How to make Pacific Conflict historical

I think you first need to decide what the ships are for. Then you can build accordingly.

Are you planning a full scale invasion of Japan or just trying to sink ships to stop japans expansion towards australia or hawaii. Another strategy might be convoy raiding or island hopping across the pacific.

Depending on your goal you will end up with very different patterns.

In my most recent games as us i have bought almost entirely subs and destroyers and very few capital ships. The subs convoy raid while the destroyers escort my transports. I try to avoid a full scale confrontation foe as long as possible

I agree with Taamvan but in one game I did build an airbase in Shan State later in the game which helped to crush Japan. As it happened, Axis won in Europe in that game, rather narrowly. I think SZ37 had the USN parked in it, just with assistance from the UK.

@simon33:

I’m going to take that as meaning “You don’t have to, but it may be advised”. On that point, I’m happy to agree.

It’s 79% IIRC correctly of killing a 3ftr scramble and the BB with 3ftrs (2 from London) and no sub.

Yeah, that was my intended meaning. Your way of writing it conveys what I meant. I guess it all comes down to what you’re willing to risk percentage wise in that battle. Some people might be comfortable with something in the 80s, others might prefer a higher percentage.

The great thing about G40 is there’s never really a right or wrong answer. I’ve never looked back from the classic or even the revised editions once I tried G40.

Your point is good. The US are not properly represented. But maybe just giving the US the War Bond, Improved Shipyard and Increase Factory Production tech (All 3 when at war) could help to make the US more historical without breaking too much the game. I’ll try it in my next games.

I think the idea of smaller forces being effective against an attack is probably most valid when thinking about the USA navy in both the Atlantic and pacific. Having say three small navies in a “V” formation gives then the advantage of options should one be attacked, while having one large navy would be a stalemate for the most part in the Pacific and usually a loss there. In the atlantic it gives the Axis something to worry about, where a UK fleet parked in one zone can be dealt with quickly and decicivly an multi-zone fleet makes you wonder what he’s up to. Just look at all the resources needed by Germany R1 vs UK, and this is a relatively small fleet compared to what USA can produce.

Good points Gargantua.

I always leave my jap fleet off the Philippines. You can hit so many places. there is an already built naval and air base ready for you. it makes it harder for ANZAC to support UK on the mainland. plus if you build a second fleet in japan, this will split the americans attention, because then they will have to defend Hawaii, and attack you. also when i take dei i also take western Australia, anzac never have land troops there, plus it will cause them to spend more on land units instead of navy or air.

I think the best bet for Sealion would be to risk it by attacking both BB fleets(since the UK will also lose massive air) and building a CV, which adds 2 planes to coastal defense. However, the extra infantry makes it more costly than it was OOB.

I don’t think I’ll apply any change to pacific in the Global Game. And I bet I won’t be playing stand alone pacific '40 after euro 40 release, due to global playing.

But I’m sure I’ll like more the stand alone pacific 40 instead of the europe 40! So I guess I’ll apply the new adjustement only in the stand alone pacific.