Customer Reviews

Axis & Allies Pacific

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I've just completed playing one game with my 45 yr. old brother as the allies, and I have to say that I enjoyed the game. I used to play regular A&A quite often with him, so I think the test of wills was a fair comparison.

We learned early on, that it is critical to use CAP to slow enemies movements or to channel them into specific sea zones. If you play Japan, prepare to execute flawless turns, because the game is fairly unforgiving to mistakes on their part. Conserve your carriers! They are irreplacable.

At 75 IPCs, the industrial might of the US is truly impressive. Even after getting my clock cleaned on turns one and two (at the expense of the entire Japanese Eastern Pacific Fleet), I was still able to build 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 2 transports, a sub and a marine! Japan can expect only to delay the US, not defeat them. A better strategy is to press the Aussies and Indians.

The game is better than vanilla A&A and the tactical possibilities are truly interesting because players tend to do a lot of unexpected things on every turn. Combat Air Patrol, US Marines, air and naval bases, submerging subs and destroyers added greatly to the pleasure of this game.

This one's a squid's dream, boys and girls and we will be playing it again I'm sure. Kudos to AH and Hasbro!

I don't tend to write reviews, but I think this one is justified for the new purchaser of A&A:P. First of all, I find the game to be quite challanging and enjoyable for intermediate to expert A&A players. I leave out beginners beacuse, as other reviewers have pointed out, fronts are relatively nonexistant. I think that standard A&A will prove to be easier to catch on to for a more inexperienced player as you can clearly see where the fronts are, why they are there, where the reinforcements are coming from, etc. On A&A:P, with all the sea zones (not to mention the airports and naval bases which add movement to planes and boats respectively), a novice might think his fleet is relatively safe when, in fact, it is threatened by a ton of the enemies stuff.

The main reason I'm writing this though is because I have seen a couple reviewers say that a win with Japan is inevitable and others have said that the Americans are too powerful and they will eventually win. I just wanted to post what I have found so far.

Japan, typically, has the advantage (and this is further evidenced by online tournaments where the players "bid" over who has to take the allies). In 9 games, I have seen 3 Victory Point wins, and two India Takeovers. Of note is also that Japan was maybe one or two rounds away from submission on 3 of those VP wins (America and Aussie right on the doorstep and pounding away with their bombers which reduces Japan's VPs).

India most certainly has enough resources to defend itself. On the two India captures I have seen, the British player allocated more money to Australia than India. The key to holding India is too give ALL the money from the British Convoys to India and build a ton of guys and a ton of artillery. You have to have an offensive threat to Japan over there, otherwise they will build up with impunity and eventually crush (or win with VP).

To the reviewer that said America is overpowered.. If you have a smart Japanese player who expands fast, BUT THEN contracts just as quickly, you should eventually be facing this navy:

3 Battleships; 4 Carriers; at least 15 fighters; 2 bombers; and about 8 destroyers and maybe 10 transports.

That's just what Japan STARTS with. By turn 3 they should be earning at least 30 IPCs per turn.

Let's see, at America's 72 dollars a turn (they immediately lose 3 on the phillipines unless Japan players is on crack), or 3 battleships, that's QUITE a lot of catching up to do. And don't forget: you only have about 8 turns to do it.

I have seen four or five Allies wins, but they all been through very interesting tactics (ie Bombers racing to China; no Pearl Harbor movement until 6 battleships and 2 carriers were up and running, etc).

Bottom line: This game, in my opinion, is quite well balanced at the intermediate level. I think once people become experts at it (not that I am by ANY means), the game eventually favors the Japanese, but for different reasons than stated in these reviews.

I have been an avid Axis & Allies player for over ten years, and was eagerly looking forward to this game's arrival on the shelves. Sadly, I was very disappointed. It is very clear to me that not only did the game designers not properly play-test this game, they also didn't read their history texts.

First of all, the game allows the impossible: the US can INSTANTLY place a huge amount of shipping IN HAWAII on the FIRST ROUND. Aside from total lack of historicity, this creates a huge game imbalance because it instantly forces the Japanese onto the defensive. Pearl Harbor simply didn't have that kind of productive capacity - not even close. Also, even if it were produced on the West Coast rather than Hawaii, it would still be ahistorical.

After a debacle like Pearl Harbor, the Japanese had lots of room to maneuver in the Pacific, and it took a LONG time for the decidedly superior American production to kick in. But the game imbalance this "instant fleet" causes is huge. If both players are experienced, the Japanese can NEVER challenge the Americans at sea. This is because American productivity in the game is SO superior that if the Americans lose at a Midway-style battle, the outcome does not matter - they just plunk down more carriers. In reality, Midway would have given the Japanese free reign in the Pacific for much longer.

Also, the Japanese will NEVER be able to take Australia or India if both players are decent. It's too easy to reinforce them, and the Japanese have too long of a supply train. That leaves the "sit and wait" strategy for the Japanese (in which they accumulate "victory points" for conquering pacific islands). After enough points, the Japanese win, even if they've lost their main fleet and the Americans are sitting offshore waiting to pound the home islands. As if America would get bored and just go home. Perhaps today, but not in the 1940s. Totally ridiculous! The Japanese player is left with the odd feeling that he walked away a total loser, yet somehow cheated the American player of victory. Neither player is happy with this outcome. Nor would either be happy if the American player wins because of the "magically appearing ships" he receives.

Another serious problem is the spacing. It tends to favor America. The pieces and setup are pretty accurate, but those are easy to do. The fact that both sides begin with so much shipping was an exciting plus (you could name individual carriers!!!)

There are plenty of other, obvious ways to be realistic about production differences and still give the Japanese player a fighting chance. Take away American production in the first round or two, and reduce it in subsequent rounds to around 50 or so. Remember, 85% of Allied resources went to the European theater (Samuel Elliot Morrison, Strategy & Compromise, Yale, 1958 I believe). You might want to give the Japanese a few more IPC points to work with, and assign economic value to more Chinese territory. GET RID of that factory in Hawaii. Get rid of the victory points, (worst idea ever) and just fight over India and Australia. My friends and I came up with a few other variations as well, but those are the most important ones.

In short, the game is salvageable with some modifications - but if you're rating it "as sold" it deserves a D (the pieces, map, and a few interesting rules are the only thing that saved it from receiving an F). (...)

The third game in the "Axis & Alllies" series of games, Axis& Allies: Pacific has some things to reccomend it over the other entries, and some problems.

First the good news. All 3 players get to play; in the original and Axis & Allies: Europe, the American player usually just gets to watch. Since the war will be decided one way or the other in Russia, by the time the US shows up with any force to speak of, the war is over and it would take a sadistic German to want to keep playing. Additionally, A&AP is much more open and fluid than A&A or A&AE; the board is wide-open and fronts are non-existant, so there is a great deal of tactical latitude. There are a wider variety of strategic courses to persue, which leads to less stereotyped play. Despite some technical flaws, A&AP is still fun to play.

Ah, but the bad news ... the designers and playtesters did fall down on the victory conditions I'm afraid. Without ruining your first handful of plays (which are likely to be quite entertaining), the Japanese will likely discover the "guarenteed-win" strategy before too long (a strategy which is "degenerate", as we say - it makes no sense and flies in the face of what the designers cleary intended, but is essentially fool-proof). Once this happens, you can easily enough change the victory conditions to prevent it ... but then we're back to the same stereotyped play that dogged A&AE. So you've got a game which shows a lot of promise, but doesn't quite work.

Although it's a nit-pick I suppose for an Axis and Allies game, it also bears mentioning that the game has relatively little relation to any history. A&AP may well teach you about probabilities and risk management, but it won't tell you much about the military or economic course of WWII in the Pacific.

Anyway, this is not a bad game, and will be a welcome addition to the collection for fans of the other Axis & Allies games. Still, it's not one I could recommend in good concience over Hasbro/Avalon Hill's Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit or Battle Cry (never mind Columbia Games' similar but much more interesting Pacific Victory).

...

Coming off of the great success of Axis & Allies: Europe. This Pacific campaign-focused game is a great substitute for the regular game if you do not have the requisite number of players or enough time for regular Axis & Allies.

The game contains 2 new units: artillery and destroyer which are great additions to the game. Additionally, inclusion of convoys, naval and air bases create an A&A game style that is quite unique and creates a variety of different strategies that can be employed throughout the map. In this way it is quite different from both Axis & Allies and Axis & Allies Europe. Every game does not end up being the same.

Overall, a great game that typically takes 2 to 3 hours and has replayability value that is just as high as A&A and A&A: Europe

I have owned and played Axis & Allies for nearly 20 years. The number of strategic options for each side are nearly limitless and with two good players, the game can go on forever. I have never actaully kept count, but I am sure that some of my games have lasted at least 20 and perhaps as many as 30 rounds.

The Pacific war version has been designed with such historic acuracy that it is actually impossible for Japan to win the war. So, the creators have had to include rules for "victory points". The Japanese player if forced to either make a mad dash to conquer India or Australia, or to just hold on to enough territory to earn the necessary points for victory before America builds its inevitable gargantuan force and crushes Japan.
The game also has one more downside; it takes two people about 3 times as long to set up as the original Axis & Alllies.

This is a really great game. The map and playing pieces are beautiful, the game fluid and fast-paced. The designers made the rules easy to understand and it's very quick to get the game rolling forward. The games I've played have typically wrapped up in a couple hours. As a teacher, I think the game would work great as a teaching tool. There are few better ways to learn about the Pacific War than have to make the same strategic decisions and mistakes. The game has a few bumps and rough spots, but other than that, Axis and Allies: Pacific plays very well.
The game covers World War 2 in the Pacific with the players in the role of the United States, the British, and the Empire of Japan. It's really a two-player game, US v. Japan. At times, the British player tends to feel like a third wheel, especially if the Japanese player can prevent a big British fleet from forming (which is not terribly hard). As for playing the Indians or the Chinese, well, bring a magazine or something. As for the US and Japanese player, the Japanese start with a big, impressive fleet and try to fend off the ever growing American strength while pushing their domain outwards in Asia and the Pacific. Each game usually has a dramatic tipping point, probably when the Americans win their first big naval battle. After this point, the Japanese empire rapidly folds and the Japanese player has to scramble to pull off a win.
The game has a few rough spots. As is, it's set up for a "quick game," one probably not lasting more than 6 or 7 turns, in which the odds are actually stacked on the Japanese side. That is the biggest problem with the game- the Victory Points system by which Japan wins is not very good. It's quite awkward, winning through accumulating 22 victory points, and about as much fun as winning in boxing "on points." Further, it tends to create highly artificial moves from the Japanese player- one gets about 15 points or so and then pulls everything back to Japan to coast through the last few turns. But it's a board game and changing rules is both easy and fun. A "victory cities" system, and you can easily find them online, is probably the quickest way to fix it.
Also, get rid of the Industrial Complex in Hawaii. That makes the Americans far too powerful.
On the whole, this is a terribly fun game- easily worth the price. I've even gotten it down and played by myself once. It seems mandatory, though, when fighting naval battles, to move the airplanes and make little "vroom-vroom" and "ratta-tat-tat" noises. Good sound effects should definitely be worth an extra attack die. Maybe even two.

Axis & Alies Pacific would be an interesting game if not for the rules flaw. It is impossible to stop Japan from taking and holding India by the 4th turn. According to the rules, all Japan has to do to win is occupy one of the 3 capitals for 1 turn. The Allies do not have the resources to stop Japan from doing this. If you take this rule out of the game, it becomes an excellent game to play, but with this rule the Allies cannot win.

I am a fan of this kind of game and it is a must have!

I gave the game one star as an attention grabber. Pacific might be an excellent game for the advanced gamer who wants to delve into the extensive rules, but those looking for a quick, fun, playable game should look elsewhere. My 14 year old son and me play Axis and Allies Guadalcanal (and D-Day) and were looking forward to a larger version of that highly playable game. This game is Guadalcanal on steroids and requires a huge chunk of time to understand and play. As an example, the resolving combat rules are nearly four pages long with no graphic examples (that made these rules very confusing). The complete rules are 35 text intensive pages long. For us, where Guadalcanal was fun, Pacific was a slog that we finally just got tired of trying to figure out.