Things were changed in the errata.

I wouldn’t go to house rules as an option. Its a tough time for the allies, but you have to counter. If they build carriers, try building a bunch of subs. Their cheap to take hits, almost 3 to 1 cost of a carrier to dodge bullets. If you attack chances are you can ding the carriers and take out DD’s, and your allies can finish the job before Jap can fix them. Try to set up 3 fleets, all similar so if they attack one, you can counter a weakened Jap fleet with the other 2 before they repair. As for the Asian ground battle 3 IC would be tough. I’ve seen 2 and that was a bitch. It is easier for the UK if Jap has air, because its hard for them to protect newly taken tt. If they are dropping that much $ in tanks though ($6 a pop) like $40-$50 ipc they can’t be putting to many DD’ or other cheap ships into their navy making it more vulnerable IMO.

You can not build units at industrial complexes you captured or built in the same turn. (page 20, 1st paragraph)

So, they have to go to a preexisting location.

not being allowed to build IC?

As for me playing passively, my strategy is to be done with asia when US enters. I have a bit more of an ANZAC issue this way than when I go all out for the allies, but by neutering the UK and gaining all those IPCs from asia andthe money islands lets me go toe to toe with the US, and I find by forcing him to wait so long to play, makes him antcy to get to it, and thus make mistakes. My record is a bit better than 50% wins, obviously meaning this isnt the be all to end all strat, but it comes down to bad rolls for me means slower push in asia, then I am dead. Only once did I do so poorly that I conceded.

In case of an allies capital being captured: (Correct me if I’m wrong)
Say The Gilbert Isles are in Jap hands, along with India (UK capital). If the US liberates Gilbert, then on the US next turn (If India has not been liberated) the US can place an AB/NB there. Gilbert would (temporarily) belong to the US. If India (UK capital) is liberated, Gilbert and its new base would go back to UK. It would be the same for tt that are eligible for IC’s (say Kwangtung).

@Praetorian:

@Autarch:

IC’s are supposed to be gateways for new units. I always envisioned them not as factories but as major transportation terminus’ such as rail heads or ports where combat units were transported, offloaded then assembled for battle. There is far too much involved in building armaments and recruiting, training and supporting major combat formations for factories and other infrastructure to be built from scratch on war torn front line territory.

Thats a fair rationalization of what IC might represent.  However, I still think it doesn’t cut to the core issue, that with an IC on the mainland, Japan becomes too powerful.  The IC build is pretty much an automatic build at this point with my group (and I assume, others) because it eliminates so many of japan’s logistical problems (and those logistical problems are fun).

I guess a question I still need to answer is if Japan decides not to build an IC on the mainland are they shifting the balance of power too far to the Allies or does it (as I suspect) shift the balance more to the middle?

It certainly would make it more difficult for Japan. A major IC in Asia is more than twice as efficient as the same amount spent on transports. If your going to houserule this away, you better do something to (further) hamstring China and the UK/Anzac as well.

This is my first post in this very excellent forum.

My question is :
Is the kamikaze attack a defensive attack ?
As far as I read the rules the attack must be announced right after the Allies have moved surface ships ( not transports ) into a seazone with a kamikaze symbol.

One of my friends thinks it has to happen on japans turn since it is an attack.

If I am right does this mean that u can use the japanese kamikaze attack in a navalbattle where you are attacked ?

kamikaze is a result allied movement into one of the marked kamikaze zones.  it takes place on the allies turn.  as long as the criteria is met……

I think that you shouldn’t have to separate out your defending fighters from the SBR.  The entire escort rule is there to make it harder to SBR someone.
The only reason that I could see to NOT send your fighters up to intercept would be that you don’t want them getting shot down… but realistically they’d get shot down on the airfields anyways.
My point is that in order to SBR somebody you should really need to be in a perfect position to do so (i.e. have fighter cover) but having to select which fighters intercept the bombers and which defend the zone i think detracts from that alot.  Just because you can bring some ground forces with you to attack shouldnt mean that you can SBR at will.

I assume airbases and naval bases stay.
It only says china destroyes any industrial complexes it captures.

If Japan has to spend $ on fleet to counter USA and troops on mainland Asia Allies are probably winning.

Japan has to eliminate UK quickly so it can concentrate on USA. Defeat your enemies in echelon.

Going for ANZAC is a deadend. The IPC’s are just not worth it and your forces are now out of position to counter the other Allies moves.

Safest strategy for Japan is take India first then position forces on Truk so you threaten Queensland and Hawaii simultaneously.

Then again, I strongly advocate a J1 attack. Maybe someone has a more optimal strategy for a J3 attack.

@moompix:

They can’t hit the subs, or be hit by the subs. So, what would be the point?

just a question dude.  maybe some new thing with the whole “scramble” thing.

yes.  they can disappear in to the dark deep sea and only the almighty destroyer can find them.

@Razor:

@thenorthman:

LOL

I spend $100 to buy this game, you dont see me laughing, buddy.

I am laughing at you.

Plus why did you spend $100.  I got mine for $60.  LOL

Plus you actually act like your the age where some one else would of bought the game for you.

Sean

I stopped watching Spielberg projects after AI.

I did hold my nose and watch BoB after several friends assured me it wasn’t some leftist revisionist effort. I watched the interviews with some of the soldiers involved and when they only panned some of the inaccurate historic aspects I decided to watch it. I was going to do the same here until I read a recent Hanks’ interview where “he wanted to emphasise(sic) the way the Japanese had been treated by American soldiers” and “also wanted to have people say, ‘We didn’t know our troops did that to Japanese people’.” He then implied that same racial hatred of WWII soldiers was present in Iraq and Afghanistan today…

Yup. I’m done with this. Needless to say I decided to read Sledge’s book instead. Rather get the straight story from someone who was there instead of a revisionist retelling as seen through PC colored digital camera lenses.

Use the old Red Japanese A&AP Infantry for that - or potentially the old Yellow Japanese Infantry from A&A 2nd Edition.

Sounds like a good idea - care to post the full rule?

Thanks for the clarification

One of the fellows in our war gaming group has scanned the Rule Book and converted/combined the graphic files into a PDF file.  During the conversion some resolution was lost but it is readable and the size is manageable at 5 MB.  I have put it on a server I have access to for anyone that wants a copy.  This should suffice until an ‘official’ on-line Rule Book is provided:

http://www.nwglde.org/downloads/AA PAC 40 Rules.pdf

US got 17 IPC the first turn, and 22 IPC the next turns because of NO Phillipineas.

I still prefer the 1/3 carrier. But its not a major thing to me. I can live with 0/2 2hit carriers.