Flat Top -- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Last Modified: August 19, 1993 For the latest version of this file, send an e-mail to one of the addresses below, with a subject line reading: Flat Top FAQ Request. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Send all changes, suggestions, comments, questions, answers, short speeches, etc. to one of the following: E-mail addresses: JRBoeke@aol.com JRBoeke@uci.edu 72730.1032@compuserve.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To help with the reading of the document, new changes are listed with a plus character '+' before the paragraph and table of contents. A new change is a change since the last publishing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Flat Top - General Information +1.1. What is Flat Top? 1.2. Differences in Battleline/Avalon Hill editions of Flat Top +1.3. Articles in the Gaming Press 2. PBEM Mechanics 2.1. Communications 2.2. Air Operations 2.3. SOP's 2.4. Submarines ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Flat Top -- General Information ---------- 1.1 What is Flat Top? According to the second page of the rules manual... "Flat Top recreates the major Battles of the Solomon Seas. Because many of these battles were between fairly equal, well matched forces, they present the ideal situation for a highly competitive, balanced game while at the same time recreating the history of the period." Not withstanding Avalon Hill's sterile intro, Flat Top is, in this author's opinion, the best tactical/operational simulation of naval warfare in the Pacific Ocean during the Second World War. It was originally published in 1976 by Battleline Games (author S. Craig Taylor, Jr.). After Battleline was purchased by The Avalon Hill Game Company (TAHGC) Flat Top underwent a repair & refit (supervised by Alan R. Moon -- 1982) which is discussed below. +1.1.1. What is CV? Again, according to page 1 of the CV rulebook... "CV recreates, in game form, the famous & decisive Battle of Midway in June, 1942." CV was designed by S. Craig Taylor, Jr. in 1979 for Yaquinto Publications, Inc. It is a "sister" game to Flat Top, in that it uses the exact same rules system, with some minor modifications. Anyone who has played Flat Top will feel very comfortable playing CV (and vice versa). CV is long out of print, and considered by many as a collector's item. However, I have seen (or heard) of copies being exchanged in the $15-$30 range (as of August 1993). If you can obtain a copy, I suggest that you do so. The changes made in CV can (and should) be incorporated into Flat Top. ---------- 1.2. Is the Avalon Hill version different from the original Battleline version of Flat Top? Yes, there are several differences. Alan R. Moon, the individual in charge of the revision, wrote an article, "On Deck: The Revision of Flat Top." for the General (vol. 18, no. 6) detailing the changes. Please refer to this article for more detailed information. The following is my synopsis (please note, not all these rules apply to a PBEM game): THE MAPBOARD: Two hex rows were added to the left map section (east of Port Moresby). Only two entry hexes for Australia & Truk remain on the map. Japanese "troops" are now called coastwatchers. All garrisoned islands have coastwatcher symbols. The Japanese coast-watcher on New Guinea is restricted to the north side of the island. Finally, the hex numbering was changed from a 4 digit number to a letter & 2 digit number combination. THE COUNTERS: 500 counters were added (mostly change for all types of aircraft). A few additional counters were provided for Midway & Wake Island variant scenarios. The specifications of some of the planes were changed, notably the B-17's RF was upped to 12 and the P-40 & P-39's RFs were changed to 5. Also, the plane type (ie fighters & torpedo bombers) was removed. Planes are listed by handling capability & function (ie land plane & bomber respectively). THE CHARTS: Mostly cosmetic, however the log sheet was changed. In the new version there are two 8.5 x 14 sheets each representing an individual map board (now you can actually see the hex #s). HIDDEN MOVEMENT: In the original design, only TFs could use hidden movement. SEARCHING, SHADOWING & WEATHER: The condition numbers were reduced from 5 to 3 (#5 was discarded, and #s 3 & 4 were combined). Weather is no longer an optional rule, also, it may cause some problems for air formations (AFs) on landing & take off. Planes are also prohibited from knowingly entering storm hexes. Clouds are moved on alternating turns. The wind arrow in sector IV was shifted 60 degrees counter-clockwise. Clouds also modify the search table. The search table (and shadowing) were modified by adding an uncertain element (33% for searching 17% for shadowing). Also, only one AF can attempt to shadow any TF in a given turn. INTERCEPTION: Interception is no longer automatic. It is a function of the number of intercepting planes to the number being intercepted. AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT: Players may interchange escorts & interceptors in the same hex (ie ones containing a TF or airbase). If a situation occurs where both are present, both players must simultaneously determine what the disposition of the aircraft (intercept or escort). SURFACE COMBAT: All ships have been given an ammunition factor (for surface gunnery) to simulate their supply of shells. The BHT required for a night torpedo attack was reduced from 8 to 7. CLs & DDs were given torpedo factors of 2 & 1 respectively. Japanese DDs get 1 torpedo reload (optional rule). Only BBs & CAs can fire at BBs. INITIATIVE: Initiative has been downgraded to merely determining who moves first in the AF movement phase. LUCK: The optional "maximum luck" rule in the original version has become the standard rule (the original luck & minimum luck systems are still in the optional rules). SCENARIOS: An introductory scenario "Rings Around Rabaul" has been added (USS Lexington strikes against Rabaul's fledgling base). Several modified (read this as shorter) versions of the other scenarios are also included. VICTORY POINTS: The VPs awarded for knocking out a base have increased. BB VPs dropped from120 to between 65-75. APs increased in value from 2 per turn to 3 (for unloading) & from 8 to 2 at completion. AOs also increased & must be in a TF with at least 1 othe combatant ship (DD on up) to reflect their value. Unnecessary plane losses jumped to 10 from 8 (unnecessary was clairified AFs which "lose" their base aren't lost unnecessarily). OTHER CHANGES: 1. Each hit on a base that can only handle SPs, reduces the bases LF by -1/-1 not -2/-1. 2. If a plane carrying ship or base has plane units in the ready or just landed boxes when a dive or level bombing attack scores a hit(s) these hits are all doubled. Similarly, if a torpedo hit occurs & planes are in the readying box, all hits are doubled. 3. Players may separate air factors into 2 or more air formation (AF) boxes and place those AFs into another AF. This represents planes with different landing times (ie if you are cycling your CAP aircraft) being on the same mission. 4. A player may voluntarilly destroy any air factors on the ground at a base or on a ship at any time during the plane movement phase. 5. Planes may change altitude in each hex they move into after entering the new hex. An AF that remains in the same during a turn may change altitude. 6. Planes landing in a storm hex use the night landing table (if it is a night turn, there is a +1 modifier). 7. Even one ship is considered a TF (therefore not automatically sighted). 8. Planes are no longer prevented from remaining in an enemy hex after engaging in combat. 9. Sips may not move on the turn in which the raise or lower anchor. 10. If the initiative roll is a tie, the player who did not have the initiative last turn has the initiative for the current turn. Several additional changes were included in the Optional Rules section of the revised edition. I highly reccomend getting the vol. 18, no. 6 issue of the General from TAHGC (as of May 1993 it is still available). Please note: The only changes made in the two Avalon Hill versions of the game were cosmetic. ---------- +1.3. Are there other articles pertaining to Flat Top in the gaming press? To the best of my knowledge, there have been five issues of The General with Flat Top articles. These include: 18-6, 19-6, 22-2, 26-5 & 27-2. Here is a quick look at the contents of those issues: Volume 18, Number 6: Collman, Bob, "British Flat Tops in the Solomons," pp. 19-20, 33. Gilman, Don, "Flat Top, More Options," pp.15-17, 33. ________, "Scenario Seven - Wake Island," pp. 17-18. Moon, Allan R., "On Deck: The revision of Flat Top," pp. 5-12. ________, "Scenario Six - Midway," pp. 10-11. ________, "Design Analysis: Flat Top Errata," pp. 13-14. This is an outstanding issue for the Flat Top enthusiast and for Pacific War buffs as a whole. There are also articles on Midway, Victory in the Pacific & Submarine that round out the issue. I highly reccomend aquiring a copy. Volume 19, Number 6: Burnett, Jim, "Flattop Gamemastered," pp. 26-29. The main focus of this article is variant rules for moderated games (I use this article extensively for PBEM games). Volume 22, Number 2: Helfferich, Friedrich, "Pacific Dreams: Considerations for Flat Top," pp. 25-30. Werbaneth, James, "The Airpower System: Understanding Land based Air Assets in Flat Top," pp. 39-44. Another Pacific War issue (Banzai, Submarine, & Victory in the Pacific). The FT articles are on strategy & include a 2 page, full color map as well as game analysis charts. Volume 26, Number 5: Lutz, James, "Battles for the South Pacific: Hypothetical Scenarios for Flat Top," pp. 41-45. Mr. Lutz introduced 4 new scenarios & some more submarine rules. The scenarios are ahistorical (maybe semi-historical is a better term) but well balanced (good for tournaments or AREA play). Volume 27, Number 2: Davis, Jim, "Flight Jackets not Included: Tactical Chrome for Flat Top," pp. 45-49. More variant rules for the game. I have also located several Flat Top & C.V. articles in four issues of Fire & Movement (#'s 16, 29, 36 & 37). Volume 1, Number 16: Dunnigan, James F. "A Designer's Review: Flat Top." pp. 18-20. Ruff, Matthew. "Flat Top Scenario Notes." pp.22-23 Taylor, S. Craig. "Flat Top Designer's Notes." p. 21. A review by one of the hobby's "best & brightest" and a rebuttal by the game designer. Plus a brief article analyzing the strengths & weaknesses of the scenarios. Volume 1, Number 29: Proctor, Bob. "Midway by the Hour: C.V." pp. 10-18. Taylor, S. Craig, Jr. "C.V. Designer's Notes." p. 18. CV was he cover story for F&M #29. A pretty good review & rebuttal by the designer. Volume 1, Number 36: List, Steve. "Solomon Sea Battle Report: Umpired Multi-Commander Postal Flat Top." pp. 42-51. Volune 1, Number 37: List, Steve. "Solomon Sea Battle Report: Umpired Multi-Commander Postal Flat Top." pp. 32-39. These two articles are an excellent account of a PBM game of Flat Top. The results were very interesting (both Yammamoto & Nimitz would end up sacking quite a few Admirals). The articles are quite illustrative of the "benefits" of limited intelligence. The articles contain some useful optional rules to enhance the game. If anyone else knows of any other magazine (in the General, F&M or anything else) articles dealing with Flat Top or CV I would appreciate it if you could drop me an e-mail, letting me know the bibliographic info (so I can modify the FAQ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Play by e-mail (PBEM) Game Mechanics Questions See the file FlatTop.PBEM for the modifications to the rules for a PBEM game. ---------- 2.1. Communications: ---------- 2.1.1. What distingueshes between messages that are sent "in the clear" vs. "coded messages?" I think that this is really two questions. First, what is the difference between coded & unencoded messages and second, how are messages handled in the game? For the purposes of the game, a coded message does not have to employ a real code (ie it can be written in plain english). This type of message may only originate from a base or task force (possibly four engined aircraft) and terminate at another base or task force. This is meant to represent the high security transmissions from one commander to another. The coding & decoding was accomplished by communications specialists with hi-tech (for 1942) equipment ala ULTRA. This type of message could (and was broken) by cryptoanalysts. However, at the level of command that Flat Top represents (ie the operational- tactical level) the CO's weren't allocated the resources to do crypto work. Therefore, these messages are secure from your enemies eyes. Unencoded or "sent-in-the-clear" messages can originate or terminate with any unit, command, etc... represented in the game. This type of message included routine traffic, communication between aircraft, messages between subordinate commanders & captains, etc... Many of these messages were not coded (eg Rochefort's ruse for you Midway buffs) or used a very simple code (not encrypted). However, for purposes of the game, this type of message will be distributed to all participants (subject to radio transmission rules). The players are encouraged to come up with a *SIMPLE* code that they can use for these messages. A good example would be pilot jargon (angels, bogey, call signs...). Simple guidelines to follow are: make sure everyone on your side (and the GM) has a copy of the "code." The code shoudn't be overly complicated (remember these are transmissions sent on-the-spot not encrypted messages) & have back-up codes, if a base runner can steal signs from a catcher & pitcher, your adversaries can probably do the same to you. Now, part two of the question refers to the mechanics of these messages. Messages can either be generated by a player or by a players orders (ie if AF1's search locates an enemy TF, send location & time...). Messages generated by orders will be handled by the GM. A message initiated by a player, needs to have three parts, 1) A header with the to: & from: lines (a subject or priority/classification can be added as desired), 2) text of the message and 3) a note to the GM indicating the type of message (ie coded or uncoded). I don't want to discuss strategy & tactics, however, feel that this leaves plenty of opportunity for the "clever" player to maneuver. Note that these are guidelines for the GM. He/she can modify them if an "unusual" situation warrants. ---------- 2.1.2. Radio transmissions (RTs) have a way of getting screwed-up. Is it reasonable to assume if they don't get through that a player will know, because there is no response? Actually, no. Unless you specify that all RTs are to be acknowledged, no reponse could mean that the signal got through okay (a garbled message would probably get a re-transmit message). This is something that the players should work out in advance of the game begining (ie a RT SOP), ---------- 2.1.3. How will RTs be divulged to my opponents? Radio interception & direction finding was an inexact sciene in WWII, therefore, all messages (friend & foe alike) have a slight chance of being missed entirely or garbled. As I stated above, non-coded messages will be given to the enemy players as is (the exact text) subject to the random events of garbled & missed communications. Real signals intelligence used RT direction finding to locate units sending RTs. The method relies on two geographically diverse listening points & determining an azimuth back to the source. Where these two azimuths cross is the approximate location of the source. Therefore, in addition to the above for both coded & uncoded messages, the location of the transmitting unit will be divulged (this simulates radio direction finding). There will be some error involved (see the FlatTop.PBM file for details) in the divulging of the actual hex. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.2. Air Operations ---------- 2.2.1. Why can't my CAP drop from HI altitude to LOW to intercept an incoming strike? It seems intuitively obvious that a CAP should be able to dive down to intercept a strike. However, there are a few factors that must be considered... First, is distance: a hex is 20 miles across (that is 430+ square miles) then the altitude difference must be considered, this is about 10,000 ft (dive bombers at 12 15,000 & torps at 2-3,000) which is another 2 miles or so. That makes the area 860+ cubic miles, get the picture... Second, is that almost all aircraft of this period were equiped with radio, and under the control of the a land based/or CV based flight director. The CAP was vectored to their position by the director and not expected to go off freelancing. This was the primary CAP system used by the USN. The IJN flight leaders had much greater tactical control (one result was the Midway debacle). Third, a diving fighter is hard to distinguish from a diving bomber (especially when it is your ship being dived upon). Flak claimed enough friendlies to make CAP pilots very wary of it. So where does that leave us... The designer decided that the best way to handle this was to prohibit CAP to change altitude to intercept the target, it requires a little more strategy on the part of the players, but is playable. In a PBEM game, where the playability factor is moot (1 week turns) and the game is moderated & blind, an addition to the rules won't hurt too much. Two of the rules in the FlatTop.PBM file cover this question. First, the "ready CAP" rule allows fighters to remain in the ready box and scramble on when a raid is sighted (I don't want to get into strategy in this file -- but I think the inferences are obvious). Second, If a CAP AF contains more aircraft than an attacking AF at HI altitude, and a LOW AF is spotted, some of the excess HI CAP maybe permited to drop down & intercept the bombers (see the chart in the FlatTop.PBM file). ---------- 2.2.2. Are orders given to the AFs on every turn? No (at least not in a moderated version of the game). After an AF takes off, you have to trust the flight leader to do his job (you can't be bothered ordering him arround for his whole flight). You must provide a clear set of orders for each AF prior to its takeoff. The orders can and should include conditional statements (ie contigency plans) detailing what it is to do in the event of... The referee will interpert the orders and execute them (to the best of his/her ability). ---------- 2.2.3. How can an aircraft be used as a message courier? Any TF or base that has an aircraft available can use it/them as a courier to ferry messages. The only restrictions are common sense ones, ie the TF/base must be able to handle the type of aircraft being used (eg a Kate can not fery a message to a TF without a carrier -- there isn't any place to land). There aren't any designated aircraft to perform this mission, the player must use the aircraft he has available. Without delving too deeply into strategy, float planes (apart from their speed make good couriers). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.3. What is an SOP? SOP is an acronym for Standard Operating Procedure. So now you ask, what the @#$% is that? An SOP is like a set of rules or a computer program. Its basic format is very much like an IF THEN ELSE statement in a high-level computer language. IF event X occurs THEN do Y ELSE do Z. This statement can be as simple or complicated as the creator wants. Once an SOP is recorded, it is like a rule in a rule book. An especially usefull way to use it would be to incorporate it into an order. For example: On sighting of an enemy TF execute SOP 1. This tells the ref to look at the SOP and follow its instructions. An order can also modify (temporaraly) an SOP... On sighting an enemy TF execute SOP 1 except as noted... The SOP is an extremely useful tool in the military and hence in a wargame. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.4. Why are the submarines handled so abstractly in the game? In both the AH & Battleline editions, submarines were an "optional" rule addition to the game. The optional rule was universally (almost) condemd as being far to abstract for such a detailed game. Nearly every variant ever written for the game includes a "more realistic" submarine rule. The problem is that submarines are difficult to model in any game (look at AH's Submarine). Plus, they did not play a significant role in the battles that the game simulates. The rules we use are a version of those presented by Jim Burnett in vol. 19, no.6 of the General (modified by James Lutz's article in vol.26, no. 5). If I can ever figure out a more realistic system (that dosen't sacrafice playability) I'll use it (I am still experimenting with the system prevented in the General vol 18 no 6). (see the file FlatTop.PBM for submarine rules) ====================================================================== END OF FILE