Almost immediately after the introduction of John Prados’ Third Reich (3R) in the mid-1970s, fans of that game began to clamor for a similar treatment of the Pacific theater. The Hill has finally seen the light, and Empire of the Rising Sun (ERS) has appeared on the eastern horizon of World War II strategic gaming. The game is intended to stand alone, or to be joined with Advanced Third Reich (A3R) to create Global War, a game of the entire conflict. And nary a Prados in sight in either project.
The ERS game system itself is, of course, based upon Prados’ venerable Third Reich system that has been wargamers' shelves and gaming tables for almost twenty years. With its focus almost entirely on land combat there is no way 3R could have been used to simulate the war in the Pacific in its original form. Advanced Third Reich, however, updated the entire game system, particularly the air and naval systems, introducing more interactivity and giving these military arms their proper emphasis. These changes opened the door for a game on the Pacific Theater using this popular system.
The ERS physical components are substantial; no box of air here. The box art is an entertaining departure from the A3R cover. The samurai warrior depicted presents a convincing menace; the painting looks to be from a period propaganda poster. Too bad the Japanese really don't get to be that aggressive in the game. Those who believe that the A3R map would never be topped [Ed. Beauty, again, truly in the eyes …] are in for a pleasant surprise; the ERS map is superior. My only complaint is that it is sometimes difficult to determine if a coastal hex has a beach. Like A3R, the ERS map has oversized hexes. While this is convenient, I never noticed a need for them; counter density is not that high in this game. The map seems accurate, though, apparently, I'm no judge of such things as I never saw any problems with the VG Pacific War maps, either.
The unit counters and markers are of the same design as A3R; very clear and functional, handsome in an ascetic way. A subset of NATO symbology is used for ground units. Naval fleet units have their familiar silhouettes, as do the newer carriers and naval air counters. An additional counter sheet is included to facilitate the “Global War” link-up and to provide some markers needed for the research rules. The rumors are true, by the way: the atomic bomb markers do look like broccoli. (Guess that eliminates George Bush as an opponent.) Interestingly, the counters are still strictly one-sided; all counter backs are white, as in A3R. This would be acceptable if the counter backs were never in play, but that is not the case: unavailable air and naval units are flipped over. The plain paper backs are unattractive, and it is impossible to distinguish flipped unit types.
The numerous charts and the national BRP cards are of good quality and hold up well, though they are nothing special graphically. Information on the charts always contain a cross-reference to the applicable rules section. Sadly, this is the only cross-referencing done in the game. I was thrilled to see the Sequence of Play card. There is no single more helpful thing to me when learning a new game that an easily accessible sequence of play reference. I was confused by the chart arrangement on some cards, though. Why is the Search Chart on the reverse of the Naval Combat chart? In Naval combat, the Search chart is marked with counters to indicate search success and surprise level. These counters will, of course, fall off when you flip over the search chart to resolve Naval Combat. The resistance tables seem to suffer from the same problem; there are counters to place on the tables (for the Chinese and Japanese resistance), but you can't leave them there because of information on the reverse that must be referenced. (Ed. Cf. review of Chosin. Further proof that stupidity is an airborne disease.)
The rulebook is enormous (70 pages, not counting appendices or the research rules). The “Global War” scenario rules are included in the main book, and account for some of the bulk. They are sprinkled throughout, identified by red text. This provides some welcome convenience when playing GW, as all rules you need are in one book (except Research and Diplomacy).
Unfortunately, in addition to daunting size, the rules follow no organization I could grasp. It’s all in there - but bring a native guide (an AREA rated A3R player is best). The index (in the appendices, a separate booklet) helps, but it is not the whole answer. For example, I wanted to verify that newly constructed air units were unavailable until the end of the turn. Silly, naive me; I looked under Unit Construction. No mention of availability, no cross-reference. Where is it mentioned? Under "Employment" in the air rules. It only took a few minutes to find it, but…. Though generally well written, the rules apparently attempt to cover all contingencies. This causes even simple rules to be lengthy. There is an aura of "density" here that makes them a chore to read.
ERS introduces major changes to the A3R air and naval systems, mainly to handle the carrier operations that dominated the Pacific war. Two new types of naval units are added: aircraft carriers (three sizes: CVL, CV, and CVB) and the CVE escort, or "jeep", carriers used by the USN. The generic "9-factor fleet" from A3R is still around to represent other surface vessels. Carrier counters represent individual ships, and the new type of air unit, the Naval Air Factor NAFs, representing small numbers of aircraft (one-third of an "Army Air Factor", or AAF) specially trained for naval operations, may operate from a carrier unit. Unfortunately, the interaction of AAFs and NAFs is somewhat clunky, especially where losses are concerned.
To give proper weight to the impact of carrier operations, the Naval Combat Sequence has been significantly expanded. Players first break up their naval forces into Combat Groups, with the proper assembly of your forces into combat groups key to finding the enemy, hiding your own forces, and having the right stuff at the right time. The Naval Search routine followed at the start of every naval combat round is central to naval combat. Right after each player decides how to deploy his fleets, and how to allot his air units, each player searches for enemy ships. Success (or failure) searching for the enemy dictates which friendly forces will participate in the combat round and which enemy units may be attacked. In many cases, one side or the other will be Surprised, with the usual painful results. This new system allows ERS to simulate the different levels of surprise achieved by each side during the Pacific war. A good (or bad) enough search result can precipitate another Midway.
Most naval battles will see two rounds of naval air attacks before surface vessels can come to grips. Surface combat may ensue on the third naval combat round (or earlier on certain surprise results). This works well to allow for the decisive affect of carrier air. Any carrier vs. carrier battle is often decided by round three, and surface fleets are not advised to stick around to face properly handled (and escorted) carrier Task Forces.
The mighty BRP (Basic Resource Point) is as important as ever in ERS. The number of BRPs available to the Japanese seems high (on average, as much as Germany in A3R!), but they need all of them. US resources are, as expected, large. Oddly enough, the Commonwealth seems to have all the BRPs they need, and then some. The British are more likely to be hamstrung by limits on builds and force pools rather than by BRP shortages. In the games I played, it was the British who had the BRPs to lend to China, not the US. The British BRP base is difficult to attack, too; they get most of their BRPs from India and Australia. The Japanese can do little to interfere with this, except try to conquer those countries (good luck; see below).
Perhaps the most elegant aspect of ERS is its handling of the China situation through use of BRPs. China has a piddling number every year, just enough to survive but not enough to attack without outside help. The Japanese could annihilate the Chinese easily, but it just isn't worth the BRP expenditure in most cases. The front is therefore mostly stagnant, not because of some artificial limiting of options, but because most players will see no benefit in pursuing aggression there.
The other major system added is Research. With the Research rules, players now have direct control over the advance of their technology. Combat modifiers reflecting improvements in capability as the war progresses are no longer forgone and date-driven. Players must allocate Research Points (RPs) every year to the technologies they believe are important and most closely related to execution of their planned strategy. RPs are available each year based upon a basic allotment plus extra in relation to the size of the national economy. There are never enough RPs to research everything, so tough choices are required. A player may buy extra RPs with BRPs (basic resource points), but few nations have BRPs to burn, so this is not always an option. For those not interested in R&D and for solitaire players (reserved solely for those doing a 5-10 stretch with library privileges), ERS also provides the time honored variants rules. Some are interesting, but the Research rules are more fun.
On the other hand, the interesting A3R diplomatic rules are not used in Pacific ERS, although they are in the GW scenario. The designers apparently decided they were not necessary. I disagree; I would like to see some ability to influence/coerce minors and certain "native populations". Could Japan have truly established a "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" if they were slightly less brutal to "liberated" peoples? Was the invaluable aid rendered to the Allies by New Guinea natives a sure thing? ERS does not attempt to address these issues.
There are a few other minor rules added to handle some of the particular characteristics of the Pacific war. The US player receives "Magic" points to simulate US codebreaking success; these points may be used to alter die rolls, surprise levels, and even do some "emergency" redeployments during the Japanese turn. Supply is slightly different than in A3R; isolated units do not ALWAYS die at the end of the turn, especially Chinese and Japanese units. Each side has a few Marine units that have increased capability in amphibious assault. And, unlike A3R (except for the Malta subs), submarines are not limited to attacking enemy BRPs.
So, is this a great new game, or what? Try "or what". On a visceral level, ERS just doesn't excite me; it’s all system and no "soul". There is no sense of history, no romance. It’s OoB is far too generic. Who can get excited about an IJN that doesn’t have a Yamato counter? And, in addition to my disappointment on the "touchy-feely" level, I have problems with some of the mechanics.
Exploitation feels artificial on the ERS map. I am not aware of either side making use of armor in this way during WWII, but it's necessary if players are to duplicate early Japanese advances in SE Asia. It is clear that a compromise occurred in the design to maintain compatibility with A3R, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. The expanded Naval System seems to be designed to assure smooth running of larger battles that allow fleets to be broken up into the maximum number of combat groups. It doesn't do as well with smaller battles featuring just one or two combat groups per side. The Search rules often turn these smaller engagements into tedious affairs that go on round after round without contact because of insufficient resources to successfully search.
And anti-aircraft is too powerful. No prudent player is going to try to bomb Singapore, for instance; even in the absence of enemy air, enemy flak will generate very high casualties for the attacker. Carrier raids on Truk will not be seen much in this, either, as the US player will not be willing to sacrifice his precious naval air to that horrific AA. He would be better served trying to lure the IJN out to the open sea.
I also question some of the channeling that occurs in the strategic options. India has no beach hexes; is this because there is no good place to amphibiously invade India's eastern shore? Is it because the Japanese really had no hope of projecting power over water that far east? Is it because the UK countermix can't possibly cover the invadable shore? I don't know, but I do know that most other Pacific games with India in play don't preclude such invasion. What about an invasion of Australia? Can the IJA conquer the Aussies? It speaks volumes to me that nobody in our games even tried it. I don't see it happening; the rules governing conquest make the swift strike conquest nearly impossible. Even the victory conditions encourage the Japanese player to follow his historical strategy, with one change; there is little chance of "victory disease" infection, since there is no chance that one of the Allies can be knocked out of the war.
And then there’s the solitaire question. We all know that most wargame play is done solitaire, so this is important. The features that make ERS interesting preclude solitaire play. The naval combat system uses hidden deployment. Even the most schizophrenic hat-switcher can't pretend he doesn't know where he just put the US carrier combat groups. The search rules ameliorate this some, but it just doesn't work. And the research rules constitute an elaborate guessing game, which is pointless when playing solitaire.
Even with all this scruffy baggage, I do see value in the game as a companion to A3R in the “Global War” system included with ERS. The GW scenario sports a well developed, straight-forward system that quickly fades into the background and lets the players play. It moves quickly (a relative statement, to be sure), has almost no rules glitches, and seems fairly balanced. These "clean" systems, coupled with the fascinating diplomacy and research rules, make Global War an excellent multi-player strategic game.
A3R players who have been Jonesing to play the entire war finally get their wish; Global War is an excellent grand strategic game of World War Two. Gamers looking for a great new, stand-alone WWII Pacific game that captures the character of that war will be disappointed; the Sun just doesn't Rise on this Empire.
CAPSULE COMMENTS
Graphic Presentation: Map is superb. White counter backs are ugly. Everything else is unremarkable.
Playability: Excellent, albeit complex, once you plow through those rules.
Replayability: Not a plus, although “Global War” can have endless variation. Forget solitaire.
Wristage: Not an issue.
Historicity: Adequate for this scale. Methodology blows hot and cold.
Creativity: Except for Research rules, none.
Comparisons: As a Pacific game, ERS is eclipsed by many others (even the simplistic Victory in the Pacific is more fun). The “Global War “ scenario compares well with WiF in the "whole war" category; the former is cleaner, though, and you might actually finish a campaign game. ERS has more detail and a more operational feel, and allows more strategic latitude.
Overall: ERS alone is no fun. Global War is an excellent multi-player game.
from THE AVALON HILL GAME COMPANY
Two unmounted 22"x30" mapsheets; 4 rules booklets; 1080 counters; numerous charts and player aid cards; a free copy of ULTRA magazine (Summer 1995); application blank for 3 year hernia warranty; Boxed. TAHGC, Baltimore MD. $39
Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 20 Table of Contents
Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1994 by Richard Berg
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com