Advanced Pacific Game

[Wolf]

 

When trying new games, I will sometimes break them down into more “bite-sized” pieces, to help me understand the rules.

With that in mind, I have started playing a 1939 game of Japan vs. China.  I am striving to keep it inside the larger context of Japan's total war effort.  I make sure I advance the Fleet Carrier that is in production, and build Elite Zero and Naval Bomber pieces to adorn its flight decks once it launches.  But, I am putting a majority of my finances into bringing the “Mainland Problem” under control.

There may be only 1 VP up for grabs in China (Chunking) but there is 10PP worth of territories that can be claimed, even ignoring Hong Kong for the moment. (That is a 40% increase in my basic economy.  Oh yeah I am going for that!)

BTW – I really Love/Hate the addition of Terrain to the map.  I love it because it really adds to the difficulty of dealing with the Chinese up in the mountains, and jungles and such, which, as the Japanese Player, is also why I hate it...

Some Questions / Clarifications to the rules:

Communist China
Communist China operates differently from other nations in the game.  They do not count up production points like other nations, instead, Communist China receives one 2-3 infantry unit every in turn in any controlled territory.  Chinese units are always in supply.  Communist Chinese units may never voluntarily retreat from a territory (but may voluntarily retreat after the first round of combat if attacked). In addition to the one 2-3 infantry Communist China receives during the place builds phase every turn, any vacant territory in mainland China (not Hong Kong or Manchuria) also receives one extra infantry unit for free.

Now, I am reading the bit that says
“Communist Chinese units may never voluntarily retreat from a territory (but may voluntarily retreat after the first round of combat if attacked).”
as REALLY meaning
“The Communist Chinese Player may not push all of his units up front, so as to grow new, free units in his rear areas.” 

Am I right about that?

Also, a clarification about the Commonwealth:

If playing the Pacific theater only, British & Commonwealth production starts both the 1939 and 1941 game with 20PP.  However, these PP may not be spent once the Western Allies are at war with Japan. The build units phase after Britain/CW are at war with Japan, the British AP player may spend the 20PP and the collect income for those on-board and off-board production points that are in supply as per the normal collect income rules.

I am guessing that it should read “However, these PP may not be spent UNTIL the Western Allies are at war with Japan."

I am further assuming that means no Lend-Lease to the Chinese until War with Japan.

[Mark]

Hi - hope your playtest is going well!  I am back in the US for a week and John and I are actually going to get a Pacific theater game in ourselves on Thursday!  All of the recent posts on the Pacific are helping us pound out some of the ambiguities in the rules - so thanks for posting.

The intent of the first rule is to prevent the Communist Chinese from getting free infantry.  They should only get the free infantry if the Japanese or the Nationalist vacate a territory essentially.  So, if they attack, they have to leave someone behind (or backfill the space from another communist territory that has more than one infantry unit in it).

Good catch on the mistype on the second question.  It should read "until".  The intent here is to enable the British to build the first turn they are at war with Japan.  While the British can not give the Chinese lend lease until they are at war, the U.S. player may give lend lease via the Burma road prior to being at war.

Mark

[Wolf]

Thanks Mark,

I am having a lot of fun playing with this.  I have been reading this forums, and applying answers you have posted to other people's questions, but I do have some follow ups.  I understand that this is a "Work in Progress" and some elements may be left over from earlier drafts.

Counter Errata:

I understand from the rules and posts here that Japanese Carriers (both Light and Fleet) have only 1 hit, due to poor damage control and wooden flight decks, and such stuff.  The "(2 Hits)" marked on the Fleet Carriers is a mistake.

In that vein - Some Destroyers have "ASW 5" written on them (some do not).  I am assuming this is a "left over".  The ASW Defense tables are only concerned with how many destroyers.  Values for ASW Hunter/Killer attacks are listed with 2 values, one for early war, and one for '43 and later.

Also, at no point anywhere does it mention that Japanese Destroyers may transport Infantry.  Is this deliberate?  Or an oversight?

 

[John D.]

OK - great catches.  I'll correct the counters. 5 ASW and 2 hits are incorrect. All Jap carriers are 1 hit. Destroyers can transport troops.

Yes- ASW improves for Allies after 1943...

[Darkman]

Any news on updated Counters?


Q:
Oh the japanese destroyers can transport troops? How does it work? Any restrictions ? Same capacity as normal transports ? Do they have anti air when transporting?

Thank you

[Wolf]

In any Games where Japanese Destroyers can transport troops, it is always at a lower capacity, and Infantry only.

So, if I were to guess, it would be 1 Inf.

And, the Japanese have such pathetic AA anyway, I imagine it would be still at its (1 AA) value.

[Mark]

Agreed.  This was a rule that was in the basic game, but am still having the debate whether or not to have it as an official rule in the advanced game.  I know the Japanese (and others) did transport some smaller formations via destroyers - but not sure if it is as big of a large scale, long distance, and long term practice as it may become if it is a rule.

The original rule was a destroyer could transport 1 infantry unit (only infantry type units (infantry, paratrooper, mountain troop - no other unit types).  If a destroyer was transporting an infantry it forfeits its surface combat value and its ASW ability, but not its AA value.

Not sure if it is a necessary rule though (which is why I am debating it).  The one example the comes to mind is in the transportation of Japanese troops down the slot to Guadalcanal.  This dynamic is pretty much taken care of by making the Solomon island chain a movable "straight" for game play purposes.  So not sure if we need a Japanese destroyer can carry infantry rule. . .

Mark

[Darkman]

I would prefer to cancel it.. the transports are enough and if not, you can Build some ;-)

[Wolf]

I would agree with Mark, I think.

Since Japanese DD's could only carry 1 Inf, you would actually need 2 for anything useful (1 for Inf, 1 for Landing Craft).

One less Single Country Only rule might be nice.

Besides, I have not yet done a longer game, but I am thinking my Destroyers are all going to be busy trying to keep those pesky US subs out of my convoy boxes...

Since I have opined about Single Country Only rules...

What about Mark 14 torpedoes?  I myself am torn about this issue.  They were horrible during the early part of the war, missing or not detonating, or detonating too early.  Reading up on the issue a little, it seems they did not get this corrected until Winter 43-44, which is long enough for it to actually have an effect on the war.

A -1 on their to hit rolls, and 1d3 instead of 1d6 Economic Warfare would seem to cover it, but is it really worth it?  I mean, one more temporary, One Country Only rule...

Like I said, I am torn.

[Yoper]

Well, this game is a detailed look at the war and as such it deserves these types of special rules.

If you are going to have the amount of specific units, rules, even generals that it provides, then you should have these types of restrictions to adequately portray the problems and unique abilities of the different combatants.

The Japanese used the SNLFs to great effect early in the the war to capture key targets.  They did so by transporting them on warships (DD, APD, CL, CA, etc.).  You can describe the movement on the Solomons just as easily with the Japanese's use of barges to patrol and move about on the many islands of the area.

The US torpedo problem was such an issue that it too deserves to be represented in the game.  Talk about a full weapon system being rendered useless for at least a year until proper testing of the existing torpedoes could be evaluated and replacements brought on line.  Imagine how the war in the Pacific would have been accelerated towards a conclusion if the attack on the Japanese supply line had been brought to bear a year sooner.

Then again, early on the target of the US pacific sub campaign wasn't directed totally on that part of the war, but the effects would have been felt sooner by the Japanese and they would have had to shift accordingly to defend those convoys much sooner than they did.