Possible fix for JTDTM and TTOG

[Doctor Strategy]

To attempt to fix this an the triple team of Germany (TTOG) and Japan tank dash to Moscow (JTDTM). The islands of the Pacific have to be revised to a value of at least 2 IPCs per territory definitely not for their GNP but for their stategic value in WWII. If they weren't significant,why would Japan conquer them and why would the US go to liberate them??? Why not just steam over to Japan and devestate them there and take Tokyo. Japan has an AC with one FTR and a DD in the Caroline Is. at the game start. Why? Caroline Islands is only worth 0 IPCs!!!!! Doesn't make sense does it. To adjust the cost of islands upward would mean adjusting a total of 8 IPCs for Japan. Remove one IPC from Manchuria, Kwangtung, and French Indochina. Yes, I know that they were important strategically speaking but for game balance and to deter JTDTM this needs to be done. They are worth 3 IPCs each and all of China only 4?? Lower mainland Japan to 7 IPCs. Lower East Indies and Borneo to 3. Raise Phillipines to 4 because there is a VC there and give the US a closer goal to go for. And just give Japan the other 3 IPCs of production to raise it to 33 IPCs starting income. This makes the islands worthwhile for the US to go for and stalls JTDTM as it lowers the territories that are involved in it.

Proposed Island and Territory Changes


Proposed value Net change
Japan 7 -1
Manchuria 2 -1
Kwangtung 2 -1
French Indochina 2 -1
East Indies 3 -1
Borneo 3 -1
Philippine Islands 4 +1
Wake Island 2 +2
Solomon Islands 2 +2
Okinawa 2 +1
Caroline Islands 2 +2
New Guinea 2 +1
----
+3 total IPCs to Japan

[Arzakon]

This would only hurt the axis for a few reasons. It would weaken Japan on the mainland by making ICs there nearly useless until India is taken and an IC built there, and India is very defendable by the british and russians if they try. America could still ignore Japan like they already do, Russia would be able to do moreso now that they arent being threatened from behind.

Japan would also only be able to build 6 units at a time in Japan until it built an IC (Useless on the mainland, turn 2-3 before they get one in India)

[Lt M Cotten]

I do not think that adjusting the IPC values up on all the island groups is the right way to go, I am not a supporter of the unjustifiable increase for Borneo, and East Indies in revised already. Japan conquered these islands for supplies, as in the East Indies, and because they could. No one was going to go to war to defend the Solomons, or Caroline islands. The Japanese Imperial Navy was having success while the Army was not and they used that to expand their area of influence.
Adjusting the values of these islands to ridiculous levels will not force a pacific campaign. The US only island hopped to regain lost morale after Pearl Harbor, and to minimize casulties while reducing the Japanese influence. If politics were not a factor the US would not have spent time liberating the Solomons, only islands that could be used as airbases to strike at Japan.
If you want to reduce the JTDTM then break up the territories in Asia into smaller ones, and make China the meatgrinder as it really was....

[Doctor Strategy]

This would only hurt the axis for a few reasons. It would weaken Japan on the mainland by making ICs there nearly useless until India is taken and an IC built there, and India is very defendable by the british and russians if they try. America could still ignore Japan like they already do, Russia would be able to do moreso now that they arent being threatened from behind.

Japan would also only be able to build 6 units at a time in Japan until it built an IC (Useless on the mainland, turn 2-3 before they get one in India)

Yes, it would make it more difficult for the Axis by making the mainland worth less not worthless. This then in your admission slow JTDTM. Japan did rely on qiuck strikes. I will edit my old post to revise it back to seven IPCs for mainland Japan. And instead give them a +3 increase to income.

[Doctor Strategy]

I do not think that adjusting the IPC values up on all the island groups is the right way to go, I am not a supporter of the unjustifiable increase for Borneo, and East Indies in revised already. Japan conquered these islands for supplies, as in the East Indies, and because they could. No one was going to go to war to defend the Solomons, or Caroline islands. The Japanese Imperial Navy was having success while the Army was not and they used that to expand their area of influence.
Adjusting the values of these islands to ridiculous levels will not force a pacific campaign. The US only island hopped to regain lost morale after Pearl Harbor, and to minimize casulties while reducing the Japanese influence. If politics were not a factor the US would not have spent time liberating the Solomons, only islands that could be used as airbases to strike at Japan.
If you want to reduce the JTDTM then break up the territories in Asia into smaller ones, and make China the meatgrinder as it really was....

Borneo and East Indies are reduced to 3. The changes I propose would be sinple to implement without getting a new board made. If AH revises the board, then those of us that paid $42 for it will be out our money as we would have to purchase a whole new game. Would you be willing to shell out another $40 plus dollars for that. The now +3 bonus to Japan's production may not make them as ignored as you think.

[Vollick1979]

The US doesn't need the money, i don't think raising the solomons to 2 IPC's will make the US player go all out Pacific.

[Attila the Wolf]

I don't think this does what you want it to do. It gives Japan incentive to hold it's islands and America some incentive to take them, but who cares when the strategy of rolling tanks on Moscow still works just fine? Japan isn't taking Asia for the IPCs, it's taking it on the road to Moscow. At least, if that's the strategy you're playing with.

[Lt M Cotten]

I think the idea is to reinforce the need for a Pacific campaign but I think this would be better served by VCs in HAwaii and Australia, as opposed to adjusting IPC values for the Pacific islands.

[Doctor Strategy]

The whole island group will now be worth a total of 20 IPCs. Is that not worth going for?? Maybe the US needs its income reduced to force them to go for something.

[Doctor Strategy]

I think the idea is to reinforce the need for a Pacific campaign but I think this would be better served by VCs in HAwaii and Australia, as opposed to adjusting IPC values for the Pacific islands.

Yes, VCs in Hawaii and Australia might help. The combination of boosting the territory values and new VCs together might make it worthwhile. Hawaii needs to be boosted in value also and also Midway. I don't like the idea that any nation or island is worthless. They still have something to contribute. Some of the poorest regions of the world. Ex) Africa still all have pt values assigned. It is because the islands are not valuable enough to interest anyone in keeping or fighting over. VCs may help toward that end but capturing a 1 pt VC in Hawaii. Where is the reward in that? Yes, I know you can win the game by taking VCs but a 1 pt one don't pay the rent.

[Doctor Strategy]

I don't think this does what you want it to do. It gives Japan incentive to hold it's islands and America some incentive to take them, but who cares when the strategy of rolling tanks on Moscow still works just fine? Japan isn't taking Asia for the IPCs, it's taking it on the road to Moscow. At least, if that's the strategy you're playing with.

Lowering Manchuria, Kwangtung, and French Indochina to 2 IPCs should theoretically help stall tanks to Moscow. As only two tanks can be built on any one territory now. Yes, Japan can still ferry tanks over but that takes longer. Imagine if tanks were 10 IPCs for only Japan, would players still be able to JTDTM? I imagine this will cause an uproar but may lend a little more historical impact to the game. There were only 6 Japanese armor for a reason. I feel that AH was going to impose stack limits like the original but changed their minds. Eight IPCs might be a more reasonable number. That would be a quick fix that would help balance the ahistorical nature of JTDTM.

[Attila the Wolf]

There were stack limits in the original A&A?!?

[series]

I think making America weaker somehow would be a very nice way to balance the game... perhaps have america start with 0 units since it was "Tragically unprepared for war", and perhaps use some form of the Axis and Allies Advanced Turn Order (which allowed America before Japan). I think that making america weak will give the japs a better target. Problem with raising island values, as said, was Japanese ICs would be useless.

But I voted Yes, because I think they would serve as a bit of a benifit. Not much though.

[Doctor Strategy]

There were stack limits in the original A&A?!?

Yes, you were limited to the number of a certain unit you had. Every side had the same number of each unit though. There were only three bombers thus you could only have three bomber squadrons on the board. However, you could still have as many as you want in each of the three stacks. You could not top off a new stack with a piece of paper with the name of the unit written on it. Of course there were less territories on the original map, so they probably did this for game balance.

[DocD]

No on this one. The islands are over priced as is. Changing the values to get the US to pay attention to them is not only ahistorical, but not needed. Placing VCs in Ausseyland and hawaii gets Japan to concentrate on something other than Russia, which gives the US and Britain something to concentrate on.
I would be more for increasing the Chinese values and lowering Central America than increasing the islands.

[Lobo]

DocS,
You kill the cancer and the patient with this one.

Your proposal would make JTDTM more difficult (because Japan will be weaker) but it would also makes it even more necessary (Japan will need a quick win). It also makes KGF more attractive as Japan will be less powerful as it races to Moscow and there is less for the Allies to gain in Asia. Australia & Hawaii VC would better accomplish your stated objective.

I think the only way to eliminate JTDTM is to split Asia into more territories and add VC to the Pacific. Since this will inevitablely hurt the axis a type of VP system, like the one used in AAP should be considered.

Results of your proposal:
1-The US can now completely ignore Japan. There is still no reason for Japan to expand in the Pacific as there are no VC and Asia still (and always will)offers more IPC growth. Currently the US puts a little effort into Japan in order to slow its IPC growth/expansion in Asia. With Asia worth less, there is absolutely no reason to put any effort into slowing Japan.

2-Japan has to push even harder to capture Moscow VC for the win before the Allies use their superior IPC production to crush the Axis.

3-Japan will probably fail in its attempt at accomplishing (2) because it will have gained fewer IPCs.

[Doctor Strategy]

Maybe the US needs Hawaii and Midway Island bumped up in value also to give Japan a prize to go for. The addition of a victory city in Hawaii will certainly help. However, just a victory city there isn't going to sway Japan from still going after Moscow. You need money to fuel the war effort. And Russia falling so that Germany is only doubleteamed is still paramount. In other words there still has to be a payday so you can expand your empire. VCs are great but one in Hawaii at 1 IPC don't exactly fuel the fire. Maybe they should have kept the economic win in the game. Then the Allies would be worried about defending every little territory.

[series]

Maybe the US needs Hawaii and Midway Island bumped up in value also to give Japan a prize to go for. The addition of a victory city in Hawaii will certainly help. However, just a victory city there isn't going to sway Japan from still going after Moscow. You need money to fuel the war effort. And Russia falling so that Germany is only doubleteamed is still paramount. In other words there still has to be a payday so you can expand your empire. VCs are great but one in Hawaii at 1 VC don't exactly fuel the fire. Maybe they should have kept the economic win in the game. Then the Allies would be worried about defending every little territory.
Yeah, I liked economic win. I still say, if America was weaker, the game would be much more perfectly balanced.

[Doctor Strategy]

DocS,
You kill the cancer and the patient with this one.

Your proposal would make JTDTM more difficult (because Japan will be weaker) but it would also makes it even more necessary (Japan will need a quick win). It also makes KGF more attractive as Japan will be less powerful as it races to Moscow and there is less for the Allies to gain in Asia. Australia & Hawaii VC would better accomplish your stated objective.

I think the only way to eliminate JTDTM is to split Asia into more territories and add VC to the Pacific. Since this will inevitablely hurt the axis a type of VP system, like the one used in AAP should be considered.

Results of your proposal:
1-The US can now completely ignore Japan. There is still no reason for Japan to expand in the Pacific as there are no VC and Asia still (and always will)offers more IPC growth. Currently the US puts a little effort into Japan in order to slow its IPC growth/expansion in Asia. With Asia worth less, there is absolutely no reason to put any effort into slowing Japan.

2-Japan has to push even harder to capture Moscow VC for the win before the Allies use their superior IPC production to crush the Axis.

3-Japan will probably fail in its attempt at accomplishing (2) because it will have gained fewer IPCs.

How would Japan gain fewer IPCs? Their production is actually increased by 3 IPCs giving them 33 IPCs per turn. This allows the Japan player to build a greater force or gain tech advantages with the extra production. As lots of people say a couple of IPCs doesn't matter to the US player, why would taking three total away from Japan's Asia holdings doesn't make the area worthless now. And not worth defending. In fact with an IC in Sinkiang and a little Russian help, the Americans and Russians may be able to throw Japan out of the Asian continent as the ICs will have equal production at two. In fact the Pacific is worthless to Japan to conquer as they own all of it except for Hawaiian Islands and Midway Island. Wow. They are worth a total of get this a whopping 1 IPC. Maybe the designers should have put more islands in there to conquer for Japan. There was Samoa,Fiji, New Caledonia, and Vanuatu for the US and British to have under their control. But alas they would probably be 0 IPC territories. The map needs to be rolled back to allow for something for Japan to go for. Maybe instead of territories having IPC values, whoever conquers or liberates them would get a one time IPC bonus representing looting or gratitude for liberation. This will be more accurate as every territory would be worth something or have something of value to take.
Each nation would retain their base income level unless their ICs fall. The IC territory value would be deducted form the base income. Taking fringe territories would then have no benefit as they don't matter much any way in most people's opinions. IE) The South Pacific is worthless for Japan to defend and for the US to waste resources to capture it. The whole IPC system needs to be revised to balance things out. Adding VCs just cheapens the whole meaning of victory. Did the Germans give up until Berlin fell? I took Hawaii, Australia, and Stalingrad now cower before my might. This would only give the Allies more incentive to fight harder and capitulate. IMO I don't care too much for the VC system of winning. AH caved and put them in to shorten the game for those that whined that it took to long to complete. It also makes sense for tournament play only, where you must play a lot of games in a limited amount of time. If you bought a Videogame and you finished it in about 10 hours wouldn't you feel cheated out of the $50 you spent for it. I think that most people would feel that way.

[Doctor Strategy]

No on this one. The islands are over priced as is. Changing the values to get the US to pay attention to them is not only ahistorical, but not needed. Placing VCs in Ausseyland and hawaii gets Japan to concentrate on something other than Russia, which gives the US and Britain something to concentrate on.
I would be more for increasing the Chinese values and lowering Central America than increasing the islands.

Yes, China is undervalued. If you make it more valuable, you give the Japanese an additional prize to use in their conquest of Moscow. Because it would fall surely under a little effort made by Japan.

[Doctor Strategy]

Yeah, I liked economic win. I still say, if America was weaker, the game would be much more perfectly balanced.

You may be onto something there Series. If the US were reduced in income they couldn't amass a large force to assault Germany and ignore Japan. So what if Japan takes Hawaii and Midway. I still get 41 IPCs. The US would then become a hungry dog fighting to get table scraps. While it is not historical, this would add greatly to game balance.

[series]

You may be onto something there Series. If the US were reduced in income they couldn't amass a large force to assault Germany and ignore Japan. So what if Japan takes Hawaii and Midway. I still get 41 IPCs. The US would then become a hungry dog fighting to get table scraps. While it is not historical, this would add greatly to game balance.
Well, heres 2 ideas to make US weaker:

#1: Start them with no units at all. After all, in 1942, USA barely had anything. If USA doesnt start defending itself right away, it will lose. Of course, Japan will need to be made so it will not be able to take many US territories on J1. I was thinking maybe get rid of any Japanese transports in range of US territories, or move them away.

#2: Spread out the IPCs! Make Brazil worth 6, Hawaii worth 6, Midway worth 4, Alaska worth 5, and etc. (These are just random ideas I'm spitting out BTW). I think that if the Japs will get a lot of income for going after America, they will, period. And America will not be able to concentrate on either theatre more than another in the beggining.

#1 may be a bit drastic, however, since Japan will probably take either Alaska or Hawaii on J1. If that can be prevented, however, I think #1 would work. Otherwise, spreading US income throughout the board could help make them a better target, otherwise the "fortress" which is "america" will constantly have 42 IPC. I was playing a triple A game once as the allies and the axis guy got Russia, then soon the UK (we were playing 100% victory). Soon he had everything but mainland America... yet I was making 36 or so IPC a turn! I figured, "What gives?", how can a nation clearly at a disadvantage have a 36 IPC income? Spreading the IPC would eliminate that crap. Making America get 30 IPC or sumthing would be stupid, but spreading the money out could really hamper America's strength, which is good. I say East West and Central USA should only be worth about 20 all together if possible, so that the Axis could wreak havoc without an invincible opponent. Maybe even make Greenland or Iceland or whatever it is worth something! Anyway, I'll seriously consider some of this stuff later.

[Doctor Strategy]

I agree with you. Hawaii needs to be adjusted upward as does Midway. Maybe take the 4 IPCs away from the US in Sinkiang and China. And make China a neutral territory. Since it can't be taken over and maybe it will silence everyone that complains China is weak and too easy to conquer. I don't think raising the values in China would be a good idea because then you give Japan even more incentive to go for it. Yes, mainland US needs a little reduction, as it is nearly impossible to take it out unless the UK and Russia are both eliminated.

[DocD]

Maybe the US needs Hawaii and Midway Island bumped up in value also to give Japan a prize to go for. The addition of a victory city in Hawaii will certainly help. However, just a victory city there isn't going to sway Japan from still going after Moscow. You need money to fuel the war effort. And Russia falling so that Germany is only doubleteamed is still paramount. In other words there still has to be a payday so you can expand your empire. VCs are great but one in Hawaii at 1 IPC don't exactly fuel the fire. Maybe they should have kept the economic win in the game. Then the Allies would be worried about defending every little territory.
Finally doc...something we can almost concur on! I agree with Hawaii going up one or two IPC's.
As far as the VC placement...I have to admit (having played half a game of joe's variant), that even with the extra VCs, Russia still looks like a nice juicy steak to the hungry Japanese.
Luckly though, the extra VC's gives Japan a way to help the Axis win without going to Russia. But the russian-drug is strong....must not....think..moscow...must go to the pacific ....for victory.

[Lobo]

"How would Japan gain fewer IPCs? Their production is actually increased by 3 IPCs giving them 33 IPCs per turn. This allows the Japan player to build a greater force or gain tech advantages with the extra production. As lots of people say a couple of IPCs doesn't matter to the US player, why would taking three total away from Japan's Asia holdings doesn't make the area worthless now. And not worth defending. In fact with an IC in Sinkiang and a little Russian help, the Americans and Russians may be able to throw Japan out of the Asian continent as the ICs will have equal production at two."
--Doc S

Sorry I misread your original post (it was late/early). I thought you were proposing reducing the IPC value of allied territories in asia. You're right, it would slow the JTDTM, but Japan would still put all effort into it. Even if you increased Hawaii to
5 IPC and Midway to 3, Japan would not go for it. It's a lot more cost effecient to take land territories than to take islands. As long as Asia is worth as much as or more than Hawaii/Midway Japan has no incentive to go for it.
The problem is the US can easily outbuild Japan.

I've played a A&A variant where the USA only received a small fraction of its income on turn 1. Then for each subsequent turn it received another bump up until it reached its full IPC production. That might help.

[Clausewitz]

The islands of the Pacific have to be revised to a value of at least 2 IPCs per territory definitely not for their GNP but for their stategic value in WWII. If they weren't significant,why would Japan conquer them and why would the US go to liberate them??? Why not just steam over to Japan and devestate them there and take Tokyo.

Well, after getting a bloody nose in the invasion of Tarawa (Gilberts) the US did, by and large, bypass islands. The exeptions were those islands with airfields which could be used to more effectively bomb Japan, and the Phillipines which the US felt honour bound to liberate. The Japanese were still in posession of many islands, including most of Indonesia, at the surrender.

[Black_Elk]

What if we implemented something like the changes mentioned above but with 2 slight changes:

1.) Give Japan an IC on Manchuria from the get-go (2 ipc)
2.) Give the US a tranport in Hawaii

Why?

1.) This would reflect the long time Japanese control over Chosen (Korea) and would allow the Japanese to hold onto the Mainland but with less chance of exploiting a JTDTM strategy.

2.) This might deter that anyoing and historically inacurate second attack on pearl harbor which many people still insist on running, while giving the Allies a chance to do a Little island Hopping earlier in the game

(P.S. I think Japan should remain at 8 ipc lest her building capacity be too weak to match the Allies. With the addition of an IC in Manchuria that would bring Japans starting production up to 10 equaling the W. US)

[pagan]

Do not forget to think about the consequences of a stall Japan strategy on Asia. Where japanese restrictions would only help the allies in that regards.

Going ASIA or PACIFIC should be available to a japnese strategy. Controlling the gameplay of a country is not good for the game. And you are controllign the gameplay when you create less-viable strategies. If both the ASIA & PACIFIC strategies are viable, then that is a good thing. there are counters to each by the allies.

This makes for STRATEGIC gameplay.

[Doctor Strategy]

I figured out a way to take 3 IPCs away from the US and it is historical. The US couldn't have Brazil's support at the start of this game in the Spring of 1942.

Axis Powers (signers of the Tripartite Treaty)

Germany
Italy
Japan

Co-signatories of the Tripartite Treaty

Hungary (November 20th, 1940)
Romania (November 23rd, 1940)
Slovakia(1) (November 24th, 1940)
Bulgaria (March 1st, 1941)
Yugoslavia (March 25th, 1941)(3)

Countries that were annexed by, or at war with, Axis Powers before World War II

Austria (annexed by Germany, "Anschluss", March 13th, 1938)
Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland annexed by Germany, October 10th, 1938)
Ethiopia (annexed by Italy in 1936, after the Abyssinia crisis, independence restored in 1941)
Korea (made a colony of Japan in 1910)
Republic of China (at war with Japan since 1931)

Allied Powers

Australia
Brazil (from August 1942)
Canada
France (4) and her colonies(5)
New Zealand
Poland
South Africa
Soviet Union (from June 1941)
United Kingdom and the British Empire.
United States (from December 1941)

Countries that were attacked, occupied, or switched sides during the war
(Most countries below had declared their neutrality before being assaulted. Note that countries already listed above are not listed here)

Albania (occupied by Italy April 7th 1939, by Germany September 26th 1943)
Belgium (invaded by Germany May 10th 1940)
Czechoslovakia(1) (Bohemia and Moravia occupied by Germany March 15th 1939)
Denmark (occupied by Germany April 9th 1940, Greenland occupied by USA April 9th 1941)
Estonia (annexed by the Soviet Union June 18th 1940, occupied by Germany September 5th 1941, re-annexed by the Soviet Union in 1944)
Finland (attacked by the Soviet Union November 30th 1939 and June 26th 1941)
Greece (invaded by Italy October 28th 1940, German occupation from April 6th 1941)
Iceland (occupied by Britain May 10th 1940, by USA from July 1941)
Iran (occupied by Britain and the Soviet Union, August 1941 to May 1946)
Latvia (annexed by the Soviet Union June 18th 1940, occupied by Germany June 25th 1941, re-annexed by the Soviet Union in 1944)
Lithuania (annexed by the Soviet Union June 18th 1940, occupied by Germany June 22nd 1941, re-annexed by the Soviet Union in 1944)
Luxembourg (invaded by Germany May 10th 1940)
The Netherlands (invaded by Germany May 10th 1940)
New Guinea (occupied by Japan, September 1942-August 1945)
Norway (invaded by Germany April 9th 1940)
Philippines (occupied by Japan, December 1941-June 1945)
Syria (occupied by Free French and British, June 1940-April 1946
Thailand (Occupied by Japan, declared war on the United States and United Kingdom on January 25, 1942)
Tunisia (Used by Italian and German troops to attack Egypt. Later occupied by Allied forces)

Supporters of the Allies

Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt(2)
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Iraq
Lebanon
Liberia
Mexico
Mongolia
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Venezuela

Countries that remained nominally neutral

Andorra
Ireland
Liechtenstein
Portugal
Spain
Sweden (with exception for the Winter War)
Switzerland
Uruguay

Brazil didn't even join the allies until August. I guess that the US couldn't get their money as they didn't decide to support the Allies yet. Aww too bad. You can check the history if you want as this info was obtained from an online encyclopedia.

[Doctor Strategy]

2.) This might deter that anyoing and historically inacurate second attack on pearl harbor which many people still insist on running, while giving the Allies a chance to do a Little island Hopping earlier in the game

(P.S. I think Japan should remain at 8 ipc lest her building capacity be too weak to match the Allies. With the addition of an IC in Manchuria that would bring Japans starting production up to 10 equaling the W. US)

Black Elk, the Japanese did indeed have their eyes on Hawaii, so they could bomb the mainland US from there. In fact:The Battle of Midway, fought in World War II, took place on June 5, 1942 (June 4 in US time zones). The United States Navy defeated a Japanese attack against Midway Atoll, marking a turning point in the war in the Pacific theatre. Fought just a month after the Battle of the Coral Sea, Midway was the turning point of the Pacific Campaign. Skill, daring, and luck all played a part. The attack on the island of Midway, which also included a feint to Alaska by a smaller fleet, was a ploy by the Japanese to draw the American carrier fleet into a trap. With the remaining American ships destroyed, the Japanese hoped to avenge the bombing of the Japanese home islands during Tokyo Air Raid, finish off the US Pacific Fleet, and perhaps even invade and take Hawaii. In addition, considerable academic debate has centered on whether Japan could or would have threatened attack against the US West Coast. Had the Japanese achieved their objective at Midway of a quick knock-out of the US Pacific Fleet, the US West Coast would have been substantially defenseless against the Japanese Navy. The remaining US naval ships were fully deployed halfway around the world in the North Atlantic. One academic camp stresses that regional conquest, and not conquest of North America, was the Japanese objective; another argues that is irrelevant, and that threatened or actual attacks on the US West Coast would have caused the US either to sue for peace, or divert military assets away from Europe, thereby at best lengthening the war in the European theater, and at worst allowing Germany to prevail.

And also Japan's production was weak comparatively. They only thought that Pearl Harbor would set back the US by about 6 months to 1 year. The Japanese were right because six months later they were getting beat back as they could not produce enough military units to hold onto their gains and to replace casualties and make repairs. Here is a link to historical production values.

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showpost.php?p=26098&postcount=1

[axis_roll]

These ideas were incorporated in the three expansion rules sets created by a gaming chain located in Chicago for the second edition of A&A.
===============================================
Each initially controlled island became worth $2. These additional IPCs were not represented in Japans starting income, which remained at $25. To counter those $8 IPCs, the US had the value of 4 territories increased by $2 IPCs. Alaska became worth $4, Midway $2, Hawaii $3, Central America $4. Again, these increased IPCs did not change the US started income level of $36. What this does is punish those who lose these territories AND reward those who take them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A production schedule was given to both Japan and USA. This was a 'forced' naval build up, as all the ships given were required to remain in the pacific theatre (so USA could not simply sail their free navy to the atlantic). I can not recall the exact schedule off hand, but it was something like:
rd1: Free cruiser (euqates to the revised Destroyer)
rd2: loaded carrier (there were carrier-based planes with a limited range of 3, reduced cost of $8 and could only operate off of a carrier)
rd3: transport
rd4: destroyer (no Revised equivilant)
rd5: carrier based plane

Again, if you didn't invest into the free boats, the other side could punish you severly.

[Black_Elk]

Black Elk, the Japanese did indead have their eyes on Hawaii, so they could bomb the mainland US from there.

Yeah you got me there, I think I had my timetables mixed up :D My argument for historical accuracy w/ Hawaii was never really very solid anyhow. It was more of an attempt to discourage what I've always seen as an unecessary risk for Japan's opening move. :o But still the additon of 1 transport doesn't make a second strike against pearl impossible

[Doctor Strategy]

These ideas were incorporated in the three expansion rules sets created by a gaming chain located in Chicago for the second edition of A&A.
===============================================
Each initially controlled island became worth $2. These additional IPCs were not represented in Japans starting income, which remained at $25. To counter those $8 IPCs, the US had the value of 4 territories increased by $2 IPCs. Alaska became worth $4, Midway $2, Hawaii $3, Central America $4. Again, these increased IPCs did not change the US started income level of $36. What this does is punish those who lose these territories AND reward those who take them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A production schedule was given to both Japan and USA. This was a 'forced' naval build up, as all the ships given were required to remain in the pacific theatre (so USA could not simply sail their free navy to the atlantic). I can not recall the exact schedule off hand, but it was something like:
rd1: Free cruiser (euqates to the revised Destroyer)
rd2: loaded carrier (there were carrier-based planes with a limited range of 3, reduced cost of $8 and could only operate off of a carrier)
rd3: transport
rd4: destroyer (no Revised equivilant)
rd5: carrier based plane

Again, if you didn't invest into the free boats, the other side could punish you severly.

Yeah Axis Roll, this sounds do able. However I got the feeling that a lot of people won't like the forced build as it takes options away from them.

[axis_roll]

Yeah Axis Roll, this sounds do able. However I got the feeling that a lot of people won't like the forced build as it takes options away from them.
This production schedule is GIVEN to each side at no additional cost.

[Doctor Strategy]

This production schedule is GIVEN to each side at no additional cost.

What did you have to invest to get the free units. Was it a 1 for one build? For example, if it was a DD build did you have to pay for one to get the free one and leave both ships in the Pacific fleet? If you just get free units for leaving them in the Pacific who wouldn't do it. If you don't have to spend IPCs in the Pacific theater, it still will allow for a full force triple of Germany.

[axis_roll]

What did you have to invest to get the free units. Was it a 1 for one build? For example, if it was a DD build did you have to pay for one to get the free one and leave both ships in the Pacific fleet? If you just get free units for leaving them in the Pacific who wouldn't do it. If you don't have to spend IPCs in the Pacific theater, it still will allow for a full force triple of Germany.
You would think that you can just throw away those extra US units, but in reality when used in conjunction with the altered IPC values described above, which not only encourages the conquering of enemy territory in the pacific but penalizes when you lose them (since they are not part of your base income), you almost HAVE to invest some into your fleet.

Giving Japan extra units to dominate the pacific to take advantage of these extra IPC countries not only would more easily tie up US units, but would give Japan extra $ to help maintain a front on Russia AND USA.

[Kaufschtick]

I dunno guys, but from what I've read on these boards, I think Axis_Roll knows his P's & Q's when it comes to Axis & Allies. I would take a serious look at what he's saying...

[pagan]

Forced play = BAD, LIMITED, STAGNANT, BORING, ...find new game...