Game: Pacific Typhoon

Thread: Re: Great Game For Limited Time

davedanger — 2008-08-27T05:11:20+00:00

scottandkimr wrote:
Good review. What does your title mean, "for a limited time?" When I first read it, I thought it meant that the game had little replay value.
"For limited time" - to play a game.
It's fast- or should be.

Thread: Re: When all players play Allied cards...

davedanger — 2008-08-27T03:35:57+00:00

I only ran though several rounds to "get it right".
& to avoid mistakes.
Team/chrono makes it easier because you throw out 4 cards,
the deck is already sorted for you, and you try to cooperate (I see
victory for your side more importatnt than personal victory) as opposed to counting points.
And it was easier to teach FOR ME as a wargamer. (Mixing sides/years makes no
sense to me.)
I love the system and think it needs "strategy" and an overview post,
- it's not hard- just different -like WoG.
And thanks to your review, Sightreader, I bought the game!

Thread: Re: When all players play Allied cards...

sightreader — 2008-08-24T22:42:28+00:00

davedanger wrote:
This won't happen if you use team play, and you get team and individual victory conditions.
Yes, I was wondering about team games. Does it work well, or is it more luck depedent than before?

Thread: Re: When all players play Allied cards...

davedanger — 2008-08-24T21:33:41+00:00

This won't happen if you use team play, and you get team and individual victory conditions.

Thread: Re: Playing a bonus card without a parent card?

jcangel — 2008-08-13T13:12:30+00:00

Bonus cards that may be played alone simply add their value to the battle as any other card and include the player in the spoils if he/she is on the winning side.

Thread: Playing a bonus card without a parent card?

geekgeek — 2008-08-13T01:56:02+00:00

This question came up in my first play yesterday, I noticed that there were some bonus cards which said that you could play them instead of a Regular card, is there any purpose to doing so, and if so, how does it work?

Thread: Re: A good Wargame Filler

mcpranno — 2008-08-03T01:51:22+00:00

I haven't seen any real problems with playing with seven players. I think the downtime add for that extra (compared to 6) player is minimal. And if it is a problem for you, simply play a couple fewer battles. Honestly, anything that allows for more potential fated cards to take effect is a GOOD thing.

Edit: Oh, and I don't see how, even with three players, this can be considered a filler.

Thread: Re: Girls who actually like Pacific Typhoon - Part 2: the Newbie Trap

sightreader — 2008-07-10T04:03:53+00:00

Ben Knight wrote:
You should be an ambassador or an admiral for such good work. *blush*

Thread: Re: Girls who actually like Pacific Typhoon - Part 2: the Newbie Trap

Ben Knight — 2008-07-09T18:56:58+00:00

sightreader wrote:
After a successful first game of Pacific Typhoon, we learned a major lesson on our second outing: team up the newbies!.
...I will consider this as a lesson learned!

Thnx for posting your after-action reports and comments, Sight Reader. I've grabbed your cheatsheet to use for newbs, but I'll always credit it as your industriousness. You should be an ambassador or an admiral for such good work.

Thread: Re: How long does this take to play?

Lawrence Hung — 2008-07-07T03:02:15+00:00

I have doubt of which this game could be completed in 1-hour or less. The talk each round in a total of 20 cost a minimum 5 minutes and so it cost at least 100 minutes to get the game completed. For the first game, we completed it in 3 hours with 5 people. But it can be shortened as people get more familiarized with the game and when they are more efficient at negotiating with others.

Thread: Re: What are the Chances for a Solitaire Variant?

Lawrence Hung — 2008-07-07T02:26:27+00:00

You can always play any game solo pretending that you forget what are the cards in "others" hand. But then a game not designed for a solitaire experience in mind wouldn't plow through your mind deeply. This game is still best with multiplayers, with all the talking, intimating, threatening, luring and reasoning, false or right.

Go find some players for this game! It is an easy and really a poker game at its very heart, e.g. "follow-suit".

Image

LCMH — 2008-07-05T15:42:18+00:00

The game in action. The battle card is the place where we all want to win.

Image

LCMH — 2008-07-05T15:37:40+00:00

Who should be the Japanese?

Image

sightreader — 2008-06-13T16:22:00+00:00

She absolutely CRUSHES us in this game!

Thread: Girls who actually like Pacific Typhoon - Part 2: the Newbie Trap

sightreader — 2008-06-06T07:05:04+00:00

After a successful first game of Pacific Typhoon, we learned a major lesson on our second outing: team up the newbies!.
]]>
I did not realize the trap I was falling into because the game was so easy to explain. I just presented the playing aids, talked through a card or two, and everyone seemed to understand what's going on.
]]>
Thanks to the success of previous newbie games, I thus succumbed to the temptation of going for more players and bigger battles. Unfortunately, any gain we get from bigger battles was crushed by the analysis paralysis of each player trying to get a grip on all the factors.
]]>
The nastiest thing about this problem is that it's not immediately apparent, but instead adds up over time. 3 minutes per turn rather than 2 isn't noticeable until you've played an hour and realize you haven't gotten anywhere. By then, the damage is done, the game is already tedious, and people are disengaged.

I did not realize how much of our previous success came from pairing newbies in teams. Even when newbies were paired together, it only took 2 or 3 battles before they felt comfortable enough to start their own hand, so it didn't seem that important. It's very easy to add new teams in mid-game: missing a lot of battles and even knowing someone's cards is not a big deal when people are routinely discarding their entire hand.
]]>
As it turns out, what makes this game hard is that the obstacle to learning is not complexity, but rather the simple clutter of factors. Even if neither person knows what they're doing, simply dividing up the job of tracking all the factors vastly reduces analysis paralysis.
]]>
As a result, I found myself forced to cut the battle deck to keep our 6 player game to two hours. The veterans still enjoyed the game immensely, but - despite strong scores - the newbie verdict was that the game was just too slow to be fun.
]]>
I will consider this as a lesson learned!

Image

sightreader — 2008-06-06T01:27:34+00:00

Parading her victory points with SUCH modesty... grrr...

Thread: Re: Girls who actually like Pacific Typhoon? Our first session...

sightreader — 2008-06-02T05:13:13+00:00

nicktaruffi wrote:
Hey!
One of the girls is even good-looking!!
Good job!Awww... they're all pretty, but since game nights make them feel at home they dress down more than they normally would.

Thread: Re: Little Boy?

kduke — 2008-05-31T05:29:18+00:00

I came back to try and delete the message but will leave it now in case someone else also stumbles on the first read.

In the interim I looked at the card again and picked up on what they actually meant-- I somehow thought it robbed ANYONE of winning the battle card but now see it's a pretty good chance of snatching that card for yourself-- meaning you'll save it for a big one. I note that even getting the battle card does not exclude you from any "spoils" you would be entitled to if the US wins. (And that is bound to really chap whoever wins that round!).

Thread: Re: Little Boy?

Dreadnaut — 2008-05-31T04:57:23+00:00

Rolling a 1-5 with Little Boy allows you to take the battle card in addition to keeping Little Boy. So, in this situation, you eat the -3, but the battle you gain should easily be worth more. So it should be a net gain. Of course, the risk exists that you roll a 6 and just get stuck with the -3.

Thread: Little Boy?

kduke — 2008-05-31T04:44:15+00:00

For the benefit of someone who just got on the bus...

What is the value of the "Little Boy" card in strategy?

I can see that it might cause a battle to not be scored-- maybe-- but at a cost of -3 points to yourself.

I know I must be missing something...

Thread: Re: 7 men and a newbie who had fate on his side

kduke — 2008-05-31T04:42:28+00:00

Maybe it was the pear pressure that slowed things down. Sticky juice perhaps?

Thread: Re: How long does this take to play?

sightreader — 2008-05-27T23:33:32+00:00

hancock.tom wrote:
Hmmm, thats interesting. I'm trying to decide between buying this and waiting on MMP's atlantic storm ripoff, which is nowhere even close to making its preorder numbers. Anyone else have any comments on the time?
The designers intend for this game to have a great deal of lively discussion and diplomacy. To wit, the rules have all victory points hidden so there is more uncertainty about who should get picked on. Debate can obviously have a huge influence on game duration, depending on the type of people you're playing with.

In our games, we play with massive numbers of players, so we keep all VPs public. This greatly shortens the game, as there's much less indecision and debate choosing between one or two people you know are in the lead as opposed to an entire table trying to convince you that they're not in the lead.

You can also arbitrarily call it quits when a certain number of battles have been fought. The default is 20 battles. With 7 players and speedier house rules, it took us about an hour.
]]>
As a side note, the non-gamers I play with usually roll their eyes when they see the number of battles we're supposed to play, so I quietly cut the battle deck. In every case, however, I've had to reinstate the deck back to its normal size because they got completely hooked on the game, and have even had grumblings about the game ending too quick.

Thread: Re: Great Game....just one small complaint....

Odinsday — 2008-05-27T23:11:56+00:00

sightreader wrote:
Odinsday wrote:
I felt this game was hugely improved by playing in teams... 'worse' cards are still important in a battle so you can support your team mates.

Do you sit with or across from your teammates?

Across, and we were pretty tight on table-talk when choosing air/surface/sub etc.

Thread: Re: How long does this take to play?

hancock.tom — 2008-05-27T16:06:24+00:00

Hmmm, thats interesting. I'm trying to decide between buying this and waiting on MMP's atlantic storm ripoff, which is nowhere even close to making its preorder numbers. Anyone else have any comments on the time?

Thread: Re: How long does this take to play?

cornjob — 2008-05-27T15:36:48+00:00

It can if you have a slow group who need the rules explained every turn. On the other hand if you have ready players, you are going to go through what, 20 hands? A hand need not take more than a couple minutes.

I think if you have players who know the game, its under an hour.

Thread: How long does this take to play?

hancock.tom — 2008-05-27T15:02:53+00:00

Does it really take two hours?

Thread: Re: Great Game....just one small complaint....

bob_christie — 2008-05-27T11:03:41+00:00

I believe seats should be alternating in team play so you'll get one side card play, then the other side, etc.

Thread: Re: Great Game....just one small complaint....

sightreader — 2008-05-27T05:45:25+00:00

Odinsday wrote:
I felt this game was hugely improved by playing in teams... 'worse' cards are still important in a battle so you can support your team mates.

Do you sit with or across from your teammates?

Thread: Re: When all players play Allied cards...

Jythier — 2008-05-27T02:25:26+00:00

"Had to put him down."

"Was he mad?"

"Weren't too damn pleased."

Thread: Re: Great Game....just one small complaint....

Odinsday — 2008-05-26T22:56:34+00:00

I felt this game was hugely improved by playing in teams... 'worse' cards are still important in a battle so you can support your team mates.

Thread: Re: Girls who actually like Pacific Typhoon? Our first session...

nicktaruffi — 2008-05-25T12:17:43+00:00

Hey!
One of the girls is even good-looking!!
Good job!

Thread: Re: Girls who actually like Pacific Typhoon? Our first session...

mentis — 2008-05-25T02:13:43+00:00

A great session report with great pictures of folks having fun. You have again demonstrated your passion for introducing "non-gamers" to games they would not have otherwise thought of playing.

Its great to see you posting again. Your examples should be an encouragement to anyone who wants to build a group of game players, even where there are seemingly no gamers.

Thread: Re: Great Game....just one small complaint....

bob_christie — 2008-05-24T16:10:25+00:00

I have only played this great game twice...once with 6 and once with 4. In the 6 player game there were plenty of battles that yielded a large amount of spoils. Much more fun than our particular 4 player where the number of battles decreased and the amount of spoils was minimal. Much of the time this was caused by a player discarding one/all of his cards. The players who were still in the round either had an overwhelming win, but only battle card plus maybe one more VP card were available to the victors, or first player in the turn would lead with a very powerful force and others would back out because they couldn't overcome the numbers or join in, resulting in lopsided victory but no spoils available. I won't hesitate to play the 4 player again because things like fate cards, gremilns, typhoon, etc. can make a big difference when they show up at the right time. We are playingthe 4 player "team" variant this week and I am interested to see how that plays out. Regarding dumping your entire hand; I have found in both games it is necessary sometimes. It can take you far too many rounds (where you score 0 points) to get rid of a bunch of lousy cards. But also remember....when entire hands get dumped often enough, those cards will be reshuffled into the deck so you may be giving your opponents cards that, while weak on the surface....oops, I guess I should say face value, they may provide a powerful combo to your opponent or even worse, provide the fate card he is looking for. Next thing you know, you are sunk by a card that you dumped earlier in the game.

Thread: Re: Great Game....just one small complaint....

sightreader — 2008-05-23T06:40:11+00:00

Jeff Horger wrote:
I have to agree with Pete on this one. I've only played three times so far and the first game had a fair amount of discarding one or whole hands.
This never became a problem for us, because we only play with 7+ players (we hope to play with 12+ sometime soon). Anyway, with that many folks, a battle is pretty much inevitable, no matter how many people discard.
]]>
PS: It plays a lot faster when VPs are face up, especially with so many scores to keep track of!

Thread: Girls who actually like Pacific Typhoon? Our first session...

sightreader — 2008-05-23T06:24:33+00:00

Our first game of Pacific Typhoon was clearly a success. Some have commented that the number of symbols and restrictions can be confusing, but we had little difficulty playing the game with 7 players - 4 of whom were non-gamers.
]]>
Since others have had trouble getting this game sorted out, it may be wise for me describe the teaching process I used for this game. First of all, I presented all players with a checklist player aid.
]]>
The key to teaching non-gamers is to make sure that your directions never turns into a monologue - less listening and the more doing. So, instead of droning on about cards, I threw a card in front of them and put them on the spot by quizzing them:
]]>
What year did this ship serve? Can it fight day, night or both? How much is it worth in the air/surface/underwater/combined? What ship can it instantly destroy? So on and so forth: by examining the card and the cheat sheet, everyone was able to answer all these questions with little assistance. I then used a similar procedure to describe the supplementary cards: can you equip an airplane with this submarine gadget? Can this gadget be of any use if there's no sub to attach it to? Do you get points for trashing it?

Rather than risk exhausting their patience with further discussion, I started the game immediately by drawing a battle. By doing so, I demonstrated how to select the time of day, the tactics (air, surface, etc), and limitation of one force card per play. Once again, forcing people to learn by making decisions makes things a lot easier - even though this battle only saw me sending the unopposed West Virginia down to Manila to cash in on an extra card and a lot of points. After 2 battles, the only questions left about the game were occasional queries about specials.
]]>
My sneak attack on Manila (Pearl Harbor in reverse?) made me a marked man, and the level to which everyone understood the rules became immediately apparent as I was outmaneuvered at every turn. After getting crushed, sunk, and losing out on every victory point, Tall Chick administered the coup de grace by "revisiting" Manila (i.e. seizing it from my victory pile) and giving it to the Japanese in 1945. Next time, when some Japanese MacArthur threatens that they shall return, I'm going to take him a lot more seriously!

We fought battle after battle, at which point Dance Girl asked when the game ends. She was astounded at how many battles we were going to have to fight, so I hurriedly removed about half of the Battle Deck to make it less intimidating.
]]>
The shortening of games is an example of things I do to make games more inviting for non-gamers. I also find it critical to reduce screwage when you have people who may not know how to not to take such attacks personally. Even with experienced players, I play with an unwritten code that all moves must be clearly in the self interest of the player (there's no need to state such a common sense rule - simply how you react to discussions is enough to enforce it). This doesn't mean I don't play hard: rather, I challenge myself by simply encouraging everyone to gang up on me!
]]>
In the case of an obscure topic like Pacific Typhoon, I used a house rule that made it even more welcoming and - in addition to reducing screwage - had several unexpected benefits. The rule is simple: everyone must keep their winnings open. This gives you a solid and objective basis to back up a decision to screw someone. More importantly, it makes the game go by much faster - I barely had time to take pictures even though we had 7 players. As a matter of fact, I would recommned this house rule only for games of 6 players or more: you could easily play 11 or 12 without significant downtime. The massive numbers of players provides the uncertainty needed to ensure most battles are contested.

On the other hand, with 5 or fewer players, you'd better stick to the original rules or too few battles would be contested. Hidden scores helps replace that uncertainty with vigorous diplomacy.
]]>
Even with the house rule and only 7 players, there was plenty of negotiation going around. In particular, Tall Chick was very good at batting her eyes in an innocent and irresistible way - until we added up the alarming number of points she had. I had not a single card while Tall Chick, Leonidas Guy and Air Force Dude were all in the 20 point range. This made me the charity case of the table, and all excess winnings went to me. It gave me brief delusions of competitiveness, but really I was the plaything of the superpowers.

The house rule and fast pace was obviously enjoyable, because Dance Girl herself lobbied to extend the game by restoring the rest of the Battle Deck.

With battles running out, Air Force Dude drew a huge battle (extra card and a ton of points) and made the Decisive Move of the Game. Not only did he play a force card that got doubled by this battle, he added powerful 2 modifier cards and then played another special card that denied Leonidas Guy the right to oppose him. I think the total value of his attack came out to something like 16 points, and Tall Chick's meager force was no match for him. The stunner, however, came on Dance Girl's turn, because she played the card that sank Air Force Dude's card! In one stroke 16 points and all of his cards vanished and the spoils went to Tall Chick. This battle eliminated Air Force Dude from serious contention and ganged everyone up against Tall Chick, a propaganda campaign conducted by Leonidas Dude that allowed him to edge her out for the victory.
]]>
As a final warning, it's hard to keep the goofy fun and unpronouncible Japanese from turning into racist imitations and jokes. Since I am myself Asian, everyone else was very cautious, but even I felt the temptation to go for the cheap laugh.

Image

sightreader — 2008-05-22T08:25:40+00:00

With the help of playing aids, this game is very accessible to non-gamers

Thread: Re: A good Wargame Filler

sightreader — 2008-05-21T17:46:12+00:00

satchmo1967 wrote:
Though by wargaming standards it's fairly light in complexity, we felt the rules to be decidedly non-intuitive.
We were able to get the sister game, Atlantic Storm, going pretty quick with non-gamers.
]]>
There were two tricks I used to teach the game.

1. I give everyone a cheat sheet that lists the things you have to match up.
]]>
Then you just show everyone a sample card and ask them to figure out what year the unit fought, what country, what sorts of things it can attach to, blah blah blah.

2. Players who feel uncertain join someone else in a team. Once they get the idea, they splinter off and start their own army. Catching up is not that hard, and it's only a temporary advantage to know someone else's hand (card turnover is pretty rapid).

Thread: Re: A good Wargame Filler

satchmo1967 — 2008-05-21T07:11:41+00:00

Thanks for your well-considered review.

I'll just briefly toss in my humble opinion here after one play.

Played with a group of four players, two euro fans, one ameri-fan and one wargamer. We spent quite a while staring at the disparate info on the cards before we were able to make tentative plays, and our strategizing was pretty crude.

Though by wargaming standards it's fairly light in complexity, we felt the rules to be decidedly non-intuitive. That's cool, but it meant that we spent two and a half hours of our game night "not exactly having fun", but rather rubbing our foreheads over which cards to play.

Many of us would like to see a filler like this: a two hour game that can bring your entire wargame group together for one light game before or after you split off to play two-player games; something with some depth, but one that isn't so difficult we can't socialize a bit while we're playing. Honestly, I'm not sure THIS is that game. Wait and see, is how I feel. For now the game goes unrated for me.

Thread: 7 men and a newbie who had fate on his side

armed-medic — 2008-05-08T04:40:51+00:00

My board game group has tried Typhoon once before but last week we sat down to play a 6 man game and just as we started a 7th arrived and joined in.

Five of us at the table had played before and we had a resident expert at the table a named play tester for the game (Greg Schmittgens)to help the newbies (he explains games to the uninitiated quite well).

Greg did a walk through of the rules and displayed the cards while everyone(ok me)tried to keep their mouths shut and let him do his thing. we were up and playing in about 10 minutes.

Each hand/round went fairly quickly as we started out. One of our new players quickly demonstrated that Greg was a good teacher as he began to knock guys off with fated cards round after round and asking if he was getting it right. There was a lot of interaction going on with 7 players at the table and no one was able to steal a battle card with tricky exclusionary card play.

As play continued the speed actually started to slow down. Once people grasped the finer points of the game we began to get some Analysis paralysis and Greg and I were forced to apply some pear pressure to the players to keep it moving. With seven players this continued to be a problem throughout the game. I found myself wondering if we had a table of experienced players would we be moving along any faster. I asked Greg about it, he plays a lot of Atlantic Storm at the WBC in Lancaster and he said everyone pitches in pretty quick when they are well versed in the rules (you either got the cards or you don't).

Our brand new player continued to take spoils from fated kills but no one caught on that I was taking a lot of spoils and a decent amount of battle cards. Greg brought it up a few times but as a group they didn't start to turn on me until it was too late.

When we were done I got everyones opinion. We had one fence sitter who had played the game once before and won but wasn't sure how. He told me he's still firmly seated on the fence. He tends to flush his hand often when the cards aren't there and I think he misses some fated cards now and then but we'll see if he jumps off that fence next time. Our brand new player and visitor to the group that week said he liked the game and talked about joining us again. I hope he does he seemed to grasp the details quickly.

I liked the game but think 7 people slowed it down too much. If we continue to play as a group I'll watch and see if cards start to get tossed in a little quicker. One thing that can't be argued is that it handled 7 great. Everyone was engaged and had a ball. I'm sure it will continue to be requested.

Medic

Image

sightreader — 2008-05-05T04:17:26+00:00

Player Checklist for Pacific Typhoon

Thread: Re: When all players play Allied cards...

sightreader — 2008-05-01T06:56:49+00:00

sightreader wrote:
The allies still got the island, still committed a lot of troops, but they didn't destroy any Japanese forces (unless you count that one very angry dog the Japanese left behind).
Now that I think about it, I actually have no idea what happened to that dog. Does anyone know if it made it?

Thread: Re: When all players play Allied cards...

aro246 — 2008-05-01T02:07:28+00:00

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Actually, after I overcame my lazyness, I saw there's an example on the rules of a battle that wasn't fought for lack of the japanese navy.
The player that commited the most resources to it got the battle card and the rest came out with nothing.

Thread: Re: When all players play Allied cards...

sightreader — 2008-05-01T00:42:53+00:00

aro246 wrote:
I don't get it... how come someone wins the battle if everyone is fighting for the same side?
Shouldn't the battle be cancelled?
Basically the battle isn't contested: it's strategic withdrawl, which happens a lot.

An example would be the invasion of Kiska in which the allies - after bitter fighting on neighboring Attu, ferocious bombardment, and landing overwhelming forces - found that the Japanese had snuck away in the fog.

The allies still got the island, still committed a lot of troops, but they didn't destroy any Japanese forces (unless you count that one very angry dog the Japanese left behind).

Thread: Re: When all players play Allied cards...

aro246 — 2008-04-30T20:30:03+00:00

I don't get it... how come someone wins the battle if everyone is fighting for the same side?
Shouldn't the battle be cancelled?

Thread: Re: When all players play Allied cards...

Ahiksking — 2008-04-30T19:42:53+00:00

Highest value gets the battle, but otherwise - yes.

Thread: When all players play Allied cards...

aro246 — 2008-04-30T18:49:33+00:00

What happens when all players play allied cards (or japanese cards)? Does everyone discard all the cards played and nothing happens?
Does the hand pass to the next player?

Thread: Re: Great Game For Limited Time

Warrior Monk — 2008-04-28T22:08:53+00:00

There was only 1 copy available! Grab it while you can! LOL

Thread: Re: Great Game For Limited Time

denverarch — 2008-04-25T21:28:58+00:00

It's Tichu for wargamers.

Thread: Re: Great Game For Limited Time

scottandkimr — 2008-04-25T19:20:30+00:00

Good review. What does your title mean, "for a limited time?" When I first read it, I thought it meant that the game had little replay value.

Thread: Great Game For Limited Time

Warrior Monk — 2008-04-25T15:05:13+00:00

My local gaming group has tried Pacific Typhoon a couple of times now. The general consensus is that of "envy" as I was the one to get the only copy available in town! LOL

We played a 4 player random shuffle game as our 1st try & it impressed us right out of the box - great production value as always from GMT. The only complaint was once someone got their 3 extra cards a'la the Resources - one never seemed able to catch up. Great fun was had by all though & the trash talking diplomacy flowed as per the designer's intent.

Our 2nd game was played with 6 players, chronologically as per the variant - just as much fun, but with a hell of a lot more tension as limited hand sizes in the early war years kept us really guessing. What was noticeable different this time was players kept a close eye on their Fate Cards and quite a few battles were decided when a certainly killer card play was "victimized" to a great shout and sudden swoop off the table, with much evil chortling. The tension when you played your key battle winner early in the round and sweated to see if the Fate Card was waiting in the wings. The diplomatic banter - sometimes downright pleading in cases, kept certain battles tight and not decided until the "?" units had their die rolls. If fact, 2 battles came down to a 1 point difference. Great fun, even if as the losing side saw their cards divvied up as Spoils.

The biggest problem in teaching newbies the game is all the permutations that you have to calculate before laying a card... day or night? Air, surface, sub or combined? Big VPs or a low risk small VP? Full Resource or a safer 1/2 resource? Do I use the event card now or hold off till 44, 45? Does that Bonus Card work with my Force Card or can I use it alone? Do I participate in this battle and try & sweet-talk the "hammer" player for even a scrap from the Spoils or do I discard a dud card? The torment of having to toss your whole hand if you've got more than 1 dud card as well is a wicked touch, added to the fact you cannot sit out any battle.

Run; don't walk to buy this great card game, the Pacific TO was an excellent theme for it.

Thread: Re: What are the Chances for a Solitaire Variant?

petermarstrand — 2008-04-23T13:12:47+00:00

I would merely observe that the sister game 'Atlantic Storm' has been about since 1997 and no-one has produced a solitaire variant that I know of.

Still, the request is fair enough. Personally I'd love more good naval war solitaires on the market.

David, you probably know this already, but there is in fact (at least) 1 excellent Pacific War themed (not Pacific Typhoon itself) solitaire on the market. I'm thinking of Silent War, by Brien J Miller & Compass Games.

It's mainly a submarine game, but very well received & interesting. A sister game on the Battle of the Atlantic is in development.

Thread: Re: A good Wargame Filler

sightreader — 2008-04-20T07:26:26+00:00

Ahiksking wrote:
7 is definitely the maximum, but I would aim for 6 certainly and would prefer not to go below 5.
What's the limiting factor in playing 7... downtime? Would it be possible to play more people by some sort of tweak? Maybe partner play, or perhaps have more than one battle going simultaneously (all winners in one battle, all losers in the other)?

Thread: Re: Quick question on the Gremlins card...

Eric Haas — 2008-04-13T04:13:38+00:00

I think the Gremlins card is played on another player, not a specific card, and it just subtracts one from that player's total.

Thread: Re: Great Game....just one small complaint....

Jeff Horger — 2008-04-08T19:11:17+00:00

I have to agree with Pete on this one. I've only played three times so far and the first game had a fair amount of discarding one or whole hands. Near the end of that first game I began to see some of the ways to use lower value cards and stopped discarding as often.

We also began countering the first player right away which made staying in for later players more attractive. In the first game we would all discard if we couldn't win by ourself. In the second and third game we started opposing from the start, putting more points and cards on the table for later players to jump in on either side. Maybe it is not the most intelligent or strategic play, but wow was it fun and with all those cards going onto the table fate began playing a bigger hand in the game. And when fate steps in, that makes for the real fun.

We did not go so far as to house rule it, but we began to develop a table etiquette that unless the lead player dropped a huge, almost unbeatable, card or combo that the next player would always counter if they could and then the following players could go as they saw fit. It was never enforced, but that was the general play just to have more fun.

Thread: Re: Two Players?

hajott59 — 2008-04-03T08:55:16+00:00

thalcos wrote:
No "official" 2-player rules in the manual, but you could easily adapt Atlantic Storm's 2-player variant.

Is the 2-player-variant from Atlantic Storm anywhere published?
Sadly, I know nobody, who owns this game.

Image

mbrugato — 2008-03-28T23:26:12+00:00

Out of the Box: Cards still in shrink-wrap. Shows functional insert.

Image

armed-medic — 2008-03-27T05:16:30+00:00

Thread: Three Sessions and a Ghost

armed-medic — 2008-03-27T04:20:26+00:00

I've been lucky enough to get three different sessions of Pacific Typhoon in in the last two weeks. In the first session we had 4 players and three of us had experience with Atlantic Storm. We were all trying to just get a feel for the game and some of the special abilities of the new cards. The victory point values on the cards were easy to spot and total quickly as were the spoils and having the same type of visual reference on both cards made the game even easier for the new player to pick up and understand. Over all the cards do a great job of explaining themselves as the game progresses. There was very little rule book referencing during game play and when we did go to the book we found our answers quickly. The group of four played well but I look forward to maxing the number of players out and seeing how that goes.

In our second session a few days later I did my best to get 6 players to the table and got 3. We debated playing something else but one of our return players was the newbie from the first session and he really wanted to play Typhoon again. I was concerned it would fall flat with three but we agreed with a caveat. We included a ghost player. The ghost was dealt a hand. The dealer for the round controlled the ghost. The dealer had to pick the battle card and set the order of battle (day/night, air,surface,sub,combo)and play his card before looking at the ghost deck. When playing the ghost deck he could do what ever he wanted to assist himself including discarding a powerful card the ghost had in order to keep the other players from using it against him in the future, the ghost also got a share of the spoils at the dealers whim provided that if the ghost card one the battle he got the best spoil/battle card available. This ghost system worked better then I thought, primarily because the system of play encourages table talk and players working together. Often times the two other real players would work against the dealer and the ghost. We set the ghost player up to the right of the newbie player to give him the greatest advantage since his ghost player would always be the last player to go when it was his deal. The game ended up being very close and everyone was in it until the end. I thought I had won, turned out I was last.

The new guy asked to play another game right away. We were a little crunched for time so we dropped the ghost player to move things along and I wanted to see how the system handled three players without the ghost. To my surprise it played just as good if not better. I would need more games to really nail down my decision but I can tell you I've played a lot of three player Atlantic Storm and don't care for it. In Storm I found that one player could dominate the tricks if he got lucky with a good hand. Things seemed more balanced (at least in this one game) with Typhoon. One thing I can tell you, I wont hesitate to pull the game out with only three people. The added bonus; we really cooked through session three.

I'm still hankering for a game of six and as soon as I get one or two in I'll put my thoughts down.

Image

ermd — 2008-03-11T13:09:17+00:00

Key to Battle Cards

Image

ermd — 2008-03-11T13:07:16+00:00

Key to Force Cards