USA Pacific and Europe

@SubmersedElk:

To clarify, I was discussing the merits of buying a stack of 4 bombers and sending them to the Pacific.

Sure one bomber might get some targets to snipe at - but a full round buy doesn’t add much to what you already got with the starting bomber. Anything can be effective against an opponent making serious mistakes like leaving a transport stack naked and open to attack, and in a case like that, one bomber is as effective as four.

The issue is with the mechanics of movement over the oceans. A Japanese transport at a harbor can be in range to attack a bomber while the bomber is not in range to attack the transport, despite the vast difference in base movement - an airfield for the bomber makes no difference. Land units can effectively move 5 spaces to attack when using a transport at a harbor (one load, three move, one drop). The bomber would need 8 move total to attack that transport and return to base, and of course it only gets 7 with the airport and 6 without.

It’s totally counterintuitive when you look at base move 2 for ships and base move 6 for bombers, but in practice, that transport can attack from one space further away than the bomber can.

In order for this to work you obviously cannot takeoff and land at the same territory. The Pacific allows for many landing areas so this is not necessarily a problem. Some good bomber moves in the north are to bring bombers from Hawaii to attack SZ 6 and land in Midway, and to take bombers in Midway and attack Japan and land in Amur. That extra move is what really makes the difference.

@CWO:

@knp7765:

Yes, the Pacific 1940 2nd Edition uses the thick, heavy duty cardboard like Europe 1940. Not that thin stuff like in Pacific 1940 1st edition.

And as I recall, the roundels in the 2nd edition of Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940 are both printed on thick, black-backed cardboard.  In the 1st edition, I think one of the games had white-backed roundels.

You’re right Marc.

@Whackamatt:

I don’t know that Germany would be in much of a position to push you back with too much beyond planes.

As an Allied player, I would be happy to get pushed off again in the first or second attempt if it meant the German air force was being reduced.

The Mexican Naval Base still has some value no matter what Japan does.  Because if they see it and decide not to attack in order to screw your plan, this only helps India and ANZAC prepare.

@Vance:

or take carolines.

Right, that’s the best place to stage the USN . . . but there’s already a naval base there silly.  :wink:

As Japan I like to stage the IJN off of phil, put a blocker to prevent Korea/Japan invasion, and stack the carolines with as many ftr/tac as I need or can spare. Usually US doesn’t have more then 1-2 transports, so it should be safe from an amphib assault with 3-4+ air there.  Keep the mainland air on kwansi/FIC to land on carriers and you’re set up for a very heavy counter to any US moves in that direction.

I don’t like to trade ships with US when I can help it and if I have to fight a naval battle I’d rather be set up to hit him as hard as I can with the strength of my powerful airforce. Most of the times the threat is enough and the USN stays away.

It’s also good to have some ANZAC fighters closeby or in your US pacific fleet (they can land on a US air craft carrier).

When US troops get ashore somewhere, they can land and give a strong extra defence (in Alpha3),
and on islands where there are airbases already, they can scramble as well.

An accompanying ANZAC destroyer (and/or sub) or 2 can also be of value, in case some risky US attack doesn’t go as planned, the ANZAC units can still fix certain problems (taking out something with a sub/DD + fighters, or blocking enemy fleet if needed).

Anyway, teaming up pays off.

Yea, I suppose it’s unlikely for allied units to be trekking across Russia. Still it is a bit odd that in the same round a Russian fighter can land on a US carrier in the Atlantic but not in the Pacific.

I guess the rule is the way it is in the interest of simplicity. It did sort out the whole Russia going to war with Japan in order to take neutrals in Europe thing.

@Krieghund:

No, they can’t, unless they’re already at war.  Powers not at war may not move units into territories or onto ships belonging to other powers.

or into neutrals.

SHARED THIS ON LARRY’S SITE ALREADY, JUST WANTED TO SHARE THOUGHTS HERE ALSO:

Ok Larry,

Me and an official playtester of yours here in Michigan (his name is mentioned in the rulebook for Europe 40) played Global with the new setup given with all the aircraft taken away and such. Here was a short summary of what happened:

On the Europe side:

Germany played pretty predictably, sinking most of the UK navy, taking France and the Eastern European pro-allied and pro-axis neutrals with Italy. They continued to build on their air force to keep the UK from building ships right away. Began to stack some ground units as well. Italy expanded into Africa and shored the Middle East slowly controlling the Med.

UK responded by NOT attcking the Italian navy and pulling back the rest of the navy it had left until it could come back to England with a strong navy that included the US. UK took the Pro-allied Brazil and shucked the troops to Africa to help the SAfrican force which slowly pushed the Italians back up to Egypt turning the tide in Africa.

Russia stedily built a force consisting of infantry spiced with some tanks, artillery, tacs and mechs. Stacking behind some dead zones and waiting for the declaration of war.

US spent about 70-80% of its cash in the Pacific since it could not even approach Africa/Europe before a state of war.

Now for the Pacific side:

India with little cash built mostly infantry and stacked. Combined navy near India and activated the Persian troops to bring back and help defend India. In Global, India has a little more help from some extra troops west and a few ships, including one French destroyer to help defend. Also, it can fall back with its stack to West India if needed.

ANZAC naval base is much needed and I am glad it is there- balances nicely.

China was stonger, but does what it normally does and stacks at Yunnan to wait to wear down Japs. China units are really used as a delaying tactic for the India crush.

Japan didn’t see an advantage to the India crush in J1 but felt that the initiative came to them in J2. They didn’t want to wait until J3 because they felt the Allies would have established a long-term defense of India. So with that the Japs declared war on J2 taking back the Dutch East Indies and unleashing the fury. Japan built transports J1 and J2 and built more planes to replace the ones missing from the new setup in J2.

Now even though both Japs and Allies have the same amount of planes removed, Japan can build them faster and move them closer to the action (India). US could also build their planes back but it takes them longer to get them to the battle scene (India). Brit India and ANZAC can’t build much of an airforce because of the typhoon of Jap units coming fast, so India stacks and ANZAC tries to distract and/or try to send some units.

Japan can make the US wait longer to send ships and planes down to ANZAC by using its navy as a shield. I as Allies, I made tactical blunder ruining my chance to meet the Jap onslaught of India from behind through Australia. However, if not for this the setup seems very balanced and gave some options to both sides.

A hot topic question will be “what to do with the Russian inf on the Pacific side??”
It is very frustrating for the Russians, if you attack immediately, Japan will bring the heat to wipe them out with now China and Russia give large concessions to Japan $$$. If you stack and sit. Japan has to garrison Manchu with a small force but continues to spearhead to India. I figure as the Russians, you have to attack with the 18 inf at some point. The hard part is when. Timing is everything in this decision.

With US entering the war at turn 2, the US began to throw a good amount of cash to the European side, mainly because of the blunder in the Pacific- India would not last long now- 2-3 more rounds. I recovered nicely putting pressure on the French coast quickly until I made another tactical error involving Gibraltar- arrggh!!!- new rules and new map takes a little while getting used to.  :-(

Besides these 2 blunders, I thought the Global game was pretty fair and balanced with a slight edge to the Allies. I definitely think the Allies are a little easier to play because that sides is spilt into 6 sub parts (countries) that are easy to prepare while you are waiting for the Axis to finish. The Axis with so many more units in the beginning, take longer and you have to be very efficient both in the short-term and the long-term planning.

Anyway that was are anaylsis so I hope it helps.  :-)