I have not played against a 4 VP opening.  How often is a true 4 VP opening achieved?

It is true that the rough description indicates a US relief of Australia is necessary, but the US can bring plenty of relief to Australia in three turns.  It would be a small matter to get six US ground units, and six US fighters into Australia in three turns.  That combined with the use of the Aussie forces should end the Japanese momentum threatening New South Wales.

After that, a set of bombers and fighters may be purchased to be sent to Wake along with a large US surface fleet including three or more CVs to the sea zone between Japan and Wake.  Using some sub stalling of their own, the US could keep any large attack away from this part of the map for two turns while the US sends bombers from Wake and fighters from the CVs as escorts to SBR Japan.

This is strictly theoretical since I have not faced this opening strategy.  It just seems to me the IJN does not have enough income to conduct a major assault and defend the homeland from SBRs.

Some folks may think that the carriers will be sunk by Kamakazies.  I think that it could happen, but it is far from a sure thing.  The IJN only gets a few of these and if that doesn't work, they are done.

Well if we're talking Tigers, then I suppose we are comparing apples to Honey Dew Mellons.

Well, would you rather be in a Sherman with a whole company of other Sherman tanks, air and artillery support, or would you rather be in a Panther with two other tanks in what is left of your platoon?

The problem is that the question you wish to pose compares apples to oranges.

I had thought Korea was the first war with helicopters.  When I see the crude machines they used for medivac, I shudder to think what the WWII ones must have looked like.

It is common for the IJN to have a large surface group in F and the US to have a large surface group in H.  From these positions, the navies are in position to support "their half" of the islands.  With carrier air limited to a movement of two-out-and-two-back, and bombers limited to a movement of three-out-and-three-back, it is necessary to get the carriers near the middle to give the carrier air enough chance to influence things in the game.

Much has been said here about the relative ineffectiveness of air power.  I think we need to recognize it is a game and some things need to be adapted to make it fun for both sides.

Guys,

I really like GC but my son likes Pacific better.  This got me to wondering if we could create a set of rules for Pacific that used the GC battle box.  I can't ask this on the Pacific board because if they don't have the game GC, they won't know what the heck we're talking about.  My biggest problem in doing this is recreating Japan's first round advantage with the Battle box system.  I really like the three phase combat environment, Air, Sea and Land.  And I like the way the battle box randomizes casualties but still makes screening ships relevant.  Has anyone else started looking at this idea?

A44bigdog,

I'd like to hear a vague description of how you would win using VP strategy with Japan.  I was under the impression that to win as Japan you had to take India as quickly as possible.  Are you using OOTB rules?  In the few games I have played, it was no great feat to get enough bombers in place to make the Japan VP win out of the question.

I have come to realize that teenagers don't get the kind of support they need in the current society.  There is a biological need for teenagers to become their own person, seperate from their parents.  They don't understand this, and their parents don't understand this either.  They act on this need by defying their parents, which often means indulging in risky or unhealthy behavior.  Often parents shove money at them and tell them to go have a good time with their friends.  They become facilitators of their youths bad behavior.  I think we (parents) need to recognize our children need us to teach them to assume the responsibility of becoming an adult.  We need to prepare them.  I believe if we do this, we would see less (not none) bad behavior since they would see they are nearing that imaginary line where they become adults and will enjoy the privilages of that position.  So few understand the responsibilities, especially the financial ones, but that largely comes with experience.

I imagine FMarsh needs to keep this project to a single set of molds to make it economically viable.  In this vein, I believe he will receive the greatest number of orders by having a complete new set of pieces which will be able to replace the OOTB pieces or used along side the OOTB stuff.  The colors are an important factor as is the detail quality.  The additional pieces may have to wait until he has shown a sufficient profit to pursue that as a new project.  Even in my "extras" request, I realized it was not trivial to ask for a special infantry mold for China and the Aussies.  I don't have BOTB, AAE or AA50 so I don't know what kind of extras are in those sets (pill boxes, trucks, etc.) but asking for pieces beyond the types used in AAR along with a set of cruisers and Italians may prevent this project from making a profit.  I hope FMarsh makes plenty of sets, has plenty of orders, and can develop many other products in the future with the profit he gets from this project.  My biggest reason to support this is because the AAR set I have includes redundant pieces (same tanks for UK and US, same arty pieces, same subs for different countries, and even the same transports).  I want a unique unit in each country.  My Pacific game has US Navy planes, so I don't have to worry about the P-38 on my carriers any more.

For these reasons, I want something besides the "Zero" as the Japanese fighter.  But I don't know what that plane should be.  I suppose a "Kate" might be OK, but maybe there are others.  I am also struggling with what the UK fighter should be since the Spitfire is already in the AAR set.  Is there an iconic Pacific theatre fighter for the UK?  There is no question you fellows know more about the specific WWII hardware than I do.

The submarines in AA are not that much of a problem folks.  Fat submarines would be objectionable.

I recommend you glue a clear plastic disk as a base to the bottom of your submarines if you don't like them tipping over that much.  A single piece of clear plastic that would do for the job is probably in your trash can right now.  Just get an Exact-o-knife and some clear plastic cement and you're in business.

But that does bring up a new subject ...

Could you throw in a set of blue and red AA chips to add to these figures?  Then we could have grey (ones), red (fives) and blue (tens) to stack under our infantry and armor.  I hope this would not raise the cost too much, but if it did then forget it.  I'd rather keep this project affordable for a large audience.

Field Marshal,

You can make the pieces any color you want, cause I'll be painting mine (well my son's) pieces anyway.  Just kidding ... I'd rather start with the base colors anyway.  It takes a long time to paint them little guys.

As far as making marines and stuff, I would look at it another way.  We already have a set (sets?) of AA pieces, so these new pieces can become the "elite" units and we can keep using the former units as the regulars if that suits you.  My question, as I said before is no small matter, was posed because my Chinese pieces are just Red Russians and I don't have but one UK soldier, and I think they could benefit from two, especially for Pacific.

The new Task Force markers could be smaller than the Pacific ones and could have little waves and wakes behind the ships instead of a shiny smooth blue plate.  Then they look better when I paint them, too.  It would be nice if they had a different ship pattern than the Pacific set too.  Could they have different numbers than 1 thru 6?  I know some folks will be confused by that, but those of us with Pacific will appreciate it.

For that matter, would it be too difficult to make up "Army markers" with a flat plate containing small vehicle shapes, a spot for a country marker and a Roman Numeral format?  Then I could have Patton's Third Army marching to Berlin.  Another crazy idea would be to have a set of small flags for these markers instead of roundels.

I think I'll shut up before this project costs $200 a set.  Thanks for taking this up.  I hope it works out great for you.

Field Marshal,

I'm very glad to see this project.  I will certainly buy a set if they come to market.  I hope the dice project gives you what you need to make this happen.  I hope this does not take the thead off into the wrong direction, but I have a small request.  Please include chinese infantry and a second UK infantry to represent the colonies (such as India and Australia).  I am just looking for a temperate and tropical UK soldier for example.  I know this is no small request but it would help make this the full boat.

The logistics problem was a significant design issue, but another skewed part of the comparison is the fact that we were advancing and they were defending.  The defense gets a bonus for artillery, mines, channeling obstacles, prepared positions and surprise if it is well prepared.  They usually get the better terrain too.  It is a difficult comparrison to make.  However, I'd probably want to be in a big German machine rather than a smaller US tank that had to get here on a supply ship.

When you're a dinosaur, just "life" is good enough.  Night life for me is coming home after eight from a church social.  The only thing I go out for after supper is a minor league baseball game now and then.

Revised is dead?!!?  Do you mean folks don't want to play Revised anymore because AA50 is the game to play?  I personally haven't seen that AA50 is worth the investment yet.  All I'm going to get is some cruisers for UK, Russia and Germany and some Italian pieces that are remolds.  I can't afford that for the price.