Posts made by dinosaur

Part of the problem may be the money you spend on minor ICs, and that you let the UK player build them on islands where they don’t belong.

If Japan doesn’t get of to a big start, they are going to have a rough go.  I would hope that after turn three China is practically out of business, and by turn five Calcutta is in dire straights.

Have you tried the J1 approach or are you afraid to go big until J3?  The US boost is not as bad a 40 IPCs sounds, because the Japanese player gets a lot of compensation in some of the little targets they pick off in the first turn.  The PI and Hong Kong are worth about a 20IPC income swing, for example.

I only wish FMG could make a special exception to the US and give us a couple extra pieces.  The US needs iconic Navy and European fighters, TAC bombers and regular Strat bombers.  The B-25 is a wonderful iconic aircraft for the war, but doesn’t pass the “Looks good on a carrier” test.  The P-51 and the F4U would be great to solve the fighter in Europe and Pacific theatre problem.  The B-17 can work for a single strategic bomber, but you still need a carrier friendly TAC bomber.

Likewise, I would like the US to have a sculpt for regular infantry, Marines and an elite soldier such as an Airborne trooper.

The tank isn’t that important to me because the tanks should be in Europe, along with the Mech units.

But I think what FMG is doing is so much better than what we have now, or any other alternative I see, that I’m not complaining about any of it.

If I am buying cruisers, I have already won the game.  Destroyers are better than cruisers except in one case that only comes up occasionally; attacking an island that can’t scramble aircraft.  Aside from that, destroyers are always a better buy.  Subs can also be a very good buy, such as when you need to buy time to stall the enemy navy.  Please do not infer I am saying you can “sub stall” in this game.

All the ME 262s in the world wouldn’t matter without the fuel to get 'em in the sky.  The problem was bigger than a lack of hardware.  The Atom Bomb, on the other hand, would have been a game changer with the other resources already at Germany’s disposal.

This looks very good.  I wish I had time to look into it.  I can see lots of “supportable” units, which I think helps give the game a combined arms look using a variety of units.

Everything was set in motion when we knew they were coming and we could deploy our forces to meet an unsuspecting enemy.

I do not accept the premise that because China wouldn’t have done this or that, we will make a rule that China can’t do this or that.  If this is true, then there should never be a KGF strategy.  The US would never have ignored Japan for months (years) while it dove into Europe only.  On the other hand, I’m not asking to see a set of Chinese battleships and aircraft carriers from Wizards either.  I think letting China go into any Asian territory is as close to reality as KGF or KJF.

If it is too much trouble to repair a carrier and you got so much money you’d just rather buy a new one, then take the second hit on the carrier too and save a destroyer.  Problem solved.

I got replacement cruisers and they were very efficient about it.  I didn’t have to turn the others in.

Japan can scramble her plans too.

With the high quality of the stuff at FMG, I don’t think the US mint would appreciate them making money.

IL, I thought you were gonna do this.  In addition to increasing the map size a little to make room for my stacks of ships, I hoped you would fix Honolulu, and show the starting setup on the maps.  I also hoped you would clean up the edge of the sea zone at Korea and others to make sure there was no more confusion.

One reason I laugh at WOTC is when they make a bigger map, they put more zones in it and then I can’t fit the pieces in any longer.  The cycle just keeps going.

Do you play Pac40?

With 4 A&A games, I was thinking of teasing WotC by sending my battle strip along with about 20 Japanese infantry that I just don’t need.  Since I have both versions of Pacific, I just don’t need all the Japanese units (and US too) that I have.  When the FMG units come out, I probably won’t need half of all the Japanese units I have already.  I wonder if WotC would agree to trade a stack of Infantry, Arty and Tanks that I don’t need?  I would love to get Tac Bombers, Carriers, Battleships and Cruisers in return.  Let’s see, 10 infantry @ 3 IPC each should be worth a carrier and a battleship, right?  Better yet, how about I send them 200 IPC and they send me the pieces I need.  It appears they are short of IPCs there too.  :-D

Even if the player wants to offload during noncombat into the same space?

Could it unload during the noncombat move of the same turn?

Yes, BD, I was making a point about drawing conclusions about the game after rolling high numbers all game, first game.

Krieg,

Even an unoccupied Dutch Territory?

Italy could beat Japan if Japan only rolls sixes.  Give it a few more games.  Even if it is decided that Japan has an advantage, a couple infantry can change everything.

Your question is a little unclear.  However, I believe i have the answer you are looking for.

If Japan attacks the US, the UK or ANZAC without the UK or ANZAC player attacking first, the US goes to war with Japan.  If Japan occupies any Dutch territory the US goes to war with Japan, except for one situation.  If the UK or ANZAC occupy a Dutch territory, and then attack Japan, Japan is allowed to take that Dutch territory from the Allies without bringing the US into the war.  If the Japanese do not attack the US before the beginning of the third US turn, the US go to war with Japan at the beginning of their third collect income phase, and begin collecting the additional 40 IPCs.

I hope this helps.

I recommend you read the FAQ thread at the top of this section also.  Good luck.

I have been considering this question privately for some time too.  My own particular anoyance is that islands are completely surrounded by a single sea zone.  I think many islands should have more than one sea zone touching them.  For examnple, I think the Phillipine Islands should at least have an Asian side and a Pacific Ocean side.  I think Japan should have one sea zone with Korea, one to the south and another to the north and east.  While we are on the subject, I also do not understand why the sea zones have to end coincident with several (most) adjacent land borders.  This forces many strategic manuvers and I would appreciate some more tactical flexibility.  However, I see that the game is very delicately balanced (at least until someone finds a real deal breaker) so such tactical choices may make the game difficult to balance.

I would be interested in a more accurate Pacific map, including the expansion of the Pacific Ocean to its true size.  The biggest problem I see is that it may become unplayable for the Japanese.  Two factors that made it tenable for them was the hidden movement (for of war) of sea forces in general, and the benefit they received from their attack on Pearl Harbour.