Variable's and Tall Paul's Naval Game Ideas

Timerover and the Gang,

Expanded A&A–-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topic-Map Scale and PROPORTION

1. Timerover,  First off I haven’t DEMANDED anything, EVER!  I have simply been putting forth my opinion(which I encourage EVERYONE to do).

2. Also, as I stated plainly, that Tigerman, not I, is the “MAP MASTER” for this game.
And I stated emphatically that I YEILDED to his knowledge and experience in this matter.

@Tall:

Tigerman,

You are the “Map Master” of this project and I yield to your obvious knowledge and experience.  But I will continue with my ideas and opinions if I think them sound and important until you convince me otherwise.

3. If you, or anyone for that matter, took their map OF WHATEVER SIZE and had it mounted on 1/4" "Gater-Board or anything else including Poster-Board the map would be supported even if it hung over the outsides of the table a little.  I’m not suggesting you make your map oversize as I think everyone should have the size of map that they personally prefer and/or can afford as far as MONEY and SPACE concerns.

4. I AM thinking of the AVERAGE player when I’m suggesting that we keep our map in the same PROPORTION of the 1940-Global maps,…whether they are enlarged or not.

If I remember correctly, the ORIGINAL size of both the Europe and Pacific 1940(otherwise known as Global) was 36" x 80".  I may be off a little here, but that’s close.

If we keep our new map in the same PROPORTION as the original Global map,…we could have maps of:

24" x 60"    36" x 80"    48" x 108"    etc., etc., etc.

@Tall:

I hope that you might reconsider the map dimensions to include them at 48" x 108" or a proportionate fraction of that,…say 36" x 79".  I know the “Coach” at HBG has offerred to print maps at differrent sizes before.

I feel that if you were to include the “Full Size” Global Proportion that the increase in map area would be very USEFULL in a Solomons Campaign map(as well as others in this series).  We wouldn’t just gain a great deal of very important Sea Zones,…but also other islands and/or off-board locations like Truk, Esprito Santo, Nomea(?), locations along the Eastern New Guinea coast, and Port Moresby and /Australia.

I implore you to please keep this “full size global proportion(FSGP)” in your consideration.  Also, I think that many, many, players would also think this a great innovation in their gaming experience,…A smaller map in SCOPE of the Solomon Campaign EXPANDED to a larger size.

I’m guessing you didn’t read about the full sized global proportion(FSGP) or any of the above enough to let the idea sink into your mind.  Variable also made a post concerning this same idea using the word “RATIO”.  It’s a good post about this same subject but I don’t feel like making a “quote” from it simply because my screen is dancing like a “wild mambo” at the moment and it would seem too difficult to do.  Man this bouncing is frustrating!

5. It has been spoken of several times in this thread by myself and others that the “Coach”, of HBG fame, has several times offerred, even on his web-site, that he could print maps of differrent sizes.  You should be able to get a map the size you can use.  Especially if you have room to fit a 1940-global map.

@Tall:

I know the “Coach” at HBG has offerred to print maps at differrent sizes before.

Thus you shouldn’t feel ANY pressure concerning a map being too large for your purposes as you should be able to get one made in the size you desire.  That is only one of my many concerns for the AVERAGE PLAYER.

6. Tigerman was contemplating using a 48" x 60" map size.  As you can see this would be an approximately 40% reduction in the WIDTH of a map in PROPORTION or RATIO to the standard global size map.  For example:

Standard Global Map Ratios:
                      printed in differrent sizes.  24" x 60"    36" x 80"    48" x 108"
Tigermans contemplated Map:
                      printed in differrent sizes.  24" x 30"    36" x 45"    48" x 60"

@Tigerman77:

Maybe a 60x48 inch map would be good also.

You can see the significant differrence in the WIDTH of these maps.  I was concerned that we might loose valuable space (in width) for not only sea zones, but for some islands and off-board bases that could have a tremendous effect on the gameplay if they weren’t included.  We’ll decide on whatever is best in this case.

7. The two games on one map.

The Coral Sea Game would be a tactical-level naval game with no land combat, the Solomons Campaign is an operational-level game that has both sea and land combat.  The two levels are not compatible on the same scale map.

With all due respect,…I couldn’t agree less!  @Tigerman77 <br:< small=“”>> @CWO:

@Tall:

I think a map could be made where both scenarios could be played out. I’ll look into iot and get back to ya in next few days. I’m trying to finish up my Okinawa game. Might be able to look at this next week.

And it looks as if our acknowledged “Map Master”, Tigerman would agree with that.

Timerover, I hope you now have a better understanding of what I and Variable meant by proportions or ratios.  I truly value your input and would invite you to continue expressing your ideas, opinions and concerns,… just as I hope everyone will.

As I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                    “Tall Paul”</br:<>

“Gang”,

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topic-Search / Recon Rules

Although when I mentioned the possibility of only putting a Task Force Marker on the gameboard to represent any and/all TFs, I didn’t state that the entire composition of that Task Force would obviously be set aside OFF the gameboard until the TF was “spotted”.

Aircraft flying CAP missions, or ASW when speaking of enemy Subs,…could potientially intefere with the spotting ability of enemy aircraft or subs.  I would be interested in what your views might be on this.

As I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                  “Tall Paul”

There needs to be some type of supply system, as in Guadalcanal and Bulge games. Just saying! I’m gonna work on a map for this game in my spare time, seeing that the units won;t be out until spring of next year, if at all.

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomons Campaign
Discussion Topic-Search / Supply System

Supply system is a great idea, I like it. Men, Ships, Tanks and planes can’t operate without the scorned basics of Ammo, Beans, Fuel and spare parts.  How about using the supply markers from the Battle of the Bulge for this?  Cost IPCs to supply units.  If using convoys each ship could transport say 2 supply markers and if the ship is sunk they are lost.  Trucks on land transport 1 marker each, if destroyed supply marker is lost. Any thoughts on this?

WARRIOR888

I used a supply system in my Italy game. It’s a bit cumbersome but I thought necessary to hinder the axis moving to much too fast. I thunk in a naval game a supply system makes you purchase DD and DE to protect your convoys and makes subs more valuable. I think it will add a new demension to the game. Expanded A&A for sure, not only combat but logistics.

Ob another note we need general/admiral cards! In a tactical game alot rides on the commanders decision in battle. They are expensive to make but if we can get enough interest in this game maybe someone could make some to sell at a reasonable price! Just an idea. If not cards then we need a general/admiral system for battles.

“Gang”,

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomon Campaign

Discussion Topic-Supply & Logistics

Hey Gang,

1. I couldn’t agree more that we NEED a “supply & logistics” segment to our game series.  And it should play a very important part, too…ESPECIALLY in the Solomons Campaign.

2. I’m pretty sure when I made my List of Ships that I listed an AK Freighter, AO Oiler, and an AP Transport(personell) just for this reason.

3. Any way you “Slice and Dice” the Guadalcanal combat,…it was Still a Battle of Supplies, and their Use, Destruction or Protection.  Armys couldn’t move or fight, Aircraft couldn’t fly, nor Ships sail very long WITHOUT their SUPPLY!

4A. I think the addition of an AO Oiler into the games’ unit mix allows a wonderful opportunity for us to add a needed (yet SIMPLE) logistical support system, especially for the Naval Ships.  Not only would you have to have enough oil income(see below) to support a certain number of ships,…but you would also have to see that the oil reaches the ships every certain amount of turns or they run out(of Oil).

4B. Some time ago, I read a series of posts where the “Imperious Leader” was speaking on the virtues of the inclusion of OIL in an A&A game.  I will describe it to the best of my memory and I’m certainly paraphasing here.  It was a GREAT piece(as all of his I’ve seen so far have been).

The main points of his Oil strategy were that each gamepiece on the board required a certain number of “Oil points”(OPs) to be SUPPORTED.  Ships consumed the most Oil, Aircraft less, and Land units the very least.  Thus the point was you couldn’t simply build 20 Battleships unless you had the necessary Oil Points to SUPPORT them.

The Oil Points you of course earn through conquering map territories that produce Oil Points each turn.  It made a LOT of sense in having to balance your military power to your ability to supply them(with oil).  It could also lead to some great clashes all over the map(for Oil) instead of just the obvious strategic places of battle.  I had made a mental note that it was a GREAT SYSTEM and something we should definately consider.  I’ll look for it again,…and/or maybe we can get IL himself to describe it to us.

4C. And if I remember correctly it had also been discussed about using the “Oil Derricks” out of a game called “Wildcatter” to be the on-board representations of the Oil producing locations.  They were very good looking pieces and I remember the “Coach” of HBG had posted a pic of them.  These Oil Derricks were able to be damaged by combat actions just like Air Bases, Naval Bases, or Industrial Complexes.

5. I think that a Supply & Logistics System should be a MUST for ALL of the games in our Expanded Naval Series but especially for this Solomons game.  This is EXACTLY the type of EXPASION of CAPABILITIES that I had foretold of if we could get the necessary units produced(AO Oilers in this case).

Some of the primary considerations that we need to have about our supply system is that it should be:
SIMPLE, LOGICAL, and FAST in gameplay time.  I think the “supply markers” from the Guadalcanal game would be worth investigating for the supplies other than OIL, although my only concern here is if they are available.  I was planning to modify the “Air Base Markers” from that game to make some 3-D Air Bases for my Global game, but after I bought 26 of them, the “Coach” said he was out of them and didn’t know if he’d be able to get any more.

I am glad ya’ll are beginning to express your ideas and opinions more readily now.  I have been trying to hold back to a great deal because I was really trying to help concentrate all of our discussions into one or two ideas at a time.  I now can see that ya’ll aren’t afraid of openning several “cans of worms at the same time”(as the old Southern expression goes).  That’s great and I think it will only aid in the creative process.  Although this thread will obviously grow to an extensive length before we are done, I think the “discussion topic” notes will allow us to skip all over the place and then go back and find what we need later, wherever they end up in this thread.  And by the way, thanks for the topic notes you put on your post, Warrior, it will no doubt help doing this.

Some other topics for discussion:

Did ya’ll catch the small “blip” about “Battle Results Transfer” that I had posted sometime ago?  I’ll find it so we might discuss it further and see if ya’ll think it merits inclusion in the game or not.

Tigerman, I think I have an good idea of what you mean by General and Admiral Cards, but would you mind telling me the specifics of these?  Also, I saw that the “Coach” was asking the A&A.Org forum members the other day about where he might be able to have some custom cards made.

Also, I think that everyone else is now beginning to realize all of the distict possibilities for Combat that can occur simply through the games Naval Support.  Convoy Interdiction and/or the Total commitment of your Naval Surface and Naval Air Forces to hopefully ensure that a needed convoy gets through.  This (supply system) and many other types of naval functions can and probably will lead to a great many Naval battles, and some will be HUGE !  That is only one of the many reasons I think that a SOLOMONS CAMPAIGN game would be a fantastic arena to show off all of the new CAPABILITIES of our “Expanded A&A Naval Series”.

Well, I just get more and more excited about all of the possibilites of this Expanded gaming system the more I think of it.  I CAN’T WAIT !

As I Say,…What ?Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                       “Tall Paul”

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomon Campaign

Gents, lets keep this on track, map size is important I agree.  We need to look at larger map sizes for more islands and sea zones to control.  We all agree on this.  Has anyone besides Imperious Leader heard of this AA game?  The War Game: WORLD WAR II
The Biggest, Baddest, Supreme, King, Grandaddy of all World War II board games Entire game board (40" x 80") All units for everyone are Nazis.
Now this map is so big it will not fit on any standard dinning table nor does it fit on mine.  I set it up on the bed in the master bedroom.  It is hard mounted and very heavy.

So go out and look at the size of this massive map and lets consider a scale down from this to keep it affordable, payable and add additional features as we have previously discussed.
WARRIOR888

Warrior,

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topic–Map Size and Ratio

Warrior,

As far as the map and any “Scale-Down” let me just restate MY ORIGINAL THOUGHTS on this.

1. I am proposing that we have a map that is "campaign-based’ in SCOPE, expanded to the **size of a “Standard G-40 Map”**and using expanded pools of units with their expanded capabilities.

2. I never stated it, but I took it for granted that the MAIN OPTION for this map would be in a 36" x 80" SIZE(the standard G-40 map size).  Maybe if I were intelligent enough to have said this some time ago,…it would have relieved some people’s worries about the map being too large.  I apologize for my oversight here.

3. As long as we keep our map in this RATIO, it can be scaled UP or DOWN to the size that the owner CHOOSES.  Please refer to R#68 for this.  This should take care of any concerns about this.

4. I would prefer to think about the “Grandaddy Map” from the viewpoint of:

IF I wanted a LARGE map I could take the “standard G-40 ratio” map that we will make available and ENLARGE it myself(OR have the “Coach” print it that size for me).

OR……

I wanted a SMALLER map I could ETC., ETC., ETC.

---------------------------

I am really begginning to tire of explaining our map and it’s RATIO.  If I’m not out
of line here,…let’s just all assume that until we decide to change it,…the map will be the “STANDARD G-40 SIZE of 36” x 80".  The customers can print it the whatever the Heck(NOT the word I wanted to use) size they want it to be.  If you have room for a G-40 map,…No Problem.  If Not, print it smaller.

For the record.  I have an “open mind” to any and all changes that we might decide to make.

However, I think that this expanded game would be best served by a
“standard G-40 size map” and the capabilities it affords.  A Naval game by definition is going to require a good bit of “Manuevering” room and the sea zones to support that.

Our “Map Master” Tigerman will inform us ALL on what he thinks is the way to go on the map once he has some time to contemplate it.

As I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                         “Tall Paul”

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomon Campaign

Tall Paul. I concur, lets put the map size to rest and see what the master map maker comes up with.  I like the idea of large battle specific maps.  Let concentrate on the rules for our units.  I propose we start with the basic unit infantry and Marines and build from there.  Any suggestions are more than welcome on how to convert to D-12.  We need to remember to keep it fun and highly playable.  Imperious Leader any help you want to provide with designing a D-12 system for this is welcome and appreciated.  WARRIOR888

“Gang”,

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topics-General “Stuff”

Warrior,

1. Bless you for NOT saying anything about map size or ratio.  I pray that a lost Heavy Bomber Squadron finds you and decides to assist you in your next War(Grin).

2. I like how you said “battle-specific maps”.  That has quite a “ring” to it.  Write that down to use in our world-wide advertising campaign.  OK, Well,…write it down, anyway.

3. As far as the rules,…In the last hour or so I’ve been talking(posting) with the Imperious Leader himself and he’s already offerred some good suggestions.  I’m hoping he’ll return to this thread to post a bunch more of his distinct knowledge, hopefully to include his opinions of the A/D/M/C factors of ALL of the units we’re proposing to use.

I had asked him about 2 differrent “Oil Rules” that I thought were his ideas that we could use.

The MAIN OBJECTIVE for all of us in this project should be to make it FUN.

And I strongly believe that that can best be accomplished by the rules that make the gameplay SIMPLE, LOGICAL, and FAST!

Like I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                      “Tall Paul”

Tall Paul, 
I think we can make some headway on this.  Imperious leader on another thread wondered what to do with the Marine Flame thrower flame tank and amphib, I offered several ideas for rules for their use.  Take a look and let me know what you think.  We have got to get this done right the first time by using the collective minds of everyone who has some expertise on these areas.

WARRIOR888

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomons Campaign

Tall Paul and others lets nail down the factors for our naval units.  I have plugged in the vacant slots with proposed factors.  let get the ball rolloing on this so we have something done before we see a proposed map.  This will allow us to start to concentrat on the rules for these units.

Discusion Topic––Naval units(Attack, Defense, Movement, Cost)

I think the ONLY way possible that I see for us to have all of these differrent ship types(between 19-24) and make it work would be to go with a 12-sided dice.  This alone would make it possible to differentiate between some of the units as far as attack values go.

Here’s a listing of the (proposed) Naval units and their possible Attack/Defense/Cost values.
    Please don’t hesitate to voice your opinions here.  I sincerely welcome a lot of discussion on this.  Variable, Please don’t think I’m entruding on your area of expertise,…I’m just trying to get the discussion going.  Your opinion is paramount, here.

Description                Attack  Defend  Movement  Cost

PT      Patrol/Torpedo Boat        2        2            2          4
SS      Submarine                    4        2            2          6
DDAP  Attack Transport            2        2            2          6
DE      Destroyer Escort            3        3            2          6
DD      Destroyer                    4        4            2*          8
CL      Light Cruiser                  5        5            2*        12
CLAA  Anti-Aircraft Light Cruiser 5        5(*      2*        14  against aircraft
CA      Heavy Cruiser                6        6            2          14
BC      BattleCruiser                8        6            2        16
BB      OLD Battleships            8        8            2          18
BB      Battleship (Iowa)          9        9          2*        20
BB      Battleship (Montana)    10      10          2*        24
CVE    Escort Carrier                0        1          2            10
CVL    Light Carrier                  0        2          2*          16
CV    Carrier (Essex)              0        2          2*          20
CV(H) Carrier Heavy (Midway)  0        3          2*        25
AO    Oiler                            0        0          2            10  You gota defend them
AP    Troop Transport            0        0          2            14  You gota defend them
AK    Freighter                      0        0          2            12  You gota defend them
DMS  Minesweeper                  1        1          2            6
AV    Seaplane Tender            0        0          2            10
LCVP  “Higgins” boat                0        0          2            6  Cheap to build, use for invasion
LCM  Landing Craft-Mechanised 0        0          2            8  use for invasion
LST  Landing Ship-Tank          0        1          2            10  Def is against Aircraft only use for invasion

WARRIOR888

“Gang”,

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea and The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topics-1.House Rules" and 2.Naval Units(A/D/M/C Factors)

1. Warrior,  Presently I’m putting most of my attention into other people’s “House Rules” or some of my own, that would be possible to include in this game.

I’m being very focosed in my thoughts that we shouldn’t add something just to add something.  Whatever “House Rule”, “Capability”, or ANYTHING for that matter, that we consider adding MUST meet the criteria of it being SIMPLE, LOGICAL, and FAST as far as gameplayis concerned.

There may even be something the we decide to make “optional” or not include that would be interesting, but would slow the gameplay down considerably.  I’m all for having as much FUN as we can in this game,…but we must remember to keep focosed on the “big picture” enough that we don’t make a “Monster” game that nobody could ever complete playing.  That point should be kept in the back of all of our minds so as to help guide our decisions accordingly.

2. Let’s see.  Keep in mind that “costs” of units also depends on their value as far any special “CAPABILITIES” that they might add to this game.

Let me FIRST and FOREMOST say that I think that the Imperious Leader has shown that he has a very complete and knowledgeable understanding of the Rules, Units, and their Value.  In the part of the “House Rules” section that I’ve been able to study so far, he has shown a very helpful attitude towards sharing his opinions for the benefit of the game we all love, Axis & Allies.  He’s posted a few succinct ideas about our specific game so far, also.

If you haven’t already done so, I think we should ALL go to the “House Rules” section and STUDY the ideas found there and the IL’s opinions of them.  This would no doubt give us all a better understanding of the WHYs WHATs, and HOWs involved and prevent a lot of unecessary “discussion” back and forth.

As far as the Naval Units List and their a/d/m/c factors:

First thing that I notice is that I overlooked including the LVT “Alligator” Landing Craft that HBG has already made.  WOW, sorry about that, “Coach”  MY MISTAKE.

Second, we still need to discuss several attributes of the various Aircraft Carriers.  CAPACITY of A/C aboard, Speed(which in this case would mean MOVEMENT FACTOR of 3).  This certainly could affect their value-PRICE.

Third,  IMHO all of the non-combat AUXILIARIES such as the AO, AP, and AK ships logically should have ZERO A/D factors.  Probably the LST, LCM, and LCVP, too. This not only parallels the train of thought for transports(and is S,L,& F), but forces a player to ESCORT these units or risk losing them.  Supply, Refueling, or Transport Task Forces would be another expanded function of this “Naval” game and become a “target” for your enemy.

The DMS and AV should generally follow these same principals, although we might consider giving them a “slight” defensive factor.  I haven’t given enough thought to this yet.

The PT boat can become an interesting little unit(in gameplay terms) in that it could create an inordinate amount of “Naval” escorting to be done to defend against the “stings” of these little bees.  These should also be considerred a “coastal-type” of unit that would need to stay within a certain amount of sea zones from the coast.

The APDs(that I wrongly labelled APDDs above) are pretty much Transports that were a little faster and were a little more agile than regular AP ships.

Like I said before, I’m really concentrating mostly on a lot of “House Rules” that cover the new units and/or new capabilities that this game would benefit from including.  We just have to remember to keep things SIMPLE, LOGICAL, and FAST in gameplay in order to make everything work.

I’m sure IL as well as numerous others will offer their thoughts here, too.  As for me,…I’ll be glad to welcome everyones thoughts.

-------------------------------------------

By the way,…here are some “terms” that we should all remember:

SIMPLE…enough said
S, L, & F…Simple, Logical, and Fast (as far as gameplay)
FSGR…Full Size Global Ratio (basic G-40 map ratio)
“Map Master”…Tigerman (haha)
Expanded…Exactly what we’re trying to do here
FUN…the ultimate objective of all of this

Like I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                        “Tall Paul”

@WARRIOR888:

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomons Campaign

Tall Paul and others lets nail down the factors for our naval units.  I have plugged in the vacant slots with proposed factors.  let get the ball rolloing on this so we have something done before we see a proposed map.  This will allow us to start to concentrat on the rules for these units.

Discusion Topic––Naval units(Attack, Defense, Movement, Cost)

I think the ONLY way possible that I see for us to have all of these differrent ship types(between 19-24) and make it work would be to go with a 12-sided dice.  This alone would make it possible to differentiate between some of the units as far as attack values go.

Here’s a listing of the (proposed) Naval units and their possible Attack/Defense/Cost values.
    Please don’t hesitate to voice your opinions here.  I sincerely welcome a lot of discussion on this.  Variable, Please don’t think I’m entruding on your area of expertise,…I’m just trying to get the discussion going.  Your opinion is paramount, here.

Description                Attack  Defend  Movement  Cost

PT      Patrol/Torpedo Boat        2         2            2           4
SS      Submarine                     4         2            2           6
DDAP   Attack Transport            2         2            2           6
DE       Destroyer Escort            3         3            2           6
DD       Destroyer                     4         4            2*          8
CL       Light Cruiser                  5        5            2*         12
CLAA   Anti-Aircraft Light Cruiser 5         5(*      2*        14  against aircraft
CA      Heavy Cruiser                6         6            2          14
BC      BattleCruiser                 8         6            2         16
BB      OLD Battleships             8         8            2          18
BB      Battleship (Iowa)           9         9           2*         20
BB      Battleship (Montana)     10       10           2*         24
CVE    Escort Carrier                0         1           2            10
CVL    Light Carrier                  0         2           2*          16
CV     Carrier (Essex)               0         2           2*          20
CV(H) Carrier Heavy (Midway)   0         3           2*         25
AO     Oiler                            0         0           2            10   You gota defend them
AP     Troop Transport             0         0           2            14  You gota defend them
AK     Freighter                       0         0           2            12  You gota defend them
DMS   Minesweeper                  1         1           2            6
AV     Seaplane Tender             0         0           2            10
LCVP  “Higgins” boat                 0         0           2            6  Cheap to build, use for invasion
LCM  Landing Craft-Mechanised 0         0           2            8  use for invasion
LST   Landing Ship-Tank           0         1          2            10  Def is against Aircraft only use for invasion

WARRIOR888

These look pretty good, might need some tweeking as the game progresses. I have a few comments

1. All carriers get a defense factor but it is against aircraft only.

2. Need to make sure that the older/slower ships are represented as slower ships.
   &

3. With the scale of this game, ship movement may be more than just the normal A&A global game. 3 or 4 may be the standard movement with slower ships less and faster ships more.

4. Smaller ships need to have a range limit….something simple( ex. D.Escorts can travel the high seas if matched with another DD or bigger. If by itself has to end movement near a coastal zone.) just an idea!!

Tigerman and “Gang”

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topic–Naval Unit A/D/M/C Factors

Tigerman,  I’m working towards the A/D/M/C factors through studying the capabilities of the units.  In studying the “House Rules” I’m coming to a point where my opinions on everything’s A/D/M/C factors will be more succinct.  This should prevent a lot of uneccessary “back & forth” from everyone in the croud.

Honestly,…I’ve also come to the conclusion that some people don’t even try to “get the point” of some posts,…they just “snipe” at any comments or mis-spellings" you make and add nothing benefitial to the discussion.  This tires me, especially since I’ve read 4,000+ books on WW2 and know “a little bit” myself.

Regarding your R#81

1.  This is LOGICAL,  CV a/a defense ONLY as they were very vulnerable ships.  This should be easy enough to remember in combat and I’m FOR it.  My only concern is that we don’t make too many EXCEPTIONS or SPECIAL rules for units in this game.  Remember, we’re going to have dozens of differrent units and many new capabilites in play here.

I personally don’t think anyone would be interested in having to carry around a
500-page rule book or have a referee just to play this game.  I’m making an EXTREME EXAGERATION here to make a point.  As much as possible, we need to keep this in mind.

2. Ship SPEED as represented by MOVEMENT FACTOR.  Not only is this “SLF”, I’m very interested in hearing other people’s opinions on this as I think this would add another level to the STRATEGY of the game.  I’m all for differrent MFs of ships.  Think “Fast Carriers”.

3. PLEASE E-MAIL me a.s.a.p. as I’ve been requesting because I have a radical idea concerning sea zones that I’d like the “Map Master’s” opinion on before “openning that can of worms” here.

4. I’m afraid I disagree with your DE coastal theory.  Yes, all ships will have a “fuel range” IF we use an “oil rule” concerning naval refueling.

My intent for having a naval “fuel range” rule was simply to make refueling Task Forces necessary, and through the Escorting and Protection of them it might lead to some Naval battles.  Although we could use “fuel #” chips under the TF markers to indicate fuel remaining, we should take care not to make things too complicated. 
The IL himself said he had thought of this before and believed the “fuel range” rule wasn’t FUN.  He may be right.  BUT,…I don’t think he took into consideration our much expanded map size and the more tactical gameplay in this Solomons game.  I would be very interested in IL’s more in-depth opinion on this.  We need a lot more discussion on the “naval fuel range” rule.

Anyway, we ARE making progress here.  I think after we talk out all of the differrent “house rules” and “new capabilities” we plan to include in our game things will move along rather quickly,…with the unit a/d/m/c factors and everything else.

Good work Tigerman, keep it up.

Like I Say,…What Do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                    “Tall Paul”

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea & The Solomons Campaign

Tigermann, I agree with your ideas.  Battleship row was intact for the IJN to destroy because Admiral Halsey considered the fat Battlewagons to slow to keep with the Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown and Saratoga. Admiral Kimmel agreed.  LST I gave a AA factor of 1 since all were armed with multiple 50 cal HMGs.  PT boats and small craft need to be limited at to 1 or 2 sea zones from land otherwise consider them lost at sea.

Carriers all must have a defense against aircraft.  Max aircraft carried on each CV.
CVE  1 ea                     AA def 1
CVL  2 ea                     AA def 1
CV   3 ea  OOB              AA def 2
CV   3 ea Essex Class     AA def 2
CV   4 ea Midway Class  AA def 3

WARRIOR888

Tall Paul, don’t forget fast Battleships, South Dakota Class, Washington Class and of course the Iowas were fast enough to escort the Fast carrier task forces.  The older BBs were to slow and were regulated for shore bombardment and transport escort.

WARRIOR888

Warrior and “Gang”,

Expanded A&A-The Naval Series
Coral Sea and The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topic-Naval Unit A/D/M/C Factors

Warrior,  Although you’re correct about the slow speed of the old BBs and their
non-inclusion in the CV TFs bound for Midway and Wake,……

You seem to have forgotten about all of the Oilers that were transferred to the Atlantic prior the the P.H. attack.  If Kimmel had been permitted to retain these Oilers he intended to keep the Battleships at sea, refuelling them there(around P.H.) and basing them out of Lahainia Rhodes(I’m sure I badly messed that name up).

--------------------------------

As far as the LST in particular, and ALL of the other “Transport & Landing Craft” type ships(excepting the LVT which deserves an A/D factor) I think a SIMPLE all-governing rule is called for here.  Remember,…“SLF”.  Let’s make all of these “Transport & Landing Craft” types the SAME A/D factor and SIMPLE.

The range of sea zones that a PT Boat would be allowed from shore would HEAVILY depend on the MAP and the amount of SZs in it.  PT range from shore should be finalized later, after we have the map.

You make a good point for differrent a/a “D” factor of the various CVs.  It’s LOGICAL but slightly complicates the unit factors.  I think I would lean towards AGREEING with you on this.  What do you think TIGERMAM???

As far as the “Midway” class Heavy Carrier I would hope that we might all agree here and now that this post-WW2 unit should NOT be included in our game series OR in our discussions.

And of course, if you were to THINK “Fast Carriers” as I said previously and other places in this thread, the idea of the “Fast” TFs certainly includes “Fast” escorts.  And by the same thought process SLOWER units should be represented as such also.

Warrior, I want to thank you for your thoughts here and encourage you to continue to help in the discussions.  I feel everyone has something they can contribute to the mix.  That’s why I’m always saying,…

What Do YAAAAAAAAAAAA’LL Think???
                                                                                    “Tall Paul”

Everone,

In rereading my last post I realized that it might be misinterpreted as being “overbearing”.  I certainly didn’t mean to come across this way.  Sorry to anyone thinking that.  I was simply in a hurry (to go eat) and “blitzed” through my reply without thinking about anything other than responses.  Oh well, life goes on.

“Tall Paul”