From: Markus Stumptner Subject: Re: Japanese Wargames and Japanese Gamers... On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Kenneth Li wrote: > Hmm, it maybe bloody, but, in the system firepower is relative to range and > the firepower is compared to the ship's armor factor to get a ratio. So > maneuvering is still an issue to get the right amount of firepower. Also it > is a log movement system so out guessing is also a factor. Well, the argument in the review was that if half the ships are effectively dead after one turn's fire, there's not much of a game there. Which I kind of agreed with. Do you know the game's time scale? The second issue, of course, is whether the lethality is historically appropriate. Had a similar problem once with a game called "Iron Samurai", nice tactical system, wonderful ship counters for the mid-eighties, and all kinds of effects considered (even distinguished deck and side armor), all in about 8 pages of rules, but when I tried it ships seemed to die like flies. > The system seem like it can be Play by email relatively easy. And the > counters are generic enough (You don't need to punched it to play it, just a > blank sheet of counters and some writing on it will do). So is there anybody > who like to try a game by email?? I would like to taste it myself before I > put it on the shelf... I can't do this at the moment (I know I couldn't keep up with the turns), but if you find someone, please share your experience... >> _Pacific Fleet_ > Hmm, this might be the goal for my next purchase, know that there is one > copy currently at ebay. What's the current bid? :-) > BTW Markus, do you mind explaining the system a bit?? I mean is it like > Pacific War or Victory in the Pacific. How is the combat system and did it > includes land battles?? VIP is a bit abstract on the land side. While > Pacific War (by VG) is a bit detail. It's in between. In theory, turns are seasonal as in A3R/EotRS, but they are subdivided into biweekly naval impulses (there's a chart that shows how long a TF has been at sea, neatly handling different nations' at-sea replenishment capability). Hexes are about 300 miles and are grouped into megahexes. Air combat involves all units (carriers and land-based) in one megahex. The different capabilities of land-based and carrier based units come out well, as does the shift in quality over time (Japanese for the worse, Allies for the better). Combat results have a quite good distribution as I recall, but it's been a long time since I played. There is a special rule that allows a one-time Midway style surprise, and another rule for a required Halsey-style attack on a diversionary force a la Leyte Gulf. Land combat includes China and India (units are ranked from brigade to army - basically you break down an army into a corps and a "small army" and the same happens for corps/divisions and division/brigade). Works ok given the limited countermix. Movement over land does not spend movement points, but supply (and ground support is handled oddly but effectively by adjusting supply levels). The Japanese are painfully strapped for supply, whereas the Allies have no real problems. (The designer's notes say that he designed the game in part to show the younger Japanese how miserable the Japanese strategic position actually was.) Here there are some restrictions, because ports are rated for supply capacity strictly by their historical degree of use, so an Allied player who falls back to Sydney from Noumea has a problem. On the other hand the Japanese have a clearly defined line beyond which their ability to provide consistent supply breaks down (Guadalcanal for example is beyond the line), nicely reproducing their own problems. > How long is a game?? How many counters and what is included in the system > (e.g. individual ships, amphibious landings etc.). Carriers are individual, battleships are two per counter, other ships are grouped. The map is mounted, in four Squad Leader-style segments. The graphics are nice (very good for mid-80s) but not painfully flashy (black but individual silhouettes for plane and ship counters). Playing time is hard to judge, but it's playable in a few, perhaps even a couple, Saturdays (i.e., far less than Pacific War). Amphibious landings are of course there, with land units standing for their own transports. Both sides' capacity in that area is fairly restricted depending on historical abilities per game date. There are a few smaller scenarios, but the campaign is manageable and also (big bonus IMO) includes a whole-war scenario starting 5/42, so that (in the designer's words) the initial turn(s), where historical Japanese performance depends on things working just about perfectly, cannot ruin the rest of the game if something goes wrong and the Japanese are left in a hopeless position. There are rules "balancing" the campaign in game terms, but fairly abstract (so, e.g., you may still lose the game if you break through the Japanese defenses big time, but do it at the beginning of '44 instead of the end of '43). Rules are about 24 pages, so I'd rate it upper half of medium complexity. As I said, some parts are fuzzy (probably problems with the translation), but it does a lot with less rules than most Pacific games, and virtually no written record keeping. Quite impressive achievement IMO. Markus Last 3 games: Pacific War, Burma, Rise of the Luftwaffe ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Bakayaro! Bakayaro!" ("Stupid Bastards! Stupid Bastards!") -- Admiral Aritomo Goto's last words to his staff, October 11, 1942