Game: Midway (Smithsonian Edition)

Thread: Re: Differences between Smithsonian Edition and the original 1964 version

martimer — 2008-04-27T02:47:00+00:00

Sorry I was not more clear. I meant that it felt more like Battleship. Yes there is a LOT more to it, but there is still a lack of detail that I found disturbing. I probably was not the target demographic for that design. Just my opinion.

Thread: Re: Differences between Smithsonian Edition and the original 1964 version

oneoldgamer — 2008-04-27T01:45:54+00:00

Aside from being double-blind and having a nautical theme, I don't see any similarities between Midway '64 and Battleships. It's been decades since I played it, but I remember launching attacks with different types of planes--torpedo and dive bombers. I remember rules re. CAP and search planes and the B-17s on Midway, and I think there were rules re. catching planes on the deck refueling and ships had anti-air guns they could fire. I don't remember any of those things in Battleships.

Thread: Re: Differences between Smithsonian Edition and the original 1964 version

martimer — 2008-04-26T23:25:07+00:00

Been too long since I played the '64 version to remember much detail, but it more closely resembles the classic Milton Bradley Battleship game than a military simulation. I almost skipped the Smithsonian version thinking that it was similar, but played a friends copy and got hooked. The Smithsonian version is not exactly an accurate historical simulation, but it is pretty darn good for a game and the game is a hoot and a half.

Note that if you are looking for a good, light, Battleship-like game, then the '64 version might be more your taste.

There is actual mission planning in the newer game, and it is actually possible to catch a carrier with planes on the deck. Both games have a great "feel" for searching, but the newer version has more details in the combat area. Oh, and the maps/counters are prettier (more and good use of color).

Sorry I cannot provide a more accurate and detailed comparison. Last year a buddy and I played several different Midway games just for fun. We liked both the Smithsonian and Avalanche Press versions best.

Thread: Differences between Smithsonian Edition and the original 1964 version

klaron — 2008-04-26T23:15:19+00:00

After listening to ASLSK Fan's commentary about the 1964 edition of this game on the point2point podcast, my curiosity has been raised. I am simply wondering what is the difference between the Smithsonian Edition and the 1964 edition?

If anyone can supply an abridged explanation, I would appreciate it!
Thank you!

Thread: Re: Capsule Review: Midway/Guadalcanal (from The Gamer magazine)

Barry Kendall — 2008-01-21T00:11:07+00:00

These were very nice games. I still see one or the other on a store shelf now and then--amazing that they haven't all been snapped up. I think the "Smithsonian" label turned some wargamers away, and it's too bad, because they are good wargames and although they lack the intensity of "Flat Top" and its like, they maintain a high tension level and good replayability.

Thanks for bringing out your review.

Thread: Capsule Review: Midway/Guadalcanal (from The Gamer magazine)

J.L.Robert — 2008-01-20T02:55:22+00:00

Here is my published review of Midway and Guadalcanal, from issue #12 of The Gamer magazine (dated Oct. 1, 1993). I'm bringing it here to share with the BGG community. I hope you enjoy.

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

Midway/Guadalcanal
Published 1992 by Avalon Hill;
Designed by S. Craig Taylor, Jr.;
$26.00 (Midway), $35.00 (Guadalcanal)

These recent entries in Avalon Hill's American History series are two sister games which cover the historic carrier battles of 1942 between Japan and the United States. Like the other titles of this series, whose designs have been sponsored by the Smithsonian Institute, these games are simple to learn and are being marketed as introductory-level wargames for those new to the hobby.

Like its predecessor, designed in 1964, the new Midway involves hidden movement and searching procedures, a concept which has been adapted to almost every carrier battle game since. Planes are launched from carriers or nearby land bases and must land within the same turn launched, a rule also used in the original edition.

The design changes lie mainly within the ships' capabilities. Each vessel is rated on an alphanumeric scale for defense and surface attack values. Each ship takes the same number of hits, but it is much more difficult to get a hit on an A-rated defense battleship than a C- or D-rated destroyer group. Likewise, A-value 16-inch guns are more likely to damage a ship than a D-value 5-inch anti-aircraft gun. Light cruisers and destroyer groups also have torpedo capabiltities, a weapon not covered in the original game.

As with the earlier American History games, a single legal-sized rule sheet is all that is necessary to read to start playing. Also like the other games, combat is resolved by competitive dice rolls, with the combat differential determining degree of damage. Unlike the other games so far produced, there is no limit to combat factors involved in an attack; at such a larger scale per hax, there is a larger conceived battle area per attack. Also, unlike ground warfare, where there is finite space to place guns, tanks, etc., aircraft can fill the sky at a variety of altitudes so, with enough bombs, any ship can be sunk in one strike wave.

With the highest prices by far of the games in the Smithsonian series, some may be wary to purchase these two games. But Midway and Guadalcanal are wonderfully done throughout, from Craig Taylor's work on the rules, to Charlie Kibler's continued excellence in map art, to Doug Chaffee's brilliant cover artwork. The Battle Manuals, besides including optional rules, holds [sic] a wealth of historical information, methods and tactics used, as well as the battles themselves. All in all, two very well done games, worthy of at least a try by most wargamers, and a must for those who, like myself, have enjoyed these new versions of Avalon Hill's "classics."

--J.L. Robert

The Gamer Grade (Both): A

Image

madmanrick — 2007-03-05T19:46:55+00:00

General Vol 28 #5 variant map (left)

Image

madmanrick — 2007-03-05T19:45:47+00:00

General Vol 28 #5 variant map (right)

Image

madmanrick — 2007-03-05T19:29:23+00:00

General Vol 28 #5 variant counter sheet

Thread: Re: Initial Impressions

Windopaene — 2006-08-12T19:58:23+00:00

So I read this thread last night, and then later was looking through my college geology department alumni newsletter. I see a congrats to a classmate about the publication of his new book, "Shattered Sword: The battle of Midway"...

Took me a second to make the connection. Wow, I remember that guy. He had long hair and played the Bass, and didn't graduate with us because of some wierd technicality/mixup. Very cool...

Thread: Re: Initial Impressions

blockhead — 2006-08-12T00:36:07+00:00

One thing bothered me on my first few play throughs, the operations cards that come with the game not very good. They are 8.5 x 11 cards stock with little boxes to show which ships are in which task force, which planes are on which carriers and their status (ready to launch, rearming, etc.) But most of the space is blank and the boxes are much too small for the counters, so...

I made up my own operatins cards. They use virtually every square quarter inch of the paper, do not have nice top views of the carriers and are possibly not as asthetically pleasing, but they are FUNCTIONAL.

I've submitted the files to BGG, I would assume they will appear in this games entry soon. If not, drop me a line and I'll be happy to forward them to anyone who wants them (though it does seem more efficent to post them...)

Anyway, thanks for the great responses. Enjoyed sharing this with you all

Thread: Re: Initial Impressions

saxophone — 2006-08-03T17:06:06+00:00

I really enjoy the Smithsonian Guadalcanal and Midway games. Sure, they aren't as realistic as say Flat Top, but Flat Top has a number of rules that allow gamey tactics as well. But Guadalcanal/Midway still give you that cat-and-mouse tension which is such a big part of naval campaign games. Several years ago, I GM'd Guadalcanal as a multi-player-blind game. Each side had multiple players. They could discuss tactics before the game began, but once the game was underway, they had to communicate via slips of paper. As the GM, sometimes I delivered their messages the next turn, sometimes I delayed delivery (depended on a die roll). All searches were done in secret, so you didn't always know if your Task Force was spotted. We even had a destroyer task force stumble upon a cruiser task force during the day.

It was a lot of work for the GM. I don't think I would do that again without some assistance. I also felt there was too much down time for the players. Nevertheless, the players all said they had a good time.

Thread: Re: Initial Impressions

Bill Eldard — 2006-08-03T12:36:55+00:00

I'm increasingly thinking of this as a relationship, Satisfaction to Effort.

Often refered to as the Fuss-to-Fun Ratio.

In considering any game --- wargame or other --- the player's acceptible fuss-to-fun ratio generally determines whether he/she likes the game or not.

In my advanced years, my acceptible ratio has decreased considerably, which may be why I now play Euros almost exclusively.

Thread: Re: Initial Impressions

MainiacJoe — 2006-08-03T12:33:01+00:00

I whole-heartedly endorse the recommendation of "Shattered Sword." I used to be a Fuchida snob, that is, when I read popular accounts of the Midway battle, I'd compare them to Fuchida and sneer at them for saying things like Nautilus sank the Soryu. Imagine my chagrin to learn that Fuchida was an outright liar, and it's been known in Japan for decades. Shattered Sword brings the West up to speed on the actual Japanese account, not the face-saving one. And let me tell you, it ain't pretty. Japan pretty much screwed up everything there is to screw up in this battle.

Thread: Re: Initial Impressions

blockhead — 2006-08-03T03:25:15+00:00

Thanks for the kind words and the tip on the book. It has been a long time since I read "Miracle at Midway" and I'm thinking I should brush up. Especially since I'm trying CV next.

Agree game is not beneath notice of Grognards, a title I more or less claim with more or less trepidation sometimes. I took Midway along on a recent business trip (thus "cramped hotel rooms") and enjoyed it. Key is I enjoyed it for what it is, a fairly light 2 hour game with no pretentsion to being exhaustive (or exhausting...)

Believe me, I will continue to try to round up a partner, I can imagine the fun. Played a double blind game long ago and apart from the limited intelligence (in military sense) my opponent and I both kept the umpire amused with our bonehead tactics... I do fully understand it is a different beast and I'm missing out by only playing solo.

Thanks for the encouragment!

Thread: Re: Initial Impressions

Barry Kendall — 2006-08-03T02:11:59+00:00

Not to quibble with any of the history presented here (I held the same beliefs until recently) but anyone interested in the Midway Campaign, and/or games thereof, would benefit greatly by buying (you'll want to keep it and read it more than once) and absorbing the newly published "Shattered Sword."

Throw out half or more of what we've always been told about Midway. With the publication of this work (critically very well received so far) the Battle of Midway deserves a brand-new look from game designers.

Mike, your review is well done and presents the game fairly. It does beg for use of the optional rules as soon as the system can be absorbed. You might also consider exchanging the D10s for D8s to lower the die range and thus the "luck factor" in combat.

Also, don't think the game is beneath the notice of a grognard. Sometimes my diminishing collection of brain cells likes games plain and simple with some period flavor and pretty graphics. I've always liked the Smithsonian Series (the Bulge game in that series is a little gem, and the naval games are nice light plays).

Just one suggestion, do try to play a two-player. Intellectually, I know you understand the uncertainty factor that would exist in a two-player, but the two-player experience makes even this simple system more fun by far.

Nice job on your review; it's nice to see some of the older offerings brought into the light of day again.

Thread: Re: Initial Impressions

Tall_Walt — 2006-08-03T00:53:27+00:00

It is realistic that the attacker in air combat has a tremendous advantage: the defender usually doesn't see him. But it sounds like dive bombers are overrated: they did so well because the Japanese CAP was off chasing the torpedo bombers. Yorktown was most seriously injured by torpedos.

It also sounds as if the factor that made the Japanese carriers so vulnerable--rearming in process--is not simulated. A shame. Admiral Spruance did try to time the attack based on the attack on Midway. His original plan was not to attack for several hours. This was a major key to the US success in Midway.

But I suppose it's really a general weakness in trying to replicate a specific battle: Either you drop or constrain the factors that led to the historical outcome, or you allow players to abuse their knowledge of history by learning from the mistakes or avoiding the random choices of the historical leaders.

Thread: Re: Initial Impressions

blockhead — 2006-08-03T00:09:12+00:00

Thanks for the comments Tall Walt. I think this game left fighters and CAP out of the basic game to keep it simple, which is fine, but I prefer to use that particualr optional rule. In the game CAP can range from not very effective to marginally effective, which seems consistent with your understanding of the historical record.

I used the Wildcat vs. Zero as an example, but all combat uses the same mechanic. IIRC the opposite case, Zeros attacking Wildcats is also something like Zero gets 6 air attack rating and Wildcat gets a 2 defensivily, so while your specualtion on the meaning of the values is probably accurate you might want to know that the game almost always treats attack factors as being better than defense factors.

I didn't mean to overstate the case with respect to combat. See the paragraph which says it is a fast easy system, applied across all kinds of combat and does manage to cover the very wide range of historical results. I do feel like the Defender can do little but pray for good dice, but I should add the attacker can often pile on enough attack factors to make the dice almost irrelevent for him. Three Dive Bombers (attack factor 7 each) going after a carrier with a defense value of 5 means the situation is 21:5 before the dice are rolled and that is guaranteed hit (22:15), average dice of 5 each becomes (26:10) which is a "flip" (defender is half destroyed) and you can see how other combinations eliminiate the defender outright. You can also see the defenders only hope is good dice. It's not unrealistic, it is easy, and it is even fun for the attacker, it's just as the defender you sometimes start wishing for something else to do. The game definetly encourages you to make the first attack!

Thanks for commenting, nice to know people are reading!

Thread: Re: Initial Impressions

Tall_Walt — 2006-08-02T16:45:19+00:00

I have zero experience with this game, but some knowledge of Midway history. Perhaps you'll feel a little better after reading this. It seems the game is trying to replicate the historical battle, perhaps overly limiting players from alternative strategies. However, how would one replicate the knowledge of Japanese intentions US intelligence put together?

It was an extremely bloody business: four Japanese carriers and their all their planes were lost (possibly excepting a few float planes). I think most of the light planes from Midway were lost. One of three US carriers were lost, and huge numbers of US planes and pilots.

Combat Air Patrols, and fighters generally, were also very ineffective. The Japanese CAP killed US torpedo bombers, but with little discipline, went chasing after them, leaving the carriers uncovered for the dive bombers, which had gotten separated from their fighter escort. No CAP could be considered a cap: they resembled using a basketball net as a pasta strainer.

Submarine lines were set with great care--to no effect. Subs took out some wounded ships is all.

As to the luck system and the poor Zero defense number, Zeroes were notoriously fragile: the design was light and maneuverable, but had no armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks. They just weren't designed for an enemy shooting back. Wildcats and US planes were much better, though not nearly as good as later planes like Hellcats and Corsairs. And with inexperienced pilots (really on both sides, since the Japanese hadn't faced much resistance before) shooting coaxial guns and dropping "iron" bombs, luck is very appropriate--though I dislike it as a game mechanic, too.

Thread: Re: Initial Impressions

Kevin Moody — 2006-08-02T15:42:45+00:00

I'm increasingly thinking of this as a relationship, Satisfaction to Effort. Yea, brother.

Thread: Initial Impressions

blockhead — 2006-08-02T13:13:09+00:00

Had the opportunity to play several games of this recently, all solo unfortunately so a key portion of the game was limited to my ability to fool myself. Please keep that in mind.

I'm really glad I had solicited opinions first, and was not surprised to find that Markus Stumpter's comments seemed to be right on target. He said searching was too easy and combat too bloody, and backed up at least the searching opinion with a nice essay analyzing the effectiveness of the Catalina's in this and other carrier games.
http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/user/mst/games/misc/search2.pdf

The beginner wargame (ages 12 and up!) is a strange beast. On the one hand, it has to be simple enough for the beginner to grasp and stay within their attention span (which was probably longer back in 1991 than it is now) and on the other hand it has to do a sufficiently good enough job of capturing the situation to distinguish itself from say Battleship. I'm increasingly thinking of this as a relationship, Satisfaction to Effort.

Midway does a pretty good job of this in my opinion. Player effort, particularly in the basic game is low, only two pages of rules. And the feel of the situation is pretty good, especially if you are not too demanding or as well informed as say Markus, which is a safe bet for the introductory market segment.

One think glaringly missing from the basic game is the fighters, no CAP, no escorts, no air to air at all, just bombing missions. Fighters are covered in an optional rule, which serves as a nice illustration of my ratio theory. Adding in the fighters drives up Satisfaction considerable more than it increases the effort required, thus the whole ratio improves quite a bit.

Another optional rule, for submarines, works in the opposite direction. It does not really increase the effort much, just adds a step in which any spotted task force may be attacked by an enemy submarine, but this adds nothing to my satisfaction because it is an ahistorical use of the submarines. The game in effect just adds another random element with this rule instead of allowing the players to set up submarine picket lines. So even the slight additional effort required drives the overall ratio down as I find nothing satisfying about just adding another round of die-rolling to the game.

Beyond the Basic game players are pretty much free to add whichever optional rules appeal to them. A little judicious choosing yields a rule set that does a pretty good job of covering the important aspects of the situation. There are certainly things left out, but given that it is an introductory game I was pretty well satisfied with the coverage.

The combat system is very luck dependent and huge swings in the possible outcomes can be frustrating. It works by assigning each ship/plane/base an attack and defense factor. Each player takes his factor, plus some modifiers in some cases, and adds them to a D10 roll. The attacker wins if his total is more, and if it is 2X the defender than the defender takes the equivalent of 3 hits, and if it is 3X than the defender is eliminated.

This system has several advantages. It is very easy to implement (thus contributes to the low effort required), it is used for all combats (again, low effort) and it does a fine job of mirroring the huge swings seen historically (Wave after wave of American attackers accomplished nothing at Midway, then a handful of dive bombers sank 4 carriers!).

But this system is also pretty frustrating for the player sometimes. Say my Wildcat (5) is attacking your Zero (2). If we both roll a 1, then we end up with 6:3 and your Zero is half destroyed. If I roll a 4 and you roll a 1 then it's 9:3 and your Zero is completely destroyed. But let the Japanese player roll an average of 5 for a total defense of 7 and suddenly the US player needs a roll of at least a 9 to get the half destroyed result. You can see that the result is very heavily dependent on the defenders die roll, far more so than on the defenders intrinsic defense rating or anything the attacker does. It becomes imperative for the defender to roll high with his high value targets. Which ends up leaving the impression that there is little for the player to do other than hope for good dice.

The Basic scenario is just carriers vs. carriers and has little to recommend it beyond learning the rules. The middle scenario starts with the Japanese carriers close enough to launch an air strike against Midway, which is a pretty good idea because with sufficient commitment and decent dice they can eliminate the base AND all the planes there, which eliminates one of the big US advantages, namely the air search capability of the Catalina’s from Midway. The campaign scenario starts earlier which gives both sides more options for maneuvering their fleets and is therefore more interesting.

Overall I liked the game as an introductory game. It captures most of the important aspects of the situation in an easy to learn and fast playing game. By my 4th game I could play the entire campaign in a couple of hours. So the effort rating is definitely nice and low, even with most of the optional rules in play. The trade-off is that some realism has been sacrificed and the combat seems too luck dependent. It's not a game I would come back to over and over, but it does fit the bill when you need a smaller game that can be played in a short timeframe, perfect for business trips and cramped hotels.

It also does one other thing every introductory game should do, namely it does serve as a nice springboard to more complex games. I have Yaquinto's CV on the table now and while it is far more complex, all of the basic concepts are perfectly familiar and I suspect the beginner who has a little Midway experience would find it far less overwhelming than otherwise would be the case.

I'd recommend this game to anyone interested in getting into wargaming, or people looking for a relativily quick and easy treatment of carrier warfare, but with enough depth to be beyond the kiddie game category. The true Grognard will likely find this too easy, but it does still fit those odd times when there is only 2 hours available.

Image

mrbeankc — 2005-06-06T12:06:17+00:00

One page rules showing counter types

Image

mrbeankc — 2005-06-06T12:06:17+00:00

US Operations Card

Image

mrbeankc — 2005-06-06T12:06:14+00:00

Searchboard screen featuring sequence of play

Image

mrbeankc — 2005-06-06T12:06:13+00:00

Battleboard

Image

mrbeankc — 2005-06-06T12:06:13+00:00

American Searchboard

Image

mrbeankc — 2005-06-06T12:06:13+00:00

back of the box

Image

taahaag — 2005-01-28T16:49:17+00:00

Countersheet 2

Thread: Session Report

Deleted User 1 — 2002-05-15T15:02:44+00:00

Rick Thornquist (that’s me) and Andrew Nick got together for a game of Avalon Hill’s Midway – the Smithsonian Edition. Andrew had recently acquired the older version of Midway and when I mentioned I had the newer Smithsonian Edition, he wanted to give it a try.

I had played the Smithsonian Edition of Guadalcanal (which is a very similar game) a few months ago with William but that memory had faded, so newbie Andrew and I went over the rules together. We played the seven turn basic scenario, Andrew was the U.S. and I was the Japanese.

The first turn was uneventful as it was a night turn and our planes weren’t flying. Morning broke on the second turn as we both sent out scouting planes to try to find each other’s fleets in the wide expanse of ocean. Andrew’s planes found my fleet first – a great advantage in naval warfare. He had sent quite the armada of airplanes out and by the time the battle was over, I had lost two carriers – the Hiyru and the Soryu along with two torpedo bomber squadrons that were on board the carriers. My big mistake was leaving some planes on the deck of my carriers, which spelled a huge advantage for Andrew’s dive bombers. I still hadn’t found Andrew’s fleet and had to be content with sending a few planes to bomb Midway – I did minor damage to Andrew’s base.

Andrew’s armada had to refuel and refit in turn three, so he just sent out a few scouts to keep tabs on my fleet. I also sent out a few scouts, and was still unable to find Andrew’s ships.

In turn four I sent out an armada of planes, being careful this time not to leave any on the decks of my remaining carriers. I finally was able to find one of Andrew’s task forces and was able to knock out the carrier Yorktown taking with it 3 dive bomber and 1 torpedo bomber squadron that was aboard. I was also able to damage his cruiser Astoria. Andrew sent his planes to go after my fleet again, and was able to damage my carrier Kaga and my battleship Kirishima.

Turn five was again quieter as we refit our planes in preparation for another assault. In turns six and seven we again went after each other’s fleets but did only minimal damage, the only casualty of any consequence was some damage done to one of Andrew’s destroyers.

After totaling up the victory points (which were basically for sinking and damaging ships), Andrew had 69 and I had 43. Andrew needed to beat me by 10 for the win, and he got it. Losing two of my carriers in short order was tough for me, and with that I wasn’t able to find his fleet until the middle of the game (he actually had two task forces, I never did find the other one). This was a learning game, though, and my big mistake was leaving some of my planes on deck during a battle. I won’t be doing that again!

Score:
*Andrew* - 69 (Needed 10 more than Rick to win)
Rick – 43

Ratings:
Andrew – 7
Rick – 6

I think we both thought the game was pretty good. My slightly lower rating was due to finding the basic game a little too simplistic, basically all you can do is bomb the opponents ships, there is no gunnery combat, fighter combat, etc. I think things will be much more interested in our next game when we add the advanced rules.