Axis & Allies: Pacific Q&A - University of Michigan
Axis & Allies: Pacific Q&A as of 7-17-01
compiled by Greg Nichols
|AvalonHill |Landing fighters after a kamikaze attack |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(3/26/01 3:48:09 pm) |The rules are the same as a normal attack in this case. |
|Reply | |
| |If the carrier is sunk on Japan's turn, then the fighters get their usual one move range. |
| | |
| |If the carrier is sunk on the Allies turn, then one of two things can happen: |
| |The fighters were flying alongside the carrier and have their normal move left |
| |The fighters were on the carrier as it moved, in which case they are cargo and go down with the ship |
|Phoenix |Re: CAP and non-combat movement in general |
|Don's Gaming Forum Regular |[pic] |
|posts: 148 |AA gun? |
|(3/27/01 10:57:27 am) | |
|Reply |This is in contrary to what has been discussed sometime ago that (in AA Europe), an AA gun can be "moved" into a |
|Community Supporter |transport" in combat phase together with other battle units that will perform an amphibious assault and wait until a land|
| |is cleared, then moved into a just-captured territory in the non-combat. Is it wrong or illegal to do this? |
|[pic] | |
|Avalon Hill |AA Exception |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(3/27/01 12:49:22 pm) |Yeah, AA guns can be a pain in the rule system. AA guns may be loaded onto a transport and then 'held' during the |
|Reply |Amphibious Assault. It may then be unloaded during non-combat, provided you too the territory. So it is the only |
| |exception that I can think of (now that I've been reminded) to the above commentary. |
|Avalon Hill |UK IPCs |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(3/27/01 3:34:55 pm) |The 12 (not 20 unless there is another huge typo) IPCS available to the UK is given out at the start of the game. At that|
|Reply |point, before Japan takes turn 1, the UK player must split it up between India and Australia (anything from a 12/0 to a |
| |0/12 split). Then, at the end of UK 1, UK gets all IPCs coming from the convoys (may be less than 12). At that point, |
| |before the US goes, the UK splits it up again. In other words, that discretionary pile only lasts for a minute as the UK |
| |decides where it goes. All action stops while that decision is being made. |
| | |
| |As for the SBR, since the discretionary pool doesn't exist except between turns, SBRing India or Australia will only take|
| |from that economy. It doesn't bleed over to the other one. |
| |CAP and Continental Lines |
|Don's Gaming Forum Moderator |[pic] |
|posts: 485 |Rob, |
|(3/28/01 4:16:09 pm) | |
|Reply |CAP may, or may not, be flown off continental shorelines? |
| |Andre Bolkonsky |
|Avalon Hill |CAP Ranges |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(3/29/01 7:09:33 am) |Correct. Combat air patrol may be established in any sea zone that is adjacent to (or surrounds) the land territory |
|Reply |where the fighter starts. In this case, air bases do not allow you to establish a CAP two sz away; it must be adjacent.|
| | |
| | |
| |When landing at the start of your next turn, you can move to an adjacent land territory or carrier. |
| | |
| |BTW, the CAP rule allows you to build carriers 'under' a CAP, finally putting a loaded carrier into the water (although|
| |you still need to have the fighters a turn ahead of time). |
|milner69 |CHINA Question |
|Registered Gamer |[pic] |
|posts: 1 |ROB, |
|(3/29/01 11:47:17 am) |OK, if China liberates Chinese territory that Japan starts the games with, Korea, etc.) which has an IPC value, do |
|Reply |they just get that number in additional grunts per turn? I imagine so, but... |
|Avalon Hill |China |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(3/29/01 12:03:57 pm) |Correct...sort of. I'll elaborate; forgive me if this is what you meant. |
|Reply | |
| |China gets _one_ infantry for every territory she controls with an IPC value, plus one if the Burma Road is open. It |
| |doesn't matter what the actual value of the territory is. |
| | |
| |This means if one of the three Chinese territories controlled by Japan is liberated, then China gets an additional |
| |infantry for each liberated territory, not one per the value of the territory itself. |
| | |
| |So the most infantry China can get in a turn is 8 (Szechwan & Sikang = 2, Korea & Manchuria & Shantung = 3, Siam & FIC|
| |= 2, Burma Road = 1). This is unlikely, to say the least. |
|Garrett Potvin |Destroyer used as a transport. |
|Registered Gamer |[pic] |
|posts: 5 |Let's say that you want to assault and take an island that has a fleet protecting it. If you have a Destroyer that is |
|(3/29/01 12:26:23 pm) |acting as a transport can it sit out the naval clearing battle and attempt an amphibious assault after the naval zone |
|Reply |is cleared? Or is it assumed as with a battle ship that it has not option but to participate and the naval battle and |
| |thus can not unload its cargo until the next turn? |
|Avalon Hill |Destroyers as Transports |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(3/29/01 12:46:55 pm) |Neither, actually. |
|Reply | |
| |A Japanese destroyer with an infantry unit on board can fight in the naval battle and unload the infantry in an |
| |Amphibious Assault. The only thing it can't do is give a support shot. This is true whether there was a sea battle or |
| |not. |
| | |
| |Transports can unload after a battle, as can destroyers. The only thing a transport/destroyer can't do after a battle |
| |is both load and unload a unit (rare on this map anyway). |
|DouglasGG |No Japanese units in Siam at game start |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(3/29/01 7:36:01 pm) |I just wanted some clarification that Japan has no units at the start of the game in Siam. It appears to be the only |
|Reply |land territory that Japan controls without any units, and I was wondering if this was a typo of some sort. |
|Avalon Hill |Siam I Am |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(3/29/01 10:11:10 pm) |It is correct that Siam starts out Japanese-controlled but unoccupied. |
|Reply | |
|steveoftexas |Chinese and US attacks |
|Registered Gamer |[pic] |
|posts: 5 | |
|(3/31/01 2:01:08 pm) |Can the Chinese and US attack together? If not, who attacks (the same place) first on the US/China player turn...US, |
|Reply |China, or player choice? |
| |Thanks, |
| |Steve |
|Avalon Hill |US & China |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/1/01 11:50:35 am) |The US and China attack together. If you want the Chinese to go from "mild distraction" to "horrendous nightmare", |
|Reply |get a few US bombers over there. |
|ramprat |Naval base and air base movement questions |
|Registered Gamer |[pic] |
|posts: 5 |1)Is it correct that naval units can only move a maximum of 3 spaces during the non-combat movement phase and only |
|(3/31/01 11:47:26 pm) |from friendly naval base to friendly naval base? |
|Reply | |
| |2)Also, is it correct the maximum bonus movement aircraft get when flying in an area adjacent to or with an air base |
| |is one free space. What if there are multiple bases in the areas you are flying your planes over, do the planes get |
| |multiple free movements? |
| | |
| |3) Same question as stevefromtexas? |
| | |
| |Thanks,Mike |
|Avalon Hill |All Your Bases Are Answered By Us |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/1/01 11:54:36 am) |1. If you have ships in a friendly naval bases, you may move them three spaces on a turn only if the third movement |
|Reply |gets them to another friendly naval bases. |
| | |
| |2. Air bases do not 'give' movement points in the way you are describing them. Air bases operate like aircraft |
| |carriers in the sense that planes taking off or landing on them do not have to pay a movement point to do so. Any |
| |flying in between takeoff and landing is not affected. Note that an enemy attacking an island with an airbases must |
| |still pay the movement to attack/leave the island. |
|Avalon Hill |NonCombat Issue |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/2/01 6:56:17 am) |Yes, moving in non-combat in between naval bases still allows a transport to pick up units, from multiple locations. |
|Reply |Just remember that unloading a transport ends its movement. |
|AvalonHill |SBR Rules |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/2/01 1:00:45 pm) |Actually, the rules in Europe are wrong. In all cases in all games, planes hit by AA guns are immediately removed and |
|Reply |do not fire. |
|GenPage1 |Air bases |
|Registered Gamer |[pic] |
|posts: 51 |Rob, |
|(4/3/01 6:14:51 pm) | |
|Reply |Situation: Allies hold the Solomons & Japs hold a surrounding sea area. Do the air units from the solomons going to |
| |fight in the sea zone get 4 movements in Non Com due to the base ? |
| | |
| |Will moving into a convoy route in non com affect the income ? |
|Avalon Hill |RE: Air Bases |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/4/01 6:45:40 am) |Yes, since it cost 0 to fight the Japanese in the surrounding sz, then the Allied fighters still have four movement |
|Reply |points in Non-combat |
| | |
| |Convoy ownership does not change hands in non-combat. |
|Avalon Hill |Occupying Territories |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/4/01 7:55:32 am) |Sorry Steve, I think you posted this earlier and I forgot to respond. |
|Reply | |
| |1. The income goes to India. This is true for all UK conquests. |
| |2. No. Whoever conquers the territory controls it until (if) the enemy takes it back. You cannot bequeath a territory |
| |to an Ally. |
|pzkwi |Covoy Routes and Hawaii |
|Registered Gamer |[pic] |
|posts: 34 |I Accidentally mis-posted this as a new topic.. please answere here. |
|(4/4/01 8:40:59 am) | |
|Reply |Here are two quick questions I would like to get "Official" answers to. |
| | |
| |1. This one sounds like a "no-brainer" to me, but I have been asked several times. Can you move into a Sea Zone |
| |containing an enemy controlled Sea Route or Convoy during non-Combat ? I believe the answer is yes, and taking control |
| |of the convoy on the next turn works the same as for a sub. (The sub rule is detailed on Page 22 Column 1 near the |
| |bottom of the page) |
| | |
| |2. Place new units. Can you place Naval units in Hawaii? Page 25 Column 1. "Naval units acquired during phase 1 are now|
| |placed in sea zone adjacent to your home territory." Note the singular "territory". This seems clear to me that ships |
| |must be placed in USA. |
|Avalon Hill |Answers |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/4/01 9:20:06 am) |Yes, you can move naval units into an enemy-controlled convoy sz during non-combat. However, ownership of the convoy |
|Reply |does not change hands. You may also spend one movement to liberate the convoy zone at the start of your next combat |
| |move. |
| | |
| |Yes, the US can build in Hawaii. (Thank you for posting this, as I just won a bet. I bet someone that that was |
| |confusing and said we'd hear about it.) |
|Avalon Hill |Correct on Australia |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/6/01 6:04:41 am) |Australia's base income can never be higher than its starting income. |
|Reply | |
| |India's can go up due to the conquest of Japanese territories. |
| | |
| |Both are supplemented by convoy money. |
|Avalon Hill |Little SZs |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/6/01 9:32:03 am) |The area within the white lines (all the water within the Caroline Islands for example) is part of the land territory |
|Reply |(in this case, the Carolines) and is not a sz. |
|Avalon Hill |Three answers |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/6/01 1:20:55 pm) |1. No, kamikaze can only target surface ships. |
|Reply |2. Only naval bases can be utilized the turn they are captured. You can only land on a territory you controlled since |
| |the start of the turn, whether it has an airbase or not. |
| |3. UK liberates the Philippines for the USA. US liberates Java or Borneo for UK. The US can build a factory on any |
| |space colored blue or red (no China symbol) that contains an IPC value. This is, off the top of my head -- two home |
| |islands, Siam, FIC, Philippines. |
|Avalon Hill |AA guns |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/9/01 7:41:07 am) |OK, here's how AA guns work. I know this is true in AAE and AAP and I believe it to be true in AA. |
|Reply | |
| |Make all combat movement. |
| |Then see how many planes (bombers and fighters combined) flew over or into a territory with an enemy AA gun. The |
| |defender then rolls dice equal to the total number of planes. Any '1's result in a plane being lost -- attacker's |
| |choice. If the attacker flew over multiple AA guns in multiple territories, resolve them in any order you choose; it |
| |doesn't matter since all combat movement is finished. |
| | |
| |Now conduct combat as normal (any AA guns in embattled territories have already rolled). If the attacker chooses to |
| |retreat, he retreats all land units and all planes, landing the planes where he sees fit. If any planes flew over any |
| |AA guns, the defender gets to fire the guns again. Any losses are taken from the recently moved planes. However, all |
| |retreating should be done before dice are rolled, just mark/remember which planes are subject to AA gun fire. |
| | |
| |I think that clears it up, although it could have just muddied things entirely. |
|Avalon Hill |AA Gun addendum |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/9/01 12:26:03 pm) |Correct. An AA gun in the embattled territory gets to fire at the start of combat. It does not ALSO get to fire at |
|Reply |retreating units. |
|Andre Bolkonsky |Re: Rob / AH Rules Clarifications for AAP |
|Don's Gaming Forum Moderator |[pic] |
|posts: 529 |Javelin, |
|(4/9/01 9:30:29 pm) | |
|Reply |Rob has answered that question previously, but I'll be happy to repeat the answer for you. |
| | |
| |Regarding UK income: |
| | |
| |Your assertion is correct: UK HAS TWO PILES OF MONEY; one for Australia, and one for India. These can never be shared. |
| |UK CANNOT make a THIRD pile of money separate from the other two. UK MUST put her convoy income in either the |
| |Australian or the Indian piles BEFORE the US turn. |
| | |
| |The reason being that UK must commit her income before Japan's move. She can't wait until after Japan moves to decide |
| |where she to spend her discretionary income. |
|Zephaus |Marine Cost |
|Registered Gamer |[pic] |
|posts: 46 |In the rulebook it says the cost of U.S. Marines it 4 IPC. On my USA Card, it says the cost is 3. While I believe it |
|(4/9/01 7:27:48 am) |most likely is 4, I just wanted to get clarification. |
|Reply | |
| |Thanks! Todd M. |
|shaveandahaircut |Marine cost |
|Registered Gamer |[pic] |
|posts: 2 |It has been clarified by Rob of AH that the correct cost of marines is 4. The card is misprinted and incorrectly states |
|(4/10/01 7:55:00 am) |the cost as 3. |
|Reply | |
|Avalon Hill |Balance |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/4/01 11:34:32 am) |Is the game perfectly balanced? Probably not. Is it very, very close? I'd say 'yes' until further information comes my |
|Reply |way. |
| | |
| |I will say that, against a competent Japanese player, the Allies have to think smart and think ahead. America, for all |
| |her economic might, has long supply lines. You need to think a few turns ahead to make sure everything is arriving when|
| |it should, where it should. To that end I recommend patience. Prevent Japan, if at all possible, from scoring 4 VPS in |
| |a turn but live with 3 VPs for 1 to 4 turns. For Japan to score 4 VPs she needs to have all her major holdings plus |
| |either Dutch New Guinea, Burma, or one of the two Chinese provinces. If she can't get one of those four, she will be at|
| |39 IPCs. Do not run out after Japan too soon or else her on board material will sink the Allied pocket fleets. Also, be|
| |sure to reduce your distance as soon as you can. If the Carolines are yours, then Hawaii to Carolines is one move. New |
| |Britain in UK hands at the end of the game shave a turn off of Australian movement. |
| | |
| |Plus, retake the Philippines if at all possible. Remember that the US can build factories and then start pumping out |
| |three units per turn from the Philippines. Other options for factories are a home island (riskier) or Siam or FIC |
| |(further away). |
| | |
| |Just a few more thoughts. The SBRing Japan backward on VPs is a great ENDGAME strategy for the Allies. I don't think, |
| |offhand, it is a great early game strategy. You'll get pasted in my opinion. Also, you can get US bombers from Hawaii |
| |into China in two turns (via Australia). |
| | |
| |Hope this gives insight. |
|Avalon Hill |SBR |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/5/01 12:51:49 pm) |Japan can never lose through an SBR; she just does not go forward. |
|Reply | |
| |Japan loses if she does NOT score at least 1 VP at the end of HER turn. |
| |Edited by: Andre Bolkonsky at: 4/5/01 2:04:10 pm |
|Andre Bolkonsky |Re: 2-4 players? |
|Don's Gaming Forum Moderator |[pic] |
|posts: 496 |2 or 3 players only. |
|(4/1/01 11:14:40 pm) | |
|Reply |Allies v. Japan; or UK and US v. Japan; respectively. |
| | |
| |Four players is not correct, although it might have been suggested at some point. |
|Avalon Hill |More rules... |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(3/29/01 10:17:14 pm) |1. Am I understanding the rule book correctly that you may ONLY take advantage of a Naval Base in the Non Com phase of |
|Reply |a turn ? |
| | |
| |CORRECT. |
| | |
| |2. a)Does a Kamikaze attack have to originate from within the Kami Zone? |
| | |
| |Rather than answer your subquestions, let me explain kamikaze. They are NOT fighters on the board. Japan could have no |
| |fighters in play at all and still use her kamikaze (assuming she still had her six). Kamikaze can only be used during a|
| |battle in a zone marked with the kamikaze symbol. They attack (or defend) during the first round of combat (there is no|
| |unit for them, just dice to roll) and disappear after. They cannot be taken as losses (other than the hard way -- |
| |hitting a boat). They hit on a...I think it is 2 but it is late at night and I just painted my bathroom. Their special |
| |ability (other than appearing out of nowhere) is that they choose the target -- any surface ship is up for grabs. |
| |Before rolling any dice (on either side), the Japanese player decides if he will use kamikaze in that battle and, if |
| |so, how many. When it is his turn, he allocates those kamikaze against targets and rolls away. Hit targets still fire |
| |back (defend). I think that's it. |
| | |
| |3. Can a lone Tranny move through an enemy controled convoy space ? |
| | |
| |Yes, but it will not liberate that convoy. |
| | |
| |4. Does landing a CAP count as a Ftr's move ? Can a landed CAP Ftr be used to go out on an attack ? |
| | |
| |No. Yes. In order for a fighter to establish a CAP, it can't have moved that turn. When it lands at the start of the |
| |next turn, it still has all its normal movement and may attack or move as normal. |
|Avalon Hill |Clarifications |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(3/29/01 12:55:18 pm) |1. SBR reduces only VP or cash as well or Allies can choose or Japan can choose which they want to lose? |
|Reply | |
| |Both. The SBR is normal with the addition that for every full 10 IPCs Japan turns over to the bank, she also loses a |
| |VP. |
| | |
| |2. Allies' victory that reduce Japan to 9 IPCs , you mean CASH, VP or National Production Income and at which state (or|
| |round or the end of whose turn) that this number has to be calculated to clear the Allies' victory condition? |
| | |
| |Basically, Japan is like a shark, she must keep going forward. If Japan fails to score at least one VP at the end of |
| |her turn (this would happen if she collects 9 IPCs or fewer) then she loses. |
| | |
| |3. Same question of 2 but at which point Japan uses her VP to claim the victory? End of her turn or end of the Round |
| |she has reached the demanded VP? |
| | |
| |At the end of her turn. She wins or loses on VP at the end of her turn. Which always gives her an extra turn to squeak |
| |out the win or die trying. |
| | |
| |4. You mentioned the failure to kill submarine makes you unable to take Philipines, does it mean there is money from |
| |philipine water Japan can take or you mean you fail to do amphibious assault Philipines because you warship lost to the|
| |sub (which defends only 1!!!!). |
| | |
| |Many islands/territories have IPC values and convoys. You have to control both to get the money. If they are controlled|
| |by both sides (one has the land, the other the sea) then neither collects it. |
| | |
| |5. Is there any Allies capital proned to "STACK" as Moscow done in this game (AAE)? Can Japan possibly push everything |
| |to one capital and ignore the rest and win? |
| | |
| |She can try. After the Stack had become popular in AAE, we went and stacked everything against India and then adjusted |
| |the game to make that difficult (50/50 with perfect playing). Then we did the same with Australia. There is no real |
| |Allied Stack that I can see. |
| | |
| |6. Between VP and Capital capture, which one is obviously easier option or which one is nearly impossible? |
| | |
| |I'd say that Japan always has the option for a capital or VP. Many times Japan is going for VPs and then the British |
| |player leaves a capital vulnerable and BAM it's all over. I've never seen Japan’s mainland taken by the Allies but, |
| |then again, I don't think anyone ever tried that hard. |
|Avalon Hill |ICs |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/10/01 12:39:21 pm) |1. You can lose unlimited IPCs from an SBR at an IC, regardless of its value (how's that for abbreviations?). |
|Reply | |
| |2. Any factory built by the US and/or captured by Japan is limited to the IPC value of the territory. |
| | |
| |3. The Hawaiian IC has unlimited builds for the US. |
|buckles75 |Lots more questions |
|Registered Gamer |[pic] |
|posts: 2 |AH, |
|(4/10/01 1:22:10 pm) | |
|Reply |Ooooh, I have more questions. 4 in total. |
| | |
| |1) This carrier pick-up issue is confusing to me as well. The way I see it, carriers often have varying options as to |
| |where they can move to pick up attacking fighters. Since the carrier move is specifically non-com movement, isn't it |
| |possible to have a theoretical landing place for the fighters even though you know they are going on a suicide mission?|
| |And if the fighters are indeed destroyed, then moving the carrier for pickup during non-com is not necessary. So what I|
| |gather is that this is still a suicide loophole. All you need is a theoretical landing scenario. To me it would be more|
| |accurate to require carrier pick-up movement during combat movement, yet consider the move under non-com rules. The |
| |carrier should have to decide where it is going to meet the fighters regardless of the outcome of battle. This is why I|
| |feel it should be during com movement because there are often more than one possible pick-up spot and it shoudl be |
| |declared. Your thoughts? |
| | |
| |2) I have another question regarding the loophole allowing CAP aircraft to land on newly-built carriers placed beneath |
| |them. To the best of my understanding this is only a partial loophole. CAP fighters land after the build phase and they|
| |begin a CAP before the placing phase. So what I gather is that the new carriers are still bare and fighterless from the|
| |end of your turn until just prior to com movement on your next turn (that is if you decide to land them post-CAP on the|
| |carriers). Oh, d'uh, I think I just answered my own question. Does that fact that there is an active CAP hovering over |
| |a newly-built carrier have the same effect as if there were fighters actually on-board the carrier as far as defense is|
| |concerned? |
| | |
| |3) Also, what do you think about adding the CAP rule to A&A: Europe? I think it would add more realism and make the |
| |Mediterranean more of the hellhole for shipping it actually was, and it could also make Iceland potentially important |
| |as a North Atlantic CAP base (this one's a reach, I know). |
| | |
| |4) Regarding IC builds. In the old A&A you could build an IC anywhere, even on a territory with no IPC value. In such a|
| |case the build limit would be "one." Therefore, zero-value territories and one-IPC territories were the same as far as |
| |ICs were concerned. In this game it seems as if this is not allowed, and a minimum value of one IPC is necessary for an|
| |IC build. Is that correct? And on a side note, you said earlier that US IC builds may only take place on blue or red |
| |spaces (i.e. home U.S. or captured Japanese territories). However, I could swear reading at least one example in the |
| |rulebook which referred to US-built ICs on Chinese soil. I think it was under an SBR scenario, referring to the limit |
| |of Japanese IPC loss if they were to capture an American-built IC in China which was subsequently bombed by the Allies.|
| | |
| |Sorry for the barrage of questions. I just wanted to get them all out at once. Thanks, you're doing a great job. |
|Avalon Hill |3 answers (not 4) |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/10/01 2:07:18 pm) |1. When you move a fighter into combat, you have to have a valid landing space. Sometimes this space is a place where a|
|Reply |carrier will be on non-combat but isn't there yet. However, it is important that every fighter put into combat has a |
| |landing space -- there is no room for attrition. If the fighters are then destroyed in combat, the carrier no longer |
| |has to go pick them up. If the fighter(s) survive, the the CV is required to move in to land them. |
| | |
| |2. You figured it out. The fighters on CAP have the same function as sitting on-decks. |
| |3. Go nuts. |
| |4. Hmmm...our intent was to mimic A&A. I'll have to go look that up. For now, play where a territory needs an IPC value|
| |to produce units. |
|Avalon Hill |2 answers |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/11/01 6:12:10 am) |1. Destroyers _never_ do shore bombardment when dropping off an infantry unit. |
|Reply | |
| |2. There is no misprint for sz 20. |
|Avalon Hill |Two (more) answers |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/11/01 6:15:57 am) |1. This is a legal move and comes under the term 'risky'. You have a clear landing site for the fighter, but there is a|
|Reply |chance that the sea battle will not go well and the carrier will not be there. However, you have made provisions for |
| |the plane to land so you are covered. |
| | |
| |2. You declare kamikaze use before any combat in a kamikaze sz, regardless of whose turn it is. To use a kamikaze you |
| |must: |
| | |
| |1. Have some remaining |
| |2. Have a combat situation in that sz. This situation can be a sea battle or an amphibious assault on a Japanese island|
| |(with no sea battle). |
| | |
| |You declare how many you are using before any dice are rolled. Then you decide how many kamikaze are being dedicated |
| |against which targets (again, before dice are rolled). Then you roll dice. Casualties are moved behind the casualty |
| |line on the battle board, but still get to return fire. Mark down the kamikaze marker on the reference chart. |
|Avalon Hill |Kamikaze vs. transport |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/11/01 7:18:20 am) |Yes, you could target a transport that is about to unload onto an island in a kamikaze zone, even if there is no sea |
|Reply |battle beforehand. |
| | |
| |What you CANNOT do with kamikaze is use them to stop movement of ship passing through a kamikaze zone. Example: An |
| |American transport is moving from sz 19 through 25 (kamikaze zone) into 34. You cannot target the ship as it is passing|
| |through. Only after all combat movement is finished can you decided whether to use kamikaze. |
|Andre Bolkonsky |Re: AAP compared to AH's old Victory in the Pacific |
|Don's Gaming Forum Moderator |[pic] |
|posts: 537 |If you go back in the archives, and find that long post I sent to Larry Harris during the development of this game, |
|(4/10/01 2:44:31 pm) |you'll notice I used VITP as the parallel for how to design this game. |
|Reply | |
| |In particular, I was pushing for airbases to mimic the Land Based Air functions found in VITP. But the territorial |
| |movement, and individual ships, made the parallel obvious. |
|Avalon Hill |Naval Bases |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/11/01 11:07:45 am) |Yes, you can use the naval base in Malaya to unload into FIC or Siam. |
|Reply | |
| |No, you don't use real fighters for kamikaze. They never physically appear on the board. |
|Avalon Hill |Load and unload on the same turn |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/12/01 12:35:32 pm) |It is not meant to be different between the two games. Pacific is just saying correctly what Europe is saying vaguely. |
|Reply | |
| |Of course a transport can load, move into combat, clear the sea zone (with combat vessels), and then unload. This is |
| |how many amphibious assualts work. However, the Europe rules would make this seem impossible. |
| | |
| |What the rule is supposed to prevent is for a transport to be in combat on a turn and then, in non-combat, pick up a |
| |unit or units and immediately (without moving) unload them in a friendly territory that is reachable from the |
| |transport. As to why this is prevented...I forget. I just remember Larry Harris and I sitting down and seeing a problem|
| |with this and a rule being written to prevent it. I don't remember what the problem was anymore, just the solution. |
|Avalon Hill |Legal but no IPCs lost |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/16/01 11:56:29 am) |It is legal for the sub to move through the (now-friendly) sz 35 into sz 37. However, since this is done during |
|Reply |non-combat movement, the convoy zone does not change hands and remains Japanese. If the Japanese do not respond on |
| |their turn (by moving into 37 during combat), then the convoy zone will become American after the Japanese combat |
| |phase. |
|Avalon Hill |Capturing convoys |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/16/01 1:41:03 pm) |Let me try to make general blanket rules without missing a loophole... |
|Reply | |
| |If you have a warship in a sz with a convoy at the end of resolve combat, you take control of the convoy. (Submerged |
| |subs are not considered in the sz.) |
| | |
| |If you pass through an empty sz with a convoy during combat movement, you take control of the convoy. |
| | |
| |If you start your turn in an empty sz containing a convoy at the start of your turn, you make take control of that |
| |convoy by using one movement point to take control. You may then move one space. (The whole movement point issue is to |
| |prevent someone from taking three convoys in a turn -- that's the only reason it is there.) |
|Avalon Hill |Kamikaze |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/16/01 1:37:52 pm) |The first way you lay out is the correct way. The Japanses player says how many kamikaze he is using and how many he is|
|Reply |using against each target ship. Then you roll by target ship, with multiple hits being wasted. So, if you were to use |
| |all six kamikaze at once, you might put 1 each on 2 transports, 2 on a carrier, and the last 2 on a destroyer. |
| | |
| |You would then select the first transport and roll one die. 1 or 2 means that transport sinks. |
| |The next transport, roll one die. Again, a 1 or a 2 means that transport sinks. |
| |Next, the carrier. Roll two dice. If either comes up a 1 or a 2, the carrier is sunk. If both come up a 1 or a 2, then |
| |you wasted a kamikaze. |
| |Finally, the destroyer. The last two dice are rolled. A 1 or a 2 on either is a hit. Again, if both hits, the second |
| |hit is wasted. |
| | |
| |The units still get to fire normally, before sinking. |
|Phoenix111 |Re: UK IPCs |
|Don's Gaming Forum Regular |[pic] |
|posts: 214 |By the meaning of "money cannot be kept separate", it says that the money from convoy centre must be immediately |
|(4/17/01 8:27:29 am) |distributed into the war chest of either India or Australia once UK collects it at the end of the turn. There won't be |
|Reply |a separated 12 IPCs to spend at will "at the beginning of the next UK's turn". In another word, UK cannot wait and see |
|Community Supporter |the situation of Japan turn, then spend this 12 IPCs accordingly. |
| | |
|[pic] | |
The rules say "For each artillery unit attacking in the same territory in an amphibious assualt that is not paired with an infantry unit, one Marine unit may attack with a roll of 3 or less"
Does this mean that the Infantry MUST be paired with Artillery first, or that the choice is up to the attacker?
|Avalon Hill |Pairing Artillery |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/17/01 9:40:52 am) |The attacker can pair up the artillery unit with either the infantry or the marine, but not both. So the rolls could be|
|Reply |2,2,2 or 1,2,3. It's the attacker's call. |
|Avalon Hill |Landing on embattled CVs |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/17/01 6:11:52 am) |Hmmm....that is a good one. |
|Reply | |
| |The naval retreat rules state that units must move to a 'friendly' sea zone. A sz that had a battle (whether it has |
| |been resolved or not) is NOT a friendly sz, meaning the fighters cannot move there. So a fighter cannot retreat to a |
| |carrier that is battling in a separate sz. During non-combat, it would be OK to land on this carrier, as non-combat |
| |rules are different from retreats. |
|Avalon Hill |Retreating |
|Occasional Browser |[pic] |
|(4/17/01 8:30:04 am) |No, that is correct. All land (or naval when at sea) units must retreat together to a safe space and aircraft, instead,|
|Reply |finish out their movement and land. What I want to clarify is that a CV that is in combat is not a safe place to land |
| |for a retreating fighter. |
|Avalon Hill |Re: Back and rested. Any questions? |
|Official Representative |[pic] |
|posts: 3 |Sorry, but CAPs do NOT stop subs at all. You need a surface ship to stop a sub. This should be a tremendous advantage|
|(4/27/01 12:30:10 pm) |for the Allies at the end of the war but, in this case, it helped Japan. Parking a destroyer in that spot would have |
|Reply |allowed the destroyer plus all fighters on cap to hit the sub as it entered the sz. |
|Avalon Hill |Re: Back and rested. Any questions? |
|Official Representative |[pic] |
|posts: 5 |Yes, you could substitute "submerged" for "destroyed" in that example. |
|(4/27/01 1:34:40 pm) | |
|Reply |As for your "interesting thing", let me further clarify. At the end of EVERY resolve combat phase, check to see if |
| |there is a case where convoys may change hands. It doesn't matter how the ships got there (submerging and popping back |
| |up, non-combat, etc.). If there are enemy ships in a convoy at the end of any combat round, then the convoy changes |
| |hands. |
| | |
| |The 'use one movement to take control rule' is only used when: |
| |1. It is your turn. |
| |2. You find yourself in an empty, enemy-controlled convoy |
| |3. You wish to leave that sz. |
| |4. You want to take control of that convoy |
| | |
| |You would then use one movement to take control, then leave and get one movement point. |
|Avalon Hill |Re: Convoy question |
|Official Representative |[pic] |
|posts: 7 |Officially, you cannot block the income from Manchuria, Siam, Hong Kong, etc. via convoys. These territories must be |
|(4/30/01 6:09:06 am) |taken in order to prevent the IPCs from going to their destination (and diverting them to yours). |
|Reply | |
|Avalon Hill |Re: Convoy question |
|Official Representative |[pic] |
|posts: 9 |Um, not quite it. |
|(4/30/01 9:24:55 am) | |
|Reply |1. True. At the end of every combat phase, check for ownership and adjust accordingly. |
| | |
| |2. False. You are allowed to move into an enemy convoy zone/sz during non-combat, provided it is empty of enemy units. |
| |If so, ownership of that convoy will not change until the end of the next turn's combat phase. |
|Avalon Hill |Re: Adjusting Japan's Turn 1 Attack |
|Registered Gamer |[pic] |
|posts: 1 |This isn't an official rule change, just me and Larry talking and thinking we might start one of our games this way. |
|(4/27/01 10:07:39 am) | |
|Reply |1. Before J1, take the fleet at Somoa off the board and place it to one side. |
| | |
| |2. The US player now writes down on a piece of paper where that fleet is. His options are: sz 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, or 11.|
| |This paper is turned over and kept secret. |
| | |
| |3. If Japan moves units into the sz containing the units (or tries to move through them), then the us player turns over|
| |the paper and places these units in the sz. Combat takes place normally, with the US defending at 1. |
| | |
| |4. If Japan doesn't move into the sz, then Japan completes his turn normally. At the end of J1, the US turns over the |
| |paper, reveals where the fleet is, and places it there, even if there are Japanese units there. If that is the case, |
| |the US player has the option, during his turn, of moving out to avoid combat or staying and fighting. Again, this is |
| |not Official Avalon Hill, just something I thought of while drinking coffee this morning. It is also contested. If |
| |tested, I'd love to hear if you had fun with it. |
|Avalon Hill |Game Balance -- You are being heard |
|Official Representative |[pic] |
|posts: 14 |OK, there seems to be some concern on this site that the game is, ahem, slightly skewed towards Japan. I still believe |
|(5/7/01 8:42:24 am) |that Allied strategies have not been fully explored and the game is more balanced than many people believe. However, |
|Reply |toward the end of last week, I set up the game to try some of these 'killer' J1 moves and to look at what people are |
| |saying. It was then that I discovered something. |
| | |
| |The Japanese Setup is wrong. |
| | |
| |Slightly, but that is enough. |
| | |
| |Whether from typos, haste, bad proofing, a cut-and-paste gone wrong, a save-as that shouldn't have happened, or |
| |whatever, a couple of the changes didn't get implemented. And, wouldn't you know it, the original set-up helps Japan. |
| | |
| |So, if you are saying Japan has an easy time J1, well, you are right. They have a slightly easier time J1 than |
| |intended. |
| | |
| |Here are the three changes: |
| | |
| |Remove one transport from sz 37 (leaving 1) |
| |Remove the fighter from Marianna Islands |
| |Move 2 infantry FROM French Indo-China to Hainan. (Look at the box bottom for this one) |
| | |
| |Now, let's play that way for a bit and see if it makes more sense. |
| | |
| |If you also want an OPTIONAL, NON-TESTED J1 variant, here's another thought. Please note that I will kick around ideas |
| |on this forum for a few months before anyone makes any decisions about any possible v2.0 AAP rules/setup/etc. The game |
| |may never change, but I'm willing to throw ideas around to see if people like them. Whether any become official remain |
| |to be seen. The players on this forum represent the pinnacle of AAP playing and I will use you to play variants and |
| |give fair, honest feedback. |
| | |
| |Here is the variant. |
| |First, lower Japan's VP target to 19. ("What, has he gone mad?") |
| |Now, there are 4 groups of American ships on the eastern part of the board (ignore the Philippines). SZs 3, 5, 9, and |
| |11. For every GROUP that Japan attacks on turn 1, raise the VP target-to-win by 3. The VPs represent America's desire |
| |to negotiate a settled piece. The more Japan attacks turn 1, the less willing the US will be to settle for anything |
| |less than an unconditional surrender. |
| | |
| |Examples: |
| |Attack just Pearl Harbor. That is one group. Raise the VPs by 3 to 22. Japan needs 22 VPs to win. |
| |Attack PH and Somoa fleet. Two groups. VPs go up by 6. Japan needs 25 VPs to win. |
| | |
| |Attack all four eastern fleets. Four groups. VPs go up by 12. Japan needs 31 VPs to win. |
| | |
| |Do not include the Philippines or any land groups (Wake, Midway, Guam, Hawaiian airfields) in the VP total. Also, if |
| |Japan chooses not to attack any US fleets in the east, the US is still in the war -- she just needs to wrap it up |
| |faster. |
| | |
| |This is UNTESTED. Have fun with it. If it doesn't work, so be it. |
|Avalon Hill |Re: Cap Question |
|Official Representative |[pic] |
|posts: 19 |Yes, they do. |
|(5/9/01 3:17:44 pm) | |
|Reply |Fighters on CAP are just like fighters on CVs. They defend at 4 at any combat in the sz. They cannot hit subs. |
|Avalon Hill |CAPs from Carriers |
|Official Representative |[pic] |
|posts: 20 |Fighters on carriers can establish a CAP in the sz that the carrier is in. The carrier is then free to move out of that|
|(5/10/01 9:35:51 am) |sz. Note that you can only do this (move the carriers out) if the CAP has a valid place to land at the start of your |
|Reply |next turn. No suicidal CAPs established. |
|Avalon Hill |Advanced Set-Up/Rules Version 1.0 |
|Official Representative |[pic] |
|posts: 26 |This thread is to elaborate the "you are being heard" thread in defining a set-up and set of rules for the advanced AAP |
|(5/18/01 1:08:05 pm) |player. Who is an 'advanced AAP player'? Chances are, if you read these posts, you are one. If you use 'sub stalling,' |
|Reply |or know what 'shuck-shuck' means, you are most definitely advanced. |
| | |
| |What is this trying to do? Well, Japan in a very good player's hands seems to have a strong advantage. I still think |
| |that Allied counterpunches are out there but, in the effort of balance, fun, and replay, I would implement the following|
| |set-up and rules changes to see if you and your gaming groups find balance. This is largely untested, but I've been |
| |emailing some people and looking at the game again, so I think it will satisfy most concerns that have arisen. I also |
| |don't think it pushes the pendulum too far the other way. This set of changes supercedes the others (actually, it adds |
| |to them). |
| | |
| |Here it is: |
| | |
| |JAPAN SET-UP |
| |Remove 2 infantry from French Indo-China (leaving 2) and add them to Hainan (totalling 6) |
| |Remove 1 transport from sea zone 37, leaving 1. |
| |Remove the fighter from the Mariana Islands. |
| |Remove the sub from sea zone 20 and move it to sea zone 22. |
| | |
| |RULE CHANGE |
| |If Japan attacks the fleet off of the US West Coast (sea zone 5) on its first turn, it scores no Victory Points on that |
| |turn. This reflects a higher level of anger and shock on the US part and their subsequent refusal to a conditional |
| |surrender. Attacks made on J2 or later do not cause this. |
|Avalon Hill |Actually, a loose interpretation of the rules |
|Official Representative |[pic] |
|Posts: 42 |I've talked with Larry Harris about this. A lot. |
|(7/10/01 6:17:12 am) | |
|Reply |I'll cut to the chase: It was never intended for subs to move into a sz and submerge for free. Even a first-strike sub |
| |has a 2/3 chance of missing. We've never played it this way. We've never even imagined people were playing it this way.|
| |(I now realize that people playing by email for AAE have done this for years and our failure to notice and say anything|
| |led to the same assumption being carried into AAP.) |
| | |
| |The way that Larry, Stephen, and I play is that an attacking sub must withstand one counter-attack before defending. So|
| |a defending sub can dive at the end of round 1 and an attacking sub can dive at the start of round 2. |
| | |
| |Please, if you like sub stalling, continue to use it. It's just not was intended. It is a house rule. |
|Avalon Hill |It's official. |
|Official Representative |[pic] |
|Posts: 43 |The AH position on sub stalling (actually the lack of it) is as official as any other rule clarification that I post |
|(7/10/01 11:11:37 am) |here. People write "what did you mean by x or y" and I type back "we meant z." |
|Reply | |
| |In this case, the question would be, 'can a sub enter a sz and immediately submerge, for free, without rebuttal?" to |
| |which I am saying, "No, that isn't legal." Now you can argue that the rulebook says this or that but I wrote the |
| |rulebook and I use this forum to clear up my bad job in sections of the rulebook. This was something we didn't |
| |anticipate so didn't clearly state in the rulebook. The more we see it in action (we've been checking out the blow by |
| |blows on the DOI site) the more it JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT. |
| | |
| |I'll gladly field questions. |
| | |
| |As for an errata sheet or someway to find all these outstanding issues, we are working on it. |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- axis allies computer handicapping
- the battle of the bulge december 1944 january
- axis allies pacific q a university of michigan
- global history ii sautner
- the modern era 1915 1946
- world history spring final review sheet
- us foreign policy between the wars
- the late middle ages
- anniversary edition tournament game rules