Tigerman77, Paul Tall and myself welcome you to the over 10 sets club for AA Naval ships. This keeps up Coach will have what he needs to proceed with the production. Anymore takers?
I am updating the first post every few days to let you know how the money is coming along.
We are at 12.6 % of funds needed to start sculpting!
Well everybody,
Well, with 32 votes cast let’s take another look at how the voting for the individual Ship types is going for the proposed US Naval Ships Set (#1?) is going.
Let’s break this down by votes:
22 Votes……The “Montana” Class Battleship
*No surprises here as I would expect EVERYONE can’t wait for this
Big Brute to be made.
21 Votes…Heavy Cruiser(Baltimore class?)
*A “Heavy” favorite in the voting it seems, haha.
19 Votes…“Midway” class Heavy Carrier
*Evidently a large number of Korean War fans around here.
18 Votes…“Independance” class Light Carrier
*A very useful tool in our WW2 carrier battles.
17 Votes…Light Cruiser, and the Consolidated PBY Seaplane
*the Light Cruiser will add more depth to our “gun” choices,
*and the PBY will allow us to add a “recon” function to our games.
16 Votes…Oiler, Destroyer Escort, and the “South Dakota” class Battleship
*the Oiler will allow us to add an “oil supply” neccesity for our ships.
*the Destroyer Escort will give us a valueable 2nd choice for
escorting our convoys and patrolling.
*the “SD” class were in several Pacific battles.
15 Votes…“Essex” class Carrier, and the “North Carolina” class Battleship
*the Essex’s were the backbone of WW2 naval Air combat.
*the “NC” class were some additional modern BBs.
14 Votes…“Tennessee” class Battleship
*at Pearl Harbor. I’m waiting for the “Coach’s” P.H. game.
13 Votes…LST Landing Craft and the Boeing B-29
*the LST will allow us to recreate large amphibious invasions.
*the SuperFortress,…What kind of Ship is this, “Coach”(grin)?
12 Votes…“Alaska” class BattleCruiser
*a beautiful ship, but slipping somewhat in votes.
11 Votes…PT “Patrol-Torpedo” Boat
*can you say PT-109? The PT Boat will give us wonderful
depth for convoy and base attack/defense. Although NOT being
in the voting from the start the PT is about to overtake the
“Alaska” class BC in popularity.
9 Votes…LCM Landing Craft-Mechanised and the “Colorado” class Battleship
*the LC-M will also assist in amphibious landings.
*the “C” class, another somewhat older Battleship.
8 Votes…LCVP “Higgins Boat” and the “Atlanta” class Light Cruiser
*the ICONIC landing Craft of WW2. Beginning to make a move
in the popularity contest.
*the “Atlanta’s” will add a lot of punch to our Task Force’s
anti-aircraft defense.
Come on people!!! These 2 great ship types deserve to be
included in the 1st Set of Ships made.
7 Votes…Minesweeper
*the DMSs will add SeaMine Warefare to our Naval games.
I’m excited about getting this little guy produced.
5 Votes…Seaplane Tender
*the Seaplane Tenders will allow a large expansion of our
“recon” funtion by being mobile bases for the PBYs.
4 Votes…F-9 Cougar Jet Aircraft
*who let those Korean War fans back in the room?
ONLY JOKING, guys, haha.
3 Votes…“Other” ???
The “Coach” keeps reporting that the number of people that are voicing their desire to see these ships produced by placing their money on the dotted line is steadily increasing. I would hope that everyone that shares that sentiment would express it to all of their friends so that we all might benefit from them being produced. We ARE making progree, though.
Thanks Again, “Coach”
“Tall Paul”
well done coach!
Well guys, I just went in and placed a second order for 5 more sets of these new US naval pieces. Don’t think I will really need that many, but if it helps get the ball rolling then it’s worth it. Man, that will be a lot of Montana class battleships and Midway class heavy carriers.
Sure hope the Alaska class battlecruiser makes the cut.
KNP,
As they say in the US Navy for congratulations, “Well Done”. Although you may at first think you have a few too many of a certain class of ship, there’s always Ebay to resolve that. I myself now consider it a very small price to pay to help the possibility of any of these ships to get produced. And these ships are quite inexpensive compared to the white-metal ships from GHQ and others. And as far as too many “Montana” class Battleships, when the Japanese player sees so many of these Big Brutes on the board he’ll no doubt call for an immediate Unconditional Surrender! haha.
At this moment I would guess that the “Alaska” class BattleCruiser’s chances of being produced are good. And remember, the “Coach” himself said it looked like there might be enough interest in all of these ships to make a 2nd set, too.
And as “Warrior” would say, welcome to the “10-Set club”. You know, we might call this the 1010 Club", named after the 1010 dock at Pearl Harbor(which was 1,010 feet long) where the USS Oglala was sunk. The 1010 Club referring to 10 sets of ships made possible by pre-orderring and then 10 sets of ships played with".
What Do YA’LL Think? I hereby nominate “Warrior” as President of the “1010 Club”.
“Tall Paul”
Tall Paul and others, I agree lets call it the USN 1010 Club, that is an excellent idea since we are talking about USN warships and units such as Essex, Montana, Alaska and Midway would have most likely been docked at the 1010 dock. KNP Welcome to our exclusive club. When we get around to pre-ordering for set 2 from Coach we will call it the USN 1010 #2 Club. :-D :-D :-D :-D
WARRIOR888
People should start making the values of these potential units on a D12 scale, then make the final selections or you might get a bunch of unusable units.
Its like making the pieces for a game before making the game first. The game concept has to determine the pieces needed to play and their attributes.
I am still wonder what to do with the Marine flame thrower and different Sherman and amphibious Sherman.
All you need is a early, mid and late war unit by type and which types are in the game.
Imperious Leader,
As always, you have a “knack” for going straight to the point and drawing the correct conclusion. I believe Patton’s quote was “straight for the jugular”.
We’ve been working on this and several other issues for our upcoming game,
Expanded A&A-The Naval Series, Coral Sea & The Solomons Campaign.
It was obvious right from the start that to clear up some conflicts between units we had to adopt a D-12 system. It also allows some “fine tuning”.
As we speak we’re starting work on the A/D/M/C factors for a D-12 system for every unit OOB and PROPOSED. Thank you for your previous opinions. I would be VERY happy if you’d care to express your opinions about the A/D/M/C for our Complete list of units we’re planning for our new game(s).
I’ve just started visiting the “House Rules” section and I wasn’t surprised that I found a lot of simple, logical, and effective opinions there. Most of them by you. Don’t get me wrong,…I’m NO brown-noser,…but I do recognize your obvious talent for rules. If you have time, come on over and help us out(again, I guess).
By the way, not too long ago I read some Fantastic “OIL RULES” that I thought you’d authored. But after spending the last 2 hours in the House Rules section(I got side-tracked by all the good stuff there) I couldn’t find the OIL RULES,…before my eyes got tired anyway. Could you please post a “link” for me? Thanks.
One of your rules I liked was that Tac-Bombers would only get a “boost” if there weren’t any enemy fighters in the combat. Much SIMPLER, LOGICAL, and EFFECTIVE than the OOB rule. This is the type of “SLE” rules we want and need for our new game. Hope to hear from you soon.
“Tall Paul”
The oil rules are for the land based oil centers and rolling dice for oil and effects for not controlling a oil center. They have nothing to do with naval oil rules. I see no need for tankers ( AO) unless you want some rule restricting range of ships unless they have a tanker.
I don’t see this detail as fun in these types of games.
Perhaps the tankers could deliver the IPC from islands for processing at factories. For example: Japanese control Borneo and the money now has to be ‘conveyed’ to Japan with a tanker by moving it to Japan and along the way the Allies can try to sink the tanker and her cargo. Again, this level of detail is not fun and i have tried these systems before.
IL,
First, Thanks for your response.
1st way to use “oil rules”:
I was thinking along the lines of ships having to be “refueled” every “X” number of turns. If they aren’t refueled, they are “idled”. This adds a necessary Naval “task” to be done. To your enemy, they(the Oilers) would be a “Target” worthy of exploitation. As important as Naval Support would be in a LARGE Solomons game I thought this might lead to some Naval battles. What do you think???
2nd way to use “oil rules”
The other way I read about oil being used was that you had to have enough “Oil Points” to SUPPORT the military that you’re able to buy, or some of it would be “idled”.
What do you think???
I thought that I rememberred this line of thinking as yours. I like these rules, especially in a G-40 type game if they could be succesfully implemented them. They aren’t my original idea at all.
“Tall Paul”
I am still wonder what to do with the Marine flame thrower and different Sherman and amphibious Sherman.
Imperious Leader and tall Paul
Here are several ideas we can kick around for use of the Marine Flame thrower, Flame Tank and the Amphib.
1st. Marine flame thrower use only to attack enemy Infantry Attack value on a D-12 Def 1 Attack 3 Movement 1.
You can only use the flame throwers And flame Tanks if you have a fuel supply token with that unit.
2nd. Flame tank use only to attack forts and pill boxes and Coast defense Guns. Def 2 Attack 5 movement 2.
3rd. amphib, You can only use with Marines. US Army didn’t use them from all my research. Def 1 Attack 2 Movement 1.
WARRIOR888
Warrior,
First off,…right now I’m extremely tired and I fear I couldn’t make worthwhile opinion on anything. But there’s alway later.
I’m POSITIVE that IL will have a great idea for them, though. I’ve been busy with the ships and haven’t really given these units any thought yet, but to keep the “SLE” thought pattern going I think they might be used against fortified structures like blockhouses, etc.(if we have any). Like I said, though. We need to keep things Simple, Logical, and Effective for gameplay speed.
As for the Flame Tanks. While I was talking to the “Coach” when orderring my Marines I asked him if he thought he might one day modify the Flame Sherman into a regular Sherman to sell. I would love to replace all of my OOB Shermans with his if so. I think I heard his “light switch” turn ON. Heck, it will be so simple just to trim off the small flame barrel myself if he doesn’t market them this way himself.
“Tall Paul”
I have implemented these units in my Okinawa game, soon to come out on HBG site.
A/D/M
LVT- 5/4/2. Can transport 2 inf.
Flame tank- 6/6/3. All hits are taken on defending units and not bunkers
flame infantry- 2/4/1. ". "
in Okinawa game bunkers are used to absorb hits and gives +1 to defending infantry at a 1/1 match. Flame tanks and infantry negate the bunker and hits have to be taken by defending units.
Tigerman,
This sounds logical. But I’ll be able to consider it better once I’ve had some sleep.
How’s your “Iceberg” going, buddy???
“Tall Paul”
About to start playtesting. Hopefully the game will be ready in 2 weeks!
Flame tank- 6/6/3. All hits are taken on defending units and not bunkers
flame infantry- 2/4/1. ". "
No offense, you have good ideas and are trying hard, dude. :-)
But in the real war, flame throwers was only used to attack strongpoints, bunkers, blockhouses, pillboxes and dug-in infantry, protected places that bullets and shells could not touch. Flame throwers was never used in defense against charging infantry or tanks, because in that case guns was a better choice.
So based on correct history, flame tanks and flame inf can only have attack value, and no defend value.
Also flame units should target fortifications, and get a boost against this type of units.
As for where to use them.
As far as I know only A&A D-day got blockhouse units in play, so flame units can be used in that game. Change the set-up US tanks on the map with flame tanks, and let them target the blockhouses.
As for the other A&A games, I think only Global 40 got a scale that will fit in flame weapons and fortifications. Larry is against it, so it have to be house rules. I think fortifications will only be placed in Western Germany, and US will never purchase more than 2 falme units in any game, so this unit may be moot, sorry.
@Razor…you misunderstood what I was talking about. The flame units don’t get anything in defense. If they attack a zone that contains a bunker(fotification, blockhouse) they inflict damage to the units inside. In the game I’ve created the blockhouses are used as fortifications that boost defense, but also can be used to absorb hits instead of the units. A flame unit attacks and makes a hit, the blockhouse cannot be used as a hit and a unit must be taken off the board. The game is being playtested and nit sure how this will work out. None the less the flame unitsin a tactical game could be used.
By the way, this is where variants are posted anyway. Of course if this unit was used in any WoC game it would have to be a house rule. This is why I have made a game where these units can be used.
Razor, I understand what you are saying about flamethrowers being an offensive weapon and therefore should have no defensive value. Perhaps the Marine infantry w/flamethrower shouldn’t have a defense value and have to depend on regular infantry units to protect him (sort of like transports are defended by other warships), but the flame-tanks are still Sherman tanks. They have machine guns and a 75mm artillery. Shouldn’t they still have a defense value like regular tanks?
Tigerman,
Your R#49 is so full of logic that I can’t help agreeing with it.
I think that the in the HUGE game that we’re working on of The SOLOMONS CAMPAIGN,…that we really need to have every decision we come to based on it’s being SIMPLE, LOGICAL and FAST.
I feel that very strongly because the game board will be so LARGE and we’re going to have so many expanded CAPABILITIES of gameplay from all of the new units. We really want this game to be as SIMPLE(read FUN) as possible while still taking benefit of any capability or rules that would expand the FUN factor.
To you, Tigerman I say, keep up the good work.
“Tall Paul”
