SCENARIO ALPHA PACIFIC 40

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.
User avatar
questioneer
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:23 am

Re: SCENARIO ALPHA PACIFIC 40

Post by questioneer » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:44 pm

Larry, put these on another thread also because it hits several issues- respond to either one please.

Pasted from Global 1940 threads:

Early Analysis:

I am in the middle of a game online (with Jim010-creator of Sealion gambit). We are only on the 3rd round yet I want to make some early observations as I have played Global 3 times now.

1. Sealion is unstoppable. Barring bad dice, Germany wins this 2/3 or 3/4 times.
However...

2. Sealion is risky. At least with the Global setup. In Europe, I think there will have to be a slight setup change or minor adjustment to even it out (like flip-flop the ICs in WGer and Germany or add 2inf to England). In Global its risky because...

3. US makes too much mula. $82 is a lot to spend in one theatre at DOW- within 3-4 rounds after DOW it is too overwhelming for the Axis.

4. Alpha set-up is OK for Pacific, but I think it takes a little too much away in Global. If Sealion happens in Global and US reacts to it. Euro Axis will be under too much pressure. This is when Japan needs to be a monster in the Pacific to offset that decision by the US. I don't think Japan can be that with this Alpha setup (although the original setup was too harsh on the Allies- something in between maybe for Global). Japan can't be that counterpunch also when it has tons of territories to slog through and 18 Russian inf are in the way.

5. As the setup stands, Euro40 and Pac40 individually favor the Axis, but when put together - Global 40 - it favors the Allies. Here's why:

a. 18 Soviet infantry + 1ANZAC infantry- no matter how you slice it, that's an extra $57 of material for the Allies.
Advantage: Allies

b. Spatial equity- if the US can cross the larger Atlantic quickly with so much cash (after DOW of course), Japan should have the ability to cross a longer spaced Asia in the same time with a little bit less cash, but...it doesn't.
Advantage: Allies slightly

c. 9 extra IPCs for USSR that doesn't even appear in Pac40 only but in Global. Yes, in Europe, you get the 2inf rule from Novo, but it takes you 9 rounds to just break even with what you start with in having the 18inf, plus you can now buy 3 inf per round with the extra IPC's so the Novo Euro40 rule doesn't quite wash out the extra 9 IPCs you get in Global.
Advantage: Allies slightly

d. The US makes $17 (+40 at DOW)- Pac 40,
$35 (+30 at DOW)- Euro 40
$52 (+30 at DOW)- Global 40

The bonus cash is toned down a little in Global (spread over 2 theaters) the problem is that in Global that $82 at DOW can be spent in either theatre. Players will tend to throw all the money into Pacific or all into Europe in a KGF or KJF strategy. $82 is a lot of cash to spend in one theatre. That's OK if the Axis can match that somehow by compensating that by dominating the other side of the board.
Advantage: undecided (as I think more playtesting is needed into further rounds).

Early Conclusions:

Although changes for Pac40 are good (I assume their might be some changes to Euro40 as well) they don't seem to mesh well with Global40 because of the mentioned issues. Global40 is truly a different animal than the individual games.

Some Ideas and/or Solutions for Global40 only:

Beef up the Alpha setup slightly for Japan in Global only-possibly with a few more mech inf (fast moving minor land units)- maybe starting in Japan- make that player move them out.

NO for the US should possibly be +20 (or +25) at DOW for Global instead of +30, forcing the US to be a little more resourceful.

Also, I think that the victory conditions for both Axis and Allies should be changed from "captured for a round of play" ---> "captured immediately". This helps Axis out a little more than Allies.

Also, for the sake of balancing issue- apply the "optional" German sub Convoy rule- 3 IPC convoy destruction per sub.

Still add 2inf for the UK on England to balance that Sealion assualt (It will still be German advantage but not as much).

Waiting to hear what you think Larry.

P.S.- Just to be a little more positive- Rule for captured ICs (majors downgrade to minors and damage info) is brilliant and very appropriate for Global only. :D

MarkVIIIMarc
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 4:12 pm

Re: SCENARIO ALPHA PACIFIC 40

Post by MarkVIIIMarc » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:23 pm

I think Global is pretty balanced. The attacker always needs a certain understanding advantage to win though. As I get more comfortable with the Axis I try the riskier strategies which lead them to victory.

***********
Sea Lion is cool but really weakens Germany, agreed. In real life the Germans felt out the possibility but never built the 8 transports on round two. In my last 5 player game Germany pulled off Sea Lion but because the UK discounted it not the big transport build up.

My math is Germany can have and probably feed 11 transports round 3 to use. That's 22 land units. With planning for Sea Lion and a decent France attack thats 6 tanks - 18 attack pips. 11 infantry - 11 pips, 5 art - 10 + 5 pips = 15. 18+11+15 = 44. Plus about 16 from some combination of your surviving planes for 60 plus an off shore shot or two.

England gets 2 inf there to start with. Should probably land a tank and inf from Canada. (Sure the Germans can send subs after it but then that is counting on good airplane rolls against the Home Fleet but it is only a 5 pip defensive gain vs a 6 pip attacker loss if you loose two more planes in the North Atlantic.) 3 fighters, 1 strategic bomber for 4+2+3+12+3=24.
They build something like 9 infantry UK1 for 18 pips
Build 10 units with thirty something bucks UK2. Lets say 9 inf and a tank - 21 pips.

Total defense is 63 + the AA gun.

The German build up weakens the eastern front.
My Germany numbers don't require anything too odd to occur in Europe.
The UK defense allows Italy to gain an upper hand in North Africa.
The UK looses two pips to each German hit while the first 11 UK hits only loose Germany a pip.

The sim I use says Germany wins 44%. Then America comes and the Russians attack. I really use the threat of Sea Lion every game I'm the Axis. There is a neat double landing trick Germany can do to landing that force in Scotland and threatening round 4 Sea Lion from two sides from land and sea. Your round 4 invaders ill be something like fifteen more infantry though vs another nine defending infantry, a definite winner (80%+). A British counter attack can defeat your force. Will take some luck for the Brits to counter and stop the round before they take Scotland though. Winning Scotland in that case looses London.

I have played that one with a six transport Germany and failed due to a lucky one round UK attack and withdrawl. Never with an eleven transport Germany.

My first though really is an all out Sea Lion England is a poison pill and the game requires the Axis to be more flexible.

Oakshield
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:45 am

Re: SCENARIO ALPHA PACIFIC 40

Post by Oakshield » Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:16 am

questioneer wrote:Beef up the Alpha setup slightly for Japan in Global only-possibly with a few more mech inf (fast moving minor land units)- maybe starting in Japan- make that player move them out.
I would just add that a 'not at war' NO for Japan would achieve practicaly the same objective without setup changes.
questioneer wrote:Rule for captured ICs (majors downgrade to minors and damage info) is brilliant and very appropriate for Global only. :D
True! An equally nice addition would be captured ports and airbases being damaged (as IL proposed as a house rule). This would prevent the US fleet sitting on a newly captured Gibraltar or Carolines and immediately threaten multiple Axis territories.

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Re: SCENARIO ALPHA PACIFIC 40

Post by Larry » Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:59 am

Questioneer

1. Sealion is unstoppable. Barring bad dice, Germany wins this 2/3 or 3/4 times.
However... This strategy has attracted more attention than I wanted it to. “unstoppable” it probably is. I mean a determined German player can pretty much dedicate his life to taking down the UK via a Sealion no matter what the UK does. There is a price to pay, however, and I think that is of course the Eastern Front. It’s really premature but if need be I think either something can be added to the UK’s initial defense. Not sure what that is but it would be a small tweak.

2. Sealion is risky. At least with the Global setup. In Europe, I think there will have to be a slight setup change or minor adjustment to even it out (like flip-flop the ICs in WGer and Germany or add 2inf to England). In Global its risky because...

3. US makes too much mula. $82 is a lot to spend in one theatre at DOW- within 3-4 rounds after DOW it is too overwhelming for the Axis. Again dumping the full 82 IPCs into one theatre is a risky strategy. I like that, as in sealion, it can be done, but at what cost.

4. Alpha set-up is OK for Pacific, but I think it takes a little too much away in Global. If Sealion happens in Global and US reacts to it. Euro Axis will be under too much pressure. This is when Japan needs to be a monster in the Pacific to offset that decision by the US. I don't think Japan can be that with this Alpha setup (although the original setup was too harsh on the Allies- something in between maybe for Global). Japan can't be that counterpunch also when it has tons of territories to slog through and 18 Russian inf are in the way. Well… if I’m reading this right you think Japan needs some additional help in the Global game. Perhaps you’re right. I’m asking folks to test this system presently.

Thanks Q... good stuff you're bringing up

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

Re: SCENARIO ALPHA PACIFIC 40

Post by calvinhobbesliker » Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:05 am

I'm not sure Japan needs more help. The 18 infantry usually fall back because they get decimated by Japanese ground and air, which is available if Japan waits until turn 4 to attack the west

eric2001
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: SCENARIO ALPHA PACIFIC 40

Post by eric2001 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:37 am

I have now had a chance to play 3 games using scenario alpha. (Pacific only, I don't own Global yet :cry: ) The first game was kind of one sided due to some Allied mistakes on the first turn, but the other two were both close and exciting. Japan won 2 of the 3 games as it took me several games to learn how to play the Allies effectively using the new setup. I think overall Japan played better in the two games that it won and the Allies played better in the game they won. I used the same opening move for Japan in all 3 games. It isn't necessarily a great J1 move, but I wanted to test something different than the J1IC or other strategies that I have seen other people testing. Feel free to ask questions where things are not clear.

Game 1

J1
buy 3 trans + 1 art

all warships from sz6 attack US ships in Perl Harbor
sz6 trans with tank + inf attacks Philippines supported by planes from the sz33 CV
sz19 fleet + sz33 CV attack the US ships in sz35
sz20 trans takes 1 inf to Borneo (and joined in non combat by sz33 DD)
sz20 CC + 2 bombers attack the UK BB
on the mainland, inf from Siam take FIC
all troops from Kwangsi + fig & tac from Kiangsu attack Yunnan
inf & art from Kiangsi + 2 tacs from Japan + Okinawa & Formosa fig attack Hong Kong
inf from Kiangsi + 2 fig & 2 tac from Manchuria attack Hunan
also took Chahar and Anhwe

lost 1 tac taking Philippines, replaced it with a fig from Japan
planes from all the other attacks land in Kwangsi

USA1
tried to defend W USA
bought 1 CV, added it plus the 2 fig in Hawaii to the sz10 fleet

China1
took back Yunnan with 3 inf + fig from Szechwan
placed 4 inf in Szechwan
wanted to wait to place everything in Yunnan till UK could bring the AA gun there. too many Japanese planes in Kwangsi for comfort

UK1
CC + DD attacked and sunk ships in sz43
took Sumatra with 2 inf from Malaya
moved rest of troops to Burma and Shan State

ANZAC1
bought transport + inf
took Java, moved the CC + DD there to protect the transport

J2
attacked and sunk all ships in sz10, sz41, sz42 and sz43 (only Allied ship remaining is trans in sz62)
took Malaya with the tank from Philippines
1 inf from FIC + planes attacked Shan State
2 inf + mech + planes attacked Yunnan

With no ships and a Japanese fleet in sz10 the Allies can't do much turn 2
Japan gradually pulls its navy back from sz10 to Truk
Japan buy lots of navy for several turns. That combined with heavy USA navy losses turn 2 forces the USA to keep its navy in W USA instead of Hawaii for several turns. With no pressure from the USA, Japan is able to focus on the mainland.

Nothing threatens Malaya so Japan can safely build a major IC there J3
Yunnan is traded back and forth, culminating in a large battle J4 where Japan loses 6 planes but China loses its entire army.
China falls J5 and India falls J7. After that Japan has more navy/air than the Allies and a higher income. Time for game 2.

Observation is that a bad first move by the Allies combined with Japan's initiative put the Allies in a hole they weren't able to recover from. Is that just because a J1 attack is high risk/high reward for Japan? Can Japan also shoot itself in the foot with a poor J1 attack or does having the initiative give them more opportunity to recover? Curious what others think.

eric2001
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: SCENARIO ALPHA PACIFIC 40

Post by eric2001 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:38 am

After blundering on turn 1 for the Allies in my first scenario alpha game I was eager to try it again and see if I could give the new setup a real test. Allies still lost but it was a good hard fought game by both sides.

Game 2

J1
buy 3 trans + 1 art

all warships from sz6 attack US ships in Perl Harbor
sz6 trans with tank + inf attacks Philippines supported by planes from the sz33 CV
sz19 fleet + sz33 CV attack the US ships in sz35
sz20 trans takes 1 inf to Borneo (and joined in non combat by sz33 DD)
sz20 CC + 2 bombers attack the UK BB
on the mainland, inf from Siam take FIC
all troops from Kwangsi + fig & tac from Kiangsu attack Yunnan
inf & art from Kiangsi + 2 tacs from Japan + Okinawa & Formosa fig attack Hong Kong
inf from Kiangsi + 2 fig & 2 tac from Manchuria attack Hunan
also took Chahar and Anhwe

lost 1 tac taking Philippines, replaced it with a fig from Japan
planes from all the other attacks land in Kwangsi

USA1
trying to defend W USA failed in game 1, so USA moved fleet to Aleutians. Bought tac bomber + sub. Put the bomber and a loaded transport in the Aleutians also to threaten sz6.

China1
took back Yunnan with 3 inf + fig from Szechwan
placed 4 inf in Szechwan
wanted to wait to place everything in Yunnan till UK could bring the AA gun there. too many Japanese planes in Kwangsi for comfort

UK1
Buy 1 sub, 2 inf and 1 art
took Java
CC + DD attacked and sunk ships in sz43
moved rest of troops to Burma and Shan State

ANZAC1
bought transport + inf
ANZAC lost its navy in game 1 trying to fight for the DEI so played more conservatively. Took Dutch NG for its NO and kept the rest of its ships in NSW.

J2 - J4
Japan pulled its navy back to the Marshall Is and built more ships in sz6. Fleet was eventually consolidated in sz6 and was large enough to keep the US navy from attacking sz6.
Japan continued to advance into China and again fought an epic battle over Yunnan on J4. There were more UK troops in Yunnan than game 1 and Japan lost 9 planes this time, but again the Chinese army was annihilated.
ANZAC took the Carolines, but mostly tried to avoid Japan's larger navy. Japan took Malaya on J2 and the DEI on J3. They again built a major IC in Malaya on J3.
After turn 1, UK focused on buying and sending troops to Yunnan to help China. This did make capturing Yunnan more expensive for Japan, but did not prevent or delay the fall of China (or India).

J5 - J7
China fell on J5.
The USA and ANZAC built ships but were hesitant to put them into harm's way. USA piled up ships in Hawaii which did force Japan to respond and defend sz6, but Japan had enough IPCs to defend sz6 and still buy tanks and mech to go after India. Japan's southern fleet in Malaya was also able to defend the DEI and keep ANZAC at bay.
India fell on J7.

The encouraging thing for the Allies was that for once they had more navy/air than Japan when India fell. I had played several other J1 games with the OOB setup, house rules, Chinese menu items, AFR and one other scenario alpha, and in every other game when India fell Japan had both move navy/air units and more income than the Allies. Allies always lost a few turns later. This time the Allies had a fighting chance with more units vs the Japanese greater income and better position.

J8+
Japan eventually did win. Even though the Allies had more total units on the board, they never had more units on the front lines at the beginning of their turn. Japan had two major IC (Japan and Malaya) vs the Allies having one major and one minor. Japan also had the advantage of one pool of money so they had more flexibility in unit placement. This enabled them to build up a force capable of defeating ANZAC's smaller navy while defending sz6 against the USA's larger navy. I forget exactly which turn the ANZAC navy was sunk, probably J9 or J10. So, it was an exciting game for 9 or 10 turns and left me feeling that the game could have gone the other way with a few better moves and/or purchases from the Allies.

eric2001
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: SCENARIO ALPHA PACIFIC 40

Post by eric2001 » Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:39 am

Allies finally win. I changed the way I played UK in game 3. Instead of trying to help China and go after the DEI I decided to help China and keep Japan from gaining a foothold in SE Asia. The specific goals were to 1) keep Japan from getting Malaya and 2) kill off ground troops anywhere in SE Asia. I fought a number of battles where UK lost more units between the attack and counterattack, but UK did keep Japan from holding Malaya.

Game 3

J1
buy 3 trans + 1 art

all warships from sz6 attack US ships in Perl Harbor
sz6 trans with tank + inf attacks Philippines supported by planes from the sz33 CV
sz19 fleet + sz33 CV attack the US ships in sz35
sz20 trans takes 1 inf to Borneo (and joined in non combat by sz33 DD)
sz20 CC + 2 bombers attack the UK BB
on the mainland, inf from Siam take FIC
all troops from Kwangsi + fig & tac from Kiangsu attack Yunnan
inf & art from Kiangsi + 2 tacs from Japan + Okinawa & Formosa fig attack Hong Kong
inf from Kiangsi + 2 fig & 2 tac from Manchuria attack Hunan
also took Chahar and Anhwe

lost 1 tac taking Philippines, replaced it with a fig from Japan
planes from all the other attacks land in Kwangsi

USA1
I again moved the fleet to the Aleutians to avoid destruction but moved the bomber to Queensland this time. With UK going to concentrate more on the mainland, USA and ANZAC needed to be smarter about how they fought over the islands. The idea was to put units like bombers and subs in a position to counterattack and force Japan to either sacrifice transports or capture stuff at a slower pace.

China1
China played the same as the other games for the first few turns.
took back Yunnan with 3 inf + fig from Szechwan
placed 4 inf in Szechwan
wanted to wait to place everything in Yunnan till UK could bring the AA gun there. too many Japanese planes in Kwangsi for comfort

UK1
bought 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank
I tried an idea I read on this board (sorry don't remember who's idea it was) to use the transport to kill off the Japanese ground troops in FIC. I used inf from India and kept all the Malaya troops in Malaya.
Still had CC + DD attack and sink ships in sz43
rest of India troops moved to Burma

ANZAC1
bought trans and inf
positioned fighters in Queensland and navy in sz62
having a navy base in NSW really helped the ANZAC strategy of picking their spots to counterattack because they bought a sub or DD or trans most turns (sometimes 2 or 3 ships). The extra movement for the new ships helped create some dead zones and opportunities to take Dutch NG and Java with the new ships.

J2 - J4
UK successfully sacrifices troops to keep Japan out of Malaya. Japan starts to feel time pressure, which hadn't happened in my previous J1 attacks. It used to feel like time was on Japan's side. This game they start to feel the need to take territory before the Allies grow too strong. Having their ground troops chewed up in SE Asia is partly the reason. Even though UK is losing more troops, Japan is not making progress in securing the key territories like Malaya. Japan builds a major IC in Hong Kong turn 3 this time. Less ground troops also meant that Japan did not attack the massive Yunnan stack on J4 and waited for reinforcements from Manchuria and Korea to catch up. This is a place where the reduction in aircraft helped the Allies. If I had 8 more planes for Japan I would have gone ahead and attacked the Yunnan stack. The Yunnan stack surviving turn 4 played an important role in the Allied victory. Because Japan was feeling time pressure they took several of the DEI with unescorted transports on turn 3 knowing that they would be sunk by the Allies. Japan needed the income boost.

USA4
took Iwo Jima and set up to attack sz6 next turn. trying to put as much pressure as possible on Japan to defend sz6 and stretch their resources

China4
Yunnan stack retreats inland. They have the AA gun from UK. No need to die J5. It's better to make Japan chase them around for a few turns and waste time that they don't have.

ANZAC4
Put 2 subs in Java. Japan loses 4 of its 5 IPCs of DEI bonus to convoy raiding J5 and J6.

J5 - J7
Japan bought ships and transports in Hong Kong to go after ANZAC but had to change plans and use them against USA. USA attacked sz6 on turn 5 and Japan lost all its ships and planes. USA took Korea. So instead of reinforcing the DEI on J6 Japan had to retake sz6, Korea and Iwo Jima. ANZAC is slowly building up. They buy a CV on turn 7 and have 23 IPCs after liberating Sumatra.
China continues to run, and accumulate troops, until it is cornered and its army annihilated on J7. Japan loses 5 planes and 17 ground troops in that battle. By surviving until J7 China has tied down troops and allowed UK to survive.
By USA7 the USA has built up another large force in Hawaii and is again threatening sz6. Japan is only collecting in the 50's due to ANZAC convoy raiding and then taking back Java on ANZAC6, so Japan simply does not have the resources to both effectively hold off the USA, fight on the mainland and fight for the DEI.

J8 - J11
Japan makes one last attempt to take India and retake the DEI. Buys mainly tanks and mech in Hong Kong J8 and fig in Japan J9.
Japan reaches its high water mark J9 after retaking the DEI and collecting 67 IPCs. Japan comes close to taking India. India's IC is bombed J9 and J10, and an army makes it to Burma J10. The attempt fails after UK makes a preemptive strike into Burma and then ANZAC finishes off the Japanese force with an amphibious landing in Burma. Japan has virtually nothing left besides the forces defending sz6. They are not able to stop the Allied advances. Philippines fall USA9. Java falls ANZAC9. Sz6 defenders wiped out USA11. Yunnan liberated UK11. Borneo liberated ANZAC11.

Japan did a good job limiting UK's income with convoy raiding and bombing, but never had enough to finish them off. It took too long to finish off China and Japan didn't have enough IPCs to fight everyone.

Allies played too aggressively in the early turns game 1 and lost quickly. Allies played too conservatively in the middle turns in game 2 and lost slowly. They finally found a good balance in game 3 and won. Since Japan is going to make gains in the early turns no matter what, it seem to me that to be successful the Allies need to know when to sacrifice units and when to pull them back.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests