Is this the worse game?

[frimmel]

@Dylan:

@frimmel:

GCNL is by no means the worst game if there was even such a thing as ‘worst A&A game.’

well i like your answer the best, but I still rather play Bulge or D-Day

I’d rather play Bulge too but that doesn’t make any other game ‘the worst.’

[Commander JayVon]

I have this game bought it about a week ago, like the look of it, like the map, rules, etc. However, one thing is stopping me from playing it…

I have Green-Japanese cruisers and Orange-American cruisers.

[reloader-1]

JayVon,

Contact Wizards of the Coast and they will send you the replacement cruisers in the correct colors, free of charge.

[Krieghund]

Contact Wizards Customer Service either on their website or with the information on the back of the rulebook for replacement cruisers.

[Commander JayVon]

Thanks reloader-1 and Krieghund!

I’ll do just that.

[SunLiRen]

Ehhh, I’d prefer not to play it >>

I was so psyched about Guadalcanal because of its revered value (the fact that Larry Harris’ dad fought there got me excited for the emphasis he would put on the game). And all of a sudden I found the gameplay unappealing. It probably has to grow on me or something, but I need IPC money to play with!!!

…and Battleships to roll at 4, or bombers to roll at 4, or never to need a fuel token to get by. I mean comeon. Why make a game where you have to take a crap every turn?

Ahh, I’m being WAY too harsh. Guadalcanal is definitely an awesome game, but unconventional to the typical large scale A&A. I’m used to those types, AA1942, AAP40… If only tactical A&A games had similar attack values to their original counterparts…

[calvinhobbesliker]

@SunLiRen:

Ehhh, I’d prefer not to play it >>

I was so psyched about Guadalcanal because of its revered value (the fact that Larry Harris’ dad fought there got me excited for the emphasis he would put on the game). And all of a sudden I found the gameplay unappealing. It probably has to grow on me or something, but I need IPC money to play with!!!

…and Battleships to roll at 4, or bombers to roll at 4, or never to need a fuel token to get by. I mean comeon. Why make a game where you have to take a crap every turn?

Ahh, I’m being WAY too harsh. Guadalcanal is definitely an awesome game, but unconventional to the typical large scale A&A. I’m used to those types, AA1942, AAP40… If only tactical A&A games had similar attack values to their original counterparts…

This has a different combat system

[losttribe04]

I think that this has the most potential to have “the perfect balance”  of all of the A&A games.

To me D-Day and BOTB feel like the computer/consul games where your mission is to “survive for 30 minutes until reinforcements arrive.”  Europe, Pacific and the world versions simply can’t be balanced because of geography and have to compensate with units and production abilities.

After a few rounds GC could have an even 1:1 unit and island ratio.  It’s the closest to a perfect mirrored chess board that I think we could ever get with an A&A game.  Because of that it shouldn’t matter what side you play.

On another note I have recommended to players of the mainstream A&A games that were struggling with Japan or the US to play GC.  It really improved their game being forced to work with transports.

Long story short as an owner of A&A mini’s, classic, revised, pacific, Europe, BOTB and D-Day I prefer GC.

LT

[Dylan the Canadian]

@LT04:

I think that this has the most potential to have “the perfect balance”  of all of the A&A games.

To me D-Day and BOTB feel like the computer/consul games where your mission is to “survive for 30 minutes until reinforcements arrive.”  Europe, Pacific and the world versions simply can’t be balanced because of geography and have to compensate with units and production abilities.

After a few rounds GC could have an even 1:1 unit and island ratio.  It’s the closest to a perfect mirrored chess board that I think we could ever get with an A&A game.  Because of that it shouldn’t matter what side you play.

On another note I have recommended to players of the mainstream A&A games that were struggling with Japan or the US to play GC.  It really improved their game being forced to work with transports.

Long story short as an owner of A&A mini’s, classic, revised, pacific, Europe, BOTB and D-Day I prefer GC.

LT

Your so polite signing off  :-D

[losttribe04]

@Dylan:

Your so polite signing off  :-D

LOL, some habits die hard.

[Dylan the Canadian]

@LT04:

@Dylan:

Your so polite signing off  :-D

LOL, some habits die hard.

yes you grew up so fast now your going to college.

[lnmajor]

well put and researched, timeover51@Dylan:

@LT04:

@Dylan:

Your so polite signing off  :-D

LOL, some habits die hard.

yes you grew up so fast now your going to college.

@timerover51:

After having studied the entire Solomon Islands campaign for about 45 years, and after having been in the Solomon Islands in 2002, I view it as a poorly designed and researched game with nice components and a somewhat reasonable map that can be used as a starting point for totally reworking the rules and victory conditions, along with putting in some optional rules.  I have landed on the strips at Henderson Field and Munda, walked the strip at Vila, plus landed on strips on small, flat coral islands off of Gizo and Choiseul, and flown over the Slot.  The only islands that you could put airfields on in WW2 or even today are Guadalcanal, New Georgia at Munda and Segi Point, Vella Lavella, and Bougainville.  Malaita was and still is a disease nightmare that neither side got near during the war, and Choiseul and Santa isabel basically have no significant flat areas at all.  Vila on Kolombangara was never more than an emergency strip because while there was enough somewhat level land for the strip, there was no way to put in any taxiways because of the ravines surrounding the runway.

The game is much closer to a naval miniatures game than any of the other A&A games, and I have been playing naval miniature games since 1970, starting with Sea Power II by Alnavco.  I find the Battle Box concept just plain weird.  I have been experimenting with a modified A&A battle board, and letting the ships fight one round of combat, and then both sides have to retreat to an adjacent sea area.  That reflects the extremely short duration of the naval engagements during the campaign.  Callaghan’s action on the night of 13 November lasted all of 15 minutes.  Same with air combat, one round and done.  The Japanese were operating initially at the extreme limit of the range of the Zero, and could not engage in an extended air battle.  I have also added a limited number of tanks to the game, using ones from  the Pacific set, although ideally the US tanks should be M3 Stuarts and not M4 Shermans.  For the naval combat, you could also use straight naval miniature rules such as Sea Power, Command at Sea, Seekrieg, the Fletcher Pratt rules for real enthusiasts, or Paul Hague’s rules  in his book Naval War Games.  You could also use the War at Sea rules as well.

The idea of having bases to operate from is a good idea, although Rabaul was being hit by Kenney’s 5th Air Force whenever possible, with the attacks gradually getting heavier as the campaign went into 1943, with the Marines joining in from Bougainville and Munda by the fall of 1943 and early 1944.  The only way the Japanese could have launched strikes on New Caledonia was take Guadalcanal to attack from there.  Since for both sides, this was only one aspect of the Pacific War, and for the US, there was a constant struggle for priority with the European buildup, I much prefer a variable logistics rate, so that neither player is ever quite sure what the supply situation is going to be.

Since I should be back in the Solomons next year, I need to finish up the rule rewrite so that my crew can play the game while researching WW2 history in the same area.

[Themistokles]

@LT04:

I think that this has the most potential to have “the perfect balance”  of all of the A&A games.

To me D-Day and BOTB feel like the computer/consul games where your mission is to “survive for 30 minutes until reinforcements arrive.”  Europe, Pacific and the world versions simply can’t be balanced because of geography and have to compensate with units and production abilities.

After a few rounds GC could have an even 1:1 unit and island ratio.  It’s the closest to a perfect mirrored chess board that I think we could ever get with an A&A game.  Because of that it shouldn’t matter what side you play.

On another note I have recommended to players of the mainstream A&A games that were struggling with Japan or the US to play GC.  It really improved their game being forced to work with transports.

Long story short as an owner of A&A mini’s, classic, revised, pacific, Europe, BOTB and D-Day I prefer GC.

LT

In my opinion LT04 is totally right.

It is a very balanced game and makes a lot of fun. I like particularly the predominance of seaunits because naval warfare got a raw deal in the other games.

[Axisplaya]

About that “perfect balance” potential thing…

I have played a lot of GC games, and the more i play, the more i find out that the game really is not that well balanced.
If you don’t play with the optional tokens(banzai, coast watchers etc…), the japanese have a clear edge.
What is that edge ? Military ? Nope, 2 more cruisers for less planes is not an edge. They start with more islands ? Nope, at the end of the 1st turn, Americans will have taken control of as many islands as japanese, so they will not get less IPC.

The edge is that second double airfield island they have from the beginning and that americans have to attack sooner or later if they don’t want to loose. In fact, if Americans do not bring 3 supplys and troops on that island on the 2nd turn, they loose their only chance to build an airfield there because otherwise japanese will do that on turn 3(they build the 1st airfield there on turn 1). Then, for the rest of the game, they will have to bring more troops on that island every turn  just to be sure the japanese won’t score a victory point with the airfield american builted earlier. Japanese will constantly outnumber american on that island, and will have more shoots with artillery at the american fleet.
If the US doesn’t do that on turn 2, then all they have are desperate moves to try to even the score on turn 3, 4 or 5.

When we add the tokens, the game is completely different, and any side can win. The Good logistic combined with Amphibious assault and eventually command decision, if well used, may allow the US to wipe that 2 airfield japanese island, while the japanese can combine Banzai, quiqdrop and command decision to take control of any american island(for at least one turn).

If anyone knows a strat for US without the optional tokens to have a good game, i will be glad to learn from it.

[frimmel]

Is the US player using any rapid deployment to zone I on turn 1? Is Japan using any rapid deploy on turn 1?

My experience is that a first turn airfield on NG is a mistake for Japan that allows the US to call the tune. But maybe I haven’t played enough.

[Variable]

@frimmel:

But maybe I haven’t played enough.

I doubt that… :-D

[frimmel]

@Variable:

@frimmel:

But maybe I haven’t played enough.

I doubt that… :-D

So you’d agree that J building an airfield on NG on turn 1 isn’t some sort of ‘game over’ move from Japan?

[Variable]

It’s not game over at all. An extra JA airbase is an extra US target!

[Axisplaya]

I don’t know what you mean with “rapid deployment” Frimmel.  If you mean the use of supply to gain one or more zone when you deploy, this happens after the combat sequence, so the japs have absolutely nothing to fear on J1. Us player can bring all he wants on New Georgia on J1, there is no way he will beat the Japanese.
If, on J2, the us player brings absolutely all the troops he can and all his fleet on zone I and unload on New Georgia, then the japs will do about the same AND they will bring a supply, just in case the US fleet choose to shoot at the airfield and succeed….

So, i don’t see at all why it would be bad to build an airfield on J1 on New Georgia for the japs, and another one on J3 if the US player don’t do it on J2.

That said, I just want to say that i never said that “a sort of game over move” exists with that game. It is not broken at all. I just talked about an edge that the Japanese seem to have because of 2 airfields in New Georgia. I understand that it is necessary. Otherwise, with only 4 airfields on each side, the players would just just sit in their zone and wait, nobody would attack with the disadvantage of fighting in ennemy zone (artillery).
In my games, i just have not found a way to have a good game with the us against a competent oponent.
When i win with the us, it is because of japanese blunder or because i have been lucky.

[frimmel]

@Axisplaya:

I don’t know what you mean with “rapid deployment” Frimmel.  If you mean the use of supply to gain one or more zone when you deploy, this happens after the combat sequence, so the japs have absolutely nothing to fear on J1. Us player can bring all he wants on New Georgia on J1, there is no way he will beat the Japanese.

That is what I mean by rapid deployment. Is the US answering a turn one airfield on NG with warships (cruisers or battleships) into zone I during turn 1 reinforcement? Especially if Japan has left all of their reinforcement on the base card?

I certainly agree that a move  on NG for the US turn 1 is sub-optimal but in terms of advantage for J to do so in the long term I don’t see it.