Actual AA pacific 1940 map pictures

@nubnumber1
Correct. The airbase rules only apply to the units on that land space - they do not apply to units in adjacent spaces.

@mastermind93:

Unless I’m mistaken, don’t AA-guns in 1940 only fire at a max of 3 enemy planes?

The number of AA shots is either 3x the number of AA,or the number of planes,whichever is the lesser. Right Krieg?

Is the definition of a garrison in Manchuria (one infantry) or must it maintain some combination more than that?

I simply used the money from one of my previous A&A games. I prefer it for when I have left over from the previous turn.

I can’t say for sure, but my understanding is the ships are much larger and will have difficulty fitting.

@Brain:

@BadSpeller:

@Brain:

@BadSpeller:

Nice work!

+1 to you.

Would you please change ‘bomber’ to ‘tach bomber’ or ‘tactical bomber’ in the #3 zone?

That might clutter it up and I think the icon speaks for itself. IMHO of course.

Maybe if the Tac Bomber looked like the allies Tach bomber with 2 engines, the icon would be fine…but the Tac Bomber icon and the Fighter icon look similar to me.

But there should be no mistaking the fighter for the tactical bomber because of the text.

True that!

@Vareel:

I don’t think i’m explaining properly.  There should be convoy zones to represent what goes from the US to the UK/Russia.  If G attacks those convoy zones only, it would start war.  I think that is how it should be.  Obviously there should be other convoy zones as well, at least for the UK.

I suppose it depends how they do lend/lease but I’d prefer it not be a simply free cash objective for Britain/Russia (where’s the lending part in that).  What I’d like to see is a lend/lease that’s not a 1:1 gain for Britain and Russia.  The US can designate some number of IPCs to Russia and/or Britain (say 12) and they get half that amount (6 to the banker).  This has a sense of depreciated value and inflated cost (hey, the US is capitalist) to that “lease” from the US and doesn’t punish the axis as much trying to balance Russia & Britain’s economy vs Germany’s which could be unfairly skewed as Russia and Britain get free loot at minimal expense to the US.  And that could be designated in as a different type of convoy zone, perhaps only near the US coast, which would mean the Germans would have to go way past the Channel to stop it, if they even wanted to.  It has the benefit of immediately helping Russia and Britain in a pinch, but if they can hold out the US can send more in US units, which I think would be a more balanced way to send help to an ally.

That way it’s not quite the same as the established convoy zone, because Russia and Britain can’t GET cash from US territory obviously (nor should they)and there would need to be convoy zones for britain that are wholly independent from the lend lease zones you speak of.

That’s what I thought. Thank you.