After 24 hours the original message still hasn't looped back to me via the list, so I'll try again. Apologies for duplication if it really was distributed. --- I recently finshed the first 15 missions (out of a 35-mission campaign) in _B-29 Superfortress_, from Khyber Pass Games, and I thought I'd pass along my initial reactions. _B-29_ was inspired by _B-17: Queen of the Skies_. That's no great insight on my part -- the rulebook is up-front about it: "'B-29 SUPERFORTRESS' game play is similar to, although to some extent more complex than, Avalon Hill's B-17, QUEEN OF THE SKIES. Some familiarity with that game is assumed. However, it is a new game from the ground up -- you do *not* need to own B-17, QUEEN OF THE SKIES to play SUPERFORTRESS." The two games are similar in that both are solitaire designs, and a single game session presents a single mission of a single bomber in great detail, with barrels of dice rolled along the way. However, I found that, at least for me, familiarity with _B-17_ didn't flatten the learning curve all that much -- the game should not pose a problem to those who hadn't seen the earlier game. More importantly, the two games contrast greatly with each other beyond the obvious differences of bomber type and theater. The strategic air war in the Pacific gives _B-29_ a much different emphasis than _B-17_. In _B-17_ the focus is on the bomber fighting its way through waves of opposition, both fighters and flak, and persevering under accumulating damage. Many seem to think the game is statistically valid, but my opinion is that it presents the "star spangled war comics" view of the European air war, putting more action into one mission than an average crewmen would see in half a dozen. For example, in the last _B-17_ campaign I played -- the 15th Air Force variant -- by the 25th mission I had no less than *four* aces on board! Historically Japanese opposition was much more sporadic than in Europe, so in _B-29_ there's less emphasis on flak and fighters. Instead, the player has three primary concerns: 1) navigation problems (due to flying long distances over open ocean) 2) fuel management (targets are typically 10-12 Zones distant, compared to a maximum of 8 Zones in _B-17_) 3) mechanical breakdowns (historically the B-29 had plenty of "bugs") In _B-17_ the player rolls dice over and over to resolve defensive and offensive fire. In _B-29_ the player rolls dice and and over to determine current weather and navigation accuracy. In _B-17_ the player crosses out lots of boxes representing ammunition. In _B- 29_ the player crosses out lots of boxes representing fuel. I can imagine veteran _B-17_ players finding the latter to be considerably less exciting. And for a while I was skeptical about _B-29_ as well. But eventually I was won over. Bumbling around Zone 1 trying to roll an "on course" result (while fuel reserves dwindle) so that the plane can land back at base does have a drama of its own. Another "problem" for new players is that the first ten missions are exclusively high altitude daylight missions. Historically the brass was dissatisfied with the results of this strategy, and the game accurately depicts why. Thus new players may become discouraged with a string of missions resulting in "no fighters, no flak, no bombs on target." But starting with mission #11 a greater variety of parameters comes into play: night as well as day missions; day missions at altitudes other than "high"; and a preponderance of "urban area" targets that foster higher bomb percentages. I also want to mention that after 15 missions I'm still in the same plane I started with. In four campaigns of _B-17_ (admittedly a small number compared to some fanatics) I've *never* had a plane last that long. That's not to say I haven't had some close calls in _B-29_. For example, in a night mission the thermal turbulence caused by the incindiary bombload caught my plane in an updraft and a mid-air collision (which would have destroyed the plane) was missed by a whisker. Then there was the time a random engine malfunction caused the propellor to spin off from centrifugal force; fortunately it spun away without chopping up anything important. Anyway, the bottom line is that I recommend the game, but I recognize that it may be a disappointment for some. _______________________________________________ Consim-l mailing list Consim-l@mailman.halisp.net http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/consim-l