It depends on what “work” means – in other words, on whether players would consider a Kursk scenario appealing. Conceptually, Kursk would be similar to A&A D-Day (minus the water) in the sense that the battle was fundamentally a frontal assault on a heavily-defended static position, and similar to A&A Battle of the Bulge in the sense that it would involve ground forces driving into enemy lines, but different from both games in the sense that from the German point of view Kursk was a pincer movement aimed at pinching off a salient, and that from the Russian point of view it was a two-stage offensive-defensive battle. Personally I think it has good potential to make an interesting game, if it’s designed properly.
Variable's and Tall Paul's Naval Game Ideas
-
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–-Naval units—Specialised Rules
Gang,
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” -
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.
-
Warrior,
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–-General Discussions
Welcome
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.
Map size/scale
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.
Results Transfer
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.
Ship Types
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
OBB-14s.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???
“Tall Paul” -
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…
-
Gang,
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–-General Discussion
I think it might always be a good idea to pause and let things “marinate” in your brain.
I can see your point on the “reality” side of things. Although, like most of us I can recall the 1st Infantry having it’s rear-end saved from German Tanks by the US NAVY Cruisers off the beaches of Sicily.
I hear what your true concerns are and I understand them.
On the other hand, I have very real concerns that in order to improve this game to it’s “best” it could really become a “monster”, that while being more correct, might only be for the die-hard players such as grognards that would love to have every .45 pistol included. I overstress this point somewhat,…but I feel it would be soo much better if we could keep it as simple as possible.
It is already going to be a LARGE game, with MANY options, MANY new units with MANY new capabilities. With a larger number of sea/land spaces on the map it will lengthen the game somewhat and I would think if we could keep things as simple as possible, it might help speed the game along.
Also, I think if we keep the basic A&A combat system that everyone is already familiar with, it would enable players to “step into” this game(s), even with all of the additional units and capabilities, and play it well without a large learning curve. I think if we could pull that off it would be quite an accomplishment!
As I always say,…What do YA’LL think?
“Tall Paul” -
Darn it again,
I had a good long post in response to the Imperious Leader. When I tried to “post” it it said I might want to reconsider it as another posting had come in while I was typing this one. Although I pushed the alt+s buttons it didn’t post it and now it’s “lost”.
Is this a routine thing?
“Tall Paul” -
Tall Paul and Variable,
I think keeping the basic A&A combat system is important so to keep the game easy to learn and play. I know the concerns of a battleship taking out infantry, but on a d12 system a BB can roll against ships at an 8 or less, AA fire at a 4 or less and shore bombardment at a 3, cruisers 2, destroyers 1……each having different ranges! We can take a d12 system and keep it similar to the A&A system we have now.
I love the idea of a large map of the solomon islands campaign. I’m almost done with my Okinawa game, but wopuld be cool to have Tarawa, Pelileu, Philippines, Iwo Jima, and definetly Midway. Also we could make some games on missions that didn’t take place, similar to sea lion. Operation Causeway( Formosa ) and a alternate Pearl Harbour. We definetly have a blank canvas on to which we can make some awesome games with the pieces comming out. I would love to make a North Atlantic game where Germany has to destroy the convoys heading to Britain.
I want more tactical games for sure. One problem is making the games shorter so everyone can and want to play. In my Okinawa game I have made it to where you can play a short game or long game. Short game uses less units and no optional rules, long game uses more units and the optional rules! The optional rules include yamoto group comming to the rescue, the Japanese 9th division is sent back to help reinforce the island, one round of combat per turn. I’m going to revisit my Invasion of Italy game and change the combat system so the game isn;t as cumbersome.
-
Gang,
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topics–1. Rules Complexity, 2. Map Size/Scale
Rules Complexity
Tall Paul and Variable,
I think keeping the basic A&A combat system is important so to keep the game easy to learn and play. I know the concerns of a battleship taking out infantry, but on a d12 system a BB can roll against ships at an 8 or less, AA fire at a 4 or less and shore bombardment at a 3, cruisers 2, destroyers 1……each having different ranges! We can take a d12 system and keep it similar to the A&A system we have now.I completely agree with your thinking we need to keep the rules as SIMPLE and streamlined as possible. I think the “Basic A&A Rules” will not only do everything we need,…but make it EASIER to learn and understand as well as potentially faster.
I’m not sure about your “differrent ranges” idea, but I think all ideas should be thoroughly discussed and considered.
Another aspect we must understand is that this Solomons Campaign game is going to be so LARGE, and have so many NEW CAPABILITIES to take into consideration that we don’t want anyone to be OVERWHELMED !
Also, I think it would lend itself to having the two combatants, Japan and the USA/Allies subdivided into differrent commands making it into a four, six, or even eight player game. Whether each sub-divided command were along Air, Sea, and Land forces,…OR along mission-specific Task Force Commands of combined arms would be left up to the players. The point is,…with multiple players all co-operating, sometimes in a very close area, I think SIMPLICITY of the rules would allow for easier co-operation and co-ordination of the players.
Map Size/Scale
Tall Paul and Variable,
I want more tactical games for sure. One problem is making the games shorter so everyone can and want to play. In my Okinawa game I have made it to where you can play a short game or long game. Short game uses less units and no optional rules, long game uses more units and the optional rules! The optional rules include yamoto group comming to the rescue, the Japanese 9th division is sent back to help reinforce the island, one round of combat per turn. I’m going to revisit my Invasion of Italy game and change the combat system so the game isn;t as cumbersome.
I totally believe in the plan that it would be a major improvement to have a Solomons Campaign game that was significantly enlarged in size and detail. In doing so this would normally tend to slow the game down somewhat as there will now be more land zones to conquer, protect, etc.
But remember,…this is the Solomons,…made up entirely of smaller and larger islands rather than huge continents. While enlargement of these islands to a size to allow a more “tactical” level of play would obviously result in more land zones,…I think we must realize that the TOTAL number of the contested land zones would still be much smaller in numbers than the “continental” games we’re accustomed to,…and therefore shouldn’t contribute to a real slowing of the game. Obviously the map itself, and a lot of play-testing would be necessary to confirm this.
I love the idea of a large map of the solomon islands campaign. I’m almost done with my Okinawa game, but wopuld be cool to have Tarawa, Pelileu, Philippines, Iwo Jima, and definetly Midway. Also we could make some games on missions that didn’t take place, similar to sea lion. Operation Causeway( Formosa ) and a alternate Pearl Harbour. We definetly have a blank canvas on to which we can make some awesome games with the pieces comming out. I would love to make a North Atlantic game where Germany has to destroy the convoys heading to Britain.
I couldn’t agree more.
Like I always say,……What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul” -
Tigerman,
A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–-Maps and sizes
Tigerman, I looked up and found your 1939 Global map. NICE JOB! I must say I could see the results of a lot of work that went into it’s creation. Again,…Nice Job!
----------------------
Tigerman, I’m glad people of your talent are a major part of this project.
----------------------
With the understanding that a “Solomons Campaign” map would be significantly enlarged in scale, making all land areas larger…
But keeping in mind the islands in a “Solomons” map are,…in comparison to the land masses in a continental-type map,…much much smaller…
I believe the TOTAL land area would be EQUAL to or possibly SMALLER.
And the major battles themselves would be “concentrated”, so to speak, because the area would be smaller. I think this could lead to some titanic battles, possibly shortening the game.
Tigerman,…with your experience with maps, and your upcoming Okinawa map,…what would your opionion be regarding this assessment?
----------------------
As far as your Okinawa map what size is your “Iceberg” going to be?
----------------------
Also, as I’ve said many times before, it would be fantastic if we could end up with a SERIES of maps with the SCOPE of a campaign,…but SIZE of a 1940-global game.
“Tall Paul”
-
COMBAT RULES SYSTEM
Okay, I understand the preference toward the standard A&A system. It’s fine with me if our goal is KISS. But this would mean that even on a D12 system, each unit would have an attack value and a defense value. This is KISS. To have a value for regular combat, AA combat, and shore bombard is closer to the Guadalcanal rules that everyone is shying away from.
As far as your concerns about the number of contested territories, yes I think there would be fewer LAND territories than the Global games, but there are more naval battles (hopefully) that will make up for it. If you’re looking to keep each turn to about an hour, we better use a standard A&A combat system modified for D12.
-
Gang,
A&A Naval Game–-Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topics–-Combat System and Land Zones
Rules
I realize that the “standard A&A rules” are not the best way concerning specific combats,…but I feel that the longer we discuss it the more that we will realize that they are the best way as far as TIME and COMPLEXITY are concerned.
I don’t necessarily consider this issue closed,…but I think that we will all eventually see the value, as well as the need for the KISS method.
I believe the KISS method will allow us to USE all of the (projected) new units with their new capabilities without it becomming too complex or making the game extremely long.
----------------------
Land Zones
I’m glad to hear someone else with experience also thinks that the enlarged islands wouldn’t necessarily make for a longer game.
Also, you understand like me, that all of the associated support units(Naval & Air) would end up clashing,…sometimes in momentous fashion. These unplanned or unexpected battles can possibly be as important to the campaign as the main battle,… to say nothing of enjoyable.
I can’t wait so see and experience it!
Like I always Say,…What do YA’LL Think?
“Tall Paul” -
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.
-
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”
Suggested Topics
