Not at war non-combat movement for USA

Yes, it’s in the FAQ.

http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AA_Pacific_1940_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf

@Sir_Cala:

Can the US park ships in Sea Zones 7 and 16 next to Sea Zone 6 that contains the Island of Japan?

Yes; those territories are not adjacent to a Japanese controlled territory. However, that leaves the US navy very vulnerable to a Japanese attack, especially fighters on carriers because they have nowhere to land if the carrier gets damaged.

@Lozmoid:

Hey guys, I am trying to put together a list of notes for Pacific 1940 for ease of gameplay purposes, and I’m currently revising the Conduct Combat phase. I think the step sequence for this phase should like something like:

**1. Enemy scrambles Fighters/Tactical Bombers

2. Enemy announces Kamikaze attacks (Japan only)

3. Strategic Bombing Raids

4. Amphibious Assaults**

5. General Combat

Do I have that all down correctly? Is there anything I’ve forgotten? Just want to make sure everything’s covered.

Any help would be very much appreciated.

It would be simpler to identify (4) as all naval combat, as that will need to preceed any amphibious assault to clear a seazone.  Additionally, as amphibious assaults can be paired with a overland assault, so it makes more sense for (5) to be all land combat.

However, it is completely up to the player as to how they run combats, as they may want to base retreat patterns on the results of a single battle, which they may want to run first, and that is always the attackers prerogative (assuming if it’s an amphib, they run the naval combat in that seazone first), so (4) and (5) can be switched around in any order.

Also, per the letter of the rules, 1 and 2 occur at the end of the combat move phase after attacker moves are finalized - not at the beginning of the combat phase.

Thanks for the clarification, my friend was trying to argue that we couldn’t bring bombers into the sea zone just in case he wanted to scramble.

Yeah that would be hilarious to screw your teammates cause one forgot to bring beer over, which means as playing as the US I would buy infantry and anti aircraft guns to protect Alaska and my crab fishing grounds.

It might help to clear up some of the confusion by stepping though an example.

Assume Japan meets the requirements on a previous turn to allow Kamikaze attacks.

Assume sz17 has 1destroyer and Iwo Jima has 1inf.

Lets say the US attacks sz17 with 1CRZ, 2AC (1AC has an ANZAC 1fighter on it as cargo because nations may NOT attack together, only defend together.) and 1trn with units for the Iwo Jima assault.

Lets say the US declares an amphibious assault on Iwo Jima with 1 transport w/2inf, 3ftr which all have 1 movement point left to move in noncombat and land on 2AC in sz17 during Mobilize New Units Phase.

In phase 2 (Combat Movement) of the US turn, the US moves his units and declares his amphibious assault.

When phase 2 is done, and before phase 3 starts, Japan announces 2 Kamikaze attacks on 1Ac, 2 Kamikaze attacks on the other 1Ac with ANZAC 1ftr as cargo on it.

Phase 2 for the US is done, over with; the US player may NOT change their moves.

Japan must declare how many Kamikaze attacks they will roll for. They can’t roll, then check for hits, and roll some more.

Fighters are already flying at the start of Combat Movement, they do not move with the AC, they move separately, and land on the AC at the end of noncombat.

Before phase3 for the US starts, the 4 Kamikaze attacks are rolled.

Let’s say Japan gets 1 hit on each AC. (if there were 2 hits on 1 AC, then the AC would be removed at this time.)

Now start phase 3…Conduct Combat!

US attacker rolls for 1CRZ @3,2 damaged AC @0, 1 loaded trn @0
US gets 1 hit.

Japan chooses 1DD as a casualty, and rolls @2 for a miss.

With the sz17 now clear, it is now amphibious assault time and the US wins that battle and takes control of Iwo Jima.

Phase 4 Noncombat.

Oh no! The US has nowhere to land 3ftrs, the 2AC are damaged, and the fighters are lost to the sea and removed from play.

On the ANZAC turn, his 1ftr may not leave the damaged AC.

On Japan’s turn, aircraft are sent to easily destroy the stuff in sz17 (1Crz@3, 2damagedAC with a fighter that is stuck below deck @2, 1trn @0), the 3ftrs from before are no longer there and 1 is stuck below deck.

Conclusion, the only planes involved with Kamikaze attacks are planes from other Allies below deck as cargo. The rest of the planes have to deal with whatever happened.

Japan would have loved to Kamikaze attack the transport, but the rules do not allow that.

Japan could have Kamikaze attacked the 1CRZ and, if successful, prevented the amphibious assault because there would be no way to clear the seazone (AC attack @0, transports attack @0).

Why did the US bring in the 2AC, when it could have moved them there during noncombat? I don’t know.  Rules do not prevent bad play. This was an example of what happens, not how one should play.

If US decides to build up in HAW seazone, your aircraft are useless for a complete round (or more). Because you can’t fight that seazone (6 spaces). As US player I would just sit tight, build up and move to Japan via a northern route. Or go to Indies via southern route (Australia). Or build up TR with loads of cargo to take out Carolines. For every fighter it costs Japan it costs an inf for US.

And I think it will be a very dull way to play, or am I mistaken?

Japan needs to do two things on their third turn if possible (assuming they didn’t fall into taking the bait), they need to take the Philippines and try and take Hawaii if possible.  This will deny the US the most income

Unless the US player is asleep at the wheel I dont see taking Pearl as a viable T3 Japanese goal. I agree that PI must fall on J3, but all the rest of Japan’s power should be pasting the Brits and Chinese. There is little the US can do that early to make any impact on Japan or her econ without risking catastrophic US casualties. Given that, Japan should spend her time and force on overwhelming overkill on the Brits and Chinese. Once they are dead, the game is effectively over unless the US is in serious positions to overturn the Japanese econ (unlikely from what I can see).

I do agree that the Brits have to do everything they can to simply stay alive and force Japan to keep her airpower focused on land. I think that is going to mean investing a in a LOT of troops and maybe AA-guns. A few more of those floating around might give the Japanese pause about throwing 4 Bettys and 4 Zekes/Vals into the fray….

If possible, I think it would be understandable to bait Japan with a DD or an unprotected bomber or something.  As long as the US loses less than 40IPCs in the bait, they are fine cause they will get a net +.

Yes and no. If you can get the Japanese to jump before they are ready then maybe, but once the Japanese kick off, the Brits are going to lose both of their bonuses (assuming they got the 4 island one) and probably half their base econ as well. That goes a long way towards eating into that +40 for the US and frankly, as Japan I’d rather the US had the money than the Brits at that point. My goal as Japan is to keep every Allied IPC OUT of Asia as I possibly can.

This will reduce the combined income of the Allies by 20 IPCs.  Japan should be able to close the Burma road and take Hong Kong too.  Now the Allies have lost 30 IPCs.  Things look very balanced at this point.

Except that Japan still has considerably more disposable combat power on the board as well as FAR FAR FAR superior interior positions and coordination. To me, that is the real killer for the Allies at this point.