From: Doug Murphy Subject: More Guadalcanal Game (S&T 178) I'll bet this version of the game is quite different from that submitted by Chester. In response to some over-night emails... Upon further review with my gaming partner last evening, he insists the CRT is probably a differential one, despite what the rules say about it being odds-based...we are wondering whether we are being especially obtuse about this -- anybody else get S&T 178 yet? He posits that maybe one adds up opposing combat factors, subtracts the smaller and rolls on the column of the attacker. 7.0 US reinforcements enter on "beach hexes." Are the beach hexes those numbered that the SNLF can land upon or are all hexes beach hexes, since a perusal of the map reveals a beach-like line on most every north shore map hex? We said the US reinforcements can land anywhere. Let me restate there are no supply rules aside from an attrition roll for the Jap. player which at worst results in the removal of one unit. The US has no supply to worry about at all. Note that while there are 8 different types of units designated (inf, marines, engineers, pioneers, heavy weapons, paratroopers, cav recon, raiders), there are few game effects of differentiation (SNLF can amphib land; engineers can repair Henderson damage at a greater rate). What is the deal with the amtrac unit (which is the only unit with a def.strength only -- no attack)? Can it carry another US batt? The US apparently can't conduct raids such as the one on 3 Sept. We let the US player conduct an amphib assault once per month upon a die roll of x = the number of hexes away from the perimeter line. The US player must withdraw certain units throughout the game; however, note withdrawal is somewhat voluntary as the unit can stay for a cost in Vps. 14.2 Air points appear to be cumulative (unless a Jap. squadron is "lost" due to an attrition roll). If the US loses air points due to Henderson damage, do these points ever recover (as they did historically). We said yes upon a die roll. If Henderson is closed due to damage, can it reopen? We said yes. IJN naval points are not cumulative. Those not used are lost. We have a continuing argument about IJN naval bombardments affecting combat (11.1 F). Re-reading our sources (which aren't definitive of course), we couldn't find evidence of such support save as an ancilliary to Henderson bombardment...we couldn't find evidence of the Japanese ground forces or US for that matter "calling in" semi-pre-planned naval gunfire support...especially during the "daytime" for the Japanese...witness the relatively terrible coordination between the two services (navy and army) during this campaign... Comments? 15.2 If Jap. allocates arty to support a combat, he rolls the die and applies a variable amount from this roll, we said further that he MUST apply at least one point regardless of the roll. Doug Murphy On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Doug Murphy wrote: > Upon further review with my gaming partner last evening, he insists the > CRT is probably a differential one, despite what the rules say about it > being odds-based... I'm not sure why this is confusing. 11.1 e) clearly states that you compare the attacker to defender strengths as a ratio. If it is the spread of values on the CRT, then remember there is little functional difference between a differential and ratio based tables. The differential table is just a pseudo-logarithm. > 7.0 US reinforcements enter on "beach hexes." Are the beach hexes > those numbered that the SNLF can land upon or are all hexes beach > hexes, since a perusal of the map reveals a beach-like line on most every > north shore map hex? > Section 10.11 implies that the yellow arrows point to the beach hexes. The yellow arrows appear on the terrain effects chart, but there are no entries for them. The amphib technology of WWII really limited the types of beaches you could use for a landing, so it is very unlikely the entire shoreline of the map are beach hexes in terms of landing troops. > Note that while there are 8 different types of units designated (inf, > marines, engineers, pioneers, heavy weapons, paratroopers, cav recon, > raiders), there are few game effects of differentiation (SNLF can amphib > land; engineers can repair Henderson damage at a greater rate). > There are several different kinds of terrain, with basically most of them having the same effect on movement and combat. That's the price of a less complex system. > What is the deal with the amtrac unit (which is the only unit with a > def.strength only -- no attack)? Can it carry another US batt? > No where in the rules does it say they can. In addition, the rules only address US Reinforcements landing on beaches, not units already on the map. In addition, USMC doctrine of the time didn't address using AMTRACS tactically once off the beach. As a matter of fact they were so rare at the time I can't imagine anyone even thinking of using them elsewhere. Of course the situation on the 'Canal was different. In reference to the raids, I thought they were conducted using boats. The 'Tracs certainly wouldn't have had the speed to get anywhere quickly. > The US player must withdraw certain units throughout the game; > however, note withdrawal is somewhat voluntary as the unit can stay > for a cost in Vps. Section 7.2 says the VP cost is only applicable if the units have already been eliminated. I didn't see anything else that implied the penalty could be voluntarily invoked. > 14.2 Air points appear to be cumulative (unless a Jap. squadron is "lost" > due to an attrition roll). If the US loses air points due to Henderson > damage, do these points ever recover (as they did historically). We said > yes upon a die roll. If Henderson is closed due to damage, can it reopen? Air points are cumulative. Section 14.2 says the availability of US air points is determined for turn based on the level of damage to Henderson Field. So as the damage level improves, so does the available US air points. Section 17 on Repair indicates that damage to HF can be repaired. I find no other mention that once HF is closed it can't be fixed. So as soon as the damage level is reduced, HF is reopened. > IJN naval points are not cumulative. Those not used are lost. We have a > continuing argument about IJN naval bombardments affecting combat > (11.1 F). Re-reading our sources (which aren't definitive of course), we > couldn't find evidence of such support save as an ancilliary to Henderson > bombardment...we couldn't find evidence of the Japanese ground forces > or US for that matter "calling in" semi-pre-planned naval gunfire > support...especially during the "daytime" for the Japanese...witness the > relatively terrible coordination between the two services (navy and army) > during this campaign... Comments? I also can't remember when the IJN provided shore bombardment, although I haven't read up on it recently. There were some times it was ancillary to the attacks on HF, so maybe they are just treated separtely to simplify the game design. Of course, given the importance of shutting down HF, who would want to use the IJN for anything but bombarding the airfield? This was even more critical to the IJN. They needed the airfield supporessed so they could run supplies and troops to the island. Even if there was good coordination, and the army command wanted shore bombardment for an attack, I'm not sure the IJN would have agreed. > 15.2 If Jap. allocates arty to support a combat, he rolls the die and > applies a variable amount from this roll, we said further that he MUST > apply at least one point regardless of the roll. I think this misreads 15.2. The die roll is the maximum nuber of points the Japanese player can use. This means he can choose 0 points if he desires. I am not sure why you would want to force him to use at least one point. The US player can decide how many to commit with no minimum required. I realize this could get gamey. The Japanese player needs 4 points to change the odds, and only rolls a 3. But then the US might only have 3 points left and need 4 so he doesn't commit artillery to the combat. Terry Rooker >>> Terry Rooker 07/18/96 05:08am >>> >I'm not sure why this is confusing. 11.1 e) clearly states that you >compare the attacker to defender strengths as a ratio. If it is the spread >of values on the CRT, then remember there is little functional difference >between a differential and ratio based tables. The differential table is just >a pseudo-logarithm. --- Thanks for the notation Terry, we just figured it out last eve as my gaming partner received a copy of S&T in the mail....my map has what must be a printer's error in that the odds-ratios which are "usually" listed atop a CRT ran down the side with the die roll results atop the chart instead. My map copy had a double solid line that blotted out the first parts of the ratio so the column read 3, 2, 1, 2, 3.... >Section 7.2 says the VP cost is only applicable if the units have already >been eliminated. I didn't see anything else that implied the penalty could >be voluntarily invoked. -- 5.3 notes +1VP for every US unit not withdrawn...we interpreted that to mean the US could "keep" a unit for that 1 VP cost. >I also can't remember when the IJN provided shore bombardment, >although I haven't read up on it recently. There were some times it was >ancillary to the attacks on HF, so maybe they are just treated separtely to >simplify the game design. Of course, given the importance of shutting >down HF, who would want to use the IJN for anything but bombarding >the airfield? This was even more critical to the IJN. They needed the >airfield supporessed so they could run supplies and troops to the island. >Even if there was good coordination, and the army command wanted >shore bombardment for an attack, I'm not sure the IJN would have agreed. -- Excellent points. We've agree to play that the naval points are always used only for airfield bombardment... We created an offmap area for the US reinforcements...just placing them inverted on one of the sea hexes and then, as Terry noted, "landing" them on one of the beach hexes. Other errata & questions: 15.1 notes Jap. units must be within 6 hexes of 1807 or 1808. These hexes should be 0815 and 0816 15.2 mentions arty supporting only the attack. 11.1 mentions arty used for both attack/defense. We followed 11.1 18.0 The reinforcement chart is somewhat unclear about how many of the Nov II units were the optional reinforcements. Chart references to 19.1 and 19.2 should be 18.1 and 18.2. Also, we played that every turn the Jap. player called for Rabaul reinforcements, it cost 5 VP. Doug Murphy