Skinny thought it was the 1940 version. So sorry.
I also have been playing WW2: Struggle for Europe and Asia which I like but that one takes all day. Although we did finish one in 6 hours once.
Of course Germany didn’t take France until 41’ in that game and it was over rather quickly even though we kept playing.
Sean
@skinny1:
If this is the kind of “service” that we are going to get from WotC then I am not going to be buying any more AA games. In fact, the whole situation with this game has contributed to me selling my AA games. I had all of them and have sold 2nd edition, D-Day, Guadalcanal, and AA50. Still have Pacific, Europe, Battle of the Bulge, Revised and AAP40 for sale. I am done with WotC. Will take any reasonable offer for the listed AA games.
Yea think you said that.
I got mine today and am just glad I got the extra six for my game. As to shipping them I looked at the price and it was $1.50 to ship my pieces and battle strip. A padded envelope might of cost an $0.10 to $0.50. While yes they did make a mistake but it wouldn’t do for us for them to have Axis and Allies a losing project for positive income. While you skinny1 might be leaving them I still want great games to come out. I love Axis and Allies Pacific 1940 and am really looking forward to the Europe version.
No a huge fan of the individual battle games they made but have a feeling this combined global game will be great.
We are lucky they did anything for us really.
I’ll buy your Pacific for $20.00 skinny1.
Sean
Once a transport offloads, it’s done for the turn. It can’t do anything else. It may only offload into one territory.
Well found another thing we have done wrong. Is this something new to Pacific or have I been playing it wrong for some time?
I have played that one infantry can go to one area and another to another.
Sean
But I also wanted it to be pretty, so no Anniversary edition. I didnt care for the paint shop pro generated image it appeared to be. Hopefully I dont get bricks thrown at me for saying that.
Ummmm…… Not really throwing a brick, but you’re kidding about that being the Anniversary edition map, right? The Anni edition map is the same backdrop as the AA42 map, with more territories. You do realize that, right? I hope. Cause that’s not even IL’s finalized map, and it probably is paint shop pro generated to print for those who can’t afford or find the real thing anymore.
What he said but my typing didn’t take or something on my above quote.
Sean
Well this is an opinion of course. I got into A&A about a year ago. By that time, I had several choices for the “main game”. Pacific (both versions) for example is an offshoot that doesnt include the complete traditional A&A global territory. For me, I wanted a “complete” game first, and then I might branch out to one of the “subgames”.
My choices (when was I ready to purchase) where the 1984 edition, the revised (2004) edition, 1942 and the 50th Anniversary Edition. I am very badly colorblind. The 1984 map that my friend would bring over confused me (during the learning stages) because the UK and neutral territories look the same color to me. So for me it was very important that the map had distinctive coloring, so no 1984 edition. Also, it looked a bit cartoony.
The map you have posted is not the real map for the Anniversary Edition.
In fact it is closer to the look of the 1942 version just larger and more territories.
Sean
But I also wanted it to be pretty, so no Anniversary edition. I didnt care for the paint shop pro generated image it appeared to be. Hopefully I dont get bricks thrown at me for saying that.
The 1942 edition seem to have a lot stigmas associated with it, primarily because of a lack of physical IPCs. To be honest, I never really gave this game a chance because so many folks were dissing it. However, the map is actually fairly pretty. It’s possible that 1942 is lame (I’ve never played it), or maybe it just got a bad start because of the dissing like a failed MMO launch.
I really liked the look of the Revised edition map. It’s very easy to distinctively see everything, and everyone just had good stuff to say about it. Ironicly, the map itself is probably the only problem. The 6way folding nature of it makes is a bit fragile. They did this to reduce the box size for a number of reasons. I prefer a larger box so I can stow plastic bins for all the pieces. I love this version of the game, so I’m real pleased with it. Whereas I felt the 1984 version was slanted in favor of the Allies because of the easy access to France,I felt this game tipped it back towards the Axis with 3/3 tanks and lot’s more zones.
A&A Pacific 1940 cant really be compared to these others versions of the game because it’s not the same arena. However, I will tell you a ton of thought (and complexity) has gone into it as compared with the other versions I’ve played. The detail, scale and materials quality is quite a bit higher as well. It comes off as an $80 game to me. In my growing experience, who is winning seems to flip from round to round, making it a much enjoyable experience.
The US can’t do anything until punched by Japan before US4. On US4, US can attack.
I could swear it is US turn 3 they can.
Yep just looked it up. If Japan has not declared by turn three during US collect income phase it gets the bonus and is officially at war. It has been that way the whole time.
Ahhhh I see you corrected your post MaherC.
Sean
The US can’t declare war. It is a reaction to Japan’s actions. You don’t get the money until the END of the US turn that Japan attacked the UK/Anzac/US on.
J2 attack, US gets +40 at the end of US2, can’t spend it until US3.
Note, if THIS changes, I’m driving to WOTC and throwing my game into the lobby a la Kramer with the Pottery Barn catalogs.
Is this true? Specifically, that the “US can’t declare war”? I wasn’t aware of that. I thought the U.S. could declare war at any time before it’s combat move phase.
No the US can declare war. It has always been the case. It just has to be US turn 3. That why there is always the debate for Japan to attack on either turn 1, 2, or 3 before the US can.
Sean
@Brain:
BTW, the rulebook needs a serious overhaul. :-D
What do you think we’ve been doing for the last few weeks?
Maybe somebody should have spent that two weeks on the rulebook before the game was released.
I would have to agree with MahrC on this.
Airplanes can’t land in a newly conquered territory so why would they be able to acquire the bonus for this. Yes it is supposedly friendly.
The rule they can not land in a newly conquered territory I think is there to represent that there is a lot more than just the planes on the ground to make them combat effective. You have all the maintenance crew the bomb loaders, etc to make them combat effective. So a plane can land but unless the remaining support group is there it does no good. Boost in moral is what I think the bonus is for.
Just my opinion.
Sean
Let me send you the CORRECT thread to review regarding in game acronyms.
Don’t get caught up, and taught the WRONG stuff.
Nice.
I do believe the reason BB, CA, CV, DD are used is because they are official in the US navy.
Not applicable to Axis and Allies is modern weaponry but add a “G” to it and they are guided missile capable, “N” means its propulsion is Nuclear.
So on…
Sean
OUT BLOODY STANDING!!!
@the:
We are now on turn 4 of our 2nd game and came across a ? I think the answer is yes , we played it that way. Can you bring carriers into a sea battle to absorb hits ( we knew you cant land planes on a damaged carrier, but the Jap player knew he would lose planes so he didnt need all the landing space, he did succeed in sinking the US fleet , ouch :cry: ) even though they have no attack value? We are loving this game :-D
I had asked this before and yes they can be brought in to take hits. Just the issue of not landing on them is the results.
Sean
Can you take control of Dutch territory, as the UK/Anzac player, in the non-combat move?
Yes, as long as it has not been captured by Japan.
Seem UK/AnzaC plane can finish their move in dutch territory even if those are not controled by the uk/Anzac player, is it true?
Yes.*
Does those rules applie to french territory in regard to japanese or Uk/Anzac player?
Yes, except that the UK/ANZAC may not take control of them unless they capture them from Japan.*
- For those keeping track, these answers are different from those previously given. The errata will be updated to reflect this situation soon.
So UK/ANZAC can land planes on french territories but they can’t control them unless conquered from Japan? Is this true also of US after it is at war (I assume it cannot occupy french territs before DoW)
Also, Japanese planes can land on New Hebrides and FIC before they conquer them? Surely there are some restrictions to this - for example, what if there are already UK, ANZAC, or US forces there? What if allied forces were there this turn, but were killed (perhaps the answer to this question would depend on whether or not the territory is now Jap-controlled?).
Just a note: if Jap can land air on french territs as you say, then Japan can land 4 bombers on Car J1, and use them to attack Que J2 (land Nhe), tho idk if the bmrs are more valuable elsewhere.
Not French territories but Dutch. UK/ANZAC can land on Dutch territories.
I also believe Japan can not land in the French Territory. I believe the rule is only for UK/ANZAC forces in regard to Dutch Territories.
Sean
I’ll say this much. I have yet to see a swarm of scrambling fighters be the make or break for the game. both sides can do it. and seriously, if anyone can tell me how the allies win, outside of a COLOSSAL failure on the part of the Japanese player, that would be great and appreciated.
So far for me and my friends it has been evenly split between the allies and japanese.
It is easy to forget though that you can not put troops in there until attacked by Japan. :mrgreen:
I started to but then my friend reminded me. In fact I have done this twice. Strike three and he probably will just let me. :roll:
Sean
@Col:
I would not put a IC on Hawaii, to much of a risk. If you could drop and keep one in Korea, that would be a different story.
You can not put an IC on Hawaii. Its an island.
Sean
Oh and perhaps German IPC’s will get bonuses as well for controlling certain things to help with their income.
Perhaps the same for UK. Not so much direct control of territories but bonuses in IPCS when US enters or convoy routes stay unobstructed….etc.
They will proably do a “collectors” box that has addition pieces and able to hold both sets of boards and the nations boxes.
Perhaps like Power Grids recent collectors box.
I have of course said this before so sorry if it seems like I am repeating my self. Because I am. :mrgreen:
Sean
Only if they ended their movement in the carrier’s sea zone. If they are in the territory from which the carrier is being mobilized, they cannot be moved onto it.
Ok, just so I am clear. I move my planes onto the empty sea zone in non-combat, then build my carrier, and my planes are automatically on the carrier? That is legal?
Yes.
Offcourse, only 2 per AC still.
WOW I would of never thunk it.
Not sure me and my friends would use that. It seems if there are phases it would splash at the end of non-combat. Yet still kind of cool.
I think they are very useful as well. Easier to get aircraft from US mainland to Asia quicker.
Plus it is great to be able to position your naval fleet to take advantage of these bases for defensive purposes. Not limited to just two a/c for each airbase so cost effectiveness compared to an aircraft carrier goes up with that.
Sean
