Allied game plan VS J1 all out attack

@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

You seem to have it all correct. Your planes can not hit the subs because you do not have a destroyer in the battle. Japan may not remove them as a casualty, if you hit with your planes.

The Japanese subs also don’t get to shoot, if all you have fighting in the naval portion of this attack are planes.

@MaherC:

@zarnak

So you guys are taking a game that most people already believe is Allied favored, and making it even more so?

I pity your Jap player

In my second game Japan overran India by turn four.  China lived to turn 7.  That’s with the first turn income NO boost.  Japan owned the Dutch East Indies for a good while.  It’s income matched US/ANZAC put together and it was a nail biter for a good while with Australia repulsing attacks.  He finally made a tactical error with his navy that allowed the economic seesaw to finally move towards the allies.  With the DEI, China, and India Japan has an income in the mid-70s.

Besides- if China is at war with Japan since 1937 and gets 6 bonus IPC for having the Burma road open - and it’s open to start.  Why not?  And the scramble rule as is is not popular either.

The second link you sent seems to apply- thanks for clearing this up.  I was rereading the parts in the rule book and it is very unclear and contradicting when talking about the “scrambling” and the “amphibs”

So then even a combat move with no sea combat that results in a amphib is still grounds for scrambling.  I’ll tell Kreighund to clear this up in the FAQs because it is worded very badly.

thanks
:-)

To help people out, I decided to create this post. Please post your games of AAP40 here, with a brief summary of your campaign, which side won, how many hours it took, basic strategies employed, and your feedback on the quality of the game.

@bigopfer:

You are totally right Plum, the game is not worth the money they charged. The map IS amazing, the gameplay IS really fun. But you nailed it with the boxes, paper money, IPC chart, cardboard pieces, lack of tac bombers. I mean, I paid basically the same money for this game as I paid for my copy of AA50 and this AA40 Pacific is missing lots of the quality that AA50 had.

Exactly!  I was totally content with how they presented AA50.  Everything was high quality and all aspects of the game and its components were top notch.  Totally worth the money I spent on it.

While this game certainly has some high quality aspects about it, (especially the game play, which is all that really counts in the end) there are so many small blunders it’s really frustrating.  The income chart is what gets me the most.  It seems like the day before they shipped the game out somebody realized “Oh crap!  We forgot income charts!” and then threw together the first thing they thought of and tossed it in the box.  I’m surprised they weren’t scribbled on a piece of notebook paper.

That is awesome, I just did not realize that they had already gotten past the preliminary stages with AAE40.