Perhaps the solution that would stick closest to the OOB rules without getting into too many complications would be to simply give each IPC-less Pacific island territory either a naval base marker, or an air base marker, or both (depending on the role played in WWII by each island group). This would:
Give players an incentive to fight for their possession.
Reflect the fact that many of these islands in WWII were indeed valuable as naval bases or air bases (or both).
Reflect the fact that these islands actually produced little or nothing from an economic point of view.
Avoid the problem of house-rule IPCs being generated on these Pacific islands and spent on the war in Europe.
Require no supplemental or variant rules governing how units are used.
That could be an interesting solution, I’d be curious to see what sort of impact in might have on the opening round moves. It could be that having ABs or Harbors might allow a game breaker of some sort on the movement advantage, but at least it would give an incentive for control. In effect we’d be adding 15 ipcs worth of tuv on each island, if you consider the value of a pre-existing base, which may be enough to get people hopping around. It’d be well over 100 ipcs worth of total tuv into the mix, but could open up more strategic interest for the whole theater. It has the advantage of being relatively simple, just a recommended set up change.
Which islands would you go AB, and which Harbor?
I agree that it’s very difficult short of a total map redesign, but the problem is that it’s very hard to rework a map oob, and to have anyone adopt the change. I mean sure you could draft a new pattern for sea zones, but no one is going to print it out. I suppose one option might be to remove airbases and shipyards entirely as a way of increasing distance?
I’m not quite as convinced that 1 ipc wouldn’t provide an incentive from the US perspective, though I agree for Japan it’s probably not enough to lure them. Honestly if a territory is not worth the replacement cost of an infantry unit, then players usually won’t bother unless it’s already along a path they want to move anyway. So for example, in a game like Revised it was not uncommon for the USA to take solomons, purely as a place to unload infantry (since it was already along the warpath), but that only happens when the sz is part of a broader transit path.
I do enjoy the cruiser transporting 1 inf. I recall making suggestions elsewhere as a way to make the unit more valuable. It got some traction, but others didn’t like it. I think the ablility to transport 1 inf unit with a cruiser is cool. We used HR this in some of our games, especially AA50, when most people in my play group really hated defenseless transports. So we used the cruiser transport concept as a way get around what seemed to be prohibiviley expensive trannies.
I mean, if official A&A should show us anything, it’s that the Pacific is a royal pain when it comes to island hopping, since no OOB game has yet achieved it. Still I have to believe that we have not approached the situition in the right way.
Before G40 everyone said that if we just had Airbases and Harbors then that would jumpstart the Pacific war. Obviously it didn’t work. Shadowhawk has suggested that the problem is distance. But even with sufficient distance, if there is no ultimate economic incentive, then would players even bother going the extra mile?
I just think in order to pull it off, what needs to happen is a revisiting of what ipcs represent. It really bothers me, that literally everywhere else on the map, regional IPC values have been changed from board to board, except in the worthless pacific islands.
This baffles me, since the Pacific is clearly the area that needs more value to activate it, but people are so stubborn about it. Like come on, we’ve added IPCS in every other region, I don’t see where the need to be so strict with the worthless islands comes from. I mean at least try them at +1 ipc and see if it can persuade more people to try something different. What’s +1 going to hurt. I get the impression some people think that this will cause the internal logic of Axis and Allies to implode or something, but it’s never really been tried and doesn’t seem aLL that crazy to me.
Ipcs are already weighted differently in different areas of the board. Why not just say that in the pacific they are weighted a bit more, for gameplay purposes? I think people would accept this with no major hang ups, if it was just tried on an official map.
The only real issue with distance as a solution, is overall game length or the sense of anticlimax it often involves (if it takes too many turns to cross the ocean this can sometimes present a pacing problem.) I recall seeing this in some of the games we made for tripleA that tried to put more space into the Pacific. One thing I noticed at that time, is that the incentive for USA is very different than the incentive for Japan to move across any distance. For USA, if a pacific game is required, there is stronger reason to cross that distance “whatever distance it is” in order to contain the IJN and prevent the Japanese fleet from going towards Africa by putting pressure on the home islands or the south pacific. Japan is more difficult though, because Japan doesn’t have the same sort of target opportunities against North America after they cross the pacific, that America has against the south Pacific and Coastal China. For them, taking islands and getting closer to San Francisco, is usually interpreted as putting themselves “out of position” since the road for them usually stops short of the Mainland US. There just aren’t enough pieces to pick off, and the ones that are there aren’t worth enough ipcs to draw out the Japanese crossing.
I feel like the Outer Perimeter Island NO was an attempt to offset this, but it is too hard for Japan to achieve in most games OOB, and doesn’t award enough cash to make it worth putting yourself out of position. There is no North American endgame that Japan can reasonably achieve, in the main because of the production disparity and the fact that Central US has a major on it, and borders W. US directly, with E. US still in blitz range to boot. If there was any path along which Japan might possibly threaten N. America, it would be the northern route to Alaska. But Alaska and W. Canada aren’t valuable enough to make this move very effective over multiple rounds. The same with Midway and the Aleutians.
To really get it up off the ground you’d need more NOs, more hard cash up for grabs, and reasons for both sides to push out across the ocean from their 1940 position. Right now I don’t see Japan doing much of this. USA does a bit more. But in both cases the majority of islands remain uncontested, which just feels odd to me. There are many incentives built into G40.2 that are meant to encourage vaguely historical play patterns, but the Japanese island campaign in 1941/2 is not really one of them. And the USA response after Midway, also doesn’t seem to encourage much island hopping. I don’t think there’s a way you can get the battle for the islands going without introducing more money into the equation. We’ve tried other things and it doesn’t really work. I still feel that if an island is important enough to be on the board it should be worth 1 ipc at least. And if it isn’t, then it shouldn’t get drawn on the map. I realize that’s a hardline position, but to me it feels right. With 1 as a foundation, it would be easier to have spaces up to 2ipcs and 3 ipcs, when needed for the gameplay, without breaking the sense of “industry” or “economy” so markedly. The distance between 1 and 2, is much less than the distance between zero and 1. At least that’s the way I see things in A&A play tendencies. The mental move to 1 is important. As long as they’re all worth zero, the same thing will likely happen regardless.
Ultimately I think its a lot easier to add an ipc here or there to achieve balance via the NO concept, than it would be to do a unit set up change, or a map redesign. The latter option might be cool. But then its pretty hard to get someone to take a sharpie pen to their mapboard haha. I mean, unless you want a map that is pure distance where they are all just set up 2 sz apart from each other (counted as 1 extra space between sz). But at that point, why not just say ships in the Pacific can only move 1 space? It would achieve effectively the desired situation. I mean, sure, it would bust the opening moves, but it could be done. You could say that all ships on the pacific map move at 1 space, (whereas on the Europe map they move 2) harbors could still give a bonus of +1. But then of course the problem would be that everyone would just buy in Europe. I don’t know, it seems tricky no matter how you approach it, though probably it would take a combination of all the stuff mentioned so far…
More distance, with the pattern of the sea zones encouraging island drop off zones for transported units along the way +
More NOs to encourage reaching out across the ocean onto those island groups+
More starting bases, or cheaper bases on those islands+
More relative ipc value for the individual island territories +
More ultimate (and penultimate!) island targets along the war path, such as higher value island territories or production options nearby those islands on “the mainland” (whatever side of the pacific that mainland happens to be on.)
My proposal about the NO money was more an expedient than a perfect solution to the problem. But I think we are mostly in agreement though right? That there is a problem I mean?
The solutions which allow valueless islands some sort of “built-in” special combat advantage are interesting. Whether this might be included as some kind of nerfed scramble (with less fighters), or a naval combat advantage, or something similar where the island had it for free. A universal rule might be helpful, if it included all valueless islands everywhere on the board. Like Malta or Cyprus or Crete, for example, in addition to the Pacific islands. That way it would be easier to remember, if you wanted to go that route, since it applies to all valueless islands everywhere.
Still not sure anything, short of money, would convince players to go out of their way though. Japan especially, needs a stronger incentive to take the islands they actually took in 1941. Right now the basing advantage on those islands doesn’t seem strong enough to really get this going. And just as important, USA needs an incentive to take the Japanese home islands, that they actually took at the conclusion of the Pacific War; especially places like Iwo, or Okinawa, or Saipan etc. You know, for the climactic resolution and historical appeal!
:-D
@Baron:
Welcome back TDS,
Your combined defense of AB & NB @3 sounds more like a Coastal Guns feature.
It’s seems strange to apply it in the PTO on islands group from an historical perspective (sounds more like a coastal defense as a German’s Atlantic Wall).However, reading your post makes me think about another way of making these islands an interesting tactical assets:
If a valueless Pacific Islands group has at least 1 Inf on it, up to two Fighter units (no TacB) can scramble on defense to protect the SZ.
No AB needed, the island is treated as an unmovable 2 planes Aircraft Carrier.
This way, an unoccupied island with Fg on it is not sufficiently crowded to maintain a qualified Island Airfield.
What do you think?
2 Fighters is too much?Maybe 1 Infantry allows 1 Fighter to scramble.
But 2 Infantry units allow 2 Fighters to be able to scramble.But 1 single Fighter able to protect the warships in the nearby SZ, can this be enough incentive to put Infantry on an Island and fight for it?
The difference between Air Base and this Island Airfield is:
No additional +1 move allowance, as part of an Air Base bonus.
Tactical Bombers can scramble from Air Base not only Fighters.
Up to three units (Fgs or TcBs) can scramble to protect the SZ nearby.
No need to put any Infantry unit on the Air Base to make it operational.
An Air Base can be bombed and damaged while an Airfield cannot.
As I said valueless islands group, can this be extended to all Pacific Islands group?
I would add that Air Base can be built over an Island Airfield, so this can provide up to five planes (when 2 Infs are on the island) as an air cover to any fleet in the island’s SZ.
Thinking further away,
I think the real incentive should be a strategical choice:
either building Carriers to cover the fleet anywhere
or
conquering the islands as unmovable carriers.
The issue is that Carrier and Air Base cost pretty much the same.
If, somehow, it can be a choice between:
conquering islands while building more transports and less Carriers but keeping the same number of planes
or
as OOB, building Carriers and planes and still passing by islands.
What could happen if any Pacific Island SZ was completely Air Covered by all planes put on the island (no limit)?
Still assuming that moving from the island through the SZ cost 1 move.
Islands’ Planes could choose to either protect the ground or the SZ (which ones must be stated during Combat Move) while Carriers’ planes could only defend the SZ.
And if Pacific Air Base provides three planes to scramble to any adjacent SZ to the island’s SZ on which is the Air Base?
Is it too much a game changer?
It still keep some restriction (so Carriers would still be needed) such as Island must be conquered first and cannot land planes until the next turn.
@CWO:
Perhaps the solution that would stick closest to the OOB rules without getting into too many complications would be to simply give each IPC-less Pacific island territory either a naval base marker, or an air base marker, or both (depending on the role played in WWII by each island group). This would:
Give players an incentive to fight for their possession.
Reflect the fact that many of these islands in WWII were indeed valuable as naval bases or air bases (or both).
Reflect the fact that these islands actually produced little or nothing from an economic point of view.
Avoid the problem of house-rule IPCs being generated on these Pacific islands and spent on the war in Europe.
Require no supplemental or variant rules governing how units are used.
I like your idea because it allows to play-test with Triple A if any tactical incentive via either Air Base to all Islands or Naval Base to all, or both to all, or a combination of the three options amongst the Island groups, could be interesting somehow and enough to make a more Island Hopping game in Pacific Theatre of Operation.
United States
Hawaiian Islands (1 IPC): 2 infantry, 2 fighters, air base, naval base
Midway: air base
Wake Island: air base
Guam: air base
Philippines (2 IPCs): 2 infantry, 1 fighter, air base, naval base
Japan
Japan: air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Iwo Jima (1 IPC): 1 infantry
Okinawa (1 IPC): 1 infantry, 1 fighter
Formosa (1 IPC) : 1 fighter
Palau Island: 1 infantry
Caroline Islands: 2 infantry, 1 AAA, air base, naval base
Japan 5 valueless oceanic territories: Hainan, Palau, Marianas, Caroline, Marshall. 3 empty, 1 Inf, 1 both
USA 6 valueless oceanic territories: Guam, Wake, Midway, Johnston, Line, Aleutian. 3 empty, 3 Air Base
Anzac 3 valueless oceanic territories: New Britain, Solomon and “New Guinea”. 3 empty
UK Pacific 4 valueless oceanic territories: Ceylon, Gilbert, Fiji, Samoa. 4 empty
French 1 valueless oceanic territory: New Hebrides. (Can be activated by a friendly Allied Power unit.) 1 empty
Dutch 1 valueless oceanic territory: “Dutch New Guinea”. (Must be activated by a Pacific Allied Power.) 1 empty
Sum: 20 IPC-less territories
15 empty Island territories.
1 territory have 1 Infantry only.
3 US Islands already have Air Base.
1 IJN Islands already have both Air Base and Naval Base.
Iwo Jima and Okinawa should also receive Air Base to follow more precisely history.
Probably Okinawa should get a Naval Base but Iwo Jima was such a small and barren island, it shouldn’t receive any additional Naval Base, unless it is payed for.
And what about Formosa?
The opening set-up of 1 Fighter let us think that an Air Base should be appropriate but a Naval Base?
These three 1 IPC territory should receive a special treatment also in this context.
Otherwise, being ordinary will make them less interesting and tossed aside.
Do you think Okinawa could have support a Naval Base during WWII?
In another part, Espiritu Santo in New Hebrides was an important US Naval Base.
Is there something to do with it by putting an NB on it?
This Island is already too near Queensland NB and AB or New Zealand Naval Base to have any value.
Just looking at the US, does the three Air Bases of Guam, Wake and Midway are a sufficient prize for Japan to take?
I’m not quite sure for Wake and Midway.
It is also because taking these islands should part of a bigger strategy.
Is there any interesting one when moving toward Hawaii or San Francisco?
I think that Air Base should be on every Pacific Island including New Guinea and Dutch New Guinea.
But, Naval Base should be put on the start up board more scarcely.
I think this will only work, without totally breaking the set up, if the bases are added after the DoW. Just thinking about it purely from a gameplay interest perspective. Starting with Japan and taking each territory 1 at a time…
Hainan with a naval base would make it a much more interesting territory. As Japan would have more reach out of sz 36.
Formosa with an air base would be potent, because it would give that fighter extra reach and would allow a scramble into sz20.
Okinawa would be doubly potent with a naval base, as this would allow Japan to move that fleet in sz 19 an extra space. Same deal as Formosa with the AB, since the fighter could move farther and allows a scramble into sz 19.
Iwo with just an airbase, might encourage Japan to park a few aircraft there to launch on islands like Wake or Midway.
Mariana Islands, Palau, and Marshall Islands present more of a problem. Without a naval base they don’t seem to be worth going out of the way. With naval bases, they become a bit more interesting, as they could allow strafes (and then retreat to a friendly sz to repair carriers or battleships.) I’d say they are pretty strong candidates for the NB. Though would this be historical? I suppose since players are already allowed to purchase such bases if they want, this wouldn’t break too much with the games internal historical logic. For example, the game doesn’t require there to be a natural harbor necessarily, for you to purchase a naval base, so it seems that in A&A any territory meets the criteria. Even an island like Iwo. Here I think in order to make Marianas, Palau, and Marshalls significant enough to draw action NBs, would be better than ABs.
Now if this was a pure set up change, the balance would tilt way too far in Japans favor, which is why I think it would have to come into effect the DoW. Similar to the way USA is allowed to upgrade their factories to majors automatically, for free. Even after DoW the advantage would be to Japan, since they have more TUV in the area to exploit the new bases. So this would definitely need to be counterbalanced by more NBs for the Allied territories.
Question:Does it bug anyone else that Sicily is never invaded?
Valueless islands like Malta or Sicily, might also benefit from some kind of auto upgrade. I also like that this sort of change is very easy to implement in tripleA for testing. You can do it on the fly via the edit mode.
I think this will only work, without totally breaking the set up, if the bases are added after the DoW. Just thinking about it purely from a gameplay interest perspective. Starting with Japan and taking each territory 1 at a time…
Hainan with a naval base would make it a much more interesting territory. As Japan would have more reach out of sz 36.
Formosa with an air base would be potent, because it would give that fighter extra reach and would allow a scramble into sz20.
Okinawa would be doubly potent with a naval base, as this would allow Japan to move that fleet in sz 19 an extra space. Same deal as Formosa with the AB, since the fighter could move farther and allows a scramble into sz 19.
Iwo with just an airbase, might encourage Japan to park a few aircraft there to launch on islands like Wake or Midway.
Mariana Islands, Palau, and Marshall Islands present more of a problem. Without a naval base they don’t seem to be worth going out of the way. With naval bases, they become a bit more interesting, as they could allow strafes (and then retreat to a friendly sz to repair carriers or battleships.) I’d say they are pretty strong candidates for the NB. Though would this be historical? I suppose since players are already allowed to purchase such bases if they want, this wouldn’t break too much with the games internal historical logic. For example, the game doesn’t require there to be a natural harbor necessarily, for you to purchase a naval base, so it seems that in A&A any territory meets the criteria. Even an island like Iwo. Here I think in order to make Marianas, Palau, and Marshalls significant enough to draw action NBs, would be better than ABs.
Now if this was a pure set up change, the balance would tilt way too far in Japans favor, which is why I think it would have to come into effect the DoW. Similar to the way USA is allowed to upgrade their factories to majors automatically, for free. Even after DoW the advantage would be to Japan, since they have more TUV in the area to exploit the new bases. So this would definitely need to be counterbalanced by more NBs for the Allied territories.
Question:Does it bug anyone else that Sicily is never invaded?
Valueless islands like Malta or Sicily, might also benefit from some kind of auto upgrade.
I also like that this sort of change is very easy to implement in tripleA for testing. You can do it on the fly via the edit mode.
Before expanding to Europe maps, I think it is needed to find the appropriate incentive in PTO.
I agree I think this will only work, without totally breaking the set up, if the bases are added after the DoW.
I would add that all bases become operational at the beginning of the next round after DoW, to minimize the effect on known strategy.
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 not possible to conquer land by air only.
So planes cannot conquer faster than transports are moving Infantry and other ground units.
However, if I put the analogy forward about Islands as unmovable aircraft carriers.
There should be one more special ability bonus of Pacific Islands.
Since, any aircraft carrier gives the possibility to land planes in a once embattled but now controlled SZ.
Why don’t try this?
A maximum of 2 planes are allowed to land on a just conquered Island by, at least, 1 ground unit.
To be eligible, the planes must have at least 1 move left while above the island.
So this ability will not give any extra range.
(This extra move point required can be understand as the “time” to built or repair the Airfield, once the territory is captured).
Example 1, this will allow such a direct move as 2 IJN Fighters in Marshall Islands to support an amphibious assault on any US unit in Wake Island.
It takes 3 move point to be above Wake and a last one to land after winning the combat.
However, if it is not conquered any of the 2 surviving planes must land on any carrier in the nearby SZ or crash in the ocean.
(But this will not happen because any player will prefer to sacrifice planes while keeping up the attack inland or take planes as casualty while keeping 1 last standing ground unit.)
Example 2, let’s suppose Johnston, Wake and Midway were captured and on each islands there is 2 IJN Fighters to support the next amphibious assault on Hawaii.
Since there is a maximum of 2 planes (only 2 IJN Fighters can take off to attack Hawaii and able to land on it after victory), unless there is some room available on any Carrier.
Combined with this other points (from above), islands will work as a Carrier:
Any number of plane landed on a Pacific Island can protect the nearby SZ.
Islands’ Planes could choose to either protect the ground or the SZ (which ones must be stated during Combat Move) while Carriers’ planes could only defend the SZ.
Moving from the island through the SZ still cost 1 move.
Pacific Air Base provides +1 Bonus Move (as OOB) and up to three planes can scramble to prevent an amphibious assault or an attack against a friendly fleet to any adjacent SZ to the island’s SZ on which is the Air Base.
That way, in example 2, if an IJN fleet was stationed in Hawaii SZ and is under attack, up to 6 planes (3 coming from Wake AB and 3 coming from Midway AB) can scramble in the Hawai SZ to provide Air Cover against whatever is attacking the IJN fleet (except Subs, if there is no IJN DD present).
Finally, the most controversial aspect:
For any Pacific Islands Air Base, up to 3 Fighters or Tactical Bombers are considered in the SZ, like if they were on a Carrier, for movement allowance.
Said otherwise, Pacific AirBase on Island provides up to three Fgs or TcBs +1 outbound and +1 inbound to the same unit taking off and coming back to the same island.
In other situation, it provides only +1 outbound move.
In example 2, up to 3 IJN Fighters from Wake and up to 3 IJN Fighters from Midway can launch an assault on Hawaiian island and come back to their Air Base.
1 Movement to reach SZ 26 (Hawaiian SZ), 1 move to enter Hawaiian Islands, 1 move to return in SZ 26 and 1 move to come back on the Air Base via reaching SZ 25 or 31.
@CWO:
Many of the island territories in the Central Pacific which Japan and the US fought to control were little more than coral atolls, volcanic formations or overgrown sandheaps, many of them small in size and some of them barely above water at high tide. **They had few (or no) natural resources, little (or no) arable land, few (or no) indigenous inhabitants, and no industries; the military bases located there had to be supplied from outside with virtually everything they used. They were for most practical purposes 100% consumers and 0% producers. **
The value which these islands had wasn’t as industrial production facilities or as sources of income or of goods or of raw materials. Their value was to serve as airbases (and in the case of suitable anchorages like Truk as naval bases) which allowed the domination of the airspace and ocean around them, and to serve as the jumping-off point from which to capture the next island group down the line. So if the rules provide no incentive to capture and hold these territories, the historically realistic solution isn’t to give them an IPC value. The solution is to create a house rule through which possession of an island gives some sort of bonus to a player who uses the island to attack enemy forces around it or as a springboard for an island-hopping advance.
Here is when I push forward this last idea the first time:
Global 1940, Airbase on PTO islands:an immobile aircraft carrier for Fgs and TcB
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32188.msg1204629#msg1204629
I’m currently playing oztea’s 41 set up with the 1 ipc islands. As to what you guys were just talking about it already starts out with extra NBs and ABs. Extra dudes too. So it’s kinda like a double wammy. I usually play against myself and find it to be pretty even compared to 40.
Anyway their was a lot more action in the pacific. I’m more of a opportunistic player then a set strategy guy but generally always end up in the DEI trying to wack india with the US usually in queensland.This time japan took the aleutians first turn and forced the US north while having singapore and carolines fleets mop up the big money islands. They then left the singapore fleet in india while carolines took new guinea. After that their was a large fleet action at wake island after japan took it in the 3rd turn.
Well not to ramble too much but the US had a hard time getting going. Japan got huge and by the 4th turn halved the objective. The highest they got to was 11 after they took midway. They got india but couldn’t hold java and the US finally got midway and wake back. Looks like the axis are going to win. Russia is bout to fall and it’s too little too late in the pacific where US is gaining momentum.
It seemed to favor japan more than anybody although that might be due to the setup. Hard to say after one game. I think more NBs, ABs and ipc’s should definitely stir things up:). Maybe even a minor allied bid in the pacific to make things a little different.
Anyway it was fun :) P
@Baron:
I think that Air Base should be on every Pacific Island including New Guinea and Dutch New Guinea.
But, Naval Base should be put on the start up board more scarcely.
This is an interesting point you raise because the requirements for building an airbase in the Pacific in WWII were much less demanding than the requirements for establishing a naval base. An airbase, at its most basic, is simply a runway and some fuel storage facilities; all you really need, in a pinch, is about a mile of straight-line, reasonably flat land area. The Seabees proved very adept at building runways in the Pacific, rapidly and efficiently, even when starting from scratch with solid jungle (and often while fighting off Japanese counterattacks in the process). Through the use of heavy construction equipment like bulldozers and steam shovels (which the Americans were accustomed to using, since they were a routine feature of civil engineering projects back home in the States), and with such time-savers as prefabricated metal grid sections that could be assembled to form runway surfaces on muddy terrain, the Seabees could put a basic airfield into operation in just a few days on islands newly captured from the Japanese.
Naval bases are much more finicky from a topographical point of view. Ideally, you need a reasonably deep anchorage that’s close to an easily accessible shoreline and that’s protected by natural breakwaters. Not all islands (even large ones) offer that combination of features. Some Pacific coral atolls proved to be ideal.
In my proposal from a few days ago to put airbases and/or naval bases (unmodified by any house rules) on Pacific islands, I was only referring to the ones that had no IPCs at all, since the idea was to compensate for their complete lack of IPC value. I imagine, however, that the concept could be extended to other islands too if that was considered useful. Iwo Jima, for example, would be an island that would validly support an airbase (it was used by the US as an emergency landing strip for damaged B-29s returning from Japan), but not a naval base (I think Iwo Jima didn’t have any decent anchorages).
If you like, later today or tomorrow (my agenda is kind of full today) I could have a quick look at the Pacific territories on the map and give a rough estimate of which ones had significant naval bases and which ones didn’t. All of them probably had airbases of one sort or another.
Cwo, what if you looked at when in the war there was air and naval bases. Like what islands had them at start of war and then find out what year they were built after the war started if possible histrory wise and then add them to game during certain turns?
@SS:
Cwo, what if you looked at when in the war there was air and naval bases. Like what islands had them at start of war and then find out what year they were built after the war started if possible histrory wise and then add them to game during certain turns?
Tonight I’ll check a couple of reference books that I have at home to see what I can find. One of them is a chronological atlas of WWII at sea, and I think it has map symbols that identify naval and air bases (or at least just the naval bases). I’ll report back on Thursday with the results.
@CWO:
@Baron:
I think that Air Base should be on every Pacific Island including New Guinea and Dutch New Guinea.
But, Naval Base should be put on the start up board more scarcely.This is an interesting point you raise because the requirements for building an airbase in the Pacific in WWII were much less demanding than the requirements for establishing a naval base. An airbase, at its most basic, is simply a runway and some fuel storage facilities; all you really need, in a pinch, is about a mile of straight-line, reasonably flat land area. The Seabees proved very adept at building runways in the Pacific, rapidly and efficiently, even when starting from scratch with solid jungle (and often while fighting off Japanese counterattacks in the process). Through the use of heavy construction equipment like bulldozers and steam shovels (which the Americans were accustomed to using, since they were a routine feature of civil engineering projects back home in the States), and with such time-savers as prefabricated metal grid sections that could be assembled to form runway surfaces on muddy terrain, the Seabees could put a basic airfield into operation in just a few days on islands newly captured from the Japanese.
Naval bases are much more finicky from a topographical point of view. Ideally, you need a reasonably deep anchorage that’s close to an easily accessible shoreline and that’s protected by natural breakwaters. Not all islands (even large ones) offer that combination of features. Some Pacific coral atolls proved to be ideal.
In my proposal from a few days ago to put airbases and/or naval bases (unmodified by any house rules) on Pacific islands, I was only referring to the ones that had no IPCs at all, since the idea was to compensate for their complete lack of IPC value. I imagine, however, that the concept could be extended to other islands too if that was considered useful. Iwo Jima, for example, would be an island that would validly support an airbase (it was used by the US as an emergency landing strip for damaged B-29s returning from Japan), but not a naval base (I think Iwo Jima didn’t have any decent anchorages).
If you like, later today or tomorrow (my agenda is kind of full today) I could have a quick look at the Pacific territories on the map and give a rough estimate of which ones had significant naval bases and which ones didn’t. All of them probably had airbases of one sort or another.
I will be very please. It is a generous offer. I’m sure I gonna read it and details with excitement.
Thanks.
I like this expression: “Seabees”.
the Seabees could put a basic airfield into operation in just a few days on islands newly captured from the Japanese.
This show how it can be conceivable that a just conquered territory could receive 1 or 2 planes during NCM landing phase if someone decides to HR this.
At least, this could work for Islands since this doesn’t require to provide air cover to a wide land territory.
Then, on the next round, it becomes possible to built an Air Base.
@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.
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.
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.
I think its worth remembering that the game in no way restricts where you can purchase and drop a Naval Base (beyond the requirement that it border a sea zone.) So even if the island was in no way suitable, for example with no natural harbor or sheer cliffs dropping straight into the sea, right now the game doesn’t prohibit it at all.
I suppose we could try to do one better than OOB, by including starting naval bases in all suitable locations. And then any locations that aren’t suitable or with no historical analog, then those are islands where you have to actually buy a Naval Base. The logic here would be that the huge cost, is associated with creating artificial harbors.
Again though, I think the addition of NBs would do more to draw fleets and encourage island conquests than air bases. Even if air bases make much more sense from a historical and geographical point of view. I think the problem is, what to do with an airbase once you have it, if the island is totally out of the way and not in a position to see much scramble action? I guess bomber launching is always an option, but then most sz are already covered out of places like Philippines, Hawaii, or Queensland, so would players go out of there way to park bombers in other spots? Spots they’d have to conquer anyway? I still think the simplest way to change the dynamic is to up the IPC value of the islands, though this discussion of bases is interesting. The thing about a base, is that it has to serve some strategic role in your gameplan enough to draw you off the main routes and main targets, otherwise they are just bypassed. But IPCs are different, they are always a draw, and players will go out of position if there is money to be had from the move. The best option is probably a combination.
@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.
I think its worth remembering that the game in no way restricts where you can purchase and drop a Naval Base (beyond the requirement that it border a sea zone.) So even if the island was in no way suitable, for example with no natural harbor or sheer cliffs dropping straight into the sea, right now the game doesn’t prohibit it at all. Agree.
I suppose we could try to do one better than OOB, by including starting naval bases in all suitable locations. And then any locations that aren’t suitable or with no historical analog, then those are islands where you have to actually buy a Naval Base. The logic here would be that the huge cost, is associated with creating artificial harbors.
Again though, I think the addition of NBs would do more to draw fleets and encourage island conquests than air bases. Even if air bases make much more sense from a historical and geographical point of view. I think the problem is, what to do with an airbase once you have it, if the island is totally out of the way and not in a position to see much scramble action? I guess bomber launching is always an option, but then most sz are already covered out of places like Philippines, Hawaii, or Queensland, so would players go out of there way to park bombers in other spots? Spots they’d have to conquer anyway? I still think the simplest way to change the dynamic is to up the IPC value of the islands, though this discussion of bases is interesting. The thing about a base, is that it has to serve some strategic role in your gameplan enough to draw you off the main routes and main targets, otherwise they are just bypassed. But IPCs are different, they are always a draw, and players will go out of position if there is money to be had from the move. The best option is probably a combination.
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.
So, Islands cannot be used as a Carrier, even when it is only one SZ away.
Their main tactical function remains only to provide a safe landing territory for grounds units instead of staying vulnerable on transports, as ShadowHawk put it.
If the nearest Islands don’t work for Japan neither for USA, why bother about them?
Besides giving the IPCs incentive, I say that it should be try to play them as immobile Carrier when an Air Base is present.
Hence, giving the best advantage to rivalize with Carrier:
For any Pacific Islands Air Base,
up to 3ALL Fighters or Tactical Bombers on the Island are considered in the SZ, like if they were on a Carrier, for movement allowance.
If Aleutians can be a place to launch, at least, Fighters and TacBs to support an attack by IJN fleet against San Francisco SZ10,
then you get a strategic incentive to use these Islands.
On the reverse, letting USA put an AirBase on Aleutians will not be a good idea for Japan because US Fighters and Tactical Bombers will be in range to reach Japan SZ6.
For USA, an Air Base being used, as depicted above, on Iwo Jima can provide a way to SBR Tokyo with bombers escorted by Fighters.
And Iwo Air Base can lauch any number of TcBs and Fgs toward Tokyo.
That way, it becomes clear for IJN that Iwo should’nt be an easy target for USA.
Providing a tactical benefits for aircrafts support without using Carrier, seems to me an important incentive.
Of course IPC is universal ones but a revised Pacific Air Base should be try.
@Uncrustable:
Revised edition rulebook page 38
“When moving your air units, you may treat island groups as part of the seazone containing them”
-An optional rule for a USA national advantageIn essence, a plane on the island is considered in the seazone for movement purposes (not combat).
So an airbase would still be required for scrambling.Just decide which islands will fall under this rule on the gameboard
Another option is to just make airbases cheaper on islands than on mainland.
Again just decide which islands would fall in this category as certain islands such as Japan shouldn’t be considered.
To play-test maybe this kind of gambit should be tried again with this modified Pacific Air Base:
Japan into Alaska on J1
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33344.msg1269156#msg1269156
Giving them an airbase wont make a difference, you can still just sail right past them. Also 1 ipc is not worth the efford it takes 1 transport a full turn and requires you to protect it. Since the map is so small your transports are always at risk from bombers and fighters.
So you have to invest 10 ipcs to get 1 back. That is a losing proposition.
To make the islands worth it the map needs to become bigger so that you have to capture the islands or have your full transports hang out in the middle of the ocean. Nobody wants fully loaded transports at the end of their turn it is a huge risk ( it is paining a big target on your fleet saying please hit )
Also with a bigger map your transports will be safe from air attacks now a lone bomber can nearly cover the whole pacific map.
Or make it so cruisers can transports 1 inf. That makes cruisers a bit more usefull and helps you take the islands. They are worth taking but not worth 10ipcs.
Maybe the whole flaw on Pacific Map is that loosing units on Island-hoping is too costlier and a distraction from the main targets because their is so few IPCs reward.
But giving real IPCs reward on Islands controled makes for an unbalance game when fighting the usual way on Asia.
You guys have some good ideas. I think the ipc’s are the way to go though. IDK if I would go to big on the NBs. If it’s off the beaten path it might encourage more smaller fleets as opposed to one huge one due to your limited range. I think you just have to make the areas you want more action in worth more. Maybe 1 ipc if it’s originally owned but two if it’s your enemies? Might need one or two higher spots.
Have to be careful too much dough could throw things outta wack. I say throw some money at it and give it a try. :)
Well then just make a few important islands worth 2 icp’s and possibly have an airbase but no naval bases.
@Baron:
I like this expression: “Seabees”.
It was the nickname of the US Navy’s Construction Batallions, or CBs. John Wayne once made a movie about them.
Well, I had a look at my sources at home last night and they weren’t as helpful as I thought. They contain useful information, but the level of detail they provide was too inconsistent for me to put together a satisfactory answer in the amount of time I had last evening – so what I’ll do is work on this question during the weekend, when I can devote a proper amount of time to it. I’ll use my two sources from last night as a starting point, but I’ll then supplement them by looking elsewhere.
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).
