Mariana Islands: Winning Strategy, the Zero IPC Island Crush


  • Here’s an idea deriving from the forward naval base concept.  What if these island territories generate IPCs (as proposed), but these IPCs are special ones that can only be used to purchase warships for use in the Pacific?  The rationale would be that possession of islands allows the establishment of forward naval bases, that these FNBs allow ships to remain on station longer (because they don’t have to waste time going all the way back to their home base), and this in essence translates into the equivalent of having more ships in action on the map.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Solid, I think that actually a great concept. Not least because it avoids the issue of players taking this money and then just throwing it in another direction. This way players could look at the Pac island bonuses as roughly equivalent to a pacific “ship discount.” You could keep the pile separate from normal income, to be used only for naval purchases in the pacific. If you don’t use it you can save the pile for the next, round but you can’t just turn around and spend it on ground, or air, or directed at Europe, which is usually what happens when you try to introduce more money into the game. This slates the bonus to be used exclusively for what we want to achieve, which is more ships in the pacific, and more contests over the islands. It’s simple to, you just keep a separate pile. Anzac, America, and Japan all have strong reasons to buy ships, so this will eliminate some of the burden by directing a portion of the cash specifically for this purpose. Genius!  I’m totally on board with that idea. Thanks CWOMarc


  • Glad you like it.  A couple of follow-up notes:

    • Although the Japanese didn’t have the same highly-developed concept of service squadrons and forward naval bases as the Americans did, the general idea of an island-posession benefit to naval operations does have a historical counterpart for Japan as well as for the US.  By positioning fleet units at Truk (Yamato and Musashi, for example, spent much of the war there), Japan benefited from having their ships twice as close to their oil supplies in the Dutch East Indies as the Japanese home islands were.  So it’s realistic for this house rule to apply both to Japan and the US.

    • Although the special IPCs could not be used outside the Pacific, nor to purchase non-naval units in any theatre, those restricted-use IPCs would still indirectly help the player in those two other capacities because it would “liberate” for other use any normal IPCs that the player would ordinarily have spent on warships in the Pacific.  So that would be a fringe benefit of this system.

  • '17 '16 '15

    Here’s one where the bonus doesn’t kick in until Japan is at war with the western allies or vice versa. You’ll have to edit control of New Hebrides at the end of your NCM unless you’re Japan. Then it will work normally.  The objective panel doesn’t work but it does show you what bonuses you’ve obtained at the end of your turn. It also shows them in the game notes.

    It seems like a cool idea. If you do the objective from the start you basically give Japan 5, US 6, UK_P 4and ANZAC 3 ipc bonus. While it can effect your first rd battles it does it without putting more units on the board immediately. If Japan doesn’t attack J1 a ten ipc swing for the allies which is close to the going bid rate. The allies will continue a slight ipc advantage once at war until Japan does something about it.

    If you start the bonus when at war, which seems like the historical way to go, the allies will still have a slight ipc bump spread amongst the three pacific allies. Which is neat because one country can’t get it all. Anyway it seems like a cool idea you guys came up with. Hopefully this will encourage more people to try it.

    P:)

    well unfortunately something doesn’t seem to be working correctly.  Which is odd becuse they were. I’m going to take these down for now and try again. The one on earlier post seems ok except UKP is only getting one instead of four ipc bonus. I’ll leave it up for now and try to fix it first.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Killer! Thanks Barney

  • '17 '16 '15

    So I just gave every island 1 ipc.  You still have to edit control of new hebrides.  Here’s the xml and objective properties. You’ll have to rename the properties before you put it in your global zip. Drop the  .txt

    So the ipc’s still start the same you’ll just collect extra ipc’s at the end of your turn. Seems like a lot of games have a J2 attack or sooner so basically you’re only getting a one round bonus or less.
    You can always edit until at war if you want. I’ll try and get one for the at war condition next.

    ww2global40_2nd_edition_Island_1.xml
    objectives.properties.txt

  • '17 '16 '15

    Here’s one where the bonus doesn’t kick in until japan attacks. However if uk attacks the bonus won’t kick in. Which might not necessarily be a bad thing IDK. If uk attack becomes standard to activate the bonus I would think that to be undesirable. However I’m still working on one where the bonus kicks in no matter who attacks.

    There’s also one where the bonus kicks in immediately. You still have to edit control of new hebrides. The objective panel doesn’t show up although it tells you what objectives you’ve achieved at the end of your turn. They’re also listed in the game notes.

    A couple thoughts on strategy. Japan should be able to take and hold guam and ceylon pretty easily although it will take a few turns to get ceylon. They should also be able to easily take but have trouble holding: wake,midway,new britain,solomons,gilberts and aleutians. Basically from japan and carolines they can threaten all islands except for samoa and ceylon. The us will need to protect or at least trade the aleutians or lose an objective.

    IDK if this would be enough to balance the game on it’s own. If you did start the bonus early us could send a little extra power to europe but it won’t be felt for a few turns. They definitely can’t ignore japan. As far as japan they’ll probably still want to take out india asap to cancel the uk bonus. which probably works out to a inf a turn. They will have to contest the solomons and new guinea to keep anzac from their objective. I think this new bonus will help anzac the most. If you really want to fire up the pacific you could activate shipyards as well.

    Anyway if you try it let us know how your game went.       P:)

    ww2global40_2nd_edition_Island_NO.xml
    ww2global40_2nd_edition_Island_NO_War.xml

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Thanks Barney! These are great!
    I foolishly left my laptop at home whIle I went up to visit the family, but going to load these up soon as I get back!
    fantastic  :-D

  • '17 '16

    @barney:

    If you really want to fire up the pacific you could activate shipyards as well.
    :wink:

    I forgot this one…  :-D
    NOw we talk!
    :evil:
    Thanks for this patch.


  • Hey guys, not to try and keep mashing rules into here as this is actually perfect to get some naval units mingling in the pacific, but to add more depth to this island fighting, what if airbases and naval bases could defend on islands that dont have an IPC value. Most of the islands that had airbases also had some form of defense against ships. Just to put in perspective think of naval and airbases as an entire set up for the island not just specifically what its name stands for but also all the logistics that is required to survive on an island. Just like 1 infantry doesnt stand for 1 infantry it is a platoon of infantry etc,

    - An island that has a naval base or an airbase may defend the surrounding waters for the first round of combat only and only against attacking surface ships. If both an AB or a NB are present then a die is rolled for both. Any roll 3 and under is a hit.
        - They may roll against amphibious assaults as well as any combat defense in that sea zone that has surface ships.
        - Transports can try and take empty islands that have no units but only AB/NB, but must endure 1 round of combat. If they survive they then can amphibious assault the island and take it.
        - Aircraft are not taken as casualties as they are subject to fire when on the island from AA.
        - If the AB/NB has be tactically bombed then they may not be defend in anyway. They must be fully repaired to be functional.

    I think adding this to the IPC buff just on islands will give it a bit more flavour. There does seem to be some blank spots on the board when playing but that was always going to be the case. Giving this area a bit of love will make the the game more strategic overall. If you guys like this idea or have some others we can compile a more formal write up of islands including existing rules. Of course a bit of play testing wouldnt hurt.

    Cheers, TDS.

  • '17 '16

    Welcome back TDS,
    Your combined defense of AB & NB @3 sounds more like a Coastal Guns feature.
    It’s seems strange to apply it in the PTO on islands group from an historical perspective (sounds more like a coastal defense as a German’s Atlantic Wall).

    However, reading your post makes me think about another way of making these islands an interesting tactical assets:
    If a valueless Pacific Islands group has at least 1 Inf on it, up to two Fighter units (no TacB) can scramble on defense to protect the SZ.
    No AB needed, the island is treated as an unmovable 2 planes Aircraft Carrier.

    This way, an unoccupied island with Fg on it is not sufficiently crowded to maintain a qualified Island Airfield.
    What do you think?
    2 Fighters is too much?

    Maybe 1 Infantry allows 1 Fighter to scramble.
    But 2 Infantry units allow 2 Fighters to be able to scramble.

    But 1 single Fighter able to protect the warships in the nearby SZ, can this be enough incentive to put Infantry on an Island and fight for it?

    The difference between Air Base and this Island Airfield is:

    • No additional +1 move allowance, as part of an Air Base bonus.

    • Tactical Bombers can scramble from Air Base not only Fighters.

    • Up to three units (Fgs or TcBs) can scramble to protect the SZ nearby.

    • No need to put any Infantry unit on the Air Base to make it operational.

    • An Air Base can be bombed and damaged while an Airfield cannot.

    As I said valueless islands group, can this be extended to all Pacific Islands group?


  • Perhaps the solution that would stick closest to the OOB rules without getting into too many complications would be to simply give each IPC-less Pacific island territory either a naval base marker, or an air base marker, or both (depending on the role played in WWII by each island group).  This would:

    • Give players an incentive to fight for their possession.

    • Reflect the fact that many of these islands in WWII were indeed valuable as naval bases or air bases (or both).

    • Reflect the fact that these islands actually produced little or nothing from an economic point of view.

    • Avoid the problem of house-rule IPCs being generated on these Pacific islands and spent on the war in Europe.

    • Require no supplemental or variant rules governing how units are used.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    That could be an interesting solution, I’d be curious to see what sort of impact in might have on the opening round moves. It could be that having ABs or Harbors might allow a game breaker of some sort on the movement advantage, but at least it would give an incentive for control. In effect we’d be adding 15 ipcs worth of tuv on each island, if you consider the value of a pre-existing base, which may be enough to get people hopping around. It’d be well over 100 ipcs worth of total tuv into the mix, but could open up more strategic interest for the whole theater. It has the advantage of being relatively  simple, just a recommended set up change.

    Which islands would you go AB, and which Harbor?

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I agree that it’s very difficult short of a total map redesign, but the problem is that it’s very hard to rework a map oob, and to have anyone adopt the change. I mean sure you could draft a new pattern for sea zones, but no one is going to print it out. I suppose one option might be to remove airbases and shipyards entirely as a way of increasing distance?

    I’m not quite as convinced that 1 ipc wouldn’t provide an incentive from the US perspective, though I agree for Japan it’s probably not enough to lure them. Honestly if a territory is not worth the replacement cost of an infantry unit, then players usually won’t bother unless it’s already along a path they want to move anyway. So for example, in a game like Revised it was not uncommon for the USA to take solomons, purely as a place to unload infantry (since it was already along the warpath), but that only happens when the sz is part of a broader transit path.

    I do enjoy the cruiser transporting 1 inf. I recall making suggestions elsewhere as a way to make the unit more valuable. It got some traction, but others didn’t like it. I think the ablility  to transport 1 inf unit with a cruiser is cool. We used HR this in some of our games, especially AA50, when most people in my play group really hated defenseless transports. So we used the cruiser transport concept as a way get around what seemed to be prohibiviley expensive trannies.

    I mean, if official A&A should show us anything, it’s that the Pacific is a royal pain when it comes to island hopping, since no OOB game has yet achieved it. Still I have to believe that we have not approached the situition in the right way.

    Before G40 everyone said that if we just had Airbases and Harbors then that would jumpstart the Pacific war. Obviously it didn’t work. Shadowhawk has suggested that the problem is distance. But even with sufficient distance, if there is no ultimate economic incentive, then would players even bother going the extra mile?

    I just think in order to pull it off, what needs to happen is a revisiting of what ipcs represent. It really bothers me, that literally everywhere else on the map, regional IPC values have been changed from board to board, except in the worthless pacific islands.

    This baffles me, since the Pacific is clearly the area that needs more value to activate it, but people are so stubborn about it. Like come on, we’ve added IPCS in every other region, I don’t see where the need to be so strict with the worthless islands comes from. I mean at least try them at +1 ipc and see if it can persuade more people to try something different. What’s +1 going to hurt. I get the impression some people think that this will cause the internal logic of Axis and Allies to implode or something, but it’s never really been tried and doesn’t seem aLL that crazy to me.

    Ipcs are already weighted differently in different areas of the board. Why not just say that in the pacific they are weighted a bit more, for gameplay purposes? I think people would accept this with no major hang ups, if it was just tried on an official map.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    The only real issue with distance as a solution, is overall game length or the sense of anticlimax it often involves (if it takes too many turns to cross the ocean this can sometimes present a pacing problem.) I recall seeing this in some of the games we made for tripleA that tried to put more space into the Pacific. One thing I noticed at that time, is that the incentive for USA is very different than the incentive for Japan to move across any distance. For USA, if a pacific game is required, there is stronger reason to cross that distance “whatever distance it is” in order to contain the IJN and prevent the Japanese fleet from going towards Africa by putting pressure on the home islands or the south pacific. Japan is more difficult though, because Japan doesn’t have the same sort of target opportunities against North America after they cross the pacific, that America has against the south Pacific and Coastal China. For them, taking islands and getting closer to San Francisco, is usually interpreted as putting themselves “out of position” since the road for them usually stops short of the Mainland US. There just aren’t enough pieces to pick off, and the ones that are there aren’t worth enough ipcs to draw out the Japanese crossing.

    I feel like the Outer Perimeter Island NO was an attempt to offset this, but it is too hard for Japan to achieve in most games OOB, and doesn’t award enough cash to make it worth putting yourself out of position. There is no North American endgame that Japan can reasonably achieve, in the main because of the production disparity and the fact that Central US has a major on it, and borders W. US directly, with E. US still in blitz range to boot. If there was any path along which Japan might possibly threaten N. America, it would be the northern route to Alaska. But Alaska and W. Canada aren’t valuable enough to make this move very effective over multiple rounds. The same with Midway and the Aleutians.

    To really get it up off the ground you’d need more NOs, more hard cash up for grabs, and reasons for both sides to push out across the ocean from their 1940 position. Right now I don’t see Japan doing much of this. USA does a bit more. But in both cases the majority of islands remain uncontested, which just feels odd to me. There are many incentives built into G40.2 that are meant to encourage vaguely historical play patterns, but the Japanese island campaign in 1941/2 is not really one of them. And the USA response after Midway, also doesn’t seem to encourage much island hopping. I don’t think there’s a way you can get the battle for the islands going without introducing more money into the equation. We’ve tried other things and it doesn’t really work. I still feel that if an island is important enough to be on the board it should be worth 1 ipc at least. And if it isn’t, then it shouldn’t get drawn on the map. I realize that’s a hardline position, but to me it feels right. With 1 as a foundation, it would be easier to have spaces up to 2ipcs and 3 ipcs, when needed for the gameplay, without breaking the sense of “industry” or “economy” so markedly. The distance between 1 and 2, is much less than the distance between zero and 1. At least that’s the way I see things in A&A play tendencies. The mental move to 1 is important. As long as they’re all worth zero, the same thing will likely happen regardless.

    Ultimately I think its a lot easier to add an ipc here or there to achieve balance via the NO concept, than it would be to do a unit set up change, or a map redesign. The latter option might be cool. But then its pretty hard to get someone to take a sharpie pen to their mapboard haha. I mean, unless you want a map that is pure distance where they are all just set up 2 sz apart from each other (counted as 1 extra space between sz). But at that point, why not just say ships in the Pacific can only move 1 space? It would achieve effectively the desired situation. I mean, sure, it would bust the opening moves, but it could be done. You could say that all ships on the pacific map move at 1 space, (whereas on the Europe map they move 2) harbors could still give a bonus of +1. But then of course the problem would be that everyone would just buy in Europe. I don’t know, it seems tricky no matter how you approach it, though probably it would take a combination of all the stuff mentioned so far…

    More distance, with the pattern of the sea zones encouraging island drop off zones for transported units along the way +
    More NOs to encourage reaching out across the ocean onto those island groups+
    More starting bases, or cheaper bases on those islands+
    More relative ipc value for the individual island territories +
    More ultimate (and penultimate!) island targets along the war path, such as higher value island territories or production options nearby those islands on “the mainland” (whatever side of the pacific that mainland happens to be on.)

    My proposal about the NO money was more an expedient than a perfect solution to the problem. But I think we are mostly in agreement though right? That there is a problem I mean?

    The solutions which allow valueless islands some sort of “built-in” special combat advantage are interesting. Whether this might be included as some kind of nerfed scramble (with less fighters), or a naval combat advantage, or something similar where the island had it for free. A universal rule might be helpful, if it included all valueless islands everywhere on the board. Like Malta or Cyprus or Crete, for example, in addition to the Pacific islands. That way it would be easier to remember, if you wanted to go that route, since it applies to all valueless islands everywhere.

    Still not sure anything, short of money, would convince players to go out of their way though. Japan especially, needs a stronger incentive to take the islands they actually took in 1941. Right now the basing advantage on those islands doesn’t seem strong enough to really get this going. And just as important, USA needs an incentive to take the Japanese home islands, that they actually took at the conclusion of the Pacific War; especially places like Iwo, or Okinawa, or Saipan etc. You know, for the climactic resolution and historical appeal!
    :-D

  • '17 '16

    @Baron:

    Welcome back TDS,
    Your combined defense of AB & NB @3 sounds more like a Coastal Guns feature.
    It’s seems strange to apply it in the PTO on islands group from an historical perspective (sounds more like a coastal defense as a German’s Atlantic Wall).

    However, reading your post makes me think about another way of making these islands an interesting tactical assets:
    If a valueless Pacific Islands group has at least 1 Inf on it, up to two Fighter units (no TacB) can scramble on defense to protect the SZ.
    No AB needed, the island is treated as an unmovable 2 planes Aircraft Carrier.

    This way, an unoccupied island with Fg on it is not sufficiently crowded to maintain a qualified Island Airfield.
    What do you think?
    2 Fighters is too much?

    Maybe 1 Infantry allows 1 Fighter to scramble.
    But 2 Infantry units allow 2 Fighters to be able to scramble.

    But 1 single Fighter able to protect the warships in the nearby SZ, can this be enough incentive to put Infantry on an Island and fight for it?

    The difference between Air Base and this Island Airfield is:

    • No additional +1 move allowance, as part of an Air Base bonus.

    • Tactical Bombers can scramble from Air Base not only Fighters.

    • Up to three units (Fgs or TcBs) can scramble to protect the SZ nearby.

    • No need to put any Infantry unit on the Air Base to make it operational.

    • An Air Base can be bombed and damaged while an Airfield cannot.

    As I said valueless islands group, can this be extended to all Pacific Islands group?

    I would add that Air Base can be built over an Island Airfield, so this can provide up to five planes (when 2 Infs are on the island) as an air cover to any fleet in the island’s SZ.


    Thinking further away,
    I think the real incentive should be a strategical choice:
    either building Carriers to cover the fleet anywhere
    or
    conquering the islands as unmovable carriers.
    The issue is that Carrier and Air Base cost pretty much the same.

    If, somehow, it can be a choice between:
    conquering islands while building more transports and less Carriers but keeping the same number of planes
    or
    as OOB, building Carriers and planes and still passing by islands.

    What could happen if any Pacific Island SZ was completely Air Covered by all planes put on the island (no limit)?
    Still assuming that moving from the island through the SZ cost 1 move.
    Islands’ Planes could choose to either protect the ground or the SZ (which ones must be stated during Combat Move) while Carriers’ planes could only defend the SZ.

    And if Pacific Air Base provides three planes to scramble to any adjacent SZ to the island’s SZ on which is the Air Base?

    Is it too much a game changer?

    It still keep some restriction (so Carriers would still be needed) such as Island must be conquered first and cannot land planes until the next turn.

  • '17 '16

    @CWO:

    Perhaps the solution that would stick closest to the OOB rules without getting into too many complications would be to simply give each IPC-less Pacific island territory either a naval base marker, or an air base marker, or both (depending on the role played in WWII by each island group).  This would:

    • Give players an incentive to fight for their possession.

    • Reflect the fact that many of these islands in WWII were indeed valuable as naval bases or air bases (or both).

    • Reflect the fact that these islands actually produced little or nothing from an economic point of view.

    • Avoid the problem of house-rule IPCs being generated on these Pacific islands and spent on the war in Europe.

    • Require no supplemental or variant rules governing how units are used.

    I like your idea because it allows to play-test with Triple A if any tactical incentive via either Air Base to all Islands or Naval Base to all, or both to all, or a combination of the three options amongst the Island groups, could be interesting somehow and enough to make a more Island Hopping game in Pacific Theatre of Operation.

    United States

    Hawaiian Islands (1 IPC): 2 infantry, 2 fighters, air base, naval base
    Midway: air base
    Wake Island: air base
    Guam: air base
    Philippines (2 IPCs): 2 infantry, 1 fighter, air base, naval base

    Japan

    Japan: air base, naval base, major industrial complex
    Iwo Jima (1 IPC): 1 infantry
    Okinawa (1 IPC): 1 infantry, 1 fighter

    Formosa (1 IPC) : 1 fighter
    Palau Island: 1 infantry
    Caroline Islands: 2 infantry, 1 AAA, air base, naval base

    Japan 5 valueless oceanic territories: Hainan, Palau, Marianas, Caroline, Marshall. 3 empty, 1 Inf, 1 both
    USA 6 valueless oceanic territories: Guam, Wake, Midway, Johnston, Line, Aleutian. 3 empty, 3 Air Base
    Anzac 3 valueless oceanic territories: New Britain, Solomon and “New Guinea”. 3 empty
    UK Pacific 4 valueless oceanic territories: Ceylon, Gilbert, Fiji, Samoa. 4 empty
    French 1 valueless  oceanic territory: New Hebrides. (Can be activated by a friendly Allied Power unit.) 1 empty
    Dutch 1 valueless oceanic territory: “Dutch New Guinea”. (Must be activated by a Pacific Allied Power.) 1 empty

    Sum: 20 IPC-less territories
    15 empty Island territories.
    1 territory have 1 Infantry only.
    3 US Islands already have Air Base.
    1 IJN Islands already have both Air Base and Naval Base.

    Iwo Jima and Okinawa should also receive Air Base to follow more precisely history.
    Probably Okinawa should get a Naval Base but Iwo Jima was such a small and barren island, it shouldn’t receive any additional Naval Base, unless it is payed for.

    And what about Formosa?
    The opening set-up of 1 Fighter let us think that an Air Base should be appropriate but a Naval Base?


    These three 1 IPC territory should receive a special treatment also in this context.
    Otherwise, being ordinary will make them less interesting and tossed aside.
    Do you think Okinawa could have support a Naval Base during WWII?

    In another part, Espiritu Santo in New Hebrides was an important US Naval Base.
    Is there something to do with it by putting an NB on it?
    This Island is already too near Queensland NB and AB or New Zealand Naval Base to have any value.


    Just looking at the US, does the three Air Bases of Guam, Wake and Midway are a sufficient prize for Japan to take?
    I’m not quite sure for Wake and Midway.
    It is also because taking these islands should part of a bigger strategy.
    Is there any interesting one when moving toward Hawaii or San Francisco?


    I think that Air Base should be on every Pacific Island including New Guinea and Dutch New Guinea.
    But, Naval Base should be put on the start up board more scarcely.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I think this will only work, without totally breaking the set up, if the bases are added after the DoW. Just thinking about it purely from a gameplay interest perspective. Starting with Japan and taking each territory 1 at a time…

    Hainan with a naval base would make it a much more interesting territory. As Japan would have more reach out of sz 36.

    Formosa with an air base would be potent, because it would give that fighter extra reach and would allow a scramble into sz20.

    Okinawa would be doubly potent with a naval base, as this would allow Japan to move that fleet in sz 19 an extra space. Same deal as Formosa with the AB, since the fighter could move farther and allows a scramble into sz 19.

    Iwo with just an airbase, might encourage Japan to park a few aircraft there to launch on islands like Wake or Midway.

    Mariana Islands, Palau, and Marshall Islands present more of a problem. Without a naval base they don’t seem to be worth going out of the way. With naval bases, they become a bit more interesting, as they could allow strafes (and then retreat to a friendly sz to repair carriers or battleships.) I’d say they are pretty strong candidates for the NB. Though would this be historical? I suppose since players are already allowed to purchase such bases if they want, this wouldn’t break too much with the games internal historical logic. For example, the game doesn’t require there to be a natural harbor necessarily, for you to purchase a naval base, so it seems that in A&A any territory meets the criteria. Even an island like Iwo. Here I think in order to make Marianas, Palau, and Marshalls significant enough to draw action NBs, would be better than ABs.

    Now if this was a pure set up change, the balance would tilt way too far in Japans favor, which is why I think it would have to come into effect the DoW. Similar to the way USA is allowed to upgrade their factories to majors automatically, for free. Even after DoW the advantage would be to Japan, since they have more TUV in the area to exploit the new bases. So this would definitely need to be counterbalanced by more NBs for the Allied territories.

    Question:Does it bug anyone else that Sicily is never invaded?

    Valueless islands like Malta or Sicily, might also benefit from some kind of auto upgrade. I also like that this sort of change is very easy to implement in tripleA for testing. You can do it on the fly via the edit mode.

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    I think this will only work, without totally breaking the set up, if the bases are added after the DoW. Just thinking about it purely from a gameplay interest perspective. Starting with Japan and taking each territory 1 at a time…

    Hainan with a naval base would make it a much more interesting territory. As Japan would have more reach out of sz 36.

    Formosa with an air base would be potent, because it would give that fighter extra reach and would allow a scramble into sz20.

    Okinawa would be doubly potent with a naval base, as this would allow Japan to move that fleet in sz 19 an extra space. Same deal as Formosa with the AB, since the fighter could move farther and allows a scramble into sz 19.

    Iwo with just an airbase, might encourage Japan to park a few aircraft there to launch on islands like Wake or Midway.

    Mariana Islands, Palau, and Marshall Islands present more of a problem. Without a naval base they don’t seem to be worth going out of the way. With naval bases, they become a bit more interesting, as they could allow strafes (and then retreat to a friendly sz to repair carriers or battleships.) I’d say they are pretty strong candidates for the NB. Though would this be historical? I suppose since players are already allowed to purchase such bases if they want, this wouldn’t break too much with the games internal historical logic. For example, the game doesn’t require there to be a natural harbor necessarily, for you to purchase a naval base, so it seems that in A&A any territory meets the criteria. Even an island like Iwo. Here I think in order to make Marianas, Palau, and Marshalls significant enough to draw action NBs, would be better than ABs.

    Now if this was a pure set up change, the balance would tilt way too far in Japans favor, which is why I think it would have to come into effect the DoW. Similar to the way USA is allowed to upgrade their factories to majors automatically, for free. Even after DoW the advantage would be to Japan, since they have more TUV in the area to exploit the new bases. So this would definitely need to be counterbalanced by more NBs for the Allied territories.

    Question:Does it bug anyone else that Sicily is never invaded?

    Valueless islands like Malta or Sicily, might also benefit from some kind of auto upgrade.
    I also like that this sort of change is very easy to implement in tripleA for testing. You can do it on the fly via the edit mode.

    Before expanding to Europe maps, I think it is needed to find the appropriate incentive in PTO.

    I agree I think this will only work, without totally breaking the set up, if the bases are added after the DoW.
    I would add that all bases become operational at the beginning of the next round after DoW, to minimize the effect on known strategy.

    Putting everything in perspective, +1 Move Bonus from Naval Base create a smaller Pacific Ocean and offer occasion to go faster against the main targets.
    This will make for less Island Hopping than with actual set-up combined to only Air Base-like bonus for Islands.
    It is not possible to conquer land by air only.
    So planes cannot conquer faster than transports are moving Infantry and other ground units.


    However, if I put the analogy forward about Islands as unmovable aircraft carriers.
    There should be one more special ability bonus of Pacific Islands.

    Since, any aircraft carrier gives the possibility to land planes in a once embattled but now controlled SZ.
    Why don’t try this?
    A maximum of 2 planes are allowed to land on a just conquered Island by, at least, 1 ground unit.
    To be eligible, the planes must have at least 1 move left while above the island.
    So this ability will not give any extra range.
    (This extra move point required can be understand as the “time” to built or repair the Airfield, once the territory is captured).

    Example 1, this will allow such a direct move as 2 IJN Fighters in Marshall Islands to support an amphibious assault on any US unit in Wake Island.
    It takes 3 move point to be above Wake and a last one to land after winning the combat.
    However, if it is not conquered any of the 2 surviving planes must land on any carrier in the nearby SZ or crash in the ocean.
    (But this will not happen because any player will prefer to sacrifice planes while keeping up the attack inland or take planes as casualty while keeping 1 last standing ground unit.)

    Example 2, let’s suppose Johnston, Wake and Midway were captured and on each islands there is 2 IJN Fighters to support the next amphibious assault on Hawaii.
    Since there is a maximum of 2 planes (only 2 IJN Fighters can take off to attack Hawaii and able to land on it after victory), unless there is some room available on any Carrier.

    Combined with this other points (from above), islands will work as a Carrier:
    Any number of plane landed on a Pacific Island can protect the nearby SZ.
    Islands’ Planes could choose to either protect the ground or the SZ (which ones must be stated during Combat Move) while Carriers’ planes could only defend the SZ.
    Moving from the island through the SZ still cost 1 move.

    Pacific Air Base provides +1 Bonus Move (as OOB) and up to three planes can scramble to prevent an amphibious assault or an attack against a friendly fleet to any adjacent SZ to the island’s SZ on which is the Air Base.

    That way, in example 2, if an IJN fleet was stationed in Hawaii SZ and is under attack, up to 6 planes (3 coming from Wake AB and 3 coming from Midway AB) can scramble in the Hawai SZ to provide Air Cover against whatever is attacking the IJN fleet (except Subs, if there is no IJN DD present).

    Finally, the most controversial aspect:
    For any Pacific Islands Air Base, up to 3 Fighters or Tactical Bombers are considered in the SZ, like if they were on a Carrier, for movement allowance.
    Said otherwise, Pacific AirBase on Island provides up to three Fgs or TcBs +1 outbound and +1 inbound to the same unit taking off and coming back to the same island.
    In other situation, it provides only +1 outbound move.

    In example 2, up to 3 IJN Fighters from Wake and up to 3 IJN Fighters from Midway can launch an assault on Hawaiian island and come back to their Air Base.
    1 Movement to reach SZ 26 (Hawaiian SZ), 1 move to enter Hawaiian Islands, 1 move to return in SZ 26 and 1 move to come back on the Air Base via reaching SZ 25 or 31.

    @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.

    Here is when I push forward this last idea the first time:
    Global 1940, Airbase on PTO islands:an immobile aircraft carrier for Fgs and TcB
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32188.msg1204629#msg1204629

  • '17 '16 '15

    I’m currently playing oztea’s 41 set up with the 1 ipc islands. As to what you guys were just talking about it already starts out with extra NBs and ABs. Extra dudes too. So it’s kinda like a double wammy. I usually play against myself and find it to be pretty even compared to 40.

    Anyway their was a lot more action in the pacific. I’m more of a opportunistic player then a set strategy guy but generally always end up in the DEI trying to wack india with the US usually in queensland.This time japan took the aleutians first turn and forced the US north while having  singapore and carolines fleets mop up the big money islands. They then left the singapore fleet in india while carolines took new guinea. After that their was a large fleet action at wake island after japan took it in the 3rd turn.

    Well not to ramble too much but the US had a hard time getting going. Japan got huge and by the 4th turn halved the objective. The highest they got to was 11 after they took midway. They got india but couldn’t hold java and the US finally got midway and wake back. Looks like the axis are going to win. Russia is bout to fall and it’s too little too late in the pacific where US is gaining momentum.

    It seemed to favor japan more than anybody although that might be due to the setup. Hard to say after one game. I think more NBs, ABs and ipc’s should definitely stir things up:). Maybe even a minor allied bid in the pacific to make things a little different.

    Anyway it was fun :) P

Suggested Topics

  • 28
  • 38
  • 11
  • 39
  • 5
  • 33
  • 138
  • 12
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

40

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts