Cool! I can’t wait! Keep going!
Variable's and Tall Paul's Naval Game Ideas
-
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” -
AGREED, Lets KISS it but expand it to the D-12 system and add all units. USA Heavy Tank, 2 possible options: M-26 Pershings or Jumbo Shermans armed with 105mm. Any ideas on this?
-
Unit List ADDENDUM,
Well, I forgot to list the Anti-Aircraft Guns, Mines, Major and Minor Industrial Complexes, Air and Naval Bases. Although these of course aren’t COMBAT UNITS
I thought I’d mention them simply for inclusion in the rules.“Coach”, was it you or FMG that had once said they planned to make some
3-D replacements for the “piece of cardboard” OOB AIR and NAVAL BASE pieces???For myself I was in the process of gluing the Red “victory” houses(painted Gray
w/I-94 decals) that you sell onto the “Airbase Markers” from the A&A Guadalcanal game to make my 3-D Air Bases.For the Naval Bases I turned the “ABM” upside down then painted them Blue to represent water, built a pier, and then glued the ptd/decalled House on. I wanted 24 of each,…but you ran out of the “ABMs”.
Also, I ordered the very simular I.C.'s out of the modern version of RISK from Mattel??? but they haven’t come in yet.
So what I’m saying is,…“Coach”, PLEASE save all of us from the
cardboard stuff.Like I always Say,……What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul” -
Gang,
EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic–(1.) Units and (2.) Rules
1. Units
I’m all for a Heavy US Tank. The main reason I didn’t list them is that they wouldn’t be quite appropriate for this early-war “Solomons” scenario. Also, I don’t know of anyone that has announced plans to make any. All of the units in the lists just made have already been proposed, or are already in the “pipeline” to be produced,…other than the DDAP Fast Attack Transport and The P-47 Thunderbolt. I think these 2 units are unique enough that the “Coach” would feel there is enough of a market for them to produce them. PLEASE, PLEASE, “Coach”. I think the US Heavy Tank would be very useful in later-war scenarios, especially European ones.
I’d suggest you ask the “Coach” or FMG about it for a future item.
----------------------------
2. Rules
As far as the Combat Rules we all agree on the “Standard A&A Rules, modified to a D-12 System”.
I’m encouraged in the progress we’re making here. Everyone completely agreeing on the important matters. Like I’ve said before,…I’m very glad that we have Tigerman on the TEAM. And with everyone else advising us, even including “the Coach”, and the “Imperious Leader”, I think that there’s a VERY GOOD chance that we’ll all be enjoying an EXPANDED A&A—Solomons Campaign Game in the future.
I want to encourage EVERYONE to get involved and offer their opinions and/or questions. I think this game (series?) could only benefit from it.
Like I always Say,…What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul” -
AGREED, Lets KISS it but expand it to the D-12 system and add all units. USA Heavy Tank, 2 possible options: M-26 Pershings or Jumbo Shermans armed with 105mm. Any ideas on this?
I do plan on doing a second mold in the future with a Pershing Heavy Tank as well as other US late war items!
Dont forget the Mack truck I am doing for the US set.
The Priest for the Self Propelled Artillery. -
TaDaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
@Tall:
Variable, Tigerman, and Others,
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.
As Variable would say, I guess it just “marinated” in my head long enough to become an actual idea.
As I always Say,……What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul”I will chime in on the naming convention since this kinda came into my mind this week.
First, I would like to stick to a more “naval”-centric name as apposed to a “land”-centric name. I’d like to stick with Coral Sea over Solomon’s since the whole drive here is the naval battles, not the jungle fighting.
Second, for the “series” of games we hope to make here, how about Axis & Allies Navies or AAN for short? The first game then could be Axis & Allies Navies - Coral Sea, or AAN-CS. Just a thought. Goes with what Larry has established…
-
**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. -
Hey “Coach”,
I had listed your Preist. I probably confused you by listing two differrent names for them,…Mech. Art. OR S/P-Art. and using a " under the S/P Art listing.
I didn’t forget your Mack truck, I just had to look up it’s proper name. I should have listed it as “HBG’s truck” until I labelled it properly,…Sorry about that.
Did you read my Questions about the Air and Naval Bases???
And the hopeful request for a P-47 Thunderbolt???
The “Jug” was my Dad’s favorite aircraft in WW2. He has so many fascinating stories about them and there deeds. Wow! Like watching a P-47 intentially overturn a Tiger tank with a 500 lb. bomb landed right beside it. And another time watching a P-47 take a direct hit from a “Flak” tower and then watching it struggle away, missing two complete cylinders which they found on the ground close to them. They were amazingly rugged brutes!, and with 8 50 cal. guns.
The reason I’d proposed the P-47 to you for production is that it was a true
FIGHTER-BOMBER, and as such would be more powerful on the attack than other fighters, which would give us more depth in our Air and Land gameplay. It might be good grouped with the B-29 and other aircraft, possibly.Like I Say,…What do YA’LL Think???
“Tall Paul”
Suggested Topics
