I haven’t had a chance to play yet but I’m thinking this may elevate subs to the strategic asset they should be.  :-D

Thanks Krieghund.

You guess correctly.  Your transports need an escort when amphibiously assaulting an island with an airbase.

No.  Scrambling is done after all combat moves are completed.  You can only scramble in a sea zone in which enemy units end their movement.

I use the US fleet to build up in Hawaii (and position two DD’s in front of HAW seazone to prevent an all out attack) or Alaska.  Then Japan needs the larger part of its fleet to defend Carolines and other islands. By this time ANZAC has build enough subs to disrupt all southern islands.

That’s right.

@Razor:

@Frontovik:

attack round 1 on kwantung, put huge IC there
build 10 inf, and after those 10 keep building tanks and mech inf
move them to india through burma route and watch UK get kicked out of the board

No T1 attacks, please, its far too early. Just think about it, do you realy want USA to collect 62 IPC, UK to collect 37 IPC and ANZAC to collect 18 IPC when you still are on less then 30 IPC ?

You need to attack Kwangtung at the same time you attack Phillipines and Malaya. To do this, you will need to take control of FIC in T1, and then move your trannies into position for several attacks. In T1 you only have like 3 trannies. Your best opportunity to attack will be in T3, or maybe in T2. Not later, and not earlyer.

UK 37 is a huge lie

13 is more accurate, malay can be takes round 3
US + 40 is nothnig compared to what they lose
take kwantung with land forces :)

The big thing it seems to me with this map, is defending is much easier than attacking.  ACs are extremely defensive in nature and power, and airbases are extremely powerful on the defense.  Combine that with allies can defend together, but not attack together, and the idea would be to make the enemy come to you.  By the end of turn 2, the starting US fleet could be in queensland along with 2 ANZ destroyers and 1 sub.  Then on turn 3 the US can take/liberate Java with ANZ helping to defend, along with all the planes in Western Australia the allies can manage.  Japan can attack that fleet, and expose themselves to a counter, or leave it be to continue stealing japan’s income.  I think that will be the ideal way to go in this game as the US.  Also note, Java is 2 turns away from Japan, and granted 3 away from the US but that is the best spot in my eyes as anywhere else is only 1 turn away from Japan.

If Japan does not attack turn 1, with UK I would take Java and Dutch New Guinea with the UK transports and rally all allied boats into SZ 56 to support the US fleet.

The other thing I wonder, is if a sub heavy ANZAC would be able to harrass japan as the US can block and can opener to clear the way.  Granted with AN’s low income she may have trouble getting enough to be a threat but still an idea.

I guess Manchuria will be also an option in global game if non-agression pact is not the game

You need attacked neutrals joining some side or some short of “dungeon master” player that moves the neutrals. A dummie neutral that can only defend is a new edition of that joke I call ACME wall  :|

They are going to join some side or we would get neutral pieces … the other solution would be a victorious defending neutral would recieve magically its starting units after the attack. Also odd … the best and simpler solution is joining the whole neutral power to opposite side that attacked in first place

As for neutrals caring only for inner affairs, not true: you can take example on Spain, that was about to join axis in late 1940. Also South America, that probably will start neutral, needs some rule to join allies as they did in real world. Switzerland needs some monster defense or simply being impassable or we are going to have it invaded all the games as TripleA AI does  :roll:

Does that mean it’s thinkable (I know it’s not logical, smart, wise and/or strategic at all) that UK & ANZAC are not going to war during the hole game?? When USA attacks, Japan can retaliate without provoking UK & ANZAC . Correct?

Paint me orange? :x

@Omega:

and Anzac has some fighters right? If so, you will need fighters to defend the bomber

yah, and it would be easy enough to bring in some infantry and perhaps an AA gun as well.

@Gargantua:

Just use RED bombers from the first Pacific as Tac bombers. The scale is right, and it makes distinguishing them in the field ALOT easier.  Helpful, considering they are a new unit, and to be effective require alot of movement Maximization.

As for Complex’s I was just going to use old ones. and paint some with RED paint, or put a RED chip under the Major complexes

you can also use 6 RED fgt’s in Japan from original pacific for Kamikazies.

NO cutting, and NO cost involved.  Unless you weren’t a REAL fan, and didn’t but the Pacific copy that had red pieces.

Great Idea, best idea next to the minatures.  I’m going to bust out my copies of the Old Pacific.  Thanks Gargantua!!!

They could have been made like the city pieces in the game civilization shown here:

Hawaii on round 1 is a pretty dicey proposition.

With no shore shot hits, the odds are about 20% of taking the Island.
If one shore shot hits, you are at 41%. 
If two shore shots hit, you are at 76%. 
Yes, you can get a third shot, but I would count on three hits. 
This assumes that you attach the Islands with all three transports including 3 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 tank (max 5 units since you only have 1 at Caroline)
Bottom line is that you need to be fairly lucky to take Hawaii round 1. 
I think the payoff is huge, but I can’t reccomend building your strategy around something that has such a high chance of failure.

If you fail badly (brick) then the counter attack could be pretty ugly.  The US has 8 planes that can reach along with 5 ships.  That is 13 total units.  You have (If I recall correctly) 15 total units that can reach, including 6 carrier aircraft.  You will likely win.  However, since they will be getting a check for $62, they can afford the losses, but you probably cannot.  You gained nothing on round 1 except a few territories in China.

Too much of a crap shoot for my tastes.

Im a little disapointed I bought a game that needs “corrections”
Ill kick, ill beg, and ill get 50 points of negitive karma to voice my opinion that these corrections come down from the heavens differently

However. When they do, I will abide by them. Because thats why there are rules.

@ShadowHAwk:

Im from accross the bit piece of water we call the atlantic ocean.

And wondering. If you can go to court over things like putting your cat in the microwave or having hot coffee from the MCdrive would it not be possible to go to court over this. You gave this game to your son and he was so exited to play it over Xmass and now your whole Xmass was ruined because the game was faulty and could not be played.

Just wondering.

You need to contact Gloria Allred

@Razor:

And people think I am bad ?

No comment.

@Variable:

I know we always ask this question but, how long does each turn represent? I thought on theatre level games it was 3 months or so. The reason I ask is if US attacks on turn 3, isn’t that well before Pearl Harbor? Or did I mess up my math…

It’s an abstraction.  A turn can not and does not reflect any actual measure of time, just as the map doesn’t have much bearing on actual scale.  It doesn’t take 6 months to a year to cross the pacific, just like it doesn’t take the same amount of time to go from Washington DC to LA as it does to get from Italy to Czech.  It can be implied that two rounds might possibly amount to a year, but it’s still an abstraction applied after the fact to comply with the amount of time the war actually lasted.

As far as US3 is concerned, imagine what would happen if Japan had no timetable to work against for more than 3 turns.  China would be completely crushed and they’d have more than enough time to position against the UK/Anzac with no fear of any sort of retribution as they wouldn’t attack until they were ready (as the US couldn’t actually do anything besides stack unless japan provoked them by attacking the UK), and I know that as japan, if the US wasn’t coming in until round 5 or 6 or whatever I’d do my best to make sure the UK had to make the first move.

The setup is supposed to loosely symbolize actual arms power and position in 1940 and from there time and actual position diverges rapidly.  It’s not a historical reinactment.