Mariana Islands: Winning Strategy, the Zero IPC Island Crush


  • 2017 '16 '15

    Ahh… sounds like fun:)


  • 2017 '16

    @knp7765:

    Baron,
    You are mistaken on the distance from Aleutian Islands to Western US. It is NOT 3 spaces via “continental road”.
    The Aleutian Islands are not actually connected to Alaska. They are a separate land territory in their own sea zone. So from the Aleutian Islands, you would have to go like so:
    Sea Zone 8, Sea Zone 1 or 2, Alaska, Western Canada, Western US = 5 spaces.
    You could cut it down 1 space by skipping Alaska:
    Sea Zone 8, Sea Zone 1, Western Canada OR Sea Zone 10, Western US = 4 spaces.

    So even with an Air Base on the Aleutian Islands, you would still need to land your bombers in Mexico, Western Canada or Alaska and thus have to control one or more of those territories.
    Basically, the Aleutian Islands are the same distance from Western US as is Hawaii.

    Just a note, if you get the Long Range Aircraft tech, your bombers could move 8 from an air base so you could SBR Western US from Hawaii or the Aleutians (provided you build an airbase there).

    As an Axis player, it sucks that it is really hard to ever be able to SBR the US factories. In most cases, if you are able to SBR US facilities, you are probably on the way to winning anyway. However, it is possible for Germany and/or Italy to get a strong hold on the West Indies from which they could SBR Central and Eastern US facilities while the overall game is still up for grabs. I’m not sure how much good it would do for either Germany’s or Italy’s war efforts to accomplish this for more than a round or two at the most.

    You are right. My bad.
    I just looked at the Pacific Map, that’s my mistake.

    I find this sad that this is not a way to increase Pacific Island Hopping on both sides.
    Japan have no interest to gets Aleutian or Hawaii (beside the VC), since it provides no strategic landbase to launch any SBR campaign over San Francisco.
    In 1942.2, however, both Midway Islands and Hawaii are within 3 spaces from the San Francisco. Making SBR a possible reason to grab Midway or Hawaii.

    Unfortunately, only USA has some reasons to get Iwo Jima or Okinawa to launch an SBR campaign to strangle IJN.


  • 2017 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    Excellent info! It’s also very interesting to compare with the OOB set up, as there seems to be a few instances where the board doesn’t really agree with the history.

    The idea of a sub refueling station is rather cool. I wonder if some of these otherwise unimportant territories might be more significant if they had a role in sub or anti-sub warfare? Since it seems like even islands that weren’t suited for much else could at least be used for refueling. I wonder how that might be represented in game? A movement bonus +1 for any sub that starts in a sz with a zero ipc island?

    Subs are relatively inexpensive, and more than other ships are designed to operate somewhat independently of other ships. I wonder if a submarine advantage could be built into all valueless islands as a way to encourage people to fight over them?

    This is an interesting and original capacity you brought in.
    Any owned Island in the PAC would give a +1 bonus move for all friendly Subs.
    I don’t think it is necessary to restrict it to valueless islands.

    And it can be combined with my other Subs capacity suggested to be use the same way as a Destroyer blocker if Subs is in a friendly Island SZ.


  • 2017 '16

    An opening post from a thread talking about similar issues:
    Global 1940, Airbase on PTO islands:an immobile aircraft carrier for Fgs and TcB
    @Baron:

    Do you see the +1 Bonus Move for aircraft leaving an Airbase in an island very relevant in the Pacific Theatre of Operation (PTO)?

    It never plays the role of an unsinkable (& immobile) aircraft carrier, as some admiral said.

    An unsinkable aircraft carrier is a term sometimes used to refer to a geographical or political island that is used to extend the power projection of a military force. Because such an entity is capable of acting as an airbase and is a physical landmass not easily destroyed, it is, in effect, an immobile aircraft carrier that cannot be sunk and cannot be moved.

    The term unsinkable aircraft carrier first arose during World War II, to describe the islands and atolls in the Pacific Ocean which became strategically important as potential airstrips for American bombers in their transoceanic war against Japan. To this end, the US military engaged in numerous island hopping operations to oust the occupying Japanese forces from such islands; afterwards the US Navy Seabees would often have to construct airstrips there from scratch sometimes over entire atolls quickly, in order to support the air operations against Japan.

    Malta was sometimes described as an unsinkable aircraft carrier during World War II, making it a target of the Axis powers. The US military is said to have considered Taiwan since the Chinese Civil War, and the British Isles and Japan during the Cold War, as unsinkable aircraft carriers

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsinkable_aircraft_carrier

    From a game-play point of view, you don’t see the need to invade Iwo Jima or Okinawa and to build any airbase for Fighters and Tactical bombers to bring them near Japan since, anyway, they won’t be able to reach it and come back. It is still 3 spaces away to reach and another 3 to come back on the island. StB can make Strategic Bombing Raid (SBR) or Tactical Bombing Raid (TBR) without any Airbase bonus move. But they will never be escorted unless you bring…  carriers!!!

    Then, you come to the same solution as usual.

    Bring aircraft carriers in Okinawa or Iwo Jima SZ: they will protect the fleet and will be able to attack Japan from another SZ away and Fgs on them will be able to escort StBs flying from those islands without any help from airbase.

    And you can say this about all islands which have also an island as neighbour only 1 SZ away but 3 spaces for any aircrafts starting from one island, thus forbidding any Fighter or TcB air support from any AirBase near-by. The Bonus Move gives nothing, so why bothering building any Airbase (15 IPCs) instead of a moving airbase: carrier (16 IPCs)?

    The only solution, to save the “historical point of view” and give much more strategical options, is to treat Fighters and TcBs on AirBases in PTO islands as aboard a carrier in SZ for movement allowance.

    When moving out from an AB without returning to home-base island, it will give only the +1M bonus. It remains the same effect for Ftg and TcB as stated in the AirBase OOB description.

    And keep OOB rule for StB.
    (Anyway, they don’t need this additional +1 movement point to make a SBR from one island to another in the near SZ.)

    Now, Fgts and TcBs will be able to provide air cover and air support during an amphibious assault on near-by AB without always using aircraft carriers.

    For example, Palau island (Sz 34) (Peleliu Airfield) could be invade in the intent of preparing a greater air support (with Fgs/TcBs not just StB) for the invasion of Philippines Islands (SZ 35) as history said.

    For historical references:

    After a long campaign of island hopping, the Allies were approaching Japan, and planned to use Okinawa, a large island only 340 mi (550 km) away from mainland Japan, as a base for air operations on the planned invasion of Japanese mainland (coded Operation Downfall).

    The Battle of Iwo Jima (19 February 26 March 1945), or Operation Detachment, was a major battle in which the United States Armed Forces fought for and captured the island of Iwo Jima from the Japanese Empire. The American invasion had the goal of capturing the entire island, including its three airfields, to provide a staging area for attacks on the Japanese main islands.

    Given the number of casualties, the necessity and long-term significance of the island’s capture[31] to the outcome of the war was a contentious issue from the beginning, and remains disputed. As early as April 1945, retired Chief of Naval Operations William V. Pratt stated in Newsweek magazine that considering the "expenditure of manpower to acquire a small, God-forsaken island, useless to the Army as a staging base and useless to the Navy as a fleet base … [one] wonders if the same sort of airbase could not have been reached by acquiring other strategic localities at lower cost."[3]

    Pratt did not know, or else could not disclose, that the island’s emergency landing field would be useful for the B-29s carrying the atomic bombs destined for Japan in late 1945. The 509th Composite Group practiced mock emergency landings on Iwo Jima at its Utah base opened in December 1944.[32] B-29s were not entirely reliable, and engine failure was common. Due to the scarcity of materials and engineering complexity, replacement of the bombs could take many months or even years. However, Okinawa had also been taken by the time the bombs were dropped.

    […]
    The traditional justification for Iwo Jima’s strategic importance to the United States’ war effort has been that it provided a landing and refueling site for long-range fighter escorts. These escorts proved both impractical and unnecessary, and only ten such missions were ever flown from Iwo Jima.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima


  • 2017 '16 '15

    a bump one on sub moves sounds pretty cool 🙂

    how about a buck per island and a buck if you have a ship in the island’s zone?


  • 2019 '15 '14

    Very insightful and well thought out!

    It is pretty clear to me that the +1 for airbases on movement doesn’t do a lot. It breaks with the general idea in the old games that fighters moved 4 spaces. 2 out and 2 to return where you landed. Or the same thing with Strat Bs, 3 out and 3 back. When you give air an odd number of movement points it creates weird anomalies.

    I noticed this in a tripleA game we made called Great War, where the fighter unit (a biplane in that case) had a movement of only 3, but still had to land in controlled territory. So 2 to attack, but only 1 back. Or 1 to attack and then 2 on non combat. You could never attack and land in the same territory, unless it was already adjacent when using these nerfed fighters. It was kind of novel, but it also illustrated to me the importance of the 2 out 2 back move for fighters in A&A games, returning to land where you took off from.

    What if airbases provided a movement bonus of 2, but it was split over combat and non combat +1 in each? And the second bonus to movement could only be applied if unit is returning to the base on non combat.

    Or you could seperate out the concept and make it more general. Any airbase gives a +1 movement bonus to aircraft that are landing there on non com.

    By focusing on aircraft that are “returning” separately from air that are “taking off” you could prevent it from being too overpowered.

    The logic is that the airbase expects to receive the air units, and is prepared for them to return. Knowing when they are expected to come back, and coordinating things from the base HQ.

    Whatever way you want to construe it. Then you could say that all airstrip islands get this feature of bonus +1 for “returning” air.

    Oh and I like that idea that just came in!
    +1 for the island. +1 for the sz!

    The draw of a potential 2 ipcs is much greater than 1 ipc alone. And that would give players a reason to contest sea zones by themselves, which is good for naval gameplay.


  • 2017 '16

    @barney:

    a bump one on sub moves sounds pretty cool 🙂

    how about a buck per island and a buck if you have a ship in the island’s zone?

    That would be difficult to explains both in game terms and in historical perspective. But you give me this idea:

    1 IPC gain for the Island and treat the warship as making a 1 IPC Convoy Raid on the ex-owner?
    If it is a Subs then it is 2 IPCs Convoy Raid?

    It is slightly different from my idea quoted below, no instant penalty upon conquest, having less economical impact but can provide for an increase of units in the conquered SZ.

    The ex-owner loose IPC during Convoy Disruption Phase only if there is also at least 1 enemy warship in the SZ.
    Any 1 Submarine in the SZ makes the ex-owner lose 2 IPCs.
    OR
    Any 1 warship in the SZ makes the ex-owner lose 1 IPC.
    This is not cumulative.

    What do you think?

    @Baron:

    @Der:

    Just for your info - we have played about 4 times since August on my new custom map that has every territory (including islands) worth at least 1 IPC. So far no one has tried to take any of the islands or territories that formerly had no value.

    So it seems to me there needs to be further incentives like you are discussing. For example, Gibraltar gets action at times because one side or the other wants surface ship access to the med.

    Thanks to bring your experience about it.

    Another active thread gave me this idea to increase the impact of taking Pacific Islands.
    1) Keep the 1 IPC/each Pacific Island groups as regular or as National Objective according to what suit you best.
    2) In addition, each captured Island with at least one active unit on it (including Operational AB or NB), also cost to the original owner a 2 IPCs penalty taken out during the original owner Convoy Disruption Phase.

    So, a captured Pacific Island will give 1 IPC to the conquerer but will be a minus 3 IPCs for the original owner for a total swing of 4 IPCs.

    To rationalize it, consider that each Pacific Island is part of the owner’s Convoy shiping lines.
    Capturing one, affect economically the original owner much more than it brings new ressources to the conquerer.

    For example, IJN wanted Solomons and built an airfield on it, to be able to wreak havoc on Convoy shipping between US and ANZAC. It would have extended the Allies cargo ships time to make a safe travel via a more indirect travel route.


  • 2019 '15 '14

    Interesting. One approach which might also work, and which has been suggested before, is to only award the +1 ipc bonus if the territory/zone is occupied.

    The idea is that while the troops are stationed on the island  they create a kind of economy for the otherwise valueless territory. This bonus is not collected if the island is unoccupied (even if still under your possession). When the  troops leave the mini economy of the island goes with them. This gives an incentive to keep 1 unit on an island, whether an inf unit or a fighter.

    A similar concept if applied to the surrounding sz, you could say that the ship is guarding trade.

    I prefer bonuses to penalties. The game is more fun with money added in I think, rather than taken away. But I can see the merits of adapting the convoy system. I just think the ability to destroy ipcs, is more game breaking than helpful.

    Heavy Bombers in the old games and convoy raids against Italy in G40, has convinced me of this. Along with the fact that I like the new SBR concept (post aa50) of purchase to repair rather than losing ipcs directly.

    The ability to affect the enemies purse directly is very game driving. If an enemy player has 30 ipcs, and you have some way to take that 30ipcs down to 24ipcs before the enemy player even moves, then that is a move that people will always want to exploit. It’s the danger of destroyed or stolen ipcs, that you can go through all this effort on combat, only to lose the money regardless.

    French raid against Germans taking S. France is another example.

    I think the move to repair SBR rather than destroy ipcs directly was a positive move. Convoy raids seem to move in the opposite direction, by giving players a way to destroy the enemies ipcs again.

    It would be nice to come up with different convoy-like ideas or sz with ipc bonuses. I’m definitely on board, and happy to kick around ideas in that direction.


  • 2017 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    Very insightful and well thought out!

    It is pretty clear to me that the +1 for airbases on movement doesn’t do a lot. It breaks with the general idea in the old games that fighters moved 4 spaces. 2 out and 2 to return where you landed. Or the same thing with Strat Bs, 3 out and 3 back. When you give air an odd number of movement points it creates weird anomalies.

    I noticed this in a tripleA game we made called Great War, where the fighter unit (a biplane in that case) had a movement of only 3, but still had to land in controlled territory. So 2 to attack, but only 1 back. Or 1 to attack and then 2 on non combat. You could never attack and land in the same territory, unless it was already adjacentry with these nerfed fighters. It was kind of novel, but it also illustrated to me the importance of the 2 out 2 back move for fighters in A&A games, returning to land where you took off from.

    What if airbases provided a movement bonus of 2, but it was split over combat and non combat +1 in each? And the second bonus to movement could only be applied if unit is returning to the base on non combat.

    Or you could seperate out the concept and make it more general. Any airbase gives a +1 movement bonus to aircraft that are landing there on non com.

    By focusing on aircraft that are “returning” separately from air that are “taking off” you could prevent it from being too overpowered.

    The logic is that the airbase expects to receive the air units, and is prepared for them to return. Knowing when they are expected to come back, and coordinating things from the base HQ.

    Whatever way you want to construe it. Then you could say that all airstrip islands get this feature of bonus +1 for “returning” air.

    Oh and I like that idea that just came in!
    +1 for the island. +1 for the sz!

    The draw of a potential 2 ipcs is much greater than 1 ipc alone. And that would give players a reason to contest sea zones by themselves, which is good for naval gameplay.

    You probably get the right distinction.
    Any Air Base on an Island (PTO or ETO) gives +1 CM move to outbound planes and +1 NCM to inbound planes.
    This gives a better mobility to such planes and will not isolate them on the Island.
    Formulate with CM bonus and NCM bonus, Islands’ Air Base will act like Carrier in a SZ.

    Would you go as far as allowing it to Strategic Bomber also?
    Because, that way, Air Bases on Hawaii or Aleutian Islands would provide the range bonus to allow SBR on San Francisco.
    And I find this a pretty cool Tactical incentive.


  • 2017 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    Interesting. One approach which might also work, and which has been suggested before, is to only award the bonus if the territory/zone is occupied.

    The idea is that while the troops are stationed on the island  they create a kind of economy for the otherwise valueless territory. This bonus is not collected if the island is unoccupied (even if still under your possession). When the  troops leave the mini economy of the island goes with them. This gives an incentive to keep 1 unit on an island, whether an inf unit or a fighter.

    A similar concept if applied to the surrounding sz, you could say that the ship is guarding trade.

    I prefer bonuses to penalties. The game is more fun with one added in I think, rather than taken away. But I can see the merits of adapting the convoy system. I just think the ability to destroy ipcs, is more game breaking than helpful.

    Heavy Bombers in the old games and convoy raids against Italy in G40, along with the new SBR concept of purchase to repair rather than losing ipcs directly.

    The ability to affect the enemies purse directly is very game driving. If a play has 30 ipcs, and you have some way to take that 30ipcs down to 24ipcs before the enemy player even moves, then that is a move that players will always want to exploit. It’s the danger of destroyed or stolen ipcs, that you can go through all this effort on combat, only to lose money.

    French raid against Germans taking S. France is another example.

    I think the move to repair SBR rather than destroy ipcs directly was a positive move. Convoy raids seem to move in the opposite direction, by giving players a way to destroy the enemies ipcs again.

    It would be nice to come up with different convoy-like ideas or sz with ipc bonuses. I’m definitely on board, and happy to kick around ideas in that direction.

    Convoy Raid are not entirely in the opposite direction because this Phase is coming at the end of Power’s turn.
    This means that you or your allies can attack and destroy the warships in the just conquered Islands SZ.
    So, one way you bring a few more IPCs on the table (via NO), but on the other hands you need to get ride of the enemy’s warships to not loose IPCs.

    If you want more positive incentive, then I suggest to rise to +2 Bonus to the occupied Island.
    The NO can be formulated as requiring that at least 1 ground unit occupied the Island to get+2 IPCs bonus.
    And a negative penalty, against the ex-owner, for occupying the SZ, as above: -1 IPC for any surface warship or -2 IPCs for any submarine.
    The gains and the loss will be according to Global system rule.
    Actually, in Global, there is no such bonus for having warships in a given SZ.
    But there is Convoy Raiding Rule which fit the situation.


  • 2019 '15 '14

    I would definitely go so far.
    😄

    As that would at least give Japan some sort of option against North America, which is currently lacking I think.

    Anything to make the islands more valuable strategically would be helpful. The bonus should apply to all aircraft equally.

    You could attach this ability to the existing AB unit, and to “airstrip” zero ipc islands if desired. In this case the advantage of the airbase on a zero-zero - ipc island would just be the scramble I suppose? Would the scramble ability alone make ABs worth it? Perhaps. I know many players who buy ABs specifically to gain that advantage to help protect ships.

    Perhaps a cost reducation of the AB unit, to keep it relevant might be in order, if applying a movement advantage to the islands by themselves? Or might the AB provide additional movement on top of the island bonus? It would seem a shame to make the unit totally reduntant, but I’d still put an island hopping campaign in the Pacific or Med, as a chief priority. I’d be willing to HR mod the air base unit cost or abilities, if I thought it was necessary to support or more general ideas regarding the islands.


  • 2017 '16

    The need to ground occupied even his own Island to get the +2 IPCs bonus, will probably give an important incentive to, at least, invest a transport to put an Infantry on it and gaining the IPCs for the actual turn and subsequent ones.
    There will be much more ships travel in the Pacific.


  • 2017 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    I would definitely go so far.
    😄

    As that would at least give Japan some sort of option against North America, which is currently lacking I think.

    Anything to make the islands more valuable strategically would be helpful. The bonus should apply to all aircraft equally.

    You could attach this ability to the existing AB unit, and to “airstrip” zero ipc islands if desired. In this case the advantage of the airbase on a zero-zero - ipc island would just be the scramble I suppose? Would the scramble ability alone make ABs worth it? Perhaps. I know many players who buy ABs specifically to gain that advantage to help protect ships.
    Perhaps a cost reducation of the AB unit, to keep it relevant might be in order, if applying a movement advantage to the islands by themselves? Or might the AB provide additional movement on top of the island bonus? It would seem a shame to make the unit totally reduntant, but I’d still put an island hopping campaign in the Pacific or Med, as a chief priority. I’d be willing to HR mod the air base unit cost or abilities, if I thought it was necessary to support or more general ideas regarding the islands.

    For my part, I advocate Air Strip (AS?) to provide scramble (up to 3 Fgs or TcBs) and nothing else.
    While the Air Base give this +1CM & +1NCM additional movement allowance (and the scramble, of course).
    I just see the AB bonus move is gained by more equipment and adapted planes, such as drop-tanks, radio, radar positioning, etc.

    Maybe you can built the AB from an AS for 6 IPCs only. Like paying for making an AB operational?


  • 2019 '15 '14

    That does sound cool, and I like the idea of upgrading at a reduced cost from AS (island) to AB for the movement bonus.

    With this concept in play, and some sort of NO that grants an additional 1 ipc or 2 per island/sz based on occupation, then I think we’d have enough to jumpstart a legit island hop.

    If unoccupied the island remains worthless, if occupied, then certain bonuses acrue.

    Especially if a similar dynamic was adopted on both sides of the board, so that this concept could be universal. Crete or Cyprus or Malta, Sicily and Sardinia, Ceylon as well as the Pac. Just put the same ideas into effect all around, and see how the balance goes.

    I’m eager to try something like this on the board to see how it holds up 😄


  • 2017 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    That does sound cool, and I like the idea of upgrading at a reduced cost from AS (island) to AB for the movement bonus.

    With this concept in play, and some sort of NO that grants an additional 1 ipc or 2 per island/sz based on occupation, then I think we’d have enough to jumpstart a legit island hop.

    If unoccupied the island remains worthless, if occupied, then certain bonuses acrue.

    Especially if a similar dynamic was adopted on both sides of the board, so that this concept could be universal. Crete or Cyprus or Malta, Sicily and Sardinia, Ceylon as well as the Pac. Just put the same ideas into effect all around, and see how the balance goes.
    I’m eager to try something like this on the board to see how it holds up 😄

    Probably Italy will crave for these Islands Bonus in his perimeter: 5 x 2 IPCs = 10 IPCs upward!
    And, in this case if ever playing with a kind of Convoy Disruption, only Sicily and Sardinia can be put to -2 to -4 IPCs, while UK can be deprived of 3 to 6 additional IPCs via Convoy Disruption for Crete or Cyprus or Malta.

    Keep up us posted when you will play such a game.

    That also means that Iceland and Greenland can also be activated by ground units (or simply any units?) to provide such a bonus.
    Maybe this can help Allies, instead of a bid.


  • 2017 '16 '15

    Right on guys!

    Hadn’t even thought of iceland and greenland:)  So 1ipc for an island an 1 for the sz. Island has to be controlled with unit presence to get the sz bonus. Enemy sub disallows sz bonus. So if you have destroyer must attack sub or lose bonus.

    I think it might take to many dudes if you have to garrison them all. Maybe just garrison non original territories?

    In my test games when US conquered carolines or liberated wake or midway, Anzac was able to fly in fighters to support the fleet. I think the airstrip/air base idea could be pretty key.


  • 2017 '16

    @barney:

    Right on guys!

    Hadn’t even thought of iceland and greenland:) So 1ipc for an island an 1 for the sz. Island has to be controlled with unit presence to get the sz bonus. Enemy sub disallows sz bonus. So if you have destroyer must attack sub or lose bonus.

    I think it might take to many dudes if you have to garrison them all. Maybe just garrison non original territories?

    In my test games when US conquered carolines or liberated wake or midway, **Anzac was able to fly in fighters to support the fleet. I think the airstrip/air base idea could be pretty key.**This is cool. 🙂

    Giving 1 IPC for Island control and 1 IPC for having 1 warship in SZ, is a costly requirement.
    At least, it cost 9 IPCs (Inf+Sub) to get the 2 IPCs.

    My suggestion required only 3 IPCs (1 Inf) for the Island Territory to get the 2 IPCs.
    And, even if the SZ is surrounded by enemy’s units, as long as the territory is owned, there is no IPC lost.

    For an original Island owned, it must be conquered (so the owner lose the 2 IPCs NO) and whether there is a warship or a Sub in the surrounding SZ, the ex-owner lose also an additional 1 IPC or 2 IPCs during Convoy Disruption Phase.

    If the original Island is still in enemy’s hand but the SZ has been cleaned, then the original owner suffer no penalty while the conquerer still keep his 2 IPCs NO.

    If the original Island return in owner’s hand, then it get 2 IPCs, and even if the enemy’s succeed to put warships in the SZ, the owner doesn’t suffer any penalty. As long as he keeps his Island.

    In addition, if enemy wants to put a -1 or -2 IPCs Convoy Disruption penalty, he must at least invest 9 IPCs: 1 Inf + 1 Sub.
    An extensive Convoy Disruption strategy would imply leaving many Subs or warships dispersed in the Pacific Ocean, not necessarily a good defensive formation.

    I will agree that 1 ground or 1 air unit (including operational Naval Base and Air Base) is satisfying the basic requirement to get the 2 IPCs bonus.
    After all, it is a high cost to garrison an Island with 1 Plane.
    And in some cases, after a battle, it is probable that only planes survived and that would be complicated to not give the bonus in such situation.
    Even though, NB and AB will be interesting targets because they would not required to garrison additional unit on the Island group.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    😢 KISS  😢


  • 2017 '16

    @SS:

    😢 KISS  😢

    Said otherwise, to lose IPCs in Convoy Disruption Phase, the enemy need to capture one of your originaly held valueless Islands AND put in the surrounding SZ a single submarine (-2 IPCs) or warship (-1 IPC).
    Those penalties cannot be cumulative, even if there is more units in SZ, it is either -2 IPCs or -1 IPC, no more no less.

    For instance, once Guam taken by Japan and having as many IJN Subs as you want in the surrounding SZ of Guam, it will cost 2 IPCs to US until all IJN Subs move elsewhere or are sunk by Allies.


    A different NO, simpler but probably costlier to original owners, based on my suggestion made earlier:
    All valueless Island groups controled by at least one stationed unit (Ground, Air, operational Air Base or Naval Base) gives 2 IPCs.
    But cost 1 IPC to any original ex-owner, this penalty applied during Convoy Disruption Phase of this ex-owner.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34839.msg1355089#msg1355089


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 23
  • 7
  • 34
  • 3
  • 34
  • 2
  • 63
  • 26
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

87
Online

14.4k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts