What would you change...

[Larry]

I was wondering what you would change or do differently (add or remove) from Axis & Allies Pacific. Let me hear comments. Maybe we can get them implimented into the game.

Thanks
Larry

[Saburo Sakai]

My suggestion would be to change the Japan VP victory condition to 24 and give the Allies 12 IPCs (in addition to convoy money) to distribute among the Allied powers before J1. I think the game is perfectly balanced at that point.

I have discussed my other thoughts on AAPacific in a series of essays: http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/f ... asp?FID=21

I think it is an absolutely terrific game.

Saburo Sakai

[Krieghund]

Pacific is a great game, but it has major balance problems, and I have never been too keen on the completely ahistoric concept of Japan winning by taking India or Australia. They simply didn't have the manpower to do it. I have created the following house rules to solve both of these problems:

• 1. Count the Japanese victory points at the end of the US' turn (that way Japan has to take and hold a territory to get credit).
  2. Japan can win only on victory points - not on capital capture.
  3. No substalling allowed (attacking subs must fight one round before submerging).
  4. Kamikaze may not be used until "activated" - they are activated on the first turn Japan collects less than 30 IPCs of income (this makes them more of a game-saving "desperation weapon" than an advantage for Japan).
  5. Optional - Repair damaged battleships at the beginning and end of Japan's turn only, not the end of each turn (gives the Royal Navy a little more punch).

The advantage of these rules is that none of the components need to change, just the rulebook. However, if you are willing to make more extensive changes, I would like to see some variation of the submarine rules we discussed for Advanced A&A (subs on station) implemented, including ENRs. The existing Convoy Zones could be ENR targets, rather than the way they are used now as "controllable" areas.

[Larry]

Saburo Sakai – I will read your essays. Thanks for the site.

Krieghund – Good stuff. I especially like the idea of incorporating the Advanced A&A subs on station. I also like the – Japan can win only on victory Points.

[Krieghund]

Thanks, Larry. I also want to add that of course the Japanese setup card would need to be corrected, per the FAQ.

[Saburo Sakai]

Please, please, please don't take substalling out of the game. It is what makes AAPacific special.

SS

[Krieghund]

Please, please, please don't take substalling out of the game. It is what makes AAPacific special.

Sorry to disagree, Saburo, but IMHO substalling is a "cheap" tactic that is unfortunately necessary to make the game balanceable the way the rules currently stand. It was not intended by the designers originally, as far as I know (Larry, please correct me on this if I am wrong).

What makes Pacific special is the inclusion of strategic air and naval bases and Convoy Zones as an economic component. Convoy Zones would only be enhanced by treating them as targets for Economic Naval Raids and representing submarine warfare as it truly was. The major impact of subs was felt in economic damage rather than using them for stalling tactics and as cannon fodder for fleet battles.

[Saburo Sakai]

I've played over 100 PBEM AAPacific games and I don't agree with the description of substalling as a "cheap" trick. Whether it was intended or not, substalling makes the game better. If you take substalling out of the game, it is a completely different game and shouldn't be called AAPacific - Maybe it can be called 2nd Edition.

SS