Thank you so much for this update. That thread is one I’ve been following behind the scenes for years. I can’t believe Larry Harris didn’t do more to improve this stand alone game.
Pacific 1940 review copy has arrived
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
The US did have a substantial fleet, but seeing as how:
- The pearl harbor jazz won’t happen again, one would think, so the Japanese won’t have that advantage
- They have time to build a bit more with a limited income before they join the war
- Once they join they will have a LOT of cash to make more
I think it should be fine.
-
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 -
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 HawaiiWell 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.
-
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?
-
Yes,please Krieg,share your experiences with us 8-),those who don’t have one of the most awesome jobs in the world! :mrgreen:
-
tomorrow they are posting more pictures I cant wait!
-
i am not sure i can read it well or not
can someone confirm what the beginning production is for each country?I am seeing:
USA 17 (gets bumped up to …. 58? on turn 3)
Anzac 10
China 12
UK 16
Japan 26and also
are there national objective with this one?thx,
veqryn -
the problem with stationing a fleet at hawaii is that as soon as the japanese make a lunge for it, the us can bulk it up or pull back
any “smart” us player will easily see an attack coming at least a turn ahead of time with the ammont of seazones involved
-
The latest preview: http://www.axisandallies.org/node/400
Enjoy.
-
Thanks djensen! We appreciate the effort!
Looks like the ANZAC sculpts are identical to the Brits, to be expected I guess… it’s not as if the Australians built their own Battleship…
Also, anyone know why Western US and India get an industrial complex AND an AA gun? I was under the impression that industrial complexes came with their own AA defense in this version.
-
“AA defense from strategic bombing” is incorperated with ICs
AA shots at air units in conventional combat is what an AA gun is foror so ive heard……
Suggested Topics
