Posts made by Tall Paul

Stalingradski,

I’m putting you in for a PROMOTION, haha.  Keep it up and we may even be talking about a “Hero of the Soviet Union” for you, too.

You both have a very good grasp on the game and ALL of it’s intricacies. 
I completely agree with practically every word both of you have said.  I would be proud if I could ever have YOU, or GARGANTUA as partners in an A&A 1940-global game.  Or any other A&A game for that matter.

“Healthy Doses” of Infantry, as you say, are a excellent addition to the DOZENS of Aircraft and Tanks that the Japanese and Germans start the game with.  And CHEAP, too!  Not to mention they’re great guaranteers of holding onto your higher-priced, more powerful units.

I hope we get the EXPANDED A&A-The Naval Series; Coral Sea & The Solomons Campaign done before too long.  And who knows, maybe made into a computer version to be played on here.  Ya’ll both would be great partners(I’m from the South, and Ya’ll is a contraction for you all).  All I have to say is:  Attack!, repeat, Attack!

“Tall Paul”

“Coach”,

So your Dad served on a “boomer”,…Great.  I guess it was nick-named the “Big Ben”, huh?  Well, I guess we know where you got your level-headedness from now.  I’ll bet your Dad has a lot of stories.  If you ever have time I’d love to hear some of them, maybe some pics, too.  You could put them in the “history” section for all to enjoy.

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

You know,…After seeing your Company logo so many times that I just realized you could take your company’s initials, HBG, standing for “Historical Board Gaming”, and rearrange them into:

BGH, standing for the “Big Green H”,  like your logo.

It’s somewhat reminiscent of “The Big Red One” of the famous 1st US Army Division.

Does this mean as the leader of the “Big Green H” we’ll have to start calling you “General” now?(Grin)

“Tall Paul”

Tigerman and the “Gang”,

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

Topic of Discussion–One Map for Two Separate Games

Fantastic!!!  I feared you might be “knee-deep” in your current map/game and unable to help with this project for awhile.  I’m glad you’ll be able to investigate the Solomons map before too long.  Good Luck with the “Iceberg”.  I’m looking forward to it as well.  Thanks in advance.

If you find it isn’t a feasible idea(2 games, 1 map) I feel we should proceed with you concertrating on a Solomons Campaign game.  With a well done expanded map and all of the expansions in gaming pieces and operations available I think the Solomons Campaign would be an excellent arena to spotlight ALL of them.

Like I Say,…What Do Ya’ll Think???
                                                                                    “Tall Paul”

Gargantua,

I completely agree with your analysis of Axis and Allies being an ECONOMIC game, as well as Strategic, and Tactical.

I think the MOST USEFUL and often overlooked gaming unit is the INFANTRY.  You referred to it as a “Pawn”, and I concur in the conclusion of losing only the the pawns if you can manuever this to happen.  And you do that, of course, by surrounding your more expensive and important pieces with them.

This tends to lead to longer games,…but VICTORIOUS games!

This is also a great way to help “even” the disparity of incomes between the Axis and Allies.  If you force the Allies to put more of their (IPV value) in units back in the box as loses than you suffer, while at the same time attacking and encreasing your ECONOMIC base(IPC income) you could come to a “parity”, or even “superiority” of income.

Also, another point to consider is that(in a 1940-global game) the TOTAL income of the Allied powers is dispersed between several countries in several areas,…while the Axis powers can more easily concentrate their individual power.

I’ve found that one of our players who enjoys playing Germany or Russia seems to be enthralled with buying as many Tanks as he can(without a coresponding amount of Infantry).  This leads to what I call “The Balloon Theory”.  The player “blows up” his power with the Tanks and after several succeding battles, through attrition has lost all of his Infantry, and then I counter-attack and kill all of his expensive and powerful Tanks and “pop his balloon”.

Russia can be really interesting.  If not attacked, and she build numerous Infantry(almost exclusively), she transforms herself from a country with weak defenses to one that can attack.  With numerous Infantry combined with her “power” units, you will get some hits and be able to suffer losses without diluting your strength.

This is a wonderful game with many differrent ways to win.  And although flawed to a certain degree, it’s still the BEST and MOST FUN I’ve had in any game.  And it only get’s better with time.  Many new maps/games are being introduced and FMG and HBG are about to release an avalanche of new, well detailed units that will deeply enrich our gameplay.  I CAN’T WAIT !!!

“Tall Paul”

Chief and the “Gang”,

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

Discussion Topic-Dual games on a Single Map

Chief,

I believe you may have misunderstood what I was proposing.  The possibility of having two completely separate games to be played on the same map at differrent times.

The points you make concerning the “time-scale” or the “combining” of the two games, “The Coral Sea Battle” and “The Solomons Campaign” therefore would have no bearing.

However, you do bring up a VERY IMPORTANT point about the map scale might not be capable of enough naval sea zones to make the Coral Sea Battle a possibility.  This is a possibility.

I remember that you said you hadn’t yet taken the time to read our previous posts,…

@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.

One of the major EXPANSIONS that we are calling for in this game series(?) was to have each game played on a campaign-oriented oriented map EXPANDED to the size of a 1940-global map.

@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.

As I said, you might be correct about there not being enough sea zones, even in our much expanded map, but I’m not so sure about that.  That is the main reason I’m really looking forward to having our “Map Master”, Tigerman, look at the possility of having the two, completely SEPARATE games being played on the one very ENLARGED map.
                                    –--------------------------

We might also be able to have another action, “The Battle of the Bismark Sea” thrown into the game mix as a separate scenario or somehow.  It should easily fit onto the map and would give a good reason for me to modify the B-25’s that are in the pipeline from HBG into the “Commerce Destroyers” of Gen. Kenneys’ 5th AF fame.  Wow, just think of an A&A B-25 with up to 14 forward-firing 50 cal. machine guns,…not to mention their “skip-bombing” capability.  I can’t wait.

Well, I hope I’ve explained my ideas a little better now.  And Please, don’t think I’m inconsiderate of others’ opinions as that would be completely incorrect.  I feel that we MUST consider everyones’ ideas and opinions in order to make this the best game we can.  Hopefully, with everyones help, we can.

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

YES,…There WAS a mini-sub that ENTERRED the harbor, shot a torpedo(a miss at a Cruiser), and was rammed by a Destroyer.  However it did NOT fire at the USS ARIZONA or any of the other Battleships!

The book I just posted about, Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions by Alan Zimm accounts for ALL of the mini-subs, their accomplishments(if any), and their fate.  It gives an analytical report coverring ALL aspects of the attack, practically down to every bomb or torpedo.  It’s a real eye-opener and done through many personal interviews with IJN pilots, staff, US sailors and soldiers, and a LOT of RESEARCH !  One of the BEST books I’ve read in a long time.  I wish every AMERICAN would either read this book, or have it taught to them in school.  It debunks a lot of the myths concerning this very important battle.

Such As:

The attack was “brilliantly” planned and executed.  A lot of information here.  You will have your eyes opened.

No 3rd wave attack was ever requested by Fuchida.  This is verified by the planner of the mission Genda, and several other leading pilots or ships staff that were “there” and had a large “Say” in the matter.

An attack on the Oil Tanks would NOT have forced the retreat of the fleet  back to the US mainland coast.  Admiral Nimitz said it would have,…but that was to “cover up” the existance of the underground oil storage facilities just coming into existance.

An attack on the Repair Shops and Facilities couldn’t have had any major effect on the fleets capabilities.  For many, many reasons this attack couldn’t have been successful in even “denting” the repair capacities on Pearl Harbor.

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

So much of what Americans mistakenly believe as “history” are what we see in the movies, correct or not.  These movies are usually based on a book or books.    Many of the historian/authors of the Pearl Harbor attack and the Battle of Midway were based on Fuchida’s book: “Midway, The Battle that Doomed Japan”(? I think I have the title correct) that has been proven by other Japanese to be a  self-serving face-saver for him and his accomplishments.

To read a FANTASTIC book that really puts the record straight on these two battles, as well as many other facets of the Japanese Naval war effort, you should read:
Shatterred Sword, The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway", by Parshall and Tully

–---------------------------

As far as “alternate” storylines for the “Coach’s” game,…

The Carrier USS ENTERPRISE was expected to have been back at Pearl Harbor on Saturday Dec. 6, 1941 but was delayed due to heavy weather.  This is what happenned in REAL LIFE.  The “Coach” might say it wasn’t delayed by weather, or was “alerted” to the unfolding attack in his game.

The attack on the Japanese mini-sub just off the harbor entrance by the Destroyer USS WARD and a PBY seaplane was acted upon quickly without waiting for confirmation and the alarm was sounded(as it should have been).

The report of a large incoming air formation from the radar station on Opana Point(?) was believed and acted upon(as it should have been).

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

Their are so many Ifs and Possibilities that I guess it would make for an VERY INTERESTING “what if” game.  Plus, I’d love to see the A&A sized “Old” Battleships that “Coach” has proposed to make.  The book mentioned above also gives several differrent possible outcomes due to changed possibilities.

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

“Coach”,…Sign me up as a DEFINATE SALE !  I will buy your Pearl Harbor Game because it sounds like it would be so much FUN and have so many differrent  possible outcomes.

Do we get any more hints about it,…or when you might release it for sale???

“Tall Paul”

cminke,

@cminke:

like the sub that got into the harbour and sank the arizona?

First off, the ARIZONA was NOT sunk by a sub, and after the sunken ship had a thorough inspection, was to a large degree of certainty believed not to have been struck by any torpedo in the attack.

I’m sure I know exactly what you’re making reference to.  A picture showing the
“alleged” rooster tails of a subs screws after firing on the OKLAHOMA.  I myself thought this might have some substance to it, especially as it was the subject of a TV show converning this.  But you should really check out this book.  All of the disenting viewpoints that contradicted what the producers of the “sensationallizing” TV show were deliberately NOT shown so as to extremely slant the viewpoint of the show.  Get the book, read it, you will find out HISTORY the way it really happenned.

It’s a real shame that so much of what the world knows about this attack is theory and/or myth which many people regard as FACT,…and therefore our HISTORY suffers.

The name of the book that I’m recommending is:
Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions. by Alan Zimm

I just looked it up on Amazon Books.  You should at least read the Product Description and Reviews even if you don’t by it.

This book is an IN-DEPTH research of all aspects of the battle and by his thorough analysis reaches significant conclusions.  For example he completely accounts for all of the Japanese midget subs as well as other evidence to disprove the above
theory of a sub firing at the OKLAHOMA.

The author starts with a clean slate and no predetermined bias or theories to prove and lets the evidence speak for itself.  A few issues aren’t capable of being completely determined beyond any doubt and he says so.

“Coach”,

The Pearl Harbor attack is my primary interest in WW2.  It being so unequal as the actual attack was it would seem an uphill challenge to make a game out of this.

@coachofmany:

I’m working on a Pearl Harbor game that will have some neat twists.

I guess you might have alternate storylines, such as the Americans were alerted before the attack or something???

I would be very interested in finding out what your neat twists might be???

There was an EXCELLENT book that just came out about Pearl Harbor only a few months ago.  It was an analitical overview of the plan, it’s goals, and it’s execution,…down to the individual bomb hits/misses.  It had a LOT of reasearch that went in to it.  It de-bunked a lot of rumors and myths.  I consider it a “MUST READ” and it tells what really specifically happenned.  I’ll find it and give the title/author soon.

Anyway,  Thanks again for all your work in making our A&A experiences better.

“Tall Paul”

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”

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”

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???

“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”

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”

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”

TaDaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

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”

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 topics-(1.) Combat Rules  (2.) Unit Lists

(1.) Combat Rules

HOORAY for everyones’ agreement,…including the “Coach’s” on the simplified combat rules, modified for D-12.

(2.) Unit Lists

I believe the List of Ships that I posted previously could serve as a “beginning” for the ships and their Attack/Defense attributes.

If I remember correctly I intentionally left the Attack, Defense, Movement, and Cost values for the Aircraft Carriers blank because I wanted us to discuss the possibilities of the varying CAPACITIES of the differrent Carrier types.

2a.  Aircraft capacities of the Carriers(Proposed)

CVE 1 aircraft,      CVL 2 aircraft,       CV 3 aircraft,       CV(H) 4 aircraft

I think a LOT of thought should go into the possibility of having 3 airplanes on a single CV carrier.  Although this is the way it really was,…this is quite a substantial change to the carriers.  I think this is an exciting prospect,…but one that needs a lot of discussion, both pro and con.  And personally,…I don’t think a “Midway” class Heavy Carrier should be allowed, at least not in this game scenario.  Exactly when were the “Midways” introduced???

2b.  Aircraft Carrier Speeds.

I think it could add some important depth if we had some “Fast Carriers” along with some “Fast escorts”.  Think of the strategic concerns that this could make, both offensive and defensive.

2c.  Aircraft Unit List

This is my proposed list, completely open to discussion.

Cargo     Cargo/Paratroop…C-47 Skytrain, C-46 Commando
FT-SR    Fighter, Short Range…P-40 Warhawk, F-4F Wildcat
FT-MR        "    , Medium Range…F-6F Hellcat
FT-LR         "    , Long Range…P-38 Lightning, P-51 Mustang
FT-BM    Fighter/Bomber…F-4U Corsair,
                                               P-47 Thunderbolt (BIG HINT, HINT, “Coach”)
Tac-B*   Tactical Bomber……SBD Dauntless, TBD Avenger
BM-MR    Bomber, Medium Range…B-25 Mitchell
BM-LR         "    , Long Range…B-17 Flying Fortress, B-24 Liberator
BM-VLR       "    , Very Long Range…B-29 SuperFortress

*The Tactical Bombers could be re-clasified as Bomber, Short Range.

Also, I listed a Fighter/Bomber because the Corsair and Thunderbolt were used routinely as bombers and as such could have increased attack capabilities for more gameplay depth.

2d.  Land Unit List

2 1/2         2 1/2-Ton Truck…GMC “Jimmy”
Eng           Engineer…(Inf w/special paint)???  “Coach”
Inf            Infantry……
Mar           Marine…
M-FT             "   , Flame-Thrower…
Ranger       Special Forces, Army…US Army Inf (w/special paint)
Raider            "         "    , Marines…US Marine (w/special paint)
Para              "         "    , Paratrooper.
Art            Artillery…
Mech Inf    Mechanised Infantry…Halftrack
Mech Art    Mechanised Artillery…Priest
   OR                     OR                        
S/P Art      Self-Propelled Artillery…    "

TK-L         Tank, Light…M-3 Stuart
TK-M           "  ,  Medium…M-4 Sherman
TK-H           "  ,  Heavy…(None yet Proposed)
TD              "  ,  Destroyer……M-10, Wolverine/Hellcat
TK-F           "  ,  Flame-Thrower…

Well, I’ve had a lot of interuptions here while typing this up, so if there are any mistakes or oversights it’s completely my fault.

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

Gang,

EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign

?New Name?

Hey gang,

What would ya’ll think of the name EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign

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.

I know that the NAME is not a real priority at the moment, but this one just seems to be a PERFECT FIT!  What Do YA’LL Think???

If ya’ll like it, we could change the name of the thread to:

EXPANDED A&A–-The Solomons Campaign with the EXPANDED being in all caps to accentuate it.

I’m assuming it’s possible to change the name of a thread.

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

OOPS,……I think I said Sheridan Tank When I meant to say Stuart Tank.  Well, chalk it up to my being tired(or an idiot if you prefer, haha).  My appologies.

"Tall Paul