Variable's and Tall Paul's Naval Game Ideas
As I stated in the HBG thread, I was planning to make a Coral Sea / Midway game this winter. However, with all the interest right now and the possibility that “Coach” is going to be doing a number of naval moulds for the US and Japan, it sounds like I had better get started on this now.
Please compile all of your ideas here and I will try to accommodate everyone’s concepts as best I can into a format that will be new and exciting.
My first though that I had is to use the rules structure from Guadalcanal as a starting point. I also like the old AH game “Midway” for ideas on searching enemy fleets. A third place for inspiration will be “Coach’s” rules for his new upcoming Pearl Harbor game. Any and all ideas welcome from map layout, rules, units, time periods, etc. For now, I would like to focus on the Pacific campaign. If it looks like the pieces project will flow over into other countries, we can always make an Atlantic version.
I have a working relationship with “coach” at HBG already (he sells my World War Three game), and can work with him on ship types, map printing, etc.
If you posted ideas in the other thread, please repost them here so all the info for this future project is in this thread. Thank you everyone!
I think that there are several real battles/campaigns in WW2 pacific that would be very interesting to model games after. I would hope one could be more of an evenly matched head to head encounter of mostly Navy and Air with some Ground action, too. I know this sounds like Guadalcanal, and I think that maybe an enlarged version of THE SOLOMONS should be looked at as option.
Others could stress Carrier actions, like the Coral Sea battle, the Marianna Turkey Shoot, Midway, Santa Cruz(Eastern Guadalcanal), etc.
Others might be more of surface actions like Savo Island, Cape Esperance, Surigao Straight, Leyte Gulf, Java Sea, etc.
Anyway, I’ll offer suggestions and opinions and so we can all end up with some more FUN!
Mostly I’ve just sat back and listened to everyone else talk, learning/enjoying all the while. I felt there wasn’t a need for any useless “cheerleading” or “yeah, me too” comments from me or anyone else but I’m glad I started voicing my hopes for a primarily Naval A&A game to others and to the “Coach” while placing another order.
I guess I need to learn how to transfer those posts. I was hoping there would soon be enough interest to start a new thread and I guess we’re here, Yeah!
What would your opinion be as far as another new Naval unit for the “Coach” to make. How about some Fast Attack Transports,…the WW1-era 4-pipe destroyers that were modified by taking half of the fire/boilerrooms out to make room for the MARINE RAIDERS. These would be a natural fit for “Coach’s” Marine set as they already toting Thompsons. A little special paint and you’d have some Marine Raiders.
This would add another level of gameplay for the new maps/games. It might be a bit late for the voting but I think they would be popular and USEFUL units that would add even more depth to our games. I think we NEED these, even if they have to be produced in a second US Navy set.
What do you think???
You must be fan of W.E.B. Griffin’s The Corps, right? Yes, the 4 stacker’s that were nicknamed “fast transports” and were anything but. I guess they were faster than they used to be… Could be interesting. Raider unit is interesting as well. I actually painted my Guadalcanal set and made a few Raiders at that time (olive tinted black uniforms). Were there ever more than the two units of them formed? I don’t know if there were enough of them to warrant a separate unit in the game even at this scale, but maybe.
At some point, scale-wise, we run the risk of going into A&A Mini’s territory I think. I agree that we could do a game where one ship model represents one ship, but not a specific ship, just a ship of that type. Ground unit scale could be regiment size instead of division size. We need to limit the different unit types to ones that were specifically unique. Were the old 4-stackers significantly different from the modern counterpart in terms of stats and utility?
I like the idea of the Solomon’s and or Caroline’s, maybe Midway, Guam, South Pacific… Ooh, how cool would it be to fight the whole campaign from Australia to Iwo?
“Brute” Krulak’s 2nd Parachute Marines used the Fast Attack Transports to “Raise Hell”(book title) on Choiseul. There were several differrent units that made use of the
Fast Attack Transports, although the Parachute Marines re-configured their battallions(smaller) so as to enable them to fit on their purpose-made transports.
As far as our gameplay the Raiders, 'Chutes, or “regular” Marines could make use of these Fast Attack Transports to deepen our FUN factor. Just think of them as a Navally deployed parachute insertion. This would work great with the “Coach’s” Marine set and help his sales, too(in turn, helping ALL OF US).
Paratroops, used with either HBG’s C-46 or FMG’s C-47 would add another, albeit simular capability to our gaming. I realize that paratroop drops didn’t occur in jungle areas except at the clearing at Nadzab on New Guinea which practically won the campaign, and later in the Phillipines. Again, this would help HBG & FMG sales which would help ALL OF US even more). My primary interest here is not to help the "Coach’s or FMG’s sales,…but to HAVE MORE FUN!!! It seems logical to me that the two are mutually beneficial though.
Let’s see. I believe there were 4 Marine Raider and 2 Marine Parachute Battallions. I’ve read about 40+ books on the Marine Raiders, ParaMarines, and their operations.
All of the Raiders ended up reconstituting the old 4th Marine Regiment and the Parachute Marines became the cadre for the new 5th Marine Division.
Of course what made the Fast Attack Transports unique was their CAPABILITY as well as their distinctive profile. I think these would be very INTERESTING and USEFUL units to have in our games!!!
Also, another point. I hope the “new naval games” would be in a scale/size that say if it were representing the island of Guadalcanal, it would be several “tiles” or “zones” in size,…instead of just one for the whole island. A LITTLE more of a “tactical” size rather than a “strategical” size.
While I was at lunch today I was struck by the possibility of all of these new games being able to be PLAYED TOGETHER or in series (one at a time or at a tournament) to represent a WHOLE CAMPAIGN or the WHOLE WAR! Wow, What do you think???
As far as being a fan of WEB Griffen’s, I really try to limit(haha) myself to Military History, unless I know it’s the “back-story” of a fictionalized history of a real event. Let’s see, I believe I’ve read upwards of 4,000+ books on WW2 and although my Dad was in the ETO I seem to be fascinated with the Pacific mostly. Perhaps because I’m from land-locked NorthWest Louisiana originally. The “American engenuity” that spawned the A-20 and B-25 strafers, C-47s flying “combat missions”, and the “skip-bombing” of Gen. Kenney’s 5th AF just fascinate me to no end.
Variable and Tall Paul, I personally like the idea of a Naval only game that would be a fight clear across the Pacific.
Here are some ideas.
1. Have all USN units sat start a Pear Harbor, Commonwealth units start at Sidney, IJN units Sasebo Naval base. If you decide to add the Russians they start at a base up north.
2. All bases have factories for production of the required units. Add a few Naval and Army Commanders such as Yammato, Halsey, Nagumo, Nimitz, McArthur, Homa ect…
3. Use P-38s as an airbase defense unit only, they never where used from carriers. Add amphibs so we can properly storm each others island with invasion forces.
4. Have a specialized to build sequence. For example nobody starts with super battleships and heavy bombers. Have these as tech that must be developed thru collection and expenditure of IPCs.
5. Go with the single unit ship concept and have the Infantry and armor represent battalions or regiments.
6. Aircraft represent flights of 12 aircraft or squadrons of 24 ea.
7. CVs Large CVs can have 4 squadrons assigned, OOB 3 Squadrons, CVLs 2 squadrons and CVEs 1 squadron.
8. Now we could add the IJN SNLF Special Naval Landing Force. Each IJN Naval base had 2 to 5 regiments assigned to them.
9. USMC use is self evident, conqueror the Japanese Homeland.
10. No more 2 hit Battleships. Gents IJN Yamato took 20 torpedoes and 18 bombs to sink. Her sister IJN Musashi took 17 bombs and 20 torpedo hits and 18 near misses. So these Monsters and the future Montana Class need to be at least a 4 to 6 hits to sink.
Remember after Pearl Harbor no USN Battleships where sunk by IJN aircraft nor did the IJN ever come close.
11. We could add long convoy routes, and based on number of ships that get thru undamaged means more IPCs. This will force players to invest in convoy escorts or suffer severe losses to subs and rouge naval patrols of ships and aircraft.
12. Keep the atomic Bomb out of this game. If you want big naval engagements do not allow anyone to have them or two or three dropped and game over.
13. Marine Raiders are a cool idea, I suggest a max of 5 USMC to represent them.
14. FOG OF WAR. Use PBYs and IJN Mavis Long Range Aircraft for Recon to find the enemy. If your recon lives thru the AA defense roll they can Identify the enemy types and disposition at this time the enemy forces must be placed on the board. Until then use task force markers upside down to show there are forces but not who owns them. I think Coach has made some the at would be perfect for this
15. Add the seabees into the mix for building aditional air and naval bases on captured or undefended islands.
16. Have off board base boxes where ships are in port and aircraft are at their bases. Move ships and aircraft from board to base boxes as needed.
17. Hidden movement is a must to keep the FOG OF WAR alive.
Now I know their will be some die hard AA fans who want to keep it clean and less technical that is great if we do not want a primary naval game. To have a really impressive Naval game we need to get a whole lot more technical. Not to the level of Avalanche Press Second World War At Sea series but somewhere in between.
Welcome and I’m glad to see you get involved in the discussion here. We think alike on several issues except:
(1.) I hope the map for each game would be quite a bit more “localized” than everything from Pearl Harbor to Calcutta. Think of “The Solomons”. Although being a bit more “localized”, I hope there would be MANY, MANY sea zones. Enough to feel-out, find, and then fight a big Naval conflict. I would hope for a map size of 48" x 108", like my enlarged 1940-Global(Strong Hint to Variable). If the “Coach” prints the maps he has already mentioned before on other maps that he could “adjust” sizes.
(2.) I am TOTALLY against “tech” developement! I feel that it completely unbalances the opponents. If one player invests in “tech”, he either ends up with an
overwhelming advantage,…or he looses because his large investment didn’t pan-out for him. Either way, it unbalances the gameplay,…and I prefer the head-to-head competition against my enemy where it’s my wits(or lack of them) against theirs.
I feel it would be so much more competitive as well as realistic(?) by having PHASES(?) where you start with a lesser unit and after a certain time(turn) it could be up-graded to a more modern unit. For example: the US starts with Stuart Tanks, P-40s, Wildcats, etc. and then later advances to Sherman Tanks, P-38s, Hellcats/Corsairs.
With all of these units (hopefully) about to be produced it seems almost wasteful
(in fun not had) not to make use of them and I think the time-line introduction of newer units would make the gameplay more INTERESTING and COMPETITIVE.
Most of your thoughts seem to simular to mine, like long Convoys, SeaBees, recon, no Atomic Bomb, etc. Just think how much more interesting it will be by having many more objectives/targets to accomplish/destroy/protect.
Thanks and keep the ideas coming,
Wow, you two have given me a lot to think about. We have a little while before we know for sure if Coach’s naval pieces are going to be a go or not and what ships will be included. At first, I wanted to localize the action to say, the Solomons or Midway. Then from your ideas I start to picture a supersized Pacific '41 map. Now, if I understand correctly, we are considering a series of maps where you fight battles from island to island, area to area. Like a map for each sea space on G40. Hmm, I would have to tackle these one at a time if we do it that way.
Variable and Tall Paul, I like the idea of a time phase in for units to be upgraded to newer models. I foresee something like this.
USN starts with a OOB Hornet CV and thru the time line upgrades it to a Essex CV, later if the Midway CVs are available upgrade to them.
So the IJN player would have to start out with two lesser CVs say an Zuikakau and Hiryu before they could upgrade to a OOB Shinnano.
Eliminate the tech would be great if we do upgrades thru a time-line. Now how will the new units be paid for? Do we use Battle Bucks or IPCs that are collected from convoys safe passage and island and sea zones we control?
I just put about 30 minutes worth of ideas onto a “post” and then I guess I deleted it!
I guess I just had to show my human side(G). Well, here I go again……
I’m working on a pacific game that focuses more on naval battles and convoy routes. Gonna be a 72x36 or 96x48 map.
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.
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?
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)?
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.
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???
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( 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???
**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
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 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.
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–-General Discussions
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.
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.
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.
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
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???
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…