Suggestion to force allies to play in the Pacific

[kemal81]

You don't have to force me I love crushing the Japanese in the Pacific. However, in 1942 since the set up is such that the UK loses basically all its navy on turn one Russia has a difficult time holding on against an unhindered Germany.

Yeah that's the attitude. We are Americans (at least I am) and we just don't run away from the Japanese after what they did in Pearl Harbor. We go out there and avenge it. Can you imagine USA did the same thing in the real war and left Pacific? Japan would call them what a bunch of pussies. I don't mean to offend anyone btw. What we play is only a game. I am only talking about what would happen if it happened in the real war. Most of the time even I leave the Pacific.
And especially AA1942, I dont think USA can stay in Pacific since Germany destroys almost all of the UK atlantic fleet and makes for them very hard to rebuild it with U-boats and Luftwaffe keep attacking them.
I also want to clarify for those of you who disagree with the idea of forcing allies in the Pacific that this was more of my suggestion for new version of AA games or have it something optional for Revised. I think the games become more interesting the more they are similar to the actual war. Of course this is only my opinion.

[kemal81]

I have recently read the rules of AA Europe and Pacific 1940 which two of them can be combined to make the global game. In that version UK has to spend the money they earn from the Pacific and Europe theatre only in respective areas. They can't use the money they made from the Pacific theatre to buy units in London. So they are stuck to use this money to fight against Japan. Also there are new powers China and Anzac. If Japan is not chalenged enough Japan can take them out easily. This may force USA to fight in the Pacific, too. This will definetely make the game more histroric, and stop the cheap moves USA does and just move into Atlantic.
I haven't played this version so what I said here are assumptions. If there is nothing accurate about what I said, then please someone correct me. I would definetely want to play this version, and hopefully GTO can put this game in its global version here. I also hope that this version has a better setup, and it won't be disaster like 1942. Even I can't play in the Pacific in 1942, while in Revised if I am Allies 80% of the time Japan should expect naval battles from me.
Btw those of you who keep voting no for historical accuracy, I want to hear from you. Why are you so much against it? Are you also against 1940? Because I did say my idea was for a new version of AA game. 1940 didn't do it exactly my way but if they found another way to force Allies to fight in the Pacific, then I am okay with that, too. I don't care how it is done, as long as its done. This is why I asked also for alternative ways to force Allies.

[Saintmichael55]

like a few of you have said, in A&A42, no need for the US to even battle in the Pacific. with all 3 allied nations attacking Germany, the game can be over by turn 2 or 3, if you play it right. and japan has no time to get a force going in Russia that quick. it works, thats the facts of this game. i want that changed!

to force the US to play in the Pacific, how about making a victory city in Hawaii and/or Australia? and/or just make the game go by the real history of ww2, by making the allies take both Germany and Japan to win the game, OR making the US wait until turn 4 or 5 before it can enter in the Atlantic, OR make the US defeat Japan before it helps with Germany.

any rules like that would change the game big time! but i do understand that i'm not talking to Larry Harris here, lol, but i think a small change could improve this game greatly.

***i really want to play global 1940 on this site! i hope it happens soon!

[kemal81]

I haven't played 1940 yet either, but I read the rule book, and I think it will force the allies to play there. You have basically 3 powers there that you don't want to fall. China, Anzac and UK Pacific (India is capital of that). I know I am talking too early without even have played the game so that's why I need to be corrected if I am wrong about anything.
I don't blame Larry Harris, the way people play the game. I am sure he wanted that fleet in the Pacific to fight in Pacific. But we as players keep trying to find easy ways to win the game. It is not easy to set up a game as complicated as this. And the game designers make a mistake here and there, and players want to capitalize on those mistakes. They probably put the UK Indian fleet to encourage us to fight in the Pacific, what do we do, we sacrifice them to kill the lonely Japanese transport and then again USA runs away. Other mistakes I believe there are in the game.
Russia made little bit stronger so they can defend themselves better and we use that to attack Ukraine. As if Russia was capable of doing that at that time of the real war.
Germany can take UK the first round with tech on if you purchase few long range dice and get lucky with it. In real war UK had much stronger fleet in the Atlantic and Germany was not capable of doing that as long as RAF existed.
UK can take FIC the first round. Here is my opinon to that. Huh!!!?
Japan, does a second attack on Pearl Harbor?
And USA has no honor and they will pretent that 2500 of her citizens didn't die in Hawaii.
I know it is just a game, but at least the first round should be historically accurate. After that we can rewrite the history. I am really hoping 1940 has fixed all of those, maybe even Anniversary. 1942 regrettably has failed that.

I have one more question to the people who think allies should not be forced to play in the Pacific. If there is nothing wrong, why are we bidding?
Don't get me wrong I enjoy Revised, and I can take on Allies with all concentrated on Germany. The only thing is I believe the game would be alot better when it is more accurate.

[kemal81]

Other thing is you vote no that's fine but at least leave a comment why. So far No's are up 7-4, and there is only one comment from that side of the debate. Thank you dgss for leaving that comment.
If you only look at the comments, it makes one think that more people agree with the idea, while poll says the opposite.

[stevieejay]

I hate to give away a strategy that is pure domination. However, if the USA goes all pacific in 1942 they are unstoppable vs. japan.There is no way for Japan to compete and still make much headway in Asia. it puts them on the defensive early. a US navy (well balanced), AC, figs, BS, sub and lots of destroyers to take hits combined with air (bombers) is very hard to bet.

the problem is can the UK and Russia hold their own? They can hold their own by controlling Africa in the case of the UK and some good purchases and basically defensive play on Russia's part. if russia gets too ambitious or jumpy then that is a problem. Most German players do not put a lot of focus on Africa. if they do then the UK has a problem. they can overcome the issue it just takes longer. For the most part Germany cannot make significant investment in Africa and still make a run on Moscow.

The US can easily take on japan and thus control russia's Asian front. The UK can pester Germany with a swinging hammer of a fleet and hopefully secure Africa, take Norway and at least create some problems for Germany. the UK needs to either preserve its pacific fleet and bring it around the Horn rather then self destructing it in the pacific or to really create issues for japan send it all around the pacific and take Borneo turn one. the second option would only work if the allies knew they wanted to do a combined destroy japan strategy turn one. Even if the UK is lame they can assist Russia vs. Archangel and hold on for a second US fleet to be built in the Atlantic. The US can also afford to bomb Germany in an attempt to keep them in check.

The key to this strategy is not doing two things at once when playing the US. You have to go all out in the pacific and then shift focus once japan's paycheck is radically controlled. Or you all Atantic which is a totally different strategy. personally the US strategy of invading Africa works pretty well however, japan is unfettered and germany can basically ignore the africa issue and focus on russia. the US gets bottlenecked at persia and then has trouble going anywhere. An unfettered Japan in 1942 with no US opposition in the Pacific is very determental to Russia and allied control of Africa in the long run. once japan hits a 50 IPC paycheck you have major issues as the allies.

Playing the all out US Pacific strategy I have taken japan a number of times. I have also controlled many islands thus taking away a major source of revenue for japan. before japan realizes it they have major issues unless they invest in navy big time right away. Playing the US one must be willing to lose pieces in naval battles and build more to keep it coming. its not about preserving fleets its about advancing. as the US player you want to attack you in a naval battle and then bring more. one also needs transports of course to keep the stream to the islands and control the south seas. its a steamroller approach and is very successful. As long as russia builds wisely and with enough hitting power to control the German advance they only have to worry about one front and this also serves to uphold their IPC production.

[Wolfsnarl]

If you want an easy fix to make it 'more historical', make Hawaii a Victory City instead of Western USA, possibly with the addition of moving the India Victory City to Australia.

If Hawaii was a Victory City instead of Western USA, then Axis could get a victory in the Pacific under the standard 9 pt system without taking Moscow: the starting VCs plus Karelia, India (or Australia), and Hawaii. Also, if Australia was a VC instead of India, the USA would have to sail out to defend Australia (true to real life) instead of relying on USSR help to save India (not true to real life). In reality, losing Australia would have been considered a much bigger disaster to Britain than losing India. Also, Japanese domination of the Pacific (ability to take and hold Hawaii) combined with German domination of Europe (ability to take and hold Leningrad) could well have forced a negotiated settlement by the Allies.



Overall, it's hard to factor political effects into a military strategy game.

Japan was no real threat to invade the mainland USA, there is no way transpacific supply lines could bring anything close to a force which could match what the USA could transport overland by already established transportation networks to the west coast, not to mention the massive manpower disadvantage.

The main reason the US split their forces was because they couldn't very well focus all of their energies on Germany (which had not attacked the US nor was any threat to) while ignoring Japan (the country which had actually launched a surprise attack on a significant military base and inflicted heavy damages). It would be like if the US ignored Afghanistan entirely after 9-11 and skipped directly to focusing 100% on Saddam Hussein: the voters wouldn't allow it.

Other historical political considerations are also not present: Russia easily gives up Leningrad on turn 1 without a fight (real life: USSR bitterly hangs on for the entire war), other unstrategic/political refusals to retreat by Germany and the USSR don't happen, Japan & USSR attack eachother, and so on.

[sirprize]

I haven't played 1940 yet either, but I read the rule book, and I think it will force the allies to play there. You have basically 3 powers there that you don't want to fall. China, Anzac and UK Pacific (India is capital of that). I know I am talking too early without even have played the game so that's why I need to be corrected if I am wrong about anything.
I don't blame Larry Harris, the way people play the game. I am sure he wanted that fleet in the Pacific to fight in Pacific. But we as players keep trying to find easy ways to win the game. It is not easy to set up a game as complicated as this. And the game designers make a mistake here and there, and players want to capitalize on those mistakes. They probably put the UK Indian fleet to encourage us to fight in the Pacific, what do we do, we sacrifice them to kill the lonely Japanese transport and then again USA runs away. Other mistakes I believe there are in the game.
Russia made little bit stronger so they can defend themselves better and we use that to attack Ukraine. As if Russia was capable of doing that at that time of the real war.
Germany can take UK the first round with tech on if you purchase few long range dice and get lucky with it. In real war UK had much stronger fleet in the Atlantic and Germany was not capable of doing that as long as RAF existed.
UK can take FIC the first round. Here is my opinon to that. Huh!!!?
Japan, does a second attack on Pearl Harbor?
And USA has no honor and they will pretent that 2500 of her citizens didn't die in Hawaii.
I know it is just a game, but at least the first round should be historically accurate. After that we can rewrite the history. I am really hoping 1940 has fixed all of those, maybe even Anniversary. 1942 regrettably has failed that.

I have one more question to the people who think allies should not be forced to play in the Pacific. If there is nothing wrong, why are we bidding?
Don't get me wrong I enjoy Revised, and I can take on Allies with all concentrated on Germany. The only thing is I believe the game would be alot better when it is more accurate.

i agree with all these points however, in spring 1942, the war had already been going on for a little bit right? maybe pretend it is late spring or even summer 1940, then the historical accuracy needed is moot. pretend usa already struck back once, that the japan had time to build up, that the uk got more volunteers from india, that had built up some naval and air power and that russias stalin was just as mad as hitler and didnt care what he could afford (maybe accurate). besides, part of the charm of this game is the ability to rewrite history. perhaps if it was any more historically accurate it wouldnt be possible or maybe just slightly less fun for the axis to win?

in addition to not liking any downright forcing of tactics, i like the 24 victory territory idea, it encourages some manner of historical accuracy, while allowing flexability

[kemal81]

I don't mind rewriting history. I even said this before. I mean if we haven't rewriten history here, then there is no need to play because then Allies should win the game. But ignoring half of the actual war, that's a lot. And when a game says it starts in 1940 or 1942, it should be accurate up to that point. Revised starts in Spring 1942, and Russia is capable of taking back Ukraine, already. In the actual war 3 months later the Germans were in Stalingrad.
I read the rule book for Pacific 1940, and the rules made more sense. I really wish I have played the game so I could have better opinion. For example USA has to wait 3 turns to enter the war if Japan didn't attack them or UK or ANZAC. And when they are not in war, they have very low income.
I haven't read about Europe 1940, so I dont know much about it. I assume though Russia is also not at war at the beginning of the game.
Combining them gives the global war. Still no one out there who played this version can enlighten us more? I really would love to see the global version at GTO.
Btw I love Revised, but I also would like to see improvements. The name of this version itself means change or modification. This edition is an improvement of the Original version. I don't know about you guys but since I start playing Revised, the Original doesn't do it for me anymore. I thought that 1942 would have been better than Revised but so far I don't see that. When you compare Original and Revised you can see major changes, along with the rules. 1942 imo was rushed when it was designed, they just change the rules wout changing much on the map except with some few units. I know Anniversary has some major changes done, since now you have China and Italy, and 1940 has France and Anzac addition to that. Not to mention UK is almost two seperate powers as UK Europe and UK Pacific.

[kemal81]

People seriously its not that hard to defeat the Axis, when USA goes Pacific. Nor I find that it's easier to beat the Allies, when they go Pacific. The Pacific fleet moving to Atlantic is nothing but insult to this game. But really why some of you are so scared? I have annhialated the Japanese navy so many times even after they have destroyed my Pearl Harbor fleet with no loss on Japan's side, against players higher level than I am. The game is 50-50 whichever side USA goes. But when USA goes Pacific, the game becomes twice as much fun. Because that means there are some naval battles additional to land battles.

[Hitman95]

it is too easy now to go kill japan first... why make it easier??

[TexasToast]

it is too easy now to go kill japan first... why make it easier??

I know you're one of the best around, however: You've got a winning record beatin' Aeroforce, going Pacific?

[rockismyreligion]

it is too easy now to go kill japan first... why make it easier??

I know you're one of the best around, however: You've got a winning record beatin' Aeroforce, going Pacific?

It's not hard to beat a Pacific United States. You should have seen Aces in his Pac-USA heyday in early 2009.

Between two competent Pacific powers, the Pacific turns into a chess match while Germany runs amok. The real powerhouse of any good game is the German player who knows what he/she is doing. That is why KGFs are more common.

If the economics were tweaked a bit more, even in Global 1940 and Anniversary, the game might be able to follow some historical aspects to a degree.

[Sammog]

Japan was no real threat to invade the mainland USA

It's a popular theory that had the Japanese carried out a land invasion instead of just the single attack on Pearl Harbour the USA would have been so staggeringly unprepared for it that the Japs could have got half way across the continent.

--------------------------

The only time I've been "beaten" by a pacific USA was when they built up and moved up to attack my fleet and Japan the next turn and rolled super subs before they hit (I forgot about tech!). They didn't have enough to capture Japan afterwards and no amount of troops would have been successful at that stage given Moscow had almost fallen to Germany alone with japan therefore able to defend the mainland from any other odd attacks. So even when my fleet was annihilated I still ended up thrashing the USA player. I've lost a fair few games recently (well... 2 in a row... first consecutive loss in 40+ games ) but none of them have been to an allied USA pacific player. Without tech I just don't believe it's possible!

[Demandred]

Sam, I promise u its not only possible but feasible, and given a specific condition on turn 1, may be the preferable strat.

The key isnt so much how the usa does it, but how the other allies set it up for him.

Ive been having a lot of fun with kjf lately, id be happy to show ya