Posts made by dinosaur

There are several interesting comments and I think we are in substantial agreement that fighters are not the factor in AAG as they are in AAR.  I can’t speak to other A&A games because I don’t have them.

First regarding a comment on scale … This version is strange.  Carriers are still carrying two aircraft units so I would think the units are about the same scale, but they definately don’t have the same punch.  Could it be that time as changed scale in this game and this has an effect?  Guadalcanal is a small place compared to Europe or Asia, but I still see ‘stacks’ of infantry and artillery in AAG.  Granted, these stacks are five or seven deep, and the AAR stacks are twice that, but this is nothing compared to the scale of the two theatres.

I see the battle box as the factor that has changed everything.  We no longer have stacks of infantry to absorb the blows to let our fighters eat away at the enemy on a 50% chance of killing an enemy.  Now the fighters have only a 17% chance of killing a destroyer with a 17% bonus chance of at least damaging him.  AND they have to survive the air combat phase just to get that chance.  It is a massive change from what we are accustomed.

For my part, I see bombers as the real strike aircraft and fighters as bomber escorts.  With an abundance of fighters, your bombers chances of getting hit are 33% due to the battle box arrangement.  However, it doesn’t appear wise to attack a substantial fleet with aircraft alone.  The additional AA capacity of ships will make it hurt.  If you are bringing your ships along, at least he will feel the same pain.  No, the air threat appears to be notable when sending a small force to drop off supplies and reinforcements.  Two or three destroyers added to a convoy of transports is a tasty target if the enemy is within range of four adequately escorted bombers.  Now the tide can be turned against them.  If you don’t get some really bad dice in the air phase, you start sinking loaded(!) transports.  These supply expeditions need CAP and this is one reason you need fighters in abundance.  You can’t send your fleet CAP everywhere, so you have to choose.

And there is the invasion itself.  Adding fighters and bombers to the ground assault is a major factor if the enemy hasn’t dug in and added AA guns.  The problem is there are not may places where you can bring that many bombers to the fight because of range restrictions.  Finally, the big gamble bombing mission on the enemy airfield is always good for some excitement at the end of the game.  On the whole, it is a game with good play balance and a lot of tension because time is running out from the first turn.  I hope y’all enjoy it as much as I do.

However, I can not find a reason that would recommend you load a transport after it has moved, when you could load it without penalty at the beginning of your next turn.

Apart from the “bid”, an Axis win requires some amount of good fortune.  Your good fortune could come in the form of a poor strategy by one or more Allied players, a terrible round of dice for the Allied player giving you an opportunity that should not have occurred, or in a payoff wild gamble attack of good luck for the Axis, which most likely would have to occur in one of the first three turns of Germany against Russia.  If you are a very solid player yourself and your opponent is not, play a solid game and wait for the Allies to hang themselves.  If the Allies player(s) is very solid, you may have to make a big gamble and put the whole game on the line.  For example, Russia often stacks their tanks with infantry to create a counter attacking force against German gains on the Western front.  As Germany, you may have to take a low percentage chance and knock out the whole stack, and then hope the Russian counter attack not only doesn’t defeat you, but leaves you with some infantry and all your tanks.

I think a German crush of Russia is the most probable chance, with Japan’s help, and I agree Germany should get the whole of Africa as quickly as possible.  Even if Russia is not eliminated, but severely pushed back onto his heels (e.g. losing the Cacuses and all their tanks and fighters leaving them defending Russia and maybe two other provinces with an infantry stack), the Axis can hope to make it a game where the US is doing all it can to keep Japan at bay and keep the UK in the game.

You could adopt the basis for the LL game for doing a quick check during OTB play (Over the board, or Face-to-face).  Add up the attackers dice points and divide by six and subtract that many units from the defender.  Do the same for his side.  For this exercise, I’d only ‘hit’ my opponent with a remainder of five, and I’d ‘take a hit’ with any remainder over two.  Keep doing this until the outcome becomes obvious.  I do this during my opponents turns during OTB play because when the Russians are fighting the Germans, the Jap infantry I want to attack as UK aren’t going anywhere.  Of course, when you’re the Americans thinking about the Japs, you don’t have as much assurance where things will be on your turn.  After you play a few games, you find out that a lot of early turns become very predictable.

I really use this method.  I was looking at a R2 turn the other day and realized the opponent should lose one territroy to my attack in two rounds whether I added the two Russian fighters or not, but those same fighters could be added to a big gamble attack on the Germans facing the Caucasus and turn the odds in my favor, although it was still a big gamble.  I think I had something like 3 inf, 1 tank, and 1 arty facing 3 infantry, 2 tanks and 1 arty, but when I added the two fighters things looked possible.  I ran the attack just to see if I could eliminate the two German tanks knowing whatever was left the Germans would kill on their turn.  I was basically taking a chance that I could trade one Russian tank for two German tanks.

The first round figured this way …
Rus: 3 inf, 1 arty, 1 tank, 2 fighters = 15 pts … 2+ hits
Ger: 3 inf, 1 arty, 2 tanks = 14 pts … 2+ hits

Round two …
Rus: 1 inf, 1 arty, 1 tank, 2 fighters = 13 pts … 2 hits
Ger: 1 inf, 1 arty, 2 tanks = 10 pts … 1+ hits

Round three …
Rus: 1 arty, a tank, 2 fighters = 12 pts … 2 hits
Ger: 2 tanks = 6 pts … 1 hit

Russian wins and leaves 1 arty and 1 tank for the Germans to clobber, but wins 5 extra IPCs from Germany for tank plus IPCs for territory and strategically precluded Germany from attacking the Caucasus on the next turn.

Believe it or not, I am working on a table in Microsoft Excel that will give the odds directly for a battle like this.  Sea battles are harder, but I think I might get that figured out someday.  Land battles are pretty straight forward if you stay organized.  Artillery make things interesting, because if you lose enough infantry the odds change differently as you lose forces than a regular battle.

Good Luck.

I got the original AD&D books in hardcover.  Players Handbook, Monster Manual, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Deities and Demigods; along with the Fiend Folio, Monster Manual II and the Wilderness Survival Guide.  I have a few other books published by others about Alchemy and stuff, but I don’t have anything else.  What are you guys talking about?  Ver 2.0?  Ver 3.5??  Ver 4.0???!  I’m afraid to show my kids this stuff.  The books are already well worn and I don’t think they could withstand another generation of this much love.

AK_Satchel,

That is a beautiful piece you have there.  I’m sure you are pleased.  I have made some crude furniture pieces and I couldn’t touch that.

I am guessing you will be selling the tables without pieces.  I am still hand painting my set of pieces and the man hours in that is not something folks are willing to pay, in my experience.

Regarding the magnetized fighters … I would drill a hole down the axis of the plane and insert a piece of a paperclip wire.  Then I would put a magnet under the deck of the carrier.  I believe with a strong enough magnet, this would work fine.  However, having more than one aircraft carrier nearby might be a problem.

I like your bases for the airplanes.  Seems the fighters might need these too.

I like your idea for having the drinks in holders and not on the table.

Have you considered having drawer pulls with the national emblums on the knobs?

I would also consider making a small “stand” that would sit on four legs of about four inches in length.  The surface of the stand (a mini table of its own) would be the battle board.  For newbies, they could place their units on the stand which rests on the table and remove casualties as the battle goes on.  Big time veterans wouldn’t need this, but it might be a nice touch.  After the battle is over, the remaining units are placed back on the tabletop and the stand can be set aside someplace.

Regarding color schemes, I am using two colors for the IJN units; sand and IJN green.  For the UK, I plan to use desert sand and something else for European theater units.  For the US, I will use basic OD green, but I may repaint five infantry units with a little camo pattern for US Marines.  All the Ruskies (brown) and Germans (medium grey) will be one color.  Maybe someday I will paint a few Germans in a pale grey for Africa Corps or something.

You have done some fantastic work and I hope you receive a financial reward for it along with your own satisfaction.  Sorry, but I just couldn’t afford one myself.  Good Luck!

When I played my first two games, I did not realize the airfield points were cumulative.  I had been counting the total number of airfields owned plus the number of capitol ships sunk to get my victory point total.  Therefore, it became a battle to the death, instead of a race to construct airfields.  After thinking about, I believe I like the battle to the death a bit more.  The airfield race seems a bit artificial, but it is more exciting.  Did anyone else not understand the accumulation of points?  Or did you also read this interpretation on the Internet?  Of course, I also learned the rule book only give reinforcement points at half the rate by reading about the game on the Internet.

I have been wondering how effective this Japanese strategy would proove over time.  If the Japanese hunker down for a straight 5 v. 4 airfield victory, then there appear to be three American options that need to be explored.  First, can the Americans capture New Georgia after the first airfield has been built?  If the Japanese are building airfields as fast as they can, can the US player afford to buy enough planes and soldiers to win New Georgia?  Second, can the US player bomb the airfields enough to shave Japanese points.  The Japanese player needs to not just build the airfields, but also additional supply tokens to keep them operational.  Finally, if the Japanese player becomes too defensive, can he risk losing Choiseul instead of New Georgia?  This is the key to the game, I believe.  Generally I don’t see Bougainville, Malaita or Guadalcanal in play.  The fight is really won or lost on the three middle islands, Santa Isabel, Choiseul and New Gerogia.  If the Japanese sell out on New Georgia too much, Choiseul may fall to the US.  And if the US sells out on attempting to capture New Georgia too much, Santa Isabel may fall.

I think it is clear the US player has a solid strategy in turn 1 to take Guadalcanal, Malaita and Santa Isabel.  Their supply lines are short and bases may be constructed quickly.  Also, the US player can occupy the bases with bombers more readily than the Japanese player.  These points need to be exploited by the US player.  It is realistic that the US player can go after New Georgia on turn 2.  Logistically, both players are the same distance away.  However, by a quirk of the board geometry, the US player needs more transports to supply New Georgia, giving the Japanese player an advantage there.

In my current playtesting, I am looking at an opening round fight for Santa Isabel.  I hope to look at the possibilities of this Japanese strategy after that, because I noticed the same thing.  If the Japanese fleet holes up in Sea Zone F, what are the Americans going to do about that?  One thing I have noticed is that the battle box appears to create much more random results than AAR system does.

Well, I mush admit that sounds ambitious right now.  I am thinking about going after New Georgia in round two, three or four.  I guess I need to get back and run a few sample games this weekend myself.

You need to do a little geometry and figure out how big your hexagons are going to be.  Assuming you are going to have at least two hexagons below South America and Africa, and one hexagon north of the coast of Norway for the Russians, you have a fixed distance.  Now divide that distance by the reasonable size of a hex to determine the number of hexes per inch.  Then measure between Berlin and Moscow and you will find out how far in hexes it will be between the two.

As far as drawing the map itself, I would call up the best photo file of the world you can find.  Then draw one zig-zag line all the way from top to bottom.  Mirror copy this line.  Add the horizontal sides between the two zig-zag lines.  Fence copy all these horizontal lines over one hex width, shifted up half a hex.  Now with this much complete, you can copy the whole thing over and over until you have covered your map.

But there is another problem …

The horizontal distance at the equator is more than the horizontal distance at the upper and lower extremes.  I believe you will need to explore a compensation system for movement to make up for that.

And then you have to find a source for the several thousand pieces needed to populate such an ambitious map.  Good Luck.

You only hit half of it.  What about the movement system allowing all players to move nearly simultaneously?  How about all infantry move, then all artillery, then all armor, then all bombers, then fighters, …  That system would make AAR a very different game.  Imagine fights going on in territories 2 deep (which could happen often in this system) instead of on the very front line.  Picture Russia attacking Ukraine while the Germans attack the Caucasus at the same time in turn 1!

I play tested the second turn and I like the US position even better.  I’m not going to give away my thoughts on turn 2 just yet.  The more I look at the game, the more I enjoy it.  One element that has particularly captured my imagination is the fact that forces can remain in the same zone after a turn.  This makes this game so much different than AAR.

As a matter of fact that is exactly what I did.  I went to play my study game looking at one possible Japanese response to the Santa Isabel invasion, and during the resupply phase, while deciding how I would spend the US money, I noted the silhouette didn’t match the ship.  You post is what made me think I might have the wrong ships, and I think you are correct.  Now I’ll have to ask about cruisers and red chips.  BTW, I switched out all my painted pieces from AAR with these pieces to make this more fun.  I only have to paint about half of these pieces now, but I got a lot more to paint in the AAR game.

How would I know that my cruisers are mixed up?  My olive cruisers have the more rounded superstructure.  Also, the forward turrets on the olive cruiser face forward and aft, not both forward (at least that is how they appear to face).

Looking at the game this evening I wonder if the Americans can make a realistic play for Santa Isabel, Malaita and Guadalcanal in turn 1.  Lets consider the “fixed” moves first.  The Americans have 2 trans & 2 DD at their base and six ground units.  These units have to enter the game touching GC in zones J or K.  They also have 5 bombers that can reach either GC or Malaita to support an invasion there.  With this much power, the Japanese forces will surely fall so there is no need to believe the Americans have to hold any of their forces that begin in GC on the island.

This leaves the following forces available to the Americans in turn 1 for an invasion of Santa Isabel; 5 infantry, 3 artillery, 2 CV w/ 4 fgtrs, BB, 2 CA, 3 DD, 4 transports, an AA unit.  There are also 3 supply tokens on GC.

Because the Japanese player moves first, the American player gets to see what the Japanese player wants to commit to the defense of Santa Isabel.  I expect to see 2 infantry and an artillery moved there on turn 1, but more or less could be sent.  However, if more is sent, there is certainly an opportunity to go after New Georgia instead.  These ground units should arrive via a transport and a destroyer into sea zone C.  Sea zone C will likely hold 2 CA, 2 DD & 1 transport.  If the Japanese use all their air power from their carriers, they will have (4 fgtrs + 3 inf + 1 arty + 2 CA) 10 dice for ground attacks after a possible air attack round.  The American sea power alone is (2 x BB + 2 x CA) 4 dice.  Add say six ground units and 4 fgtrs and you are hitting with 14 dice.  This should eliminate the five defenders and leave you with 2 arty (if you brought 3 inf and 3 arty to the island).  You should expect to win the island outright and at a cost equal to no more than your investment.

But can you hold it?

New Georgia is probably also well reinforced in turn 1.  Therefore you need to be mindful of weakening Guadalcanal.  But the units remaining from the invasion of Malaita should be brought up to Santa Isabel on the next turn.  You should expect to be able to move 2 infantry and 2 artillery from Malaita/GC to Santa Isabel on turn 2.  The three transports in zone H would move to zone K, but the balance of the American fleet should move to Zone H on turn 2.  This consolidation will become 2 CV w/ 4 fgtrs, 1 BB, 3 CA, 5 DD, 2 SS and the 2 transports.

If you can acomplish this position along with a nice buildup on GC in turn 2 with reinforcements from your base you have probably earned an equal share of the remainder of the game.  Less than this and the Japanese player is ahead after the opening.

I know this has been discussed before now.  Am I taking too many pain killers?  What is wrong with this plan?

I think AA could be corrected by making it a two die effect instead of three, if you think it needs correcting at all.  But the sub rules are much less realistic, I think.  However, if the sub rules were made realistic, you would see huge stacks of subs and destroyers.  There are just some sacrifices you have to expect to make a game balanced.

My son and I are just playing our second game today.  Yesterday’s game was called on account of cluelessness.  We played several things the wrong way.  Unfortunately, I blame this on the rulebook not being fully developed with playing examples and situations that will certainly occur not even being mentioned in the rules.

I think this is a quality game.  The appearance that a game will proceed quickly once we understand the rules is a plus because I couldn’t get him to stick with a full game of AAR.  I received only one red chip, not the ten indicated in the rulebook inventory.  I think the cruisers are too close to the size of a battleship, but that is because the destroyers are much too big to begin with.  Downsizing cruisers and destroyers would improve the game for me.  I also think more fighter aircraft need to be included because when you deploy a carrier, you want to place two aircraft pieces on the carrier, not an airplane and a chip.  Then you need at least six additional fighters, one for each airfield you are likely to use (I think realistically controlling five might be the max that ever happens in a VP game).  I really love the battlebox.  I hated the situation where an opponent selected his infantry and empty transports.  This system is a nice balance between randomness and focus.  I always thought, especially in sea battles, that a player should have a chance to focus on particular ships.  It also creates the right feeling of making escort ships relevent.  There is good reason to have plenty of destroyers to pick up the random hit nto assigned to a missing battleship, or transport.  It also gives a player a chance to hit the loaded transports which I find more satisfying from a realism perspective.

My son is rather timid and as the Americans has not made much of a fight.  Unfortunately, my forces will build up (4 islands to 2 islands) and he will see they need to act with more purpose early.  Studying the game, though, I see that it will be difficult for the Japanese to hold four islands through two turns.  It appears to me the US will easily capture all of Guadalcanal and Melita on turn 1 and could build an airfield on Melita on turn 1 if they dare.  Turn 2 will often see Santa Isabel fall to the Americans, unless the Japanese protect her too much, when New Gerogia will fall to the Americans instead.

The arrangement of the sea zones presents problems for the defender.  There are just too many ways for an agressor to make progress and little opportunity for the defender to block him.  This then appears to lead to a massive naval battle when niether side wants to make such a gamble.  This really captures the feeling of tension and importance Guadalcanal represented to the Pacific war.  Many folks heard about the Battle of Midway and know it was a turning point in the war.  But few understand the significance of Guadalcanal as the Marine Corps victory that accomplished the same thing in the island campaigns.

I’d have liked some changes to the ships, and a few more fighters, but I give this game two big thumbs up!

Yes, I am very pleased with his gift for math and other things.  Not bad for a nine year old.

We’re still learning.  Today, I fogot to move my supply tokens off Bourganville in turn 1.  Duh!!

That was what I said to my son.  “Hey, look they are marked the same way as all the other ships on the chart.”  It was nice that you were able to confirm my thoughts quickly, though.  BTW, it was a good risk.  He sank a transport with an infantry and a supply token, so only 2 infantry and two supply tokens made it to New Georgia.  I had to wait another turn to build my airfield.

Happy New Year.

Thanks Krieghund.  Is there a specific point in the rules that makes any reference to surface ships attacking subs?  I could not find one mention of it.