Greater non-combat movement for ships

I think there were some ideas floating around about giving the cruiser three movement points. There might be some other topics that flowed out of those discussions.

@Uncrustable:

1.a) Expanded ANZAC (The Commonwealth Dominions). Includes ANZAC, South Africa, SWest Africa and all of Canada. Capital remains Sydney. The IC on Sydney is changed to a Major IC.
1.b) A ‘united’ United Kingdom, UK income is no longer split between India and London. The IC on India is changed from major to minor. Capital is London.

2. Enhanced AAA. AAA now acts as a normal unit outside of AA rolls. They no longer are restricted to non combat moves and attack/defend at 1/1. No changes to AA rolls. AA rolls are defense only (# of dice rolled does not change from OOB) AAA price remains OOB.

3. Enhanced air units.
Tactical bombers cost reduced to 10 IPCs.
No other change.

4. Enhance naval units
Submarines 7 IPCs
Destroyers 8 IPCs
Cruisers 10 IPCs
Battleships 18 IPCs
Aircraft carriers 16 IPCs
Transports 6 IPCs
-When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
-Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

Maybe you read this short notice?
@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

@Baron:

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 already possible to cross the Pacific in 2 moves/rounds along the northern route. Along the southern route in 3. We can’t change this basic fact of the map, unless you want to start removing Naval Bases from places like Japan, W. USA, and Hawaii. TRUE.

Adding additional naval bases on worthless islands would not allow players to cross the ocean any faster than they already can, along the normal routes to the major targets. All adding additional Naval Bases would do, is to make it more worthwhile to go out of your way (not along one of the normal routes) since you would be less likely to strand your fleet. I think it would encourage more island hopping, because the bonus to movement out of new sea zone locations would put you on more/different target territories.
You convinced me on this specific point.

Say for example, that there was a Naval Base on a place like Johnston Island. Rather than going from sz 10 to Hawaii, the US player might drop down to Johnston instead. From this position they would still be on target for Iwo and Marianas, but also to Palau and Dutch New Guinea, as well as Queensland. Instead of 1 possible route (through Hawaii) now you have two routes. No one ever wants to move from sz 10 to Johnston island OOB, because you would then be trapped the following round with no movement bonus, stuck at a range of 2. The same thing could be considered from the reverse direction at a place like Marianas. OOB Japan has little incentive to put a fleet here, because once they do, they are trapped the following round. So what players usually do, is try to go from Naval base to Naval base to maximize the range on the following round. This is why there are specific routes along which fleets are always moving OOB with little or no deviation. Without the extra Naval Bases, and with no actual money at stake, I think it would be irregular to see players doing a whole lot of island hopping. Wake is like this OOB, often its airbase is just ignored by both sides.

…

So, Naval Base are much more interesting to maximize mobility and gives an incentive. But it is at the cost of historical accuracy and if all or most of all Pacific Islands get a Naval Base it is almost like giving a 3 moves to all ships and makes Pacific a smaller area.

The northern route is the direct way for Japan against San Francisco via Aleutians, Alaska, Canada.
It is possible to launch Strategic Bombing Raid from Aleutians, since it is 3 spaces range via continental road.
But, there is no way, even by putting a regular Air Base on Aleutians, to reach San Francisco with Fighters or TacBs.
It is even harder from Hawaii, since it is not possible to launch SBR from it.
So, from Japan perspective, with a high number of aircrafts, there is no strategic or tactical advantage to win these islands.
Aircraft Carriers become mandatory.

For USA, Iwo Jima can be a parking lot of Fighters and TacBs wanting to make a full blown attack on the Japan SZ6, but not against Tokyo itself.
USA must rely on Carrier to provide an escort to any SBR and TacBR against AB or NB.
It can only be a small incentive to conquer Iwo Jima.

…

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. While getting the West Indies might be relatively easy, although this would almost certainly mean that the Axis control Gibraltar, keeping the West Indies long enough to fly bombers over and conduct bombing raids would require a significant naval presence. Being right close to US shores, the US would surely be able to sink a German/Italian fleet fairly soon, even if they have to build a new fleet in SZ 101 to do it with. Then, unless the Germans brought a Sealion sized force to take West Indies, the US would be very capable of sending it’s own invasion force to take West Indies back and kill precious Axis bombers in the process.
This might slow down the US in whatever it was doing elsewhere for a couple of rounds, but it might be even more costly to the Axis. Germany would be spending a lot of money for a chance to take a shot or two at the US factories, which means they are not spending against England or Russia, two much closer enemies. If this were Italy’s doing, they certainly would be making much progress against the British in Africa or the Middle East. Plus with their warships in the Caribbean, they would most likely lose control of the Mediterranean.
So, it looks like I have just talked myself out of a Strategic bombing campaign against the US. I guess my point is that while it may be more costly for the Axis to get into a position to SBR the US in the long run, it is a possibility.

@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 bads.
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, 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 gets some reasons to get Iwo Jima or Okinawa to launch an SBR campaign to strangle IJN.

I moved this answer in the original thread, if you want to comment without derailing this thread.
Mariana Islands: Winning Strategy, the Zero IPC Island Crush
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34839.msg1355657#msg1355657

Maybe it was inspired by this one?
@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.

I’ve seen a lot of different approaches to movement on custom tripleA games. I have noticed that one thing seems to hold true for all games based on the general A&A system, the more territories you have the more time it takes to finish a game. For example, when it takes 3 or 4 rounds to cross an ocean, which at first glance seems a bit more realistic given the geographical reality, this doesn’t necessarily make for the best gameplay excitement

It is different when sea zones themselves have a direct economic value attached to them, but that is not something that has been done in A&A since the old Pacific game (and even then, it was only for specific convoy sea zones, and the money could only be disrupted from the enemy, not gained for yourself.) In g40 the value and cap of the convoy is not determined by the sea zone itself, but by the land the sea zone borders. Absent some economic driver attaching to the sea spaces, having a whole ton of them has a way of making the game drag. The same thing happens with land territories at zero ipcs, if you have too many of them adjacent to each other. This was a solution to the Russian far east, that many maps tried to get going in response to the Japanese tank drive to Moscow phenomenon, so common in older games. Here more space would get you more time, sure, but not usually much action.

Too much distance can present a pacing problem, too little creates the blow by situation, where no island hopping occurs since you can just jet right across the ocean. Its hard to strike a balance, but something tells me if ships could move farther it would increase the gameplay drama on the high seas.

Before the 1940 games, I would always have voted in favor of keeping ships at 2 movement, just for consistency and force of habit. But now that 3 moves have been introduced via the Naval Base, I think people are a lot more comfortable with the “ships move 3” concept.

This leads me to think, that an A&A game could probably support a system where ships moved 3 on non-combat at all times. You could still do the +1 movement thing from an NB on combat or non-combat if desired. 2+1 on combat, 3+1 on non combat.

The only issue in G40 would be a breaker on the first round set up, if for example, the German baltic ships could reach farther on non com, or USA ships could reach UK too quickly, or UK/Anzac ships become too effective at disrupting Japan. The Japanese would gain the most though, since there non-combat transport maneuvers would be so powerful.

In order to pull it off, you might have to remove the movement advantage from the Naval base, and come up with some other advantage that an NB could provide as an alternative. 4 movement, even on non-com would be a significant increase in reach.

What if NBs only provided the +1 movement advantage during the combat phase? And during non-combat all ships move 3?

ps. This is an excellent point!

@Der:

But the idea brings up the question - how far could a ship go with no battle involved? If every turn is considered to be 3 months as some say, then couldn’t a WWII ship go around the world during that time?

This is why I really don’t like having a suggested time scale thrust upon us. As soon as you say a game round = 3 months real historical time, or round X = year such and such, then half of the game falls apart on analogy. Its much better to keep time malleable, and allow players to use their own capacity for narrative imagination.

Nothing really holds, in terms of analogy, as soon as you make one thing too concrete or definitive. Just like 1 infantry unit might represent a different number of forces in different parts of the world, a game round should be able to represent a different sense of time too, if it serves the game play. A&A doesn’t model the seasons in very meaningful ways. There’s no snow or melting ice caps or anything like that, so I don’t see a need to say a game round represents 3 months. Even though this has been suggested before as the official interpretation, I don’t like it. It bugs. The game should be allowed to move at its own internal pace, without having to serve as a calender, and without requiring any sense of time progression, beyond the start date, and then what the players choose to make up in their imagination during the course of play.

If it feels like 1943 on the gameboard, then say its 1943. If it feels like the final days of 1945, then that’s what time it is. Doesn’t matter what round it is, or how many rounds have gone by. You could have a game where everyone saves their money in the first couple rounds, and not a whole lot happens, in which case, is it already 1942? Neah heheh its whatever year in the war makes sense for the board at that point in the game ;)

Roundabout way of saying, I agree with you totally. The internal logic of ship movement breaks down, if you try to look at it too closely. I say focusing on the gameplay is better. And in that respect movement at 3 on Non Com, could be fun for the cat and mouse.