Increasing action in PTO: The Case against 0 ipc territories (Pacific Islands)

  • '17 '16

    @CWO:

    Many of the island territories in the Central Pacific which Japan and the US fought to control were little more than coral atolls, volcanic formations or overgrown sandheaps, many of them small in size and some of them barely above water at high tide.  They had few (or no) natural resources, little (or no) arable land, few (or no) indigenous inhabitants, and no industries; the military bases located there had to be supplied from outside with virtually everything they used.  **They were for most practical purposes 100% consumers and 0% producers. **

    The value which these islands had wasn’t as industrial production facilities or as sources of income or of goods or of raw materials.  Their value was to serve as airbases (and in the case of suitable anchorages like Truk as naval bases) which allowed the domination of the airspace and ocean around them, and to serve as the jumping-off point from which to capture the next island group down the line. So if the rules provide no incentive to capture and hold these territories, the historically realistic solution isn’t to give them an IPC value.  The solution is to create a house rule through which possession of an island gives some sort of bonus to a player who uses the island to attack enemy forces around it or as a springboard for an island-hopping advance.

    From a geographical point of view, we can say that the board shows islands group not just isolated one.
    Nevertheless, they are not economical centre for sure.

    But here is my point of view:
    IPCs with NOs can somehow represent strategical & political objectives which receive their reward when the goal is achieved.

    Economically, it is also a way to go under the 1 IPC/territory limit fixed by the board.

    (If all 1 actual IPC was converted by x10 giving 10 revised IPCs, it will be easier to assign an actual .5 IPC value to an island territory: becoming a 5 revised IPCs, etc.)

    Because a Power must hold 5 territories together to gain access to 5 IPCs and loosing anyone means it loose these 5 IPCs income next turn.
    So it takes time to get the 1 IPC/territory income in this situation and can easily be lost.

    It is not historically accurate to give some islands groups a regular IPC income, that’s true.
    But it can be correct to view it as a momentary boost on overall morale due to strategical success that allow a one time IPC bonus to get it.

    So you get 1 territory, you get a one time reward : between 2 to 4 IPCs (to adjust).
    You keep this territory thereafter and it won’t give anymore economical boost.
    Reversely, you lose 1 territory, you get a one time penality: 1 or 2 IPCs.

    I think it can also be acceptable to joined together many territories and give them an overall value when all of them are conquered.
    A Geo-strategical advantage can be somehow implied in an IPC bonus.
    At the end, more IPCs you will get you additional units which can give an edge over the enemy to better enforce some strategies.

    Maybe some NOs can also be a one time bonus success.
    And loosing some NOs can also mean getting a one time penalty.

    Of course, when one or two key territories going back and forth means gaining and loosing every turn a NO, it could create an economical conundrum.
    But, usually, the Pacific battles are not like the Russian front.

    Of course, what I say here is just some rough draft ideas.

    It will need much more fine tuning to get a balance incentive for PTO action with IPCs bonus and malus, combining NOs and one time immediate reward or penalty for taking or loosing an island territory.

  • '17 '16

    @toblerone77:

    Both of these bonuses would be a one time deal. Example:Okinawa is recaptured by the Japanese they will receive the same bonus as the US did. After recapture the Japanese will place one of their national markers on the board even though it is their original territory.
    The marker will signify that all bonuses have been used for that particular island.

    I think that could be a good way to manage 1 time bonus for both sides.

    Giving free unit upon capture of an island is somewhat strange, that’s why I focus on IPC bonus and malus. They will be use in the next purchase and the unit will be mobilize 2 turns after the conquest.

    The bonus and malus could be as simple as that:
    when winning a “0” territory the loosing side gives 2 IPCs immediately to the conqueror.
    That’s it.

  • Customizer

    @Baron:

    @toblerone77:

    Both of these bonuses would be a one time deal. Example:Okinawa is recaptured by the Japanese they will receive the same bonus as the US did. After recapture the Japanese will place one of their national markers on the board even though it is their original territory.
    The marker will signify that all bonuses have been used for that particular island.

    I think that could be a good way to manage 1 time bonus for both sides.

    Giving free unit upon capture of an island is somewhat strange, that’s why I focus on IPC bonus and malus. They will be use in the next purchase and the unit will be mobilize 2 turns after the conquest.

    The bonus and malus could be as simple as that:
    when winning a “0” territory the loosing side gives 2 IPCs immediately to the conqueror.
    That’s it.

    I agree. the part of my idea with giving the unit placement bonus was simply that they could place, not receive units.

    Example: US captures Okinawa. during their placement phase of that turn, if they purchased a transportable land unit during their purchase phase they could place it there during their one time bonus. This would reflect the fact that enlistment went up due to the propaganda of capturing a “home” island of the Japanese empire.

  • '17 '16

    @toblerone77:

    @Baron:

    @toblerone77:

    Both of these bonuses would be a one time deal. Example:Okinawa is recaptured by the Japanese they will receive the same bonus as the US did. After recapture the Japanese will place one of their national markers on the board even though it is their original territory.
    The marker will signify that all bonuses have been used for that particular island.

    I think that could be a good way to manage 1 time bonus for both sides.

    Giving free unit upon capture of an island is somewhat strange, that’s why I focus on IPC bonus and malus. They will be use in the next purchase and the unit will be mobilize 2 turns after the conquest.

    The bonus and malus could be as simple as that:
    when winning a “0” territory the loosing side gives 2 IPCs immediately to the conqueror.
    That’s it.

    I agree. the part of my idea with giving the unit placement bonus was simply that they could place, not receive units.

    Example: US captures Okinawa. during their placement phase of that turn, if they purchased a transportable land unit during their purchase phase they could place it there during their one time bonus. This would reflect the fact that enlistment went up due to the propaganda of capturing a “home” island of the Japanese empire.

    That is a better idea. That could change a bit the flow of unit in the Pacific since it requires a long logistic chain.
    But adding 1 already bought Inf to a just conquered territory as a one time “Prestige” effect.
    Worth the try from a game point of view even, if it is not physically and geographically accurate or plausible.

  • Customizer

    @Baron:

    @toblerone77:

    @Baron:

    @toblerone77:

    Both of these bonuses would be a one time deal. Example:Okinawa is recaptured by the Japanese they will receive the same bonus as the US did. After recapture the Japanese will place one of their national markers on the board even though it is their original territory.
    The marker will signify that all bonuses have been used for that particular island.

    I think that could be a good way to manage 1 time bonus for both sides.

    Giving free unit upon capture of an island is somewhat strange, that’s why I focus on IPC bonus and malus. They will be use in the next purchase and the unit will be mobilize 2 turns after the conquest.

    The bonus and malus could be as simple as that:
    when winning a “0” territory the loosing side gives 2 IPCs immediately to the conqueror.
    That’s it.

    I agree. the part of my idea with giving the unit placement bonus was simply that they could place, not receive units.

    Example: US captures Okinawa. during their placement phase of that turn, if they purchased a transportable land unit during their purchase phase they could place it there during their one time bonus. This would reflect the fact that enlistment went up due to the propaganda of capturing a “home” island of the Japanese empire.

    That is a better idea. That could change a bit the flow of unit in the Pacific since it requires a long logistic chain.
    But adding 1 already bought Inf to a just conquered territory as a one time “Prestige” effect.
    Worth the try from a game point of view even, if it is not physically and geographically accurate or plausible.

    The one way it’s justified is that we assume there is “unseen” logistics going on in the oceans of the game board not represented by an actual unit (think convoy zones). If we assume that an actual plastic transport and it’s cargo are the representation of a “concentrated” convoy we can imagine that our nation’s “un-seen” convoys are moving small unrepresented amounts to the PTO front.

    Example: “Mr. Secretary. After Okinawa we had a massive influx of new recruits.” “Call Nimitz!”
    “Nimitz, This is the Secretary of the Navy. We saw you’re boys got beat up pretty bad at Okinawa. Well you’re excellent work there has driven up recruitment! I’m drumming up every available ship in the PTO to give you guys some help”

    We all know this didn’t actually happen. Something like it may have. After Pearl Harbor was attacked everyone wanted to join up. some things just can’t always be modeled into the game but in a way it can be if we kind of look at it from a different angle.

  • '17 '16

    I agree with this kind of way of seeing it. PTO is very large and have many SZ between USA and Japan:

    The one way it’s justified is that we assume there is “unseen” logistics going on in the oceans of the game board not represented by an actual unit (think convoy zones). If we assume that an actual plastic transport and it’s cargo are the representation of a “concentrated” convoy we can imagine that our nation’s “un-seen” convoys are moving small unrepresented amounts to the PTO front.

    That’s why I suggested that it could only be 1 Inf “prestige” bonus.
    The smallest one and the less costlier 3 IPCs.

  • Customizer

    Your point is well taken Baron. An infantry bonus seems reasonable enough to me and makes sense.

    I’m on more than one thread today (like most days) and am feeling a bit “under the weather” with a bad cold. trying to keep up is a bit sketchy today LOL.

  • '17 '16

    Wish you retrieve  better health soon!
    :-)

  • Customizer

    Thanks.


  • @toblerone77:

    “Well you’re excellent work there has driven up recruitment! I’m drumming up every available ship in the PTO to give you guys some help”

    We all know this didn’t actually happen.

    It didn’t happen.  The US was drafting most (if not all) of its military personnel by that point of the war, not calling for volunteers.  In fact the age of conscription had even (in which year I can’t recall) been dropped from 21 to 18.  The government had the Selective Service Act (or whatever it was called) at its disposal and it didn’t need propaganda campaigns to meet its enlistment requirements with volunteers.  The main use of propaganda in the US during the war was actually to encourage civilians to: a) work harder in the factories; b) complain less about shortages and rationing; and c) report suspicious people or activities to the authorities.


  • @toblerone77:

    I think a good solution would be assigning each island a “prestige” or “propaganda” value. Such as a newly captured island in the PTO awards the conquering nation a set amount of unit placement for capturing it. Example the US captures Okinawa. The US during it’s placement phase may place “x” amount of units there for that turn. For it’s propaganda value a die roll is also awarded 1D6 is rolled for each island captured and IPC are rewarded to reflect a warbonds drive during the collect income phase. Both of these bonuses would be a one time deal. Example:Okinawa is recaptured by the Japanese they will recieve the same bonus as the US did.

    By that same “prestige / propaganda” rationale, however, it could be argued that a nation which loses an island would suffer an IPC penalty (the country would earn fewer IPCs than its territorial holdings add up to) to reflect a drop in industrial output on the home front due to worker morale being adversely affected by the bad news.  If good news gives the affected player a bonus, then bad news should cost the affected player a penalty. The system can’t simply work in one direction.


  • @CWO:

    If good news gives the affected player a bonus, then bad news should cost the affected player a penalty.

    This is why the original idea should be explored. The number one reason is simplicity. (The last thing this game needs is another chart.)

    You simply make all the islands worth “1” IPC. True, there are no resources on most islands, but there is a morale value. Also consider less shipping losses by keeping the enemy away from home islands. Japan wanted those remote islands as a defensive ring to enhance their own security. Higher morale would logically = higher production. Workers will likely produce a higher number of units of higher quality if they know their cause is not lost. (perhaps only slightly, which would be represented by the low “1” value of each territory.)

  • '17 '16

    You simply make all the islands worth “1” IPC.

    It will be a recurrent 1 IPC income each round.

    I think there is room for a lesser bonus and penalty:
    1 occasional bonus/malus (once on every occurrence).
    Looser give to the conqueror of a Pacific Islands Group an immediate 2 IPCs.
    or 1 single time (once per game/ per Power):
    2 IPCs bonus/malus (as above) and 1 Infantry (if already purchase) to the specific location of the battle.

  • '17 '16

    @Der:

    This is why the original idea should be explored. The number one reason is simplicity. (The last thing this game needs is another chart.)

    You simply make all the islands worth “1” IPC. True, there are no resources on most islands, but there is a morale value. Also consider less shipping losses by keeping the enemy away from home islands. Japan wanted those remote islands as a defensive ring to enhance their own security. Higher morale would logically = higher production. Workers will likely produce a higher number of units of higher quality if they know their cause is not lost. (perhaps only slightly, which would be represented by the low “1” value of each territory.)

    What do you think of this lower than “1” IPC/territory (because you must hold all the 5 territories to get the IPCs bonus)
    4 National Objectives for Japan?

    In addition to the last HR about “prestige” IPCs bonus, maybe you can add some more plausible NO perimeters of defence for Japan.

    5 IPCs for the nearest perimeter if Japan have 7 out of 8 Islands group:
    1-Iwo Jima, 2-Marianas, 3-Guam, 4-Formosa 5-Okinawa 6-Palau 7-Philippines 8-Hainan;

    5 IPCs for the middle perimeter If Japan get 4 out of the 5 Islands Groups:
    1-Wake Island 2-Marshall Islands 3-Caroline Islands  4-Gilbert Islands 5-New Britain ;

    5 IPCs for the outer perimeter If Japan get 5 out of the 6 Islands Groups:
    1-Midway Island  2-Solomon Islands 3-New Guinea 4-Dutch New Guinea 5-New Hebrides 6-New Britain (present in the two NOs for more flexibility);

    5 IPCs for a PACIFIC Hegemony If Japan get 4 of the 5 Islands Groups:
    1-Aleutians Islands 2-Johnston Island 3-Line Island 4-Fiji 5-Samoa

    In addition to all this:
    any Power can have a 1 time -2 IPCs “low morale” penalty (immediate surrender of IPCs like the Classic SBR of IC) when loosing any islands.


  • I personally do not like NOs - to me they just overcomplicate the game and put focus on things outside the game itself. I like being able to just count up how many IPCs I get by looking at what I control on the map, and get on with the fun stuff.


  • A few posts back it was mentioned these islands have no value because they have no resources or what not, which is true yes. But they have a value that is hard to see unless you look closely. That being, the sense of security for a power that controls, and knows it controls an entire string of islands. A large part of the pacific war was trying to find out who even controlled what islands. After Pearl Harbor, the Japanese sent a second reconnaissance/attack force and were using the French Frigate Shoals as a staging ground. This botched attack revealed to the Americans that the Japanese had been using the area as a rendezvous point and the Americans occupied it later in the year. The point comes when you combine this with the fact that Allied shipping had to be wary of Japanese air units finding them and attacking them or relaying their positions as forces drew nearer to Japan itself. Control of all the atolls and islands and what not gave your forces an advantage in that they could operate without the fear of being spotted by Japanese air power because you have denied to them the ability to operate in the area. Later in the war, this became less of an issue as Japan couldn’t fuel or operate the necessary network of observation planes to keep up that sort of a net, and island hopping became the US strategy. It was no longer critical to control every pile of sand that stuck out of the water because the Japanese simply didn’t have the resources to use them as observation posts.

    So my point is, the value you are getting from the enemy NOT having islands to land on is that your forces in the rear areas can steam at full speed, and fuel doesn’t need to be wasted escorting them with convoys. Now in the game, the limits of air units movements represents this to a degree. But only for units we can actually touch. In reality, there are all sorts of things happening in the game that aren’t being represented with plastic pieces. Supplies are moving to your fleets at sea, while raw materials are moving back to your factories from far flung possessions. So the idea of awarding IPCs for control of worthless islands is not far fetched. We already have this happen with the Japanese NO for control of Guam, Midway, Wake, Gilberts and Solomons.

    If you really want to stimulate combat over islands then we need to change that NO, and likely add a new US NO to do the same.
    What I had proposed ages ago went something like this:

    Japan (replaces Guam, etc. bonus)
    1. Collect 5 IPCs per turn if Japan controls any 8 Pacific islands that have no IPC value.
    Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.

    United States
    1. Collect 5 IPCs per turn if the United States controls any 8 Pacific islands that have no IPC value.
    Theme: Islands considered to be vital strategic forward bases.

    The US starts with 6 qualifying islands (Guam, Wake, Midway, Johnston, Line, Aleutians)
    Japan starts with 5 qualifying islands (Paulau, Marianas, Carolines, Marshalls, Hainan)
    Japan can take US islands, or UK or ANZAC islands to boost their number, but the US can only liberate it’s own, or take them from Japan. This leads to a cat and mouse game chasing each other around the pacific, which is what you guys are after right?


  • @oztea:

    So my point is, the value you are getting from the enemy NOT having islands to land on is that your forces in the rear areas can steam at full speed, and fuel doesn’t need to be wasted escorting them with convoys. Now in the game, the limits of air units movements represents this to a degree. But only for units we can actually touch. In reality, there are all sorts of things happening in the game that aren’t being represented with plastic pieces. Supplies are moving to your fleets at sea, while raw materials are moving back to your factories from far flung possessions. So the idea of awarding IPCs for control of worthless islands is not far fetched. We already have this happen with the Japanese NO for control of Guam, Midway, Wake, Gilberts and Solomons.

    Yes, these are good points.  Control of contiguous areas of oceanic space (and of the airspace above it) affects operational efficiency, which has economic implications, so it’s justifiable for this to be translated into IPCs to a modest degree even when the spaces contain islands with zero IPC value.

    You could even take the concept one step further and extend it to contiguous oceanic spaces which contain no islands at all.  The area I’ve marked in red on the attached map shows the contiguous areas of oceanic territory “controlled” by Japan at the start of the game, as defined by its outer perimeter of island possessions.  Note that it includes some islands with an IPC value (like Iwo Jima), some islands with no IPC value (like the Marianas) and some sea zones with no islands at all (like SZ 18).  This area could serve as a baseline.  Each sea zone in the area could be marked (for the sake of visual convenience) with some sort of baseline marker – let’s say a white poker chip.  The baseline by itself would have no IPC adjustment value.  The IPC bonuses (and/or penalties) would come from gains or losses to the baseline.

    Every SZ gain by Japan beyond the baseline would translate into an IPC bonus for Japan.  (These gains could be marked with red poker chips for easy indentification.)  This IPC adjustment would include SZs added to Japanese territory as a side-effect of an overall territorial advance.  For example, a Japanese capture of Midway (in SZ 25) would have the side-effect of bringing SZ 24 into the Japanese perimeter, so the capture of that one island would translate into a gain of 2 SZs instead of just one.

    Likewise, US advances into Japanese baseline territory (marked by blue poker chips) would translate into IPC bonuses for the Americans.  There could be an additional bonus for the US (or an IPC penalty for Japan) if the US manages to pinch off and isolate parts of the Japanese territory; for example, if the US captures Okinawa while still holding Guam and the Philippines, the Japanese sea zones around Formosa and Hainan would be considered cut off from the rest of Japan’s oceanic territories.

    Japanese Naval Perimeter.jpg


  • neat idea, but sounds complicated.

  • Customizer

    @CWO:

    @toblerone77:

    “Well you’re excellent work there has driven up recruitment! I’m drumming up every available ship in the PTO to give you guys some help”

    We all know this didn’t actually happen.

    It didn’t happen.  The US was drafting most (if not all) of its military personnel by that point of the war, not calling for volunteers.  In fact the age of conscription had even (in which year I can’t recall) been dropped from 21 to 18.  The government had the Selective Service Act (or whatever it was called) at its disposal and it didn’t need propaganda campaigns to meet its enlistment requirements with volunteers.  The main use of propaganda in the US during the war was actually to encourage civilians to: a) work harder in the factories; b) complain less about shortages and rationing; and c) report suspicious people or activities to the authorities.

    Yes you are correct. Most people toward the end of the war were absolutely sick of it and it was getting harder to “sell” the war. I would say directly after Pearl Harbor the “propaganda/prestige” models would fit better.

    The problem is trying to model much of this stuff in the game.

  • Customizer

    @CWO:

    @toblerone77:

    I think a good solution would be assigning each island a “prestige” or “propaganda” value. Such as a newly captured island in the PTO awards the conquering nation a set amount of unit placement for capturing it. Example the US captures Okinawa. The US during it’s placement phase may place “x” amount of units there for that turn. For it’s propaganda value a die roll is also awarded 1D6 is rolled for each island captured and IPC are rewarded to reflect a warbonds drive during the collect income phase. Both of these bonuses would be a one time deal. Example:Okinawa is recaptured by the Japanese they will recieve the same bonus as the US did.

    By that same “prestige / propaganda” rationale, however, it could be argued that a nation which loses an island would suffer an IPC penalty (the country would earn fewer IPCs than its territorial holdings add up to) to reflect a drop in industrial output on the home front due to worker morale being adversely affected by the bad news.  If good news gives the affected player a bonus, then bad news should cost the affected player a penalty. The system can’t simply work in one direction.

    You’re right again here too. We tried earlier in the thread to limit a bonus in the PTO once per capture recapture.

    My personal disagreement with IPC values is the actual root concept of what IPCs and territory values actually represent. My take is that the concept of IPCs representing “x-million production hours” was artistic license rather than a hard fact. Essentially is was just artwork for the money in the game.

    Secondly, if we take a nations entire IPC value as representative of it’s production capability a territory worth 1 IPC contributes to the economy yet cannot have an industrial complex due to its value? That by that particular logic brings into question as to why then can a territroy worth 3 IPCs produce units worth more than three IPCs?  Also why would we combine all territory values under these factors?

    I think Global has done the best job of making this make more sense with major and minor ICs. I do howere think it leave some to be desired.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 52
  • 2
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 3
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

20

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts