https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UNpFBuP5VAgBLQPrKjM35hdYCrA3KSW0/view?usp=sharing
here is the link for the new updated map, it hasn’t changed much
Variable's and Tall Paul's Naval Game Ideas
-
Timerover,
Expanded A&A–—The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topics–General Discussion
Welcome
First and foremost, WELCOME. We’re very happy to have someone who is so well-read and knowledgeable concerning the Pacific War to offer their advise.
Our EXPANDED A&A “Solomons” Game
Timerover, our purpose in making this game is to make an EXPANDED gaming experience by taking advantage of the NEW A&A units that are in the “pipeline” to be made by HBG and FMG. And with the new units come their new/expanded CAPABILITIES.
In our game we plan to use the EXPANDED number of units available and their EXPANDED capabilities, on a game map of the Solomons Campaign area EXPANDED to the size of a 1940-global area. Thus,……Expanded Axis & Allies.
Expanded Unit Types
The gaming community, lead by FIELD MARSHAL GAMES and HISTORICAL BOARD GAMING, is in the midst of going through nothing less than a REVOLUTION.
For example,…the pool of ships is PROPOSED to be expanding from 6 types:
SS, DD, CA, BB, CV, APTo a whopping 24 or so types, to include:
PT, SS, DMS, APD, DE, DD, CL, CLAA, CA, BC, 4 classes of older BBs,
“Iowa” BB, “Montana” BB, CVE, CVL, CV, CV(H), AO, AP, AK, AVThe number of Aircraft and Land unit types is also expanding, most being
country-specific.Generalization
Understandably, the ability to have every SPECIFIC unit the EXACT match of what/when would be cost prohibitive. But I can’t help but be extremely thankful for the large expansion of available units.
HBG already has a “sculpt” of a Stuart Tank. Although it would be a small “generalisation” I feel it would be a good representative of an early-war American Light Tank. I’m sure you understand this. And until a more perfect match becomes available, I think the A&A gaming community will also.
You make several valid points as to the specific units, their composition, time periods used, etc. and I couldn’t agree more. And I thank you for making them. I, too, have read ALL of these books and many more, as I’m sure you have, too,…… concerning the Guadalcanal campaign.
My point here is that we are planning to use the units that are AVAILABLE, or proposed, that are as close to the ideal as possible to accomplish our goals. This may entail a small “generalization”(no pun intended). I believe that what we will all end up with will be a much more in-depth, expanded gameplay.
“Monster” game meets the KISS method
I completely agree that the “standard A&A Rules” are not the best to define all of the various, intricate, and all-inclusive combats.
With having said that, I believe that with all of the NEW UNITS, all of their new or expanded CAPABILITIES(mine warfare, convoys, convoy escort or attack, naval bombardment, naval surface warfare, naval air warfare, Amphibious raids, amphibious invasions, air bombing of differrent targets, engineer improvements, etc. etc. etc.) that there is the concern of making a “Monster” of a game that might overwhelm some A&A players,……not to mention the TIME it would take to complete a game using a more complex set of rules. Therefore I think that the “KEEP IT SIMPLE SIR” method would greatly benefit us in this case.
I truly believe that the “Standard A&A Rules” would allow us to have a great gaming experience while helpfully speeding the game along.
Also, by retaining the “Standard A&A Rules” it would allow A&A players to step into the game without a huge learning curve.
And they would be able to make use of their already significant investment of time in learning and understanding the “Standard A&A Rules”. They would already know how most everything worked.
--------------------------------
Timerover, I want to thank you for the points you’ve made and envite you to please CONTINUE to do so. I feel we can all benefit from each others knowledge and experience in the creation of this game. The goal here is to produce a series of A&A games with an expanded, enriched gaming experience.
As I always say,…What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul” -
OOPS,……I think I said Sheridan Tank When I meant to say Stuart Tank. Well, chalk it up to my being tired(or an idiot if you prefer, haha). My appologies.
"Tall Paul
-
Gang,
EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign
?New Name?
Hey gang,
What would ya’ll think of the name EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign
I was just going over everything in my mind and it just sort of hit me. All of the units that we are EXPANDING the game with,…all of the new or EXPANDED capabilities that will be available,…with the game to be played on a campaign-oriented map EXPANDED to the size of a 1940-global map.
Wow,…it is such a literally descriptive name that I believe it helps in getting the idea across of what we’re planning to accomplish.
I started not so say anything for a while. Then while I was making my last post in response to the “Timerover” I couldn’t help but notice that all of my descriptive adjectives were “EXPANDED”.
Also, it allows for the future maps(?) in this series to be identified with the same style of games just mentioned.
I know that the NAME is not a real priority at the moment, but this one just seems to be a PERFECT FIT! What Do YA’LL Think???
If ya’ll like it, we could change the name of the thread to:
EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign with the EXPANDED being in all caps to accentuate it.
I’m assuming it’s possible to change the name of a thread.
Like I Say,……What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul” -
RULES SYSTEM
Let’s all agree then that for this game we will use the single stat att/def values for each unit but convert it to a D12 system. I much prefer simple over realistic so others will actually use the game.
Next thing we need to focus on is the complete unit list. Let’s get a list of all Ground, Naval, and Air units we want in the game but deal with the actual stats and attributes of these later.
-
RULES SYSTEM
Let’s all agree then that for this game we will use the single stat att/def values for each unit but convert it to a D12 system. I much prefer simple over realistic so others will actually use the game.
Next thing we need to focus on is the complete unit list. Let’s get a list of all Ground, Naval, and Air units we want in the game but deal with the actual stats and attributes of these later.
Agreed!
-
@coachofmany:
RULES SYSTEM
Let’s all agree then that for this game we will use the single stat att/def values for each unit but convert it to a D12 system. I much prefer simple over realistic so others will actually use the game.
Next thing we need to focus on is the complete unit list. Let’s get a list of all Ground, Naval, and Air units we want in the game but deal with the actual stats and attributes of these later.
Agreed!
I agree. I also think that the ships should have seperate anti-aircraft and shore bombardment values. Plus aircraft should have different air to air and ground attack values. Thats my opinion.
-
Gang,
EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion topics-(1.) Combat Rules (2.) Unit Lists
(1.) Combat Rules
HOORAY for everyones’ agreement,…including the “Coach’s” on the simplified combat rules, modified for D-12.
(2.) Unit Lists
I believe the List of Ships that I posted previously could serve as a “beginning” for the ships and their Attack/Defense attributes.
If I remember correctly I intentionally left the Attack, Defense, Movement, and Cost values for the Aircraft Carriers blank because I wanted us to discuss the possibilities of the varying CAPACITIES of the differrent Carrier types.
2a. Aircraft capacities of the Carriers(Proposed)
CVE 1 aircraft, CVL 2 aircraft, CV 3 aircraft, CV(H) 4 aircraft
I think a LOT of thought should go into the possibility of having 3 airplanes on a single CV carrier. Although this is the way it really was,…this is quite a substantial change to the carriers. I think this is an exciting prospect,…but one that needs a lot of discussion, both pro and con. And personally,…I don’t think a “Midway” class Heavy Carrier should be allowed, at least not in this game scenario. Exactly when were the “Midways” introduced???
2b. Aircraft Carrier Speeds.
I think it could add some important depth if we had some “Fast Carriers” along with some “Fast escorts”. Think of the strategic concerns that this could make, both offensive and defensive.
2c. Aircraft Unit List
This is my proposed list, completely open to discussion.
Cargo Cargo/Paratroop…C-47 Skytrain, C-46 Commando
FT-SR Fighter, Short Range…P-40 Warhawk, F-4F Wildcat
FT-MR " , Medium Range…F-6F Hellcat
FT-LR " , Long Range…P-38 Lightning, P-51 Mustang
FT-BM Fighter/Bomber…F-4U Corsair,
P-47 Thunderbolt (BIG HINT, HINT, “Coach”)
Tac-B* Tactical Bomber……SBD Dauntless, TBD Avenger
BM-MR Bomber, Medium Range…B-25 Mitchell
BM-LR " , Long Range…B-17 Flying Fortress, B-24 Liberator
BM-VLR " , Very Long Range…B-29 SuperFortress*The Tactical Bombers could be re-clasified as Bomber, Short Range.
Also, I listed a Fighter/Bomber because the Corsair and Thunderbolt were used routinely as bombers and as such could have increased attack capabilities for more gameplay depth.
2d. Land Unit List
2 1/2 2 1/2-Ton Truck…GMC “Jimmy”
Eng Engineer…(Inf w/special paint)??? “Coach”
Inf Infantry……
Mar Marine…
M-FT " , Flame-Thrower…
Ranger Special Forces, Army…US Army Inf (w/special paint)
Raider " " , Marines…US Marine (w/special paint)
Para " " , Paratrooper.
Art Artillery…
Mech Inf Mechanised Infantry…Halftrack
Mech Art Mechanised Artillery…Priest
OR OR
S/P Art Self-Propelled Artillery… "TK-L Tank, Light…M-3 Stuart
TK-M " , Medium…M-4 Sherman
TK-H " , Heavy…(None yet Proposed)
TD " , Destroyer……M-10, Wolverine/Hellcat
TK-F " , Flame-Thrower…Well, I’ve had a lot of interuptions here while typing this up, so if there are any mistakes or oversights it’s completely my fault.
Like I Say,…What do YA’LL think???
“Tall Paul” -
AGREED, Lets KISS it but expand it to the D-12 system and add all units. USA Heavy Tank, 2 possible options: M-26 Pershings or Jumbo Shermans armed with 105mm. Any ideas on this?
-
Unit List ADDENDUM,
Well, I forgot to list the Anti-Aircraft Guns, Mines, Major and Minor Industrial Complexes, Air and Naval Bases. Although these of course aren’t COMBAT UNITS
I thought I’d mention them simply for inclusion in the rules.“Coach”, was it you or FMG that had once said they planned to make some
3-D replacements for the “piece of cardboard” OOB AIR and NAVAL BASE pieces???For myself I was in the process of gluing the Red “victory” houses(painted Gray
w/I-94 decals) that you sell onto the “Airbase Markers” from the A&A Guadalcanal game to make my 3-D Air Bases.For the Naval Bases I turned the “ABM” upside down then painted them Blue to represent water, built a pier, and then glued the ptd/decalled House on. I wanted 24 of each,…but you ran out of the “ABMs”.
Also, I ordered the very simular I.C.'s out of the modern version of RISK from Mattel??? but they haven’t come in yet.
So what I’m saying is,…“Coach”, PLEASE save all of us from the
cardboard stuff.Like I always Say,……What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul” -
Gang,
EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–(1.) Units and (2.) Rules
1. Units
I’m all for a Heavy US Tank. The main reason I didn’t list them is that they wouldn’t be quite appropriate for this early-war “Solomons” scenario. Also, I don’t know of anyone that has announced plans to make any. All of the units in the lists just made have already been proposed, or are already in the “pipeline” to be produced,…other than the DDAP Fast Attack Transport and The P-47 Thunderbolt. I think these 2 units are unique enough that the “Coach” would feel there is enough of a market for them to produce them. PLEASE, PLEASE, “Coach”. I think the US Heavy Tank would be very useful in later-war scenarios, especially European ones.
I’d suggest you ask the “Coach” or FMG about it for a future item.
----------------------------
2. Rules
As far as the Combat Rules we all agree on the “Standard A&A Rules, modified to a D-12 System”.
I’m encouraged in the progress we’re making here. Everyone completely agreeing on the important matters. Like I’ve said before,…I’m very glad that we have Tigerman on the TEAM. And with everyone else advising us, even including “the Coach”, and the “Imperious Leader”, I think that there’s a VERY GOOD chance that we’ll all be enjoying an EXPANDED A&A—Solomons Campaign Game in the future.
I want to encourage EVERYONE to get involved and offer their opinions and/or questions. I think this game (series?) could only benefit from it.
Like I always Say,…What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul” -
AGREED, Lets KISS it but expand it to the D-12 system and add all units. USA Heavy Tank, 2 possible options: M-26 Pershings or Jumbo Shermans armed with 105mm. Any ideas on this?
I do plan on doing a second mold in the future with a Pershing Heavy Tank as well as other US late war items!
Dont forget the Mack truck I am doing for the US set.
The Priest for the Self Propelled Artillery. -
TaDaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
@Tall:
Variable, Tigerman, and Others,
EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign
?New Name?
Hey gang,
What would ya’ll think of the name EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign
I was just going over everything in my mind and it just sort of hit me. All of the units that we are EXPANDING the game with,…all of the new or EXPANDED capabilities that will be available,…with the game to be played on a campaign-oriented map EXPANDED to the size of a 1940-global map.
Wow,…it is such a literally descriptive name that I believe it helps in getting the idea across of what we’re planning to accomplish.
I started not so say anything for a while. Then while I was making my last post in response to the “Timerover” I couldn’t help but notice that all of my descriptive adjectives were “EXPANDED”.
Also, it allows for the future maps(?) in this series to be identified with the same style of games just mentioned.
I know that the NAME is not a real priority at the moment, but this one just seems to be a PERFECT FIT! What Do YA’LL Think???
If ya’ll like it, we could change the name of the thread to:
EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign with the EXPANDED being in all caps to accentuate it.
I’m assuming it’s possible to change the name of a thread.
As Variable would say, I guess it just “marinated” in my head long enough to become an actual idea.
As I always Say,……What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul”I will chime in on the naming convention since this kinda came into my mind this week.
First, I would like to stick to a more “naval”-centric name as apposed to a “land”-centric name. I’d like to stick with Coral Sea over Solomon’s since the whole drive here is the naval battles, not the jungle fighting.
Second, for the “series” of games we hope to make here, how about Axis & Allies Navies or AAN for short? The first game then could be Axis & Allies Navies - Coral Sea, or AAN-CS. Just a thought. Goes with what Larry has established…
-
**The “four-pipers” converted to fast transports were officially listed as APD, not DDAP. It would be easiest to use standard US Navy designators.
Carriers:**
I am not sure what you mean by a separate class of “fast carrier”. All US fleet carriers, from the Lexington and Saratoga through the Midway Class could make a minimum of 30 knots, except for the Ranger with a trial speed of 29.25 knots, and the Wasp, with a trial speed of 29.5 knots. The Independence-class CVL, converted from Cleveland-class light cruiser hulls showed a trial speed of 31.6 knots. The only “slow” carriers that the US had were the CVEs, which had speeds from 16.5 to 19 knots. As for “fast escorts”, again, what do you mean? All US cruisers could do a minimum of 30 knots, as could the Iowa-class battleships and the Alaska-class larger cruisers. The only slower ships were the old battleships, the treaty-limited North Carolina and South Dakota class of battleships, and the destroyers escorts. I see no need whatsoever for a separate group of “fast ships”.The first of the Essex-class carriers, the Essex commissioned on Dec. 31, 1942. The first Midway-class, the Midway, commissioned on Sept. 19, 1945. I think that the Midway class can safely be ruled out for any type of expanded Solomon Islands campaign.
Time Frame:
I would argue that with the capture of the Admiralties in March of 1944, that the Solomon Islands campaign effectively ends. You should not worry about anything beyond that date, and with a 3 month lead time to get equipment, except aircraft, to the theater, I would say that the cut off for any new ground equipment should be December of 1943. That rules out the Sherman “Jumbo”, produced in the spring of 1944 all of which went to Europe and the Pershing. The Sherman was more than adequate for the Pacific as the heaviest Japanese anti-tank gun was a high-velocity 47mm piece, good against the Stuart, but marginal except at very close range against the Sherman. Some Pershings were deployed on Okinawa, and if you really need them, Table Tactics makes a very nice Pershing as part of its Engage series, although it would be a little large for A&A game scale.Unit Types:
The Solomons campaign was fought in JUNGLE. You might need mechanized infantry and self-propelled artillery in Europe and North Africa, and maybe in the Philippines, but not in the Solomons area. You are not going to be able to use it at all. You might want to include a DUKW unit, for resupply.Assuming you go with the early 1944 cut off, then you eliminate the P-51 and the B-29, and the P-38 was used as a fighter-bomber as well. There would be no Montana-class battleships. The Iowa and New Jersey commissioned early enough in 1943 to possibly be involved, except that they were used in the Central Pacific as the only battleships that could keep up with the carriers. The two Alaska-class ships to commission, the Alaska and the Guam, did so in June and September of 1944 respectively. You should have a Catalina for reconnaissance and as an ASW plane.
As for carriers, the Essex-class could carry over 90, with an air group of 36 fighter, 36 dive bomber, and 15 -18 torpedo planes. Japanese carrier groups were no where near as large. I would argue that an Essex should have 5 aircraft, not 3, 2 fighter and 3 attack, or 4 fighter and 1 attack. Morison does a very nice job of giving carrier air group information in his books. A CVE has 1 aircraft, either a fighter or attack, a CVL has two aircraft, a fighter and an attack, Enterprise or Saratoga-class, 4 aircraft (one or two fighter, two or three attack), then Essex class. That is for the US, I would need to look up the data for the Japanese. If you have to make things even for the Japanese verses the US, 1 fighter or attack for a CVE, a fighter and an attack for a CVL, and 2 fighters and an attack for a CV. Note, a P-38 looks really weird on a carrier.
Table Tactics already was producing land mines, and they could just as easily be used as naval mines. However, land mines were used very little in the Solomons, mainly because of the terrain. Naval mines were used, but are you sure that you want to introduce them? Some areas, such as Iron Bottom Sound, are far too deep for mines.
Other areas, like Ferguson Passage and Blackett Strait near Kolombangara, can be mined and were. On the whole, the water depth in the Solomon area is really pushing it for mines. Also, are you going to allow for aircraft delivery? Air-delivered mines proved to be very effective in the Bougainville-Shortlands area. Mines mean minesweepers, added cost and complexity. Are you looking at a game or simulation? A game can be done with the KISS principal. With naval and land mines, you are straying into simulation or much smaller scale territory. You give someone who knows what he is doing or has a creative imagination land and naval mines, and you will find out how fast that they can change the game. -
Hey “Coach”,
I had listed your Preist. I probably confused you by listing two differrent names for them,…Mech. Art. OR S/P-Art. and using a " under the S/P Art listing.
I didn’t forget your Mack truck, I just had to look up it’s proper name. I should have listed it as “HBG’s truck” until I labelled it properly,…Sorry about that.
Did you read my Questions about the Air and Naval Bases???
And the hopeful request for a P-47 Thunderbolt???
The “Jug” was my Dad’s favorite aircraft in WW2. He has so many fascinating stories about them and there deeds. Wow! Like watching a P-47 intentially overturn a Tiger tank with a 500 lb. bomb landed right beside it. And another time watching a P-47 take a direct hit from a “Flak” tower and then watching it struggle away, missing two complete cylinders which they found on the ground close to them. They were amazingly rugged brutes!, and with 8 50 cal. guns.
The reason I’d proposed the P-47 to you for production is that it was a true
FIGHTER-BOMBER, and as such would be more powerful on the attack than other fighters, which would give us more depth in our Air and Land gameplay. It might be good grouped with the B-29 and other aircraft, possibly.Like I Say,…What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul” -
Timerover,
EXPANDED A&A–-Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topics-Units
A. As far as the “Fast Attack Transports” you are correct on the proper designation of APD. I couldn’t remember and was too tired to grab a book and look it up so I “winged” it with DDAP. I felt everyone would know what I was talking about through my description, although I really should’ve put a (?) mark by the DDAP designation. Thanks.
B. Timerover, What I meant by “Fast Carrier” was as an description. Like in the book “The Fast Carriers”, by Clarke Reynolds. I might not have the title exactly right, but close enough. It differrentiated the CV and CVL carriers from the CVEs. As it concerns our game it would mean a MOVEMENT FACTOR of 3 for the CVs and CVLs instead of just 2 for the CVEs. I guess I didn’t explain myself well enough. I wasn’t suggesting “Fast” in any way other than as an description,…not a separate classification. “Fast” equaling a MOVEMENT FACTOR of 3. What do Ya’ll think???
C. The point that I was making about the “Midway” class CVs was that they weren’t even around for the period we are concerned with,…WW2, which was exactly my point.
D. As far as the Lists of Units, I had included all of the units that would be considerred for the WHOLE SERIES of games instead of only the ones appropriate for this Solomons game. I thought that was what we wanted to discuss. The Attack and Defense factors of ALL of the Units.
E. I never said anything about a Sherman “Jumbo” being used in our series of games.
Although I, like many others, would enjoy having this unit for some European scenarios, which is what I thought I told WARRIOR.
@Tall:
I’m all for a Heavy US Tank. The main reason I didn’t list them is that they wouldn’t be quite appropriate for this early-war “Solomons” scenario. Also, I don’t know of anyone that has announced plans to make any.
I think the US Heavy Tank would be very useful in later-war scenarios, especially European ones.
I’d suggest you ask the “Coach” or FMG about it for a future item.
F. As far As S/P Art. I was listing it because it would be in the “pool” of units that we would be using in a LATER “Phillipines” campaign in this series. And we were about to discuss ALL of the Attack, Defense, Movement, and Cost factors of ALL the units.
G. Mines. I was refferring to Mine Warfare as far as SHIPS are concerned. Not landmines, or I would have referrred to them as such. As far as the use of naval mines in our GAME, I think many players might like this capability,…maybe to recreate the scenes of the movie “In Harm’s Way” with John Wayne and Kurt Douglas. Powerful Stuff. I think we could SIMPLIFY this aspect enough to make it feasable. Possibly by limiting the total number available. If we’re lucky enough to get the “Coach” to produce some DMS Minesweepers I think we could find a FUN and real use for them.
H. The P-51 and B-29 would be very useful for some LATER campaigns in this series.
I. And although the P-38 was used somewhat as a Fighter-Bomber, it’s use as such was nowhere NEAR that of the F-4U. Many Corsair pilots complained that they were more Bombers than Fighters. I’m sure they were all interested in becoming “Aces”. There are literally dozens of books concerning this, whether about the South Pacific, or SouthWest Pacific theaters.
Thanks again, Timerover for your contribution. Please continue.
I hope this “post” makes sense as I stopped and started several times. As it’s 3:45 am here, I’m going to bed.
We must all remember that this is a GAME. And as such we need to take efforts to make sure it is the FUN that we stress MOST.
Like I always Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul” -
“Gang”,
EXPANDED A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomons CampaignDiscussion Topic–-New Name(?).
I like the point made about stressing the “NAVAL” in the name.
By the same token, I like the stressing of the “EXPANDED” in the name also, for the
previously mentioned reasons.@Tall:
I was just going over everything in my mind and it just sort of hit me. All of the units that we are EXPANDING the game with,…all of the new or EXPANDED capabilities that will be available,…with the game to be played on a campaign-oriented map EXPANDED to the size of a 1940-global map.
Wow,…it is such a literally descriptive name that I believe it helps in getting the idea across of what we’re planning to accomplish.
I started not so say anything for a while. Then while I was making my last post in response to the “Timerover” I couldn’t help but notice that all of my descriptive adjectives were “EXPANDED”.
Also, it allows for the future maps(?) in this series to be identified with the same style of games just mentioned.
With this map we can obviously have two COMPLETELY SEPARATE games played on a common map. Just think about that for a minute.
(1.) The battle of the Coral Sea, and (2.) The Solomons Campaign, BOTH.
Even the Battle of the Bismark Sea for a 3rd. Although this was more of a Shooting the Ducks in the Barrel type of battle, haha.
While the Coral Sea battle would be an almost pure NAVAL affair,…
The Solomons Campaign game would be something more like a 40% Naval, 30% Air, and 30% Land battle. These are what I think the GAME would more than likely feel like. Please don’t anybody give me any grief about these figures, they are an educated guess, only. Of course I’m taking into consideration not only COMBAT,…but ALL of the SUPPORT operations, also.
Anyway, we all know the name isn’t a real priority at the moment. But it couldn’t hurt for people to hear our “tag” and have an good idea of what it’s all about.
If we all just keep “OPEN MINDS” and let this(to use your expression) “marinate” in our heads for a while we’ll no doubt get it done.
Like I Always Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul” -
I haven’t had time to read in detail through this long discussion thread, so here are just a couple of thoughts which may have already been covered elsewhere.
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.
Midway was indeed very unbalanced in terms of naval force ratios (I think Yamamoto had something like ten times as many ships as Fletcher and Spruance)…but note that it’s the weaker side which ended up winning the battle. In terms of the key units, the big fleet carriers, the Japanese only had a four-to-three advantage. The fighting soon reduced this to a zero-to-two ratio, at which points the Japanese fleet withdrew.
Another idea is that any Midway game has to have some sort of concealed-movement and reconnaissance mechanism. This was a crucial aspect of the engagement – something which the movie Midway from the mid-70s conveyed very well. Recommended viewing (despite some aspects that detract from the film) as a source of inspiration for anyone designing a Midway game.
-
@CWO:
I haven’t had time to read in detail through this long discussion thread, so here are just a couple of thoughts which may have already been covered elsewhere.
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.
Midway was indeed very unbalanced in terms of naval force ratios (I think Yamamoto had something like ten times as many ships as Fletcher and Spruance)…but note that it’s the weaker side which ended up winning the battle. In terms of the key units, the big fleet carriers, the Japanese only had a four-to-three advantage. The fighting soon reduced this to a zero-to-two ratio, at which points the Japanese fleet withdrew.
Another idea is that any Midway game has to have some sort of concealed-movement and reconnaissance mechanism. This was a crucial aspect of the engagement – something which the movie Midway from the mid-70s conveyed very well. Recommended viewing (despite some aspects that detract from the film) as a source of inspiration for anyone designing a Midway game.
I agree. If we do a midway game you would have to move your ships with the fleet pieces, as in AAP game. Then when they have been identified place the units on the board.
-
One idea for concealed movement and reconnaissance would be to use a mechanism similar to the “dummy task force” one in the 1992 3W game “Sink the Bismarck!” (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7140/sink-the-bismarck). As I recall, the German player has at his disposal a number of tokens which are placed at several separate locations on the map and which are moved on each turn. One of these (known to the German player but not to the opponent) represents the real Bismarck; the others are fake units. The British player has to send out reconnaissance units to survey these German tokens, and it’s only at the moment of contact with a given unit that the British player will be able to see whether that particular token is a dummy (at which point it’s removed from play) or the actual Bismarck. In a Midway game, these tokens would stand for entire task forces (whose component ships would be kept off the board until they were located by the enemy) plus several fake ones.
Suggested Topics
