It looks like the 2nd edition rulebooks for AA 1940, both Europe and Pacific, contain the AA Global 1940 rules at the end, with only “minor” game mechanics differences vs. Europe or Pacific (as most Global aspects pertain to managing the merging or expansion from one theater of war to the Global situation).
Is it therefore a fair approach to look for good explanations of AA Global 1940 to understand Europe or Pacific ?
I totally love Board Game Nation’s wonderful series of tutorials on AA, https://youtu.be/IKyWaC0vrtM, because they give detailed examples with dice throws which are very didactic, but they cover 1942 2nd edition, and it appears that there are differences (for instance, strategic bombers get a +2 on strategic raids in 1940, but not in 1942 (at least BGN’s topic on raids doesn’t apply +2 in their example…), and air battle prior to bombing is with 1 attack AND defense in 1942 while interceptors get 2 as defense in 1942. This makes strategic bombing MUCH less efficient in 1942…)
But why wouldn’t the US then also get the 30 IPC bonus income for holding western US at the start of their turn? (getting 60 bonus IPC).
The 30 IPCs for controlling Western United States, unlike the one-time bonus for an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan, is from a National Objective. It, like all National Objective income, is collected in the Collect Income phase (at the end) of the power’s turn.
The rules for declaring war state that it’s technically not required if they declared war on you “as the two powers are already at war” (see below extract from page 11). Though I feel like this must excludes the US and they must “declare war” during their combat move despite already being at war?
@joephillips There is no provision in the rules of the game for “annexing” territories. If you want to create house rules for this, it’s up to you what happens; however, when it comes to a hostile power, “annex” is just a diplomatic word for “attack”.
Attacking first has never been a favoured strategy for me, but I never tried doing the opposite either.
I like to buy one minor industrial complex in Shanghai to smash China. I buy 1 destroyer and 1 submarine.
The Japanese navy is definitely short of transports this way, so you can swap the warships for transport of buy them in turn 2.
Main thing is buy the complex.
You also cannot buy a major industrial complex in Kwangtung, because it is a captured territory. Japan’s not having major industrial complexes anywhere on the Asian mainland, and can indeed only build more in Korea (not recommended).
I can’t predict from there, but in turn 2 don’t attack the Allies and smash China.
Turn 3 proceeds the same as turn 2.
I usually like to attack the Soviet Far East. It is torturously far from Europe, and if Germany is lucky the Soviets won’t have the men to kill you.
This has several drawbacks though:
China is closer to Europe, so the Soviets can send aircraft and tanks to China. This reinforcement is enough to knock Japan out of China, and it’s hard to salvage the situation after that. Best thing to do I destroy the Soviet units before that happens.
Also make sure to destroy Mongolian units later and be wary if the Soviets don’t defend Amur. The Soviets are still strong enough to destroy you and you can’t recover from the loss of the Kwantung Army.
Now for the Allies:
For the Pacific, the UK should send as many units as possible to China. This has the same effect as the Soviets, overwhelming the ill-supplied Japanese units and push Japan out of China.
One time I was playing as Japan against a bad US and Chinese and good British and ANZAC player. ANZAC destroyed a disproportionate amount of units and Japan only conquered Sydney by sheer mass.
So ANZAC should just do what he did, attacking weak and isolated Japanese units. Their navy should stay within fighter cover unless attacking.
China should just hold out as long as possible. Keep the Burma Road open and move the Flying Tigers to Burma when you’re almost dead.
The US should just do what they did, defending Australia and the South Pacific, whittling Japan, protecting Hawaii and striking once your superior industrial power can be brought to bear. If Japan gets a comfortable margin above the Allies and isn’t breaking their navy and air force doing so, things don’t look too good.
Important for all nations:
Aircraft carriers are important when venturing outwards against superior naval forces.
On the same note aircraft carriers are crucial to support when operating deep in enemy territory.
The main cities Japan should capture to win are Manilla, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Calcutta, Shanghai, and either Honolulu and Sydney. Here are the benefits of each:
Honolulu is closer to Japan.
It might be less well defended because there isn’t a minor industrial complex.
However, the US might be able to launch a counterattack more quickly.
Sydney is more isolated from major Allied centres of power, but can defend itself better initially. It’s much harder for the Allies to capture back though.
Overall if Japan has time and dominates the mainland, Sydney is the better choice. If things are tight, Honolulu might be worth a gamble.
Finally, get the Philippines, grab the Dutch East Indies, and cut ANZAC’s bonuses quickly!
Generally, always fulfill your National Objectives and deny your opponent’s National Objectives.
@panther thanks for the quick reply. I was referring to 1940 Pacific SE. You are absolutely correct though. The US starts off as a Major IC on the original box setup. I have a different organizer now. It only has the global setup custom printout on it. Thanks.
@themightyyamato45 SZ35 (phillipines worth 2ipcs)Once its been convoyed for 2 ,there’s no need to roll more dice.
Sometimes you have to convoy when you don’t want to.I’ve had to convoy London just before a sealion invasion,thus reducing the amount of ipcs I get from sacking UKs capitol.
I only ever played 1941 before this game, and the main difference (besides the politics and others) is the fact that China can rebuild itself.
I agree with what you say about industrial complexes, and besides building some in mainland Asia, there are few areas in Global 1940 (only Egypt, any continental European territory for the Allies and I can’t think of any others for Italy and Germany, maybe Yugoslavia).
I only see industrial complexes built a lot in side switch versions, such as this:
This was one of my first posts, and there’s lots of discussion about other house rules as well.
If it’s not said there, when ANZAC sailed and captured a lot of territories in the Middle East they built quite a lot of industrial complexes, which the Soviets then captured. Allied Japan also built a major industrial complex in Korea, a death sentence for the Soviet Union. Still wishing to play this version again sometime.
indeed, very very interesting discussion. It only makes this powerfull game more attractive for me. I’m going to play now again Pacific 1940 and after that I’ll start to read the rules for the guadalcanal version… Curious about this specific rare game…
I thought that might be the case but since aircraft could fly over an unfriendly neutral if they attacked it
Depending on what you mean this is or is not correct. When you say “fly over” if you mean they can fly into the unfriendly territory during the Combat Movement phase and attack it in the Combat phase and then in the Non-combat phase fly out then that is correct. If you mean some units attack an unfriendly neutral and other air units fly into and out of the unfriendly neutral during the Combat Movement phase to attack elsewhere that is not allowed if this is the first time the unfriendly neutral has been attacked.
But, can Japan scramble against US ships when it is ANZACs attack? That is, what if the US also put some surface warships in that sea zone in its non-combat turn- would Japan have to ‘fight’ them in the scramble or just the ANZAC ships?
Japan is scrambling against the ANZAC amphibious assault, not the US ships. The US units are not part of the attack, as it’s ANZAC’s turn, not the US’s.
This is really complicated and might be not addressed by any current rules or errata. thanks (and this is mostly acedemic)
This is addressed by the multi-national forces rules on page 21 of the Rulebook, and by the following FAQ entry:
Q. Say the United Kingdom launches an amphibious assault from a US transport without any supporting UK sea or air units in the sea zone, and then Japan scrambles. What happens?
A. In effect, nothing happens. The US transport doesn’t participate in the sea battle because it’s not the US’s turn. Since there are no attacking sea or air units, there is no sea battle. However, the sea zone can’t be cleared of defending combat units, so the amphibious assault can’t proceed.