I know a number of people take issue with Ottawa as a VC.
Here’s my two cents:

@calvinhobbesliker:

I don’t think the Axis need to invade North America to win.

IMTO as long as this statement remains true, I don’t have a problem with VCs being in North America.

Conversely, if a successful Axis lodgement in North American does not spell Axis victory then I think the game needs fixing… most likely by putting VCs in North America.

Personally, I cannot imagine FDR and Churchill shrugging off the Nazis taking Montreal as long as Warsaw or Hong Kong was in Allied hands.

#593

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

I think your first situation is correct but I’m having a hard time understanding the benefit of the second situation, unless I’m misreading it. If you are engaging in combat in the sea zone and the coastal territory (with the SZ the only access point to the territory), why wouldn’t you just bring the transport along with the naval attack to assist in capturing the territory?

If the blocking ship was not on the coast (one sz out), you could kill him in combat and move transports in during non combat to off load them onto the  coastal tt you just took. Assuming that you indeed did take the coastal tt by other means.

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

So let me get this straight, in sea battles, you can kill an enemy blocker ship (destroyer) in the combat phase and move your fleet past that SZ into the next SZ in the non-combat phase assuming that none of your fleet is engaging in a combat move. Is this correct? If so this really changes things for me in Pacific…

Yes that is what I was referring to. You can kill the enemies ships in combat (using just a few ships or planes even). Then in noncombat move into the cleared sz (1st move) with your ships that where not involved in the battle. Then (2nd move) to the coast to off load your transports on to the coastal tt you also took during combat. Of coarse the 2nd sz could not be hostel. You can also do this to join two of you fleets together. It doesn’t come up to often, but in P40 it could be useful to both the allies or Japan (especially when you consider NB).

Yea I made a banking program for my ti-83 graphing calc. All I need to do is enter the numbers for spent Ipcs and collected ipcs. It will even keep track of the total ipcs spent and recieved. If I had a USB to calc cable I would post here but I don’t.

@calvinhobbesliker:

When you download it(have you?), it’s supposed to be its own program

I know, but something went wrong and the map files are also not saving right, like my laptop is the real douche.

I greatly appreciate you efforts here.  I think you should post these over at www.boardgamegeek.com.  Others have made charts like these; but these are by far the best I’ve seen so far.

Many thanks to help out with the subpar performance of WotC!

p.s. I will no longer be buying WotC games due to the lack of quality.

@Xayd74:

@calvinhobbesliker:

All Chinese units can move to Bruma at any time, even if the UK is still neutral

Calvin, I remember needing to verify this just recently. And your reply didn’t jive with what I recalled. So I’m looking it up again. The rulebook states the following…

“Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. While they are not Chinese territories and cannot be controlled by China, Chinese forces can attack Axis units there and occupy them, but the IPC’s generated go the United Kingdom (unless India is under Axis control). These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can occupy.”

The phrase “can attack axis units there and occupy them” suggests they can only enter Burma to attempt to retake it (from the Axis) on behalf of the UK. I suppose it then becomes a matter of what the word occupy actually means. From a wartime perspective, I think of the word denoting an occupying force that previously invaded and has now established control. So I think of the Chinese as invading Axis controlled Burma to occupy it, on behalf of the UK.

If occupy simply means to exist in, I wish the sentence was worded differently to establish that it is not a cause and effect relationship.

Here was the question in the FAQ:
Two Quick Questions:

1.)  If UK / ANZAC are not yet at war with Japan, can China Enter Burma / Kwang during its non-combat movement?

2.)  At what point can the US capture a Dutch territory?  Only after Japan has occupied it?

Thanks in advance

Here was Krieg’s answer:

Yes.

The US can take ownership of Dutch territories only by capturing them from Japan.

Here is the thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16870.45
Replies #47&48

@Xayd74:

So you’re right. Scrambling is for islands only.

I don’t know the acronym VC. I see on the acronym thread there’s a CV for Cruisers. If memory serves, I had 4 cruisers and 2 BS for bombardment options. By Japan’s R3, the US and ANZAC fleets were, together, noteworthy, but not yet in position.

VC = Victory City

Ok, so you have 6 ground units plus planes going up against atleast 10, more like closer to 15, plus an aa gun, and maybe some of UKs planes.  Rock on, that is a good trade for the allies to make.

Let me put a little disclaimer on my ‘advice’:

If, at any time, your UK planes can die by landing in a territory and not take down atleast 2 japan planes for each one you loose, or a japan transport, DO NOT LAND THEM there.  Also, if you can hold India with the planes, but not without the planes, LAND THEM IN INDIA.  I assume a certain level of common sense to be applied.

@UN:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@UN:

Did you also put in the 10 Chinese infantry?  :?

yeah. Keep in mind that japan had 8 more planes than the allies.

I still call it luck. Grumble

I have a question. I think, since Japan has no navy at ALL in the Dutch East Indies I can have ANZAC send its submarine fleets to disrupt convoys there. But I’m not sure exactly how convoy disruptions work. It said it can’t exceed the combined IPC value of all adjacent territories or islands in the disrupted sea zone.

So if I had 4 submarines in SZ42, the most amount of IPC I can destroy is 19 IPCs (3 from Malaya, 4 from Sumatra, 4 from Java, 4 from Boreno, 3 from Celebes)?

Z42 only borders Java, so you can only disrupt Java for 4 ipcs

Who cares?! Yoper was actually giving useful factual info about the game!! thats a HUGE deal. I think you scared him off….dang. I wanted to hear more about the Med. Does Italy have an adequate navy?

I use:

transport - TT
strategic bomber - bmb
cruiser - CR
submarine - sb

I’m not saying that attacking later is the way to go (I think capturing India on turn 3 is unstoppable and the way to win), just saying that it was the intention.

With a bid, I would likely attack later.

The global game it would probably be an issue as well.  I would think the intention was to get rid of blockers.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@finnman:

@Funcioneta:

New Zealand should continue the fight after Sydney falls, but capital sacking rules and that silly non-island ICs rule don’t allow that (as much, it should be “no ICs for Dutch East Indies”)

Its sounds like this an easy house rule fix.

I think the No Island IC is historical, since most islands don’t have enough resources to build a factory or the things within. Besided, ANZAC can’t afford an IC for NZ, it’s better spent on 3 artillery or mech.

But you could buy 4 Infantry then, instead of only 3 Artillery.

3 Artillery=12 die points
4 Infantry= 12 die points

But in the end you get more hits all together, and Australia do not need an extra Artillery.

You can’t buy 4 inf since ANZAC only has 1 minor factory

These new IC rules are confusing.

Dude, the IC chits HAVE THE NUMBER OF UNITS YOU CAN MOBILIZE THERE PRINTED ON IT!

Grandpa you need a nap, your tired and cranky.

@finnman:

@calvinhobbesliker:

I don’t know if it’ll help. Let’s say they take Sydney and also assume they took every mainland australian tt. Then, they would make 93 ipcs to the US’s 55. No need to continue the game

If they take Hawaii, they make 84 ipcs to the US’s 54 and ANZAC’s 15. No need to continue there either, when they have a 15 ipc lead

The most popular strategy I’ve seen involves a major complex in malaya and then pulling your navy onto Australia. Wouldn’t this give lots of time to attack japan with your navy and fortify Hawaii

Yeah, that’s kaufschick’s strat and why he think it’s broken. I’m not sure how he deals with threats to Z6 when his entire fleet is at Singapore. i guess he thinks they can Delay until Sydney falls

@SAS:

NOs represent political/economic conditions that have no strict military basis and so don’t “naturally” fit in the military game mechanic of A&A.  The Japanese people would have gotten a great morale boost from taking over a critical Allied city like Calcutta, Sydney, or Honolulu.  The Allies don’t get a boost from holding them because that doesn’t boost morale or give any sort of economic or political advantage from keeping those cities that they already had.  The Japanese would have had a great political playing card if they had been able to capture any of these cities.

Exactly.  What he said.

@whitem8:

@katfishkris:

according to the erratta, phili should have a naval and air base, and new zealand should not have a industrial complex, and the IC in australia should be a minor one.

i did not know these things till i read them here, and it was tough to convince the guys i play with that this is how it was supposed to be, but after we started playing with these changes, it actually worked out well.

Ok, help me with this one fellows. What do you mean by ERRATTA?  I will have a tough time convincing my brother this is true, as our rules do not say that, and are there other things that this ERRATA has that are different from the rules that came with the game?

You can direct them here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/pacific      This is the game company website and has a link to read the FAQ. The FAQ is where the errata is located.

For Japan:
SZ 6(obvious)
SZ 35(central location of Japanese Empire; can reach Queensland, Burma, Japan, and Carolines.
SZ 33(Easternmost base; threatens Hawaii and Sydney and protects japan
SZ 37( Can reach India and most of Australia from here)

Allies:
SZ 54(This is the NB where both ANZAC and the US threaten the DEI and the Phil from)
SZ 26(US, on the way to Z54, threatens SZ 6 and SZ 33)
SZ 63(Can still reach java, is further out of reach of Japan, and can be protected with scramble)

Welcome, theSonalsorises!

No.  UK still controls Malaya.  If Japan captured Malaya, then another Allied power recaptured it while Japan still held India, that power would then control Malaya and could build an IC there.