Dan Raspler - 04:33pm Apr 4, 2001 PST (#626 of 692)

Well, I just played the first couple turns of A&AP, and I'm pretty
impressed. So far, Hasbro hasn't let me down. I can't give an in depth
comparison, here, but my first impressions are very favorable.

Graphically, it's great. You get a LOT of hardware for the money,
including cool new 3-D Task Force markers and task force cards. These
dramatically clean up the map. And there's nothing quite so
bizarre-looking as the Japanese battleships; it's great to have such
distinctive pieces to fiddle with. One of the stranger elements is that
they have two kinds of models for the US fighters -- P-38s and Hellcats.
Other than "let's give the loyal buyers more than they expect", I can't
imagine why the company would do this. There are no rules for "land
based air" versus "carrier based air" that I noticed.

More superficial observations: The Japanese are a cranberry-red, which
was a bit disappointing, but understandable -- I would have preferred an
orange tone, but I can see Political Correctness rearing its necessarily
unsubtle head, and convincing the designers not to make the IJN anything
near yellow in color. The Chinese units (yes, the game covers the land
war in China!), are recycled Russians from the original A&A, which is
also a bit of a bummer. It would have been the ultimate in cool to have
blue plastic Nationalist Chinese infantry, but HEY, there are also rules
for the Burma road, so I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth.

The rest of the pieces are from A&A:E.

As for the map, my hat's off to the graphic designer or art director who
chose to "bend" the vertical lines of the regions slightly. While having
no impact on play, these lines now mimic longitude lines, and really
give the map a global feeling. Ingenius and subtle in the extreme.

Like Pacific Victory, the game is balanced with the Japanese starting
with a giant navy, and the Brits and US getting swamped for the first
couple turns. Also like Pac Vic, the Japanese have a small starting
income v. a TITANIC allied income. Over time, this disparity would
overwhelm the IJN, so the designers have broken new ground and
introduced victory points! Basically, for every $10 they make per turn,
the Japanese get a VP. If they ever get up to 22 VPs, they win.
Typically, they'll make 3 on the first turn, 4 on the second. If they
can maintain this for four more turns, they win. Obviously, it's a race
for the Allies to slow this down -- and it's a hell of a ticking clock.
Normal Axis and Allies victory conditions apply, too (capture a capital
to win).

Other neat touches: "convoy zones." Along with the "convoy centers" like
they have in A&AE (capture it to reduce the enemy's income without
boosting your own), many areas of the map are marked "convoy zone" with
the name of the neighboring island group (for example, "Phillipine
Convoy Zone"). If a nation controls a territory and the convoy zone,
they get the income from the territory. BUT, if the nation does NOT
control the local convoy zone (i.e., if the enemy is blockading), they
do NOT get the income. Can you say, "supply rules for mass market
gamers," boys and girls? Very encouraging, and the dreaded "S" word
doesn't appear anywhere in the rules.

Yet more cool touches: 1) You can put your fighters on Combat Air
Patrol! 2) Many of the territories are marked as air- or naval-bases.
These extend the range of the units. 3) Several of the regions around
Japan are marked as "Kamikaze" zones. Basically, 6 times per game, the
Japanese can make Kamikaze runs, targetting individual ships before a
battle and destroying them on a 1 or 2. 4) Special "first turn strike"
power for the Japanese 5) Did I mention rules for the Burma Road? 6) Or
that Japanese destroyers can now transport an infantry unit?

I'm sure there are more neat changes to the A&A standard, but these are
all that spring to mind.

As for comparing AXIS AND ALLIES PACIFIC to PACIFIC VICTORY?

Well, while A&A:P is substantially more "realistic" than straight A&A,
it's still an extremely goofy model of combat, since the defender never
can retreat and a victorious attacker can neither reinforce nor pull
back. Then there's the infinite capacity of Hawaiian industry to crank
out new battleships and fighter squadrons every turn... Not to mention
the complete lack of supply rules, or weather rules, or search...

At the end of the day, so much of the Pacific conflict was governed by
intelligence and fog-of-war that I must conclude that PACIFIC VICTORY
gives a more "realistic" showing. Both games dramatize the value of
air-power at sea, but in PV subtrefuge and misdirection allow a player
to capitalize on temporary shifts in local strength in more "historical"
fashion. BOTH games are heavily luck-based... but at least in PV you get
to target which type of unit your guys are aiming for.

If I had to pick one game to own, I'd pick PACIFIC VICTORY. But if I had
to pick one game to own if I had a 10 year-old kid glued to the
Playstation? AXIS AND ALLIES PACIFIC all the way.