HBG U.S. Naval Sculpts Preorder

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!

@Tigerman77:

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”

Tigerman, I agree with Tall Paul, Lets keep this simple, affordable, and fun, but at the same time adding new units and capabilities.

WARRIOR888

Warrior,

My point was that I thought Tigerman’s methods concerning the use of Flame Tanks and Flame Marines against Blockhouses was:

1. The heigth of SIMPLICITY.  Basically as I understand it(and correct me if I’m wrong), The Flame Units simply “cancel out” the defensive effects that the Blockhouses added to the defending units.  Nothing to “figure out” here.  That makes it a normal battle against the defending units.

2. This makes LOGICAL sense as that’s what the Flame Units were used for(in real life) was to help assault fortified locations in conjunction with other units.

3. By “cancelling out” the Blockhouses added defensive effect, the battle remaining is a “normal” one and therefore the gameplay is FASTer.

I repeat,…WELL DONE, Tigerman!  I’m very proud of your work.

We only have about 99 more decisions like this one left to make now, but this is PROGRESS!
                                                                                  “Taul Paul”

It is simple. Also if you destroy the units and the fort is left it makes a counter attack alot tougher.

Okinawa will be my 3rd variant game. I’m not as battle tested as some (IL) but I like to think I have a few good ideas. Alot of my ideas have come from the house rule section and I would like to give credit to everyone that posts on this forum….wether I have used your idea or not it has helped me so much by being able to get to and read so much information.

Tigerman,

That’s a good point about the counter-attacks.

And “Iceberg” being your 3rd game I think gives you a great deal of knowledge, especially what works best through your experience.

Yeah, from everything I’ve read that IL has written I’m very impressed with his grasp of the game.  Anyone can have an idea, even a good one, but IL sees things from all levels and how they interconnect.  Very succinct thinker that IL.

And I couldn’t agree more about giving the proper person his just credit.  They deserve it for their work.

@Tall:

IL,
 
    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.

I would like to say to FMG,…and all of the A&A.ORG community a big “Thank You” already.

And don’t forget to e-mail me, Tigerman.  My e-mail is listed in my profile on the left.

“Tall Paul”

@knp7765:

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?

we really need to look at these units differently! In a global game a single infantry represents a division or maybe even a Corp. In my Okinawa game it represents a battalion size unit.

So if you have a flame thrower infantry it doesn’t mean yhat every man in the battalion had a flame thrower!! So it wouldn’t make sence to not give this unit a defensive value either!  Same for the flame tank. A battalion size unit that has some flamethrowers to burn out enemy positions.

This could be the same For other units also,if we look at other new units comming out, like a tank destroyer.

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?Huh?

The best game ever made which showcases the various Pacific battles is a game called Flattop by Avalon Hill.

I have not played in a while but i don’t remember any oil rules. The campaigns of those days didn’t really tax the range of the ships employed to the degree where they would require keeping track of fuel reserves. However, air forces do have limited flight time and you need to sort out which planes have torpedoes, bombs , or are being used for Combat Air Patrol so you can model the issues faced at Midway. naval movement should be plotted where you have to search the sea for the enemy fleet. Carriers would be carrying perhaps up to 4-6 planes and most ships will take 2-3 hits, or have a hull rating where you roll a D6 and place damage marker under the unit.

Victory in the Pacific uses this system . The Yamato for example is a 6-9-5 counter, it gets 6 dice counting 6 as hits and 5 is disabled. when you get a hit you roll again and say you got 4, which means if you had the Yamato and it was hit you got 5 points left before it is sunk.

Japanese Torpedo planes with no defending enemy cap could get a +1 of combat rolls

Night surface action could be +1 for japan

many ideas are possible. You first need a concept down

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?Huh?

This is a better idea, where you have oil chits used to spend on what types of ships you can bring to battle allowing for something like Larry’s Guadalcanal game. IN fact use that game as a template for your own game so you get more people accepting this new game. Keep the basic system and just improve it with something new.

I.L.,

As far as our “concept” it is:

A battle-specific(the entire Solomons Campaign) in SCOPE,…to be played on a map expanded to G-40 in SIZE, to use the expanded pool of UNITS(OOB, new, and proposed) and using a lot of new or expanded CAPABILITIES that are made possible with the new units.

We are considering a series of these expanded battles with a large Naval enfluence.
“Tigerman” is our “Map Master”.

Some of the expanded capabilities would be:
Recon(PBY), seamine warfare, amphibious raids(w/Marine Raiders), large amphibious invasions, naval surface combat, naval air combat, base defense or patrol by PT boats, convoy escort, paratroop drops(probably not in this Solomons game), etc.

With this game having such an expanded map of only the Solomons+ area would make it more tactical in nature.

Considering the 1st poss. use of oil,…My primary intent for making the naval units having to refuel every X turns was to create a need for refueling TFs.  This obviously leads to their necesity of being ESCORTED and protected(NAVY surface and AIR FORCE).  These refueling TFs would obviously be a very juicy target for your enemy to attack.  with these refuelling TFs, Supply Convoy TFs, and many others it should lead to some interesting Naval battles, some of a Titanic size(just like in reality).

I.L.,  I know you said these oil refueling rules “weren’t fun” when they were used in the past.

But what would your opinion be (of the oil refueling rules) in the context of this much expanded map of small islands, many sea zones, many support TFs, and two powerful opponents in a head-to-head slugfest of a battle???  I respect your knowledge and experience in these matters a great deal.

Thanks for your time.

“Tall Paul”