InsertNameHere said:
Haven't ever played Fire and Axe, but I've played M&M a few times, and I really liked it. I think it goes faster once you know what you're doing. There's plenty of strategies to try as well. Feels like I'm playing Sid Meyer's Pirates! the board game.
Fire and Axe has the same basic premise..
1) Ship goods to cities
2) plunder (cities not merchants though)
in Fire and Axe you can also settle the cities after they have been sacked in the plunder action.
Both games have missions that are worth VP to complete, special cards that give you abilities.
In fire and Axe there is no ship to ship combat, no NPC ships to worry about, but you do have storms that determine how many days you can sail at see in a given region without losing men to a storm. The closest direct conflict is having a card that lets you sack another players settlement and make it your own (there are several) and/or shipping a good or settling prior to another player.
The biggest difference is the viking ships in Fire and Axe all have the same stats, it just matters how many vikings you board your ship with before leaving your home port and how well fortified the cities you are trying to sack are.
They are extremely similar games in feel and theme, but mechanically it's like comparing Ticket to Ride to Age of Steam.
I need to play M&M again (and I'm sure I will since my gaming group has fallen in love with it) but I'm just not sure the extra complexity adds anything particularly fun to the game. If anything, if my games are going to come down to almost pure dicerolls I would rather they be a bit quicker with less tactical decisions to make.
again, not bagging on the game. It's a solid 8 out of 10 for me and I would play it almost any time it's brought to the table. It's just that if I had a choice between it and Fire and Axe, I'm not sure which I would choose.