One sez-zone question

We just played a modified version of the 1st Edition Pacific game in my summer gaming class, using the Red Minis.  It had 6 players, 5 Allied and the Japanese.  The Allied were the U.S., Australia, British India, the Netherlands, China, and Japan.  The Netherlands did not have an IC but could buy some units from the United States using income from the refineries in the Dutch West Indies and Lend-Lease credits.  The Japanese player won because the Allies failed to cooperate effectively.  Getting 5 middle school and high school males to cooperate is not at all easy, just like Allied cooperation in World War 2.  It makes for a great learning tool.

Playing any Axis and Allies game with more than two players makes if far more interesting than a basic two-player game.

Thanks!

Hi folks

the move against both Hawaii and us fleet is a great move… unfortunately you can’t place your carriers in the Aleutian seazone, that would make your planes (in zone 5) make an illegal combat move.
You can’t use the carriers to make a move forward and then send of planes, the planes can only move four spaces.

When I try to make this move and I usually do this.
2 subs to z9
2 planes to z9
4 planes to z5

You will then typically have 2 fighters left from z5 and both fighters from z9
You will only loose 2 subs and 2 fighters total
(these are based out of statics’s of 1000 battles)
The US fleets will be destroyed with the exception of 1 sub left in z5 (if he doesn’t submerge this, he’s crazy)

I would recommend that you then take your carriers and move them to the northern US convoy in z6 and land your fighters here.
Now I know this means that theres a chance that you will loose the carriers and the fighters. US is able to respond to this on their first turn with 3 ftr 2 bmb and 1 sub. But with the convoy there and away from the remainders of the us fleet, its the best choice, if you are performing this move.
The outcome of this battle is very luck dependent, your fighters will have nowhere to land if you loose your carriers. so the sub has a lot to say in this battle.
if we look at the numbers again the us will only be able to clear this zone in about 20% of the time… which is pretty good odds for japan.
But still it would be foolish of the US not to try to make a move against the carriers, as the attacker they have the option of retreating, if it turns out to the dice are against them.

This is IMO a great advantage for japan, as the US will have to build their whole navy again from nothing. You take the convoy, its only 5 IPC but the US will not be able to take the convoy back until turn 2. Besides if they attack you get the chance to weaken their airforce as well.
Sure its a shame to loose the carriers this early in the game, this makes an Australian invasion very hard and you won’t have the power to do nothing else than delay the forthcomming US fleet, without the carriers.
It all depends on your playing style, but if you want to be aggressive, this is a great move. Especially if you go for an Indian invasion, as the US won’t be able to get there before its to late, if you go for this.

Regards,
Daniel

I’ve just read through the rulebook again in more detail. Here’re my own interpretation to the questions you’ve raised, Inxduk. (Of course, everyone can has his/her own interpretation :D )

First, let’s talk about the term “adjacent”. On page 12 of the rulebook, in the section of Air Bases, it says “Aircraft … do not have to use up one movement to go between the territory and the sea zone in which the base is situated, or is adjacent to.” The meaning of “adjacent” here is obviously geographical. Then, if we assume that the terms through out the manual is coherent. It is reasonable to believe that the “adjacent” on page 24 has the same meaning.

Next, let’s discuss the matter of Naval Bases. In fact, I think that the rule listed in page 24 of the rulebook is very simple and clear. Notice the term used in the rulebook: “naval units”. It hasn’t said anything about a specific kind of naval unit. It says nothing about transport. In my point of view, the only restrictions on the use of the naval bases are: 1) Non-combat movement. 2) Starting and destination naval bases have to be friendly before the movement is made. 3) not more than 3 spaces. Once they are all fulfilled, you can do whatever you like. Therefore, I can’t see any point in prohibiting transports from doing such kind of action.

Just my 2 cents… :oops:

:cry: Darn that!

It sure makes it more difficult for me

ya that helps alot. Thanks man

Thanks Mr. Ghoul and “the admiral” for your prompt help.

Yes you’re right and that I guess is my problem. When you get right down to it the japanese were simply out of their minds . nevertheless the VP system is silly there has to be a better way to mimic historical goals. Japan did know it had to project enough power to make the U.S. (in their ninds) come to terms. The fact that we never would have done that is irrelevent though for Japan in history as in the game has a hard time doing much of anything but hang on in the face of U.S. industrial power.However the concept that china is worthless to the Japanese seems untrue to me . again I will close with a thought that through our new computer age you could easily create a scenario where all had the same map but had to discover for themselves where the enemy is making alliances all the more important etc. It better mirrors reality. What if we did not know what the other nation was producing necessarily or when and where? We all learned the rules before puberty when we played war in the woods, the key was not the most guys but the best, build good defenses and sneak up on the other guy find out what he’s doing and ambush him. Simple as this if you can’t ambush the outcome is solely tied to the card game war not real war strategy. Oh god I just ruined this damn game for myself AAAAGGGHHHHHH!!!