Pacific 1940 review copy has arrived

[Krieghund]

@djensen:

Krieghund, since the review copies are out, are you allowed to write up your thoughts on the game now? I’m sure you’ve played it a bunch already, no?

I’m too emotionally attached…

@tomekhello:

But sth is wrong, on the ANZAC set up (from the picture) you can see that there is Major IC in New South Wales, but the value of this territory is 2, comparing it to the info from fact sheet, Major IC can be built on a territory with value 3 or higher.
Am I wrong?

Welcome, tomekhello!  You’re not wrong.  All I can say right now is that it’s an exception, like the IC on Japan.

@Funcioneta:

Only one question: is possible land units from Japan to Alaska in the same turn? (and viceversa). I see a Aleutian islands teritory, but borders of that sea zone are not clear

Yes.

@Bob_A_Mickelson:

Any word yet on what these national objectives are?

Not yet.

@Todd7912:

My question is (and I beleive it has already been asked): What are those little squares with the Asian characters on them? I would assume they are Japanese and perhaps have something to do with Japanese Victory conditions, maybe like the VC chips from AA50? Otherwise they could have something to do with China…?

I am guessing that these are for the Kamikaze attacks.

You’re guessing correctly.

[Dagon81]

Seems like the ANZAC infantry is just another British soldier with different colour… :(

[Piazza2425]

Well they were a commonwealth of Britian’s at the time, very strong connections to them.  So it’d be safe to assume that they shared equipment and such.

[Bluecoat1861]

ANZACs were more common to wear a bush had than a Helmet,  But if you want to get speific down to uniformes then the British should have a few Siks (SP?) with Turbans then as well :) No the typical Tommy (or Digger if you prefer) as molded does the job well.

As to the difference in IC units I would ask if anybody still has there A&A game from the 80’s?  I still have mine and the IC’s then were white so I will just use them to mark the difference.

One thing I miss see in the game is the Panama Canal not so important in this game but in the combined way vey Important.

And how real is that set up when it comes for the Americans?  There is virtiually no US Pacific fleet how true is this?

[Canuck12]

@Bluecoat1861:

ANZACs were more common to wear a bush had than a Helmet,  But if you want to get speific down to uniformes then the British should have a few Siks (SP?) with Turbans then as well :)

Sikhs*

@Bluecoat1861:

And how real is that set up when it comes for the Americans?  There is virtiually no US Pacific fleet how true is this?

1940 Dude, the US wasn’t planning on fighting any big wars anytime soon. This is almost 2 years before Pearl Harbour.

[idk_iam_swiss]

seriously america hasnt always had the most guns

[Todd7912]

After WW1 America decided they would never fight another world war, so we scuttled a large portion of our Navy, cut military spending and reduced the armed services while we increased social programs in America and planned on avoiding conflicts in the world. This is why we were wholly unprepared for WW2. (In a nut shell)

Ironicly, we are beginning to do it all over again.

[Army of Northern Virginia]

This is why we were wholly unprepared for WW2. (In a nut shell)

Not entirely true. The US was fully aware of the increasing belligerence of Japan in the east, and was gradually increasing it’s presence in the Pacific to counter it. It was also increasing it’s military presence in the Atlantic in anticipation of an inevitable showdown with Germany (or perhaps it would be better to say; in recognition of a possible threat from Germany). This, combined with the increase in weapons manufacturing for sale to overseas belligerents meant that when the war did come, the US was pretty well prepared, especially in terms of war production. In fact, it was the only allied nation that came to the war ‘fresh’; every other nation - both axis and allied - had been fighting previously and engaged in multiple rounds of combat.

[katfishkris]

looks great!  2more weeks, i cant wait.  something to look forward to christmas for, for a change.  thank you very much DJ.  excellent work on the pics and article. +1 to you

[Bluecoat1861]

The US did have a H^&* of a Pacific Fleet even in 40, though it was movong from San Diego to Hawaii, Those Battleships at Peral were not new having been built betweem 1910-1917 and with 10 new fast Battleships the US has always had a strong Navy as the first line of defense.

[Adlertag]

@Krieghund:

@tomekhello:

But sth is wrong, on the ANZAC set up (from the picture) you can see that there is Major IC in New South Wales, but the value of this territory is 2, comparing it to the info from fact sheet, Major IC can be built on a territory with value 3 or higher.
Am I wrong?

Welcome, tomekhello!  You’re not wrong.  All I can say right now is that it’s an exception, like the IC on Japan.

It was impossible to make NSW worth 3 IPC ? It was better to make an extra page with special rules ?

[Hobbes]

@Todd7912:

After WW1 America decided they would never fight another world war, so we scuttled a large portion of our Navy, cut military spending and reduced the armed services while we increased social programs in America and planned on avoiding conflicts in the world. This is why we were wholly unprepared for WW2. (In a nut shell)

Ironicly, we are beginning to do it all over again.

Check your US History: after WW1 everyone decided to make cuts on their armed forces (and the ship reduction occured because of the naval treaties to prevent a naval arms race between all powers); there wasn’t an increase on social programs (there was nothing like social security back in the 1920s and the governing party believed in a free market… until the stock market crashed and the great depression happened) and the US wasn’t even trying to avoid conflicts because it was out of the League of Nations (because the Senate didn’t ratify that treaty).

[Funcioneta]

@Adlertag:

@Krieghund:

@tomekhello:

But sth is wrong, on the ANZAC set up (from the picture) you can see that there is Major IC in New South Wales, but the value of this territory is 2, comparing it to the info from fact sheet, Major IC can be built on a territory with value 3 or higher.
Am I wrong?

Welcome, tomekhello!  You’re not wrong.  All I can say right now is that it’s an exception, like the IC on Japan.

It was impossible to make NSW worth 3 IPC ? It was better to make an extra page with special rules ?

It says can’t be built, not that cannot be there. The IC is there at setup so I don’t see any contradiction

Other case if they don’t let that IC at setup in global game. It can be a total world of pain for allies unless at least minor ICs can be built …

I continue seeing no island ICs as an error by the way

[Bluecoat1861]

Just to keep hammering on this alittle here is an article in Wikipedia on the US Pacific Fleet in May 41:

“Until May 1940, this unit was stationed on the west coast of the United States. During the summer of that year, as part of the U.S. response to Japanese expansionism, it was instructed to take an “advanced” position at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Long term basing at Pearl was so strongly opposed by the commander, Admiral James O. Richardson, that he personally protested in Washington. Political considerations were thought sufficiently important that he was relieved by Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, who was in command at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor.”

There was a reason for Peral harbor the US fleet was considered a BIG threat to Janapese ambitions that was why the effort was made to take it out.

[johnnymarr]

Per djensen

Here is a rough schedule of future previews:

• Tomorrow (Dec. 3, 2009) I’ll be posting more photos of the other units in the game. http://www.axisandallies.org/

• Later this week, I’ll post a high res photo of the map boards.

• I might have a post about the rules sometime before Sunday. If not Sunday, then after next Tuesday.

• I’ll be tweeting my first game on Sunday. http://twitter.com/axis_and_allies

• Next Monday or Tuesday I’ll have the game report from the Sunday game.

[xzorn]

The US did have a substantial fleet, but seeing as how:

1. The pearl harbor jazz won’t happen again, one would think, so the Japanese won’t have that advantage
2. They have time to build a bit more with a limited income before they join the war
3. Once they join they will have a LOT of cash to make more

I think it should be fine.

[oztea]

larry said something about the US player being “strongly encouraged” to keep ships in pearl harbor

perhaps National objectives like

Japan: 5 IPC if no allied ships are present in sea zone 26 or Japan controls Hawaii
US: 5 IPC if at least two allied ships are in sea zone 26 and US controls Hawaii

[Canuck12]

@oztea:

larry said something about the US player being “strongly encouraged” to keep ships in pearl harbor

perhaps National objectives like

Japan: 5 IPC if no allied ships are present in sea zone 26 or Japan controls Hawaii
US: 5 IPC if at least two allied ships are in sea zone 26 and US controls Hawaii

Well Honalulu is a victory city and it is also the most logical strategic staging point for any naval offensive by the United States (it is close enough to the mainland to send ships there in 1 turn so they are not left undefended in the middle of the ocean and its also decently close to the Japanese territories.

The US will have to station its fleet somewhere within striking distance of the Japanese and this aramada will most likley be attacked by the Japanese, Hawaii is simply the most logical place for this inevitability to occur.

[Tralis]

@Krieghund:

@djensen:

Krieghund, since the review copies are out, are you allowed to write up your thoughts on the game now? I’m sure you’ve played it a bunch already, no?

I’m too emotionally attached…

Then what are your favorite additions, changes, and mechanics?

[Krupp Steel]

Yes,please Krieg,share your experiences with us  8-),those who don’t have one of the most awesome jobs in the world! :mrgreen: