Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Axis & Allies Pacific 1940» Forums » Variants

Subject: Give Japan a Chance. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
rus kosits
United States
California
flag msg tools
clockwork victory conditions Variant:

Japan/Tokyo is no longer a victory city.

and the End of the ANZAC player turn, Japan receives 1 Clockwork Victory Point for every victory/objective city held. (these points accumulate, Japan may have 3 points on turn one, plus 3 more on turn 2 for a total of 6 . . .)

If Japan receives no points 2 turns in a row, they lose.

If Japan gets to a CVP total of 25, they win.

If japan falls, but the allies fail to remove the empire from the board in time, Japan may still "win"

Complicating / balancing variants:
Japan receives an additional 1 CVP if there are no Chinese military units in play.
Japan receives an additional 1 CVP if 5 or more allied territories were affected (allied income reduced) by convoy attacks.


is all of this just fixing something that is not broken ?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Ozimek
Denmark
Aalborg
flag msg tools
badge
Must resist M:tG. Boardgames are my methadone :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have only played 4 games so far, so my answer is based on limited experience.

With the current game balance, Japan has a fine chance of winning with "world domination" / 6 victory cities as per OOB rules.

Thus, I don't see any reason for the proposed change, with the current military and economical balance. However if you wanted to increase the relative IPC income of USA to a more historically "correct" one, then your proposed victory conditions might be very relevant. In fact they would be needed to preserve the playability of the game.

Edit: Typo fixed
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Low
United States
Mansfield
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That brings back all the problems of A&Aacific, the earlier version.

The clockwork theory assumes that the US would have bartered if things just went long enough. There's little sign this is the case.

Further, adding a bonus for focusing on China is a bit silly. Japan held the most economically valuable portions of China, and even then just barely because of the massive territory and population under gun. Taking more of China would not boost Japan's negotiating power. It would weaken the army more, and scare the world that Japan held such a massive landmass. Already, Japan's war in China, and its extension to Indochina, was already the reason the US imposed sanctions in the first place.

Equally ahistoric, and even harder to balance. It's an interesting thought, but I wouldn't go that direction.

Best,
-Greg
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rus kosits
United States
California
flag msg tools
I was inspired to propose this CVP system based on forums here that reviewed and debunked the western US conquest strategy- after getting a luke warm response to my Sydney on J1 idea.

I keep looking for the 6 objective cities for Japan, and cant seem to find them - should i be imagining a short game, a 3 turn victory for Japan before the US economy gets going, or a long term game with a sprint to india followed by a crawl across Australia ?

I have essentially ruled out Hawaii and Western US as viable objectives for Japan, as this requires counting on the USA player not being able to count up to 3 or recognize the shape of an anchor on a small grey chip.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
Wuerzburg
flag msg tools
mbmb
talrich wrote:
That brings back all the problems of A&Aacific, the earlier version.

The clockwork theory assumes that the US would have bartered if things just went long enough. There's little sign this is the case.

Further, adding a bonus for focusing on China is a bit silly. Japan held the most economically valuable portions of China, and even then just barely because of the massive territory and population under gun. Taking more of China would not boost Japan's negotiating power. It would weaken the army more, and scare the world that Japan held such a massive landmass. Already, Japan's war in China, and its extension to Indochina, was already the reason the US imposed sanctions in the first place.

Equally ahistoric, and even harder to balance. It's an interesting thought, but I wouldn't go that direction.

Best,
-Greg


Thats what I have learnt in history as well - and reading books about the historical situation between 1937 and 1945 underlines this statement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rus kosits
United States
California
flag msg tools
China Focus:

I was thinking that there should be some reward for the shifting political reality that would be created IF Chinese resistance could be reduced to zero: Essentially Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao are dead, and to some degree hope is lost - (again, if military mobilization in china can be eliminated) This is clearly ahistorical, but that is the "what if" that A&A is all about.

We could get into all sorts of political models - like china needs to flip a coin and call it in order to make an attack, but that is to much of a shift.

I am open to other ideas for CVP's for Japan - or maybe just giving japan 2 more transports to start might be what i am looking for . . . or a good Japan strategy.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Ozimek
Denmark
Aalborg
flag msg tools
badge
Must resist M:tG. Boardgames are my methadone :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ROUS wrote:
China Focus:
...
I am open to other ideas for CVP's for Japan - or maybe just giving japan 2 more transports to start might be what i am looking for . . . or a good Japan strategy.


I still think the game favors Japan, so I completely disagree about the need to "help" Japan.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Low
United States
Mansfield
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ROUS wrote:
maybe just giving japan 2 more transports to start might be what i am looking for...
I don't know about two more transports, but I do see their starting transport capacity as low given their historical rapid expansion. It seems the game is setup forcing the Japan player to build transports if they are to attempt to replicate history.

On the other side, I'd like to see fewer destroyers. It's a surprising number at the start. I'm okay with Japan deviating from history by building more DDs, but that should be a player decision, and less integrated into the startup. The Japanese were very vunerable to submarines disrupting their shipping (only mitigated by poor US torpedoes).

I make no claim as to the balance yet though.

Best,
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.