Axis and Allies: Pacific (2000 Edition) Review

A game that I finally pulled back out of my closet to give it another shot was Axis & Allies Pacific.

In Axis and Allies Pacific, each of the players is taking on the role of a super power in the Pacific Theater during World War II (and if you are playing 2-player, then one person takes on both the United States and the United Kingdom). From here, the Japanese player is attempting to financially outlast the rest of the world, whereas the Allied powers are attempting to either capture Japan or make them financially irrelevant by taking (almost) all of the countries that they control. If you have played Axis and Allies in any version before, you will be very familiar with the mechanics of Pacific, but there will still be a few things like Kamikaze attacks, Naval and Air bases, and the new victory conditions that you will need to become familiar with.

One of the biggest pros with Pacific along with all Axis and Allies games is that they have a good unit and purchasing system. There are different units, each of which has it's own movement, attack rating and defense rating, but the different units cost different amounts of money "IPC's". You earn IPC's at the end of each turn based on which countries you control and throughout the game this amount will fluctuate based on what you have successfully invaded and what has been taken over from other hostile powers. I believe that Axis and Allies invented this system a long time ago, and it has been used in all of their boardgames since because, frankly, it works very well.

The next thing that I like about Pacific is that it gives you a change of pace from the normal Axis and Allies. If you are a true fan of Axis and Allies (and if you're not, why would you be playing it anyway?) then you will probably get tired of playing the normal scenario. Pacific allows you to focus on elements of the game that are sometimes less consequential in the original version of the game like naval combat. In Pacific, if you do not focus on the naval aspect of the game then you can expect to be completely slaughtered - you are unable to move any of your units around or get any strategic positioning without naval combat in this version of the game. In addition, the change in victory conditions in Pacific also forces the players to think through their strategies a little more, and the game seems weighted well for the new victory conditions. (Whereas Japan starts with a large number of units and only has to "survive" a certain amount of time in the game in order to win, the Allied powers, specifically the United States start with economies that are more than triple that of Japan.)

A final pro that Pacific introduced was the ability to blockade trade routes.  Since all of the islands are only useful if trade can get to them, Pacific focused on this feature.  To do this, the game established some water spaces that are on "convoy" routes - if the Japanese player can take these water spaces from the Allies, then they can deprive them of IPC's, even though it doesn't gain any for the Japanese player.  There are also islands that are part of trade routes and so, if the Japanese player is able to block the water around the island then it prevents anyone from gaining IPC's from the territory.  If the Japanese player can take the island as well, then they are also able to gain these IPC's.

Though there are a lot of very positive aspects of Pacific, there are a few drawbacks. First, all of the drawbacks of the original Axis and Allies are still present - setup time, length of time to play, and dice rolling. Briefly, the game takes quite a while to setup. It also takes several hours to play (which is a pro or con depending on who you ask). Finally, all of the battles are determined by rolling dice. If you are able to roll dice very well and your opponent is not, then you will have a significant advantage beyond what any strategy can give.

The next con (this one unique to Pacific) is that you can wind up spending a lot of time fighting over territories that don't matter.  Whereas in the original Axis and Allies each territory was worth something, even if it was just one IPC, in Pacific there are lots of territories (most of China and tons of the islands) that are worth absolutely nothing.  None of the territories I'm referring to are worth IPC's, but a lot of the islands aren't even useful for bases (naval or air) - they are just places that you can land troops.  If you can cut off all of the transports to that island, it doesn't even matter who controls the island itself.

Overall, Axis and Allies: Pacific receives a 7.5/10. I kicked this number around for a while and if you ask me in 30 minutes it may be an 8.0 instead, but I think that it is just a touch worse than the original Axis and Allies (and also less innovative - I give credit for innovation). If you are a fan of Axis and Allies and looking for a way to play it a little differently, or really enjoy the naval combat part of World War II, then you should definitely look into the game. If you are new at the Axis and Allies system, however, I would recommend trying the original Axis And Allies. (Note: I think these games are out of print, so you may wind up paying a ton if you're not careful, but the new Axis and Allies Europe 1940 and Axis and Allies Pacific 1940 look promising. I believe you are able to play both games separately but also put them together for the full war if you would like.)

If you like war games, you should definitely check out Risk: Legacy, Risk 2210 AD, and Test of Fire: Bull Run 1861.

Acquire Review

A game that's been in my collection for a while, but that I'm just now getting around to playing and reviewing is Acquire (in all honesty, my version is the original 1962 version from 3M, not the latest reprint by Avalon Hill that I have linked to).

In Acquire, each player is taking on the role of a hotel mogul, and the goal of the game is to earn the most money. In order to do this, each player will be both buying stock and developing hotel chains. On each turn, a player will start with 6 tiles that represent potential hotels. They will choose one of these tiles to place on its appropriate position on the board (a grid that is labeled 1-A through 12-I). This placement can cause several things to occur: a hotel chain may be founded, two hotel chains may merge, thus causing a buyout of the stock of the smaller chain, or a single hotel may be placed in isolation. After placing their tile, the player will then have the option of buying up to 3 stocks of any of the hotel chains that have been founded. Once one of the hotel chains has grown large enough, or several of the chains have grown to sufficient size, then the game is over, all the players sell their remaining shares of stock, and the person with the most money is the winner.

Acquire has some very interesting features. First, the drawing and placement of tiles works pretty well. It gives the players strategic options as to where to place each turn, but still forces them to make the best of what is available to them. This keeps the game from becoming too redundant, as the game will be different each time simply based on where people are able to found hotel chains and when they are able to merge them together.  This aspect of the game is one of the main strategic pieces while playing Acquire.

Next, the buying and selling of stock works well. Each player is able to buy whichever stocks they want (and can afford) each turn, but only up to a maximum of 3. This helps prevent a player that has had a windfall of money from being able to buy all of the shares of one or more of the chains and helps maintain competitive balance. Also, the selling of stock - specifically the fact that there is a majority and minority shareholder bonus - encourages the players to have certain stocks that they invest more heavily in. Once a player begins investing in a chain, it is also important to figure out when to try to grow the chain and when to try to have it bought out by a bigger chain (thus freeing up some money or giving you more of the bigger chain's stock for a cheaper rate).

There were a couple of drawbacks that I saw to Acquire. First, Acquire is a game in which you can be defeated well before the game is over. In some games you always feel like there is a chance (however remote) that you will be able to come from behind if things go well, but Acquire is not like that. In one of the games we played, in fact, one of the players (yes, through poor strategy) had rendered himself irrelevant within the first few turns with nothing that he was able to do but place tiles - he had no way of buying or selling any tiles to generate any more money. I prefer games in which you always have a chance of coming back, or in which several of the players that are doing poorly have a chance of joining forces to come back against a player that is running away with the game.

Another problem that I see with Acquire is that there are some fatal mistakes that players can make. Specifically, if a player runs out of money for more than a couple of turns, this often means that he will lose. It seems like in the game the emphasis is more on selling stock than it is on growing a hotel chain to be larger, and I would have preferred that there was more of a balance which would allow both strategies to be feasible alternatives.

Overall, I give Acquire a 7.5/10. It is a good game that I will continue to play occasionally, but it is not something that I will play on a regular basis. If you are interested in playing stock based games, I would recommend trying Chicago Express before playing this game, but if you run across a copy fairly inexpensively or have a friend that has a copy of the game, it is definitely worth trying out.

Some other games that you might also want to check out are Monopoly Deal, Innovation (a card game) and Bootleggers.

Risk 2210 A.D. Review

Now it is time to review one of my all-time classic games - Risk 2210 A.D..

Risk 2210 AD starts with the premise and mechanics of regular Risk - take over the world by rolling dice (attacker gets a max of 3 dice, defender gets 2, but defender wins ties), and then throws in everything including the kitchen sink. 2210 adds commanders, space stations, water territories, lunar territories, and special ability cards. The game is played for 5 rounds, and at the beginning of each round all of the players bid "Energy Points" to determine who gets to pick their turn order first (as in, if I bid the most, I can choose to go first, or I can choose to go last and try to go first next turn for back-to-back turns). After the turn order is set, each player takes their turn. First, as in normal Risk, they collect reinforcements, but in addition to reinforcements, the active player gets to collect an equal number of Energy Points. With these points, they can purchase commanders (that allow them to enter water or space, to play different cards, and that roll 8-sided dice instead of the normal 6-sided ones). Points are also used for buying and playing the cards, buying space stations, and for bidding on turn order. Once the active player has placed their reinforcements and spent their Energy Points, they take their turn by attempting to take over more territories with the hope that they will be able to collect for continent bonuses on the next turn.

One of the major pro's for Risk 2210 is that the game is very fast paced (not to be confused with short - the game will still take over an hour). It only plays 5 rounds, but this is often enough to determine a very distinct winner without even needing to count end of game totals. There are many more territories and continents available, so the chances of getting bonuses and large numbers of reinforcements are much higher, and factor in that certain cards can give you even more armies, and this means that players will have more "useful" (bloody) turns.

Another pro is the addition of the commanders and cards, as these add a new element of strategy (and luck) to the game. Now, instead of the strategy simply being to get a swarm of armies and attempt to march through your opponent, you must also decide where the best positions are for your commanders, how many cards to buy and of what type, and even whether or not you should go to the moon (after all, it's not all that easy to get back from there).

The cons of Risk 2210 are more minor. First, people that really enjoy the original Risk may not like that the game is only played for 5 rounds instead of until one person takes over the world (and moon). Also, there is still quite a bit of luck and randomness involved - as in the original, how well you roll dice will determine how well your armies perform, but now which cards you draw can also influence the game.

Overall, Risk 2210 gets an 9.0/10. This is one of my personal favorite games, but I also realize that it is not perfect. It is a game that I would highly recommend to anyone that is interested in war games or the original Risk.

If you like Risk variants, then you should definitely check out Risk: Legacy.

Betrayal at House on the Hill Review

For the first review from the horror genre, its time for Betrayal at House on the Hill.

In Betrayal, each of the players takes on the role of an explorer that is wandering around an old, creaky, haunted house. While they are wandering around, "scary" and "ominous" things begin occurring. They may run into a room where blood is pouring down the walls, they may encounter a family of skeletons, they may enter a mystic elevator, fall through the floor, find a secret stairway, or many other things. During this time, all of the explorers are on the same side, but because they don't trust each other much, they are trying to improve their character with items and stat bonuses because, eventually, an ominous event will occur drastically altering the rest of the game. (What actually occurs here is that certain rooms have an Omen icon, in which the player will draw an Omen card, and then roll several dice. If the total on the dice is lower than the number of Omen cards in play, then the "Haunt" begins). When the Haunt begins, one of the players will suddenly betray all of the other explorers (or die and take on the roll of the monsters - the determination of who is the traitor depends on which Omen started the Haunt and which room it was found in). The traitor will take the "traitor's tome" instruction manual, and the explorers will take the "survivor's guide" instruction manual, go to different places, and read the scenario from their character's perspective.

This leads directly into the first pro of Betrayal: replayability. There are about 50 different scenarios in the game. In some scenarios the house may be alive, Dracula or Frankenstein's monster may come out, you may be playing chess with Death, ghosts, mummies, vampires, etc. may be involved. For each of these scenarios the explorers and the traitor have their own rules about what they are trying to do in order to defeat the other side, and each has its own win condition.

Thus the second pro of Betrayal: the scenarios are well done. Each one plays very differently, and the concept that one side does not know what the other side is trying to do is an innovation that I had not seen in games other than Betrayal.

Now for the cons: First, since there are so many scenarios, each with different counters (for a total of approximately 8,000,000 counters give or take 7.5+ million), the amount of time spent looking for the correct counters can be somewhat frustrating. Secondly, since each side only knows their own rules, there can be situations in which the players don't necessarily know if certain things are legal - and so it is useful to have someone that is familiar with the game present to mediate these disputes.

Overall, Betrayal at the House on the Hill gets a 9.5/10. It is by far the best game of the horror genre that I have ever played. (Full disclosure - I don't play horror games especially often, and I only tried this one because I found a new copy of it for $3.) I highly recommend this game to anyone who is comfortable playing a game of the horror genre, but if you don't want to read cards that are about blood on walls, skeletons, zombies, etc, please don't bother with the game, because I know that the subject matter of the game can make people uncomfortable.

If Betrayal at House on the Hill sounds interesting, you might also check out Cargo Noir, Glory to Rome, and Battlestar Galactica.

Cosmic Encounter Review

Tonight's first review will be Cosmic Encounter. This game is often considered to be a cult classic as can be witnessed by the fact that it keeps getting re-released (in fact, my copy is this one: Cosmic Encounter).

In Cosmic Encounter, each person takes on an Alien Race from a specific galaxy (color), and the object of the game is to explore the galaxy and wind up with 5 colonies outside of your home galaxy. This exploration can be either peaceful or violent, and can wind up as intergalactic struggles as each player in the encounter has the option of asking for allies.

Starting with the pros of Cosmic Encounter: for the people that enjoy the game, there will be a decent amount of replayability because there are many more races than player allowed in a given game (it is up to 4 player), each of which has different abilities and so it can be replayed several times with different aliens. Secondly, the negotiation of the game is crucial, and for people that enjoy negotiating games this can be quite fun. In fact, most encounters are heavily swayed by whether allies join you in your attack (or defense), and in what numbers they arrive. Thirdly, encounters are decided by 1) sheer numbers but also 2) which encounter card is picked. If both players pick a negotiation card, then they are able to peacefully decide on how to end the encounter and leave the allies out in the cold. (Of course if only one person decides to negotiate and the other wants to attack.... well.... that's not so good for the pacifist.)

The biggest problem with Cosmic Encounter is the lack of depth to the game. Each turn you make an encounter (you don't even get to pick which galaxy - it is randomized each turn) and if the encounter is successful, then you are able to make another encounter. Because of this, there just doesn't seem to be that much going on in the game.

Another problem is that the Alien Race abilities don't seem to be especially balanced. For example, one of the aliens in the game is able to heal other races' (read "not their own") ships when they are blown up, whereas another race is able to swap cards when an encounter occurs (but at least before they're revealed).

Overall, I think Cosmic Encounter is very hard for me to give a firm rating on. I will mark it as a 7.0/10, but I have debated about numbers anywhere from 6 to 8. If it is played with the right people, I think it could be enjoyable, but if played with the wrong people it could be miserable. Let's hope that if you play it, you have the right friends!