IPC Confusion

I’m working on reproducing Xeno’s maps. Redoing each of the 3 games. I haven’t played P40 in a while, but YG is correct most of the time.

@Stumne:

Ok, the US start with 17, once at war with Japan is the 17+30 each turn, or just 30 (not including rest of bonuses)?

Also, and I suppose this applies to all games, does a country not at war at the start of the game, in case of Pacific UK  and ANZAC do they still get IPC, can purchase and move pieces?

Welcome to the forum, Stuart. :-)

Your first question:

@rulebook:

The United States begins the game neutral. It may not declare
war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes an
unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or
ANZAC. Following any such unprovoked declaration of war
by Japan, the United States will receive an immediate one-time
bonus payment of 30 IPCs, representing the total mobilization
and transfer of military assets within the continental United
States.

Those 30 are granted at the moment the scenario occurs.

@rulebook:

National Objectives and Bonus Income
…
When the United States Is at War:

30 IPCs if the United States controls Western United
States. Theme: Major shift from peacetime to wartime
economy.
…

So when at war the USA receive +30 IPCs during every US Collect Income Phase.

Your second question:

Actually UK and ANZAC “… are both at war with Japan’s allies, Germany
and Italy, on the other side of the world, so they are not completely neutral.”
(Rulebook, page eight)

When it is their turn, they act as every other power, however they have to respect some restrictions given by the rules:

@same:

When not yet at war with Japan, in addition to
the normal restrictions (see “Powers Not at War with One
Another,” page 14), neither power may move units into or
through China.

HTH :-)

ok…i got it now…thanks KriegHund…aka the “WarMaster”

Yoper:

“But spelling mistakes are different from people actually having troubles understanding certain ideas or concepts in the rules.”

Yes, they are different, but both fall under the jurisdiction of the editor(s).  That being said, I agree that “Trying to put forth a rule (like the political rules in AAP 40) in a way that is clear to all is a tough task.”

From what I’ve read, it seems that people should also apply some common sense - especially those who’ve been playing A&A games for many years.  I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve read of someone wanting a clarification - only to wonder why it needed to be clarified in the first place.

As to the spelling mistakes… well that’s just plain shoddy workmanship.  No, it doesn’t effect gameplay, and I’m still going to have fun playing the game. But if people are shelling out a fair amount of money for a game - they expect a higher quality product, one that doesn’t have spelling errors (which is something that might be expected from a garage based game publisher - not a major manufacturer).  And there is the element of presentation as well, in this kind of medium, it’s important.  And c’mon, consider the demographic of your buyers… we’re talking about guys (mainly) that go through great lengths such as painting the pieces, inventing pages of optional rules, making new maps etc.  Of course spelling mistakes are going to leap out at the average A&A enthusiast!

You stated, “I would like you (or anyone else) to give me a list of all the spelling mistakes in the rulebook.”  I’m not about to be an unpaid editor/proofer, but the point is that if there is one… that’s one too many.  It’s not that difficult to publish something without spelling mistakes - its done everyday.  And a lot of these publications don’t even have the benefit of more than one editor. Perhaps I’m a bit retentive in regard to the spelling issue, but I am obviously not alone in this stance.

BTW - I too don’t think anyone should be pointing fingers at the wardog or Larry Harris, it’s not like they design and produce the whole game themselves…

@Captain:

Ok, so here is my question regarding Mongolia and the infantry value on them.  If Japan attacks Buyan-Uhaa, I as the opposing power has the option of putting 2 of any of the allies men there, as my choice.  So, does that mean I can use Chinese men or does it have to be US, UK, or ANZAC?  If I can use Chinese, can China then move men into it to try to take it back after Japan successfully captures it or can China still not leave China?

Thanks,
Captain Crunch

I’m pretty sure the only reason you use allied infantry is because there are no dedicated mongolian infantry.  If you use chinese infantry to represent them, it doesn’t mean their chinese, so it doesn’t matter which color you use.

Thanks guys! I appreciate it.  Lol i do feel like a chimp now! Lol!

good call :)  2am :)

I will offer up a rationale for the tac/tank combo. Think about Panzers and Stukas for a moment. The Panzers are used to pin down the enemy in known locations. Then Stukas are sent in to finish off enemy defensive positions before the Panzers blitz the line. If it weren’t for the Panzers pinning the enemy units, they would be harder for the Stukas to hit.

I may be talking out my a$$ though…