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).
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
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
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?
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?
