Revised objectives and Victory Cities chart to correct error spotted by beaudoin996:
Hopefully no more corrections will be required…
Cred
How to create action in the pacific
-
the only way to have an allied player focus on the pacific is to create an incentive to put units into it or a disincentive to keep units out of the pacific.
currently the incentive is to capture japan. this is less effective than putting units into europe and capturing germany.
currently the disincentive is to stop japan from taking the pacific islands. after japan’s first turn in 1941 or 1942 scenario the allied islands are australia, new zealand, and hawaii. these islands total 4ipc out of the games 178ipc. if playing with national objectives it becomes 24ipc out of 268ipc.
to create an incentive you could play wih a rule wich forces bids to go into the pacific or surrounding area(china, india, pacific, or pacific islands). this will make it easier to capture japan in relation to capturing germany.
to create a disincentive you could play to 11vcs wereby the axis can win without taking, or being on the path to taking moscow. this forces the allies to defend india, australia, or hawaii.
-
currently the incentive is to capture japan. this is less effective than putting units into europe and capturing germany
That’s wrong, the incentive is recovering Dutch East Indies and Phi, and forcing Japan to buy navy. Also, distracting Japan from other valuable targets as Africa and America. Also, you want save soviets (and probably UK as well) from early japanese SBR campaings
-
currently the incentive is to capture japan. this is less effective than putting units into europe and capturing germany
That’s wrong, the incentive is recovering Dutch East Indies and Phi, and forcing Japan to buy navy. Also, distracting Japan from other valuable targets as Africa and America. Also, you want save soviets (and probably UK as well) from early japanese SBR campaings
Right, but I think allweneed was trying to point out that that is a lot harder to do then just dump units to Europe b/c the incentive for those goals at earlier stages isn’t there. In order to get the big islands and challange Japan in that regard it requires a lot of build up for the US and it turns into an all or nothing result where it worked or it didn’t but you often won’t know until you are waaaay into the game. Why risk 5-7 turns of build up for something that may work, when you know you can spend those 5-7 turns dumping units into Afr or Eu and know it will work, in terms of accomplishing smaller goals on route to maybe taking Ita, Fra or Ger.
–—
I agree with allweneed, in that there should be more incentive to fight in the Pac. I’ve stated this in other threads but I think all Pac Islands should be worth at least 1 ipc. I would make key strategic ones worth more. Maybe Car and Sol worth 2, I’d make HI worth 4, Wake and Mid worth at least 2. Phil could be 4 as well as Bur and Sum. I’d make Ala and Aus 3 too. Now all of a sudden the Pac becoms a place where real IPCs can be earned and fought over, and if the US neglects it, I can’t see how they would like a J IC sitting on HI that can pump out 4 units.
As it is the only way the US can gain IPCs early is to take Alg, Lib, Nor, Fin and maybe Nwe. Those are all in the European theatre. How can they gain IPCs in the Pac? It makes investing in the Pac purely a defensive manuever to only prevent loss of maybe HI or something. And really it isn’t that big of a loss when you are only taking 1 ipc, and maybe the loss of an NO, that can be gained back through one of the above Euro territories and if you pull off the double hit on Fra you gain back the NO as well as giving UK a shot at the Fra NO.
The only way to really encourage the US to fight in the Pac is to give them things that can be achieved early but also prove too deadly if they ignore it. I’d also go back to making China part of the US or something just to open up a US Asia IC strat. I suppose you could split the India Sz into two as well, making it a longer journey to Afr by ships. But again, maybe J fights in the Pac if HI, Wake, Mid are worth 8 ipcs and most of Asia is only worth 1 per ter. I’d even consider making Wake/Mid worth 3 each. I’d also go with a '42 type setup (or Revised) where most of the Islands are already J so that either the US or UK could gain ipcs from them depending on who took them.
-
The only way to really encourage the US to fight in the Pac is to give them things that can be achieved early but also prove too deadly if they ignore it. I’d also go back to making China part of the US or something just to open up a US Asia IC strat
I agree with both. I’ll not add more about China to prevent being repetitive, but Perry Channel should be unfrozen to ensure Japan can keep busy USA. Also North America should be split in more territories
I like your idea about a 4 IPCs Hawaii
-
I totally disagree.
I have several AA50 experiences with loads of Pacific action.
USA can only get more income early in Norway, Algeria, Libya, Finland, and NWE? I think not. Algeria and Libya are only worth 1 - woohoo. NWE will always be taken back immediately in the early going, so that’s about a waste. There’s an easy 10 to get in the Pacific, and that’s just the NO’s. The Phillipines NO is also in the Pacific, and is not always as untouchable as it seems. If you go all out Europe, USA should only be getting 2 NO’s max the whole game.
In my opinion and experience, it is easier for the USA to have an impact on the game going Pacific than going Atlantic. But it depends a lot on what your opponent’s Axis strategies are. It takes an awful lot of money for the USA to go Atlantic if the Germans buy a fleet and maintain a lot of air, and if the Italians are healthy. There is only one foe to the West (no destroyer block breaks or double moves) and she is very preoccupied with many other things, and is tempted to over-extend herself. A good fleet and air player can really wreak havoc on Japan, and easily maintain over 10 IPC’s bonus income to the Allies. Also, if Japan can take and hold Australia, she automatically gets that NO whether India is held or not, and the UK can never get its NO, so Australia is fairly significant. Just having some USA air at different places in the Pacific can keep the Japs from zipping defenseless transports around at will. I think it’s often a bad idea to just let Japan go. 1 more thing - I have won 75% of my 1942 1v1 games, but I have also been crushed as Japan at least 3 different times, and it did not take long at all. And it didn’t take some Allied grand KJF strategy either. One or two of those times was even in the 1941 scenario.
USA can cause significant problems for Japan, and even take her down, and it doesn’t always take 5-7 rounds just to take a money island. Oh, and those money islands are worth 4, so each one is an 8 IPC swing, plus if Japan loses 3, which is quite plausible, it loses another NO. The UK NO in the Pacific is absolutely huge. The UK often sees her income plummet, and that extra 5 that can be gained by the USA early is absolutely huge.
There is no need to change anything in the game to get Pacific action. Maybe you just need to change your opponent.
-
Australia worth 4, money islands each reduced to three.
India not part of Japan’s NO (already a strategic target, no incentive needed).
Pacific NO’s built around zero value islands.
All Chinese TT’s worth zero (necessary money sink for Japan to get rid of thorn, but no real economic benefit).
China go before JapanThe risk that is run with more resistance in Asia is people might just use that extra time to KGF more aggressively so perhaps a minimum Pacific theatre purchase by USA (TT values and any NO’s gained in theatre) to go along with it.
-
Here is an idea I still think will work…
Things we know
1. Japan is a monster.
2. KGIF seems to be the best way of winning the war as the Allies. This equates to not much of a pacific campaign because there is not enough $$ for the Americans to go east and west.If the American NOs were changed to
-Collect 15 ipcs if the allies control 3 of the 4 territories…Alaska, Hawaii, Wake Island and Midway.
-Homeland NO is deleted (east, west, central USA for 5 ipcs)
-Add American destroyer to HawaiiWhat would this do?
- Extra destroyer would force Japan to go all out on Hawaii instead of attacking WUSA ships.
- America would have a large value NO close enough to reasonably defend. This would put American ships in the pacific for sure. This would lead to a pacific campaign, even if limited.
- This would also get America closer economically to the Japanese.
- There would be enough $$ to go east and west. 53ipcs to America each turn as long as they have this NO.
- Since axis have advantage OOB this will put the allies on an even level with the axis powers
-
@Flying:
Here is an idea I still think will work…
Things we know
1. Japan is a monster.
2. KGIF seems to be the best way of winning the war as the Allies. This equates to not much of a pacific campaign because there is not enough $$ for the Americans to go east and west.If the American NOs were changed to
-Collect 15 ipcs if the allies control 3 of the 4 territories…Alaska, Hawaii, Wake Island and Midway.
-Homeland NO is deleted (east, west, central USA for 5 ipcs)
-Add American destroyer to HawaiiWhat would this do?
- Extra destroyer would force Japan to go all out on Hawaii instead of attacking WUSA ships.
- America would have a large value NO close enough to reasonably defend. This would put American ships in the pacific for sure. This would lead to a pacific campaign, even if limited.
- This would also get America closer economically to the Japanese.
- There would be enough $$ to go east and west. 53ipcs to America each turn as long as they have this NO.
- Since axis have advantage OOB this will put the allies on an even level with the axis powers
Not a bad idea…
-
I have to agree with gamerman that most of the '42 games we have played have extensive action in the pacific. It basically comes down to how much the US feels like distracting IJN from getting land units to India.
SOL is obviously huge for the US. UK and US get a 5 IPC bonus from NO, and Japan has a hard time taking it back if purely focused on Asia. Since JAP usually has at least one warship in sz53 after Pearl attacks, the earliest the US can get down there is y2. To achieve this, the US must build warships y1 to fend off a JAP counter. From Solomons it is possible to get to PHI or DEI unless JAP commits to protecting all of them, which means fewer JAP land units in Asia/India.
We usually see at least one US carrier y1 in sz56, with a tr or 2 for the Atlantic to keep units moving to Eur. It seems to work pretty well in slowing JAP down and keeping GER honest.
-
SOL is obviously huge for the US. UK and US get a 5 IPC bonus from NO, and Japan has a hard time taking it back if purely focused on Asia.
UK does not get an NO for Solomons. UK only gets the NO when an original Jap territory is taken. Solomons are originally UK ('42 or '41 scenario - does not matter who starts the scenario with it - it goes by what’s printed on the map).
The UK NO is attained by taking Iwo, Carolines, FIC, etc. You have to take two different islands at a minimum, to get both NO’s.
-
Hm. I hadn’t seen the rule that specifies ownership always reverts to the symbol on the map. Another ambiguity that I shall have to bring up with our gaming circle. It isn’t listed in the OOB rules or FAQ, so how did this rule clarification come about?
Either way, I still think SOL is a solid early target for the US.
-
From the FAQ :
Q. When the rules refer to the original controller of a territory, do they mean the controller at the start of the scenario or the controller printed on the map?
A. The controller printed on the map. The original controller of a territory is the same whether you’re playing the 1941 or 1942 scenario. China is considered to be the original controller of Manchuria and Kiangsu, and Japan controls these territories as an enemy power at the beginning of both scenarios -
Not sure how we missed that. Thanks yoshi.
-
Another ambiguity that I shall have to bring up with our gaming circle. It isn’t listed in the OOB rules
I think ambiguities are their specialty. The OOB rules leave an awful lot of questions, don’t they?
Either way, I still think SOL is a solid early target for the US.
Absolutely! Solomons still counts toward 2 NO’s - USA and Japan, and of course the location is very good for the USA in the early going.
-
Changes to UK
- Factory in Australia
- Cruiser off Indian Coast
Changes to China
Collects IPCs as any other power
+2 Infantry at set up
Infantry only cost 2 IPCsChanges to US
- Cruiser off West Coast 1941
- Island bonus changed to “Control Hawaii and 2/3 of Wake, Solomons, Midway”
-
split the game up in 2 smaller games
-
Two cents: Lot of action in the Pacific without changing anything from my experience.
-
If you wanted to change the allied set up to deal with the ‘monster of japan’ you surely have to change the axis powers to suit. The game has surely been play tested a million times! Maybe the axis players your playing against have better luck or are just better players!
-
I totally disagree.
I have several AA50 experiences with loads of Pacific action.
…
There is no need to change anything in the game to get Pacific action. Maybe you just need to change your opponent.
do you still feel that there is as much action in the pacific as there is in europe? i have changed my opponents many times online, and still see very little action in the pacific theatre
-
The only way to really encourage the US to fight in the Pac is to give them things that can be achieved early but also prove too deadly if they ignore it. I’d also go back to making China part of the US or something just to open up a US Asia IC strat
I agree with both. I’ll not add more about China to prevent being repetitive, but Perry Channel should be unfrozen to ensure Japan can keep busy USA. Also North America should be split in more territories
I like your idea about a 4 IPCs Hawaii
can you clarify your opinion func? in one post you say there is lots of action in the pacific theatre, then you give options on how to create action in the pacific.
Suggested Topics
