First, see the following post for some idea of my background.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18023.15, see reply #19, I am the Timerover51 quoted.

Second, the tanks used by the Marines in the Solomons, both at Guadalcanal and the Central Solomons, were M2A4 and M3 and M3A1 Stuarts, not Sheridans.  One of them is still sitting in a marsh in the middle of Arundel Island near New Georgia and is a minor tourist attraction for the islanders.

Third, see the following for the organization and equipment of the Japanese Special Naval Landing Force units.  It is the Handbook on Japanese Military Forces, Oct. 1944.

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJA/HB/index.html#index

They were quite similar to the Marine Defense Battalion units and were not intended for use as an amphibious assault unit.  The amphibious unit that was supposed to attack Midway was the 28th Infantry Regiment of the Japanese Army’s 7th Infantry Division, detailed to the Japanese Navy for amphibious operations, commanded by Col. Ichiki.  One battalion of this unit, under command of Col. Ichiki, was the unit that attacked the Marine perimeter at the Battle of the Tenaru River, and was wiped out.

For the analysis of damage to the Yamato and Musashi, see the following Report of the US Naval Technical Mission to Japan, which is also summarized in Bill Dulin and Bill Garzke’s book, Axis and Neutral Battleships of WW2.
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ Reports/USNTMJ-200H-0745-0786 Report S-06-2.pdf
The report is in PDF format and can be downloaded and printed out.

For additional source material on the Pacific War, I would suggest looking at the following online source as a start, as it has a lot of the US government publications online, including the official and semi-official histories.  As a minimum, you need to look at the official US Army history, Cartwheel:  The Reduction of Rabaul, the Marine official history, The Isolation of Rabaul, S.E. Morison’s books on Guadalcanal and Breaking the Bismarck Barrier, Paul Dull’s Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the official Army and Marine Corps histories of Guadalcanal.  Shots Fired in Anger by Lt. Col. John George, who fought on both Guadalcanal and with Merrill’s Marauders, is an excellent source of information on infantry fighting in jungle terrain.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/index.html

With respect to battleships, the US designed the 2 ships of the North Carolina class and the 4 ships of the South Dakota class prior to beginning the Iowa-class ships.  The Washington, the North Carolina, and the South Dakota all saw use in the Guadalcanal series of naval battles.   The US had only one battleship with 12 inch guns active in WW2, and that was the Arkansas, all of the other ships carried 14 inch or 16 inch guns on the Maryland-class of 3 ships.  The 12 inch guns on the Alaska-class large cruisers were far more powerful than the guns on the Arkansas, firing an 1140 pound AP projectile verses an 870 pound AP projectile.

The book, The Amphibians Came to Conquer, posted on the above site, has a lot of maps covering the area of Guadalcanal and the Central Solomons, which you might want to take a look at.  The maps are all capable of being downloaded.

I have developed a 6-player expansion of the original edition of Pacific, that can be located under House Rules-Pacific at the main site page, and have been playtesting and refining them for several years.

Lastly, aside from improved aircraft, the two main technological advances that occurred during the Solomon Islands campaign were good quality microwave radar, allowing for night actions where the US gradually reached a position of superiority over the Japanese by mid to late 1943, and the proximity fuze in the spring of 1943, which boosted US anti-aircraft effectiveness by 50%, from a 33% shoot down rate to a 50% shoot down rate of attacking Japanese aircraft.  The Betty loss rate was even worse.

As for scale, you are looking at regimental-size units at most, and could go to battalion-sized units at the cost of having a few more figures on the board.  In the jungle present in the Solomon Islands group, and the Southwest Pacific area in general, naval gunfire and artillery were of limited effectiveness against well-dug in infantry units.  The shelling of air bases by naval gunfire was good only for temporary neutralization, and then only with a lavish expenditure of ammunition, say 4500 rounds of US 6 inch naval High Capacity rounds, and then maybe only for 24 to 48 hours.  Remember, even the October 14th bombardment of Henderson Field by the Japanese battleships Kongo and Haruna only knocked out Henderson Field for the morning, and by afternoon, Marine planes were attacking the Japanese transports. Where artillery was most effective was in defensive fire against an attack, where the enemy was exposed in the open, rather than dug in.  Close air support doctrine had not been developed as yet, and in heavy jungle, was apt to be ineffective at best, and dangerous to one’s own forces at the worst.

I am still working on a set of replacement rules for the Guadalcanal game, and will be using a 12-sided die roll to account for the addition of the cruiser to the ship mix, as well as the PT boats. I would recommend a 12-sided die for use in any A&A game where you have cruisers as part of the ship mix, or mechanized infantry or tactical attack aircraft.  If you allow for tactical attack aircraft, then drastically reduce the effectiveness of fighters against ground units.  The fighters used during this period, up to late 1943, simply did not have enough of a bomb load to be effective against larger ships or dug-in infantry or infantry in the jungle.  The P-40 did become far more effective later, following modifications that allowed in to carry up to three 500 pound bombs or rockets.  The Wildcat and Zero never were effective fighter-bombers, and the early Corsairs were all used as fighters, not fighter-bombers.

Tactical attack aircraft should have a higher attack value against ships than for ground units, and adjustments to hitting should be made based on terrain.  Dug-in infantry in jungle should only be able to be taken out by attacking infantry with artillery support, and flamethrowers would be a boost as well.

@Peck:

The reason USA battleships are under represented in this game is because most were old decrepit models and were no match for the “modern” units being built by other contrys of the time.

All of the US ships were modernized in the 1930s with increased deck armor, increased gun elevations, increased AA batteries, and improved fire control.  The action at Surigao Strait Strait against the Japanese Southern force of Yamashiro and Fuso was fought by 6 of the old battleships:  West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, California, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania.

The West Virginia, Maryland, and Colorado mounted eight 16 inch guns, and were equivalent in everything but speed to the Japanese Nagato and Mutsu, with the California and Tennessee being viewed as the equals of the three 16 inch ships, but mounting twelve 14 inch guns.  The Idaho, Mississippi, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Arizona also mounted twelve 12 inch guns.  The Nevada and Oklahoma mounted ten 14 inch guns in 4 mounts, the Texas and New York mounted ten 14 inch guns in five twin mounts, and the Arkansas, the oldest active US battleship mounted twelve 12 inch guns.

The Yamashiro, Fuso, Ise, and Hyuga all mounted twelve 14 inch guns in 6 twin mounts, and saw virtually no combat in WW2 prior to the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where the Yamashiro and Fuso were sunk, and by which time the Ise and Hyuga had been converted into battleship-carriers, loosing two 14 inch mounts.  The most used of the Japanese battleships, the Hiei, Kirishima, Kongo, and Haruna, were originally built as battlecruisers with eight 14 inch guns, 26-28 knot speed, but only 9 inch armor.  The Hiei, as a consequence, was crippled by US heavy and light cruiser fire in the action of 13 November 1942 at Guadalcanal, taking at least 40 hits from very close range cruiser and destroyer gunfire, and then sunk the next day by US aircraft.  The Kirishima was sunk on 15 November 1942 by at least nine 16 inch hits and about forty 5 inch hits from the USS Washington and South Dakota.  Kongo was sunk by two submarine torpedoes in November of 1944, while the Haruna was sunk in the Inland Sea by US air attack in July of 1945.  The  Mutsu was destroyed by an internal ammunition explosion on June 8, 1943.

While the Texas, New York, and Arkansas were not comparable to the Japanese ships, clearly the remaining 12 US ships were at least equal to their Japanese counterparts, and superior to the Kongo=class ships in armament and armor.

The Italian ships in 1940 mounted ten 12.6 inch guns each, and had good speed but lighter armor.  Cavour was knocked out of the war completely by a single torpedo hit during the British Attack on Taranto in November of 1940.

The older British ships, dating from WW1, were the Queen Elizabeth class of 5 ships, the 5 ships of the Royal Sovereign class, and the battlecruisers Hood, Renown, and Repulse.  The 5 Royal Sovereigns never were rebuilt between the wars as completely as the Queen Elizabeth ships, the Renown, or the Repulse.  They would be more comparable to the US Texas and New York.  The Nelson and Rodney were the only post-WW1 battleships that the UK had in 1940, with the Rodney contributing in a major way to the sinking of the Bismarck.

The best single source for information on WW2 Warships is Conway’s All The World’s Fighting Ships, 1922 to 1946, and for the older WW1 ships is Conway’s All The World’s Fighting Ships, 1906 tl 1921.

**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.

Both boards look very nice.  I like the idea of laminating it and then mounting it on a board.  That makes if much more durable.

That is when house rules come into play.  Also, looking at how other games handle combat, like Xeno Games which uses an 8-sided die.

I need to do some reworking based on games this summer, and then get them into a form suitable for sale.

@Caesar:

With D12, the logic would be to simply double your numbers and your odds don’t change.

Actually, I have used 12-sided die, but have not simply doubled all of the numbers, depending on what version I am playing.  I use the D12 to get greater differentiation between various units, and in some cases, nationalities.  The Italian infantry division in World War 2 had only two regiments, instead of just about everyone else having 3 regiments.  As a result, should have different values than other infantry units, but with a D6 that is not possible. With a D12, you can give the Italian infantry a different attack and defense factor than the other infantry units.  Similarly, the best Japanese tank was about on par with the US M3/M5 light tank series, and nowhere comparable to either the M3 Grant/Lee Medium or the M4 Sherman, and they showed little ability to use tanks in mass, preferring to deploy them in company-sized units with the infantry.  Rather than having the Japanese armor attack at 6 and defend at 4, I have them attacking at 3 and defending at 4.  The defense factor is based on the Japanese willingness to literally fight to the last man, and their ability to camouflage tanks in defensive positions.

You can alter ship attack and defense values in the same way.  Maybe you give a destroyer a 6 for attacking submarines, but a 4 for attacking surface ships, and depending on the navy, anywhere from 1 to 6 for engaging aircraft.  Japanese destroyers were seriously deficient in light anti-aircraft weapons, while the US Fletcher-class ships would have been rated by the Royal Navy as anti-aircraft cruisers. From this, you might want to give a US destroyer a defense strength of 6 against aircraft.  A D12 also makes it easier to put cruisers in the game, inbetween the destroyer and battleship.

There is a lot more you can do with a D12 dice than simply double the standard numbers.

Rule number 1 does look like it might be good to include.

I am thinking of allowing the US to move bombers to India in a non-combat more in one turn, and then move the bombers to China on the next, either with a combat more or non-combat more.  It took the US only two weeks to fly bombers from Seattle, Washington over the Atlantic Air Route, across Africa to Cairo and then to India.  As for fighters, once landed at Takoradi in West Africa, they could be flown to India and China on the same air route.  That was how the British were getting aircraft quickly to the Mid-East, and the route was functioning well by December of 1941.  It took two weeks for a newly completed B-17E to fly from Seattle to Java in the Netherlands East Indies and participate in its first combat mission.

If I add cruisers to the game, I will go to a 12-sided die roll to increase the differentiation in combat abilities between destroyers, cruisers, and battleships. With respect to AA fire, the Japanese were pretty bad when it came to ship-borne AA weapons, while the US cruisers were on par with the battleships.  I allow for shore-bombardment by all ships, but only in support of an amphibious invasion.  No battleships standing off shore and clearing the area without an invasion. No aerial attacks on infantry either except in conjunction with an infantry unit, whereupon the infantry get a plus 1 on their attack roll, similar to artillery support.

As a side note, the US refitted an older British Light Cruiser with an armament similar to that of a Fletcher-class destroyer, but with less automatic weapons due to top-heavy problems.  The British rated it as an Anti-aircraft Cruiser.  Just something to think about when defending against air raids with US destroyers.

We just played a modified version of the 1st Edition Pacific game in my summer gaming class, using the Red Minis.  It had 6 players, 5 Allied and the Japanese.  The Allied were the U.S., Australia, British India, the Netherlands, China, and Japan.  The Netherlands did not have an IC but could buy some units from the United States using income from the refineries in the Dutch West Indies and Lend-Lease credits.  The Japanese player won because the Allies failed to cooperate effectively.  Getting 5 middle school and high school males to cooperate is not at all easy, just like Allied cooperation in World War 2.  It makes for a great learning tool.

Playing any Axis and Allies game with more than two players makes if far more interesting than a basic two-player game.

@rodgerkeith:

Hi all.  Been lurking on this forum for a while and I’m really impressed with the info you can find here.

After picking up AA1942.2 and playing a few games, I’d like to try out Guadalcanal but would rather not pay a premium price.  Anybody have a map I could print out?

If you are still looking for maps, there are a variety in the Marine Corps histories of the Solomon Islands campaign.  You would have to add the required sea zones.

@Wolf555:

Greetings,

has someone put together events, event charts or event cards for this game and would like to share it ?

I use a standard 52 card deck for Event Cards for Axis and Allies Classic and Pacific 1st Edition.  Spades give the weather events, so a total of 13.  They do cover the entire world, however, and the remainder of the deck are event cards covering different areas.  I would have to see to the extent what I have worked up could be modified to cover World War 1.  However, I will not post it here do to copyright issues, as I have copyrighted my work.