AAP40 Day 18 from Release Date–Opinion poll: What round should Japan attack on?

Congratulations: I could not wait to be a Tank (and wished I could have remained one!).
I started playing in 87 at university.

@mastermind93:

Unless I’m mistaken, don’t AA-guns in 1940 only fire at a max of 3 enemy planes?

The number of AA shots is either 3x the number of AA,or the number of planes,whichever is the lesser. Right Krieg?

@whitem8:

@katfishkris:

according to the erratta, phili should have a naval and air base, and new zealand should not have a industrial complex, and the IC in australia should be a minor one.

i did not know these things till i read them here, and it was tough to convince the guys i play with that this is how it was supposed to be, but after we started playing with these changes, it actually worked out well.

Ok, help me with this one fellows. What do you mean by ERRATTA?  I will have a tough time convincing my brother this is true, as our rules do not say that, and are there other things that this ERRATA has that are different from the rules that came with the game?

You can direct them here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/pacific      This is the game company website and has a link to read the FAQ. The FAQ is where the errata is located.

@SAS:

NOs represent political/economic conditions that have no strict military basis and so don’t “naturally” fit in the military game mechanic of A&A.  The Japanese people would have gotten a great morale boost from taking over a critical Allied city like Calcutta, Sydney, or Honolulu.  The Allies don’t get a boost from holding them because that doesn’t boost morale or give any sort of economic or political advantage from keeping those cities that they already had.  The Japanese would have had a great political playing card if they had been able to capture any of these cities.

Exactly.  What he said.

Well, Kat, here is the dilemma:

If you allow Japan to take Hawaii, the following turn Japan swings down to Australia.
Add up the victory cities: 2 starting cities, Phillipines, Hong Kong + Hawaii = 5 total.
Sydney is 6. No need to slog through to India.

If you surrender Hawaii on J2, Japan could conceivably win the game outright on J4.
J3 fresh troops from Japan land on Hawaii. New Zealand falls. Don’t forget Australia does not get to scramble fighters because they are considered a continent, not an island.
Third CV returns to Phillipines to help with ANZAC attack.
J4 fresh troops arrive in Hawaii; existing troops shuttled to Queensland or New Zealand, depending where ANZAC defends.
At best Sydney holds out until J5.
As Japan I could send out DD screens to delay US counterattack.
Also, if Hawaii falls on J2, virtually every fighter in Asia I have will be in Hawaii by J4.
The scrambling rules allow ALL fighters to defend sea zone around Hawaii.

module looks great.  very nice work.  thank you.

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.

@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.