Pacific War Review

[@markherman50]

Glad you are enjoying the game. I appreciate that you played it extensively before you reviewed Pacific War. Nicely done.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Yeah, I thought I had a number of hours under my belt and didn't want to wait until I finished the Strategic Scenario! 😊

[@brianpearson8782]

I'm in Australia. who supplies this game please?

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

@@brianpearson8782 not sure if you could find an Australian game store/retailer that might help you. Otherwise you’d have to go to GMT games website. gmtgames.com

[@chinapoliticsfromtheprovin6133]

Many thanks for this post insightful summary of the game. It's a bestseller here in China, and there's been a wait list at one online retailer, where the ordered copies exceeded a hundred.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Wow, that’s impressive-hope you get to play it, it’s a fantastic game!

[@Jimo1956]

Thanks for taking the time for preparing, uploading and sharing this video. It's very helpful, well made. Your approach to learning, and playing the game, also your organization are just my cuppa tea. Being mainly a solo gamer I wasn't sure if I would buy the game. Being very fond of Mark Hermann and this video have pushed me over the cliff in buying the game. Take care and keep on gaming our wonderful hobby.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Thank you--after experiencing the game in the original edition years ago and then opening up the new edition and experiencing the new excitement in playing it, it became almost a given that I'd create some videos to share--glad it helped!

[@wiseguy3696]

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. Adding this to my Christmas list

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Hope you get it--it's a great game!

[@davidnichol9669]

Nicely done. I’ve really enjoyed watching your whole series of vids on Pacific War, very entertaining and informative. I think one of the first things I did was put the search tables and combat tables on front/back laminated sheets - so much easier to use! I’m still at the ‘Battles’ stage but already I think the game is definitely worth the price of admission. Cheers.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Thank you! The Battle Scenarios have a LOT to offer, so you can spend much time there before moving to campaigns. I know I will go back to them and try some different strategies. It's just a great package!

[@sonsofliberty75]

I purchased the Victory Games 1985 version for a very reasonable price. Now that the GMT version is available, the older version is affordable. As an older gronards, I do not have an issue with the 80s graphics.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Yes, it's a good deal. I had sold mine before the new one was released. The new version does a good job of clearly setting out the different play levels (with separate books) but the older one is certainly playable as is.

[@markherman50]

You make an excellent point that minaturists seem to ignore, but sailors operate a ship and a technical rating is not the same thing as a performance rating. At the end of the day, no rating would satisfy everyone, but as you point out in the big picture its just noise.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Yes, I think it's definitely the old cliche of not seeing the forest because of the trees. The way the game is structured and how decisions are made doesn't really necessitate the fine distinctions in individual ships and planes that are being discussed in some forums. Better to leave that for more tactical naval games (like Jutland or perhaps even Midway and Flat Top).

[@Heldermaior]

@@thegeneralsretreat1645 hnmmm... Well, I agree that in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. It mostly doesn't affect gameplay. But taking out this game for me is an immersive experience and I get to kind of see what Nimitz or Yamamoto probably saw at the time. It is immersive and I can lose myself in it. Those typos detract from that. It is kind of a nagging feel on the back of the head. The game is spectacular don't get me wrong and I would love to have it permanently set up and just play the game with other people. Heck I would love to get control of the South Pacific HQ in a grand campaign game with multiple people per side... Maybe someday... But the point is that I know it is wrong. I know that the DDs are Parker not Porter, that Mutsu and Nagato are the same class of ship so they should have similar stats... That the Myoko is based on a pre refit version and therefore it has the wrong torpedo values... Again, doesn't really change anything in the grand scheme of things. It is just a pity that the counters were not proof read.

[@crisop-jm8cz]

@@Heldermaior And that is the reason why wargamers are thought to be Grognards and we have a hard time getting new people playing. We spend too much time worrying about exacting accuracy and less time enjoying the game. Its why most of us play solo because we have a hard time finding anyone that can tolerate us.

[@Heldermaior]

@@crisop-jm8cz i am sorry my personal feelings about an issue with this game mean that you have no friends.

[@crisop-jm8cz]

@@Heldermaior I was merely pointing out how most of us feel, as I included me in that description. But if you took that too personal, and lack reading comprehension to understand that, and meant to be a dick about it, my point is further made.

[@thegrogshed]

I have the original version but the components in the new version look amazing.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

I had the original and sold it before getting this one-and they are amazing. I especially like the three rule books. I know some that some have talked about the different map perspective but I love the map.

[@jacobbenjaminsilver]

Can you share your counter organization? Great review!

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Pictures? Video? Or text? I can do any of those.

[@jacobbenjaminsilver]

Any or all of those things? You seem to have a beautiful organization - thanks!

[@Panzersonor1967]

A video of your organization process would be so appreciated!!

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

@@Panzersonor1967 Coming!

[@shinaihan]

I would also like to see a video of your counter organization, thanks for the review!

[@AdamH75]

I backed this the second it was announced. Will be getting it to the (very large) table soon and hoping it will be the ultimate hex based game on the Pacific theatre. Never had the original as I was only a wee lad of 10 at that time! Overall production values one of the best I’ve seen so really don’t understand the complaints right out of the gate on this one. I’ve paid similar prices on other titles with gameplay, quality and graphic design ending up being amateur hour. People need to play the games more…there’s more to life than whining about the minutest of insignificant details.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Yes, same her i terms of backing--I was watching it hit p500 almost within the day. My favorite four Pacific Theater games: Pacific War, Flat Top (if you can find a referee), Carrier, and Empire of the Sun (a tough nut to crack but well worth it.)

[@Deltium5683]

Hi - thanks for the great review. The box indicates solitaire suitability as low but you indicated that you played solitaire. Do I miss out on material content if I play solitaire and is it viable?

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

IMO it's definitely doable. There's always something lost in operational naval games when you know more than you should, but Mark offers some Solo methods for playing in 35.0 of the rule set. (And it's easy for me to "forget" the other side's intentions when I switch sides.) Once you get to Strategic scenario level, the question is not so much knowing what the other side is doing, but simply managing all the stuff you have to do on each side.

[@ckhenson]

Right out of the chute you mention that there is a difference between the two search charts. That alone was worth watching the video.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Haha--that was one that threw me when I first played---I figured I could save some people grief!

[@johnsy4306]

I only just got the game two weeks ago so take that into account if my comment sounds silly or half-baked. The one thing that annoys me a bit is that the Engagement Rule Book isn't programmed instruction. I realize that Mark wanted to step away from that and I agree with that. But it is a bit annoying that I have to plow through 30+ pages of rules before I dive into the Pearl Harbor scenario which only uses the air combat rules. It might be better to have just the air strike rules first then have people play Pearl Harbor then have naval combat rules then point people to the Savo Island engagement (i..e. the programmatic approach). Or have the Pearl Harbor scenario and have it point to particular rule sections and say, this is all you need to read for right now.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. Programmed instruction may have been the way to go--especially since I think this new edition has drawn a lot of people into the game that may have not been familiar with it before. A great system, but a lot to digest.

[@johnsy4306]

@@thegeneralsretreat1645 Yeah tell me about it. I had a buddy lined up to come in tomorrow and we were supposed to play Coral Sea and I just cracked the shrink on the game. Started reading and we're like uh...nope, not tomorrow. Have to do the engagement scenarios...and watch your videos....first Keep up the good work, btw!

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

@@johnsy4306 Yeah, "learning curve" term was invented for this game...hopefully the videos won't lead you to far astray...you can learn from my mistakes.

[@bgm-1961]

Has this "fired" Empire of the Sun, for you? Or at least you expect EotS will be collecting dust for a long while? And for a new player to either one of these games, would you recommend EotS (perhaps it's "South Pacific" training scenario), or the Engagement/Battle scenarios for PW, as the first game (of the two) to dive into? Thx!

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Well, the two games are so different in how they play and how you understand what's going on. I may not get back to EOTS soon, but not because of PW taking over; I just have some other games that I want to get to as well. PW is still a little more traditional in how it plays (I mean, technically it's almost 40 years old) so I think it would be easier to start that one with the Engagement scenarios and step through each of the parts of the game. EOTS, even from the starter scenarios, just has a bigger learning curve.

[@bgm-1961]

@@thegeneralsretreat1645 Awesome replay, and exactly the sort of advice I was wanting to consider. Thanks! (And I hear you about having other games to get to as well... I've kept some of my absolute favorite games on the shelf for years only because of the plethora of new, superb titles released every year which also deserve a shot).

[@hydnastrident]

just so you know, your label is actually incorrect. D: it's "kamikaze" not "kamiakaze". don't want to nitpick! this is a really wonderful video!

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Yeah--I got that fixed on my label sheet in Word that I posted. Bad typer, not bad speller! 😊

[@strelnikoff1632]

Good review of one of the best games extant

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

I agree--there's been more buzz about this new edition than any recent games I can think of.

[@DavidRamirez-ww5kv]

Thank you for a very insightful review.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

You're welcome--I now have to find the time to get back to it again!

[@pm71241]

Nice with a review based on a lot of play and with thoughtful considerations. I'm actually most interested in how much "game" there is in the scenarios - as opposed to just reenactments. When playing, say, a battle scenario, is there meat enough on the situation to have it be a competitive strategic challenge, where you can form strategies and try to outplay your opponent or are you just going through the motions with the forces available and rolling some dice? And yeah... I would happily pay for a smaller box with a paper map instead of mounted maps.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Thanks. I agree that it would not be worth it to buy this, even with all the scenarios, if you were just going through the motions of recreating the original events. But there is really flexibility in how you might achieve your goals. Take Midway, which I first passed by, thinking I didn’t want to rehash that event one more time. I realized that the system provided options for the US, because of the “ambush” condition, to actually risk stopping the Japanese well before reaching Midway, and change the whole feel of that battle. And if you move to the Campaigns, there are even more options. And then there’s the variability of search-how that affects games. I’m just a fan of the decisions this package gives you. 🙂

[@pm71241]

@@thegeneralsretreat1645 Yeah... I'm tempted... but struggling to find out whether it actually fills a spot. I like the Pacific Theater. When playing "World in Flames" it's one of my favorite things to fight over. I like "Empire of the Sun", - but more as an abstract game chess-like game than as a hex-n-counter wargame. And "Flat Top" gives the fascinating fog-of-war experience. But will "Pacific War" give me operational challenges in the same way that, say, OCS gives it for land war?

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

@@pm71241 Hmm, well if you like those big strategic games, you'd probably go for the big strategic scenarios in this, but they're more detailed and focused than anything else out there (except perhaps War in the Pacific--oof). It would take a lot of space for the charts and a LOT of time to play--if you can leave it set up, may be no big deal. I don't have the room for that. I'm mainly doing Battle and Campaign scenarios.

[@pm71241]

@@thegeneralsretreat1645 Wonder about the playing time of the strategic campaign in this game though. I'm fine with the ~200h of WiF, since I already know that it's a fantastic experience.

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

@@pm71241 I would recommend finding some AAR's of Strategic Scenarios that may be on BGG or KZbin before buying. Maybe give you a better feel of how that plays out.

[@danielconnolly6241]

Thanks for the vids!

[@brianpearson8782]

I'm in Australia. who supplies this game please

[@danfrick6097]

GMT Games

[@nowthisnamestaken]

plexi?

[@thegeneralsretreat1645]

Are you wondering what I meant by plexi or whether I use it? Plexi stands for plexiglass which many gamers use to keep map sheets flat on the table. Not sure if that’s what you were asking.

[@nowthisnamestaken]

@@thegeneralsretreat1645 Yes exactly. When I bought Europa, I laminated the maps. I liked it but it got expensive. I imagine a thin piece would work quite well.

[@pm71241]

@@nowthisnamestaken Most wargamers playing larger games with paper maps just put a sheet of plexi glass on top of it. IMHO in the end it works out better than mounted maps (with a few exceptions - like WiF)