I watch reviews for games I am not necessarily interested in just because it's you guys and I enjoy watching you. Subsequently you have a way of making me interested because you transmit your enthusiasm so effectively.
Totally agreed, Wargames are not my group's bag at all so I have bought nothing Alexander and Grant have recommended, but they're great company so here I am again!
I'll be more decisive: it was THE greatest cover of all time. I like the stuff they did with this edition (and indeed, I bought it) but that one thing really bugs me. It's not that the box art isn't good, it's just that the old one was so beautiful, it can't compete.
I had a great time playing Fire In The Sky by email years ago. That format allowed me, as the Japanese player, to do careful planning with those oil and transport points. The gaming experience was a blast. I had a great opponent, too.
Hey! There's a sequence of play right on the map board 29:30! Lol, that was funny! Grant had the drop on Alexander on that! 😄 You guys are terrific! Thanks for the review!👍
On the strength of your review went and watched the unboxing, with a trip to boardgamegeek. Although never a fan of the pacific war, this is a game that has peeked my interest. looks very playable as well as some unpredictability. Thank you.
Another good one gents! I got EOTS coming. Want to get into that but this also looks good. After sink my teeth into EOTS I look forward to comparing to this one eventually.
Good discussion especially the sandbox comparison to Empire of the Sun. Both games are extremely well designed. I personally prefer a "bumper-heavy" design like FITS. I want to play within the limits that constricted the historical commanders. If I don't feel constricted by geography, logistics, technology, and doctrine, I feel like I am not playing a historical game, I'm playing a fantasy game. Fire in the Sky is perhaps the most historically restrictive game on this conflict, but GMT's Pacific War also does a good job forcing the game player to think and act like his real-world counterpart. In contrast, Empire of the Sun is more about game mechanics such as card play finesse than historic modeling. As Dunnigan used to say, "different strokes for different folks."
I have played the MMP version a long time ago and was impressed with the game. I didn’t realize the “Bumpers” when playing that game so you have made me really want to pull out the new version and try it.
I bought a copy from miniature market, the game looks beautiful, but I haven't had the chance to play it yet. Games on the Pacific war are rare, especially mid weight games. I picked this over Pacific War, because Pacific War was just too big and complex for my taste, I also ordered Empire of the Sun on GMT's P500 a little more complex than I usually like, but again good Pacific War games are rare, so I will take the time to learn it.
@@ThePlayersAid Thanks for the recommendation. Pacific Victory looks really good, but block games are tough to play solo, and I seldom have the opportunity to play with others. That's the main reason I am reluctant to pick it up. Fire in the Sky is suppose to play solo fairly well because there is not a lot of hidden information from what I have read.
You might want to take another look at 'Pacific War'. It only looks like a big game because all the stuff that comes inside the box. But it's actually intended to be played as one-off single session scenarios, each taking about three hours to play. Most are solo friendly. There's a lot of stuff in the box 'cause there's a crapload of scenarios to choose from. Then of course, for those who want a monster Pacific game, there are campaign scenarios, all the way up to the 300 hour grand strategic scenario, which probably by itself does use alm ok st everything in the box. But even the designer says that he never expected more than a handful of players to ever tackle the strategic scenario, so he never intended the game to be for that.
