From: "David L. Richtmyer" Subject: Re: VG Tokyo Express & Carrier -Reply & Errata On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Doug Murphy wrote: > The designer, Jon Southard, was/is on this list. They are brilliant solitaire > designs...IMHO about the best boardgame sol.designs for naval games I second this opinion. Overwhelmingly the best solo designs, for *any* genre, not just naval, out there. I say that and I'd rate my interest in naval matters about 5th or 6th on my list ... I wish that Jon (hint, hint hint :) would do some WWII air war designs, like a solo version of Over the Reich. > out there but their systems range all the way from relatively to very > complex, esp. Carrier. But the rules explain all, and in a fun-to-learn programmatic manner. Yes, there are a ton of charts, but they really all do work together in a seamless way once you get through the whole system. And the reward is a game that plays as well as Flat Top, but without the need for an opponent. And I mean it plays well both as a simulation and as a game. I had one game where both the Japanese and my forces found and flattened each other, but better damage control on the U.S. part allowed me to squeak out a win in the end. 'Course, I was doing that frantically, because just one more hit from a little Jap CVL would have lost the game for me. > But the search system in Carrier, complete with > "decaying" intell., is wondrous. Am I being too raptuous? I should say, I > found Carrier a bit above my head.play-level-wise and have of course > come up with all sorts of house rules to tinker with it and TE. Doug, you *aren't* being too raptuous! These are wonderful systems that play better than any computer wargame, on any topic, I've ever played. There were a few problems with Carrier, and I've appended below an excerpt from a Jeff Petraska review that solves some of those problems. Jeff was a favorite reviewer of mine (and was also one of the main playtesters of Carrier), anyone heard if he's put in his name on any list? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First, I think that the Standard game Japanese retirement limits are too high. Unlike their historical reluctance to continue operations in the face of significant damage, these limits keep the Japanese fighting until most of their carriers are sunk, and the rest are disabled. My suggestion would be to disregard the retirement limits in the Japanese Commitment and U.S. Forces Tables, and instead set the retirement limit to anywhere from 1.5 to 2 times the carrier commitment limit. I would also suggest that the retirement index be increased one point for each transport sunk prior to unloading. My second concern is a phenomenon we called overshoot during playtesting. Overshoot is what happens when the intelligence system introduces powerful Level 3 carrier forces for a Level 1 or 2 force with a small revealed air strength. For example, suppose a Level 1 Carrier force with a revealed air strength of five increases to a Level 2 2-3 Carrier force, and then to a Level 3 3 CVL force. The force now has an air value of 13, but the carrier commitment index was only increased by five. You might conceivably end up with up to three CVs in this force at Level 4, for the price of a measly five commitment points! Needless to say, when this happens the scenarios become very unbalanced and you will be lucky to escape with any carriers surviving, let alone a victory. The -4 modifier on the Level 3 to Level 4 carrier force table was introduced specifically to prevent a major overshoot of the carrier strength by late-arriving forces. However, it would not prevent the aforementioned situation from occurring earlier in the game. My suggestion is, when forces with revealed air strength become Level 3, compare the air point value on the Level 3 counter to the revealed air strength. If the air point value is more than double the revealed air strength, calculate the carrier commitment increase that the Level 3 force would have caused if it had no revealed air strength, and adjust the carrier commitment index upward for the difference between this value and the revealed air strength. This does not prevent unexpectedly strong forces from appearing (unpredictability is fun), but at least a more appropriate carrier commitment increase will occur. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ David *********************************************************** David L. Richtmyer Tech. Services Electronic Resources Librarian (Monographs) Harlan Hatcher Graduate Library The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1205 (313) 936-9739 e-mail: dlrichtm@umich.edu ***********************************************************