New South Wales.

No only minus 2.  So if the IPC value of surronding territories was 6 the sub would only subract 2 IPC.  It would take 3 subs (2x3) to subtract all 6 IPC.  Now if there were 4 subs in the sea zone (2x4=8) the nation would only lose 6 IPC because the value of the territories only equal 6.

I too am new to the site, but have been playing this game for nearly 15 years. welcome to the family.

In regards to a pacific strategy I believe that China is a place for mis-placed agression. I dont think you need to advance more then 4 provinces in to China, taking Yunan, Hunan, Anhui, and Charhar. This reduces China economy by 1/3 and denies them their NO, it also keeps your units close enough to the coast to pull them back if they become needed else where.
The key to winning comes from taking and holding the southern resource area which include Maylay, Kwangtung, Borneo, Sumatra, Java, Celebes, French Indo-China, and the Philipines. By taking this area you will double Japans economy and reach a parity with the US. Also, this area will put 2 more VC under your control, which are the objectives you need to win, and gain you some of your NOs.
From here its key to make swift work of India, throwing everything you can aginst them. The quicker this is done the beter (turn 4 or 5 ideally). Then you will be free to finnish of China at your leisure.

After that its really up to you. I like to go after the Anzac’s as taking their VC is harder for the US to take back. Best of luck, hope this helps

Thanks guys…my friend and I believe this rule is huge for Japan since it allows Japan to build fully loaded carriers quite easily at crucial times in the game, so many extra planes that can land on new carriers.

Makes it tough on the Allies whenever they get in close.

Just curious, did Japan land on Australia or simply threatened to? What moves were made?

@RJL518:

The one thing i love about Pacific 1940 is that the map is very versatile…has anyone come up with some new starting points for Pacific 1940?  Such as a setup for a 1941 scenario with the Japanese offensives in the Pacific or a 1942 starting point with Japan at it’s height and the Allies have to strike back and take back what was theirs?

Let me know…this game is very versatile…

Personally, I’d be interested in a version similar to the original AAP where Pearl was setup first turn (and perhaps even that attack defender rolls at one) as other than unit setup the territory changes aren’t substantially different so it would be interesting to see play out.  However, the actual territories that Japan had conquered at that point were not substantially different in 42 other than the island colonies.  Basically, You’re always going to have crush china, and if the Allies are setup to strike back in 42 Japan might be in some serious trouble cause they still haven’t made any progress in Japan (they clearly fought worse than the TripleA AI).  If the game is in fact balanced in 1940, trying to balance it in 42 but still reflecting Japan’s successes and the Allies as ready to strike back, I’d imagine Japan would lose very quickly.

Ok, thanx Krieghund…… I really wasn’t sure where I read it, it just confused me.  I understand now why one was mentioned without other.  Thanx again…

@Tralis:

I’m just using the old Pacific chart. Kamikaze slider… goes up very high… its working pretty well. The VP track of course isn’t used.

Good idea, I have the original AAP but I’ll probably just soldier on with the chart they gave us for this game. What really pisses me off is the battle board, some units aren’t on there and then some are there that shouldn’t be!

@Brain:

Well I like the new rules anyway.

Just thought of something….if the global game has the USA at an ungodly amount of income then they could be producing too many bombers and then they could SBR Germany to nothing pretty fast. If that is the case then The new rule is actually needed for balance or it could get out of hand. We’ll see.