We need an allied playbook.

The factory is destroyed as the territory becomes Chinese no matter what Allied Power captured it.

AA Pacific 1940 2nd Edition Rulebook - Page 10

If a Japanese industrial complex is built on a Chinese territory and that territory is later recaptured by the Chinese or liberated by another Allied power, the industrial complex is removed from the game.

@Bob_A_Mickelson:

I’ve been looking to add these custom IPC poker chips to spruce up my game, however they are quite expensive.

http://iwillnevergrowup.com/shop/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=50

How many poker chips do I need for global 1940? Will I need more than one set? What is your guys experience?

Thanks in advance.

I have the set too… I also found the default set a bit short… if I’m not mistaken, I have the default set, two sets of the 25IPC add-ons, and I custom-ordered an extra ten 10IPC chips (as mentioned by others, contact IWNGU directly to get IPCs in a non-set fashion, as I did by ordering extra 10IPC chips).

Bottom line, I was happy with the number of 1s and 5s in the default set, but needed more 10s, and got two sets of the 25s.

You can take an egg carton for a dozen eggs, cut off the top, place it inside one of the plastic boxes the pieces come in (it fits perfectly) and you have a cheap and quick way to comparmentalize your pieces.  It took a few months to get all the ones we needed based on our egg eating rate. :)

We use two for the U.S. (including the Chinese pieces) and two for England.  We use two more to hold the roundels, industrial complexes, ports, airbases, ect.

@Dafyd:

I think that any question when we are trying to improve our skills is a good question…especially if we are really trying to learn.  The Hessian and ShadowHAwk are right.  The key to the Pacific are the two power fleets of Japan and the U.S.  The U.S. must go after the Japanese fleets.  Carriers loaded with planes are very important as well as the subs and detroyers.  As a side mission and with the permission of your Soviet ally, land troops in Siberia and help take back Soviet territories from the Japanese if they have begun to starve out the Soviet Far East.  It takes resources from the Japanese and can alter the attention of the Japanese player a turn or two if they are interested in defending Korea or pressuring the Soviets.

Good stuff here.  I’m a fan of 3 part attacks on Japanese fleets.  As an example:

Japan leaves a chunk of its fleet in SZ42 (off Java) for whatever reason.  They’re not worried about an attack because America doesn’t have the fleet off of Queensland to come after them.  What I’ve done in those situations is attack with the American ships, then follow up with India planes and Anzac ships/planes to finish them off. You’ll lose your American ships, some India planes and Anzac ships/planes, but if you wipe out half of the Japanese fleet it’s brutal for Japan because, as dominate as they can be, they can’t afford to lose too many major pieces.  America can lose a mini fleet and replace it; Japan cannot afford to be spending multiple turns rebuilding its fleet.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

I like the idea of 1 or 2 French infantry in FIC. I know historically there wasn’t a huge French presence there, I just always thought that territory shouldn’t be totally empty.

That’s true, and slipped my mind. But this would effectively stop the invasion, which I believe it should. I know the rule is the rule I just think its goofy that a sub would be ignored by something that couldn’t attack it. CV’s have changed so much during all the incarnations of A&A and it seems will continue to, having no attack value is silly but giving them Capitol ship status would make them too powerfull if they had attack powers or too expensive. Any way, again, thanks for the clarification, I would have played it differently and not even have thought to ask. And again, no disrespect Gamerman, I just don’t like the rule is all.

If the US is forced to split it’s income their could come a time where it could haved saved the day at Hawaii or get much needed support to a victory city in Europe but it’s hands will have been tied because of polictial rules and the Axis will win.

To be honest I don’t really want to win that way.  I respect your position but I do disagree with it.  I would love to see the Axis made a little stronger but I am actually feel pretty comfortable with the USA staying as is for the most part.