Best way to divide a three player game.

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

@mastermind93:

If I remember correctly, you can’t build a Major IC in a foreign territory. I do agree, though, on the importance of the Caroline Islands.

I think originally it was allowed. If not, i’ve been had ;)

No only minus 2.  So if the IPC value of surronding territories was 6 the sub would only subract 2 IPC.  It would take 3 subs (2x3) to subtract all 6 IPC.  Now if there were 4 subs in the sea zone (2x4=8) the nation would only lose 6 IPC because the value of the territories only equal 6.

@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.

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.

I think it was obvious that it was a misprint on the map. There is only a little snippet, the second I saw it I knew that was not right.

You are off topic, guys

I will be buying online after Christmas. As for supporting my local game store…They want 90 bucks for the game. Amazon wants 60. I would happily pay 90 or more for a reprint of anniversary (which I missed out on) but based on what I have read online this game, while it looks like a lot fun, isn’t up to snuff with no IPCs, a lack of pieces, and rule book that is filled with errata and misspellings.  The main reason I am considering this game is to combine with upcoming europe (I don’t think a reprint of AA 50 is really coming based on posts here and at WOTC).

I have good collection of navy minatures which might help with the lack of tac bombers…not really sure yet.