PAcific NA`s

Naval strategy and wise economic moves are both critical in waging this far-flung war across an entire hemisphere. To the familiar elements from Axis & Allies, Axis & Allies: Pacific adds convoys, island air and naval bases, kamikazes, destroyers, and the Chinese army.
Saburo Sakai
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:13 pm

Post by Saburo Sakai » Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:35 pm

Interesting NAs, but I believe the Japanese 2-hit infantry are a game breaker. This basically doubles the defensive strength of the Japanese stack in French Indo-China. One of the keys to the game for the Japanese is to hold FIC until at least J4, by which point a Japanese VP victory is clearly within sight. By almost doubling the defensive power of the Japanese stack, this likely allows Japan to stand on FIC until at least J6.

It may be that some of this advantage will be offset by the quicker American build up as a result of reducing fighter cost to basically 0 - why would the US ever buy fighters separately (24 for two fighters or 18 for an AC and 2 fighters). These additional units may be enough to force the Japanese back more quickly in the Pacific which would partly compensate for their ability to stand firm in FIC. Still, I think the balance is greatly titled in Japan's favour by this rule.

The 2-hit UK AC is basically a non-factor. If you're going to attack the 1 or 2 UK carriers on the board, it just means you send a couple of more units to get the job done. On the other hand, how do you account for this rule if a joint air and naval task force attacks a UK carrier. One hit or two?

The points you make are interesting historically but probably not workable from a game perspective. However, if you objective is to teach history, game balance may be secondary.


Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:31 am

Post by timerover51 » Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Last edited by timerover51 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:09 pm

Welcome, Timerover51!

This is some interesting stuff you're doing! Using games to teach is a great concept, and starting with a relatively abstract one like this and modifying it to be more "realistic" works really well. I've done some modifications along those lines myself. If you're interested in my ideas, send me a Personal Message. Good luck with this program!
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Saburo Sakai
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:13 pm

Post by Saburo Sakai » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:15 am

timerover51 wrote:There are a few more additions that I have made to the game in expanding it to six players than just these. The players in the game are now the US, British India, Australia, the Dutch East Indies, China, and Japan. The question was on National Attributes, and these are the closest to National Attributes in the A & A Revised Rules.

I have yet to have a student buy a carrier and pull the planes off, mainly because if they want to use the carrier, it needs aircraft. Normally, the students build fighters at the Chinese industrial complex, where you obviously are not going to build a carrier. I also require that Hellcats go on the carriers, and the Lightnings be used from land bases. No Lightnings on carriers, which also is a factor. I did not include that in the post, but I probably should have.

If used by an expert player, the two hit to kill rule might be a game breaker, but the kids are not expert players, being 6th to 10th graders. Also, there are some house rules that come into play to spread the Japan out. First, aircraft cannot kill infantry, but can kill tanks and artillery. If attacking infantry, aircraft function just like artillery, but without the independent attack. Naval gunfire works the same way. An infantry unit can be supported by artillery and aircraft, or naval gunfire and aircraft, but not all three. This has two effects. One, it means that the Japanese player cannot use his aircraft to take out Allied infantry on the first turn, which ties up more infantry. Second, it means that the Allied players can attack with infantry at 3 rather then 2, Marines at 4 in an amphibious invasion, so have a better chance at killing the Japanese. So far, the Japanese player has been stretched thin enough to prevent him from doing much attacking at 3.

Also, I require the Japanese player to maintain an occupying force in every conquered territory. He cannot simply place a control marker and keep moving. Aircraft do not constitute an occupying force, so normally he leaves infantry. This spreads out his forces. If he removes the occupying force, the area comes under control of guerillas, and he looses the production, if any. One other thing is that tank units now cost the Japanese player 12 IPC instead of 5, as the Japanese had a very hard time producing tanks throughout the war.

Lastly, to balance out the game, all Allied players have access to Lend-Lease, and receive Lend-Lease production certificates. This is over and above regular US production. The credits can be accumulated and traded amoung the players, and each player receives credits based on a die roll. The credits are received at the start of each players turn, and spent the following turn.

Overall, using these rules, with a few more things, we have had one Japanese victory, one stalemate where I am not sure who would have won, and two Japanese losses. One Japanese loss was due to some horrible, from the Japanese standpoint, die rolls, which resulted in the Japanese loosing 130+ IPC worth of units in the course of the first round of turns. The other was the result of the Japanese taking two turns to capture the Philippines while attacking heavily in China. The stalement was the result of the US player team essentially building and not doing anything with the units. With the Lend-Lease aid, the rest of the Allies were able to hold India and Australia, but lost the Dutch East Indies and Malaya. If the US had continued to hold off attacking, I suspect that the Japanese would have won by Victory Points. It did teach all of the Allied players except the US the importance of the Lend-Lease Act, and also how they had to cooperate with each other fully. They were not at all happy with the US team.
That's a very different game from AAPacific. It's impossible to say how balanced it is without some playtesting.


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests