Posts made by Tall Paul

Timerover,

Expanded A&A–—The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topics–General Discussion

Welcome

First and foremost, WELCOME.  We’re very happy to have someone who is so well-read and knowledgeable concerning the Pacific War to offer their advise.

Our EXPANDED A&A “Solomons” Game

Timerover, our purpose in making this game is to make an EXPANDED gaming experience by taking advantage of the NEW A&A units that are in the “pipeline” to be made by HBG and FMG.  And with the new units come their new/expanded CAPABILITIES.

In our game we plan to use the EXPANDED number of units available and their EXPANDED capabilities, on a game map of the Solomons Campaign area EXPANDED to the size of a 1940-global area.  Thus,……Expanded Axis & Allies.

Expanded Unit Types

The gaming community, lead by FIELD MARSHAL GAMES and HISTORICAL BOARD GAMING, is in the midst of going through nothing less than a REVOLUTION.

For example,…the pool of ships is PROPOSED to be expanding from 6 types:
SS, DD, CA, BB, CV, AP

To a whopping 24 or so types, to include:
PT, SS, DMS, APD, DE, DD, CL, CLAA, CA, BC, 4 classes of older BBs,
“Iowa” BB, “Montana” BB, CVE, CVL, CV, CV(H), AO, AP, AK, AV

The number of Aircraft and Land unit types is also expanding, most being
country-specific.

Generalization

Understandably, the ability to have every SPECIFIC unit the EXACT match of what/when would be cost prohibitive.  But I can’t help but be extremely thankful for the large expansion of available units.

HBG already has a “sculpt” of a Stuart Tank.  Although it would be a small “generalisation” I feel it would be a good representative of an early-war American Light Tank.  I’m sure you understand this.  And until a more perfect match becomes available, I think the A&A gaming community will also.

You make several valid points as to the specific units, their composition, time periods used, etc. and I couldn’t agree more.  And I thank you for making them.  I, too, have read ALL of these books and many more, as I’m sure you have, too,…… concerning the Guadalcanal campaign.

My point here is that we are planning to use the units that are AVAILABLE, or proposed,  that are as close to the ideal as possible to accomplish our goals.  This may entail a small “generalization”(no pun intended).  I believe that what we will all end up with will be a much more in-depth, expanded gameplay.

“Monster” game meets the KISS method

I completely agree that the “standard A&A Rules” are not the best to define all of the various, intricate, and all-inclusive combats.

With having said that, I believe that with all of the NEW UNITS, all of their new or expanded CAPABILITIES(mine warfare, convoys, convoy escort or attack, naval bombardment, naval surface warfare, naval air warfare, Amphibious raids, amphibious invasions, air bombing of differrent targets, engineer improvements, etc. etc. etc.) that there is the concern of making a “Monster” of a game that might overwhelm some A&A players,……not to mention the TIME it would take to complete a game using a more  complex set of rules.  Therefore I think that the “KEEP IT SIMPLE SIR” method would greatly benefit us in this case.

I truly believe that the “Standard A&A Rules” would allow us to have a great gaming experience while helpfully speeding the game along.

Also, by retaining the “Standard A&A Rules” it would allow A&A players to step into the game without a huge learning curve.

And they would be able to make use of their already significant investment of time in learning and understanding the “Standard A&A Rules”.  They would already know how most everything worked.

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

Timerover,  I want to thank you for the points you’ve made and envite you to please CONTINUE to do so.  I feel we can all benefit from each others knowledge and experience in the creation of this game.  The goal here is to produce a series of A&A games with an expanded, enriched gaming experience.

As I always say,…What do YA’LL Think???
                                                                                “Tall Paul”

Well “Coach”,

You might check-in occasionally to our discussions.  We seem to be making really good progress.  We’d love to have you get involved with us in any capacity you’d like.    I think that what we will end up with will really be something that can make good use of not only all the new ships,…but like I said before,…all the new CAPABILITIES that they will enable.

That is why I’m so looking forward to having the AUXILIARY ships such as the Oiler, Minesweeper, PT Boat, Fast Attack Transport, Seaplane Tender, and PBY Seaplane.  Because of the new TYPES of OPERATIONS made possible through these new ships there is NO DOUBT in my mind that our collective gaming experience will be REVOLUTION-IZED through the efforts of YOU, our humble leader.

The invite of course goes for any and all who might be interested in our new game(s) designed to use all of these new units(and more?).

“Tall Paul”
p.s.-By the way, Doug,…what kind of ship did your Dad serve on?

Gang,

A&A Naval Game–-Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topics–-Combat System and Land Zones

Rules

I realize that the “standard A&A rules” are not the best way concerning specific combats,…but I feel that the longer we discuss it the more that we will realize that they are the best way as far as TIME and COMPLEXITY are concerned.

I don’t necessarily consider this issue closed,…but I think that we will all eventually see the value, as well as the need for the KISS method.

I believe the KISS method will allow us to USE all of the (projected) new units with their new capabilities without it becomming too complex or making the game extremely long.

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

Land Zones

I’m glad to hear someone else with experience also thinks that the enlarged islands wouldn’t necessarily make for a longer game.

Also, you understand like me, that all of the associated support units(Naval & Air) would end up clashing,…sometimes in momentous fashion.  These unplanned or unexpected battles can possibly be as important to the campaign as the main battle,… to say nothing of enjoyable.

I can’t wait so see and experience it!

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

Tigerman,

A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topic–-Maps and sizes

Tigerman, I looked up and found your 1939 Global map.  NICE JOB!  I must say I could see the results of a lot of work that went into it’s creation.  Again,…Nice Job!

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

Tigerman, I’m glad people of your talent are a major part of this project.

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

With the understanding that a “Solomons Campaign” map would be significantly enlarged in scale, making all land areas larger…

But keeping in mind the islands in a “Solomons” map are,…in comparison to the land masses in a continental-type map,…much much smaller…

I believe the TOTAL land area would be EQUAL to or possibly SMALLER.

And the major battles themselves would be “concentrated”, so to speak, because the area would be smaller.  I think this could lead to some titanic battles, possibly shortening the game.

Tigerman,…with your experience with maps, and your upcoming Okinawa map,…what would your opionion be regarding this assessment?

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

As far as your Okinawa map what size is your “Iceberg” going to be?

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

Also, as I’ve said many times before, it would be fantastic if we could end up with a SERIES of maps with the SCOPE of a campaign,…but SIZE of a 1940-global game.

“Tall Paul”

“Coach”,

It seems the voting is coming along nicely.  I’m not surprised that the “Montana” class Battleship was the first to garner 20 votes.  In the book I read that showed the designers illustrated views it proved it would be a beautiful, and yet graceful “Monster” of a ship.

I thought of another ship that would be useful to our Naval gameplay,…the
“APD Fast Attack Transports”.  Rebuilt out of old WW1 4-stack destroyers with half of the fire/engine rooms removed to make room for the Marine Raiders.  They had very distinctive profiles and would add another dimension to our gameplay.  They would be a great fit with the US Marine set you just produced as so many of the Marine Raiders toted the Thompson around.

I haven’t said anything about this ship type because I’ve probabaly given you enough ship types to consider already(and you’ve been very considerate, here).  But I’d hope it might make it into the Second US Navy set, with the other important but not necessarily COOL ships that we really need.  I’m already assuming that the first set will  be produced.  The support seems to be there, don’t you think?

Variable, Tigerman, and I with others helping are looking into making a “Solomons Campaign” game whose map would be the size of a 1940-global map.  We plan to make it a worthy arena to spotlight your units and all of the new or expanded capabilities they represent.  Think of all the FUN!!!

Anyway, thanks for your continuing contributions to all of our A&A experience.

“Tall Paul”

Gang,

A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topics–1. Rules Complexity, 2. Map Size/Scale

Rules Complexity

@Tigerman77:

Tall Paul and Variable,
 
  I think keeping the basic A&A combat system is important so to keep the game easy to learn and play. I know the concerns of a battleship taking out infantry, but on a d12 system a BB can roll against ships at an 8 or less, AA fire at a 4 or less and shore bombardment at a 3, cruisers 2, destroyers 1……each having different ranges! We can take a d12 system and keep it similar to the A&A system we have now.

I completely agree with your thinking we need to keep the rules as SIMPLE and streamlined as possible.  I think the “Basic A&A Rules” will not only do everything we need,…but make it EASIER to learn and understand as well as potentially faster.

I’m not sure about your “differrent ranges” idea, but I think all ideas should be  thoroughly discussed and considered.

Another aspect we must understand is that this Solomons Campaign game is going to be so LARGE, and have so many NEW CAPABILITIES to take into consideration that we don’t want anyone to be OVERWHELMED !

Also, I think it would lend itself to having the two combatants, Japan and the USA/Allies subdivided into differrent commands making it into a four, six, or even eight player game.  Whether each sub-divided command were along Air, Sea, and Land forces,…OR along mission-specific Task Force Commands of combined arms would be left up to the players.  The point is,…with multiple players all co-operating, sometimes in a very close area, I think SIMPLICITY of the rules would allow for easier co-operation and co-ordination of the players.

Map Size/Scale

@Tigerman77:

Tall Paul and Variable,

I want more tactical games for sure. One problem is making the games shorter so everyone can and want to play. In my Okinawa game I have made it to where you can play a short game or long game. Short game uses less units and no optional rules, long game uses more units and the optional rules! The optional rules include yamoto group comming to the rescue, the Japanese 9th division is sent back to help reinforce the island, one round of combat per turn. I’m going to revisit my Invasion of Italy game and change the combat system so the game isn;t as cumbersome.

I totally believe in the plan that it would be a major improvement to have a Solomons Campaign game that was significantly enlarged in size and detail.  In doing so this would normally tend to slow the game down somewhat as there will now be more land zones to conquer, protect, etc.

But remember,…this is the Solomons,…made up entirely of smaller and larger islands rather than huge continents.  While enlargement of these islands to a size to allow a more “tactical” level of play would obviously result in more land zones,…I think we must realize that the TOTAL number of the contested land zones would still be much smaller in numbers than the “continental” games we’re accustomed to,…and therefore shouldn’t contribute to a real slowing of the game.  Obviously the map itself, and a lot of play-testing would be necessary to confirm this.

@Tigerman77:

I love the idea of a large map of the solomon islands campaign. I’m almost done with my Okinawa game, but wopuld be cool to have Tarawa, Pelileu, Philippines, Iwo Jima, and definetly Midway. Also we could make some games on missions that didn’t take place, similar to sea lion. Operation Causeway( Formosa ) and a alternate Pearl Harbour. We definetly have a blank canvas on to which we can make some awesome games with the pieces comming out. I would love to make a North Atlantic game where Germany has to destroy the convoys heading to Britain.

I couldn’t agree more.

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

Darn it again,

I had a good long post in response to the Imperious Leader.  When I tried to “post” it it said I might want to reconsider it as another posting had come in while I was typing this one.  Although I pushed the alt+s buttons it didn’t post it and now it’s “lost”.

Is this a routine thing?
                                                                                    “Tall Paul”

Gang,

A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topic–-General Discussion

I think it might always be a good idea to pause and let things “marinate” in your brain.

I can see your point on the “reality” side of things. Although, like most of us I can recall the 1st Infantry having it’s rear-end saved from German Tanks by the US NAVY Cruisers off the beaches of Sicily.

I hear what your true concerns are and I understand them.

On the other hand, I have very real concerns that in order to improve this game to it’s “best” it could really become a “monster”, that while being more correct, might only be for the die-hard players such as grognards that would love to have every .45 pistol included.  I overstress this point somewhat,…but I feel it would be soo much better if we could keep it as simple as possible.

It is already going to be a LARGE game, with MANY options, MANY new units with MANY new capabilities.  With a larger number of sea/land spaces on the map it will lengthen the game somewhat and I would think if we could keep things as simple as possible, it might help speed the game along.

Also, I think if we keep the basic A&A combat system that everyone is already familiar with, it would enable players to “step into” this game(s), even with all of the additional units and capabilities, and play it well without a large learning curve.  I think if we could pull that off it would be quite an accomplishment!

As I always say,…What do YA’LL think?
                                                                                    “Tall Paul”

Warrior,

A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topic–-General Discussions

Welcome

First off, WELCOME to the “discussion group” of a new Naval A&A game.  I envite you to PLEASE contribute any and all ideas/opinions you might have that you think might assist us in our quest to improve our gaming experience.  We are especially glad to welcome your experience in rules, etc.  Variable has started on the rules and I’m sure your help/suggestions will be welcome.

Map size/scale

I’m glad you’re in agreement with a large map representing (in a more detailed way) only one campaign/battle area.  This in itself would allow more types of operations and give a much more in-depth experience to our games.  Couple this with the (proposed) new units becoming available and I think this undoubtably spells more FUN!

The Solomons Campaign game

As you no doubt have already read, we are at the moment discussing a particular
map/game, The Solomons Campaign.  I’m hoping that we can end up with a SERIES of maps/games that could be played TOGETHER in series.  The reason I say in series is it would show the progression of technical upgrades through TIME,…just as in the real war.

Tech Improvements through Time

For example,…you wouldn’t expect to see B-29s and Atomic Bombs in the early war campaign battles.

But you could expect to start out the first campaign with: P-40 warhawks, F-4 wildcats, Stuart Tanks, “Old” Battleships, etc.

Then, after a certain length of TIME(turn #) have the capability to purchase IMPROVED weapon types like: P-38 lightnings, F-6 hellcats, F-4U corsairs, Sherman Tanks, “Iowa” class Battleships, etc., etc., etc.

Results Transfer

Also I think it would be really cool to be able to “TRANSFER” to the next map/game
a certain amount of the results you attained in the previous map/game.  Thus you could actually fight the entire war through all of it’s battles/campaigns,…and to a certain degree your END RESULT would depend the results you attained from EACH map/game.  This could be done through a sort of “grading” of results;…Absolute Victory, Victory, Stalemate, Loss, Extreme Loss, etc. and the associated effects.  I imagine a LOT of  discussion will take place on this aspect.

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

I realize each of the above topics just mentioned can and should be discussed thoroughly.  I could amplify EACH with MANY pages of well thought-out views,…but I want EVERYBODY else to become INVOLVED so as to make this OUR game instead of just MY game.

Ship Types

Yes, I agree that the “Alaska” class is a BC BattleCruiser and listed it as such.  I’m glad you spoke of the “Montana” class as a SBB Super Battleship as I had the same thought and also thought of the “Old” Battleships as OBBs.  Possibly even dividing these further to differentiate between 12" and 14" guns.  Maybe OBB-12s and
OBB-14s.

Everyone Get Involved

Like I said, I’m very glad YOU brought it up as I’d really like to involve more people in this project and see it exposed to all of the “gray matter” available here on this forum.  There are a lot of inteligent, experienced A&A players as well as game designers, rules gurus, and just plain fans that can ALL add something to the discussion so we’ll end up with a much-improved gaming experience.

As the old expression goes,…What do Ya’ll Think???
                                                                                 “Tall Paul”

A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topic–-Naval units—Specialised Rules

Gang,

Let me first start out by saying that I’ve never thoroughly read the rules for the A&A-Guadalcanal game.  I guess I will do so now to have a more complete understanding.

Also, I agree that we have a lot of units here.

But other than the “Atlanta” class anti-aircraft Light Cruiser (which would have a greater defense against AIRCRAFT) I can’t think of ANY of the ships that would require “specialized” attack/defense rules.  I may be wrong here, but I don’t think so.  PLEASE advise me of any situations that I may have overlooked or not contemplated occurring.  Consider ALL of the differrent Naval. Air, and Land units,…and ALL of the varying ways in which they may conduct combat, and then we’ll discuss your findings.  This is a “forum” exactly for the purpose of exploring, discussing, and deciding all of the attributes of this new naval game(s).

Also I think it would definately be an asset to keep it as “simple” as possible and avoid ending up with the “Monster Game” I had previously mentioned.  I think SIMPLE would be preferred as long as it doesn’t deprive us of anything USEFUL or FUN.

We will have entirely enough complexity just in the availability of all of the differrent units, as well as the map being more on a tactical level.  It seems to me it would be an advantage to keep this game(s) as simular to the “standard” A&A games as possible to allow any A&A player to fairly easily “step into” to it without a HUGE LEARNING CURVE.  
I think a large amount of new rules might tend to discourage a lot of potential players.

Just remember all of the “new” things we will be introducing/expanding here already:

Mine warfare, PT boat offensive/defensive warfare, Convoys and their attack or defense, Recon through the Seaplane tender and PBYs, Amphibious Raids or large Invasions, Logistics(?)-Supply and Fuel, and multiple levels of most every ship,…
DE or DD,…CL, CLAA, or CA,…“Old” BBs, “Iowa” BBs, “Montana” BBs.

I’m almost tempted to classify the the “Montana” class Battleships as BBBB, standing for “Big Beautiful Battleship Boys”,…haha.

I think that we should try to make this game(s), with all of the improvements and expansions of things already done, with all of the new units available, to be played on a more “tactical” level map as SIMPLE and EASY to learn/play as possible.  If we could do that I think it would be to ALL of our benefit.  This game(s) is already verging on being “Overwhelming” and I think that is important to keep in mind.

I am VERY interested in your and other peoples’ opinions and think in cases such as this that a group effort can bring out the best ideas/methods.

I have a lot of ideas and opinions and certainly don’t want myself, or anyone else, to be overbearing.  The entire objective here is a vastly improved A&A gaming experience.

Again,…What do ya’ll think???
                                                                                   “Tall Paul”

Gang,

A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign

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(8)      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            ?
CVL    Light Carrier                  0         2           2*          ?
CV     Carrier (Essex)               0         2           2*          ?
CV(H) Carrier Heavy (Midway)   0         2           2*          ?
AO     Oiler                            0         0           2            ?
AP     Troop Transport             0         0           2            ?
AK     Freighter                       0         0           2            ?
DMS   Minesweeper                  1         1           2            ?
AV     Seaplane Tender             0         0           2            ?
LCVP  “Higgins” boat                 0         0           2            ?
LCM   Landing Craft-Mechanised 0         0           2            ?
LST   Landing Ship-Tank           0         0           2            ?

There’s a LOT open for discussion, here.  Like the possibility of putting the NEWEST
classes of Carriers, Battleships, Light and (possibly)Heavy Cruisers, and Destroyers in a “FAST” class with a movement of 3.  Since we will have a LARGE ocean area I really like this possibility.  It also makes you think more about defending against these types of “Fast” ships with regular speed ships.

Also, I’m not sure I’m necessarily for including the “Midway” class Carriers and “Alaska” class BattleCruisers as I don’t think they were around these battle areas in the real WW2.  I may be wrong concerning the USS Guam.

Wow, I’m tired and it’s 4:45 AM here.  As the saying goes,…What do ya’ll think???

“Tall Paul”

Gang,

A&A Naval Game–-The Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topic–----The mapboard

I’m glad everybody seems to agree with my ideas about a LARGE, campaign area map/game.

I also realize that a Solomons game would technicly be a LAND campaign,…but the neccesity for so many NAVAL and AIR actions make it sooooooo much more than that.

Think of all the convoys to be escorted or attacked, of amphibious raids, of amphibious invasions, of naval surface bombardments, of naval air operations, of naval surface combat operations, of submarine operations, of PT boat ambushes, of PBY recon patrols, of paratroop drops, of bombing missions with a multitude of targets—ships, naval bases, air bases, supplies(?), etc.  This is a LOT more than just a LAND game.

If we include the ability and necesity to supply all of these forces(LOGISTICS) and the ability to build/repair/upgrade all the differrent facilities(air bases, naval bases, a/a capability(?), industrial complexes through the use of SeaBees and/or Pioneer units
we’ll have even MORE than that!!!

With the mapboard being soooo large it would almost demand that there be several
“operations” going on simultaniously and would have many differrent task force/groups dispersed around the gameboard.  This sounds like what I’ve always wished for in my DREAM A&A GAME.
                                          ----------------------

Does anyone remember the computer game PACIFIC WAR by Gary Grigsby several years ago?  Although it covered the whole of the Pacific and was a very loooooooong game,…I loved for example—the capabilities of moving SeaBees around and improving the air bases.  It left the emphasis on strategy, tactics, and timing up to you within physical geographical limits.  I don’t want to make a “monster” of an A&A game, but think a lot of good ideas could be added to what we know of as our A&A games to enrich the gameplay( read FUN).

Well, what do you think???
                                                                                 “Tall Paul”

Warrior,

A&A Naval Game–-Solomons Campaign

Discussion Topic–-“Phases” of unit up-grades

As far as the “phase-in” of unit up-grades just think of it along the lines of what actually happenned in the real war “tweeked” a little bit to keep it EVEN between the
Japanese and the Americans.

As far as how the units would be paid for I think we should first determine what the map/game will encompass and then the objectives/payoffs/etc. will flow from there.

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

I think it might be a good idea for us all to use “headings” like the one above to make it easier for us all to follow all the differrent questions/suggestions/answers.  What do YA’LL think(grin)?
                                                                                “Tall Paul”

Hey Tigerman,

What are your opinions of my last posting concerning our map/game paramators and size?

What thoughts have you already had concerning YOUR Pacific game?

“Tall Paul”

Gang,

I might suggest that we all discuss one or two ideas at a time so as to better
“flesh-out” our thought processes.

How about we start out with the area each map/game should encompass.

–--------------------------

I’m of the opinion that each of the maps/games should be of a regional size including a whole battle/campaign area.  Think of EACH of these maps/games encompasing the entire map area of a 1940-Global map and you’ll realize the amount of sea and land zones I’m contemplating for EACH of these games.

We could ULTIMATELY put a patchwork together of all of these maps/games to play the ENTIRE Pacific in a long-term game OR in a tournament.

For instance,…The Solomons Campaign.

I would like to see the Solomons game cover:

In the North,…the Admiralties, New Ireland, New Britain and the Bismark Sea

In the Northeast,…Truk(off-board)

In the Center,…ALL of the islands in “the slot” including Savo, Florida, Tulagi, Gavutu, and Tanambogo

In the East,…the Santa Cruz islands OR at least the ocean in this area

In the Southeast,…the New Hebrides and New Caladonia

In the Southwest,…some parts of New Guinea and possibly Australia(off-board)

Think of the area just described laid-out diagonally across the mapboard equivilents of a 1940-Global game.  Basically using a mapboard the size of the whole world to represent a more detailed map of only the Solomons Campaign area.  By reducing the scale somewhat from the STRATEGIC to a little more of the TACTICAL size we would have more sea and land zones.

A LOT of these decisions would have to be thoroughly discussed and depend a GREAT deal on gameplay issues.  Our “Map Master” will SAVE us here.

OK,…What do ya’ll think about the map/game size and area covered???

By the way,…I’m from the South and YA’LL is a contraction for you all.

“Tall Paul”

Darn it,

I just put about 30 minutes worth of ideas onto a “post” and then I guess I deleted it!
I guess I just had to show my human side(G).  Well, here I go again……

“Tall Paul”

Dadler,

Yes, I couldn’t agree more.  Especially if you took the B-29 out of the equation. 
This is supposed to be a NAVAL set anyway.  I would LOVE to buy several B-29s also,…but maybe put it with some other units, like Air Bases and such.  We need them, too.

But most importantly,…Please VOTE WITH YOUR PRE-ORDER(s) of this set(s).  It will help us ALL, the “Coach” has laid it out for us…IF enough interest is shown in these units by people PLACING PRE-ORDERS, they will be produced.

“Tall Paul”

Warrior888,

Welcome and I’m glad to see you get involved in the discussion here.  We think alike on several issues except:

(1.)  I hope the map for each game would be quite a bit more “localized” than everything from Pearl Harbor to Calcutta.  Think of “The Solomons”.  Although being a bit more “localized”, I hope there would be MANY, MANY sea zones.  Enough to feel-out, find, and then fight a big Naval conflict.  I would hope for a map size of 48" x 108", like my enlarged 1940-Global(Strong Hint to Variable).  If the “Coach” prints the maps he has already mentioned before on other maps that he could “adjust” sizes.

(2.)  I am TOTALLY against “tech” developement!  I feel that it completely unbalances the opponents.  If one player invests in “tech”, he either ends up with an
overwhelming advantage,…or he looses because his large investment didn’t pan-out for him.  Either way, it unbalances the gameplay,…and I prefer the head-to-head competition against my enemy where it’s my wits(or lack of them) against theirs.

I feel it would be so much more competitive as well as realistic(?) by having PHASES(?) where you start with a lesser unit and after a certain time(turn) it could be up-graded to a more modern unit.  For example:  the US starts with Stuart Tanks, P-40s, Wildcats, etc. and then later advances to Sherman Tanks, P-38s, Hellcats/Corsairs.
With all of these units (hopefully) about to be produced it seems almost wasteful
(in fun not had) not to make use of them and I think the time-line introduction of newer units would make the gameplay more INTERESTING and COMPETITIVE.

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

Most of your thoughts seem to simular to mine, like long Convoys, SeaBees, recon, no Atomic Bomb, etc.  Just think how much more interesting it will be by having many more objectives/targets to accomplish/destroy/protect.

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

Thanks and keep the ideas coming,

“Tall Paul”

Variable,

As far as being a fan of WEB Griffen’s, I really try to limit(haha) myself to Military History, unless I know it’s the “back-story” of a fictionalized history of a real event.  Let’s see, I believe I’ve read upwards of 4,000+ books on WW2 and although my Dad was in the ETO I seem to be fascinated with the Pacific mostly.  Perhaps because I’m from land-locked NorthWest Louisiana originally.  The “American engenuity” that spawned the A-20 and B-25 strafers, C-47s flying “combat missions”, and the “skip-bombing” of Gen. Kenney’s 5th AF just fascinate me to no end.

“Tall Paul”

Gang,

“Brute” Krulak’s 2nd Parachute Marines used the Fast Attack Transports to “Raise Hell”(book title) on Choiseul.  There were several differrent units that made use of the
Fast Attack Transports, although the Parachute Marines re-configured their battallions(smaller) so as to enable them to fit on their purpose-made transports.

–-----------------------------

As far as our gameplay the Raiders, 'Chutes, or “regular” Marines could make use of these Fast Attack Transports to deepen our FUN factor.  Just think of them as a Navally deployed parachute insertion.  This would work great with the “Coach’s” Marine set and help his sales, too(in turn, helping ALL OF US).

–----------------------------

Paratroops, used with either HBG’s C-46 or FMG’s C-47 would add another, albeit simular capability to our gaming.  I realize that paratroop drops didn’t occur in jungle areas except at the clearing at Nadzab on New Guinea which practically won the campaign, and later in the Phillipines.  Again, this would help HBG & FMG sales which would help ALL OF US even more).  My primary interest here is not to help the "Coach’s or FMG’s sales,…but to HAVE MORE FUN!!!  It seems logical to me that the two are mutually beneficial though.

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

Let’s see.  I believe there were 4 Marine Raider and 2 Marine Parachute Battallions.  I’ve read about 40+ books on the Marine Raiders, ParaMarines, and their operations.

All of the Raiders ended up reconstituting the old 4th Marine Regiment and the Parachute Marines became the cadre for the new 5th Marine Division.

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

Of course what made the Fast Attack Transports unique was their CAPABILITY as well as their distinctive profile.  I think these would be very INTERESTING and USEFUL units to have in our games!!!

–--------------------------------

Also, another point.  I hope the “new naval games” would be in a scale/size that say if it were representing the island of Guadalcanal, it would be several “tiles” or “zones” in size,…instead of just one for the whole island.  A LITTLE more of a “tactical” size rather than a “strategical” size.

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

While I was at lunch today I was struck by the possibility of all of these new games being able to be PLAYED TOGETHER or in series (one at a time or at a tournament) to represent a WHOLE CAMPAIGN or the WHOLE WAR!  Wow, What do you think???

“Tall Paul”