AA 40 Pacific Setup Pictures

Actually it’s even worse than that if your Canadian considering “Britsh Columbia” and "Yukon Territory merged into “Western Canada”. Of course gameplay is affected little to zilch by this revision.

@AmpsterMan:

I thought that you just counted the SZ next to where you were taking off from, didn’t know attacking counted as a move. Lol, I think that one rule interpretation might have changed a bit of how the game went….

Thanks for the update  :-D

And in case you were wondering, he attacked me in Alaska on turn 4, I repelled him turn 6, by turn nine I had every territory I originally had back in my hands. I was going to win.

We are going to play a game tonight (hopefully) I’ll have to reread the rulebook to make sure I don’t make anymore errors.

In any case, it seems to me that the only reason I won was because I was able to get all of my NO’s where as he didn’t get any. He also didn’t put enough boots on the ground methinks. Am excited to see how tonights game goes on. Thanks for the replys Calvinhobbesliker!

Even if you did that, that’s still 8 moves. Bomber from airbase only gets 7.

Anyway, you’re welcome

My thinking is as a separate game this setup is flawed, but I’m betting anything that the Global game (the one we are all going to play from here on out for the most part) is pretty balanced with the addition of all those Russian infantry to the North of Manchuria. Something tells me that India crush strategy will take a beating.

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

I think your first situation is correct but I’m having a hard time understanding the benefit of the second situation, unless I’m misreading it. If you are engaging in combat in the sea zone and the coastal territory (with the SZ the only access point to the territory), why wouldn’t you just bring the transport along with the naval attack to assist in capturing the territory?

If the blocking ship was not on the coast (one sz out), you could kill him in combat and move transports in during non combat to off load them onto the  coastal tt you just took. Assuming that you indeed did take the coastal tt by other means.

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

So let me get this straight, in sea battles, you can kill an enemy blocker ship (destroyer) in the combat phase and move your fleet past that SZ into the next SZ in the non-combat phase assuming that none of your fleet is engaging in a combat move. Is this correct? If so this really changes things for me in Pacific…

Yes that is what I was referring to. You can kill the enemies ships in combat (using just a few ships or planes even). Then in noncombat move into the cleared sz (1st move) with your ships that where not involved in the battle. Then (2nd move) to the coast to off load your transports on to the coastal tt you also took during combat. Of coarse the 2nd sz could not be hostel. You can also do this to join two of you fleets together. It doesn’t come up to often, but in P40 it could be useful to both the allies or Japan (especially when you consider NB).

@The:

No. but if you just buy AA42, you get a bunch of new pieces (including A and A guns). And it’s only like 25$

@Autarch:

That’s your best bet. Plus you’ll get a lot of extra units so you don’t have to use poker chips.

That is what I did with AA42. My boys didn’t want their copy so I bought it, with 1 game played, for $20 to add to mine. Now I need a bigger table so I can print one of IL’s maps for AA42 to have a good sized board for more pieces and less chips used.

@runyan99:

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

Okay, I elect you.

I second that, very good post.

Don’t be sure of anything when you have chimps making all the decisions.