Best way to divide a three player game.

@themightyyamato45 SZ35 (phillipines worth 2ipcs)Once its been convoyed for 2 ,there’s no need to roll more dice.
Sometimes you have to convoy when you don’t want to.I’ve had to convoy London just before a sealion invasion,thus reducing the amount of ipcs I get from sacking UKs capitol.

Glad you can play with your boys. Lucky man!
Merry Christmas , Worsham.

@cressman8064:

Another idea to add to this tread is to play Pacific1940 with every nation having the “Improved Shipyards” technology. This technology will be included in the global game anyways, but by giving it to every nation in the Pacific only game it turns out to really help the allies. If you havn’t heard, this technology makes all subs, transports and destroyers -1 IPC, and all crusiers, Aircraft carriers and Battelships -2 IPCs. Since the allies generally will be building more ships to counter the Japs, it allows America to build up faster but at the same time also gives the same advantage to Japan if they choose to go for heavy naval builds.
I played a game testing this change and I as Japan still performed a massive Jap1 attack. America built destroyers and crusiers like they were going out of style and while Japan was mopping up the DEI and India America was threating the rest of the Pacific and Japan herself with massive fleets. ANZAC was also able to build 2 subs from turn 1 and they can become a real thorn in the DEI.

I really like this idea Cressman. While the OP’s idea could work if Allies weren’t allowed into the USSR, it’s simply too complicated for me, as I already fail to follow a rule or two. :roll:

However, Cressman’s idea could work, as the Allies have strength in what they BUILD, and Japan has strength in what it already HAS. A bid could work too, though.

@finnman:

@calvinhobbesliker:

I don’t know if it’ll help. Let’s say they take Sydney and also assume they took every mainland australian tt. Then, they would make 93 ipcs to the US’s 55. No need to continue the game

If they take Hawaii, they make 84 ipcs to the US’s 54 and ANZAC’s 15. No need to continue there either, when they have a 15 ipc lead

The most popular strategy I’ve seen involves a major complex in malaya and then pulling your navy onto Australia. Wouldn’t this give lots of time to attack japan with your navy and fortify Hawaii

Yeah, that’s kaufschick’s strat and why he think it’s broken. I’m not sure how he deals with threats to Z6 when his entire fleet is at Singapore. i guess he thinks they can Delay until Sydney falls

@allboxcars:

@Autarch:

Though I do question starting Siam under Japanese control….

I imagine this will change with the Global game as it depends on what happens to France.

#501

I’m not talking about FIC. Siam had a favorable view of Japan’s opposition to Western Imperialism and their diplomatic assistance in settling border disputes with France, but was not interested in becoming part of the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere. Japan landed troops there during the opening days of the war to secure passage into Malaya. Realizing there would be no help from the west, Siam negotiated a truce and allowed Japanese access to railroads, harbors and airfields.

Kiangsi and Kwangsi were invaded by Japan in 1938 but only in several small coastal pockets at that and were non contiguous. None of these territories should start under complete Japanese control in 1940.

I agree that China/ANZAC seems to work best as the 4th player.

I will point out the obvious: players should be planning their next moves during the other players’ turns. (and refining them as the situation changes. i.e. the Jap player moves a DD during non-combat to block your planned attack.)

When it comes to purchases everyone should be ready to IMMEDIATELY plop down the new units as soon as their turn begins. Very rarely should someone have to think what to buy in a 4 player game.

The disadvantage of more than 2 players is lack of coordination between the allies. The knock on the original game is that it was a 2 player game masquerading as a 5 player game.

Yeah but it wouldn’t be any fun, don’t cut off your nose to spite your face, if you get what I mean.

@bigopfer:

You are totally right Plum, the game is not worth the money they charged. The map IS amazing, the gameplay IS really fun. But you nailed it with the boxes, paper money, IPC chart, cardboard pieces, lack of tac bombers. I mean, I paid basically the same money for this game as I paid for my copy of AA50 and this AA40 Pacific is missing lots of the quality that AA50 had.

Exactly!  I was totally content with how they presented AA50.  Everything was high quality and all aspects of the game and its components were top notch.  Totally worth the money I spent on it.

While this game certainly has some high quality aspects about it, (especially the game play, which is all that really counts in the end) there are so many small blunders it’s really frustrating.  The income chart is what gets me the most.  It seems like the day before they shipped the game out somebody realized “Oh crap!  We forgot income charts!” and then threw together the first thing they thought of and tossed it in the box.  I’m surprised they weren’t scribbled on a piece of notebook paper.