Almost a tutorial...but not! Pacific War naval air strikes.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Also, something which I didn't catch the first time I played---the CAP unit (in this case US air F1 from Saratoga) attacks the escort unit ONLY. If it inflicts excess hits on that unit (more than enough to eliminate) they would go on the other mission air unit. Then, if the escort unit has not had to abort (by receiving 2 or more hits) then it ALSO can attack the naval along with the other air unit. So you could have rolled again, with opportunity to hit the carrier. Check out the example of play in Battle Scenario Rules p. 27 (Carrier Strike Mission vs. Enemy Task Force). I've found that with this game, carefully going through his examples helps clarify what can and can't be done--I've learned that the hard way! :)

[@war_gamer]

ahh missed that the escort could follow through and attack. I did get the rest of it!

[@davidnichol9669]

Yup, I played that wrong the first few times - totally missed that Escorts can then go on to perform an air mission attack themselves. Good spot!

[@ctorus]

What an inelegant and convoluted resolution system.

[@war_gamer]

Could be.

[@sonsofliberty75]

Appreciate the insight into all the games you play. So much more than just, I moved here and this happened.

[@war_gamer]

oh. Cool thanks man. Glad you like them.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

If you’re talking about spotting the mission air-they can only be spotted in the same hex as the spotting unit anyway. So it would always be 70% chance for Allied to spot air and 60% for Japanese to spot.

[@war_gamer]

correct

[@rdw5150]

eagerly awaiting my copy. Back in the day PW came out when I was just starting college. I had lost my gaming friends (we all split apart for school) and that coupled with booze lead to a decade or so of no gaming. Thus PW never made the table. I look forward to the new version (still have the old one in the collection though)........

[@war_gamer]

I did pretty much the same thing. Except it was 2 decade. Im trying to catch up.

[@horrido666]

I think the game is on the fiddly side. It's an 80s game, and it shows it. I still enjoy it (mostly due to the unique sequence of play). Not sure about the sub rules, especially the rule that allows the sub player to choose exact casualties despite them being hidden on transports. And BTW how the heck does that rule NOT make it into the rulebook? There's nothing in there on who picks casualties, and Mark ruled it the sub player on a board somewhere. It's a critical difference. Better bring more than one engineer or you have about a 50/50 shot of it dieing before it even hits the beach. No engineer? No airbase capture, and no air cover, and no supply for you! Feels a little un tested there. The new sub rules are better than the old rules though, which require plotting hidden movement old school style IIRC. BTW the rulebook is better than version 1, but still rate only a 3/10. They are all over the place, too much verbiage, disorganized, and hard to understand. At least they got the draft marks out this time. I can hear it now. Sir, we got hit by a torpedo and all those damn engineers died. Not a scratch on the marines though. I wonder why IRL they distributed units throughout all available tansports. Hmmm.

[@war_gamer]

good comments. In this scenario we dont have that issue as much, and I did not shoot subs on either side. Just was not interested in that.

[@endurorider44]

Looks like fun!

[@war_gamer]

:)

[@Tombonzo]

Good stuff. Not tried the game yet, so can’t comment on rules. Trying to learn other PAC War games at the moment. But I still like to watch, for future reference.

[@war_gamer]

:)