K,

Will seek…!

My opinions in summary:

–You need a factory on the mainland. It’s debatable where, but against a competent Allied player you’ll need the boots on the ground.

–You’ll need a lot more TRs. Time is your enemy and having more TRs means delivering more combat power where you need it faster

–I favor a J3 attack. Spend 2 turns pounding on the Chinese with all of your air and getting troops and TRs in position to take everything you need within 2 turns of the DoW on the Allies.

–Try and keep your fleet massed. None of the Allies has the slightest chance against the full weight of metal that Japan can throw around. Granted you’ll likely have to spread out a little to accomplish everything you need, but try and mass up agains ASAP.

–Keep Truk and Japan garrisoned with fighters/tac. As long as you do this and have minimal infantry on the ground they will be EXTREMELY hard to take due to the Scramble rules.

–The primary goal if this strategy is the complete destruction of China with minimal losses and then a heavy focus on India. You only need to fend off the US and Anzac - you dont not need to decisively engage them. PI must fall on J3 to remove the US presence and to get the naval base, but beyond that you dont need to fight them unless they expose themselves to a favorable trade.

Japan can pass through those sea zones during the non-combat phase while not at war with the ally powers.  So really, is it that big of an issue?

@Bob_A_Mickelson:

I’m a bit confused as to why Kamikazes were included in this game. I realize that they add historical flavor and were included because AAP had them but they seem to be unnecessary.

I kind of like them.  They’re by no means a game changer, but since you don’t have to burn a plane, it’s like a free shot, so I don’t see how they’re a liability.

kinda like a lot of the china specific rules

When I first opened this Christmas night, I almost dreaded playing after trying to decipher all of the China rules.  After the first play, though, I think they add to the strategy.  I’m just a casual player, but each time I play AAP40, I like it even more!

@Incline:

@RJL518:

bad dice rolled by my opponents…

but then again…i did build a factory in the phillipines after i captured it

You’re not allowed to build IC’s on islands…

im sorry…not phillipines…my mind was elsewhere…i meant french indo china…why the neg karma?

@Athlim:

When playing our latest game of AAP40 we came up with following situation:
The US attacked SZ surrounding Japan and he brought in 2 fighters (came from GUAM) which had one point of movement left for landing during NCM.

From older versions of A&A i know that those fighters can land on CV which can be moved during ncm in order to allow those fighters to land.

But when i read through the rulebook from AAP40 it states that the fighters must do their ncm before all other ncm is executed. Did i just got it wrong or has this rule been changed?

That rule is specifically for stranded defending air units. Stranded planes are those whose carrier was sunk or damaged, or launched to intercept strategic bombing/scrambled from an airbase to defend an adjacent seazone and the territory, in the last 2 cases they can’t land anymore on their territories/islands because they were captured by the enemy. In those 3 situations the defending player needs to land the planes before the attacking player conducts NCM movement (or lose them if they can’t reach a friendly landing area moving 1 space).

Since your opponent was attacking he doesn’t have to follow this rule. If you had scrambled planes from Japan’s airbase to participate on the sea battle AND if he had made a successful amphibious attack on Japan then the rule would have applied to you, as the defending player.

This is incorrect. The powers are neutral toward one another before war, and so ignore the presence of soon-to-be-enemy ships.

@Krieghund:

@Vareel:

This is really simple, if your ship starts out in a sea zone adjacent to a friendly naval base and is damaged during your repair phase, right before the purchase phase, then it becomes repaired.  So yes it would get repaired.

Yup, it’s that simple.

Excellent. Thanks, guys.

If you want to make sure the carrier will sink you will need to use all 6 Kamikazes on that same carrier. In that case I think it is more rational to use the Kamikaze on cruisers. Attack a cruiser with two kamikazes and you might sink a 12 IPC unit. Even an 8 IPC destroyer is a better target than a carrier.

Its the UK I feel bad for, by turn 3 or 4 they are down to 2-4 IPCs a turn, esp with Jap subs next to India.

The only time an aircraft is EVER going to get “trapped” on a carrier, is if you use a carrier on your own turn that has a multinational fighter on it and you have attacked with that carrier, and taken a hit on it.

So basically, this “can’t” happen to you, unless you go out of your way to make it happen, during an attack.  It may make sense to do this, is some certain bizare scenario’s.  But Don’t be worrying yourself about it.

Now that said, once the carrier is tipped, the aircraft trapped on it cannot be used at all, until that carrier is repaired.

The more real likely hood, is, that if you are not careful, you may, wish to take fgt’s as hits as oppossed to tip your carrier, in attacks or defense, so that your aircraft will have a friendly place to land, if the carrier is totally at sea, with no island or territories in or adjacent to the sea zone, and no other possible carriers in range, to pick up the aircraft.

@Veqryn:

also remember, that AAE will release with a axis that are powerful enough to win 50% of the time WITHOUT the japanese

so this means, perhaps, that in the combined game a japan that attacks russia big time may just make it an axis win all the time combined game

I would say they’ll sufficiently support the Soviet East with the global rules. Remember, there’s a number of Soviet territories that don’t have coverage in AAP40.

i think more people would buy tac-bombers if it didn’t need another unit with it to have that 4 attack
i always thought it should just be a plain 4/3/4/11 unit, no conditions

@Craig:

My towers speak for themselves.

Definitely Craig’s towers are beautiful!  Take a look at them for sure!

These towers that I created are only version 1.0 and I would like to try to sell version 2.0 of my towers but I still need to work some things out.

yes, just a question about 4 here

about winning:

1 Japan has to hold their VC until the end of the round…. so that means til the beginning of their next turn?

2 the allies have to capture and hold Japan island for 1 turn.  since all of the allies go AFTER japan, I am guessing it means they have to hold it until the END of the next japanese turn?  Or they have to hold it until the beginning of the turn of the country that took japan?
can I take japan as america, Japan retakes their island during their turn, then I retake it during my turn, does that count as a win?  what if I take it as ANZAC, japan retakes, then America retakes?

@Bob_A_Mickelson:

Here is a picture comparing the sizes of Pacific 40 and Anniversary.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/637375/axis-allies-pacific-1940-edition

Lots of other detailed photos are at this webpage. Set up a free account to see full sized blown up pictures.

That is an awesome picture.

I have seen it very very even.  I played two games and I am 2-0, one with allies and one with Japan.  Both against very good but not spectacular opponents (Im not great but I can be creative and level headed).  The games were slugmatches from the very beginning. 
Both games were won and lost in China and the victor was able to play a better game of cat and mouse with their American/Japanese navy.  Its probably the best and most balanced axis and allies expierence I have had.

Sure, my opponents did in our first game: I was the Japan.

I attacked the US navy at Hawaii with my huge Imperial Navy: obviously I destroyed all while they don’t scrambled any fighter nor tactical bomber. At his turn, the US player counter-attacked my ships, destroying all them… We closed the game and immediately started a second one: there’s no fun in playing Pacific without ships! :D

This relies on in enexperinced allied player.

It need 3 things to go right.

A-The ANZACs need to keep a bulk of their land forces in Quesland.
B-India needs to keep their navy off Inida for the first 4 turns.
C-The US carnt scrable their plans off Hawaii, if their are 5 Tacks in Hawaii, a land attack will almost certianally fail.

I spose the other thing that could make it fail is if the UK build a factory in Kwangdong would make that much harder to take, mabey impossible if they build a major in UK2, or move 3 of 4 fighters their

This plan relies on a enexperinced allies player who will not put thier navy on the line and looks at sneaky moves.

I think this plan we be like a J1 attack, works when first used but a good alied player will ruin it.

I thought some folks would throw more specific comments in about the benefit in relation to cost for the units.  For example, in a slug-fest between two opposing factories, I think Artillery combined with about two Infantry each will make a good tough core force.  I would expect to see a group of armor mingled with the core fighting groups, and a group of TAC bombers to match.  At 7 IPCs, a pair of Infantry/Artillery deliver a good punch.  It would be nice to have a couple extra infantry to absorb defense blows to protect those artillery, so I figure 2 Inf per Arty is a good starting point.

In the earliest stages of the game, mech infantry and armor buys may be key to get some support onto the front lines when there is a piece of key terrain you want to get early.  After that, unless your supply lines get too long, I suspect to see few mech infantry buys and only a few armor buys to match TAC bombers.

Surprisingly, I expect to see Japan build a factory in Manchuria, followed buy many mech infantry and armor buys to chase Russia and pick up some IPCs from their wide open spaces.  I also expect this to change the way the war is fought in China, but that is another subject.

I hope to have the time to publish a numeric analysis of the units here.  I would hope folks would respect that the analysis is strictly an academic what-if and not a defenitive “buy strategy.”  It should guide some folks to keep them from getting too far off the reservation though.