Mariana Islands: Winning Strategy, the Zero IPC Island Crush

[barney]

Good work CWO!

[Black_Elk]

Excellent info! It’s also very interesting to compare with the OOB set up, as there seems to be a few instances where the board doesn’t really agree with the history.

The idea of a sub refueling station is rather cool. I wonder if some of these otherwise unimportant territories might be more significant if they had a role in sub or anti-sub warfare? Since it seems like even islands that weren’t suited for much else could at least be used for refueling. I wonder how that might be represented in game? A movement bonus +1 for any sub that starts in a sz with a zero ipc island?

Subs are relatively inexpensive, and more than other ships are designed to operate somewhat independently of other ships. I wonder if a submarine advantage could be built into all valueless islands as a way to encourage people to fight over them?

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

Subs are relatively inexpensive, and more than other ships are designed to operate somewhat independently of other ships. I wonder if a submarine advantage could be built into all valueless islands as a way to encourage people to fight over them?

In a general sense, there were probably all sorts of places in the Pacific that were potentially valuable in one specialized role or another.  To give just one example: French Frigate Shoals, a small, uninhabitable lagoon located (as I recall) about halfway between Midway and Honololu, figured in a couple of Japanese plans that involved sending long-range flying boats there from Kwajalein, refuelling them by tanker-submarines, and having them fly onward to Hawaii on bombing or reconnaissance missions.  (One such mission was supposed to be carried out in the run-up to the Battle of Midway, but it was scrapped because the Japanese discovered that the US Navy, who’d gotten wise to the enemy’s interest in FFS, had started posting one or two small warships there to keep an eye on it.)

Things like that could, in principle, be used to confer individually customized advantages to the various IPC-less islands in the Pacific.  There would be an upside and a downside.  The upside is that it could make each island territory attractive to capture in its own unique way, probably with some islands being valuable to both sides and with others being valuable only to one side (or differently valuable to each side), which could make for some intriguingly asymmetrical dynamics on the game board.  The downside is that it would potentially be quite complicated, given that there are 18 such island groups on the map.  A system that simply uses just two potential standard advantages (naval base, yes or no?  airbase, yes or no?) would be easy enough, but a system with up to 18 different advantages would be a whole other story.

There might, however, be a way around the problem of remembering so many potential advantages.  To borrow a concept from (among others) Young Grasshoper, what if each IPC-less island had its own distinctive “advantage card” which stated, in simple terms, what advantage(s) each IPC-less island confers?  There could be a single (identical) advantage given to whoever has a particular island, or there could be separate (distinct) advantages for the Japanese and US players, given that the two sides didn’t always make the same use of the same islands when they changed hands.  The individual island cards would be handed out at the beginning of the game to the players who initially control them, and as the game progresses the respective cards would be surrendered to the conquering player whenever a change of ownership takes place.  There could, in addition, be a printed list of these advantages that any player could consult at any time, so that a player contemplating the conquest of an enemy-held island could, without having to check the other guy’s actual cards, see what advantages each island offers.

[General 6 Stars]

Thank you CWO !  Will keep for record for sure and use.

[Black_Elk]

I’m down!

Its a bit more rules intensive than we be my preference, but if some kind of “Island Advantage” cards, or some other tracking mechanism could be devised, so its not too onerous on players, I think the idea could be cool.

I really do think though, that if we are willing to go this far to make the IPC-less islands relevant on the Pacific side of the board, we should do something similar for the Europe side of the board.

Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Crete, Cyprus etc, are all worthy of attention and currently don’t get much love in the game. Malta sometimes gets into the action, but I’ve never seen Allies invade Sicily, or seen the Germans invade crete, which seems kind of a bummer. No Aegean action like in the Guns of the Navarone. No race to Palermo like in Patton. Alas. You know, if we could bring all worthless islands into play at the same time, using the same basic concepts, that would be ideal.

We have right now 18 island groups in the Pacific that need some help, but 18 distinct advantages would be major overkill. How about something more like 3 or maybe 6 at the upper limit? What sort of ideas might be cool to bring an otherwise valueless island into play?

Trying of course not to make it too terribly complex, but still providing some novelty to the island hopping game. Thinking about it in gameplay terms, what would be interesting enough for a player to go out of their way and take an island territory worth no ipcs…?

I say we figure out which advantages like that might work, but reserve a +1 ipc NO if needed, to really seal the deal on it, as a compliment to whatever advantages we can come up with.

[CWO Marc]

@Black_Elk:

We have right now 18 island groups in the Pacific that need some help, but 18 distinct advantages would be major overkill. How about something more like 3 or maybe 6 at the upper limit? What sort of ideas might be cool to bring an otherwise valueless island into play?

Yes, those are two good ideas: keeping the number of island-based advantages reasonably small (in order to keep things simple and practical), and extending the concept from its original Pacific location to the similar IPC-less named islands on the Europe side of the map (to make it more attractive for those islands to see some action).  Giving all the islands identical advantages would be boring, and giving every island a completely distinctive advantage could be too complicated (and probably unrealistic), so shooting for something in the middle would be ideal.  And it would only take a small number of advantage types to produce several possible combinations.  Just the two that we’ve considered, for example, can yield four possible combinations: no naval base and no air base / a naval base but no air base / an air base but no naval base / an airbase and an naval base.  A third advantage type (whatever that might be) would yield eight possible combinations; four advantage types would give sixteen possible combinations, which is more than enough for practical purposes.  And although the IPC-less islands, in general, didn’t produce much economically in the real world, some of them could perhaps be given a +1 IPC as one advantage type if a plausible reason could be found for it.  I seem to recall, for example, that some areas (I’m not sure which ones) in the southwest Pacific had specialized economic value because they produced things like rubber or quinine that weren’t common elsewhere.

[General 6 Stars]

This is what I have so far.

AIRBASES            NAVAL

Caroline            Caroline
            Midway        Dutch New Guinea
          New Guinea      New Zealand
            Okinawa          Philippines ( west side only )
            Formosa            Singapore
            Malta                  Java
                                      Gibraltra

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Excellent info! It’s also very interesting to compare with the OOB set up, as there seems to be a few instances where the board doesn’t really agree with the history.

The idea of a sub refueling station is rather cool. I wonder if some of these otherwise unimportant territories might be more significant if they had a role in sub or anti-sub warfare? Since it seems like even islands that weren’t suited for much else could at least be used for refueling. I wonder how that might be represented in game? A movement bonus +1 for any sub that starts in a sz with a zero ipc island?

Subs are relatively inexpensive, and more than other ships are designed to operate somewhat independently of other ships. I wonder if a submarine advantage could be built into all valueless islands as a way to encourage people to fight over them?

An interesting thing for Subs and Islands could be:
If you owned a given Island and have a Sub in the surrounding SZ then the Sub can act as a blocker unit similar to a DD.
If too strong, you may require that at least 1 ground occupied the island territory.

[Der Kuenstler]

Just for your info - we have played about 4 times since August on my new custom map that has every territory (including islands) worth at least 1 IPC. So far no one has tried to take any of the islands or territories that formerly had no value.

So it seems to me there needs to be further incentives like you are discussing. For example, Gibraltar gets action at times because one side or the other wants surface ship access to the med.

[barney]

General V had a idea earlier which required controlling certain territories before being able to attack others. I think it has some merit although the US bypassed a lot of places, new britain for one, so IDK how you would decide what was needed or not. Trial and error I guess.

If one ipc isn’t enough boost it to two for foreign owned territories. You could still keep it one for your own or not. Throw in some ABs and NBs and see what happens:)

[barney]

If you wanted to keep it simple you could give them all 2 ipc’s. Wait until rd 5 to activate them. That would prevent japan from using extra dough to blow out india or china early.
Two bucks should create some intrest.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

Just for your info - we have played about 4 times since August on my new custom map that has every territory (including islands) worth at least 1 IPC. So far no one has tried to take any of the islands or territories that formerly had no value.

So it seems to me there needs to be further incentives like you are discussing. For example, Gibraltar gets action at times because one side or the other wants surface ship access to the med.

Thanks to bring your experience about it.

Another active thread gave me this idea to increase the impact of taking Pacific Islands.

1. Keep the 1 IPC/each Pacific Island groups as regular or as National Objective according to what suit you best.
2. In addition, each captured Island with at least one active unit on it (including Operational AB or NB), also cost to the original owner a 2 IPCs penalty taken out during the original owner Convoy Disruption Phase.

So, a captured Pacific Island will give 1 IPC to the conquerer but will be a minus 3 IPCs for the original owner for a total swing of 4 IPCs.

To rationalize it, consider that each Pacific Island is part of the owner’s Convoy shiping lines.
Capturing one, affect economically the original owner much more than it brings new ressources to the conquerer.

For example, IJN wanted Solomons and built an airfield on it, to be able to wreak havoc on Convoy shipping between US and ANZAC. It would have extended the Allies cargo ships time to make a safe travel via a more indirect travel route.

What do you think of this everyone?

[barney]

@ Baron

I can see the logic of taking ipc’s away as an incentive also. However in my two test games japan seemed to benefit the most. Especially early on. Maybe that was because I was more focused on the islands, but they still got india and china as well.

I think that might hurt the allies a lot more.

[theROCmonster]

Giving all the islands a starting value of 1 would really help the allies more than the axis. Japan really can’t afford to take the random islands, except maybe Guam. Interesting idea…

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

@ Baron

I can see the logic of taking ipc’s away as an incentive also. However in my two test games japan seemed to benefit the most. Especially early on. Maybe that was because I was more focused on the islands, but they still got india and china as well.

I think that might hurt the allies a lot more.

@theROCmonster:

Giving all the islands a starting value of 1 would really help the allies more than the axis. Japan really can’t afford to take the random islands, except maybe Guam. Interesting idea…

Can’t tell which side gets the benefits but the main point is that Global gives a way (via Convoy Disruption Phase) to give zero IPC for having an Island but to penalize with IPCs malus (-1, -2, -3?) if a Power lose it.
So it will not add a lot more of IPCs but can provide an incentive to keep Islands.

[barney]

@Der:

Just for your info - we have played about 4 times since August on my new custom map that has every territory (including islands) worth at least 1 IPC. So far no one has tried to take any of the islands or territories that formerly had no value.

So it seems to me there needs to be further incentives like you are discussing. For example, Gibraltar gets action at times because one side or the other wants surface ship access to the med.

How do the extra ipc’s impact your games? Can the allies get by with a lower bid?

[Der Kuenstler]

@barney:

How do the extra ipc’s impact your games? Can the allies get by with a lower bid?

I have a custom map and setup so we don’t bid. Kind of a cross between AA42 and AAAE. The impact is that everyone has more IPCs to spend - a few more units on the map. No complaints so far.

[barney]

Ahh… sounds like fun:)

[baron Münchhausen]

@knp7765:

Baron,
You are mistaken on the distance from Aleutian Islands to Western US. It is NOT 3 spaces via “continental road”.
The Aleutian Islands are not actually connected to Alaska. They are a separate land territory in their own sea zone. So from the Aleutian Islands, you would have to go like so:
Sea Zone 8, Sea Zone 1 or 2, Alaska, Western Canada, Western US = 5 spaces.
You could cut it down 1 space by skipping Alaska:
Sea Zone 8, Sea Zone 1, Western Canada OR Sea Zone 10, Western US = 4 spaces.
So even with an Air Base on the Aleutian Islands, you would still need to land your bombers in Mexico, Western Canada or Alaska and thus have to control one or more of those territories.
Basically, the Aleutian Islands are the same distance from Western US as is Hawaii.
Just a note, if you get the Long Range Aircraft tech, your bombers could move 8 from an air base so you could SBR Western US from Hawaii or the Aleutians (provided you build an airbase there).

As an Axis player, it sucks that it is really hard to ever be able to SBR the US factories. In most cases, if you are able to SBR US facilities, you are probably on the way to winning anyway. However, it is possible for Germany and/or Italy to get a strong hold on the West Indies from which they could SBR Central and Eastern US facilities while the overall game is still up for grabs. I’m not sure how much good it would do for either Germany’s or Italy’s war efforts to accomplish this for more than a round or two at the most.

You are right. My bad.
I just looked at the Pacific Map, that’s my mistake.

I find this sad that this is not a way to increase Pacific Island Hopping on both sides.
Japan have no interest to gets Aleutian or Hawaii (beside the VC), since it provides no strategic landbase to launch any SBR campaign over San Francisco.
In 1942.2, however, both Midway Islands and Hawaii are within 3 spaces from the San Francisco. Making SBR a possible reason to grab Midway or Hawaii.

Unfortunately, only USA has some reasons to get Iwo Jima or Okinawa to launch an SBR campaign to strangle IJN.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Excellent info! It’s also very interesting to compare with the OOB set up, as there seems to be a few instances where the board doesn’t really agree with the history.

The idea of a sub refueling station is rather cool. I wonder if some of these otherwise unimportant territories might be more significant if they had a role in sub or anti-sub warfare? Since it seems like even islands that weren’t suited for much else could at least be used for refueling. I wonder how that might be represented in game? A movement bonus +1 for any sub that starts in a sz with a zero ipc island?

Subs are relatively inexpensive, and more than other ships are designed to operate somewhat independently of other ships. I wonder if a submarine advantage could be built into all valueless islands as a way to encourage people to fight over them?

This is an interesting and original capacity you brought in.
Any owned Island in the PAC would give a +1 bonus move for all friendly Subs.
I don’t think it is necessary to restrict it to valueless islands.

And it can be combined with my other Subs capacity suggested to be use the same way as a Destroyer blocker if Subs is in a friendly Island SZ.