Possible counters to a broken(...?) strategy?

This game, measuring 35”x32” is compatible with the yet to be released Axis & Allies Europe 1940 game (coming in August 2010). This game includes newly introduced units such as mechanized infantry and tactical bombers.
VonLettowVorbeck1914
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:04 am

Re: Possible counters to a broken(...?) strategy?

Post by VonLettowVorbeck1914 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:45 am

I'm sorry if it disappoints you that I write such short responses to your long posts, and I did not mean to put words into your mouth if that is what you think I did.

Again, your strategy calls for UK/ANZAC to do far too many things at once. That is what I was talking about when I said I would not retest strategies that fail. UK/ANZAC cannot keep retaking these money islands at a pace to keep up with the Japanese when the Japanese have so many transports while still building a fleet that can attack the Japanese. I'm sorry if it sounds like I am beating a dead horse but you are at least the 5th person who has said that the UK/ANZAC can do a lot more than they actually can do.

If Allies go ships, Japan finds some way to sneak onto Australia and take Sydney. If they go land, well, the answer is obvious. Japan goes unchallenged in the sea. If they try to balance those, Japan is strong enough to overwhelm at one or the other, but most importantly the Allies are never strong enough to attack.

I think it is better to speak in generalities then to say that the strat is 55-75% effective, which comes across as a somewhat scientific conclusion when it is just an estimate. If you want specifics, you should take your own advice and explain how UK/ANZAC are taking all these islands after buying so many combat ships. Each transport they buy is one less combat ship. Each pair of units they use is also one less combat ship. If Australia doesn't buy quite a few land units, it is going to run out pretty fast. I already gave the blueprint for the attack; after that it is two simple things: 1. Get trns back to Japan to pick up troops, then take whichever money islands are not defended and leave troops on each one 2. Don't get your fleet killed by splitting it up. The money will take care of itself. I am also a little concerned as to what is helping the Allied transports take Hawaii.

Also The fact that the Allies have to attack in 3 separate waves is absolutely crucial here, something that your analysis could take into consideration.

And for the record, I asked if it was "broken." Given your own admission, it's pretty safe to say that the strategy is abusively good and makes the game unbalanced, so it looks like it is broken.

Please also note that the strategy of picking up troops from Korea was mentioned long ago as a key part of the overall strategy. There are a couple threads over at aa.org about this that could save you a lot of time.

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Possible counters to a broken(...?) strategy?

Post by Krieghund » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:51 am

AndrewAAGamer wrote:BTW we are going to be playing Pacific in our next get together; which is why I read this thread in the first place so if we could get an official ruling as to the monies that would be great. Does it stay at $30 or drop to a lower number or no monies at all?
The rules change at the top of the previous page should be considered official.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

AndrewAAGamer
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:26 am

Re: Possible counters to a broken(...?) strategy?

Post by AndrewAAGamer » Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:03 am

Thanks Krieghund!

With the US starting units and $17, $49 and $57 to spend even without the ANZAC infantry and AA gun it makes the climatic battle about 28% for a Japanese capture. That certainly would make this a strategy that very few people would want to employ.

jwingram
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:21 pm

Re: Possible counters to a broken(...?) strategy?

Post by jwingram » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:26 pm

Krieghund wrote:Larry and I have talked this over, and we have a potential solution for all of you to test. This applies to the Pacific game only - not to Global. The following change should be made to the United States Political Situation rules on page 9 of the Rulebook:

The United States begins the game neutral. It may not declare war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or ANZAC. Following any such unprovoked declaration of war by Japan, the United States will receive an immediate one-time bonus payment of 30 IPCs, representing the total mobilization and transfer of military assets within the continental United States. However, if the United States is still not at war with Japan by the Collect Income phase of its third turn, it may declare war on Japan at the beginning of that phase. This is an exception to the rules for declaring war (see “Declaring War,” page 11), which may normally be done only at the beginning of the Combat Move phase.

This should address the problem at hand, as well as give the Allies (the US in particular) some extra punch in the Pacific game. Please test this, and let us know your findings. Thanks!
Respectfully, this places a pretty big constraint on Japan. Now the ideal Japanese strategy is probably to consolidate China, build up defensive forces, and wait for the Allies to get impatient and attack Japan. At the very least, it forces the Japanese to wait until turn three.

Couldn't this be qualified a bit more elegantly so that Japan has better options? Perhaps "an unprovoked declaration of war against the US"? The US already has options when Japan declares war on the UK and ANZAC first.

Jonathan

jwingram
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:21 pm

Re: Possible counters to a broken(...?) strategy?

Post by jwingram » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:32 pm

AndrewAAGamer wrote:Thanks Krieghund!

With the US starting units and $17, $49 and $57 to spend even without the ANZAC infantry and AA gun it makes the climatic battle about 28% for a Japanese capture. That certainly would make this a strategy that very few people would want to employ.
The addition of the extra money to the US would also chew up a lot more Japanese air power, weakening them in the long term. I don't like what that does to Japan's prospects in the long term game personally.

Jonathan

MiniAlien
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:12 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Possible counters to a broken(...?) strategy?

Post by MiniAlien » Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:47 am

AndrewAAGamer,

Thanks for your total analysis. I just read it all and it probably confirms what I said in one of my first posts:
Whatever I did, I couldn't stop the attack with the US, but while Japan was going all out against the US, I could easily whipe all of Japan out of China. After that it could have gone either way, it wasn't over at all. But I agree it's hard for UK, ANZAC and China to still win from Japan, but I think it's still possible as long the UK and ANZAC try to destroy the Japanese fleet first.
Your latest analysis does show indeed that if Japan plays it smart after taking the US, they could easily win. I have to agree with you there.
Haven't playtested it myself since my earlier posts, but it looks right to me.

Krieghund, I also must agree with jwingram, that it should probably be "an unprovoked DOW against the US".
The new rule should only prevent Japan to try and attack the US in the beginning of the game. All other options should still be available without any other extra consequences.

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Possible counters to a broken(...?) strategy?

Post by Krieghund » Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:13 pm

Such a change would simply invite Japan to "game the rules" by attacking UK-ANZAC rather than the US in its initial assault in order to keep the US from getting the IPCs. Please try it as written.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

AndrewAAGamer
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:26 am

Re: Possible counters to a broken(...?) strategy?

Post by AndrewAAGamer » Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:36 pm

Exactly Krieghund. Japan could declare war on Turn 2 against UK/ANZAC and then still declare war on the US and attack the Aleutians on Turn 2 and the US would not get the one-time bonus of $30.

The only way for what MiniAlien and jwingram are advocating to work would be to state the US only gets the immediate $30 onetime bonus if Japan attacks the Aleutians on Turn 2 disregarding any declaration of war issues. This Take US strategy only works if the Japanese takes the Aleutians on Turn 2 so they can land their extra planes on it Turn 3. It is not necessary to include any other locations since only the Aleutians attack cannot be stopped; all others, Alaska and Hawaii, can be blocked till Turn 3.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests