Variable's and Tall Paul's Naval Game Ideas

Gang,

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!

“Tall Paul”

Hey Gang,

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???
                                                                                    “Tall Paul”

Gang,

“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???

“Tall Paul”

Variable,

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.

“Tall Paul”

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.

Warrior888,

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,

“Tall Paul”

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?

Darn it,

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……

“Tall Paul”

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.

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”