Guadalcanal (Smithsonian Edition)

[Autarch]

Has anyone played or own this? I was curious if the naval combat was tactical (fire and maneuver), or abstract (total gunnery factors, roll dice, allocate damage).

Thanks,

A.

[NimitsTexan]

In Surface combat, each ship manuveres indpendently and fires at an indivudal target, and hits are allocated accordingly using a single dice roll modified by appropriate facotors (facing, gun ratings, armor ratings). Same thing goes for air to air, surface to air, and air to surfact combat.

BTW, if there is anyone who has played this game (or Midway) and is familier with the rules, how do you handle shadowing when using advanced search/spotting rules?

[Autarch]

Thanks NimitsTexan! I was hoping surface combat was more detailed than in its big brother Flat Top. I was also curious if it includes land combat at all.

If you don't mind my asking, what is your overall opinion of the game? I haven't really been able to find any detailed reviews of it online.

Thanks again,

A.

[NimitsTexan]

I would have to say that I find both Guadalcanal and its predecessor, Midway, very enjoyable, relatively playable, and fairly historically accurate. Units are aircraft squadrons (or half squadrons in some cases), recon flights (though no battleship or cruiser seaplanes are represented) capital ships (CL, CA, BB, AVs, CVL, and CV) and squadrons/flottillas of destroyers and transports. The subs were present at all the battles simulated, there presence is only accounted for very abstractly (and poorly in my opinion) through and optional advanced rule. (In 10 or so games I have played of Midway and Guadalcanal, only once or twice has a sub ever scored a hit on a ship). The pieces are standard carboard counters, with black and white illustrations of the various ships or planes they represent, as well as the usual numbers for attack, defense, movement, etc.

The main (or operational) game is played on "searchboards," one for each side, hidden from the other player by a screen. On that board are markers representing all of your own task forces and spottings (or guestimates) of the other players ships. Off to the side are charts representing the hanger and flightdecks of each of your aircraft-cabable ships (including IJN seaplane carriers)


Turns represent about 2 hours of daylight or 4-6 hours of darkness. Each turn includes several phases, the main of which are: Ready phase (aircraft are moved to and from hanger deck to flight deck), sea movement phase (task forces are moved on the searchboard), air movement/search phase (move scout units and then combat air units), combat resolution (all air and surface combats), and Air Recovery. There are also advanced rules for handling at sea repairs, subs (as mentioned before), staging air strikes from one base to another, etc.

When a air strike or surface combat occurs, it is resolved on the battleboard (5-15 minutes for air combats, 10-45 minutes for surface combats). Air attack include first CAP vs. Escort (if any are present), after which any CAP that survive and break through the escort can have a go at the bombers. Next the ships AA gets a chance (ships have seperate surface and AA attack ratings), and any surving air units then get their crack, where combat is resolved by type (leve/glide bombers, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers). Surface combat is more tedious, but includes rules for torpedos, Japanese night advantage (don't want to get caught in a night surface enegament with the Yamato at Midway :) ) and armor ratings. In other words, the Yamato, Mutsu, or North Carolina will rip through most cruisers and destroyers, while fire from CAs and CLs bounces off of them. Double sided units take six damage steps (1 hit, 2 hits, flipped, flipped +1 hit, flipped +2 hits, eliminated). There are a few single-sided units (small air units or destroyer squadrons) which receive damge similarly except that they are destroyed after 3 hits rather than 6. However, if combat odds are favorable, it is quite possible to leave a ship dead in the water (flipped+2hits) or sunk at the end of a single engagemnt. Most victory points come from damaging or destroying planes and ships, and as is historically accurate, Japanese planes (and to a lesser extent ships) pack alot of offensive wallop but are very brittle, and will be quickly attritted away if used aggresively (or unwisely).

Land combat is varies from extremely present to non-existant. Bases can be attacked and receive damage similarly to ships (and can also be bombarded during surface combat), and generally function as tough, stationary, but weakly armed aircraft carriers. In Midway, the Japanese must destroy the island before landing troops there (by parking a transport squadron on the Midway hex for three turns) to maximize their victory points. In a couple of Gaudalcanal scenarios, on or both sides has as a goal to land troops at an island (again by parking transports at that hex). However, bases never change sides and there are no rules for land combat.

Despite the fact I have had the games for 5 or 6 years, the lack of opponents has limited the number of times I have been able to play the game. Most of the time, the games take 6+ hours, though some (especially the full 4 day Midway campaign, have taken considerably longer). Of course, my friends and brother may just have been slow players; it took some of us 7 hours to play through Axis & Allies Pacific (which is supposedly supposed to be a 4-5 hour game). Also, the longest games are generally those with the most surface engagements; games of Midway where the whole US fleet gets wiped in the first day or two because they got over-aggressive, charged out to sink the transports and instead got caught by the Mobile fleet with their planes on deck are much shorter. :)

Personally, I prefer Midway to Guadalcanal.Though it only has 1 battle (represented by 1, 2, and 4 day scenarios), it allows greater room for manuvere and variety than Guadalcanal, as the scenarios in the later (including 2 for Eastern Solomans and 1 each for Santa Cruz and the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal) are dominated by land based air power. In Midway, the placement of the US carriers is completely unknown to the IJN, allowing for a real game of cat and moues, and on occasion a devestating surprise attack that wipes out the IJN carriers before they can hit back, whereas the Guadalacanal scenarios often end up in airbase vs. airbase slugfests that leave most of the carriers hors de combat. Plus Midway gives one lots of battleships to play with (including the optional inclusion of TF 1 with 5 old Arizona-style US dreadnoughts). In Guadalcanal's favor, though, it does offer more variety in types of battles (with a US favored Eastern Solomons, a IJN favored Santa Cruz, and a surface ship heavy Battle of Guadalcanal) and relatively more even set ups. Midway pits 6 IJN CVs and CVLs and 7-11 IJN IJN BBs against 3 US CVs and 0-5 USN BBs, where, as I am sure you know, the Solomon Naval battles generally saw more even committment of carriers on both sides. In any event, both games using this system are fairly bloody, and most battles have come down to a final strike between single carriers and/or operational bases. Seldom does more than one carrier in the whole game survive unscathed.

[Autarch]

Just a few more questions and idle observations:

Units are aircraft squadrons (or half squadrons in some cases), recon flights (though no battleship or cruiser seaplanes are represented)

Which is odd, seeing that cruiser search planes played critical roles in several battles IIRC. Do you think these are already factored into those units innate search abilities?
(ho ho! and don't forget how big a role they played in night battles where they burned nicely to illuminate US cruisers. :( )

The subs were present at all the battles simulated, there presence is only accounted for very abstractly (and poorly in my opinion) through and optional advanced rule. (In 10 or so games I have played of Midway and Guadalcanal, only once or twice has a sub ever scored a hit on a ship).

Let alone their even greater usefulness in searching/shadowing and patrolling "bottleneck" areas.

The main (or operational) game is played on "searchboards," one for each side, hidden from the other player by a screen.

Are these divided into hexes or search areas/tracks? The game scale and unit size seems larger than Flat Top (another S. Craig Taylor game). It seems that simply doubling speeds and ranges of aircraft would make the search phase unwieldly in comparison, unless mapscale was also doubled. Does the game indicate what the hexscale is?

Off to the side are charts representing the hanger and flightdecks of each of your aircraft-cabable ships (including IJN seaplane carriers)

No US AV's? Pro'ly justed lumped them into Espiritu Santo's capacity. :( Having those search planes forward based could really make a difference!

and Air Recovery.

I was wondering how the various endurances of the different aircraft were addressed. Or do all planes have to land at the end of the turn? (!)

When a air strike or surface combat occurs, it is resolved on the battleboard

That's great! Actual fire and manuever, no abstract "tally and allocate" combat. :)

Most victory points come from damaging or destroying planes and ships,

Same in Flat Top with some VP coming from landing troops in certain hexes (and even winning the game in one case) Unfortunately, victory points for combat/operational losses seems to lose sight of the fact that all these battles were in support of the ground campaign on Guadalcanal.

Is there a campaign game that combines all the battles? It would probably take weeks to play, but would certainly introduce some caution concerning force preservation for later battles and not promote the wrecklessness that victory point games encourage.

Land combat is varies from extremely present to non-existant... However, bases never change sides and there are no rules for land combat.

Shuckeydangdarn, I really was looking for a Guadalcanal game that combined air sea AND land battles. :(

Personally, I prefer Midway to Guadalcanal.

I agree, it certianly sounds more playable. The problem with any historical Guadalcanal game is that you usually have a good idea where the enemy is coming from and what their goal is depending on the scenario. With Midway the enemy could be anywhere in that vast expanse of ocean. The ultimate game of cat and mouse on a FLEET SCALE.

whereas the Guadalacanal scenarios often end up in airbase vs. airbase slugfests that leave most of the carriers hors de combat.

Ouch. Is this because of some game mechanic? Ironically in reality, LBA on both sides were employed to scour the oceans for enemy carriers so the sea based air could deliver the coup de grace to their counterparts.

In any event, both games using this system are fairly bloody, and most battles have come down to a final strike between single carriers and/or operational bases. Seldom does more than one carrier in the whole game survive unscathed.

Which certainly adds to the fun factor, but without the land campaign, a vp based game tends to result in more unrealistic levels of destruction instead of addressing the actual goals that those naval battles were fought to achieve.

The main reason for my interest lay in the fact that I had been informed that SCT had addressed some of the failings of Flat Top in Guadalcanal. That seems to be the case in tactical combat, but not for land combat and some of the other issues.

BTW, are Guadalcanal and Midway based on the same rules set so units are interchangeable?

Thanks again! This has been very helpful!

Autarch

[NimitsTexan]

Which is odd, seeing that cruiser search planes played critical roles in several battles IIRC. Do you think these are already factored into those units innate search abilities?
(ho ho! and don't forget how big a role they played in night battles where they burned nicely to illuminate US cruisers. :( )
Autarch

Well, yes and no. The Chikuma and Tone (and their E13As) are present in both games. Furthermore, the Searchboard hexes are 70 miles across; never at Midway, and only on a few occasions during Guadalcanal, did these search planes (with the exception of the Jakes) ever really scout well in advance of a surface force. Many crusiers and BBs carried obsolete biplane types (Seagull, Pete) that lacked the range to perform extended air searches. Their main functions were gunnery spotting (not represented at all in the Guadalcanal/Midway rules) and ASW, which I suppose is just abstracted into the general difficulty of subs inflicting any damage at all.



Let alone their even greater usefulness in searching/shadowing and patrolling "bottleneck" areas.
Autarch


Agreed, though in defense of AH, these games are more grand tactical (in the WWII carrier ops sense) than operational or strategic, and subs IRL could not be controlled by higher HQ in the sense that ships and planes could.


Are these divided into hexes or search areas/tracks? The game scale and unit size seems larger than Flat Top (another S. Craig Taylor game). It seems that simply doubling speeds and ranges of aircraft would make the search phase unwieldly in comparison, unless mapscale was also doubled. Does the game indicate what the hexscale is?
Autarch


The searchboards are divided into hexes 70 miles across. I can't remember the what the battleboard scale is off hand, but to give you an idea, 14"-16" guns fire at six hexes, 8" guns and IJN torpedos fire ate 5 hexes, 6" guns fire at 4 hexes, and 3"-5" guns and Allied torpedos fire at 3 hexes. Air unit ranges are believable; SBDs have a range of 5 hexes (10 roundtrip) equivalent to 700 miles; F4Fs have a movement factor of 4 (eqivalent of 560 mile round trip). Obviously Bettys, Mavis, B-17s and PBYs, among others, have longer ranges. The search phase can be a little lengthy, but manageable (we play it out like Battleship, each plane searching a hex before moving on).


No US AV's? Pro'ly justed lumped them into Espiritu Santo's capacity. :( Having those search planes forward based could really make a difference!
Autarch


Well, there were no US AVs at Midway and their role during the Solomons campaign was minor, so I guess that is why they were left out.


I was wondering how the various endurances of the different aircraft were addressed. Or do all planes have to land at the end of the turn? (!)
Autarch


Since the game turns represent 4 hours (not two, as I miswrote earlier), all tactical aircraft have to land at the end of the turn. Some search aircraft (PBYs, E13As, H5Ks, H6Ks, and B-17s) can stay up two turns, though they have to end search/combat movement within return range (= to movement factor) of a base/ship. Guadalcanal also introduces some night capable units.


Same in Flat Top with some VP coming from landing troops in certain hexes (and even winning the game in one case) Unfortunately, victory points for combat/operational losses seems to lose sight of the fact that all these battles were in support of the ground campaign on Guadalcanal.
Autarch


Agreed, but these are really grand tactical/operational naval warfare games. I guess the designers just figured land warfare would be too much.


Is there a campaign game that combines all the battles? It would probably take weeks to play, but would certainly introduce some caution concerning force preservation for later battles and not promote the wrecklessness that victory point games encourage. \
Autarch


No, but I did experiment with designing the rules for one on my own (never was able to play it out, though). Basically, I came up with, the campaign (linked battles, actually) would start with Coral Sea (played on the Guadalcanal map and using the Saratoga and Zuiho for the Lexington and Shoho, and other ship and air pieces as necessary), and then continue through Midway, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, and Naval Battle of Solomons. Ship and land base damage would carry over from battle to battle. However, I never exactly worked out how to handle ship or air uni repairs and refitting. However, I little imagination could develop a good campaign system.


Ouch. Is this because of some game mechanic? Ironically in reality, LBA on both sides were employed to scour the oceans for enemy carriers so the sea based air could deliver the coup de grace to their counterparts.
Autarch


I am not sure. It may be encouraged by the game mechanic of allowing an airbase (and all the air units based their) to be totally eliminated in a game. I good naval bombardment (using battleships) or large scale air attack, combined with a good dice roll, can completely take out Guadalcanal, Port Moresby, or even Rabaul (plus, each land base can only fire at one attack unit, leaving the rest to get away scot free). However, part of it also stems from the reality that surface forces cannot operate in waters covered by land-based bombers, and even carrier task forces can have a rough time against such targets. Thus, in an effort to clear the way for surface transports, on often is forced to concentrate against land bases.

Besides, when all the carriers are sunk or forced to withdraw in the first two days of a three day battle, all that is left is for land based air to have a go at each other's airfields.

On the other hand, it may just be that the players I play with and myself or overly-fixated on land-based airpower and/or overly aggressive with our aircraft and carriers. In defense of the AH system, there has been more than one occasion were repeated attacks against Guadalcanal merely lead to the gradual attrition of my IJ air force to the point only one Betty squadron and one or two carrier squadrons were left.


Which certainly adds to the fun factor, but without the land campaign, a vp based game tends to result in more unrealistic levels of destruction instead of addressing the actual goals that those naval battles were fought to achieve.
Autarch

Like I said my friends and I may just be a little overly agressive (read so suicidal we make kamikzes look like cautious) at times. Plus, alot of units are often thrown away in last ditch bids to for victory points in a battle otherwise lost, something that makes perfect sense in a purely tactical wargame but would be suicide in reality (and something that is an unaviodable failing in many wargames).




The main reason for my interest lay in the fact that I had been informed that SCT had addressed some of the failings of Flat Top in Guadalcanal. That seems to be the case in tactical combat, but not for land combat and some of the other issues.
Autarch


I have never played Flattop, so I cannot comment to that. I do know AH (the old one) considered Midway/Guadalcanal to be in their easier series of games (also including Gettysburg, which I have, D-Day, and Battle of the Bulge).


BTW, are Guadalcanal and Midway based on the same rules set so units are interchangeable?
Autarch


Yes, very much so. As I said earlier, one could easily set up a Battle of Coral sea with these pieces, using a little creative substiution, or even fight out some super-carrier battle on the Midway map (Guadalcanal would be a little crowded for this), pitting the CVs Saratoga, Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet, and Wasp, and BBs North Carolina, South Dakato, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, Mississippi, and Tennessee against the IJN CVs Shokaku, Zuikaku, Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Zuiho, Hosho, Hiyo, Junyo, and Ryujo and BBs Yamato, Nagato, Mutsu, Yamishiro, Fuso, Ise, Hyuga, Kirshima, Haranu, Kongo, and Hie (5 CVs and 8 BBs vs 8 CVs, 3 CVLs, and 11 BBs). I have always wanted to do this but never have had the time or opportunity to design and play the scenario.

BTW, it also has excellent rules and suggestions for team games.

[Marshall]

I believe that someone or another had suggested that BOTH of these as well as more, be made into another 'A&A'-"D-Day" type game?:eek: I get first dibs on the name, such as "Solomons to Midway" or "Pacific Battles". There could be inset maps of Islands or Groups which could be maneuverd upon to reach Victory Points. It be about half or less of the area covered in 'A&A':"Pacific" THEN we could introduce DDs, CLs, CAs, BCs, CVLs, AVs, Scouts, Seaplanes, etc. Me likey.:D

I must heartily agree with you, Grog. I really hope they make a naval A&A-style game. "Axis & Allies: Guadalcanal". Of course, it would probably bear little resemblance to A&A if you introduced all those units that you suggest, but it certainly would be cool. There seems to be a severe shortage of good naval combat games out there.

[Hakucho]

Would anyone be able to answer this rules question for me please?

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/160581