Pacific 1940 review copy has arrived

clarified thank you very much

Not really. Hope Autumn 2nd Ed will point the right way.
As Russia and the 18 Eastern Inf are not on the map makes it easier for Japan as they can empty Manchuria and Korea and send them against the Chinese.
We need a Manchuria garrison ruling(eg:  keep 6-8 units in Manc).
Alpha 3 helps as it reduces Japan’ s air power.
US’s starting income is weak(17), perhaps that will be enhanced to include Central US. War income adequate, not brilliant. Play the 5 NO for owning Philippines when at war  of course and no Tech.

@Bob_A_Mickelson:

Here is a picture comparing the sizes of Pacific 40 and Anniversary.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/637375/axis-allies-pacific-1940-edition

Lots of other detailed photos are at this webpage. Set up a free account to see full sized blown up pictures.

That is an awesome picture.

@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.

@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.

Yeah the 68th anniversary of the sneak attack

I second that, very good post.