Quick Question

When you’re close to taking Sydney as a final VC, u’ll find yourself producing over 90 IPC’s hehe… The trick with the US is to destroy Japan’s Navy piece by piece. This allows Hawaii and Sydney to be safe from a Japanese invasion wich denies them victory. U’ll find that the caroline islands are also very important. This gives a 1-turn passage into mainland China where you can almost land anywhere and create a gap in that japanese front (or, even better, if the japanese player built an IC, to take it away :)), and please land before India is captured.

Disregard the first post, I need to update for the new SE set up and rules.  Something of sufficient quality with both rule changes and setup should be stickied for those who bought AAP40 earlier.

@cond1024:

It is an issue on the Europe side, where one sub can affect the income of two separate powers boardering the same sea zone.

You can actually do that in Pac, I think.  Canadia is Brit money, no?

Welcome to the ranks of posters, colonel.

Yes, Chinese units may move into (occupy) Kwangtung and Burma at any time, with no political consequences.

BoardGameGeek is a good place to upload files for sharing.

@calvinhobbesliker:

If you move a sub into a SZ with 2 transports, are you allowed to just kill 1 and retreat the sub?

No.  They are both automatically destroyed.

@Hellmet:

Thanks all for the quick answers!!  Just a point of clarity, I assume that the sub must fight or flee on HIS (the US) combat turn and NOT Japan’s.

Of course.

@Uncle_Joe:

Yep, harassing the DEI us the Anzac’s primary mission IMO. Your secondary goal would be to provide ‘kill zones’ around Australia where it would be costly for the Japanese to place their fleet. Subs and land-based air work well for that. This gives the US some safe havens near critical areas from which to attack.

Remember that you dont have to do everything alone with each country. If the Japanese move down towards Australia it might be time for the US to pounce. And often they’ll lose their whole fleet. But if they weaken the Japanese to the point where the Anzac’s can mop-up, it’s worth it. And the sooner the better. Japan has a lot of areas to protect and to do that, she needs a fleet. If you can trade out your own fleets and air for the Japanese ships at even a slightly disadvantageous rate it’s well worth it.

I think it was the biggest leap for us when we came to grips with the fact that in order for the Allies as a whole to win, each individual nation had to make what appeared to be bad moves. The thing here is that Japan can kill anything she wants, but she cant kill everything she wants. So if you put enough out there to pee in Japan’s pool, some of it will go unanswered (or else Japan will stretch quite a bit and risk heavier losses).

I agree with Uncle_Joe’s post above.

We had one game where the Japanese had split up their fleet in the DEI. The US kamikazied their at start fleet into one of them, and then the British did same to the other (4 ftrs, 1 TAC, 1 BB, 1 CA & 1DD - loosing the ships, but not all the planes).

Next game, the Japanese did the same kind of move, but kept their fleet all together. This time the US kamikazied it’s at start fleet + bombers in on it’s turn, loosing everything, but chopping the Japanese down. Then the British attacked with the same force above, and cleaned up the left overs. Potentially, the ANZAC player could have continued attacking on it’s turn had there been the need.

I’m used to the double whammy, but in this game, you can actually get a tripple whammy if you’re smart about it.

Thanks, not really a big deal.

I’m now somewhat curious about the reasons for the “under protection” wording.

Why not just:

Dutch like power whose capital is controlled by enemy
except UK/ANZAC can take control

If UK/ANZAC provokes war, Japan is free to attack the UK/ANZAC and take Dutch territories, without bringing the US into the war.

That is awesome, I just did not realize that they had already gotten past the preliminary stages with AAE40.