Weapons Developement?

I don’t think she means actual jets, just the jet fighter tech which would allow Japan’s fighters to hit @ 4. So, all of Japan’s planes, fighters and tacs, would be hitting the US ships @ 4 almost guaranteeing all hits in the first round of combat.
What gets me about OUR version of Pearl Harbor vs. the actual attack is that if Japan chooses to attack the US fleet in SZ 26, thus simulating a Pearl Harbor attack, more often than not Japan will not just send planes, but warships as well and usually ends up occupying the sea zone around Hawaii. In the actual attack, the entire attack force was made up of aircraft with a couple of midget submarines and once it was over, the fleet high-tailed it back to Japan.
Also, if you really wanted to simulate Pearl Harbor, the US fleet should only be able to defend @ 1 for all types of ships, including Battleships. After all, out of some 400 or so planes between the first and second attack waves, Japan only lost 29 planes.
Remember the original A&A Pacific? On the first turn, all Allied forces defended @ 1 to represent the surprise and fast advance of the Japanese war machine. The exception was any attacks against Chinese forces. They still defended like normal. I wonder how that would work in a game of Pacific 1940 or Global 1940. Say the first attacks made by Japan on UK, ANZAC and/or US forces, those defenders defend @ 1 for that round only, not including China or USSR. I would imagine there would be more J1 or J2 DOWs. Then again, Japan might wait until J3 or J4 so they can get more forces into position. If that were the case, what do you think the Western Allies would do before Japan attacks? Perhaps pull all their stuff back as much as possible so they lose as little as necessary defending @ 1?

I don’t think Pearl Harbor can really be performed in this game.  America will either have more or less there, or the battle would take place prior to December 1941…

Also, the American carriers were not present at Pearl because they were out on maneuvers.

Right - the game doesn’t start in December of 1941.  There were a lot of battleships at Pearl at the time of the attack, and there isn’t even 1 battleship in Z26 at game start.

@Gamerman01:

Right - the game doesn’t start in December of 1941.  There were a lot of battleships at Pearl at the time of the attack, and there isn’t even 1 battleship in Z26 at game start.

Yes, but those battleships were World War 1 battleships with wooden decks.  I’d say those battleships, if converted to Axis and Allies pieces, would really be cruisers.  Just my opinion.

Anyway, I’ve oft been seen saying the following:  “If you want the game to be historically accurate then the Axis may not be permitted to win the game, no matter what, since historically speaking, they lost 100% of the World War 2’s fought.”

Sure, but I think a lot of players would like to see a historically accurate STARTing setup, that’s all.  We all like to see the game unfold in different ways.  Otherwise we could just watch a documentary and see REAL tanks, after all

The starting setup is historically accurate, or at least very close. Specifically regarding the US Navy. The game starts immediately after the Dunkirk evacuation of the British Army which is early June 1940. At that time, the bulk of the US Navy was based in San Diego. They moved to Pearl to beef up the Pacific fleet in January 1941 due to Japanese action in the Pacific.

Good points
However there are certainly (probably many) gross inaccuracies.

The battleship off Malaya presumably represents the Prince of Wales and the Repulse.  According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse these capital ships were not sent to Malaya until December, 1941.

It also says in this article that the “bulk” of ANZAC’s forces were sent to North Africa.
Starting setup has 2 ANZ infantry in Egypt and much more than that in Australia/New Zealand.  Hmmmmmmm……

Also, “Due to the emphasis placed on cooperation with Britain, relatively few Australian military units were stationed in Australia and the Asia-Pacific Region after 1940. Measures were taken to improve Australia’s defences as war with Japan loomed in 1941, but these proved inadequate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_World_War_II

“The beginning of the Pacific War — and the rapid advance of Japanese forces — threatened the Australian mainland for the first time. The RAAF was quite unprepared for the emergency, and initially had negligible forces available for service in the Pacific.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Air_Force#World_War_II
Starting setup has ANZ with THREE fighters, which is ridiculous.
As I’ve been saying ever since P40 came out, ANZ is ridiculously OP compared to RL  :-)

IMHO what is inaccurate is that Australia starts with the same number of planes as Russia.  RUSSIA!!!  You know, that vast empire!?!?

By 1938, the Soviet Union had the largest air force in the world, but Soviet aeronautical design was distinctly lagging behind Western technological advances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Forces

Now, I understand that Germany, US, UK and Japan should have more planes - despite the USSR having the largest air force in the world.  Yes the tech was not the same as the Germans or British had.  Fine.  I get that.  TBH, I would change the Russian fighter from a 3/4 unit to a 3/2 unit and reduce the price to 7 IPC.  Maybe reduce cruising range to 3 as well (4 with air base.)  Then I would double the fighters on the board (4 fighters, 1 tactical bomber.)  Bar the Russians from building normal fighters or strategic bombers.

Short of inventing new stats that just impact Russia, not sure how to handle it.

Would you do that for Russia for the entire game? Or just the first 3-4 rounds after they enter the war in Europe?
I ask this because while the early Russian aircraft did pretty much suck, which is why the Luftwaffe just had themselves a ball for the first year or so, later on they came out with really good planes, both fighters and tactical bombers, that became a good match for the Luftwaffe planes (Yak-3, Mig-3, IL-2, etc.)
Personally, I think it would be a better idea to do like you say, double the fighters but half their defense value and lower the cost to 7 IPCs but only for the first 3 rounds after they are at war with Germany/Italy. On the 4th round, they can buy normal fighters. Plus, if you have any of those HBG Russian Early War pieces, you can use the I-16 fighters to represent the earlier units and the OOB Yak-3 fighters to represent normal/later war fighters.
As for Strategic Bombers, that’s kind of an odd unit for Russia in this game. Just about the only time Russia ever buys Strategic Bombers in our games is when the Allies are winning, Germany/Italy are pretty much done for and everyone is ganging up to finish off Japan. While the US builds up a proper invasion force, UK and USSR send bombers to SBR Japan and sometimes even to take out a few infantry in regular attacks to make the US invasion a little easier.
The point being that we so rarely see Russia buying strategic bombers that I don’t think there needs to be any type of rule prohibiting them from doing so. Perhaps your games are different?
It just seems to me like a waste of money for Russia to buy a strategic bomber when in the face of the German onslaught, 4 infantry or 2 tanks would do much better.
Oh yeah, and from what you and Gamerman01 pointed out, I do see that there are many flaws in the setup when compared to historical placements. I’ve always thought that ANZAC was overstocked with fighters. In Pacific 1940 1st edition, they had 3 fighters on New Zealand and a 4th on Queensland! Of course, I think Japan started with seven more planes than they do now. What craziness was that?!?
Even now in the 2nd edition, Japan starts with 21 planes but Germany only starts out with 12. That doesn’t seem right.

Enjoyed those last posts, knp and Jenn, and at a glance it looks like I agree with you