Mariana Islands: Winning Strategy, the Zero IPC Island Crush

That be great with some kind of list. I don’t play G40 but have 3 39 games and they have airbases and values on some islands. But they do have more sea zones. Start at the year of 1939. I could use your list of air and naval as information for maybe some islands I have that don’t have anything of value or bases. Possibly add the bases as game goes on to.

Thankyou very much for your time and effort on this subject.

Here’s a triplea mod that awards the 1 ipc per valueless territory regardless of who attacks first. If the US remains neutral it won’t receive the bonus. If japan doesn’t attack first and remains neutral with the US they will still receive the 10 ipc bonus from US.

I like the airstrip idea Baron. Maybe place airstrips on the islands CWO deems worthy at the start. If you conquer a island with a airstrip you can land up to two, ftr or tac, on same turn. Allows a two plane scramble into the immediate sz. This would help protect the landing fleet to counter attack. You could send a dstry and a trprt for a smaller landing force and have a better chance of defending it. At least make the enemy commit more to destroy it.

I think for starters limit the scramble to immediate sz and if you need more incentive boost it to adjacent sz’s, but that may prove too powerful. I wouldn’t give any extra range to the airstrip either although on a normal build turn you could upgrade to AB for 10 ipc’s?

If the airstrips were placed at the start I don’t think it would be too hard to adapt triplea to something like that. The japanese were fortifying islands before the war albeit in treaty violation. Anyway it seems promising to me. :)P

ww2global40_2nd_edition_Island_NO_Any_Attack.xml

@CWO:

There’s a question I’d like to ask, because the answer will be helpful to me when I’m looking at my sources in detail.  From what I read last night, compiling a list of naval and air bases will quickly start getting very complicated if I need to take into account (which I don’t have time to do) all the distinctions between major and minor naval bases, major and minor airbases (some having no more than the status of airstrips), bases for one type of plane as opposed to another type of plane, multiple versus single bases on a given island, bases situated on multiple real-world islands which in A&A are represented by just a single simplified island group, and so on and so forth.  It would not only be too much information to look up, it would also for the most part be wasted information because there’s no way (and no practical reason) to reproduce that level of detail in a potential A&A houserule – and especially in a houserule concept that hasn’t gathered much support, since several people have already said that they prefer the IPC option and/or that the base concept wouldn’t be an adequate motivator for them.  Basically, I don’t want to invest a lot of time doing research for a houserule concept that isn’t likely to go anywhere.

So my question is: would SS and Baron Munchhausen (the two people who seemed interested in pursuing the idea) be satisfied if I simply did some general research and produced a fairly simple list giving my interpretation of whether each named IPC-less island territory in the Pacific should be given an air base and/or a naval base, and if so at what rough stage of the war (pre-war, mid-war, or late-war), and if so under which side’s control?  In essence, my interpretation would hinge on whether major bases (naval or air) historically existed at such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time, and I’d disregard things like minor airstrips and minor anchorages (which, frankly, existed just about everywhere, French Frigate Shoals being an example of the latter type).

Very much satisfied indeed. Even beyond my expectations. Your 4 points will be great.

• Island Name

• Types of base

• Stage of War

• Owner’s side

You reminded me that friendly planes can land on any friendly island or a friendly transport can unloaded on it all his units.
In both case, it shows that an Airstripe is not an Airbase and an seaport is not a Naval Base.

@barney:

Here’s a triplea mod that awards the 1 ipc per valueless territory regardless of who attacks first. If the US remains neutral it won’t receive the bonus. If japan doesn’t attack first and remains neutral with the US they will still receive the 10 ipc bonus from US. Thanks man for your good work, this is great.

I like the airstrip idea Baron. Maybe place airstrips on the islands CWO deems worthy at the start. If you conquer a island with a airstrip you can land up to two, ftr or tac, on same turn. Allows a two plane scramble into the immediate sz. This would help protect the landing fleet to counter attack. You could send a dstry and a trprt for a smaller landing force and have a better chance of defending it. At least make the enemy commit more to destroy it. This will allow little skirmishes over Islands without too much investment.

I think for starters limit the scramble to immediate sz and if you need more incentive boost it to adjacent sz’s, but that may prove too powerful. I agree, probably not necessary, there many other incentives than allowing scramble in 3 or 4 Sea Zones around the Island SZ, there is no similar situation in A&A.
I wouldn’t give any extra range to the airstrip either although on a normal build turn you could upgrade to AB for 10 ipc’s? No extra range for Airstrip, OK. But AirBase should get a real movement allowance. That’s why I talked about making the Island Air Base to work as an unmovable Carrier for 3 planes. The Pacific Air Base cost can be much lower (than 16 IPCs carrier’s cost) to give an incentive to buy them. But I think that the real incentive to buy them is to create tactical situations in which planes from such Air Base gives a real support when attacking a strategically positioned enemy’s fleet. Otherwise, even though you give a lower cost, the overall strategy will not require it, so the IPCs will be invested in other units.

If the airstrips were placed at the start I don’t think it would be too hard to adapt triplea to something like that. The japanese were fortifying islands before the war albeit in treaty violation. Anyway it seems promising to me. :)P  Sorry, here I don’t see what you are thinking about.

What do you mean by airstrips put into tripleA?
How can you allow only 2 planes to land on a just conquered PACIFIC island and to be able to scramble in the SZ, without AB?
Actually, it is probably possible to adjust the number of planes that can scramble from an Air Base (2 planes Air Stripe + 3 planes AB= up to 5 planes could scramble),
but is it possible to increase the range of planes outcoming and incoming to the Island Airbase by 1 (to simulate the Carrier effect on aircrafts movement)?

@Baron

yea disregard the last part about placement it’s not relevant. You could place them the same turn you conquer but unfortunately it doesn’t look like you can land planes on the same turn. I’m not fortunate to have a group to play ftf and not enough room to leave the board up. Triplea is basically the only way I can play so I try and think in those terms.

Anyway really like your idea about the airstrips. I think it has great potential.

@barney:

@Baron

yea disregard the last part about placement it’s not relevant. You could place them the same turn you conquer but unfortunately it doesn’t look like you can land planes on the same turn. I’m not fortunate to have a group to play ftf and not enough room to leave the board up. Triplea is basically the only way I can play so I try and think in those terms.

Anyway really like your idea about the airstrips. I think it has great potential.

@Black_Elk:

Seabees would be cool! I mean if they’re good enough for The Duke, then why not! :-D

For the Can Do spirit.

Is it possible to strike some kind of balance where the islands have a built in naval/air component, where the seabee is like a nerfed naval base, and the airstrip is like a nerfed air base? You know, providing some similar advantage as a full base, just not as strong. I think if the mechanic was simple to remember it could be the ticket.

Here’s a thought what if, for example, the seabees provided a movement bonus +1 but only on non combat? And could repair just 1 ship per round. Or something similar, so that players would still have a reason to buy regular NBs.

Airstrips seem relatively simple to include.

I still think the money is going to be the strongest draw, but I do like the idea of giving worthless islands some kind of combat or non combat advantage that is unique.

In face to face, Airstrips can be easily Houseruled but not on Triple A.
However, with Edit Mode on Triple A, your idea for SeaBees  can be tried on a fair-play basis:
by just putting on every Islands Naval Base but restricting ourselves to use the +1 bonus move in CM and Editing any additional damaged Carrier or damaged Battleship over the first one being repaired.

Finding an half capacity:
Air Stripe can allow scramble for up to 3 planes (as a regular Air Base) but not movement bonus.

Does getting an improve bonus move +1 outbound and +1 inbound can this additional movement allowance be added to an AirBase in Triple A?

To be able to land on a just conquered Island territory for up to 2 planes, or even up to 3 planes if an Air Base is already there, can this work?

Good idea with the edit Baron! It would be easy enough to let your two planes die at the end of your turn and then edit them back to life. I think everything else should be possible.

Do you think you should be able to upgrade airstrips and seabee ports to full on AB and NB? At a reduced cost? Give the little islands another small boost. Or just go with CWO’s historical data and that’s their max?

@barney:

Good idea with the edit Baron! It would be easy enough to let your two planes die at the end of your turn and then edit them back to life. I think everything else should be possible.

Do you think you should be able to upgrade airstrips and seabee ports to full on AB and NB? At a reduced cost? Give the little islands another small boost. Or just go with CWO’s historical data and that’s their max?

you must also play under the optional rule which allows kamikaze runs for attacking planes.

• All zero Islands get +1 IPC NO upon DoW.

• All Islands have an Air Base and a Naval Base (including Formosa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa). You just to need to remember which ones are only in fact Airstripes and SeaBees.

• Before loading the game, selecting kamikaze attack runs as optional rule for planes.

• And doing some Edits for planes ditched at sea and IPCs removal when paying to upgrade Air Base or Naval Base.

I’m surprised but with a little fair-play, you can really play-test this Pacific Variants on Triple A!
Have fun.

what about damage? max of 4 operable with one or less?

Not sure if this has been suggested before, but how about establishing a required threshold of “support islands” before mounting a major mainland invasions? These can work like canal and strait openings, and simulate the extensive supply chain required for such deep range amphibious assaults.

For example, in order to invade Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria or New Zealand, Japan must have controlled two of New Britain, Solomon Islands and New Hebrides for a turn. It’s safe to assume they have control of the DEI already, and would justify landings in Western Australia and Northern Territory.

For India, even if Japan has a huge force in Burma, they must control Ceylon for a turn in order to invade. Would also include Malaya as the Straits of Malacca would be critical. Was thinking that control of Singapore should also control access between SZ 36 and 43 to 38.

For Japan, the Allies must control all of Okinawa, Guam, Marianas and Iwo Jima.

For the Western US, Japan must control all of Aleutian, Midway, Hawaiian, Johnston and Line Islands.

This covers almost every island, though Fiji and Samoa are so far out it was hard to tie into anything strategic.

This can also apply to Southern Italy on the Europe map, the Allies must have controlled Sicily for a turn before simply unloading troops into Rome.

@barney:

Triplea is basically the only way I can play so I try and think in those terms.

@barney:

what about damage? max of 4 operable with one or less?

How would you do it inside Triple A?

Does this change from OOB Base is really needed?

It adds an additional layer of non-uniformity. So it should bring something somehow.
What kind of improvement can this lowering damage-cost (even if it can be more accurate historically) bring? I don’t see.

@Baron

I was thinking of creating a new unit airstrip, seabee base using the old wwII pacific icons. Give the airstrip a two scramble 4 movement and the seabee base a one repair +1 ncm or something similar. Have those max damage 4 operable 1 or less. The AB, NB would be unaffected.

@General V

That would bring them into play. I wonder how it might effect game speed or options though?

@Black_Elk:

Seabees would be cool! I mean if they’re good enough for The Duke, then why not!

The John Wayne movie “The Fighting Seabees” (which is short on historical accuracy, but long on gung-ho enthusiasm) has a theme song whose lyrics, as I recall, are:

We’re the Seabees of the Navy
We can build and we can fight
We’ll pave the way to victory
And guard it day and night
And we promise that we’ll remember
The seventh of December
We’re the Seabees of the Navy
Bees of the seven seas!

If you ever get to see the film, watch in particular for the scene where Wayne (initially unarmed) single-handedly fights and kills several rifle-carrying Japanese soldiers in quick succession.

As promised, here’s a summary of the information I was able to find about the zero-IPC islands on the Pacific 1940 map.  The sources I consulted weren’t as detailed as I’d hoped, so the summaries below are basically an estimate of what the general situation was for each island group.  Some of these assessments could be off the mark, so if anyone has access to better data please feel free to correct whatever errors exist or to provide supplementary information.

Aleutian Islands
Important naval base(s)? No, just a US naval station (pre-war and onward) at Dutch Harbor whose facilities were very limited.
Important air base(s)? To some degree.  Several US forward airbases were established (pre-war and onward), with larger bases like Elmendorf in Alaska proper.  The Aleutians have very poor flying weather.

Caroline Islands
Important naval base(s)?  Yes.  Truk was a major Japanese naval base, pre-war and onward.  The Japanese did not make significant use of Ulithi Atoll, but after the American capture of the Carolines the US developed Ulithi into a major forward naval base that was used in the last year of WWII. 
Important air base(s)?  Yes, as an adjunct to the naval bases.

Dutch New Guinea
Important naval base(s)?  To some degree.  Hollandia had a good anchorage which both the Japanese and (from 1944 onward) the US used to some extent, but its facilities were minimal.
Important air base(s)?  To some degree.  Various airfields were built by the Japanese after their occupation began, and were used by the US from 1944 onward.  There was an airstrip at Hollandia.

Fiji
Important naval base(s)?  No, but there was a good harbour at Suva. 
Important air base(s)?  No, just a UK wartime airstrip built after 1941.

Note: The Ellice Islands, geographically located about halfway between Fiji and the Gilbert Islands but not appearing on the Pacific 1940 map, were used as naval and air bases by the US in WWII.  In particular, there seems to have been an important airbase on Funafuti Atoll.

Gilbert Islands
Important naval base(s)?  No.  Port facilities at Tarawa were almost nonexistent. 
Important air base(s)?  To some degree.  An airstrip was built by the Japanese on Tarawa in 1942; it was taken over by the US in late 1943.  The nearby Phoenix Islands, under joint US/UK control, had a number of airstrips established on them during WWII, for instance on Enderbury Island and Canton Island.

Guam
Important naval base(s)?  No.  At the beginning of WWII it only had a small harbour with few facilities, though there were some good anchorages here and there, notably at Apra.  Captured by Japan in December 1941; recaptured by the US in August 1944.
Important air base(s)?  To some degree.

Johnston Island
Important naval base(s)?  No, served only as US sub refueling base.  It had no port and no decent anchorge.
Important air base(s)?  Yes, US, existed pre-war and grew in wartime.

Line Islands
Important naval base(s)?  No.
Important air base(s)?  To some degree.  There was a US naval air station on Palmyra Atoll, pre-war and onward.  Palmyra was well positioned to control part of the airspace lying directly on the U.S.-to-Australia route.  Nearby Christmas Island also had some US airfields.

Marianas
Important naval base(s)?  No.  Tinian lacked a proper port. 
Important air base(s)?  Yes.  It had a Japanese pre-war base.  Tinian was captured by the US in mid-1944 and was developed by them into a massive airbase.  Fleets of B-29s operating from Tinian bombed Japan extensively; the two A-bomb missions took off from there.

Marshall Islands
Important naval base(s)?  Yes.  Japanese naval and air bases of various sizes were established there in the late 1930s, notably at Kwajalein, Majuro, Eniwetok and Bikini, but the Japanese did not develop them to the extent that they could have.  After the capture of the Marshalls by the Americans in January 1944, the US Navy used Majuro as a major forward naval base. 
Important air base(s)?  Yes.

Midway
Important naval base(s)?  No, except as a US submarine base.
Important air base(s)?  Yes, US, existed pre-war and grew in wartime.

New Britain
Important naval base(s)?  Yes.  Rabaul, which has an excellent harbour, was the largest Japanese base in New Guinea during the 1942-1945 occupation.
Important air base(s)?  Yes.

New Guinea
Important naval base(s)?  To some degree.  Allied-controlled Port Moresby apparently had limited use as a port, but the town itself and the bases around it were important Allied staging areas.
Important air base(s)?  Yes, several, established both by Japan and the Allies (who controlled different parts of the island) during the war.

New Hebrides
Important naval base(s)?  To some degree.  Espiritu Santo only had a small port and a small airfield, but it saw a lot of use by the Allies during the war.  Nearby Free French-controlled New Caledonia (which is not part of the New Hebrides, but is located nearby to the southwest) was an important Allied forward base in the early stages of the war; it had a small pre-war French naval and air base, good anchorages in the area and a small port at Noumea.  The Santa Cruz Islands, northwest of Espiritu Santo, were not used by the Allies despite their advantageous position because the local strain of malaria was too virulent.
Important air base(s)?  To some degree.

Palau Island
Important naval base(s)?  No.  Peleliu had no port facilities.
Important air base(s)?  No.  There was a Japanese airfield on Peleliu, though apparently not an extensive one.  The US captured Palau in late 1944, but made little subsequent use of it to support its operations in the western Pacific.

Samoa (American Samoa and New Zealand Samoa Mandate)
Important naval base(s)?  No, just a minor US naval station that existed (pre-war and onward) at Tutuila; harbour traffic increased for the first half of the war but decreased thereafter.  The principal port of American Samoa, Apia, only had limited facilities. 
Important air base(s)?  Yes. US Tafuna Airfield (in American Samoa) existed pre-war and grew in wartime. The US built Faleolo Airfield (in New Zealand Samoa Mandate) in 1942; it was used by US.  There was a decent airfield at Apia.

Solomon Islands
Important naval base(s)?  Yes.  Little or nothing exietd pre-war, but the US and Japan both established several naval bases in the area from 1942 onward.
Important air base(s)?  Yes.  Little or nothing existed pre-war, but the US and Japan both established a large number of airfields in the area from 1942 onward, Henderson Field on Guadalcanal being perhaps the most famous one.

Wake Island
Important naval base(s)?  No.  It had no anchorage.
Important air base(s)?  No, just a airfield useful for reconnaissance planes and Marine garrison aircraft. Captured by the Japanese in 1941; surrendered in September 1945.

Good work CWO!

@Black_Elk:

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?

In a general sense, there were probably all sorts of places in the Pacific that were potentially valuable in one specialized role or another.  To give just one example: French Frigate Shoals, a small, uninhabitable lagoon located (as I recall) about halfway between Midway and Honololu, figured in a couple of Japanese plans that involved sending long-range flying boats there from Kwajalein, refuelling them by tanker-submarines, and having them fly onward to Hawaii on bombing or reconnaissance missions.  (One such mission was supposed to be carried out in the run-up to the Battle of Midway, but it was scrapped because the Japanese discovered that the US Navy, who’d gotten wise to the enemy’s interest in FFS, had started posting one or two small warships there to keep an eye on it.)

Things like that could, in principle, be used to confer individually customized advantages to the various IPC-less islands in the Pacific.  There would be an upside and a downside.  The upside is that it could make each island territory attractive to capture in its own unique way, probably with some islands being valuable to both sides and with others being valuable only to one side (or differently valuable to each side), which could make for some intriguingly asymmetrical dynamics on the game board.  The downside is that it would potentially be quite complicated, given that there are 18 such island groups on the map.  A system that simply uses just two potential standard advantages (naval base, yes or no?  airbase, yes or no?) would be easy enough, but a system with up to 18 different advantages would be a whole other story.

There might, however, be a way around the problem of remembering so many potential advantages.  To borrow a concept from (among others) Young Grasshoper, what if each IPC-less island had its own distinctive “advantage card” which stated, in simple terms, what advantage(s) each IPC-less island confers?  There could be a single (identical) advantage given to whoever has a particular island, or there could be separate (distinct) advantages for the Japanese and US players, given that the two sides didn’t always make the same use of the same islands when they changed hands.  The individual island cards would be handed out at the beginning of the game to the players who initially control them, and as the game progresses the respective cards would be surrendered to the conquering player whenever a change of ownership takes place.  There could, in addition, be a printed list of these advantages that any player could consult at any time, so that a player contemplating the conquest of an enemy-held island could, without having to check the other guy’s actual cards, see what advantages each island offers.

Thank you CWO !  Will keep for record for sure and use.