Whats the best place to pre-order A&A Pacific 1940?

@The-General-0 said in What are the basic strategies of Axis and Allies Pacific 1940?:

… it appears that Honolulu does not appear in the rulebook as a victory city that is able to be captured. Unusually, it appears on the board. Is this historical significance, or is it merely a mistake or simply decoration or literally a victory city?

You must have quite an old print. Maybe download the latest versions of the rulebooks from
https://renegadegamestudios.com/axis-allies-resources

Yes, Honolulu is a victory city.

@the_good_captain

Indeed. Actually you need the errata in case you own an older/outdated print of the second edition rulebook. But in that case you are fine with updating the rulebook itself.

The original pacific by far was more fun and balanced (if you used 23 VC’s as Japan win).

Pacific 1940 is distorted because it was designed to be combined with Europe 1940, hence Japan is overpowered (to compensate for America having more money in Global).

@nutbar:

i decided to create my own p40 setup

Can you post that??

Since they happen on two different turns, they can do both.

My opinions in summary:

–You need a factory on the mainland. It’s debatable where, but against a competent Allied player you’ll need the boots on the ground.

–You’ll need a lot more TRs. Time is your enemy and having more TRs means delivering more combat power where you need it faster

–I favor a J3 attack. Spend 2 turns pounding on the Chinese with all of your air and getting troops and TRs in position to take everything you need within 2 turns of the DoW on the Allies.

–Try and keep your fleet massed. None of the Allies has the slightest chance against the full weight of metal that Japan can throw around. Granted you’ll likely have to spread out a little to accomplish everything you need, but try and mass up agains ASAP.

–Keep Truk and Japan garrisoned with fighters/tac. As long as you do this and have minimal infantry on the ground they will be EXTREMELY hard to take due to the Scramble rules.

–The primary goal if this strategy is the complete destruction of China with minimal losses and then a heavy focus on India. You only need to fend off the US and Anzac - you dont not need to decisively engage them. PI must fall on J3 to remove the US presence and to get the naval base, but beyond that you dont need to fight them unless they expose themselves to a favorable trade.

@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.

I second that, very good post.