For Global it took us about 18 hours of continuous play to end on turn 8 with the axis in conrol on both sides of the board (USSR, UK-Eur &  UK-Pac, gone.)  Several players were below the min constraint.

Disregard the first post, I need to update for the new SE set up and rules.  Something of sufficient quality with both rule changes and setup should be stickied for those who bought AAP40 earlier.

[new]

I wasn't happy with that. They stand out and look funny. 

Which ones?  The crouching Italians or the giant Australians?

For the record, I appreciate the new AAE40 SE sculpts despite the crushed-looking Italian infantry that fall over on the map.  While the French are bit players in 1940 (1939 Sept. hint, hint...I'm working on some scenarios) I wish they had actually been done using French rather than Russian gear.  It is a cosmetic thing, but the short-lived French seem to deserve it.     

Why don't you just use the information to be found here on this site.

See for example:

http://www.axisandallies.org/p/whats-new-in-axis-allies-pacific-1940-and-europe-1940-second-editions/

In this article you find even links to the new setup charts.

http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/setup-chart-for-axis-allies-europe-1940-second-edition/
http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/setup-chart-for-axis-allies-pacific-1940-second-edition/

So no reason to "ARG".
 

 

Thanks, this is what I was looking for.  Why isn't this a sticky in this forum section?

It's not like I don't look around for stuff like this. 

Being deep into a game of global with the wrong setup is definitely reason to go ARG.

My AAE40 SE Italian infantry are nearly falling forward, enough that some won't stand.  I figured it was some sort of statement about the Italian army's penchant for surrendering...

[ARG!]

Your setup is out of date.  The correct setup can be found here.

No disrespect intended to you personally, Krieghund but, ARG!  To say this is frustrating would be putting it very mildly, jumping through hoops trying to find the intended set up.  Is post 1 in the link the correct set up for AAP40SE with some sort of subtraction of Global set up changes from a guessed version of AAP40SE?  Are there images of the cards that ship with AAP40 SE?  I would like to see those (they are the final product, right?  Or are we in development for a third edition?)  Why isn't the set up in the manual?   

Seems a rather basic thing for someone with both versions (original and SE) to write a guide for updating to the current version.  I would do it for free for the community, but I don't have AAP40SE for comparison.  Heck, send me shipping labels both ways and I'll even return AAP40SE with every piece accounted for. 

AAP40 is obviously the red-headed step child of the arrangement. .




   

What is the current set up for AAP40 SE?  These aren't in the SE manual so the link doesn't cover it.  Below is the final Alpha that we were directed to, but I wonder if it is correct.  Have any additional AAA guns been added to territories for example?  (Since these have changed considerably.)   Are there cards we can print out of the SE setup to use with our original AAP 40 games?

             Axis & Allies Pacific 1940 Scenario Alpha

Sept. 2010

I think the following setup is where I’d like to end up. If this is moving a bit too fast for some of you I apologize. I going to list the setups rather than tell you what has changed.
I recommend you test this setup and give me some feed back. Let me know how you like it. What you don’t like about it.

I call this setup Scenario Alpha.
All the National Objectives and bonus incomes remain as they are in the present Pacific40 rule book, with the exception of the following two NOs:

Note: The UK will gain 5 IPCs for controlling Kwangtung and Malaya at the same time but only if at war.
Note: The United States will collect 5 IPCs per round for controlling the Philippines but only if at war.


China
Szechwan 5 Infantry and one fighter
Hunan 2 Infantry
Yunnan 4 Infantry
Kweichow 2 Infantry
Shensi 1 Infantry
Suiyuyan 2 Infantry

ANZAC
Malaya 1 Infantry
New South Wales - 1 Infantry, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base.
New Zealand - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Queensland - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Sea Zone 62 -1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 63 – 1 Cruiser

United Kingdom (India)
Sea Zone 37 - 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 39 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Kwangtung - 2 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
Burma - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Malaya - 3 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
India - 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC

United States
Western US - 3 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Hawaiian Islands - 2 Infantry, 2 fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Philippines - 2 Infantry, 1 fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Midway - 1 Airbase
Wake Island - 1 Airbase
Guam - 1 Airbase
Sea Zone 26 - 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 10 - Battleship, Cruiser, Transport, Carrier w/Tac & Ftr
Sea Zone 35 - 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport

Japan
Japan - 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Manchuria - 6 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber
Palau Island - 1 Infantry
Kiangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Formosa - 1 Fighter
Shantung - 2 Infantry
Kwangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Iwo Jima - 1 Infantry
Jehol - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Caroline Islands - 1 AA gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Infantry
Siam - 2 Infantry
Okinawa - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Kiangsu - 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber.
Korea - 3 Infantry
Sea Zone 6 - 1 Sub, 2 Destroyers, 2 Carriers each with 2 Tac & 2 Ftrs., 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 19 - 1 Sub, 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 33 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Carrier w/ 1 Tac & 1 Ftrs.
Sea Zone 20 - 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport

I should add:
8.  Kamikaze attacks no longer require capture of a specific Japanese held territories first.  Instead,  "if an Allied player attacks Japanese units in or declares an
amphibious assault from one of these sea zones" (same ones with the Kamikaze symbol), then the Kamikaze strikes can be conducted.

[tactical bombers]

Note that this topic is for updating the first edition of Axis and Allies Pacific 1940.  My understanding is that the alpha I linked to above is the final used in AAP 40 Second Edition.

I'm updating this thread as potential help to others searching to play first edition AAP 40 with the SE rule set.  I might post a new thread as well.

There are a number of additional changes for AAP 40 SE not mentioned in the FAQ as best I can tell.  These were incorporated into AA Europe 1940 SE and Global and substantially alter the basic rule set.  Areas to familiarize yourself with in the new SE manuals online are:

1.  Scramble limitations/changes--limited to three aircraft per airbase.  Also they can scramble to defend in the sea zone when amphibious assaults are launched against other territories in the same sea zone they cover.  Also, scrambling is allowed from coastal territories (contrary to the FAQ link above.)
2.  AAA guns can now be taken as casualties (e.g. "meat shields") and they cost 5 IPC's rather than 6.  Also each gun can fire up to 3 times and multiple guns can fire.  The maximum number of firings is the number of aircraft attacking or 3x the number of AAA guns in the territory, whichever is less.  The attacking player gets to choose which air units to assign as casualties after the roll.  Also, there are now colored pieces for each nation's AAA.
3.  Strategic/tactical bombing raids.  This has been reworked for the better as originally strategic bombing raids were suicidal wastes of IPC in the original 1st edition.  "All of the air units have attack and defense values of 1."  This applies to escorts, defending fighters, and the strategic bombers.   Now SBR's are dangerous to defending aircraft (as the Luftwaffe was well aware in WWII.)  Additionally, SBR's do more damage in each attack as their die roll has 2 added to it for determining damage points!
4.  Tactical bombing raids have been updated.  Same as strategic bombing raids, only by tactical bombers or strategic bombers against air or naval bases only.
5.  Mechanized infantry now supported by artillery.  Gets 2 attack when paired 1 for 1 with artillery.  (This was part of one of the later FAQ's I linked to.)
6.  Convoy disruption now determined by die rolls.  Each DD, CC, BB, or AC based aircraft gets to roll one die to determine points lost.  Subs roll 2 die.  There is more datail in the manual.
7.  There are some changes to the national objectives.  I haven't fully reviewed these yet...still wrapping my head around the other gameplay changes.

I don't have AAP 1940 SE, but I've been looking at the pdf of the SE edition to see what changed from the first.  Looking at the AAP SE changes vs. Global SE I notice the UK Pacific starting income is 16 rather than 17 for Global.  This is due to the transfer of West India's income to the Pacific and the North American UK territories are part of the European UK.  (You probably already have this correctly entered for your map, but it is worth noting for those who are trying to reconstruct AAP 1940 SE using a first edition box and the Europe Global SE rules/box.)

I have to admit I'm not against the Dido class being included either.  Those 5.25" guns in five twin turrets have enough punch to make life difficult for other light cruisers (though not the more heavily armoured types) and there are enough of those barrels with sufficient fire rate that I wouldn't withhold them from taking on most light cruisers, and would expect to win.  There are two circumstances that would work against Dido's in this sort of challenge:  1.  At ranges of around 17,000+ yards I would expect 5.9-6" guns to be able to hit them with advantage...so the Dido's need to be able to close in some fashion (weather, head-on meeting engagement approach, etc.)  2.  Heavily armoured light cruisers like some of the USN and the Italian Abruzzi class would be able to withstand the lighter guns easily.   

When it comes to destroyers there is a Japanese destroyer with similar characteristics...sporting only 3.9" guns, but with over twice the fire rate of the typical Japanese destroyer. 

Almashir,

Your approach has a more historical flavor to me.  I think the key point for Germany starting in Sept. '39 would be to beat Poland immediately, then transfer or counterattack France if needed with mechanized forces and airpower back in West Germany if France attacked.  This might lead Germany to contemplate using fewer resources than available for the the Polish attack.

The problem with Treaty definitions is that one next has to eliminate many of the best cruisers based on displacement.  The 11" guns are large, but not so much that they should necessarily be dismissed as outside heavy cruiser class, especially since there are only six total in the two turrets.  The ships had the range of cruisers, the speed of a cruisers, and the armour of heavy cruisers.  They also had the displacement of heavy cruisers, with several heavy cruiser classes being heavier (Hipper, Baltimore.)  I would put the heavy cruiser displacement cut off at somewhere around 18-20,000 tons full load.

The River Plate engagement also illustrates the issue with light cruisers having trouble against heavy cruisers that actually had armor--basically post treaty designs.  6" guns don't have the penetrating capacity for the job and the light cruisers get mauled by 8" or 11" guns at range.  The Exeter was a heavy cruiser but was fairly lightly armoured.  And the British 8" gun/projectile combo had a lot less penetrating capability at 20,000 yards than many other 8" rounds would have.  Still, an 8" round found its way through thin deck armor and sealed the Graf Spee's fate, while the light cruiser guns tore up the structure above the waterline.  Had it not been for strategic considerations, Graf Spee would likely have finished the Exeter and probably one of the two light cruisers before it was over. 
 

I'm not sure what ratios the game shoots for with respect to infantry div per inf piece, tanks per tank piece, guns per arty piece, aircraft per fgt piece.  However, you could try to use roughly the strength ratios of German forces available for attack on turn 1 in Poland, to Poland's total defenders.  Obviously, only a portion will be hit by Germany in turn 1 while the USSR will take out the remainder. 

You might consider giving Poland a single tank (maybe drop an infantry to do so.)  Poland actually had a credible tank force for the time, though heavily outnumbered.  Poland had primarily small machine gun types, but it also had some homemade variants that proved formidable to the lightly armed and armoured Panzer I and II's:  including a TKS nkm armed with 20 mm cannon, and the 7-TP's with 37 mm. 

I don't have Europe so I can't address the start up strengths and dispositions directly.  The reservist idea makes good sense, since France/UK should be in reactive mode.  So it could make limited initial inroads to Germany on its first turn.  If Germany's tank force can retake the lost territory on the next turn then I think that would be a reasonable simulation since it would also cost France tank(s), infantry, and arty to do this. 

If we do this cruiser match-up, do we count Pocket-Battleships?

Only the lighter ones of the Deutschland class.  The heavier types (Scharnhorst, Gneisenau) are in the tonnage and armor protection class of battle-cruisers, and were intended to have battleship caliber guns as well.  This would also exclude the Alaska class, which although the USN lists them as "Large Cruisers", are armoured like battlecruisers, armed like battlecruisers and have the displacement and speed of battlecruisers.   Walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers like a duck.   Let's call it a duck.

The problem with the German match up is which is more dangerous:  the two triple turret pocket battleships with 11" guns and moderate cruiser armor, or the four twin turret armed heavy crusiers with 8" guns and slightly less armor, but about twice the fire rate and a 4 knot speed advantage?  The 11" gun turret faces appear to be marginal at 20,000 yards vs. German 8" AP.  Theoretically, they can be penetrated at that range which is not a good thing when you only have two turrets, your opponent has four and a much higher fire rate per gun.  Sure you can punch through easily when you hit, but will you get the chance?