How is 1940 Pacific going to BALANCE with 1940 Europe?


  • So, the plan is that there is going to be a global A+A game that will incorporate BOTH pacific and europe maps…  How is this going to be balanced?  For that matter, how is Japan going to have a prayer in hell of winning the war against the US in 1940 Pacific???  There are a bunch of new territories and some old ones have been split into parts; but Japan’s available territories to conquer in the Pacific in this edition just doesn’t seem to provide enough resources to turn the tide against the US. Will NOs (Nat. Objs.) make it viable?  Like, a whole bunch of NOs???  Also, Japan NEVER goes for a land invasion of the US unless its end game, since the US can produce so many land units in a single turn without any of its territories at risk (Alaska is minor loss).  If the only real opponent of Japan in 1940 Pacific is the US, how can the Japs possibly expect to win the war with a naval invasion of Western USA with the insane production advantage the US will enjoy until the very end?  Are the only vulnerable US territories Alaska, Hawaii, and the Phillipines going to be like 1/3 the US income or something?

    Usually Japan has to finish taking over Moscow or a lot of Africa in addition to its standard “base” of Australia and India to start playing even with the USA, and this is generally accomplished with heavy Allied buys in the European theater the first few rounds.  While they get a few rounds of leeway in this version before America fully enters the war, without the extra resources not available on the Pacific map I don’t see how Japan can compete.  If 1940 Pacific is “balanced” so that it DOES play at a reasonable pace for the Japanese, when the 1940 Global set gets released how do they possibly expect it to be balanced if Japan can then go after Russia and Africa in addition to its normal pacific IPCs???


  • Remember that the US’s income is going to be split between the two boards. Also, Japan may be able to grab enough VCs to win even if they would loose if the game was continued. Plus, naval warfare is expensive and Japan starts much closer to the US in terms of IPCs, much less after it expands some.


  • I’m sure they will give instructions on where to put the scotch tape and construction paper to make it all work  :roll:


  • @Craig:

    Unlike the first A&A Europe, Africa and South America are represented on the Europe map.

    Yes butt then they should not name it A&A Europe, butt the more proper A&A Atlantic. Now that would make sense, A&A Atlantic and A&A Pacific. You do agree, do you ? By the way, are you collecting smites ? You sure got plenty of them.


  • Hey Mr. Yope:

    I understand you may have have helped to playtest this monster… How much bigger are the new 1940 game boards (‘maps’) when compared with their original versions? What % are we talking here?

    Thanks, M_I_R


  • @Tralis:

    Remember that the US’s income is going to be split between the two boards. Also, Japan may be able to grab enough VCs to win even if they would loose if the game was continued. Plus, naval warfare is expensive and Japan starts much closer to the US in terms of IPCs, much less after it expands some.

    Yeah, victory on VCs just seems hollow, especially if most of the early fighting occurs with Japanese initative.  Usually the first three rounds of any of these A&A games decides the dice outcome of any given Axis side and what routes they have available.  If America can’t break through the Solomons and into Australia due to bad dice, will it be a short game?  For the same matter, if bad dice generally happen with a particular Axis power, that side switches to the defensive and prays for the other side to take the offensive…  this can’t happen here, so if Japan’s fleet is sunk by round 3 or so (Midway) its always going to be an allied victory?  I don’t see how one front minature games are going to be all that fun.  I suppose India (Britain) will be a second front for Japan to worry about; will the VC’s let Japan win if they can grab India?  I still think the USA would have fought on if India fell.


  • Consider that, globally, Japan will never have to conquer the US. You act as if that should be achievable. Japan, conquering the US. That would be, and should be, impossible unless the US messes up big time. Japan’s goal with the US is to keep him bottled up and waste resources that should be going to Europe so Germany can push into Russia.


  • WOW! Color me shades of plastic pieces. I just found out about these games today. I can’t wait!

    The first question that comes to my mind concerning the global game and victory is this. Are the victory conditions going to be the same in the global game and the individual game? Because if they are, what happens in the global game when Japan gets 6 VC and wins in the Pacific, while Europe is still at war? Does this just end the Pacific theater battle? Do the units on the Pacific side become unusable?(Probably not). However, if the game continues in the Pacific, as other posters have said, USA will wipe out Japan, evetually.

    Because of USA’s seperate economies Japan won’t be taking resources from the Europe battle. Unless units can be shared between theaters, which I am sure will be allowed.

    I know it will all be clear before too long, but I love to speculate.


  • I would think youd need more VCs in the global game. If one theatre wins then assist the side that isnt right?


  • @Todd7912:

    WOW! Color me shades of plastic pieces. I just found out about these games today. I can’t wait!

    What, did you just crawl out from under a rock.


  • remember outside of this forum there is NO marketing for these games


  • Thanks for that, Craig. What I don’t know, however, are the dimensions of the original board. Does this represent an enlargement of that board, or are the two roughly the same size? _MIR

  • '20 '18 '16 '13 '12

    @Make_It_Round:

    Thanks for that, Craig. What I don’t know, however, are the dimensions of the original board. Does this represent an enlargement of that board, or are the two roughly the same size? _MIR

    Dimensions are (width by height in inches):

    AA 42:    33 X 20     (32X17 if you dont count the production chart)

    AA 41:   45 X 23.5    (AA50)

    AA 40:    35 X 35      (Individual games as per Yope)
                70 X 35      (Combined games as per Yope)

    Hope that gives you some idea. 🙂


  • It’s still not as big as The War Game which is 38" x 77"

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Nothing is that big. That game has the worlds record for the largest mounted map. I saw the certificate he got.


  • @Canuck12:

    @Make_It_Round:

    Thanks for that, Craig. What I don’t know, however, are the dimensions of the original board. Does this represent an enlargement of that board, or are the two roughly the same size? _MIR

    Dimensions are (width by height in inches):

    AA 42:    33 X 20     (32X17 if you dont count the production chart)

    AA 41:   45 X 23.5    (AA50)

    AA 40:    35 X 35      (Individual games as per Yope)
                70 X 35      (Combined games as per Yope)

    Hope that gives you some idea. 🙂

    Technically

    AA42: 32 X 20 (32 X 16 w/o Production Chart)

    AA50: 42 X 24

    AA40: 35 X 32 (each)
            70 X 32 (global)

  • '20 '18 '16 '13 '12

    Were we using different boards?


  • Maybe you were using different rulers. 😄


  • maybe the 2nd measurements were metric?


  • Nope, one inch is 2’5 cm

  • 2022

    Only the Yanks and Limeys are using the Inch-scale, and the rest of the world is using the Metric-scale, so the minority is still on the upperhand it looks like, :evil:


  • it happens from time to time


  • Remember the golden rule:

    Those who have the gold make the rules. (and rulers) 😄


  • What is that gold stuff? Some sort of arch-technobabble? Money today is a virtual stuff, the modern deity!  :lol:


  • @xzorn:

    Consider that, globally, Japan will never have to conquer the US. You act as if that should be achievable. Japan, conquering the US. That would be, and should be, impossible unless the US messes up big time. Japan’s goal with the US is to keep him bottled up and waste resources that should be going to Europe so Germany can push into Russia.

    How do all of your Axis and Allies games end?  The reason one side gives up is because this outcome is inevitable by the game’s conclusion, due to the economic swing.  In AA50, if Japan gets all her NOs and most of Asia you’re looking at a 65+ IPC monster against a maybe 40 IPC US.  If Japan didn’t screw up too badly in taking all of Asia and still has a sizeable portion of her fleet intact, there’s no way the US can win, barring the dice roll of the century.  It’s simple economics, as those extra 25 IPCs a turn add up to a likely victory.  It’s even more apparent in AA50 since the US has to split those 40 IPCs to DEFEND both Eastern and Western USA against German/Italian AND Japanese fleets by Axis end-game.

    However, America ISN’T in this game going to be threatened by Germany, whereas Japan has at least two fronts going for it (India, Aus, AND the US).  I assume if the Japan player is smart they’ll nip India in the bud as early as possible while the US isn’t in the war.  But even with most of her NOs nearly taken, how is Japan supposed to compete againt a a one-front USA?

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

23
Online

16.3k
Users

38.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts