEATING (or non stupid) players I've apparently been lucky enough to play all of my games with that have the basic ability to not hide or scam or lose their paper bills... I also kind of like that Cash In Hand feel as well. Casinos could easily put and keep track of all gambling transactions on cards at this point - but there's a reason they still use chips and cash.


yes PERSONALLY. but nothing more. The game never said "hey we got loads of cash right in the fracking box"

Now you are forced to play it like everybody else has since 1979. Play money is for monoploy. AA does not need it. If you like the Casino then why not use real money? Your playing group is so honest not to lose the money it should be a no brainer.

The game also has chips, use them for money. Paint a few of them blue and denote them as 10 value, that way you got "money" just like the casinos...so problem solved right here by me.


The ONLY people I've ever even HEARD about not playing with money have been the small group of people on BGG and some at A&A ORG, other than that I've never EVEN MET a single person in real life who played without cash. With Bills that appear as they should, it's remarkably HARD to cheat, give me a pencil as banker and it would be dang easy for me to cheat...unless EVERYONE is keeping EVERYONE's cash and expenditures, which would take far more time than simple cash in hand.

However...hey...I do hear that a few on BGG and A&A.org don't use cash, but I hear that among those those who use nothing but pencil and paper are far and few between, that far more prefer poker chips than pencil and paper, even in the niche group of BGG from what I've seen and read.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Bisio
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
"I suppose under this crazy idea that the British are just waiting to die also?"

In point of fact their initial position is not very good either. If Japan attacks them Turn 2 they are not going to get the Dutch income and can be fairly quickly reduced to their Indian rump area before being eliminated.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
RG
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Fred 100 wrote:
Four: the American navy and the American economy are too weak. For the first three turns the US produces only 17 PCs per turn and so can NEVER overwhelm the Japanese economy.

If Japan forces the US to stay Neutral for as long as possible - The US starts the game with 17ipcs, collects 22 turns 1 and 2 (with N.O. Philippines), and then collects 57 turn 3.

Fred 100 wrote:
As, by the time the American economy reaches its peak, the Japanese have had enough time to conquer most of China, the South Pacific and their national objectives and so bulk up its economic muscle virtually to the US level.

Japan can't do all that without bringing the US into the war; they can only conquer China. If you take most of your fleet towards the US with the intent of keeping the US neutral, why would Britain and Anzac provoke war, before their third turn?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Salty Skwib
United States
San Miguel
California
flag msg tools
badge
Should I eat the Cuttlefish and Asparagus or the Vanilla Paste?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've read numerous session reports and strategy analyses over on AA.org, and it seems players are having success as both the Allies and Japan, so I don't agree with the assessment that the game is broken. Maybe thematically the game takes severe liberties with historical reference, but that doesn't mean the game system itself is broken, and one does not turn to a game of A&A for a detailed WWII simulation anyway.

The issues I see are the severe production problems by WOTC. They screwed the pooch on the components, but the game itself seems to be sound.

As an aside, why have people (in this thread and countless others) taken to insulting each other over the preference of play money? If you like play money, that's fine… if you prefer pen and paper, that's also fine. If you think your opponents might cheat using pen and paper, then the problem seems to be your game group. Why play with someone who cheats?

I personally prefer having the money, just for the aesthetics. I was disappointed by its exclusion, but to me that's a minor quibble compared to the other production issues (such as the FUBAR Battle Strip). I can see why other people prefer pen and paper, and that's great. Different strokes and all… it seems rather childish to insult someone's preference over that.
20 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fred W. Manzo
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I had nothing to do with coming up with the SF strategy. I was just one person in a three-way game that included two long-term veterans who always end up in the final round of any A and A tournament they enter. (Usually at Orgins). My club is fortunate in having a number of very stong players (and that certainly doesn't include me). Anyway, they were extremely upset with the problems we encountered and I simply took note of their reactions. The game is beatiful and has the potential to become the best Pacific A and A ever published. But why does a game with a $90.00 list price (plus shipping) still need development?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Salty Skwib
United States
San Miguel
California
flag msg tools
badge
Should I eat the Cuttlefish and Asparagus or the Vanilla Paste?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
midnightmadness wrote:
Ummmmm, no my friend, broken can be determined QUITE easily and quickly. A year to determine "broken" is the most utterly absurd claim I've ever seen anyone make on BGG. Thousands of us with hundreds of games have determined "broken" within days or even hours of owning a game. Heck, with WHAT Overlords, I determined that the day I got it. Much of the time all you have to do is read the rules. In fact, broken is usually even obvious in my experience. Rethink / rephrase that, because that's simply the stupidest thing I've seen anyone say on BGG in a LONG time. Whether his DEFINITION of broken is the same may be in dispute, but he has outlined his reasoning for calling it that quite well IMHO (Broken can easily be defined as a manner in which someone can repeat and use a strategy to win that can not be counteracted the majority of the time (if at all) when everything is played according to the rules). however, I've seen YOU do no such thing to dispute it except essentially make "NUH-UH!" assertions.

I, for one, am grateful for these critical looks at the game. One of you causes me to looks critically at the game. One of you comes off as sour grapes. Guess which is which here.


Let's have some civility here. This is after all merely a forum discussion about a board game.

My take on the O.P.'s thread is he outlined his cursory opinion of flaws of the initial set-up and fleet strengths. I don't see any detailed analysis or methodology on how to actually break the game here, outside of his description of the San Francisco strategy. However, are we positive that there is no way to counter this? I would like to see more anecdotal evidence to support this from other experienced players, or at least a session report detailing exactly how such a strategy would be foolproof.

If anything, it would provide the development team valuable info for rules revisions and future editions.

8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Udu Tont
Estonia
Tartu/Tallinn
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rudolf Jordon wrote:
Quote:
But why does a game with a $90.00 list price (plus shipping) still need development?
it cost me $62 bucks including shipping.


What? 62 USD in total?!!! I can see that you live in Germany. The few US shops that sell the game for about $60 insist on using Fedex or other expensive shipping options for international orders. (Shipping the game to Europe with fedex is about $140, ie. $200 in total) In Europe the suggested retail price seems to be 90 EUR (about 130 USD). My local store sells the game for about $150... Seriously, if you know a place from where ordering the game to an European address would cost less than $100 in total, please let us know!


Rudolf Jordon wrote:
Anyway you have the chips, or two bucks worth of change would be even easier. 36 IPC would be a quarter, dime and penny. see easy and real money.It needs nothing but more tac bombers and more chips.


Airplane models are for noobs. Real men have played the game with real hardware for last 30 years. It is much more difficult to cheat this way. Besides, if you don't have a real Japanese tactical bomber available you can easily substitute it with a penny. So, quit whining about the components!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dr ?
United States
Midwest
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
so why doesn't the US hold its production for a few turns and plunk down a good sized fleet? Perhaps from turn 1 assume Japan is coming? Move their initial fleet out of range? Then they can plunk down a 114 IPC fleet or even a 171 IPC fleet in addition to the planes and ships they start with? If Japan has no fleet left, will they be able to hold Hawaii? What if ANZAC built land forces to hold Australia? Seems like there are more possibilities than initially meet the eye (I hope). I want to hear from folks who can thwart a Japan early San Fran move with some details. Come on troops, I know you can do it!
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
steve wass
msg tools
mb
post for consideration only:

if you are thinking of buying this game in the UK, i would seriously advise you reconsider it. £75 pounds is way too much money for this.

There are no quick reference sheets, no ipc money, an ipc chart that only goes to 48 when US starts on 50 ipc's. component wise its Value for money is very poor and not worth the outlay.

WoTc and co should be ashamed of this production and need to rethink their strategy.

do your self a favour and buy something else. My board game shop has agreed to take it back for a refund, thank goodness.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric V
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
I don't think anyone can really dispute the physical short comings of the game. The misprinted set up boxes and the game changing errata is a a big disappointment. Money and a few more tac bombers would be nice, but, doesn't break the game.

I'm not really on board with the tactical assessment. Myself and two veteran players have logged in five games (using the correct rules) with the results being three Japan wins and two allied wins. This includes two attempts at San Fransisco style gambits (one was successful, the second attempt, after having seen it coming was countered). So I'm not yet willing to say it's broken.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dr ?
United States
Midwest
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gwlachmai wrote:
I don't think anyone can really dispute the physical short comings of the game. The misprinted set up boxes and the game changing errata is a a big disappointment. Money and a few more tac bombers would be nice, but, doesn't break the game.

I'm not really on board with the tactical assessment. Myself and two veteran players have logged in five games (using the correct rules) with the results being three Japan wins and two allied wins. This includes two attempts at San Fransisco style gambits (one was successful, the second attempt, after having seen it coming was countered). So I'm not yet willing to say it's broken.


Agreed---the bold claim by the OP has nothing to do with well documented production issues. These are issues that are present but overblown greatly in my opinion and having nothing to do with the playability of the game per se. And yes, I PREFER money. But this has NOTHING to do with a game being "broken."

Friendly advice---pose the questions without proclaiming a conclusion. Generally speaking, it takes time and many plays to decide if it will work because if you have a killer strategy it is uncumbent upon you to work to DEFEAT IT. Without having the game set up at all and just reading the OP it appears likely to me that there are some counters to the suggested never fail strategy!

Again, feel free to disagree, but the reason I urge us all to avoid unfounded conclusions is that it hurts the hobby. If a new player sees a post that says the game is broken he may avoid it without the tools (e.g. experience) to evaluate it for himself before dismissing it outright.

I am not saying the game is unbreakable because with three plays I can't be sure. However, with the chalkboard in my mind I have already countered the unbreakable strategy mentioned above and that did not take too much work. I will put my money where my mouth is later and set up the pieces of course so as not to be hypocritcal because I have been wrong before....

I am legitimately curious to know how the early builds went with UK, US and ANZAC and where units were placed with China...
7 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Shaw
United States
North Dakota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rudolf Jordon wrote:
Quote:
The ONLY people I've ever even HEARD about not playing with money have been the small group of people on BGG and some at A&A ORG, other than that I've never EVEN MET a single person in real life who played without cash. With Bills that appear as they should, it's remarkably HARD to cheat, give me a pencil as banker and it would be dang easy for me to cheat...unless EVERYONE is keeping EVERYONE's cash and expenditures, which would take far more time than simple cash in hand.

However...hey...I do hear that a few on BGG and A&A.org don't use cash, but I hear that among those those who use nothing but pencil and paper are far and few between, that far more prefer poker chips than pencil and paper, even in the niche group of BGG from what I've seen and read.


I think you should play in tournaments. You will not find anybody ever once using money except for noobs.

Anyway you have the chips, or two bucks worth of change would be even easier.

36 IPC would be a quarter, dime and penny. see easy and real money.

Quote:
But why does a game with a $90.00 list price (plus shipping) still need development?


it cost me $62 bucks including shipping. It needs nothing but more tac bombers and more chips. The one page errata explains the typos so it needs nothing.


Edited to make it less aggressive, even though this guy is referring to 99% of A&A players as Noobs.

Re-edit: Maybe we aren't as experienced as those who hunt through the world for an A&A tournament (was unaware there were a LOT of HUGE tournaments, largest I've seen was about a dozen in a dorm, and even then if that was a tournament is debatable, I was thinking there were 3-4 of them that would be somewhat decent scale per year, if there are more...I was unaware of them), but Noob is a little condescending I would think. Noob is normally a online term for someone in an online game.

In Germany, I actually haven't played A&A, so maybe the game is handled differently there. I have played with relatives in Germany, of them one could care less about the game (and hasn't heard of 90% of the "germanic" games on this site), one is much more interested in sports...basically to boil it down, I don't know the A&A scene in Germany as it seems less popular among those that I actually know there than in the US.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Udu Tont
Estonia
Tartu/Tallinn
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rudolf Jordon wrote:
All your moves prescribe your outcomes, but unforeseen outcomes are also possible. Keep playing and learn them. Barely one month and people already making claims that they have some perfected plan that is failure proof.


So your strategy with Allies would be to rely on luck or what? How can one learn "unforeseen outcomes"? How many hours one has to play before he is entitled to have his or her opinion about the game? A year like you suggested in an earlier post? shake

Besides, as far as I understand kaufschtick is not claiming that he has perfected a plan for Japanese domination: he is just demonstrating why he thinks that the game is weighted too much in favor of Japan. I appreciate very much that such detailed examples are provided instead of general observations like "unforeseen outcomes are possible".

Rudolf Jordon wrote:
Handing out little slips of paper and organizing that is MUCH less efficient that simply writing down IPC total ONCE. The good thing is you see exactly where you stand each turn and can reflect how you did and where you might have gone wrong. IN reality I have determined my builds as soon as i count my total, so i buy the pieces at that time ( keeping them hidden) and latter plopping them down... so you don't really even need anything if you play ahead while the opposition is thinking and moving.


I guess this system is better for very efficient players like you. There are many, though, who have played the game for long time but still use money. Either because their math and ability to foresee the necessary builds are not as good as yours or just because they happen to like paper money. And no, these people are not necessarily fans of Monopoly. Surely it could be also argued that it would be more efficient to use wooden cubes instead of plastic models: it takes less space, unit types would stand out better etc. Would you like to play the game with wooden cubes? I would be certainly disappointed if the next version lacked plastic models (and cost an extra $40 on top of that). That said, I consider the lack of money in A&A game to be a minor issue that is irrelevant in deciding whether the game is broken. I just do not understand why some people feel compelled to ridicule everyone who happen to like paper money in A&A.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric V
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
I tend to agree with Kauf, the India blitz is by far the tougher strat for the allies to defend against. It forces America to try to get in the game immediately, which is tough, since the economic center of the map is where the far superior Japanese navy is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dr ?
United States
Midwest
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kaufschtick wrote:
Rudolf Jordon wrote:
This is bogus. USA is at 57 on turn 3 at income collection phase ( not to mention NO's)

Your claim is bogus. Japan starts at 26 and can only take China and FIC. If they want to start early then USA gets 57+ on that turn and UK/ ANZAC enter.


OK, here's what we're seeing, a good buddy and myself have logged 51+ hours of play on AAP40 so far, although most of that time has been spent playing the game wrong! Part of that was the wrong set up, and another good chunk of time was our own fault at misinterpreting the scramble rule whistle .

But even through the wrong gameplay, some issues with the game were starting to rear their ugly heads.

Here's the thing we're seeing. On J2, if Japan does not attack, Britians income goes to 37 IPCs, and the US doesn't go up 40.

If Japan attacks on J2, it can reduce Britians income to 6-10 IPCs by B2(a 27 to 31 IPC drop), but the US will go up 40. Those extra 40 IPCs won't even be placed on the US west coast until the end of turn 3.

So the trade off against the US IPCs going up 40 is that Japan can reduce Britians to 6-10 IPcs, and put them on welfare. Give the Us 40 IPCs a turn early, but take away 27-31 IPCs from Britian in the trade.

Here's how.

On J1, Japan can buy 3 transports, and bank 5 IPCs. They can take 4 IPCs from China, and pick up two from Vietnam. That makes their IPC level at 26+4+2+5 (saved) =37 IPCs. On J2, that 37 IPCs is 3 more transports and a CV.

On J1 the IJN assembles in sea zone 36, and the Japanese airforce assembles in Kwangsi.

On J2, Japan can attack Hong Kong, and three of the four following British holdings: Singapore (Malaya), Sumatra, Borneo & Java. Now on B1, the British can take two of the following three Dutch East Indies Islands, Sumatra, Java & Celebes. Seeing as Celebes is only 3 IPCs to the others 4 IPCs. Lets just say here that Britian goes with the 4 pointers on B1, Sumatra & Java.

Japan has only three transports that they can get that far south and attack into the Dutch East Indies on J2, and there are a few variations that can be done by the Japanese, but the bottom line is that Britian is in trouble right out of the gates.

Even if some of these Japanese attacks go terribly wrong (we've all had that happen to us at one point or another! ) against Singapore & the Dutch East Indies, the convoy boxes in sea zones 37, 41 & 42 (and even in 44) can be occupied by enough Japanese warships to deny Britian the majority of this income.

This brings me to another potential rules issue that we hope we've been playing right. That being; that if a warship of yours moves into a sea zone with a convoy box during your turn, whether in the combat or non combat phase, and regardless of what it actually did, it still counts against your opponents IPCs when his collect income phase happens, right?

As long as the above holds true, Hong Kong is going down on J2, Borneo will go as well, and if Singapore, Java and Sumatra don't actually fall, the majority of this income can be denied to the British on their turn via the convoy boxes and Japan's warships and submarines.

Generally, we've seen the Japanese fleet split into two powerful forces and occupy two of the following SZs 37, 41 & 42. Those surface warships are enough to deny the IPCs to the Brits, and the two Japanese subs can contest the other SZ.

With a little luck, the Brits can be reduced to 6 IPCs on the second game turn, although we've been seeing it at 10 for the most part.

The killer move for the Japanese against the British is building a major complex in Malaya (J3). Couple that with the 3 transports the Japanese start with, and building 3 more on turns J2 & J3; even if a couple of these Japanese transports get picked off; there are still enough to get the job done against India.

From Malaya, Japanese transports can hit all of Australia except New South Wales & Victoria.

Anyways, this has been the general course of our games, and Britian has gone down every time.

Once Britian goes, China is soon to follow, if not already gone. At that point, Japan's IPC level is around the 75 mark vs the 55 & 10 of the US & ANZAC player.

That generally does it for the Allies.shake


I thumb this post becasue it has some specifics. Now does anyone have a counter for it? Or it this action is undertaken what is the winning percentage?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric V
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
I just confirmed with a buddy that we'll have time to start a game tonight, so we're going to give the India Blitz a try. I'll be playing Japan, and offhand my concerns are, moving the fleet down to 36 on turn one is a big telegraph of my intentions, I expect the US to mass his fleet in Hawaii, so obviously I will not be able to move my entire airforce off Japan as well as probably having to buy some replacement ground troops on turn two. Also buying a 30 point factory is a big expense, so that's likely three rounds of little to no naval building and I know my American foe will be trying his best to force some losses while his economy outstrips mine. Should be a fun game though.

Edit: Actually looking at Kauf's post, I cannot forsee building more transports on turns 2 and 3, not without leaving a decent navy or airforce on Japan to defend them. Three transports alone in Japan die to one submarine if there is no destroyer to protect them. The airforce would not even be able to scramble to prevent this. Oh well, enough nerd theory...I'll post more after the game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dr ?
United States
Midwest
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gwlachmai wrote:
I just confirmed with a buddy that we'll have time to start a game tonight, so we're going to give the India Blitz a try. I'll be playing Japan, and offhand my concerns are, moving the fleet down to 36 on turn one is a big telegraph of my intentions, I expect the US to mass his fleet in Hawaii, so obviously I will not be able to move my entire airforce off Japan as well as probably having to buy some replacement ground troops on turn two. Also buying a 30 point factory is a big expense, so that's likely three rounds of little to no naval building and I know my American foe will be trying his best to force some losses while his economy outstrips mine. Should be a fun game though.

Edit: Actually looking at Kauf's post, I cannot forsee building more transports on turns 2 and 3, not without leaving a decent navy or airforce on Japan to defend them. Three transports alone in Japan die to one submarine if there is no destroyer to protect them. The airforce would not even be able to scramble to prevent this. Oh well, enough nerd theory...I'll post more after the game.


Please let us know how it goes! I am really curious....
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric V
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
Correct, which is why I would still buy transports on turn 1, but on turn two and subsequent turns I would likely not. We're actually playing the game now, and I used the moves advocated in the post.

The US is now under no pressure and has moved pretty much everything he owns to Midway. Sitting there now is 3 infantry, a tank, 2 fighters, 2 tac bombers, 3 bombers, a carrier (fighter and tac bomber), battleship, crusier, destroyer, submarine. A more interesting thing that the US player has done is completely evacuate the Phillipines.He moved the fighter to Guam, the bomber to Midway, and everything else to sea zone 23, to which I will not be able to destroy them next turn (I know, he counted like 14 times).

On Japan I have 7 infantry and an artillary piece, along with three transports in the sea. So not an overly strong position, but, with a couple fighters the island would be under no threat, however under these conditions any transports built would be meat.

The Brits landed on Java and Sumatra with two infantry each. With my fleet in seazone 36 he did not really sally forth from India, usually the Brit players moves everything into Burma to help keep the Burma road open. So he obviously fears/expects a naval invasion. Rightly so 11 fighters and 7tac bombers in Kwangsi must look fairly intimidating. The UK collected 30 IPC, so next round he'll likely have a ton of infantry in India. He likes to be aggressive, but, we'll see.

Anyway, my intent is to try out these opening moves and see if it breask the game, my buddy is one of the better players I've played against, so we'll see how he handles it. Right off the bat, I do like the aggressive American moves.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.