Pacific 1940 2nd Edition

clarified thank you very much

Hi Folks,
if I had to choose, I would always decide my self for the Pacific. I prefere the huge naval/air battles over the large clashes of tanks in Russia or the battle for the Atlantic. And with the scale of A&A, the engagements between the German Africa Corps and the British 8th Army are merely a sideshow.
Greetings,
Lars

I simply used the money from one of my previous A&A games. I prefer it for when I have left over from the previous turn.

each game box has 6 compartments. each piece of paper creates 2 compartments. the 3 folded papers fit snugly into the game box so there is no need to glue or tape the folded paper to the game box.

however, when the 3 folded pieces are placed in the game box 2 flaps of paper do not lay flat against its neighbouring paper and i taped them down.

Not really a ‘trick’, but inexperienced players seem to miss some crucial sea zone connections around Australia. It’s amazing how quickly the US can get into the DEI through that route.

If you at the Aussie naval base you can hit almost all of the DEI as well as PI and can even land in Burma (!) in one turn! It’s things like that that Allied players miss that give th Japanese a bigger advantage. Once you see those, it’s MUCH harder on Japan IMO.

@Vareel:

I don’t think i’m explaining properly.  There should be convoy zones to represent what goes from the US to the UK/Russia.  If G attacks those convoy zones only, it would start war.  I think that is how it should be.  Obviously there should be other convoy zones as well, at least for the UK.

I suppose it depends how they do lend/lease but I’d prefer it not be a simply free cash objective for Britain/Russia (where’s the lending part in that).  What I’d like to see is a lend/lease that’s not a 1:1 gain for Britain and Russia.  The US can designate some number of IPCs to Russia and/or Britain (say 12) and they get half that amount (6 to the banker).  This has a sense of depreciated value and inflated cost (hey, the US is capitalist) to that “lease” from the US and doesn’t punish the axis as much trying to balance Russia & Britain’s economy vs Germany’s which could be unfairly skewed as Russia and Britain get free loot at minimal expense to the US.  And that could be designated in as a different type of convoy zone, perhaps only near the US coast, which would mean the Germans would have to go way past the Channel to stop it, if they even wanted to.  It has the benefit of immediately helping Russia and Britain in a pinch, but if they can hold out the US can send more in US units, which I think would be a more balanced way to send help to an ally.

That way it’s not quite the same as the established convoy zone, because Russia and Britain can’t GET cash from US territory obviously (nor should they)and there would need to be convoy zones for britain that are wholly independent from the lend lease zones you speak of.