GAMEPLAY
Gameplay in AAP follows
the AXIS & ALLIES model. Each player takes their turn
separately, and completes various phases. I won't get too far
down into the weeds here--basically, you purchase units, move
into combat, resolve combat, move units that didn't fight, put
your newly purchased units on the board, and collect income for
the next turn.
Units available
in AAP are Infantry, Marines, Artillery, Armor, Anti-Aircraft
Guns, Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Destroyers, Submarines,
Transports, Bombers, Fighters, and Industrial Complexes (not really
a unit, per se, but allows the U.S. player to build new combat
units in territories other than homeland U.S.A.). Each unit has
four attributes: Movement, Defense Factor, Attack Factor, and
Cost. In addition, most units have special abilities, such as
artillery, which improves the firepower of accompanying infantry
or marines, or transports, which can carry ground units.
AAP's combat
is resolved by a simultaneous exchange of fire from all units
involved. The attacker rolls a die for each unit of a given type
and the defender applies any "hits" to his forces. The
defender then responds, and all units (even those hit by the attacker)
return fire. Then all casualties are cleared away, and the attacker
has the option to continue fighting, or to retreat. The "to
hit" numbers range from the lowly infantry (hit on a "1"
on attack, or a "2" or less on defense) to the mighty
battleship ("4" or less on attack and defense). Special
rules cover things like shore bombardment, amphibious assaults,
strategic bombing, and kamikaze attacks.
Income in
AAP is derived from the economic value of the territories you
control after your combat phase; each territory has an economic
value ranging from 0 to 55. Victory is achieved by either controlling
one of your opponent's home countries (unlikely), or by scoring
or preventing a certain number of victory points (VPs). VPs are
scored by Japan only, and are a function of the amount of income
collected. For every 10 points of income, Japan earns a VP. If
Japan earns 22 VPs, Japan wins. If Japan collects no victory points
during any turn (that is, if they earn 9 or fewer income points),
the Allies win.
Gameplay
in PV is rather different. Each turn represents 3 months of real
time. First, players roll to determine initiative. The winner
of this roll determines whether to play the role of "Player
1" or "Player 2" this turn. Then Player 1 moves,
followed by Player 2, with certain restrictions on the second
player as some of his units may be "pinned" by the first
player. After both players have moved, combat is resolved. Then
there is a simultaneous "logistics" phase wherein both
players determine if their units are in supply (and penalize those
which aren't), and then calculate and spend Production Points
(PPs) on building new units or adding strength to existing units.
Units in
PV can be of the following types: Naval Air, Army Air, Carrier,
Submarine, Battleship, Cruiser, Marine, Infantry, and Headquarter.
Each block has a number printed on one to four of its sides, reflecting
the strength of that unit. The number that is currently at the
top of the block is its current combat value (CV). Changes in
CV are noted by rotating the block. It's a very elegant system
of step-reduction, and because the blocks are printed on only
one side, the value and unit type of each block is known only
to your opponent. This "fog of war" effect is a characteristic
of all Columbia block games, and it's very clever. I'm always
reminded of STRATEGO when I play block games, though certainly
PV bears nothing else in common with that hoary classic.
The headquarter
unit allows a player to make one of a variety of "strategic"
moves or attacks. These strategic operations range from "rebasing"
a unit (moving it from base to base regardless of distance) to
invasions, carrier raids, submarine patrols, and strategic bombing
(which is really just a longer range move by air units, and bears
no resemblance to AAP's strategic bombing). These moves expend
differing amounts of HQ strength; rebuilding HQ steps lost is
expensive.
Combat is
handled in a non-simultaneous fashion. Units, in the order listed
above, fire at an available category of their opponent's forces.
So, for instance, a submarine may only choose to fire at naval
units, but a naval air unit can fire at air, naval, or ground
units. Each unit rolls a number of dice equal to its current CV
(up to four), and must roll equal to or less than its rated value
for the target type. Then any hits are applied by the owner of
the target units, but the strongest units must be hit first. So
if your opponent gets two naval hits against you and you have
a carrier (CV 4) and a cruiser (CV 3), the carrier must take the
first hit. Then both naval units are CV 3, so you may apply the
second hit to the cruiser. Combat is limited to three rounds;
if the attacker isn't successful in that time, he must retreat.
Income is
handled much like AAP, in that certain territories have economic
value and the total of your territories is the amount you'll have
to build with. A major difference, though, is that since units
have "steps" in PV, you can increase
the strength of a unit at a remote base, rather than having to
build a new one and deploy it to the front. The victory conditions
are based on the number of economic points held by Japan at the
end of the June, 1945 turn (a complete game lasts 15 turns). The
game can end earlier if one side obtains a "decisive"
victory (again, based on economic value). Typically, one side
will obtain a "marginal" victory, or there will be a
stalemate.
|
EVALUATION
AAP
is part of the lineage of the old Milton Bradley Gamemaster
series (AXIS & ALLIES, SHOGUN, FORTRESS AMERICA, CONQUEST OF THE
EMPIRE, BROADSIDES AND BOARDING PARTIES), and it retains much of the "beer and
pretzel" flavor of that line. PV comes from the
Columbia block game tradition, and is more steeped in
traditional (well, for Columbia--they're pretty avant-garde as
wargame companies go) wargaming.
AAP is straightforward to learn and play, though there
are some unique twists to the rules that render it the most
complex installment in the AXIS & ALLEIS line (the
original, AXIS & ALLIES EUROPE, and AAP). PV
has a smaller setup and takedown time, but the rules, while
clear and well-written, are just a bit more challenging--you'll
find yourself pulling out the PV rulebook now and then
for clarification. In addition, PV provides a number of
optional rules that can be added as you see fit; it's a nice
touch, and you'll find these rules improve the already solid
basic game.
AAP begins with the attack on Pearl Harbor (and the
Japanese do not have to follow in their historical footsteps if
they choose not to), but at that point, the game scale is
indeterminate. Each turn may represent something like six
months, but it's hard to say. PV begins just after Pearl
Harbor, though there is an optional rule that allows you to play
out the battle if you desire. Each turn is then three months,
with seasonal rules in place for monsoons, typhoons, and the
North Pacific.
Ah, the Internet. Ten years ago, I would have purchased AAP,
played it a few times and noticed that the Japanese seemed to be
winning a disproportionate number of games. And I would have
felt that was just one of those things, much like the imbalance
in favor of the Allies in the original AXIS & ALLIES.
But within a few months of the game's release, a lot of
criticism was generated about this, and Avalon Hill came forward
with some as yet unofficial commentary that the game setup as
printed in the rules is incorrect, and some suggested fixes. The
fixes do improve the balance of the game, but you have to wonder
about the lack of playtesting here. To be fair, Columbia has a
"living rules" system for PV, and they have
made a number of official changes to the rulebook (version 1.3
as of the time of this writing). In both cases, I'm a bit
disappointed that the rules appear to be a moving target. It's
nice to try to get the best set of rules possible, but that
should take place before production.
In AAP, the Chinese front is included, and serves as a
kind of tar-baby for Japan. China produces infantry every turn,
and Japan must devote some attention to Chinese and British
troops, or the mainland (and the game) could be lost. PV
avoids this issue almost entirely by taking the Chinese front
out of the game. The Burma campaign is reflected, but I feel
this is one area where PV compares unfavorably with AAP.
I understand the design decision, as the scale is all wrong for
that campaign, but it's disappointing to see the vastness of
China on the map with not a single unit on it.
In AAP, the only critical island for the U.S. to take is
one close enough to mainland Japan that you can launch strategic
bombing attacks (aside from the Dutch East Indies, for their
economic value). In these attacks, your bombers have to clear
flak and enemy fighters (though you can bring fighter escorts),
and those which survive then roll a die and remove that number
of economic points from Japan. For every 10 removed this way (in
a single turn), Japan loses 1 VP. While this is exciting, it's a
bit ridiculous in terms of realism--but to be fair, realism was
never the intent of the designer, at least not at the expense of
fun.
One distinct superiority of PV over AAP is its
treatment of island invasions. In PV, the final CV point
of an infantry unit cannot be hit by shore bombardment or aerial
attack--ground troops must be brought to the fray for the final
blow. AAP allows a single round of shore bombardment with
destroyers and battleships, and a single infantry is usually
doomed by this, making the difficulty of island invasions
basically vanish. In PV, defending ground troops at a
major base or in jungle terrain also receive a defensive bonus,
which again provides a layer of realism that also produces
difficult decisions for the Allied player as he attempts to root
out the Japanese forces in Guadalcanal, Rabaul, Truk, and so on.
And he must root them out, because the supply system requires
chains of linked bases to avoid unit attrition. In AAP,
you can bypass all the non-economic targets, as there are no
supply rules to make them valuable.
Both games are vulnerable to the whims of the dice. PV's
structured combat system mitigates this somewhat, but there's no
question that bad rolling can ruin your chances in either game.
The bluffing created by the block system in PV creates
some enjoyable tension and atmosphere--in AAP, the odds for any
given battle are easily calculated, which can be a bit of a
let-down if you've played PV. As a general impression, PV
is the more quiet, thoughtful game of the two, and the game that
most rewards long-term planning and bold moves.
EVALUATION
In
the end, both games make for an enjoyable strategy gaming
experience. Each is playable in less than five hours (PV
in possibly as little as two), each has nice components,
each
Next
Page>>
|