Which fleet combination is the best at sea?

These strategies are very helpful, but still China is such a annoying thorn to the Japanese player.

Never easy is it?

@Flashman:

Elbowmaster’s redundant site has a scan of the connector strip:

http://66.125.84.108/aaa/version/source/axis__allies_versions.htm

More stuff here:

http://www.wargamer.com/axisandallies/EUROPE/AAE-AAP-combined/aae-aap_combined_MAIN.html

Thanks for the links, Flashman.  They look like they will be very helpful.  I suspect that I might still make up my own set of rules, but they give plenty of starting points.

Wow!  I am flattered!  Thanks for the vote of confidence on the articles.  Really, I prepared the essays hoping to get more players interested in the game, so that I would have more opponents.

I still have 1 or 2 more essays ideas to finish but have been too busy to complete it.  I’ll try to get to the last ones in the next few weeks.

SS

I have played quite a few games of the original A&A, but not as many as I’d like to have played. Not sure if my game is some type of 2nd edition as it’s not nearby. I’ve only recently played Pacific, on my third game all against the same guy who had never played before. He did Japan first and it was over early. I did Japan and won, but there were touchy moments. I’m about to lose as the Allies after making a bad choice. So far I see some decent possibilities for variation in games. Just as in the original version I think that if a few critical battles and/or just different losses go one way or another then the actions by both sides often are forced to change. The reason I like A&A so much is the variation in what happens, so different from Risk which I’ve played tonnes of growing up, but not overly complex that a novice can’t have a good go at it and fun the first game. In all the games of original A&A I’ve played while there has been the natural similarities one gets with playing on the same board with the same victory conditions, I can honestly say I’ve never played a game that was the same as another. Always something different happened to make that game a little special. I hope Pacific works out that way, and I can see that happening, especially with more than one enemy player. So far I’m enjoying it.

I holeheartidly agree with you guys as to the importance of having New Britain as a Japanese base of operations, I have been burnt before as the Commonwealth when our Japanese oponent was sitting fat with a small stack of fighters on New Britain. Every ship that I tried to launch from Syndey was fried before I could even get into serious gameplay!

As a Japanese player, I must say that the Phillipines is also a very strategic place to hold onto. Having the Phillipines is a darn good stop when one is using the classic “shuck-shuck” strategy to end run India by the Malaya route. I have slammed Allied oponents hard before buy getting the Japan-Phillipines-Malaya-Indian Ocean troop route secured. With transports going up and down this route at will it is very easy to move massive amounts of screaming Japanese Infintry dudes into the Indian Ocean reasonably early in the game.

Off course, this is just me

Air cap does not stop subs.

ENDGAME

Once victory is achieved on a board, there is no more combat movement or resolve combat on that board. The victor keeps control and remains getting IPC’s for all territories gained. He also regains control for territories he owned at the beginning OF THE GAME. Also you may now non combat move into enemy owned territories and sea zones leaving mixed forces, for example if Japan won the Pacific game a American battleship and Japanese battleship may share a sea zone and do not ever resolve combat. You cannot non-combat move onto an enemy capital after a game is completed for that board. Example, Japan cannot drop of troops on United States or New South Wales. However if you took the enemy capital to win the game you keep control of it and the original owner and his allies may not non-combat move into it.