Fire in the Sky Review

8/12/2019 Fire in the Sky Review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fire-in-the-sky-review 1/8

Fire in the Sky: The Great Pacific War 1941-1945

A review of MultiMan Publishing's Fire in the Sky, a game covering the War in the Pacific from 1941--1945.

BACKGROUND

I own and have played this game several times. While all plays of the Full Campaign game have been solo, I feel that I

have developed a sufficient sense of the game to provide a review.

As for the game itself, it was designed by Tetsuya Nakamura and originally published in Japan. MMP has begun

something called its “International Game Series” for which they locate foreign-designed games and acquire the rights to

publish them here in the United States. They found a winner with “FitS” . . . read on to find out why . . .

ACT I -- THE COMPONENTS

This is quite simply the most visually appealing wargame I have ever seen. The artwork by Niko Eskubi is beautiful. The

counters are large (1”) and represent various land, air, and naval units for the Japanese, the United States, and the

United Kingdom/British Empire.

Naval counters have an “Operational” side (for when they are being used on a combat sortie) and a non-Operational

side (for when they are in port or are being transferred between friendly bases). The Operational side depicts a

silhouette of the ship type with other pertinent numerical info. The non-operational side – well, those are really works of

art. They depict the numerical info, but also an image that represents the unit’s nation. The United States image is a

fierce looking eagle. The UK image is a stoic lion. And the Japanese image? Flower blossoms.

“How’s that again?”

That’s right – flower blossoms. This was truly an inspired choice by Niko. I must admit that at first it seemed a little odd

to me. However, shortly after getting the game, I was reading Sea of Thunder by Evan Thomas . . . it covers the Battle of

Leyte Gulf by focusing on two key American commanders and two key Japanese commanders. In the book, Thomas

conveys the almost paradoxical nature of the Japanese fighting men of that time. They could be ferocious in combat, yettook time to write poetry. One anecdote which struck me is how one of the Japanese naval commanders ordered his

ship to sail past the area where the British ships were sunk during the early attack on Singapore. When his ship arrived,

he had flowers tossed into the water as a sign of respect for the British sailors.

Perhaps the subtle brilliance of the choice of the flower blossoms can best be explained by this 2005 post on

ConsimWorld:

As an American living in Japan (well, the Ryuku islands at least), I think those taken aback with the art work in this game

don't realize just how "Japanese" it really is. I'm surprised Niko was able to capture it so well. The austere silhouette of

the box contrasts with the relative loudness of the counters and map. In particular the use of the flowers on the

strategic side of the ship counters is appropriate. It reminds me of the "Mons" of the Sengoku Jidai; the idea of a flower

as the symbol of a warrior is alien to Western thought. The only exception I know of is the Edelweiss. The use of animals

for the Allied units contrasts well with this; the Japanese seldom seem to use animals as mascots in the same way as

their western counterparts. Niko did a fine job on this one.

Indeed he did. And he did so with the map as well. The map details the bases which are the center of the game, but does

so in a visually appealing nature. The map truly gives a feel of the vast distances of the Pacific and of the sweeping

nature of this strategic level game.



Now, it might seem that I have dwelt on the artwork a bit. However, there is a reason I have done so. My reading of

questions and comments about the game (both here at BGG and at ConsimWorld) reveal that a significant number of

people really focus on the artwork and either love it or hate it. And those that dislike it tend to be ones who say they will

not play the game because of it. All I can say is that they are depriving themselves of a great gaming experience. For me,

the artwork is simply beautiful. And as beautiful as the artwork is, the gameplay is equally so . . .

ACT II -- THE GAMEPLAY

The game (like several other Pacific theater games) is centered around the control of "bases". Bases are rated for the

number of ground units they can hold, as well as the number of naval and air units. Looking at the ratings, you can begin

to see why the War in the Pacific progressed along the geographical lines that it did. Certain islands are better suited to

the basing of air and naval units, and thus become “prime real estate”. But all bases have great importance, as it is

control of them which determines the Victory Conditions. The Japanese player gains one victory point for most bases,

and more for really significant bases (like Singapore or Pearl Harbor). The Japanese player also gains a victory point for

each turn in which he/she has cut the supply line from the US to Australia. This method of determining victory works

very well – something that is not always the case in Pacific Theater games.

As with any Pacific Theater game that is even remotely grounded in reality, this one recognizes that Japan was never (in

real life) going to win a military victory over the Allies. The production capacity of the United States was simply too

great. Indeed, within the FitS rulebook you will find the statement that Japan has lost “the war” from the first toss of the

dice, but that this does not mean they cannot win “the game”. And that’s something important to remember. We love

our military simulation games, but we should keep in mind that this is what they are: games. What I mean is that there

are many military conflicts about which games have been designed. But not all of these conflicts involved equally

matched opponents (in real life). Therefore, when one plays a game based on this type of conflict, one might face a

situation where “winning the game” means “losing the war in a less decisive fashion than your historical counterpart”.

Fire in the Sky is such a game. The Japanese player does actually have a chance to win an automatic victory (if he/she

ever reaches 20 victory points). While such auto victories are possible, the more likely route is that the Japanese player

is going to have to achieve what is known as the “holdout” victory. In other words, have at least one victory point by the

end of the game.

Some gamers may find that type of situation not to their liking. These folks may have a problem with the fact that Japan

can win the game while losing the war. Others may feel that a situation like this means that Japan will always be on the

defensive. Let me assure anyone who feels this way that this is not the case. Effective Japanese play will require Japan to

be very aggressive in the early going, and then selectively aggressive as the game goes on. If you play Japan in a passive

manner, you will lose. Quickly. Brutally. Overwhelmingly.

In terms of structure, the game is built around turns that represent three months of real time. The game begins either inthe Dec 41 turn (for those who want to play out the Pearl Harbor attack) or the first turn of 1942 and ends (barring a

Japanese auto victory before then) in the game turn of the summer of 1945 – the dropping of the atomic bombs.

A key aspect of this game is its representation of a) the transport, oil, and production shortcomings of Japan and b) the

tremendous production advantage of the United States, but (significantly) the difficulty of coordinating this increasingly

large force in an efficient manner. The game puts pressure on both players to manage their resources well: Japan its

minimal ones, and the US/UK its extravagant ones.



The game reflects Japan’s situation by requiring the Japanese player to use and track his/her “Transport” points as well

as “Oil” points. Some explanation . . . Transport points are used to transfer naval, ground, and air units from one friendly

base to another and (for the Japanese player) to ship captured oil (from Indonesia) back to Japan. They are also used to

ferry ground troops that are invading. Oil points are used to power naval units when they go out on combat sorties. In

other words, this game is different than some in that not every one of your pieces will be able to move each turn. The

Japanese player must be selective in his/her use of transport and oil points. Indeed, the Japanese player may find that

the mighty Yamato is such a gas guzzler that it becomes almost impossible to move it from the home waters. As

powerful as it is, without enough fuel it becomes nothing more than a floating museum.

The US/UK player also tracks Transport points, but the abundance of US Oil during the war means that the Allied player

is free to send his naval units on combat sorties at will. However, this is not as one-sided as it sounds. You see, each time

an Allied unit goes on a combat sortie, it returns not to its starting base, but rather all the way back to the West Coast

(for the US) or India (for the UK), from where it must be shipped out to Pearl (or Bombay) before entering the theater

again. This reflects the need for these units to return to a base larger than the ones at the islands for periodic refit.

Therefore, effective management of your ever-increasing numbers of ships is essential to winning.

The game features no production, as units arrive on a pre-set (historical) schedule as reinforcements.

I won't take time here to describe the specifics of the rules other than to say that the system is innovative. Once you

play a turn or two, you’ll have it down. The pattern is to basically position your units (using Transport points) and then

create Task Forces (a maximum of four naval units plus (if desired) one ground or one air unit) and send them out to

make trouble. There’s a nifty provision to allow your opponent to move his/her naval units to intercept yours on your

move, and that’s when the fun really begins . . .

Sounds simple. And it is. But what will attract you . . . what will seduce you . . . what will positively ADDICT you is the

incredible strategic depth to the game and the variety of strategic challenges it presents to you, regardless of which side

you are playing. This is a game that absolutely requires the ability to plan ahead. You need to not only consider what you

are going to THIS turn, but also consider how your opponent might attempt to interdict your movement THIS turn, all

while you also ponder how the moves of you and your opponent will shape the on-board situation at the start of the

NEXT turn. It is somewhat “chess-like” in this way, and I’m sure that once you try the game, you’ll be hooked.

In terms of time required, expect to spend about six hours on this one. Some experienced players may be able to get

things done in five, but more players will probably find themselves getting done in six.

The game plays well solo, but (as is the case with almost any wargame) plays even better face-to-face.

A special mention needs to be made about the Developer for the MMP version. Adam Starkweather is without question

one of the most helpful people you will meet in the gaming world. He is always available to answer questions posted

here at BGG or at ConsimWorld (usually on the same day you post them!). His work in bringing this excellent game to

the US and in providing support for it are truly exemplary.

ACT III -- FINAL THOUGHTS

This is a rich game . . . playing it is like enjoying a fine novel. It has layers of strategic depth to it, all contained within a

very straightforward game system. If you want a Pacific Theater game that a) reflects the vast majority of the real-life



strategic and logistical considerations faced by the leaders at the time and b) is, regardless of its fine historical accuracy,

simply a great gaming experience, then look no farther than MMP’s Fire in the Sky.

Fire in the Sky: Drat, sunk again!

If you ever wonder why the Japanese lost WW2 you only have to play Fire in the Sky once to realize that the Americans

rolled better. Actually that's as far from the truth as can be, both in real life and in this fast, easy, realistic and intensely

Gonna-break-you-with-a-hammer-if-you-don't-roll-a-six-right-now game.

It's hard to convey the sense of tension in Fire in the Sky. The game is in no way highly random and yet each die roll

counts. You want to make that roll, that single, please-dear-Lord-let-my-sub-pass-through-this-net-of-destroyers-and-

hit-that-carrier- with-this-stupid-never-to-explode-magnetic-torpedo roll. You want it more than anything else in the

world, more than winning the lottery, more than a scared six year old wants mom to come in with milk and cookies.

And then you roll… A SIX! WooHoo, carrier on its way to the bottom, gloating rights! Now please, dear Lord, please let

me just stall this bad, bad, bad, marine division for a single turn, only that, please roll a six and I'll never gloat again.

Now imagine that for six hours straight and you get the feeling of how it is to play Fire in the Sky – unlike in other WW2

games there is not a single action that isn't crucial to the outcome of the war. This is because your resources, the men,

ships and transport points you need to win are in so short supply that if it isn't crucial you won't commit your forces.

Components

By this time you've probably figured out that there aren't that many components in Fire in the Sky. Compared to, say,

ASL or Guderian's Blitzkrieg this is true. Compared to your average Eurogame you've got hordes of battleships, swarms

of destroyers and a few, rare gems of aircraft carriers.

The chits are oversized, almost on par with Carcassonne tiles, and feel great to handle. The hexes are oversized too, so

you don't have any troubles cramming those five let's-shell-the-Gilberts-until-the-highest-point-is-below-sea-level

taskforces into them.

Graphics are outstanding and done with a feel of historic accuracy and the hint of a smile. How else do you explain the

official "Loser" marker whose only function is to remind the players who has the bragging rights at the moment?

You even get enough dice (five per player). The only complaint is the map. Printed on stock paper it has a tendency to

curl at the folds, creating a rather choppy sea. But don't imagine counters sliding this way or that; their size guarantees

that even if you roll a die into it, a stack it won't veer too far off course.

Gameplay

The premise is as simple as it is historic: the American player is caught with his pants down, letting the Japanese player

paddle his butt at Pearl while simultaneously walking all over the American, UK and Dutch Pacific holdings. Japaneseplayer wins, everybody goes home.

Well, not quite, even if it can feel that way for the allied player on the first turns. Each nation is constrained by their

ability to transport troops and ship. This means that you can have loads of forces stuck in Pearl or Kure (the Japanese

equivalent) because you don't have enough transport points to order them out.



As the Japanese player you got one more resource: oil. No oil and your ships will limp around from base to base offering

themselves with gravy and mashed potatoes to the US dive bombers.

The US player has no such problems; the Texas oil fields spew forth all the black gold he needs, the ungrateful bastard (I

like playing the Jap, does that show?). On the other hand the US has Roosevelt, who prioritizes the war in Europe, and

doesn't have enough transport points to make more than needle sticks against the Japanese assaults. Or he can

concentrate his forces for one big punch each turn – but if that fails the US is toast. They can even be forced to come

crawling to the negotiation table and end the war if the Japanese do well enough in the early months. Don't count on

that though; the Jap would need to capture the Singapore area as well as the Dutch East Indies and Australia in 1941 or

early 1942 and that's as likely as free aircraft carriers falling from the sky. But it sure feels possible.

Each turn is built up around three phases: deployment, battle, more deployment. In other words, you get your forces

into positions where they can strike (using transport points), attack (using oil for the Japanese or completely free for the

allies) plant your flags and reinforce your new holdings.

If it only was that easy! As in real life your enemy gets to react to your attacks – presuming he's placed his ships in range

And if you use the optional hidden task forces rules then you're truly playing in the dark: is that a stack a diversionary

strike by US destroyers or the main carrier task force? As if Fire in the Sky wasn't tense enough already…

This back and forth, lose and take goes on for sixteen turns or until one party surrenders which, on a week night, is more

likely to happen – Fire in the Sky is a long game and so tense that you'll routinely find yourself wondering why it's 2 am

already. Because Fire in the Sky doesn't feel long; there's never any down time at all. Actually that's not true, there's

plenty of down time but you want to se what your opponent does, you need to se, you must se or your carriers will rest

with YARRRGH Davy Jones. Sorry, wrong game.

More than creating a realistic simulation, designer Tetsuya Nakamura (if there is a Japanese WW2 version of Reiner

Knizia, he's it) has managed to capture the feel of the war: each engagement is crucial, each battle totters on the edge of

a propeller blade, on the faulty Monday-morning fuse of an unexploded bomb. Each strike must succeed, each defensive

action must delay the enemy and each carrier lost is enough to make admirals commit hara-kiri.

You know that the allies are going to win eventually, even though the possibility of a quick and total victory is a glorious

but rapidly vanishing mirage for the Japanese. The only question is: are they going to do it forcefully enough to crush the

Japanese or will they dither and let the Japanese government off the hook with a peace treaty? In the game this is

represented by the victory points the Japanese gathers (in the beginning) and the US player retakes at high cost (from

the mid game onwards). If the Japanese manage to hold out long enough for them to have positive victory points when

the game's over they win. If not the US player wins. Simple as that – unless the Jap manages to gain twenty or more

victory points in which case he wins immediately. Not likely…

Ok, there's a lot more to Fire in the Sky than this. I've barely even mentioned the fact that the Japanese's big armies are

completely unwieldy on the islands or that the US's antique battleships are good for nothing but shelling the Gilbertsand Wake. Or that you can, theoretically, invade Pearl (yeah, right). Or that when the first US AA cruiser comes into play

the Japanese curse enough to fuel their ships on rage alone. Or that the useless Dutch, sitting in exile in London,

complaining and never returning once their pitiful forces are off the map, can actually tilt the battle in the early turns. Or

that you have a stack of aircraft carriers as thick as your thumb waiting beside the board and you can't get them into

play because they're nothing but blueprints in some naval engineers office. Argh, so much to do, so little time.

And that's the heart of Fire in the Sky.



Conclusion

If you've read this far you're probably assuming that Fire in the Sky is a solid ten. If I were a teenager with endless time

on my hands, geeky friends, understanding parents and no homework that would be true. Hell, I'd give it an eleven.

But I'm not, I'm a responsible adult waiting for my too far off retirement when I'll be able to play board games with

impunity. Thus Fire in the Sky is a luxury, like fine chocolate or holidays in Egypt, that you can afford only once in a while

Even so, it is my highest ranked wargame.

If you're into wargaming then Fire in the Sky is the game for you – not only is it unbelievably good (I'm not making it up,

this review is an understatement) it's fast enough to, almost, cram into a weeknight. If you're interested in historical

depth, or are a teacher looking for a game to get your students enthusiastic about WW2 history, then this is the game

for you. If you love tense, long games and don’t mind complexity then this is a game for you. Even if you're looking for a

step up from Memoir '44 or Axis, this game might be for you. But if you're a die hard Euro fan or a person who considers

two hours to be long for a game then stay away, you won't like it.

Fire in the Sky - First Impression Review

I’ve been in a PTO phase this past year. I have been playing VITP, and have also acquired Pacific War, Empire of the Sun,

Asia Engulfed this year. I picked up FITS last summer, but only recently got around to trying it out. These comments that

concern FITS lean more towards a first impression than an in-depth analysis; when I get a chance to play it some more, I

hope to do a more complete review. All this is based on a recent session involving two new players (me being one of

them). We read the rules, but had not done any test scenarios or solitaire games.

Nutshell: Stunning looking game; a more complex VITP with resource management.

Looks – Most points on looks have been covered elsewhere, plus you can see the components yourself on the BBG site,

but I’ll reiterate anyway. The box art is one of the simplest, yet coolest designs I have seen in war gaming. It is a fairly

light box too, the same weight and dimensions as MMP’s ASL Starter Kit games.

The one inch (yes, full one inch) counters are a pleasure to game with (it will be difficult going back to little counters

after this) – my only complaint here is the color and graphics of the Japanese counters. The color with my copy seem to

be shaded towards the pinkish end of the spectrum. A bright, deep red, a la the Japs in VITP, would have worked, and

looked better too. Both sides’ naval units have ship silhouettes on their operation side… And as far as I can tell, the

historically accurate silhouette for that ship or group of sisters. I was impressed with the detail. However, the

deployment side of the Japanese naval units have a picture of a cherry blossom. I think a samurai sword, dragons, tigers

or even mountains (for which heavy cruisers were named) would have been good alternatives. But that is also one of the

nice things here; there are many non-traditional things about the appearance and dynamics of this game, and I

appreciate the designer’s ability to present these non-conventional ideas. If a few counters look a little off, so be it…a

small price to pay for creativity.

Naval units are grouped according to class. For example, you will find the Kongo and Haruna on the same counter. I think

some might be disappointed that each individual ship is not represented – I was not bothered by the abstraction, as I

can see where that would have affected the delicate balance of the resource mechanics and the scope.

Gameplay/Mechanics – Deploy, fight, re-deploy (the re-deploy sets you up for defense when it is your opponent’s turn).

Each deploy/fight/re-deploy segment will cost you valuable resources. You will find yourself wishing you had just one

1/2 more transport point so you can get a destroyer into position to react or to protect a carrier task force. This is the



evil beauty of the game. If you spend all of the your resources in the first stage, there will be nothing left to fight with or,

more likely the case, nothing left for setting up a defensive reaction force. The Japanese have it even harder, if they use

up all of their Transport points, they will having nothing left to transport oil from Indonesia. It forces you to plan and to

make really excruciating choices – the most important thing in a war game for me.

Very little seems intuitive. Movement of land and air is “set”, so to speak. There are no real movement factor like the

ships have, but rather a “charge” to move them legs, from base to base in the Deployment Phase. In the Operation

Phase, they both can move by sea a max of four hexes. Ships can die, but are not damaged in the conventional war game

sense; they are put down on the turn schedule for future reinforcements. Naval attack factors are cross-indexed to nava

defense factors to give a chance to hit. Destroyers with a 0 attack factor can actually hit other ships. Don’t know why

they started the scale at 0, but they do (much like PHP arrays for all you programmers out there).

Rules – Lots of little details to remember. I would easily rate this a ½ notch above what the back of the box calls “Easy

Complexity”, which would put it into the middle of the medium complexity category (according to the MMP scale).

About 20 pages worth of rules, with a nice selection of optional rules that are categorized as to what advantage they

confer to either side. One important note may confuse some players – if you follow the turn sequence, paragraph by

paragraph, from the rulebook, the second deployment phase is easy to miss (it IS mentioned earlier and there IS a

reminder in the appropriate spot, but it doesn’t really jump out at you). It took us 2-3 hours to complete our first turn.

We took our time and conducted the turn straight from the rulebook. The rest of the turns went much quicker and we

actually completed 4 turns before we called it a day. I am guessing, in our next spin we would be able to complete a full

game in approx. 7-8 hours. Maybe faster with some more experience.

As far as strategy goes and re-playability goes, the jury is still out. I wonder though if a lot of games might be similar due

to the fact that if the Japanese can cut off Australia from the US, they get 2 VP per turn. I would think that the Japanese

player would go for this option a lot with many games centering on a southern thrust towards the Port Moresby and

Guadalcanal. I don’t know at this point if alternative strategies are viable.

Play Aids – Not a lot there: A quick reference card (combat tables, modifiers, etc…) that has the reinforcement schedule

on the back. A “battleboard” that allows the contents of a battle hex to be organized and spread out. What the gamecould use:

· Need something to track task forces, unless I am missing something in the rules. If units have to move as TF’s, and once

they get to the battle board, they can’t be reorganized into new TF’s, it is easy for TF’s to get messed up within hexes, or

while transferring to/from the battle board to/from the map. Have I missed something here? This seems like a pretty

fundamental bookkeeping need. While there are counters for task forces for the allies in the event an optional rule is

employed (involves hiding the constituents of a US TF), there are none for the Japanese.

· Also would be handy to have counters that distinguish what land and air units have used operational movement. Land

or Air that move in the operational phase, can’t move in the second deployment phase. Some counter similar to ASL’s

“Prep Fire” marker would suffice.

Conclusion – If you are a fan of the PTO, you should scou r ebay for a copy, as it is now “Out of Print”. For the price I paid

(around $35 last summer from Troll and Toad), I think it was a great value, and I look forward to playing it more. If you

are not that big of a PTO nut, you still may want to pick up a copy just to be exposed to interesting game mechanics and

remarkable artwork.

Fire in the Sky, a Pacific Theater sleeper this year?



This turns out to be a superb little gem with all the elements that make the feel work so well for a pacific theater game

that doesn't undertake to be so detailed you spend weeks playing it.

The game relies on costs in transport and oil (the oil for the japanese only) to move units about the board. This is mostly

a naval/(air) strategic game, so a lot of the land combat is very abstracted. The system works with three separate

movement phases... a strategic movement (deploy), an operational (combat) and a second strategic movement

(deployment) phase.

Most of the action happens during the operational phase, when ships strike at enemy bases. Submarines play into this,

then air combat (which itself does not kill the air power) followed by the surface combat if any (apply damage), and

amphibious invasions, finally land combat. Damaged ships come back in twice as many turns as the hits on them (a truly

big deal because it's only a 16 turn game).

The whole play revolves around the Japanese making a huge effort to maintain economy of force to save on resource

expenditure, and the Allies trying to minimize Japanese expansion until they have sufficient force to start pushing back.

At that point, the Japanese have to go into a defensive mode. The Allies will have overwhelming force by the end of the

game, and can clearly afford to fight a war of attrition to take down the Japanese at every turn.

The early part of the game, the US player is struggling to have sufficient forces and transport points to meet Japanese

threats all over the place, but after the first 4-6 turns, the Japanese have to judge exactly how and when it is best to roll

over into defensive mode, to start reacting regularly instead of attacking. There's some critical captures early for the

Japanese that they need to hold as long as possible, such as the three oil resource hexes, but otherwise, the basic goal is

simply to drag out any recaptures by the US for as long as possible.

The victory conditions are two fold, either an instant Japanese win by reaching 20 victory points, or holding onto at least

1 victory point to the end of the game. A knockout strategy calls for some very harsh risks, and the hold out strategy

calls for tough tenacious play, knowing when to switch from offensive to defensive smoothly without any hitches.

By this set of victory conditions, the design abstracts the political outcome of the war, with the designer stating in the

rules no matter how the game turns out that the Japanese would lose. The point of the victory conditions is to representthe territorial cost where the US would potentially find the war so costly to prosecute they might consider some

negotiation instead of the total capitulation demand.

The game does emphasize the Carriers and Air Power very well, but does not reduce the importance of surface naval

power. Surface sea power is easily as critical to making successful invasions and the battles that come of it really do

matter to the outcome of the game.

Most games do not run to the quick knockout wins for the Japanese though that does happen. They tend to eek out to

the bitter end with the US barely scratching away the Victory Points the Japanese win early on, with the attrition slowly

rendering the Japanese player impotent to stop the US counter offensive everywhere, but to strive to deny that very last

Victory Point that will win the game. It tends to be very close towards the end.

There is a lot of very detailed subtlety in the game that appear only to be learned after much replay... It appears this

game can be played in 4-6 hours between experienced players which makes it a very good game for an evening, and

because it's not a trivial treatment of the war, it's a fantastic game for that however long it takes to play.

This title could turn out to be a sleeper that becomes one of the huge favorites on the subject matter, and a long term

classic with a fair number of reprints in the future.

Documents

Fire in the Sky Review