Posts made by JohnBarbarossa

@Jonny5tyle Yes, if there are any units left in the convoy after the first (and subsequent) round(s) of combat two units escape from the convoy.
This also applies when there is still a normal sea/air battle in progress. Every round that this combat lasts two convoy units escape. But as long as the defender still has combat units left, the units in the convoy cannot be taken as casuality.

@Witt

Clear, thanks!

@Witt

Yes, this is very clear now thank you for answering.

The problem is that when you look things up you look at the section sea mines on that page and expect the information to be there. It is easy to miss that one sentence at the top.

So I assume that it is also possible that both axis and allies can have seamines in the same sea zone at the same time?

John

I think that the OP @Driel310 meant to ask what the limit was of the number of simultaneous sea mines in a seazone but his wording was a bit unclear.
For landmines the rulebook is clear. You can build as many as you want in one territory. But for sea mines this is rather unclear.
I am sorry to say this but the rulebook is really poorly written.
Anyway I saw in this video today that there were multiple mines placed in one seazone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACc_AwEvqVg&t=2793s
At around 6:05
Can someone confirm if that is correct?

I am curious to what the exact NO’s are for the European theatre. What are the differences from the Global NO’s already posted by Emperor Taiki?
When you delete the Pacific NO’s from his list you get the following NO’s:

Germany

• 5 for denmark, norway, and a neutral or axis sweden.
• 5 for being at peace with the soviets
• 5 for each soviet VC
• 3 for having a land unit in egypt

Soviet Union
+5 for being at war
+6 for each original german territory if they have all of their originals

UK
+5 for getting rid of the subs in the atlantic

Italy
+5 for getting all the allied warships out of the med
+5 for southern france, egypt, and greece

USA

• 30 for being at war

France

• 4 inf when Paris is liberated

It looks like most NO’s are useable also for the stand alone version but UK probably has a couple of more.

Anyone with info care to elaborate?

@djensen:

W00t! Thanks for proof-reading it.

@Krieghund:

It looks OK to me.   :-)

One small typo (but one that could be confusing), in the Italian Political rules:
•Declaring war on the Soviet Union does not cause Germany to go to war with USA and vice versa.
I think this should read Italy.

Just a small thing, but still…

@Proud:

lets stop annoying IL. Im just saying I barely use the pic. Infact I havent used it till today!

Anyway i think theres 4 there. Anyone back me up?

It is probably a 4, but it is definitely not a 1 (compare it to the other 1’s on the chart PLUS plurar for “fighters”)
4 makes the most sense (but cannot be confirmed since there are no other 4’s on the chart) because of the attack on the Bismarck (djensen testgame) and the stacks of chips under the fighters (djensen testgame) and lastly for historical accuracy and game balance.

@General:

First of all, thanks for the FAQ Krieg.

But could you include some justifications for these changes.  It would be nice to see the reasoning behind these changes.  Especially the NZ change.

@Krieghund:

They were just good old-fashioned mistakes.

I cannot believe the unit setup mistakes. This is unbelievable. What a retards.

Having said that, these unit setup alterations make Japan even more stronger. That is the real concern.

And don’t forget the setupcharts. Japan line 1, Artillery is misspelled.

@Driel310:

Krieg, I can’t believe what I am reading ….  :-o

The US can’t fly planes to Australia if she is not at war with Japan? Bloody hell, how was it possible this is not mentioned in the rulebook…  :?

If this is true then the allies are even weaker than I thought.

I can’t believe the terrible quality of the rulebook. I am a fiscal advisor. If I get one letter wrong this could have big consequences. Therefore we check, check and doublecheck all our work.
Either they are all incompetent or they try to save money on the wrong things.

@Krieghund:

Apparently, some naughty on-line vendors in Europe and Australia are releasing their copies early.   :-o

No online vendors. It is in the stores here. I just walked i a shop last Thursday and picked up a copy.

For everyone who doesn’t think Japan is too powerfull maybe they can write a review about their experiences.
I don’t know how this will work out in the end. But I do know one thing. In order to make a balanced game, you put LESS units in the setup not more.

@djensen:

@JohnBarbarossa:

We got the game yesterday. We did not have time to schedule in a full game but we played a short game of 2 rounds.

Only playing 2 rounds you only see the massive potential power of Japan. You fail to see the downside, which is getting spread too thin too fast. You just cannot cover the entire Pacific and Asia with your supply lines. Something will be missed and it gives the USA the chance to move in and dominate.

In my game, I probably didn’t attack fast enough but I still was stretched thin. There’s just not enough boats to keep all of your transports safe. But to rapidly expand to get the National Obective bonuses, you need to use all of those transports.

In my opinion, I think it is a false to say the game is unbalanced after 2 rounds of play.

Mind I did not say the game is unbalanced. Noone can come to that conclusion after 2 rounds. I just find it hard to see how allies can win at this point. And of course we need more playhours under the belt but I also wanted to give the people who were waiting for their copies some information.

@bennyboyg:

@rmorel:

Ive only played the game once, as the Allies, so I dont have the Japanese perspective yet, but I must agree with DJensen’s post.    Japan was spread way too thin, and even though they looked after rounds 3-5 like a win was inevitable, the game started slowly tu torn after that and the Allies eventually won in the 9th round.

The American Juggernaught is just ridiculous once they have a supply line established, and Japan has to get just enough cities that it makes it hard for them to get that last one.  India is not a piece of cake, and Austrailia is fairly close to the US that once they are in the war they can easily fortify.  It seems like Japan is always one city short of victory, and they just dont have the resources to get it.

I’d be very curious if i could win the game with Japan.

Yeah I had the same problem with original Pacific. I never played a game where Japan won.

You are all talking about spreading out but I was talking about a concentrated attack. First take out India and then Australia (and MAYBE both at the same time).  How can India not be a cakewalk when Japan throws everything they have at it?
Has this been tested by the playtesters btw? The former India crush tactic from AAP.
I admit Australia could be a serious problem (due to its relative proximity to the USA) when you go after India first.

@Kilukru:

On the Hawai subject : With a naval base, the US are at a striking distance of japan from there, so keeping a fleet there also tell Japan : If your not careful, we are invading!

Yes, it works both ways

@WILD:

@JohnBarbarossa:

One other thing. There was some talk (by Larry?) that the USA had a motive to keep a large fleet based at Hawaii (so Pearl would be re-lived again). Our US player thought differently and kept the fleet safely at the west coast to build it up first. But when we finised our test game we saw that there was a route from Japan to Hawaii of only 3 spaces (with a naval base). This means that Hawaii is constant at risk and this is probably the reason why you have to base a fleet there (or at least make it a deadzone for Japan).

Regarding Hawaii, is it possible for Japan to get its victory conditions very early. I heard it needs 6 vc. Can they get the other 5 then hit Hawaii for the 6th, forcing the US to build up there?

Japan start at 2 VC’s and takes another 2 on J2. To get to 6 VC you need India and Australia or leave one of those and go for Hawaii. I think India should always be your first target. While pushing for Australia you should always be on the lookout if an opportunity arises to finish the game at Hawaii. This forces USA to keep a presence there (Hawaii is probably more important than we realized).
I am not sure what the exact victory conditions are (no rulebook near me) but if Japan has to keep the 6 cities until the end of the round (after Anzacs turn) Hawaii as 6th city can be proven difficult because it is easy to take it back.

@Veqryn:

I am absolutely praying and praying that this game is balanced.

I am sure the playtesters did a good job. But at this early stage I fail to see it.

We got the game yesterday. We did not have time to schedule in a full game but we played a short game of 2 rounds.

Apart from the very dissapointing contents of the box (we paid 80 euro in Holland, the equivalent of 120 dollar) which already have been addressed by others, here are some FIRST impressions of the actual game.

Japan is HUGE. 25 somewhat airplanes, lots of naval units, enough infantry for the landwar and a very decent income to START with. The allies have very little resources and lots of it gets killed on J1

Our group cannot imagine how you could lose with Japan (but again this is a first impression we could be wrong). As we see it Japan should take Phili in round 1 (kill US bomber there) and take out the UK fleet at Malaya. Japan’s main fleet should then move 3 spaces (naval base) to Malaya and next turn move into the position to take out India. In the meantime contain China (which was wiped out in those two turns almost completely) and ignore USA. After that Japan could take out Anzac and fend of USA. Small UK and Anzac cannot possible defend against concentrated forces.

Maybe it is better to split your forces (you have enough to do so) and take on UK and Anzac simultaneously, but we haven’t figured that out yet. Australia is relative easy to reinforce by USA. And by the time India falls you might be too late to take out Anzac.

Of course I hope we are wrong and the game is neatly balanced. :-)

The new units are cool. Tac bombers are very usefull. Try to pair them with fighters on Aircraftt Carriers. However we did not see much mech action.

One other thing. There was some talk (by Larry?) that the USA had a motive to keep a large fleet based at Hawaii (so Pearl would be re-lived again). Our US player thought differently and kept the fleet safely at the west coast to build it up first. But when we finised our test game we saw that there was a route from Japan to Hawaii of only 3 spaces (with a naval base). This means that Hawaii is constant at risk and this is probably the reason why you have to base a fleet there (or at least make it a deadzone for Japan).

Ok, thanks Krieghund. This makes a lot more sense. The rulebook is rather unclear on this point.

I am from Holland and I picked up the game today.
I find the diplomacy rules quite confusing.
What I understand is that UK/ANZAC can attack Japan first (after Japan left them alone on its own turn) and when they do they are at war with Japan but USA is not at war with Japan. BUT if Japan counterattacks UK/ANZAC after that they automatically drag the USA into the war. That cannot be right???
Can someone shade a light on this for me?

@Imperious:

I would never consider a factory in france until many more bombers appeared. What is the point of building bombers if the allies dont build any? in 41 you especially don’t do this because you play first and you just messed your position up by making a factory if the allies don’t build bombers. And to play the contrarians position in this i don’t believe by building a factory you prevent allied bombers, because you can always buy it the next turn if they go with bombers.

Well without any IC in France, Russia outproduces Germany with 12 to 10 (assuming no IC’s lost). Furthermore in the 41 scenario you can easily get most of your NO’s which gives you a income ranging from 40-50 (including some gains in Africa). How can you efficiently buy units with only 10 production capacity available? And don’t answer all tanks, because that wouldn’t work in the long run imo.