Unfortunately we are getting off topic.  We should be talking about Cruisers.

The basic economics of using 2/2 units against 3/3 units that have the same comparative price point (a 2 : 3 ratio) is that the lower cost units soak up hits better than the higher priced units.  In case you have never heard of this before, it works something like this:

Buying units with $24 you have 4 tanks against 6 artillery
The four tanks deliver two hits the first round (4 x 3VC = 12 / 6-sided dice = 2 hits), and the six artillery also deliver two hits (6 x 2CV = 12 / 6-sided dice = 2 hits).
The tanks lost 2 units, and the artillery lose 2 units.
In the second round the tanks deliver one hit (2 x 3CV = 6 / 6-sided dice = 1 hit), and the four artillery deliver one hit (4 x 2CV = 8 / 6-sided dice = 1.3 hits).
The tanks lose another tank, and the artillery lose one unit too.
In the third round the tanks deliver one hit (1 x 3CV = 3 / 6-sided dice = 0.5 hits), and the three artillery deliver one hit (3 x 2CV = 6 / 6-sided dice = 1 hit).
The tanks lose their last unit, and the artillery lose one unit.
The artillery win with 2 units remaining because the tanks couldn't absorb the hits.  This analysis also rounds everything in favor of the tanks, so in practice the results should be slightly worse for the tanks over the long haul.

I have three ideas for improving the value of the cruiser.

As someone already said, give it an AA dice roll at the beginning of the attack.  Just like AA guns though, two cruisers doesn't give you two rolls.

Second, let cruisers detect submarines.  Now I will buy some cruisers because I don't have to have a DD all the time to deal with subs.

Third, give cruisers resiliance too so they get two hits.  Now we're talking!  If you make that rule, you will see a mess of cruisers to soak up hits in the next battle.

Destroyers have a 2/2 strength, do anti-sub warfare, provide a "hit", and have AA capability.  Cruisers need a little something more than a 3/3 strength, shore bombard, provide a "hit", and AA capability.

Numerically, Destroyers have a strength of 2/2 and cost $8.  Cruisers are 3/3 and cost $12.  The fact that a unit soaks up a hit has to be factored in to arrive at a real value.  Infantry are 1/2 units and cost $3.  Tanks are 3/3 units and cost $6, but also have a movement value of 2.  The mech infantry is a 1/2 unit with a movement of 2 and a cost of $4.  Clearly the infantry has some value factored in as cannon fodder.  The cost relationship between a cruiser and a destroyer does not take this into account.

Give cruisers resilience and they will be bought to soak up hits.  Destroyers will be bought to do anti-sub and AA dice.  Battleships will not be bought.  Subs will be bought in a small qty to do comerce raiding and soak up some hits from navy attacks.  Carriers will be bought to carry airplanes.  It all sounds right to me.

If Japan does not go after the Hawaiian Islands on turn J1, where do they put their ships?

I do not curently favor the J1 attack against Hawaii.  But If Japan is not going to make a major more against the US on turn 1m where should they place their ships?  My thought is they should move almost the entire IJN to the Carolines.  From the Carolines, the IJN can threaten all of the Eastern Pacific.

The one big problem in this is the transports.  I use the transports in SZ 6 to send down four more ground units to SE Asia, which puts them out of position to use against the US or ANZAC in turn 2.  The transport in SZ 33(? - Carolines) I move to SZ 6 to be in position to move more troops of the home island.  I buy a transport in J1 also giving me two for J2.

Now to the crux of the problem.  The US should add forces to Hawaii on US1, but that is limited to two ground units, one an infantry.  The other should probably be an AA gun or a tank.  If the IJN attacks Hawaii on turn 2, they have the same problem they had in turn 1, except worse, because the US can still scramble one plane, and the island has two more troops.

Are we looking at a J1 or J2 attack against ANZAC now because of these US resources?

I curently attack J3 because I need the time to buy a few transports to make me comfortable "taking the plunge" as the Japanese.  I wonder if Pearl Harbor Day will be forgotten in this alternative universe?

The defense of scrambling one Tac bomber is a total win for the US.  If they do scramble the Tac, Japan loses the chance to shore bombard with two battleships and one cruiser.  The one turn statistics on that single event show the US player has made the right decision.  2@4 + 1@3 = 22%-3 hits, 44%-2 hits, 28% 1 hit, 6 % no hits  Only 6% of the time is the US losing anything on the decision, and 28% of the time they break even, since the first hit could be understood to be the loss of the Tac anyway.  I haven't analyzed the whole battle, but someone has already said it is less than 50% for the Japanese to take the H-I if the US player scrambles a plane.

... and if they are Allied planes they are treated as cargo.  They are not in the air when the attack comes.  If the carrier is damaged, the planes are stuck on board until the carrier is fixed.  If the carrier is sunk, the planes are lost.

In my case I can only afford one set of each nation, so I hope the piece count is good enough.

Today I went to get a couple new Plano boxes so I could organize my pieces after getting the Pacific 1940 game.  We already have a copy of Revised, Pacific, and Guadalcanal.  I also paint my pieces, which is a little tedious, so I like to use those pieces even though they were painted for the Revised game.  I don't yet have painted cruisers.  Now, with four nations of cruisers, TAC bombers and Mech infantry, I got some catchin up to do.  I also have to paint the whole set of ANZAC pieces (except for the infantry since I painted several British infantry a forest green already instead of the Armor Sand color of my other UK forces).

Now, while I have much work to do when the FMG pieces come out, I will love the task because the pieces are so much better.

I think you are mistaken.  The French and Dutch Territories are available to occupy in the beginning.  If the Japanese occupy a Dutch territory then that brings all the allies into the war.  However, I believe if the UK or ANZAC occupy a Dutch territory, the Japanese are allowed to attack that territory under the same circumstances as any other UK or ANZAC territory.  Check the stuff written about corrections to page 8, The Political Situation.

If a variation happens that includes taking NSW, I suspect many folks will fly the 4 fighters to Hawaii and let the US new fleet buildup drive back into Australia.  Japan would get a lot of IPCs in this variation from their conquest of NSW, but I don't think it will compare to the benefit to the US.  On the surface, the US gets two extra turns of +40 income.  The Japs get 10 IPCs stolen from Australia, kill two ships worth 15 IPCs, get 5 IPCs for taking an Allied Capitol, kill an ANZAC infantry, and eventually an ANZAC artillery, and gain 2 IPCs (turn 1) + 4 IPCs (turn 2) + 5 IPCs (turn 3) + 2 x 5 IPCs for holding an Allied Capitol through turn 3.  All this adds up to 54 IPCs through turn number 3.  The US gains 80 IPCs more income from this option.  The USs stuff is still in SZ 10 though.  Eventually we will learn if the position advantage of the Japanese is better than the economic advantage of the US in this case.  One thing though, with the airbase and port in Hawaii, the US can strike Japan from Hawaii in a single turn.  Will the Japanese have enough stuff to protect the home island from this threat after turn 6 or so and still have assets to finish their other objectives.  The Japanese likewise can counter from the Carolines.  This might be the whole trick to the game.  The Hawaii-Japan-Carolines triangle has to remain balanced.  If after China falls and either Calcutta or NSW falls, the triangle becomes the single balance point in the game.  If Calcutta falls, the loss of either Honolulu or NSW end it.

There is no doubt that the combined game will be much different for Japan.  I expect there will be a new starting unit placement card for Japan, and clearly for everyone else.  In addition to the changes noted above, I suspect that while the USs total income will go up, it will not double.  The reduction of US income that is likely to be dedicated to this theatre will be offset by the threat Russia adds to Japan's security.  The new KJF-KGF threads will be interesting.  And I wonder if Japan will have to consider the impact to Germany before bringing the US into the war?

I found an awesome map online, I believe due to IL, for Revised a little over a year ago.  What is the word on the same thing for AAPacific40?  I know folks say the new map is huge, but it isn't huge enough for me.  I broke out my "Fleet Pieces" during my first game because of the Japanese fleets.  Even if I had more space, moving the carriers frequently was annoying because of the Tac bombers slipping off.  I'd love to get an image that could be reproduced 20-50% oversize and still be clear and not fuzzy.  If anyone has heard about one, let us know.

I agree with Frimmel.  The game is pretty balanced.  I can see one situation where until the US player figures it out, the game tips in favor of the Japanese, but the solution to that question is already on this forum.  Enjoy the game.  Welcome to the forum.  Happy New Year!

Frimmel knows his stuff.

As for me, I never leave anything on Bougainville <sp?> on the first turn.  Put everything on Choisuel and New Georgia and see where it goes from there.  I leave one Infantry on Santa Isabel so I can use the Navy Guns on the US invasion force.

[yunnan]

i'm even thinking bout a J4 attack
then you can take DEI, malaya, kwantung, phillipines, yunnan and perhaps a bit more in a round

I am in the middle of my first study game.  I took Yunnan in J1 and Szechwan in J3 killing the Flying Tigers.  I hope you are not waiting till J4 to attack Yunnan.  In this game, Japan was attacked by the UK on turn #2 and Japan took the PI, Kwangtung and Celebes on turn #3.

Either way, good luck.

The +40 IPCs is a NO.  Japan does not get to enjoy a US NO.  Japan would only get the 10 IPCs each turn.  I doubt it will come in a game though.  If Japan ever got close to the US, the US can buy 16 infantry with 50 IPCs.

I haven't played much yet, but when I read the rules the first time I thought, "This Tac Bomber may not be worth the extra IPC."  Fighters are better except under certain situations when Tac Bombers are attacking.