Balancing Pacific 1940

Got a question that you'd like me to answer?
I'll be checking in on this thread now and then and hope I can answer any questions you may have.
User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by Imperious leader » Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:13 am

It’s my understanding that Japan had a substantial air and naval bases in Truk as early as 1937 – indeed perhaps as early as 1935. In fact they controlled this island group since the end of World War I. This has always suggested to me a strong naval presence in these islands.

I also think IL would like me lower the number of Japanese aircraft.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/wapa/indepth ... adise4.htm

"It became the Imperial Japanese Navy's Fourth Fleet base from November 1939 and the Combined Japanese Navy Fleet were based there from July 1942 to February 1944."


http://www.olive-drab.com/od_history_ww ... 44truk.php

"From July 1942 to February 1944, Truk was the forward headquarters of the Japanese Combined Fleet (First, Second and Third Fleets and the Sixth Submarine Fleet)."

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... ts-13.html

Throughout 1940 the 4th Fleet existed mostly on paper, and did not really start to grow until the end of the year.

"About the same time that the 4th Fleet was being activated, the Imperial Navy sent a large team to survey the Marshalls with the object of laying plans for a fairly large-scale construction program. Up until late 1939 far more attention had been devoted to the Carolines and Marianas than to the more distant Marshalls. Now, improvements in warships and naval weapons, and especially the advent of heavy land-based bombers, forced the Japanese to re-evaluate the importance of the Marshalls and to concentrate more heavily on their defense."

"after construction projects activated near the close of 1941 under 4th Fleet administration included fueling facilities at Wotje, Taroa, Roi, Eniwetok, and Kwajalein, all in the Marshalls. Submarine bases were established at Truk, Ponape, and Roi. Gun positions were placed on Palau, Saipan, Taroa, Roi, Wotje, and Jaluit in the latter part of 1941. As was the case in fueling facilities, the Marshalls were developed as military bases later than the Marianas and Carolines. First, priority went to Truk, Saipan, and Palau, with concurrent but less important developments of Ponape, Pagan, and Tinian. Later, priority was given to four atolls in the Marshalls--Jaluit, Wotje, Maloelap, and Kwajalein--with minor attention to Majuro and Eniwetok. Water installations, command posts, ammunition storage facilities, and minor fortifications were ubiquitous"

The Japanese fleet was stationed in Yokosuka naval yards with a small group supporting the war in China in the south China sea. Everywhere else no japanese naval forces were stationed till after the war started. Putting more ships off Japan effectively wipes out the J1 attack option. I don't think you would want Japan to start the war in Mid 1940 as a standard tactic.

The planes are a different matter, but just moving the pieces closer to japan makes a big difference too.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

kreael22
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:54 am

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by kreael22 » Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:21 am

At minimum the carrier and transport needs moved back. I'd prefer the entire fleet moved though. There are several reasons for this and I would be leary of other changes made, including reducing only Japan's air power, to keep the balance of a J2&J3 DOW. We have all agreed that with oob (out of box) setup a J2 and J3 DOW are balanced games, and already you have removed a good number of Japanesse units from the game, IPC wise. If your not going to reduce allied air in an equal proportion, it would be unwise to reduce Japans.

There are several 'unfun' things that Truk fleet can do. Here is the list:

1) Grant Japan odds in capturing pearl turn 1. This is just like the revised sea lion long range aircraft tech, in that its an all or nothing move that determines the victor of the game in 1 turn. Even worse if they go after ANZAC capital with 1 INF.

2) Eliminate the ANZAC fleet. Either just sending down the entire fleet, or sending the DD and a fighter after the ANZAC sub. The worse part is while this can be counter attacked, it must be counter attacked peacemeal and will cost both the US and ANZAC alot of there aircraft. Yeah it stinks when UK looses all its transports, even more annoying when 4 allied transports goto the bottom on turn 1. While this is not as powerful as taking Java typically, with the addition of a Naval Base it is much more attractive.

3) Securing DEI sea zones. This fleet at Java prevents the UK from hiding any of her boats and ensures that her navy is destroyed on J2 preventing any blocking vs an India crush.

With the global game I would still hesitate to move the battleship back, as it WILL always go to the Mediterranean. That BB will shift the balance of power in the med/africa big time. Also, an early Japan DOW would allow the US to go full bore at Japan, so it will probably be avoided. But even if not, I would sacrifice India as a UK player to knock Italy down to a small income at the drop of a hat. Pacific half will only bring in an income of around 5 IPCs a turn by turn 3 and later for the UK no matter what. Africa is more valuable than that. The lack of UK presence in the pacific can be balanced out by the US and Russia in a situation like that. Or may lead to a KGF type strat with all the allies throwing everything they can against Italy early.

I will try to get a test game going with the entire fleet moved back, if I can i'll link it. Or one with your first list of changes, I just fear they will balance a J1 DOW while unbalancing a later DOW.

Tralis
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by Tralis » Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:31 am

Larry, one observation I had playing just a bit ago: ANZAC and the UK are very weak independently. I've seen games where one or the other gets the Indies and gets strong, but they usually are not terribly powerful on their own. In my play group we quickly came to the conclusion that Pacific 1940 was not really a four player game. ANZAC and the UK are too thin to warrant a dedicated player. We always play three player UK/ANZAC,US/China, Japan or simply two players.

If ANZAC and the UK had the same combat move they would be a lot more powerful since their assets could be combined, while maintaining the separate economies. I know this is effectively the way things worked in the old Pacific, and I thought the system in that game was brilliant. There's no easy way to add the slush-fund commonwealth income, which I also loved, but its not necessary. Split-income, same combat move British Empire in Pacific would mean that instead of two weak and minor powers there would be one significant, strong one.

kungfujew
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by kungfujew » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:17 am

You've got great timing Larry. Myself and my three buddies were out drinking (the wives are out of town for a bachelorette party), and we were going to play a game of 'Sorry ' and then crash, but when we read your reply we pounded some red bulls and played a short game instead. :D

The changes that we made were:
-Reducing the Jap airforce by 2 fighters, 1 tact and strat bomber from Japan and 1 fighter from Manchuria
-Moving the BB and one transport to sz 39
-Adding 2 artillery to Szechwan, 1 inf to Yunnan, 2 inf to Kweichow, 2 inf to Suiyan, 2 inf to Hopei
-Add naval base to NSW
-Add 2 inf to Philippines
-Move 1 fighter/1tac from West US to Hawaii
-Move 1 bomber from hawaii to West US

We're all tired so I'll give the short summary of the game. By the end of Japan's first turn the entire game was different. With the extra chinese units, especially the ones in the North, as Japan, I felt that not transporting anyone to the mainland was dangerous, but proceeded with the crushing of India. The extra inf in Phi meant that I needed to use the sz33 fighter there making taking Java very risky, so celebs was taken instead. US moved 2fighters/2tacs/2strat bombers to Queensland, UK took Sumatra and blocked sz37 with dd, anzac took Java and blocked sz42 with dd. Japan pushed forward with it"s plan against india and China held the line as without reinforcements, Japan couldn't push aggressively without out numbering the Chinese forces. after J2 the allied air power withdrew to Sumatra and the UK blocked sz 41 and sz38 to hold up Japan for an additional turn. After J3 all the planes landed in India and the american flleet started sending out transports to the chinese coast from sz 33 and China backed Japan into a corner, growing ever stronger. On J4 after Japan took India they were left with 3ftrs/3tacs on the carriers and the 5 planes they built that turn. With the Japanese fleet at india, America sailed to sz6 and took Korea and landed another transport at manchuria. Between the US and the chinese and anzac, Japan was down to 39 IPCs of territory and NOs at the start of turn 5, with the US about to build a major IC at Korea and China up to 20 IPCs without the Burma road we decided this test was over and I conceded as Japan to write this and then sleep. :)

We're going to test this set up again as it seems to have, at first glance stopped the India crush from being an auto-win, without making it impossible or mucking up the rest of the game. The game would have gone much differently if Japan would have changed the plan after the allies stacked Java, but that can be for next time. Next time we'll see what happens if japan sends in a suicide transport to take Java on tun on. We'll also test giving the US its bonus IPCs right away on a turn one attack instead of switching the West US fighter and tac with the Hawaiian strat bomber.

User avatar
Lobosolo
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:19 pm

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by Lobosolo » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:26 pm

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the "immediate 40" for US is ONLY in the event of a J1 attack. Otherwise, this will upset the balance for J2, J3. So for J2 and J3 the US would still get their 40 at the Collect Income Phase. Correct? I didn't see that mentioned anywhere here, but I know that Kauf detailed that out in the A&A.org forums some time ago.

Kauf,
Didn't you see some pretty balanced games when you used "immediate 40" and no other changes? Or was that before the J3 "India Crush" strategy that Jim created?

Thanks you Larry for taking the time to listen to fans and entertain changes. Very cool of you.

calvinhobbesliker
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:53 pm

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by calvinhobbesliker » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:43 pm

Lobosolo wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the "immediate 40" for US is ONLY in the event of a J1 attack. Otherwise, this will upset the balance for J2, J3. So for J2 and J3 the US would still get their 40 at the Collect Income Phase. Correct? I didn't see that mentioned anywhere here, but I know that Kauf detailed that out in the A&A.org forums some time ago.

Kauf,
Didn't you see some pretty balanced games when you used "immediate 40" and no other changes? Or was that before the J3 "India Crush" strategy that Jim created?

Thanks you Larry for taking the time to listen to fans and entertain changes. Very cool of you.
That was before the J3 India crush came to his attention. US1 they buy extra units. US2 those extra units reach Z26. US3, they reach Z54, but India has already fallen

kungfujew
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by kungfujew » Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:00 pm

Personally, we'll be trying the +40 right away only as a last resort. To have it work like that defeats the purpose of the J1 attack,which is to attack even before Japan has truely maneuvered into position to really catch the allies with their pants down. Plus it seems like a poor fix to have the NO work one way for a turn one attack, and another for the rest, it just doesn't make in game sense. What we prefered was to switch the West US fighter and tac with the strat bomber in hawaii. That let the US almost double their air presense in Australia and it ONLY changes the board in the event of a J1 attack. If Japan waits until turn 2 to attack, on turn one those planes can't reach anywhere that they couldn't land if they had taken off from West US (other than Guam).

Larry, you said you might consider adding nother plane to Philippines instead of the 2 inf, but I don't think that's a good idea. The infantry are basically stuck on the Phi, so adding them would have a very small effect on a turn 2 or 3 attack, while adding another fighter would have a much larger effect.

Also, try setting up the board with all the changes we tried last night. The way you discribed Japan's need to stabalize china is well represented. The situation improves if even only one or two transports dump men into the meat every turn at the begining, or china very slowly starts to grow from embers to a raging fire of lime green infantry. :D

calvinhobbesliker
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:53 pm

Re: Balancing Pacific 1940

Post by calvinhobbesliker » Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:18 pm

kungfujew wrote:Personally, we'll be trying the +40 right away only as a last resort. To have it work like that defeats the purpose of the J1 attack,which is to attack even before Japan has truely maneuvered into position to really catch the allies with their pants down. Plus it seems like a poor fix to have the NO work one way for a turn one attack, and another for the rest, it just doesn't make in game sense. What we prefered was to switch the West US fighter and tac with the strat bomber in hawaii. That let the US almost double their air presense in Australia and it ONLY changes the board in the event of a J1 attack. If Japan waits until turn 2 to attack, on turn one those planes can't reach anywhere that they couldn't land if they had taken off from West US (other than Guam).

Larry, you said you might consider adding nother plane to Philippines instead of the 2 inf, but I don't think that's a good idea. The infantry are basically stuck on the Phi, so adding them would have a very small effect on a turn 2 or 3 attack, while adding another fighter would have a much larger effect.

Also, try setting up the board with all the changes we tried last night. The way you discribed Japan's need to stabalize china is well represented. The situation improves if even only one or two transports dump men into the meat every turn at the begining, or china very slowly starts to grow from embers to a raging fire of lime green infantry. :D
So in order for Japan to kill China, it has to forego taking Philippines? Because adding 2 inf means all 3 transports must be used.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests