Of the entire AA lineup AAP is probably my favorite (although AA50 is catching up fast) yet it recieves little attention on this site. While I realize AA50 is the current rage, I’m curious to know why pacific takes such a back seat to revised. I’d like to hear peoples opinions (pro and con) on this.
I just played AAP this last Sunday as Japan and actually kick butt. I went all out China and India. Kept US fleet at bay for as long as I could.
That was the first game of AAP in a long time actually.
We always liked the original then the World at World (by Xeno Games) and now the AA50.
Actually I thought why don’t we play this more often as it is very good and can be a quicker game as well.
I heard AH is supposed to re-release this one.
I think it is real good the way it is, but everything can always be improved a little. :-D :-D
I think the VP condition is really the heart of ‘scaring’ folks off from Pacific. At least in my perception VPs are mentioned before any game play element or strategy imbalance.
What is the big deal about VPs…they are the reason why any imbalance can be fixed without a unit bid. Just slide the scale in favor of the weaker side/player. Besides how many times does anyone capture Japan in a game of classic, revised or aa50?
i think a large part of why AAP takes a backseat to AAR is that it is just the pacific and battling for the whole world is a bigger draw.
AAE had that bonus to it’s credit of being the first theater game and so it got a lot of attention, AAP then came out and was quickly followed by AAR, which then took the thunder as the new thing and a worldgame.
There’s also that really AAP is a different sort of game, not to the extent of Bulge/Guadal/DDay, but there are more rules to learn that are that are more to remember than AAR.
Not that one is bad compared to the other, in my opinion, but they draw some different crowds.
I suspect that AAP is popular among American (US) AA players, and the European theatre has a wider appeal. The Pacific war is thought by many to be an American vs. Japanese thing, which is unfortunate because there are many other players that don’t receive their due. There are also historical lessons concerning the buildup to the Pacific war that people will never learn. The final tragedy is that it is a very fun game with a different feel than many other AA games, and many folks will miss out on that fun.
I think it might also have to do with the additional rules/exceptions not found in other AA games such as CAPS, airfields, naval bases, Japan’s first round attack on US forces (defending at 1).
I think it might also have to do with the additional rules/exceptions not found in other AA games such as CAPS, airfields, naval bases, Japan’s first round attack on US forces (defending at 1).
That is kinda strange because we never used that rule and I checked the rules on the web and it does say allies can only defend at 1 on the first turn (chinese defend normally), but I never saw that rule in my original rule book, I will have to check when I get home. I bought my game right when it first came out a long time ago. Was there ever a rule book reprint? Which pieces defend only on a “1”, infantry or everything? :?
Sorry it should be (from page 14 of the rulebook):
Japan’s First Turn
During Japan’s first turn only, Japan attacks in a normal fashion, but Allied units may defend only with a roll of 1.
Exception: Any attacks made in Chinese territory are defended by rolling at full strength.
This is what makes Pearl Harbor so attractive for Japan!
I think the VP condition is really the heart of ‘scaring’ folks off from Pacific. At least in my perception VPs are mentioned before any game play element or strategy imbalance.
This has been my experience as well. It’s a shame, as this is a really great game, despite its flaws.
Was there ever a rule book reprint?
No.
Sorry it should be (from page 14 of the rulebook):
Japan’s First Turn
During Japan’s first turn only, Japan attacks in a normal fashion, but Allied units may defend only with a roll of 1.
Exception: Any attacks made in Chinese territory are defended by rolling at full strength.This is what makes Pearl Harbor so attractive for Japan!
Next game I will have to make sure we do this. This actually makes Australia a very good option to attack as Japan, because if you can set it up so you can capture Melbourne on the second or third turn and hold until next turn. You win right away. it could be a short game if the rolls go your way. 8-)
Taking Melbourne would be sweet, but as the US player, I am usually bringing a lot of heat toward Austrailia right away. One of my goals is to support the buildup of a UK fleet by protecting what the Aussies have at the beginning.
Not sure if Australia is doable as I have never tried it and always have gone for India. I know you can win by going after India but it depends on rolls and what exactly the Allies do to stop you. I would like to try Melboure and see. It should be close and interesting. Not sure exactly how it would turn out, but I think it is possible to win that way.
I will try next game what the heck. :-)
Against a competent player, Japan will never take Australia….or rather, he might take it, but the US will retake it on his turn, preventing Japanese victory.
Japan has to overextend too much, and place too many of it’s irreplacable naval assets at risk to American attack, to hope for victory by attacking Australia.
Against a competent player, Japan will never take Australia….or rather, he might take it, but the US will retake it on his turn, preventing Japanese victory.
Japan has to overextend too much, and place too many of it’s irreplacable naval assets at risk to American attack, to hope for victory by attacking Australia.
You are probably right, but what I was thinking is going all out Australia on the first turn and sacrificing what ever is required to capture it and use all your ships to try and block USA from retaken that turn so as to allow Japan to hold until the beginning of his next turn and win. It may take three or four turns but it would have to be quick or it won’t work. I am not sure how it would it would turn out as I have never attempted it, but if it doesn’t work the game is pretty much over at that point for Japan, so it would be all or nothing. If you take the port and airport at New Britain and move all your available troops, planes, etc. from Japan and everywhere else on the non-combat move you are in striking distance of South wales for next turn to go all out. Turn three you hit Melbourne. Not sure if you have enough to do it, I would have to study the board set-up and really think ahead on what the Allies can respond with and simply try it for fun. 8-)
I don’t have a board set up. Can Japan even reach Melbourne on the first turn? If he makes a move in that direction, the Commonwealth may be in a position to buy infantry only on Melbourne with all the money they are allowed, and sub stall the northern cape to keep the IJN away for a second turn.
I would like to see a few trial games, but I’m not going to play IJN with it before I see if it can work with some chance exceeding 40%
I will post latter a similar approach I use with Japan. I have not been able to play it that much in head to head games but I see no way for the Allies to win. My strategy does not involve the capture of Australia, merely the threat of such which can put Japan on cruise control for the VP win. By forcing the Allies to fight in Australia Japan can insure itself of 3 to 4 turns of 3 or 4 VPs a turn, and again I see no real response by the Allies.
I don’t have a board set up. Can Japan even reach Melbourne on the first turn? If he makes a move in that direction, the Commonwealth may be in a position to buy infantry only on Melbourne with all the money they are allowed, and sub stall the northern cape to keep the IJN away for a second turn.
I would like to see a few trial games, but I’m not going to play IJN with it before I see if it can work with some chance exceeding 40%
Japan cannot actually reach Melborne (I do not think so anyway) on its first turn, but it can move everything around Australia to be ready for turn 2 and 3. I think the idea with the VP points is a smart one if youc an hold on. The India assault and taking out China seems to be a good way to win with VP or by capture of India, as I won both ways going that route. Never tried Melbourne though so it would be interesting.
I know that PA was not the success that EA wanted it to be.
PA is about 3 years old….I remember the problems that I had were the lag and such in gameplay.
My QUESTION for PA NOW:
Since the computers are better now and have more power…does PA play better than it did? OR is it just 1 messed up game?
It seemed that the computers at the time were significantly slower than now…
The price of PA is not bad as I see it around on shelves. Low enough that I have thought about getting it and just playing around with it?
ANYONE playing this on a more current computer and any feedback?
Thanks
I think it might also have to do with the additional rules/exceptions not found in other AA games such as CAPS, airfields, naval bases, Japan’s first round attack on US forces (defending at 1).
According to the user manual Allied units (both Commonwealth and Us forces,…not only Us forces) may defend only with a roll of 1. Of course, any attacks made in Chinese territory are defended by rolling at full strength.
