Preview Copies of 1940 Second Edition Arrived

Bear in mind, the land units on the transport only act on their Turn.

There were no changes to the treatment of neutrals in general, but the Soviet-Mongolian Defense Pact was added in the 2nd Edition.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

@AndrewAAGamer:

Our gaming group has come to the conclusion that some bid is needed to balance the game for the Allies.  In reading through the posts it seems to me that the general consensus is that the Allies need a bid of about 9-12.

My questions are:

Is a bid of 9-12 the current and reasonable amount?  As we will not want to bid for a particular side, we will set a certain bid point for each game and then let people choose which side they want to be as some Players enjoy playing particular Powers.  So what is a fair bid?

My group usually goes 10-15, some where in the ball park of 8 to 14 is what everyone does.

Is this bid added as starting income to be spent on Turn 1?

What Siparo said.

Is this bid added as units and money such as the Revised FIDA bid?

Never played revised, and what is FIDA?  Another government agency?

Is this bid added as units on the board with remainders as starting money?

Siparo doesn’t do it, but my group allows it.

For any units placed on the board are there any restrictions?  For example:
     a) Must have a unit already in the territory / sea zone?
     b) May not place more than X number of units?

My group has 3 rules:
1.  Must be one unit per territory/seazone.
2.  Can only be placed in a territory/seazone where you already have units occupying it.
3.  Can only be a unit that power has access to (china can be inf and art only).

I would appreciate your kind thoughts and comments.  Thank you…

@CWO:

@knp7765:

Yes, the Pacific 1940 2nd Edition uses the thick, heavy duty cardboard like Europe 1940. Not that thin stuff like in Pacific 1940 1st edition.

And as I recall, the roundels in the 2nd edition of Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940 are both printed on thick, black-backed cardboard.  In the 1st edition, I think one of the games had white-backed roundels.

You’re right Marc.

Fantastic!  Thanks Bob!

@Ashenduke:

@Young:

@Variable:

@spartan:

on the mediafire download for the complete rulebook the 3 player setup does not include France :?

Sorry about that! I must have done something screwy there…

No, That was my bad. I left it off the original. If it turns out that thats the only mistake on the whole document…… not too shabby.

It looks like a mixup of the 3 & 4 player setups. France is listed for the Russian player and British for 4 player.
“Three Players: Player 1: Axis powers / Player 2: United Kingdom and ANZAC / Player 3: United States,
Soviet Union, and China
Four Players: Player 1: Axis powers / Player 2: United Kingdom, ANZAC, and France / Player 3: Soviet
Union and France / Player 4: United States and China”

Fixed it, can anyone spot any other errors?

Yeah, I read that thread and decided to implement it. It’s working so far. I like having a quick reaction force from Germany to intervene in Africa if need be. I don’t have very strong forces in the former french territories and I’m about to rectify that situation. My opponent is obsessed with regaining the UK right now (has already failed twice) and sees Africa as a sideshow. I see it as a potential door to the “soft underbelly” of the Axis and am a bit disgruntled with my lack of defences in the region.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.