A&A Revised rules: For A&AP?

[Yardstick]

Is anyone planning to use the revised A&A rules in A&AP? For example, 3/3 tanks, 16 IPC ACs, 10 IPC fighters, the new Weapons Developments, and so on? Personally, I think that my gaming circle will. I'd like to know your opinions regarding whether or not you think this is a good idea or not.

[richyj1]

While some of the rules (such as the ones you mention above) might create an interesting twist on AAP play (Japan could buy 4 ftrs a turn, for example), others would probably massively change the playout.

For example, the sub rules from Revised (can move though occupied SZs that don't have a DD, can be hit by air) would have a dramatic effect on Pacific.

Rich

[Yardstick]

Hi Rich,

Good point. You definitely need to exercise some discretion when transferring the rules between the sets. I think that everyone has their own personal take on subs. For mine I reached outside the published rulesets and came up with subs that (1) are attackable by aircraft only if destroyers are present, and then only at a ratio of 1DEST:1SUB, (2) lose first-strike only at 1:1 ratio with destroyers present, and (3) lose their ability to submerge only on a 1:1 ratio with destroyers present. How does that sound?

-YW

[Zero Pilot]

I agree with 1. But 3 would have serious consequences against all out agressive Japanese play too. I can't imagine the Allied side ever agreeing to it. I believe the first-submerge sub ability is designed into Pacific for a reason, and that is to balance the Tokyo Express. ~ZP

[ April 13, 2004, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Zero Pilot ]

[richyj1]

Generally, I avoid alternate rules and concentrate on playing the official rules.

Zero Pilot: actually, the whole first-submerge thing (substall) was an accidental effect of the way the manual was written. Neither Rob nor Larry intended it at all, and both are on record opposing it (the way it was supposed to be is that attacking subs can submerge after enduring one round of combat). Still, it's a pretty neat part of the game, and (IMHO) really adds something unique to this game.

Rich

[Zero Pilot]

I understand what you're saying Rich. I have both tried and faced the one deadly scenario where it really makes a difference. Probably not every level of play realizes what you face without it. So once both sides get the gist, you do need it! :D So much so, if the rule hadn't been left in there accidently, the game would hardly be worth playing against experienced Japanese play. That's the only reason I thought it had to be intentional. Actually I really don't like it as an ability of the sub playing piece per se either. But I understand and realize the need Pacific. Maybe AH decided just to "endorse" it simply because they already had to change the Japanese setup, for obvious reasons. ~ZP

[Sinister]

I just bought pacific, can someone tell me where it says a sub can submerge first? Thanks!

[richyj1]

In the Offical AH FAQ (http://www.avalonhill.com/default.asp?x=faq/axispacific), Combat section, it states:
Attacking subs, however, can move into a sea zone and immediately submerge (this is called sub-stalling -- for an in-depth analysis of this essential tactic, see James Redford's Explanation of Sub-Stalling essay (http://www.rjware.net/DOI/substall/index.htm)). This is based on page 15 of the manual: “Submarines may submerge instead of attacking.”

[Sinister]

Thanks Rich!

[Sinister]

Do you guys think that if this game hadn't been built as "a race against victory points" that sub stalling would be removed? In other words if all sides were equal (relative strength set-up and IPC earnings) would they have removed sub stalling by now?

[Krieghund]

There was a lot of resistance by Larry and Rob to sub-stalling initially, but who knows? I know that it is necessary to give the Allies a fighting chance as the game stands now.

There is a variant rule set running around that states that sub-stalling is not legal, but Victory Points are counted at the end of the US' turn rather than Japan's, and Japan must win by VPs rather than capital capture.

[Rommell12]

Originally posted by Krieghund:
There was a lot of resistance by Larry and Rob to sub-stalling initially, but who knows? I know that it is necessary to give the Allies a fighting chance as the game stands now.

There is a variant rule set running around that states that sub-stalling is not legal, but Victory Points are counted at the end of the US' turn rather than Japan's, and Japan must win by VPs rather than capital capture.I like that variant!

[Zero Pilot]

Sinister: True, if all sides were equal it probably could be taken out. But as far as it being tied to a VP win, I'd say no. ~ZP

[Sinister]

I guess I don't mind playing the "Race" and maybe I'm completely wrong cause I've only played pacific and handful of times, but it seem like it would play out the same everytime. I am really enjoying the map though. Sea battles are alot of fun.

[Zero Pilot]

Everybody pretty much plays the VP race as Japan at first. But after a while you might start to see other opportunities as Japan (hint: think extreme concentrated force! use Tokyo Express!) Then all the sudden you'll start going after Calcutta or New South Wales as Japan in a big way - and just daring your Allied opponents to try and catch you. :D Pacific is a truly great game, sea battles are alot of fun! It's my favorite of the series. ~ZP