Ah okay, thanks very much again for the answers.
Reactions on the FAQ
-
-
the chimps at WOTC didn’t get their daily rations of bananas, so they got pissed and screwed up :roll:
-
They were just good old-fashioned mistakes.
They don’t have computers and never heard of spell checker? Or too lazy to be bothered at the job with job duties?
These games always have some big mistake about them. Not one time did the product come out with no glitches, except for MB AA and AAE.
Wrong colored cruisers, not enough infantry for set up, not enough japanese tanks, really thin tokens, typos,Battleboard, missing Italian parts, something… it’s always something.
-
I just want new boxes with the correct setup on them, taking a pen to them is going to be all kinds of ugly.
-
What!?!
I mean WHAT?!?These simple changes modifiy the game irrevicably
ANZAC Loses 10 production points, New Zealand loses production capibility entirely
Phillipines gets a Naval and Air Base? meaning the US can defend the Phillipines slightly easier, however the phillipines becomes the jewel of the pacific for Japan. A port territory, that with the move of 3 essentaly puts japan in contact with EVERY major territory on the game board in the south pacific.Ok….maybe this is how the game should have been, but this too little too late in my opinion
This FAQ goes overboard. It changes gameplay mechanics about 90 degrees -
Where is this FAQ?
-
sticky at the top of the pacific forum
-
I am glad the corrections are now, while the game is new.
+many to Krieghund for his work and taking so much flack.
-
I’ve thought this entire time “I can’t believe the Philippines doesn’t get an AB or NB.” Glad to see this rectified. I was shocked by the ANZAC IC downsizing. This is huge. I’m surprised by the number of mistakes, that sidebar omission is pretty crucial too.
-
Krieghund you said that the AA42 battle strip was included by mistake…is this only in certain games or in every game that was produced? Will any future productions have this problem solved?
-
Thanks for the corrections Krieghund. By the time you get done your errata will be longer than the original rulebook. Why couldn’t somebody like you do this before the game came out. You have to admit, this is kind of ridiculous.
-
I am not sure I will adhere to the ANZAC changes in my own personal gameplay. I felt the the NZ IC justified New Zealand’s contribution to the war. And if you are going to make New South Wales the only point of production for ANZAC, shouldn’t it receive a port like all of the other capitols? Also, If India has a major facility, I think Australia should have a major facility as well, their contribution in the Pacific theater was pretty substantial, substanital enough to warrant a major IC in IMO.
-
I am from Aus, and NSW is very wrong.
It had the second bigest port in the south Pacific (behing Singapor), had 50% of ANZAC fighters, 50% of infantry, all heavy equipemt and had 8 million people.
And to show this it gets a minor IC, 2IPC income and 1 infantry. I think it should get 1 IPC boost, Victoria get 1 IPC boost and NT go to nothing.
Move all of queensland units to NSW and leave 1 inf and 1 fighter in Queensland, with airbase. Its naval base belongs in Darwin, NT.
Que (2)-1 inf, 1 fig, AB
NSW (3)-2 inf, 1 art, 2 fig, IC+, AB, NB
NT (0)-NB
NZ (2)-1 inf, 1 fig, AB, IC-All else the same
I think the Phillipans should only have an airbase.
-
I’m more concerned that they get the balance right rather than the ‘realism’ of various nations’ capacities right. I mean in reality, the chance of an actual Japanese ‘victory’ over the US in the Pacific was ridiculously small. Japan just had absolutely NO ability to compete in an industrialized war.
The ONLY thing that gave Japan any chance was the US policy of ‘Europe first’. And even with that Japan lasted a whole 6 months before the tide turned. Granted Midway was somewhat of an aberration (although not as much as it has been made out to be, methinx), but still - Japan was doomed in any form of sustained conflict with the US. Japan’s R&D, pilot training/replacement programs, and ship-building capacity were mere shadows of the US capabilities.
Given all that, I’d prefer that they make sure that the game is interesting and not quite so realistic. ;)
-
I cannot believe the unit setup mistakes. This is unbelievable. What a retards.
Having said that, these unit setup alterations make Japan even more stronger. That is the real concern.
-
I can believe just about anything now.
-
First of all, thanks for the FAQ Krieg.
But could you include some justifications for these changes. It would be nice to see the reasoning behind these changes. Especially the NZ change.
-
First of all, thanks for the FAQ Krieg.
But could you include some justifications for these changes. It would be nice to see the reasoning behind these changes. Especially the NZ change.
They were just good old-fashioned mistakes.
-
This screams for revenge!!
neh, kidding. (or am I?)but what if somebody buys the board without knowing about the forum
whithout the forum pacific 1940 is unplayable
set-up incorrect, rules not explained etc -
Every game I played so far (4) we always wondered why Phil didn’t have an AB of NB. Glad that it has changed. Somewhat surprised by the change in ANZAC IC. But the only time in those four games I’ve played that the NZ IC was important was when Japan captured it and made life very hard for Australia (Jap subs every turn). And as ANZAC you start with 10 and maybe get to 15 (and one time to 20). You want to buy a ship or plane every now and then, so I hardly ever see more then 3 units produced there. But still I wish there was a little more capacity for Aus. Maybe 10 is too much, but at least 4 or 5.
I am glad Krieghund made this FAQ so fast! Also the mech inf supported by art rule is quite a difference. I tend to build one every turn as Japan or Britain.
Suggested Topics
