Brady L. Severns wrote in message <3AC58A81.492ABB3B@earthlink.net>... Picked up the new Axis & Allies: Pacific (A&A:P) game at our local game shop, Great Hall Games, here in Austin, and took it out for a spin with a couple friends. My initial summation of the game is that, like AH's old Age of Renaissance, AH/H has managed to pack a wonderfully BIG wargame into a remarkably compact format. Great game. Like Axis & Allies: Europe, A&A:P focuses the attention of its players on a specific thetare of war. Using core rules and mechanisms from the MB A&A game as a base, the designers apply special rules and a redesigned map of the Pacific theater to recreate the conflict in that corner of the world. Players familiar with the orginal game and the European game will find a lot of common ground that makes the game a breeze to pick up. However, there are a significant number of new rules that distinguishes the game from its bretheren and that brings the unique theme of the game to life. For example, The American player in this game can buy Marine units at a cost of 4 IPCs. They function like standard infantry except they score a hit on a 2 instead of a 1 when making an amphibious assault. Additionally, if they attack with supporting artillery (a piece introduced in the European Theater game) they score a hit on a 3 instead of a 2! This makes the marines on the attack especially powerful. A couple other twists which benefit the Japanese are troop ferrying destroyers and Kamikaze air strikes. Unlike other players the Japanese destroyers (another piece originally found in the European game) can transport 1 infantry piece and make an amphibious assault. However, when it performs this special attack, it may not make a shore bombardment. Kamikazes, on the other hand, are free die rolls that Japanee player gets to make against enemy naval units during any combat phase, provided that the enemy pieces are within a specific set of sea zones near the Japanese home islands. But the number of free attacks the Japanese player may take is 6 and they only score hits on a 2. The game I think is bit more challenging than the European expansion. For one thing, the Japanese begin the game with an IPC capacity that makes their German Allies appear to be rolling in dough. In A&A:P, Japan begins the game with an IPC of 19. The United States starts with 85-- over four times higher! Both sides with a tremendous amount of material dispersed across the Pacific Ocean and Asian mainland. Especially the Japanese. But they will need to make the most of their huge navy and sizable army early, since they will never enjoy the industrial capacity and replacement ability of the Allies. The first turns are therefore critical for the Japanese to seize as much territory and sink as many Allied ships as possible. To assist, the game gives the Japanese a huge first-turn break: Allied units defend on the 1 column during the first turn of the game. This break allows the Japanese their infamous heyday when the IJN was virtually unstoppable during the months following the attack on Pearl Harbor. A couple other features that both players may take advantage of are air and naval bases. Air and naval bases are already established at the start of the game and these points give genuine strategic value to islands that they are built on. What they essentially do is allow naval and air nits to extend their range by one if they begin and end their turn at a respective friendly base. To win, the Japanese must either capture an Allied Capital (US West Coast, New South Wales, or India) or pick up a moral victory by picking up 22 Victory Poitns over the coarse of the game. (The Japanese pick up one VP for every 10 full IPCs their country produces every turn. I picked up 10 in 4 turns before I conceded). The Allies must either capture the Japanese Mainland or force the Japanese to endure a turn where they gain no IPC VPs before they reach the 22 needed to win. In my particular game, I was quite overwhelmed by the sheer number of choices available to the Japanese player. They are literally a bull in a china shop on Turn 1. To test the system a little, I went all-out in the eastern Pacific. With my three carriers full of aircraft, I sent one wave against the US west coast, another against the US carrier fleet of Line Isalnd, and another againstn the battleships in Pearl. I launched amphibious assaults aganinst Midway to establish a forward base; the Phillipines to set the Americans back even further, and New Britain to get another base going. In China, I clamped down and launched an all-out assault against the Ledo/Burma Road and the interior mass of China. Foolishly, I left Hong Kong and Laylasia alone. Luck was not with me as I lost 4 of the Japanese 6 fighters in the raids against the US forces in the Eastern Pacific. Battleships, Destroyers, Transports, and Fighters fell to my bombs and funs, but no flat-tops were scratched. However, all island objectives were quickly captured. The Ledo road was broken, but only momentarily, and while huge swathes of China fell no prince worth even a single IPC point came under my control. In other words, I blundered my first turn horribly and probably would not get a chance to make up the loss in material since I gained only 4 IPCs worth of territory turn one. The next 3 turns I spent sending the IJN to the bottom in dribs and drabs in the South Pacific as I tried vainly to stave off the gathering weight of Allied counterattacks. As quickly as I sent American and British ships and planes to their doom, new ones appeared. For all the ground I gained in China, my army bled away, only to watch Commonwealth troops open the Ledo road and send columns of men and equipment into Szeschwan. I briefly managed to correct my inital blunder and grab the resource rich islands of Java, Sumatra, and Borneo, but I never took the Maylasian peninusla. Another grave error. For all my hard knocks, I had a great time with the game. The game felt like a good, broad-stroke, yet plausible, alternative-history of the struggle for the Pacific in WWII. The game is easy to pick up and play in an evening and rewards thoughtful play. But the burden is definitely placed upon the Japanese player to be the stronger player. In that regard, I would compare it favorably to Victory in the Pacific, with the added dilemma of making the most out of their war with China and India thrown into the bargain. Naturally, the toy factor in this set is huge. The featured Japanese recreations are the Fabuki Class carriers; Yamato Class battleships, Fubuki Class destroyers, I Class subs, Hakusan Maru transports, Kyugo light tank, Zero fighter, and Betty bomber. (The only thing missing for the enterprsing kit-bashing gamer is a construct of one of those Japanese battleship/carrier hybrids!) The Americans still have their P-38's (grrr) but also have Wildcats/Hellcats for the carriers. Though there are "only" 345 miniature pieces to A&A:E's 369, this divison is among three players to A&A:E's four, giving a toy/player ratio of 115-to-92 for a full complement of players in each game. Er, recommended. Brady Robert Rossney wrote in message <9a54lm$kvp@freepress.concentric.net>... "Brady L. Severns" wrote: > Foolishly, I left Hong Kong and Laylasia alone. You have to be casefule with Laylasia, or she'll get you on your knees. It sounds, from your description, that this game is all about the first turn; that what the Japanese do on the first turn serves a function almost analagous to the opening break in a game of pool. This sounds pretty interesting. I can't think of another board game that does this. But it also sounds like there'd be a considerable risk that an unlucky first turn for the Japanese player would result in a game that was nothing but an uphill struggle from there. Not having played (or seen) the game, I can't say. What do you think, Brady? Bob Rossney rbr@well.com Brady L. Severns wrote in message <3AC61A05.B771EE68@earthlink.net>... Robert Rossney wrote: >"Brady L. Severns" wrote: > >>> Foolishly, I left Hong Kong and Laylasia alone. > >> You have to be casefule with Laylasia, or she'll get you on your knees. My feelings exactly! >> It sounds, from your description, that this game is all about the first >> turn; that what the Japanese do on the first turn serves a function almost >> analagous to the opening break in a game of pool. This sounds pretty >> interesting. I can't think of another board game that does this. >> But it also sounds like there'd be a considerable risk that an unlucky first >> turn for the Japanese player would result in a game that was nothing but an >> uphill struggle from there. Not having played (or seen) the game, I can't >> say. What do you think, Brady? I think the game sets the Japanese player for an upward struggle from the beginning economcally, but offers enough incentives militarily to keep the Japanese in the fight and not give up easily. In our first game, I think I made some choices for the Japanese that could have been better and that those set Japan back much farther than any luck the Allies enjoyed during the opening attack. I won't go so far as to say that the game is decided on Turn 1. I don't think that's true. But I agree a lot depends on what the Japanese player does on his first two turns. They have a lot of hard choices to make and taking advantage of one oppurtunity seems to close out another. The first turn is when Japan hits hardest and its hard to avoid the tempation of taking out as many fighting units as you can. They feel loss much more keenly than the Allies soon afterwards. I figured after my first turn that I'd scotched the opening. I should have paid more attention to the acquisition of IPC territories, cutting off Allied Convoy centers, in addition to the reduction of Allied equipment. And I could have (perhaps should have) played a much more defensive game with the Japanese after Turn 2, but I was having a great time stretching the IJN to the limit and seeing how far I could push the situation in China and what effect those things would have. I eventually got around to picking up the IPCs, but I felt I'd started that ball rolling rather late. Brady Neil Carr wrote in message <1erbct4bqr937bf7bbji0880tpsokivpe3@4ax.com>... To my surprise the mall game store that never has a clue about the products it carries got A&A:P onto their shelves before the local hard core game store. Not only that but it was hidden amonst a bunch of trivia games while the rest of the H/AH line was out on one of the row ends. A&A has always pulled on my gaming heart strings as it was on of the first hobby board games I was ever introduced to, thus I couldn't resist giving this clueless game store my money. Is A&AP just more of the same? Yes and no. The game system itself screams through loudly however as with A&AE there are some minor tweaks and a restructuring of the victory conditions to make the two sides more balanced for game play issues. A&A fans will of course want to know what's new before anything else can be said: Escorts for Bombers in strategic raids Battleships get two hits Submarines may submerge for a turn New untis of Destroyers, US Marines, and Artillery Convoy rules affect IPC income No weapons development Fighters can perform Combat Air Patrols in sea zones Naval and Air bases add strategic factor for non-combat movement Japan can perform six kamikaze attacks near the home islands Japan first attack edge Many of these elements were introduced with A&AE so fans will not find too many new goodies in this game. What you will find is an effort to make a victory for Japan plausible through the specific victory conditions. Unlike any other version of A&A, this version adds in a victory point track for Japan. This is great as it hopefully will rescue the game from the banality of production and attrition as the sole vision of winning a game. Japan can win by either accumulating 22 victory points or occupying the captial of India, Australia or the west coast of the US for a turn. The Allies win by preventing the Japanese from getting a VP durning a round of play or occupying the home island for a turn. Nitpicks I had with the game: What I was most curious about, and what drove to buy the game on the spot was how they would handle merging A&AE and A&AP together into one large game. It seems obvious doesn't it? Anyone willing to pick up both titles would immediately have that bubble to the top of their imagination. Unfortunately there is nothing in the rules involving merging the games into one monster beer and pretzel game. Admittedly a host of specialized rules, timing issues, etc would have to get smoothed out but this isn't A3R and Rising Sun! This is a simple game system which can easily absorb a layer or two more of rules without it becoming burdensom. I suppose H/AH figured that the fans would come up with rules anyway so why not avoid the extra cost of a couple of pages of rulebook and the need for some extra Q&A support. It's just disapointing as it squelches some of the enthusiasm that should be shared between game player and game producer. The Japanese infantry figures are nice however their guns aren't going to last too long. They are VERY thin, as thin as the spears and swords in Conquest of the Empire and I can't imagine them lasting out the lifetime of the game. It should be noted for those who don't know that with both A&AE and now A&AP that the game pieces are modeled after hardware from each country. I've never been a real tech head with this stuff so I can't say how appropriate the models are. The Mav will be happy that no Stukas snuck in though. New Unit: US Marines...eh, this isn't a very provocative new unit. It's a US infantry in a different shade of green. I know, we have destroyers and artillery but that's old news for those with A&AE. I was hoping for something a little more interesting, like the pocket Aircraft Carriers (cheaper and only carries one fighter) that played such a vital roll in the pacific for the allies. The US Marines are just infantry with some extra oomph under very specific situations. The Map: Overall the map is fine. Good colors and clean detail. I just don't like the interspersed images of ships and planes on it. I miss the old A&A map hand painted style. They just don't make them like they used to. No Panama Canal: I was hoping this would be included in the game. Historically the Japanses made huge plans for taking it out, going to such lengths as to design a special fleet of subs to carry aircraft under the pacfic to within range to take out the last gate of the canal. The leadership aborted the mission when Okinowa was laid siege but these kind of kooky but plausible strategies are what make this beer and pretzel genre of games so charming. No atom bomb...I know, the world is to PC for this kind of stuff but are Supremacy, Nuclear War and Ogre the only games that will have this feature? That's it for now. I haven't had a chance to play it yet but I look forward to it. The gameplay could be awful but it seems from the effort to tweak the rules like victory points, convoys, and air and naval bases, that the designers are really trying to balance the playing field to make for an tight and enjoyable experience for all the players. Historically Japan really didn't have much of a chance after Pearl Harbor, the US was just too big, high tech, and rich to be stopped. It looks like this issue is avoided and awards a win to Japan if they can peform better than history. Neil Carr Be a geek! www.boardgamegeek.com Must...play...games... Brady L. Severns wrote in message <3AC61219.9AB9D73B@earthlink.net>... Neil Carr wrote: > What I was most curious about, and what drove to buy the game on the > spot was how they would handle merging A&AE and A&AP together into one > large game. It seems obvious doesn't it? Anyone willing to pick up > both titles would immediately have that bubble to the top of their > imagination. Unfortunately there is nothing in the rules involving > merging the games into one monster beer and pretzel game... > > ...It's just disapointing as it squelches some of the enthusiasm that > should be > shared between game player and game producer. I think an added layer of rules linking the two games together would've added much more time to the development of the game. First is the basic problem of getting the Pacific war right, then the added problem of getting the whole global thing right, too. I'm sure we would see the difference in the price tag. > The Japanese infantry figures are nice however their guns aren't going > to last too long. They are VERY thin, as thin as the spears and > swords in Conquest of the Empire and I can't imagine them lasting out > the lifetime of the game. They are very thin. When playing with the game, the problem encountered was a little different. Since the plastic on these soldiers is softer than that used for CoE, the barrels tended to curl and twist but not break. But you can smoth them back out using your fingers with no problem. (Not a big deal to me anyway...) > New Unit: US Marines...eh, this isn't a very provocative new unit. > It's a US infantry in a different shade of green. I know, we have > destroyers and artillery but that's old news for those with A&AE. I > was hoping for something a little more interesting, like the pocket > Aircraft Carriers (cheaper and only carries one fighter) that played > such a vital roll in the pacific for the allies. The US Marines are > just infantry with some extra oomph under very specific situations. "Jeep" carriers would've been cool, I agree. And I'd have been just as happy if all the American fighters were Hellcats in this set instead of just them in with the P-38's. However, with an accompanying artillery unit, the Marines have a lot of oomph. With a base attack of 2 in an amphibious an amphibious assault, the added weight of an artillery piece carries it to a 3. And if you take a casualty in the attack, one is inclined to soak the arty instead of the normal infantry since the Marines keep their base of 2! A leatherneck with a fixed bayonet at the ready would've been a cool figure, tho. > No atom bomb...I know, the world is to PC for this kind of stuff but > are Supremacy, Nuclear War and Ogre the only games that will have this > feature? I think the Allied Victory conditions have the A-bomb factored into its background. If the Japanese go through a turn without gaining an IPC victory point, then they lose, period. In real life, the Japanese home islands were isolated from their Asian possesions and the Allies were faced with the daunting task of mounting an invasion. The A-bomb gave the Allies a more persuasive alternative to the idea of an invasion against a power beaten militarily and economically. I think that's why the Allies only have to keep the chokehold on for a turn rather than having to beat Japan into submission like they have to with Germany. Brady