Variable's and Tall Paul's Naval Game Ideas

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”

@WARRIOR888:

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!

**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”

Timerover,

EXPANDED A&A–-Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topics-Units

A.  As far as the “Fast Attack Transports” you are correct on the proper designation of APD.  I couldn’t remember and was too tired to grab a book and look it up so I “winged” it with DDAP.  I felt everyone would know what I was talking about through my description, although I really should’ve put a (?) mark by the DDAP designation.  Thanks.

B.  Timerover,  What I meant by “Fast Carrier” was as an description.  Like in the book “The Fast Carriers”, by Clarke Reynolds.  I might not have the title exactly right, but close enough.  It differrentiated the CV and CVL carriers from the CVEs.  As it concerns our game it would mean a MOVEMENT FACTOR of 3 for the CVs and CVLs instead of just 2 for the CVEs.  I guess I didn’t explain myself well enough.  I wasn’t suggesting “Fast” in any way other than as an description,…not a separate classification.  “Fast” equaling a MOVEMENT FACTOR of 3.  What do Ya’ll think???

C.  The point that I was making about the “Midway” class CVs was that they weren’t even around for the period we are concerned with,…WW2, which was exactly my point.

D.  As far as the Lists of Units, I had included all of the units that would be considerred for the WHOLE SERIES of games instead of only the ones appropriate for this Solomons game.  I thought that was what we wanted to discuss.  The Attack and Defense factors of ALL of the Units.

E.  I never said anything about a Sherman “Jumbo” being used in our series of games.

Although I, like many others, would enjoy having this unit for some European scenarios, which is what I thought I told WARRIOR.

@Tall:

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.

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.

F.  As far As S/P Art. I was listing it because it would be in the “pool” of units that we would be using in a LATER “Phillipines” campaign in this series.  And we were about to discuss ALL of the Attack, Defense, Movement, and Cost factors of ALL the units.

G.  Mines.  I was refferring to Mine Warfare as far as SHIPS are concerned.  Not landmines, or I would have referrred to them as such.  As far as the use of naval mines in our GAME, I think many players might like this capability,…maybe to recreate the scenes of the movie “In Harm’s Way” with John Wayne and Kurt Douglas.  Powerful Stuff.  I think we could SIMPLIFY this aspect enough to make it feasable.  Possibly by limiting the total number available.  If we’re lucky enough to get the “Coach” to produce some DMS Minesweepers I think we could find a FUN and real use for them.

H.  The P-51 and B-29 would be very useful for some LATER campaigns in this series.

I.  And although the P-38 was used somewhat as a Fighter-Bomber,  it’s use as such was nowhere NEAR that of the F-4U.  Many Corsair pilots complained that they were more Bombers than Fighters.  I’m sure they were all interested in becoming “Aces”.  There are literally dozens of books concerning this, whether about the South Pacific, or SouthWest Pacific theaters.

Thanks again, Timerover for your contribution.  Please continue.

I hope this “post” makes sense as I stopped and started several times.  As it’s 3:45 am here, I’m going to bed.

We must all remember that this is a GAME.  And as such we need to take efforts to make sure it is the FUN that we stress MOST.

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

“Gang”,

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

Discussion Topic–-New Name(?).

I like the point made about stressing the “NAVAL” in the name.

By the same token, I like the stressing of the “EXPANDED” in the name also, for the
previously mentioned reasons.

@Tall:

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.

With this map we can obviously have two COMPLETELY SEPARATE games played on a common map.  Just think about that for a minute.

(1.) The battle of the Coral Sea, and (2.) The Solomons Campaign, BOTH.

Even the Battle of the Bismark Sea for a 3rd.  Although this was more of a Shooting the Ducks in the Barrel type of battle, haha.

While the Coral Sea battle would be an almost pure NAVAL affair,…

The Solomons Campaign game would be something more like a 40% Naval, 30% Air, and 30% Land battle.  These are what I think the GAME would more than likely feel like.  Please don’t anybody give me any grief about these figures, they are an educated guess, only.  Of course I’m taking into consideration not only COMBAT,…but ALL of the SUPPORT operations, also.

Anyway, we all know the name isn’t a real priority at the moment.  But it couldn’t hurt for people to hear our “tag” and have an good idea of what it’s all about.

If we all just keep “OPEN MINDS” and let this(to use your expression) “marinate” in our heads for a while we’ll no doubt get it done.

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

I haven’t had time to read in detail through this long discussion thread, so here are just a couple of thoughts which may have already been covered elsewhere.

@Variable:

If you want a true naval engagement where anything can happen, I would think Midway. Trouble with Midway is, game-wise it’s a bit unbalanced.

Midway was indeed very unbalanced in terms of naval force ratios (I think Yamamoto had something like ten times as many ships as Fletcher and Spruance)…but note that it’s the weaker side which ended up winning the battle.  In terms of the key units, the big fleet carriers, the Japanese only had a four-to-three advantage.  The fighting soon reduced this to a zero-to-two ratio, at which points the Japanese fleet withdrew.

Another idea is that any Midway game has to have some sort of concealed-movement and reconnaissance mechanism.  This was a crucial aspect of the engagement – something which the movie Midway from the mid-70s conveyed very well.  Recommended viewing (despite some aspects that detract from the film) as a source of inspiration for anyone designing a Midway game.

@CWO:

I haven’t had time to read in detail through this long discussion thread, so here are just a couple of thoughts which may have already been covered elsewhere.

@Variable:

If you want a true naval engagement where anything can happen, I would think Midway. Trouble with Midway is, game-wise it’s a bit unbalanced.

Midway was indeed very unbalanced in terms of naval force ratios (I think Yamamoto had something like ten times as many ships as Fletcher and Spruance)…but note that it’s the weaker side which ended up winning the battle.  In terms of the key units, the big fleet carriers, the Japanese only had a four-to-three advantage.  The fighting soon reduced this to a zero-to-two ratio, at which points the Japanese fleet withdrew.

Another idea is that any Midway game has to have some sort of concealed-movement and reconnaissance mechanism.  This was a crucial aspect of the engagement – something which the movie Midway from the mid-70s conveyed very well.  Recommended viewing (despite some aspects that detract from the film) as a source of inspiration for anyone designing a Midway game.

I agree. If we do a midway game you would have to move your ships with the fleet pieces, as in AAP game. Then when they have been identified place the units on the board.

One idea for concealed movement and reconnaissance would be to use a mechanism similar to the “dummy task force” one in the 1992 3W game “Sink the Bismarck!” (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7140/sink-the-bismarck).  As I recall, the German player has at his disposal a number of tokens which are placed at several separate locations on the map and which are moved on each turn.  One of these (known to the German player but not to the opponent) represents the real Bismarck; the others are fake units.  The British player has to send out reconnaissance units to survey these German tokens, and it’s only at the moment of contact with a given unit that the British player will be able to see whether that particular token is a dummy (at which point it’s removed from play) or the actual Bismarck.  In a Midway game, these tokens would stand for entire task forces (whose component ships would be kept off the board until they were located by the enemy) plus several fake ones.

CWO,

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

Discussion Topic-Recon and the Fog of War

Thanks for your contribution and WELCOME to the discussion, CWO.

Chief, (I presume that’s what the CWO stands for)

The designation of unknown task forces with a representative “token” is along the lines of what I was considerring.  It would give our PBY’s their reason to be, as well as the AV(?) Seaplane Tenders by serving as mobile bases for them, which is what they were designed for.  (I’m still thinking about our Solomons Campaign game.)

I’m sure many people have much more gaming experience with this aspect than me, but although I really like the Task Force Designator idea, I don’t think I’m a fan of the “dummy” contacts for NO reason.  I believe we will have enough to do in this game without the “dummys”.

Topic Headings

@CWO:

Since this will no doubt be a LONG discussion thread, as we have so many things to discuss, I’ve gone to the effort of trying to “label” everything so that we can go back and refer to them easier.  I’m sure that we will all skip around in our discussions quite frequently.  Sometimes it’s hard to stay on the current topic of discussion, and we don’t want to discourage discussion on ANYTHING that applies to the games we are planning to produce.

Naval Games-Pacific

Yes, I agree completely that Midway would be an important, almost purely Naval-type game(in the Pacific) like we are talking about.

One would also have to think of Leyte Gulf, Surigao Straight, and all of the Phillippine actions as well.

I also think that a Coral Sea action, that Variable likes so much, would also be another almost purely Naval-type action, albeit a little smaller in scope than Midway.

What do YA’LL think about the idea of having two games, a CORAL SEA naval action, and the entire SOLOMONS CAMPAIGN covered on one map???

Remember, we’re talking about the map being the same size as a 1940-global map in size and area.

Do you think that this would minimise the Coral Sea action in ANY way???

Don’t you think the Solomons Campaign would have plenty of room to be ALL-INCLUSIVE of everything covered in “Operation Cartwheel” as previously described.

I think we’d have plenty of space to do BOTH, and what a BONUS that would be to the players!

Tigerman is the experienced mapmaker here.  TIGERMAN, what is your opinion of the plausibility of having BOTH the CORAL SEA action, and the SOLOMONS CAMPAIGN games on a single 1940-global size map?

I look forward to his experienced opinion and at the same time encourage everyone else to express their views, also.

Like I Say,……What Do YA’LL Think???

@Tall:

I’m sure many people have much more gaming experience with this aspect than me, but although I really like the Task Force Designator idea, I don’t think I’m a fan of the “dummy” contacts for NO reason.  I believe we will have enough to do in this game without the “dummys”.

The dummy markers don’t serve as a pointless make-work exercise.  Their purpose is to offer a solution to the problem of how one incorporates concealed movement into a game without having to use duplicate boards and a neutral umpire (in other words, they allow information to be openly displayed in a two-person game, while still concealing a key factor from the other side). Their aim isn’t to get the other player to chase ghosts, their aim is to make the real task force difficult to identify while keeping it findable if the opponent searches in the right place. The trick, in effect, is that they make it possible for the information about the composition of a real tak force to be kept separate from the information about its location.  The ship sculpts kept in a group off the board give the composition of the real task force, but not its position.  The markers on the board give the possible locations of the task force, but not its composition (because some of the markers are dummies).  Reconnaissance is the activity which allows the location and composition information to be connected (once the searcher finds the right marker).  The presence of dummy markers simply reflects the fact that the searcher at first doesn’t know exactly where the enemy is located, and that a referee isn’t being used to keep track of who has made contact with whom.

Chief,

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

Discussion Topic–-“Dummy” Task Force markers

Chief,

Thank you for your thorough explanation of the “dummy” TF markers.  I appreciate it.
My only concern here would be if this would take too much time?  What is your opinion here, Chief?  Remember,…In the Solomons Campaign game we are planning a huge game on a huge map with LOTS and LOTS of naval action, both combat and support.  If you think it wouldn’t be too time consuming I think it certainly deserves more attention.  I think more discussion is called for on this topic.

Thanks for your bringing up something that could very well determine how our recon is handled.

Do you think it would be overly-simplistic to just place a TF marker on the board for all active TFs?  The enemy not knowing the composition of it unless they “reconned” it with appropriate units?(Subs, Ships, Aircraft, Coast Watchers(?)  This would certainly lessen the “where is it” aspect of RECON, but would take little time, and also lead to the implementation of “Decoy”, “Ghost”, “Ambush”, and "Multi-TF Groups of TFs.  My ideas here are not completely fleshed out, but I would compare it to the TF markers/recon ideas of the computer game “PACIFIC WAR by Gary Grigsby” of several years ago.  Is anyone here familiar with that game?  If I remember correctly a version of it was later released as “Uncommon Valor, Campaign for the South Pacfic”.  My memory is a bit fuzzy on the title but I think that’s correct.

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

@Tall:

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

Discussion Topic–-“Dummy” Task Force markers

Chief,

Thank you for your thorough explanation of the “dummy” TF markers.  I appreciate it.
My only concern here would be if this would take too much time?  What is your opinion here, Chief?  Remember,…In the Solomons Campaign game we are planning a huge game on a huge map with LOTS and LOTS of naval action, both combat and support.  If you think it wouldn’t be too time consuming I think it certainly deserves more attention.  I think more discussion is called for on this topic.

For a Midway game, a two-way dummy task force system (allowing the Japanese to search for the Americans and vice-versa) would definitely be worth it.  Yamamoto had three separate task forces devoted to the Midway operation, while the American carriers were disposed in two groups (Hornet and Enterprise in one, Yorktown in the other). The Americans knew the Japanese ships were somewhere, but had to find them.  The Japanese didn’t know the Americans were there, but were scouting anyway.  Reproducing the who-would-find-whom-first element would be very important to a Midway game.

For a scenario like the Solomons Campaign, the full dummy task force model might be overkill.  Some kind of simplified version of it, or some other mechanism entirely, might be more suitable.  For the Coral Sea, maybe something in between the two other situations (more detailed searching than for the Solomons, less than for Midway) would be the right level to aim for.  I guess it all depends on what you’re aiming for in each game, and how they will work overall.

Chief,

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

Discussion Topic–Recon Methods

@CWO:

For a scenario like the Solomons Campaign, the full dummy task force model might be overkill.  Some kind of simplified version of it, or some other mechanism entirely, might be more suitable.  For the Coral Sea, maybe something in between the two other situations (more detailed searching than for the Solomons, less than for Midway) would be the right level to aim for.

I think you’re exactly right, as far as the case of the Coral Sea / Solomons Campaign game which we’re currently working on.

We still need a good bit more discussion about recon methods, though.

I still can’t wait to hear from Tigerman, our “Map Guy”, on the feasability of having TWO complete and seperate games, THE BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA,…and THE SOLOMONS CAMPAIGN on the one huge map.

It will be so cool and FUN once we get it finished.

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

Have any of you seen or have the original Midway game by Avalon Hill from the late 1960s?  That had a very good search system.  No need to reinvent the wheel for that.  I will dig out my copy and summarize the way search was used.  The same system could be used for the Coral Sea, the Solomons, and any Pacific naval game.

However, you need to keep in mind that, except for a period from 1 June 1942 to mid-October 1942, the US was reading the Japanese naval codes, and one problem the US had was to make sure that a Recon plane spotted the Japanese forces so as not to give any our code-breaking.  You would need to factor that into the game.  For help with that, you might want to check the book, Ultra in the Pacific, by John Winton, where he covers the operation use of Magic intel.  I helped John research that book and we went through an incredible amount of paper concerning the intercepts and communication to the fleet in the daily intel summaries.  I have a copies of some of the more interesting intercepts.  They make for very fascinating reading.

@Tall:

I still can’t wait to hear from Tigerman, our “Map Guy”, on the feasability of having TWO complete and seperate games, THE BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA,…and THE SOLOMONS CAMPAIGN on the one huge map.

Here’s a point you might want to consider. The Solomons Campaign, if I recall correctly, lasted about six months, while the Coral Sea operation lasted just a few days.  This means that the two games have to operate on different time scales.  A scale appropriate to the Solomons Campaign (say, one game turn = about two weeks) would be much too fast for the Coral Sea operation (since the battle only took a fraction of a game move in time).  Likewise, a scale appropriate for the Coral Sea (say, one game turn = a few hours) would be much too slow for the Solomons Campaign (the Solomons campaign would take weeks or months of real time to play at that rate).  So combining the two games would produce a time-scale incompatibility.

A related problem has to do with the geographic scale.  A combined-game map covering both the area of the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Solomons Campaign would (at a very rough and quick estimate) have to be about twice the size (or half the scale) as separate maps for the two engagements done as separate games. Except for the few days during which the Coral Sea action took place, the space allocated to the Coral Sea in a combined map would serve little purpose during the six months of the Solomons Campaign, and so would be a waste of space.  Similarly, what was going on in the Solomons during the few days that the Coral Sea operation lasted would be of little importance to the Coral Sea battle, so expanding the map to include the Solomons might not be worth it either.