Thanks for the clarification Krieghund.
Manchuria Convoy?
-
Does Japan need to control the Shantung convoy (SZ 37) in order to collect IPCs for from Manchuria? Perhaps they only need to control EITHER this or the Korea convoy? I ask because it would seem strange if near the end of the game Japan were blockaded from Korea and Shantung but continued to recieve IPCs from Manchuria.
I suppose I could ask the same question about Siam as well. Does Japan need the FIC convoy to collect from Siam?
-
There are no convoy routes associated with either Manchuria or Siam. Japan does not need to control the adjacent sea zone in order to receive the IPCs for these territories. Likewise, Japan does not need to control the sea zones surrounding Bonin Islands or Ryukyo to recive the IPCs for these territories.
Only where convoy routes are clearly marked as associated with a particular territory do you need to control both in order to receive IPCs for those territories.
SS
-
@saburo:
There are no convoy routes associated with either Manchuria or Siam. Japan does not need to control the adjacent sea zone in order to receive the IPCs for these territories. Likewise, Japan does not need to control the sea zones surrounding Bonin Islands or Ryukyo to recive the IPCs for these territories.
Only where convoy routes are clearly marked as associated with a particular territory do you need to control both in order to receive IPCs for those territories.
SS
Are you saying then that if the Allies have a fleet in the Sea of Japan, and one in the Yellow Sea, that the Japanese would still get the Manchurian IPCs? Would you like to explain how the Manchurian resources are to get to Japan? Star Trek transporter perhaps? The same applies to the Siam IPC. If the French Indo-China convoy route is blocked, how are the Siam resources to reach Japan? There was no rail route connecting IndoChina to China. There is also no specific convoy route for Dutch New Guinea. Does this mean that if the Allied player bypasses it, that the Japanese continue to collect the IPC for the entire game? For that matter, both the Java Convoy Route and the Sumatra Convoy Route are to the south of their respective islands, and clearly easily interdicted by the Allied players. If the Allies occupy both convoy routes, does that mean the Japan may not receive those IPCs? Any flow of resources to Japan would pass from the north coasts of the islands. The same also applies to the Celebes Convoy Route. There is no convoy route for Hong Kong. By your reasoning, regardless of the status of the convoys routes, Japan will always get the IPCs for Hong Kong as long as they hold it.
The British Malayan Convoy Route location is also more than a little odd. Any convoy from Malaya will form up in Singapore, and then proceed west through the Straits of Malacca to India and beyond, never entering the South China Sea. Its correct location would be in the same sea zone as the Sumatran convoy, which I guess was not desired. The solution should have been to separate the sea zone at Sumatra into two, a zone to the north and a zone to the south.
The way I run the game is that if the Japanese player controls Sumatra, Java, and the Celebes, the governing convoy route for Japan is the Borneo convoy route. Japan only looses the IPCs if the Borneo Convoy route is interdicted. I ignore routes to the south unless the islands are still held by the Allies or if they have been recaptured. Because of its odd location, the Malayan convoy route works fine for convoys going to Japan. This conforms with how the shipping routes actually ran, and appears to me to be extremely reasonable. If the French Indo-China route is cut, Siam is cut off as well, and if the Shantung and Korean convoy routes are cut, Manchuria is cut off. This is in accordance with how the map is laid out, and is the most reasonable approach. Your view is not reasonable at all.
-
I don’t think Saburo is trying to relate any real world or history into his answer. I think he is strictly talking about what is on the game board. The Allies may only stop resources where there is an indicated convoy route. In game terms by the time the US or Brits can get a fleet in the Sea of Japan the game is pretty much over. Again I think there is a compromise between history and what makes the game fun/playable.
Also remember it is a gameboard not an actual map that should be used for navigation. That it is indicated to the “south” (don’t have a board in front of me) seems more about clarity than actual geography.
-
Frimmel has it exactly right. I’m not saying there is any reality to the situation, just describing how the rules work. If you’re looking for reality, play something else. This is a board game designed much more for playability than historical reality. For example, how likely is it that in every battle, units die in the order chosen by the attacker or defender. All the infantry dies before the artillery before the tanks before the fighters. Or that transports, submarines, destroyers and fighters all die before the aircraft carriers and battleships. How realistic is that?
Like I said, if you’re looking for realism, you’re looking in the wrong place.
As for the Sumatra and Java convoy routes, just because they are labelled below the islands, don’t assume that is where the convoy route is located. Capturing the convoy route implies control of the entire sea zone in which the convoy route is located. Therefore, all “traffic” to and from the island is interdicted.
As for all of your rule changes. You are no longer playing A&A Pacific. You are just using the A&A Pacific board to play some other game that you have made up. That’s fine, as I understand from your comments on the Harris Game design board why you are doing this, but don’t take issue with those of us who play the game for the sake of enjoyment and choose to learn our history from books.
SS
-
If you want other things that just aren’t realistic, how about non-stop B29 flights from Los Angeles to Darwin, Australia or from Honolulu to Shanghai. Or how about a fighter based on Guadalcanal having enough range to fly to Melbourne, attack and then land in Brisbane, Australia. Back on the bombers, how about a bombing raid originating in the Philippines that attacks Japan and lands back in Manila.
Let’s talk about productive capacity. If Japan doesn’t capture the Philippines on turn 1, the US can build an IC there and produce 3 BB or ACs there each turn. When you consider your other rule that the ACs come fully loaded, if I was the US player, I would build the IC and the next turn, I would be able to build 3 ACs complete with air wings for 54 IPCs. Nice.
I’m sure you’ve made adjustments for these rules, but the point is still the same. This game is not intended to be historically accurate. It is intended to be a fun, easily playable game based on an historic conflict. Your game may be better to teach history but it doesn’t sound particularly playable.
SS
-
Tell you what, since you like to learn your history from books, I have some reading for you.
Start with Knights of Bushido, which describes the impeccable behavior of the Japanese in the China Incident and the Greater East Asian War.
Then read about the holiday activities of the Japanese Army in Nanking, China in December of 1937 and January of 1938. The Japanese Army had such a fun frolic then.
And then read about the life-saving activities of Unit 731 in Manchuria.
-
Tell you what, since you like to learn your history from books, I have some reading for you.
Start with Knights of Bushido, which describes the impeccable behavior of the Japanese in the China Incident and the Greater East Asian War.
Then read about the holiday activities of the Japanese Army in Nanking, China in December of 1937 and January of 1938. The Japanese Army had such a fun frolic then.
And then read about the life-saving activities of Unit 731 in Manchuria.
What point is your sarcasm trying to make?
Suggested Topics
