Not quite the same as Axis & Allies but there is “1812; Invasion of Canada”, which is a semi card driven war game. It uses wooden blocks but you could substitute these with “Viktory” game pieces or other miniatures. The game is worth checking out on its own merits, with or without miniatures.
Variable's and Tall Paul's Naval Game Ideas
-
I’m working on a pacific game that focuses more on naval battles and convoy routes. Gonna be a 72x36 or 96x48 map.
-
Gang,
I might suggest that we all discuss one or two ideas at a time so as to better
“flesh-out” our thought processes.How about we start out with the area each map/game should encompass.
–--------------------------
I’m of the opinion that each of the maps/games should be of a regional size including a whole battle/campaign area. Think of EACH of these maps/games encompasing the entire map area of a 1940-Global map and you’ll realize the amount of sea and land zones I’m contemplating for EACH of these games.
We could ULTIMATELY put a patchwork together of all of these maps/games to play the ENTIRE Pacific in a long-term game OR in a tournament.
For instance,…The Solomons Campaign.
I would like to see the Solomons game cover:
In the North,…the Admiralties, New Ireland, New Britain and the Bismark Sea
In the Northeast,…Truk(off-board)
In the Center,…ALL of the islands in “the slot” including Savo, Florida, Tulagi, Gavutu, and Tanambogo
In the East,…the Santa Cruz islands OR at least the ocean in this area
In the Southeast,…the New Hebrides and New Caladonia
In the Southwest,…some parts of New Guinea and possibly Australia(off-board)
Think of the area just described laid-out diagonally across the mapboard equivilents of a 1940-Global game. Basically using a mapboard the size of the whole world to represent a more detailed map of only the Solomons Campaign area. By reducing the scale somewhat from the STRATEGIC to a little more of the TACTICAL size we would have more sea and land zones.
A LOT of these decisions would have to be thoroughly discussed and depend a GREAT deal on gameplay issues. Our “Map Master” will SAVE us here.
OK,…What do ya’ll think about the map/game size and area covered???
By the way,…I’m from the South and YA’LL is a contraction for you all.
“Tall Paul”
-
Hey Tigerman,
What are your opinions of my last posting concerning our map/game paramators and size?
What thoughts have you already had concerning YOUR Pacific game?
“Tall Paul”
-
Warrior,
A&A Naval Game–-Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–-“Phases” of unit up-grades
As far as the “phase-in” of unit up-grades just think of it along the lines of what actually happenned in the real war “tweeked” a little bit to keep it EVEN between the
Japanese and the Americans.As far as how the units would be paid for I think we should first determine what the map/game will encompass and then the objectives/payoffs/etc. will flow from there.
---------------------------
I think it might be a good idea for us all to use “headings” like the one above to make it easier for us all to follow all the differrent questions/suggestions/answers. What do YA’LL think(grin)?
“Tall Paul” -
Tall Paul,
I think having a map of the solomons and some surrounding areas on a global 40 size is an awesome idea. If you had the Marshall islands on a giant map you could have a standard A&A style game with setups and all, or even setup units where u want them as an alternative setup! I think the earlier the battles are in the war the mire fun they will be able to play for both sides. Guagalcanal and midway Are 2 I would lov to create an play. -
Let me start with the map:
Tigerman- You seem to have something in process already for this and your Italy map is beautiful. Far better than I could do. If you’re willing to do the map work, I could move on to what I’m really good at - the rules system. Did you already have something in process there?
Tall Paul- I concur with the map scale. To get the true feel of what we are trying to accomplish here, it must be done this way. I second the motion. I’ve always liked Guadalcanal, but felt the real “battle” was lacking because the islands were over-simplified. For the Solomons campaign, it may become a bit more about the ground battle than you want though. If you want a true naval engagement where anything can happen, I would think Midway. Trouble with Midway is, game-wise it’s a bit unbalanced.
I do love the idea of tech phases or “tech through time” instead of rolling. Let’s officially say that a dice tech system is out. Either a “tech through time” system or no tech at all. The game will have enough complexities without tech unbalancing everything.
-
Gang,
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–----The mapboard
I’m glad everybody seems to agree with my ideas about a LARGE, campaign area map/game.
I also realize that a Solomons game would technicly be a LAND campaign,…but the neccesity for so many NAVAL and AIR actions make it sooooooo much more than that.
Think of all the convoys to be escorted or attacked, of amphibious raids, of amphibious invasions, of naval surface bombardments, of naval air operations, of naval surface combat operations, of submarine operations, of PT boat ambushes, of PBY recon patrols, of paratroop drops, of bombing missions with a multitude of targets—ships, naval bases, air bases, supplies(?), etc. This is a LOT more than just a LAND game.
If we include the ability and necesity to supply all of these forces(LOGISTICS) and the ability to build/repair/upgrade all the differrent facilities(air bases, naval bases, a/a capability(?), industrial complexes through the use of SeaBees and/or Pioneer units
we’ll have even MORE than that!!!With the mapboard being soooo large it would almost demand that there be several
“operations” going on simultaniously and would have many differrent task force/groups dispersed around the gameboard. This sounds like what I’ve always wished for in my DREAM A&A GAME.
----------------------Does anyone remember the computer game PACIFIC WAR by Gary Grigsby several years ago? Although it covered the whole of the Pacific and was a very loooooooong game,…I loved for example—the capabilities of moving SeaBees around and improving the air bases. It left the emphasis on strategy, tactics, and timing up to you within physical geographical limits. I don’t want to make a “monster” of an A&A game, but think a lot of good ideas could be added to what we know of as our A&A games to enrich the gameplay( read FUN).
Well, what do you think???
“Tall Paul” -
Gang,
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discusion Topic––Naval units(Attack, Defense, Movement, Cost)
I think the ONLY way possible that I see for us to have all of these differrent ship types(between 19-24) and make it work would be to go with a 12-sided dice. This alone would make it possible to differentiate between some of the units as far as attack values go.
Here’s a listing of the (proposed) Naval units and their possible Attack/Defense/Cost values.
Please don’t hesitate to voice your opinions here. I sincerely welcome a lot of discussion on this. Variable, Please don’t think I’m entruding on your area of expertise,…I’m just trying to get the discussion going. Your opinion is paramount, here.Description Attack Defend Movement Cost
PT Patrol/Torpedo Boat 2 2 2 4
SS Submarine 4 2 2 6
DDAP Attack Transport 2 2 2 6
DE Destroyer Escort 3 3 2 6
DD Destroyer 4 4 2* 8
CL Light Cruiser 5 5 2* 12
CLAA Anti-Aircraft Light Cruiser 5 5(8) 2 14 against aircraft
CA Heavy Cruiser 6 6 2 14
BC BattleCruiser 8 6 2 16
BB OLD Battleships 8 8 2 18
BB Battleship (Iowa) 9 9 2* 20
BB Battleship (Montana) 10 10 2* 24
CVE Escort Carrier 0 1 2 ?
CVL Light Carrier 0 2 2* ?
CV Carrier (Essex) 0 2 2* ?
CV(H) Carrier Heavy (Midway) 0 2 2* ?
AO Oiler 0 0 2 ?
AP Troop Transport 0 0 2 ?
AK Freighter 0 0 2 ?
DMS Minesweeper 1 1 2 ?
AV Seaplane Tender 0 0 2 ?
LCVP “Higgins” boat 0 0 2 ?
LCM Landing Craft-Mechanised 0 0 2 ?
LST Landing Ship-Tank 0 0 2 ?There’s a LOT open for discussion, here. Like the possibility of putting the NEWEST
classes of Carriers, Battleships, Light and (possibly)Heavy Cruisers, and Destroyers in a “FAST” class with a movement of 3. Since we will have a LARGE ocean area I really like this possibility. It also makes you think more about defending against these types of “Fast” ships with regular speed ships.Also, I’m not sure I’m necessarily for including the “Midway” class Carriers and “Alaska” class BattleCruisers as I don’t think they were around these battle areas in the real WW2. I may be wrong concerning the USS Guam.
Wow, I’m tired and it’s 4:45 AM here. As the saying goes,…What do ya’ll think???
“Tall Paul”
-
**A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discusion Topic----Naval units**
With so many specialized units, we should consider adopting a system similar to Guadalcanal. Each unit needs a strength against sea units, air units, and land units/bases. I don’t think it would do the game justice to have a ship that hits on an X all the time. Fine for Global A&A, but too vague for this scale. Larry had right on this one with the GC rules. Let’s revise the unit stats at a later time. For now though, your list of units and ideas are very helpful in planning the range of units I need to take into consideration. Could we get a similar list for air and land units going?
-
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–-Naval units—Specialised Rules
Gang,
Let me first start out by saying that I’ve never thoroughly read the rules for the A&A-Guadalcanal game. I guess I will do so now to have a more complete understanding.
Also, I agree that we have a lot of units here.
But other than the “Atlanta” class anti-aircraft Light Cruiser (which would have a greater defense against AIRCRAFT) I can’t think of ANY of the ships that would require “specialized” attack/defense rules. I may be wrong here, but I don’t think so. PLEASE advise me of any situations that I may have overlooked or not contemplated occurring. Consider ALL of the differrent Naval. Air, and Land units,…and ALL of the varying ways in which they may conduct combat, and then we’ll discuss your findings. This is a “forum” exactly for the purpose of exploring, discussing, and deciding all of the attributes of this new naval game(s).
Also I think it would definately be an asset to keep it as “simple” as possible and avoid ending up with the “Monster Game” I had previously mentioned. I think SIMPLE would be preferred as long as it doesn’t deprive us of anything USEFUL or FUN.
We will have entirely enough complexity just in the availability of all of the differrent units, as well as the map being more on a tactical level. It seems to me it would be an advantage to keep this game(s) as simular to the “standard” A&A games as possible to allow any A&A player to fairly easily “step into” to it without a HUGE LEARNING CURVE.
I think a large amount of new rules might tend to discourage a lot of potential players.Just remember all of the “new” things we will be introducing/expanding here already:
Mine warfare, PT boat offensive/defensive warfare, Convoys and their attack or defense, Recon through the Seaplane tender and PBYs, Amphibious Raids or large Invasions, Logistics(?)-Supply and Fuel, and multiple levels of most every ship,…
DE or DD,…CL, CLAA, or CA,…“Old” BBs, “Iowa” BBs, “Montana” BBs.I’m almost tempted to classify the the “Montana” class Battleships as BBBB, standing for “Big Beautiful Battleship Boys”,…haha.
I think that we should try to make this game(s), with all of the improvements and expansions of things already done, with all of the new units available, to be played on a more “tactical” level map as SIMPLE and EASY to learn/play as possible. If we could do that I think it would be to ALL of our benefit. This game(s) is already verging on being “Overwhelming” and I think that is important to keep in mind.
I am VERY interested in your and other peoples’ opinions and think in cases such as this that a group effort can bring out the best ideas/methods.
I have a lot of ideas and opinions and certainly don’t want myself, or anyone else, to be overbearing. The entire objective here is a vastly improved A&A gaming experience.
Again,…What do ya’ll think???
“Tall Paul” -
Tall Paul and others: Lets call the Yamato and Montana Classes Super Battleships SBB. Alaska and Guam where known in the USN as Large Cruisers lets use BC for them. Both did fight in the Okinawa Campaign as to other battles they might have been in more research is needed. I like the idea of localized maps on a large scale. Guadalcanal cost the Japs a lot of men and ships I am Old School so if the term Japs offends someone please let me know and I will use IJN and IJA and SNLF for Japanese forces. By doing the maps on a large scale we could actually do the proper Tokyo Express runs down the slot to harass Henderson Field and the MUD Marines each night. Ships caught by Long lance torpedoes litter Iron Bottom Sound. This will add a new aspect to our game because to defend against the Tokyo Express one’s ships would have to have radar to spot them at night. Yes it will generate significant combat for the USMC, USA and IJA. Imperial Japanese Army. But by having a large scale map with decent sized islands to fight the Solomons campaign on will give us all more combat options and it will generate large naval and air battles for all players.
I will assist in the rules creation with others and leave the map board design to those here who have exp in that area. I have over the years developed many house rules covering many of the topics that have been proposed so far. Mine warfare, PT boat offensive/defensive warfare, Convoys and their attack or defense, Recon through the Seaplane tender and PBYs, Amphibious Raids or large Invasions, Logistics(?)-Supply and Fuel, and multiple levels of most every ship,… I like the idea of 12 sided dice. This will be better for the massive types of ships and new units we will be introducing into the AA Combat arena. We have to agree first no Atomic weapons or this will totally be a unplayable game far as enjoyment.
-
Warrior,
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–-General Discussions
Welcome
First off, WELCOME to the “discussion group” of a new Naval A&A game. I envite you to PLEASE contribute any and all ideas/opinions you might have that you think might assist us in our quest to improve our gaming experience. We are especially glad to welcome your experience in rules, etc. Variable has started on the rules and I’m sure your help/suggestions will be welcome.
Map size/scale
I’m glad you’re in agreement with a large map representing (in a more detailed way) only one campaign/battle area. This in itself would allow more types of operations and give a much more in-depth experience to our games. Couple this with the (proposed) new units becoming available and I think this undoubtably spells more FUN!
The Solomons Campaign game
As you no doubt have already read, we are at the moment discussing a particular
map/game, The Solomons Campaign. I’m hoping that we can end up with a SERIES of maps/games that could be played TOGETHER in series. The reason I say in series is it would show the progression of technical upgrades through TIME,…just as in the real war.Tech Improvements through Time
For example,…you wouldn’t expect to see B-29s and Atomic Bombs in the early war campaign battles.
But you could expect to start out the first campaign with: P-40 warhawks, F-4 wildcats, Stuart Tanks, “Old” Battleships, etc.
Then, after a certain length of TIME(turn #) have the capability to purchase IMPROVED weapon types like: P-38 lightnings, F-6 hellcats, F-4U corsairs, Sherman Tanks, “Iowa” class Battleships, etc., etc., etc.
Results Transfer
Also I think it would be really cool to be able to “TRANSFER” to the next map/game
a certain amount of the results you attained in the previous map/game. Thus you could actually fight the entire war through all of it’s battles/campaigns,…and to a certain degree your END RESULT would depend the results you attained from EACH map/game. This could be done through a sort of “grading” of results;…Absolute Victory, Victory, Stalemate, Loss, Extreme Loss, etc. and the associated effects. I imagine a LOT of discussion will take place on this aspect.----------------------------
I realize each of the above topics just mentioned can and should be discussed thoroughly. I could amplify EACH with MANY pages of well thought-out views,…but I want EVERYBODY else to become INVOLVED so as to make this OUR game instead of just MY game.
Ship Types
Yes, I agree that the “Alaska” class is a BC BattleCruiser and listed it as such. I’m glad you spoke of the “Montana” class as a SBB Super Battleship as I had the same thought and also thought of the “Old” Battleships as OBBs. Possibly even dividing these further to differentiate between 12" and 14" guns. Maybe OBB-12s and
OBB-14s.Everyone Get Involved
Like I said, I’m very glad YOU brought it up as I’d really like to involve more people in this project and see it exposed to all of the “gray matter” available here on this forum. There are a lot of inteligent, experienced A&A players as well as game designers, rules gurus, and just plain fans that can ALL add something to the discussion so we’ll end up with a much-improved gaming experience.
As the old expression goes,…What do Ya’ll Think???
“Tall Paul” -
Just redo a new Pacific map starting at 12/41 and basically redo AAP.
Use all these new pieces on a d12 system and the rule is you don’t get the upgraded battleship or plane until you first buy fixed quantities of old design.
Example: Japan begins with Kongo class and can build Yamato class
USA starts with BB Maryland and new builds get her Iowa and after say 3 builds they can begun with Montana class.
But i have no idea how to use the new pieces for marines. The tank is fine, but the amphibious tank has no place unless the game is really tactical.
-
IL may have a point about starting with Pac '41. I think if we zoom in on the Coral Sea / South Pacific area and make each major island multiple territories with ample sea zones for ships and landing zones (beaches) for Marines / SNLF, this could get really cool. I would like to take the general concept we have going here and let it marinate bit on my brain. I think we are starting to get into some details already that are a bit early to deal with ( unit values without an agreed upon combat system).
Lets do this. Everyone have another look at the Guadalcanal rules. Pay particular attention to the way the combat values for units are assigned. Forget the dice box thing and the way hits are chosen, just the unit values. Tell me if a system similar to this is preferred or we want to stick with the tried and true att/def stat from regular A&A and just go to a d12 system. My only complaint about the regular system is assigning a combat value that is the same regardless of target is too generic. Do you really want artillery shooting down planes? Do you think a battleship is just as good at killing infantry as it is sinking enemy warships? I think not…
-
Gang,
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–-General Discussion
I think it might always be a good idea to pause and let things “marinate” in your brain.
I can see your point on the “reality” side of things. Although, like most of us I can recall the 1st Infantry having it’s rear-end saved from German Tanks by the US NAVY Cruisers off the beaches of Sicily.
I hear what your true concerns are and I understand them.
On the other hand, I have very real concerns that in order to improve this game to it’s “best” it could really become a “monster”, that while being more correct, might only be for the die-hard players such as grognards that would love to have every .45 pistol included. I overstress this point somewhat,…but I feel it would be soo much better if we could keep it as simple as possible.
It is already going to be a LARGE game, with MANY options, MANY new units with MANY new capabilities. With a larger number of sea/land spaces on the map it will lengthen the game somewhat and I would think if we could keep things as simple as possible, it might help speed the game along.
Also, I think if we keep the basic A&A combat system that everyone is already familiar with, it would enable players to “step into” this game(s), even with all of the additional units and capabilities, and play it well without a large learning curve. I think if we could pull that off it would be quite an accomplishment!
As I always say,…What do YA’LL think?
“Tall Paul” -
Darn it again,
I had a good long post in response to the Imperious Leader. When I tried to “post” it it said I might want to reconsider it as another posting had come in while I was typing this one. Although I pushed the alt+s buttons it didn’t post it and now it’s “lost”.
Is this a routine thing?
“Tall Paul” -
Tall Paul and Variable,
I think keeping the basic A&A combat system is important so to keep the game easy to learn and play. I know the concerns of a battleship taking out infantry, but on a d12 system a BB can roll against ships at an 8 or less, AA fire at a 4 or less and shore bombardment at a 3, cruisers 2, destroyers 1……each having different ranges! We can take a d12 system and keep it similar to the A&A system we have now.
I love the idea of a large map of the solomon islands campaign. I’m almost done with my Okinawa game, but wopuld be cool to have Tarawa, Pelileu, Philippines, Iwo Jima, and definetly Midway. Also we could make some games on missions that didn’t take place, similar to sea lion. Operation Causeway( Formosa ) and a alternate Pearl Harbour. We definetly have a blank canvas on to which we can make some awesome games with the pieces comming out. I would love to make a North Atlantic game where Germany has to destroy the convoys heading to Britain.
I want more tactical games for sure. One problem is making the games shorter so everyone can and want to play. In my Okinawa game I have made it to where you can play a short game or long game. Short game uses less units and no optional rules, long game uses more units and the optional rules! The optional rules include yamoto group comming to the rescue, the Japanese 9th division is sent back to help reinforce the island, one round of combat per turn. I’m going to revisit my Invasion of Italy game and change the combat system so the game isn;t as cumbersome.
-
Gang,
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topics–1. Rules Complexity, 2. Map Size/Scale
Rules Complexity
Tall Paul and Variable,
I think keeping the basic A&A combat system is important so to keep the game easy to learn and play. I know the concerns of a battleship taking out infantry, but on a d12 system a BB can roll against ships at an 8 or less, AA fire at a 4 or less and shore bombardment at a 3, cruisers 2, destroyers 1……each having different ranges! We can take a d12 system and keep it similar to the A&A system we have now.I completely agree with your thinking we need to keep the rules as SIMPLE and streamlined as possible. I think the “Basic A&A Rules” will not only do everything we need,…but make it EASIER to learn and understand as well as potentially faster.
I’m not sure about your “differrent ranges” idea, but I think all ideas should be thoroughly discussed and considered.
Another aspect we must understand is that this Solomons Campaign game is going to be so LARGE, and have so many NEW CAPABILITIES to take into consideration that we don’t want anyone to be OVERWHELMED !
Also, I think it would lend itself to having the two combatants, Japan and the USA/Allies subdivided into differrent commands making it into a four, six, or even eight player game. Whether each sub-divided command were along Air, Sea, and Land forces,…OR along mission-specific Task Force Commands of combined arms would be left up to the players. The point is,…with multiple players all co-operating, sometimes in a very close area, I think SIMPLICITY of the rules would allow for easier co-operation and co-ordination of the players.
Map Size/Scale
Tall Paul and Variable,
I want more tactical games for sure. One problem is making the games shorter so everyone can and want to play. In my Okinawa game I have made it to where you can play a short game or long game. Short game uses less units and no optional rules, long game uses more units and the optional rules! The optional rules include yamoto group comming to the rescue, the Japanese 9th division is sent back to help reinforce the island, one round of combat per turn. I’m going to revisit my Invasion of Italy game and change the combat system so the game isn;t as cumbersome.
I totally believe in the plan that it would be a major improvement to have a Solomons Campaign game that was significantly enlarged in size and detail. In doing so this would normally tend to slow the game down somewhat as there will now be more land zones to conquer, protect, etc.
But remember,…this is the Solomons,…made up entirely of smaller and larger islands rather than huge continents. While enlargement of these islands to a size to allow a more “tactical” level of play would obviously result in more land zones,…I think we must realize that the TOTAL number of the contested land zones would still be much smaller in numbers than the “continental” games we’re accustomed to,…and therefore shouldn’t contribute to a real slowing of the game. Obviously the map itself, and a lot of play-testing would be necessary to confirm this.
I love the idea of a large map of the solomon islands campaign. I’m almost done with my Okinawa game, but wopuld be cool to have Tarawa, Pelileu, Philippines, Iwo Jima, and definetly Midway. Also we could make some games on missions that didn’t take place, similar to sea lion. Operation Causeway( Formosa ) and a alternate Pearl Harbour. We definetly have a blank canvas on to which we can make some awesome games with the pieces comming out. I would love to make a North Atlantic game where Germany has to destroy the convoys heading to Britain.
I couldn’t agree more.
Like I always say,……What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul” -
Tigerman,
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–-Maps and sizes
Tigerman, I looked up and found your 1939 Global map. NICE JOB! I must say I could see the results of a lot of work that went into it’s creation. Again,…Nice Job!
----------------------
Tigerman, I’m glad people of your talent are a major part of this project.
----------------------
With the understanding that a “Solomons Campaign” map would be significantly enlarged in scale, making all land areas larger…
But keeping in mind the islands in a “Solomons” map are,…in comparison to the land masses in a continental-type map,…much much smaller…
I believe the TOTAL land area would be EQUAL to or possibly SMALLER.
And the major battles themselves would be “concentrated”, so to speak, because the area would be smaller. I think this could lead to some titanic battles, possibly shortening the game.
Tigerman,…with your experience with maps, and your upcoming Okinawa map,…what would your opionion be regarding this assessment?
----------------------
As far as your Okinawa map what size is your “Iceberg” going to be?
----------------------
Also, as I’ve said many times before, it would be fantastic if we could end up with a SERIES of maps with the SCOPE of a campaign,…but SIZE of a 1940-global game.
“Tall Paul”
-
COMBAT RULES SYSTEM
Okay, I understand the preference toward the standard A&A system. It’s fine with me if our goal is KISS. But this would mean that even on a D12 system, each unit would have an attack value and a defense value. This is KISS. To have a value for regular combat, AA combat, and shore bombard is closer to the Guadalcanal rules that everyone is shying away from.
As far as your concerns about the number of contested territories, yes I think there would be fewer LAND territories than the Global games, but there are more naval battles (hopefully) that will make up for it. If you’re looking to keep each turn to about an hour, we better use a standard A&A combat system modified for D12.
Suggested Topics
