Variable's and Tall Paul's Naval Game Ideas

@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”

While i am excited about seeing a naval game, the amount of new pieces in this  game is what will complicate it. For those of us who are diehard fans it wont be a problem, it will just take some time before we can introduce it to others. Maybe we could think of 2 sets of rules, one which uses standard pieces maybe? without all the new units? Or maybe just some? Just a thought anyway. A game that concentrates on navy and air will be great, i look forward to some epic naval battles, keep up the good work gang.

Dangermouse,

Yes, you’re correct about the large increase in naval (and other) units being a “complicating” factor.  But I think it’s not only those new units,…but the NEW CAPABILITIES that they bring with them, seamine warfare, oil rules, base defense, paratroop drops, etc., etc., etc.  We are taking the time necessary to investigate all new rules, units, and capabilities.  We really want to include everything that will increase our FUN factor,…but I am determined to make sure that what we end up with a game that is simple enough to understand and play in a reasonable time.

YOUR idea of our new expanded game played with OOB pieces is an EXCELLENT one.
I hadn’t mentioned it as such because I thought it was obvious, but we can definately benefit from your idea and it’s inclusion in our rules as long as it is compatible with our map.  I don’t predict any conflicts here.

If you read all of this thread you should get even more excited about the game.

And I envite you to join us with your ideas and opinions.  You’ve already pointed out an excellent one.  Thanks again.

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