Yes. At least the way we played it, if you ran out of time before you achieved victory conditions then you lost. I think if we did it again we'd give ourselves more time.
A&A Europe 1940
- Thread starter Crothian
- Start date
Crothian
First Post
How did it work out for ciountries like Americ and Russia that have to deal with the two fronts? Did players find it difficult to determine which side to deploy units to or how to build up armies? Were the axis about to get a descent amount of citeis were you think they might have been able to win if the game was played out completely?
To be honest, Russia felt almost no pressure from it Eastern front due to China holding back Japan. It was able to do this because Japan focused mostly on India. I think Japan made a mistake by not going after Russia and/or China harder. Russia, without feeling threatened by Japan, was able to hold off Germany on its Western front. While Russia never had enough forces to invade Germany it was able to keep a stale mate in Europe. Since the European theater was more or less secure, the US concentrated on the Pacific. By the end of turn two, the US was in position to threaten a Japanese landing. Japan was totally caught off guard by such a threatening US presence in the Pacific. Most of Japan's navy was heading towards India so Japan pulled back its air force to Japan proper for homeland defense. IMO, this was an over reaction by Japan. They needed that air-force for offense. Once they pulled back it was only a matter of time before the Allies would have won a decisive victory as production greatly favored the allies.
Last edited:
Like I said, I think he panicked. He was off balance and unwilling to change his original plan of grabbing the income producing islands and hitting the Indian fleet. The US was close enough to get to Tokyo on the next turn but they couldn't actually invade until Japan declared war. When he decided to go to war anyway, America attacked Iwo Jima (Japan being too well defended with its air power and smaller fleet to risk attacking directly).
With the use of Kamakazis Japan was able to hurt the American fleet but not wipe it out and the Americans landed troops in Iwo Jima (the Northern Japanese fleet was busy defending Japan itself). Then the N. Jap fleet (with air support) sank the American fleet at Iwo Jima. The Americans then counterattacked this fleet with bombers and wiped it out. Then the game was over. I believe America would have been able to hold Iwo Jima, or in the worse case at least trade infantry for Japanese air units, buying precious time for India and China.
Also by this time America had sent a token force to start taking back Africa, which would have disrupted Axis income in Europe. If at any time Russia looked like it needed help then America would have delayed the Japan invasion to build and send boatloads of troops to the European theater to put pressure back on Germany and Italy.
Basically, weakness in either Axis country's play means they can't win. America is just too able to exploit vulnerabilities in either theater.
Agamon
Adventurer
Japan focusing on India is a strategy that's been carried over from the original game. Britain had a problem fighting on the mainland because Germany would keep the British navy from reforming after destroying it the first turn. So Britian needed a landbound factory to pump out troops from and India was the usual suspect. So Japan tried to neutralize that. And whether they did or not was often the turning point of the game.
It's not really necessary to do that in the later iterations of the game (the later, the less necessary, I find). Sure, they can't ignore Britain, but Japan has it's hands full with China, Russia, and eventually the US. Focusing on India is not usually the best idea.
One thing I don't like about this Europe/Pacific game is how the US is allowed to amass it's navy one square away from Europe/Asia. It's like America has a leash on it neck and is straining at it to get into the fight. Not very historical. They should have to say within their own sea zones until war is declared.
It's not really necessary to do that in the later iterations of the game (the later, the less necessary, I find). Sure, they can't ignore Britain, but Japan has it's hands full with China, Russia, and eventually the US. Focusing on India is not usually the best idea.
One thing I don't like about this Europe/Pacific game is how the US is allowed to amass it's navy one square away from Europe/Asia. It's like America has a leash on it neck and is straining at it to get into the fight. Not very historical. They should have to say within their own sea zones until war is declared.
Similar Threads
