Pacific 1940 review copy has arrived

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

Hi Folks,
if I had to choose, I would always decide my self for the Pacific. I prefere the huge naval/air battles over the large clashes of tanks in Russia or the battle for the Atlantic. And with the scale of A&A, the engagements between the German Africa Corps and the British 8th Army are merely a sideshow.
Greetings,
Lars

Thank you so much for this update. That thread is one I’ve been following behind the scenes for years. I can’t believe Larry Harris didn’t do more to improve this stand alone game.

UK/ANZAC and Japanese air units may fly over each other’s territories (outside of China) when they’re not at war.  The rules at the top of page 8 that apply to neutral territories apply only to neutral territories, such as the Mongolian territories.  Neutral powers have different rules, as outlined in the political rules.

Technically, Japan, China and UK/ANZAC are not neutral anyway, as they are each at war with someone (Japan and China are at war with each other, and UK/ANZAC is at war with Germany).  Only the US is truly neutral, as it is at war with no one.  That’s why its rules are even more restrictive than other powers’ rules.  While the US remains at peace, its air units may not fly over other powers’ territories, and vice versa.

I think it was obvious that it was a misprint on the map. There is only a little snippet, the second I saw it I knew that was not right.

@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.

@SgtBlitz:

@xzorn:

Once the Japanese have all of China and India and Australia, and the Germans and Italians can attack the US, the game is over anyway. Conquering the US is feasible, but it won’t be that deciding factor that turns the tide. The axis will have already gotten the permanent upper hand.

Yes, but this scenario ISN’T possible with the Pacific game, as the US has only ONE FRONT to deal with.  There has to be some rule that lets Japan grab as much as she can BEFORE the US enters the war b/c she’ll HAVE to have equal footing for there to be a “fair” game.  Otherwise its just fighting against the dice the whole time.

No doubt xzorn was talking about the combined game.

@runyan99:

Regardless, it would be nice if some people would work on a new 1940 setup and ruleset for AA50.

Okay, I elect you.