We need an allied playbook.

With what? If they, attack both squares and you don’t scramble you’ll only have 3ftrs  a bomber a dd and a cruiser. That can’t take down 5planes and ships.

@Dafyd:

I think that any question when we are trying to improve our skills is a good question…especially if we are really trying to learn.  The Hessian and ShadowHAwk are right.  The key to the Pacific are the two power fleets of Japan and the U.S.  The U.S. must go after the Japanese fleets.  Carriers loaded with planes are very important as well as the subs and detroyers.  As a side mission and with the permission of your Soviet ally, land troops in Siberia and help take back Soviet territories from the Japanese if they have begun to starve out the Soviet Far East.  It takes resources from the Japanese and can alter the attention of the Japanese player a turn or two if they are interested in defending Korea or pressuring the Soviets.

Good stuff here.  I’m a fan of 3 part attacks on Japanese fleets.  As an example:

Japan leaves a chunk of its fleet in SZ42 (off Java) for whatever reason.  They’re not worried about an attack because America doesn’t have the fleet off of Queensland to come after them.  What I’ve done in those situations is attack with the American ships, then follow up with India planes and Anzac ships/planes to finish them off. You’ll lose your American ships, some India planes and Anzac ships/planes, but if you wipe out half of the Japanese fleet it’s brutal for Japan because, as dominate as they can be, they can’t afford to lose too many major pieces.  America can lose a mini fleet and replace it; Japan cannot afford to be spending multiple turns rebuilding its fleet.

If we’re talking about just one ship in a sea zone carrying just one or two units, there’s not much potential for confusion.  If we’re dealing with a situation in which a large number of transports in a single sea zone are carrying a large number of units, the simplest solution would be to keep all the transported units physically off the board and to represent their presence on the board via one or more markers.  This is basically the principle of the task force markers that were used in the original A&A Pacific game.

There would be two basic approaches.  If you consider the transported units to be a single group, all you need to do is plunk the sculpts into a pile off the board and to put a small marker – anything would do – next to the group of ships transporting them.  If, on the other hand, you want to track in detail which-unit-is-aboard-what-ship (so you can figure out what troops and equipment get lost when ship X gets topedoed, for instance), then you’d need to put a little numbered (or lettered) marker next to (or under) each ship, and a corresponding marker off the board next to each unit or pair of units being transported.  Scrabble tiles could be pressed into service in that role, as one possible quick-and-dirty solution.  For a more elegant, you could use HBG’s cardboard naval task force markers, of which it has a wide selection.

In any case, this would fix the transportation problem without having to replace the ships themselves (or until replacement ships become available, if you want to look at it that way).

bump… :-D

Go back to SCHOOL Degrasse, nobody wants to hear what you have to say.

Oh wait… I guess I was the one who asked… :P

looks around

I bet it’s in the pacific manual too, or the original pacific Alpha.

@Guru03:

My brother always beats me in the 1st round in A&A and i dread playing because of that. Can you give me some good allies and some good axis strategies to help me win?

One thing you might have failed to realise is that the Allies are supposed to suffer heavy casualties in the early war, and then progress into winning in the long run.

Think of the axies as the school bully who pushes the young allies around. Then in the long run the Allies go to college and become CEO of Goldman Sachs and proceed to dick on the over-cocky axies. If the Allies give up in the early stages, well they will never win, whilst if they stick to their guns and make the good investments and minimize their loss, they win in the long run.

theRocmonster,

You are correct that if Germany builds a carrier, destroyer and submarine on G1 and brings in some planes to scramble from Western Germany it is very hard for the British navy to drive them from the sea on UK1.

The German assault on England via Sea Lion on G3 is not automatic. They have to successfully complete two strategic bombing raids and repel the British navy on Uk1 with little or no loss to their air force. But you are right, if they do, they only face 16 Infantry (on average), 1 Artillery, 6 Fighters (assuming they lost none in interceptor duty), 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Bomber, and 4 Anti-Aircraft Guns. The Germans will bring 22 ground troops, 5 Fighters, 5 Tactical Bombers and 2 Strategic Bombers. Even with the Anti-Aircraft Guns the Germans should roll over the British.

But I don’t see any way to stop Sea Lion. Unless the game designer intended for Sea Lion to be a weak strategy because of the removal of the German NO for London and the new rule allowing Russia to invade if London falls.

I just have not played any games where London fell under the new rules so I don’t know how the Russian offensive strategy will play out vs Germany and the Balkans on R3. As soon as I do, I will let you know.

It is an interesting idea, but your explanation points to why your solution may not work.

Here is the jist of your suggestion, I think.

The USA has lots of CVs and BBs because they can afford it.  They are using them to soak hits because they have so many, so lets add a modest repair cost to stop that.

Here are my thoughts:

The problem is that the USA is the only power in the game (most of the time) that will shrug off the repair costs.  So you may actually make things worse for Japan in particular who would be much more affected by paying those costs.

Also your suggestion that a 1 IPC will deter a player from willingly taking hits from their capital ships right away is a bit confusing.  The next cheapest option is to lose a 6 IPC sub.  So a 1 IPC cost isn’t really going to change things.  But as was pointed out earlier, Naval bases are quite pricey as is and the need to pull back a damaged fleet is still a bit of a deterrent.  I think I’m OK with the rules as is.