Pacific 1940 review copy has arrived

there never was to begin with. Japan never planned to Beat the US, just scare them away from the war.

I agree - I never meant to say that the US should be more powerful in the game. More important than historical accuracy is the creation of an interesting and fun game to play. It would not be any fun if all that was required was that the US concentrate its forces and industrial might to squash Japan in every game. There has to be a chance for the Japanese to win, otherwise why go through with playing the game?

Incidentally, the number of US destroyers for December 1941 already excludes the 50 destroyers transferred to the Commonwealth in the September 1940 Destroyers for bases agreement.

ETA: Imperious Leader also has a good point about quality. The Japanese battleships, aircraft carriers and air wings, and destroyers all had significant quality advantages over their American counterparts shown in battles throughout 1941 and into 1942. Naval battles are a little unpredictable, though, so there are lots of factors involved.

On an unrelated topic, I could easily find Royal Navy numbers for 1939, but if anyone happens upon RN strength in Dec. 1941, let me know, just for the sake of a contemporaneous comparison.

yea. somebody post the actual starting forces for UK and USA IN THE PACIFIC and where they are located. then if any change is made we know where to look.

Also get the japanese to proof them as well. Then we can balance it out for the historical people.

Right now it should be perfectly balanced for the game.

@Tralis:

Then what are your favorite additions, changes, and mechanics?

I think the way the new naval and air bases work is going to make for some interesting strategic choices.  This will be compounded with the new damaged status of carriers and battleships.  People aren’t going to be quite so willing to take a hit on a capital ship when it’s far from home.  Forward bases will be very important for both offensive and defensive purposes.

Additionally, China can become a real quagmire for Japan if it’s not managed properly.  The game is a real balancing act for Japan in general.

I love the naval and airfield chips

I suppose they could also be used to designate naval and airborne infantry for house rules

Why are they using gray pieces? Gray is for  Germany.

@Brain:

Why are they using gray pieces? Gray is for  Germany.

I think we have come to the consensus that ANZAC is “pewter” and Germany is a very dark grey or black

Anything official from djensen on this?

Thank you djensen as I was worried about the FMG dice.

The ANZAC pieces are actually a little more brown than they come across in these photos.  The official color is “dark tan”, but they look taupe to me.

@Krieghund:

The ANZAC pieces are actually a little more brown than they come across in these photos.  The official color is “dark tan”, but they look taupe to me.

That would make more sense.

(Rank = 93)

I heard China can build artillery with the Burma Road. Are US artillery used for that purpose?

I too was wondering about this… is it like the old Pacific edition in regard to the Burma Road rule?  Is it just artillery they can build? (which makes sense)

The Burma Road being open only allows the building of artillery (nothing else), and US artillery pieces are used.

Thanks  :-D

Can you post a high res picture of the map?

Thanks in advance.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/618315

@Krieghund:

The Burma Road being open only allows the building of artillery (nothing else), and US artillery pieces are used.

Now 4 different nations will use the same artillery mold, propably 5 with France, and yet WOTC used a lot of money on a specific Russian battleship mold, and russian cruiser mold, and russian destroyer mold, none of witch will be used in any future game. Go figure.

@bennyboyg:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/618315

Thanks!