Actual AA pacific 1940 map pictures

Notes on the Pacific 1940 2nd rules, mainly highlights of the most important rules as they appear in the rulebook along with some additional comments and explanations and some helpful tables:
Pacific 1940 2nd - Setup Charts:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hkhe3it1gkhkwse/Setup Charts for A%26A P40 SE.pdf?dl=0
Pacific 1940 2nd - Basic Rules Guide:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0y4rogsbnri9rcr/Important Notes for A%26A P40 SE.pdf?dl=0
Some pages as a sample of these Notes below:
69e0396c-d033-4120-a483-906811e7dd8e-image.png

9e131f80-625d-4280-aafb-596b4be038c9-image.png

See also the posts for Europe and Global 1940 SE versions:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1622770
and
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1630786

I doubt it, but I guess it doesn’t hurt to try.

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

I think your first situation is correct but I’m having a hard time understanding the benefit of the second situation, unless I’m misreading it. If you are engaging in combat in the sea zone and the coastal territory (with the SZ the only access point to the territory), why wouldn’t you just bring the transport along with the naval attack to assist in capturing the territory?

If the blocking ship was not on the coast (one sz out), you could kill him in combat and move transports in during non combat to off load them onto the  coastal tt you just took. Assuming that you indeed did take the coastal tt by other means.

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

So let me get this straight, in sea battles, you can kill an enemy blocker ship (destroyer) in the combat phase and move your fleet past that SZ into the next SZ in the non-combat phase assuming that none of your fleet is engaging in a combat move. Is this correct? If so this really changes things for me in Pacific…

Yes that is what I was referring to. You can kill the enemies ships in combat (using just a few ships or planes even). Then in noncombat move into the cleared sz (1st move) with your ships that where not involved in the battle. Then (2nd move) to the coast to off load your transports on to the coastal tt you also took during combat. Of coarse the 2nd sz could not be hostel. You can also do this to join two of you fleets together. It doesn’t come up to often, but in P40 it could be useful to both the allies or Japan (especially when you consider NB).

Use the old Red Japanese A&AP Infantry for that - or potentially the old Yellow Japanese Infantry from A&A 2nd Edition.

Sounds like a good idea - care to post the full rule?

@jeffdestroyer:

Someone will make a larger Map if the 1940 Europe game does not have  big enough territories to hold pcs.
The crunch has occured in Europe in the past

Yes, this is my concern as well. But no worries. As we have seen in the past, if there is a big enough issue with TT size and enough people complain, our talented artists here at AA.org will produce some beautiful jumbo maps for us to print out and all will be right with the universe.

You talented folks know who you are  :wink:

just like in real life
that’s what i like in this game: you’ll have same discussions of 1940 as in reality

i have read a book about it, some were pro war 1940, some 1941, some pro war China, some pro war USSR

each case: it has its advantages, but disadvantages.
only depends if there are more pro’s than con’s

@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.