Hey all. As with my other posts so far, just trying to spit ideas out there that I’ve tried a few times, some I’ve just thought about a bunch. Helps to get opinions of course and brainstorm.
Always tried to think of some ways that could improve island warfare in the game. It seems every here has similar experiences to me in that the islands are largely ignored in the Pacific.
What if pre-requisites were made before the invasion of Japan could happen. Similar to the Danish and Gibraltar Straights, and Suez and Panama Canals, what if you required the Allies to hold “X” amount of Japanese islands before they could attack Japan herself? Say 6/8 originally Japanese held islands need to be held. This could work to make both sides go for the islands. The obvious part is that the Allies would need to take the islands in order to finish Japan. This could also force the Japanese to actually garrison the islands to delay the Allied advance. While it may not force island fights everywhere, if we assume 6/8 islands need to be held, the Japanese would only need to truly defend three islands, Okinawa and Iwo Jima almost assuredly being two of them. This would/could tie up Japanese troops for garrison duty that may otherwise have been used in China, India, or Sydney.
A second part of this idea would be limiting the number of units that could be on an island. Maybe islands are limited to, say, 6 land units (or whatever number) and three air units in the garrison. Same goes for invading forces, same amount of land units (but more than three air units could attack of course). I only mention this as a possibility to take away the potential of Japan just stacking tons of INF on islands, while at the same time not making it pointless to hold the islands (if the Japanese know only 6 land units and “X” air units can attack an island each turn, they could be more inclined to put a full garrison on three islands). This also wouldn’t make them focus everything entirely to the islands.
What do you think? Does this maybe hurt the Allies by forcing them to assault the islands? Does the potential garrisoning of Japanese units slow them down enough in China to more balance the game? Will the Japanese even bother trying to hold the islands? As always, all thoughts appreciated.
sounds interesting. I think I remeber hearing something similar suggested. Probably just have to set a few games up and see what happens. Could you still convoy sz 6 ? just no land invasion ?
There’s some good stuff here:
Thanks barney. I’ve been trying to find threads with similar thoughts to mine to add to before starting new ones, just didn’t see that one!
Looks like General Veers’ idea is awfully similar to mine. I like it, I like he went a step further even and added prerequisites for the Japanese in attacking Australia and India as well, it re-balances from my prospect. I think it’s a good way to add the islands in while still keeping the basic mechanics of the game, which is my goal as much as possible.
To answer your question, yes, you could still convoy SZ 6. You could even strafe it still in my opinion. Just the physical invasion of Japan couldn’t take place until the prerequisite islands have been controlled as well.
If I’m the Japanese, I would put serious thought into garrisoning three of those islands to stall the U.S. invasion of Japan. And if I know going into it that I have 6 land units against 6 land units (with whatever amount of supporting naval and air units in the attack and defense), I know there’s a chance I could hold an island for more than one turn, thus slowing the Allied advance one turn. While this seems to favor the Axis in terms of slowing down the Allies, it must be remembered that you’re potentially taking 18 INF and an assorted amount of airpower to defend said islands that would normally be able to make the march to China or India.
I like the ideas on there, but in my opinion, adding Seabees, different AB and NB rules, etc., is something where we start getting a bit too convoluted at times in terms of the game play of this particular game. You run the gambit of altering the game entirely, which I’m not opposed to by any means, but there may be others who want to try and keep the basic mechanics while still adding to the game. I like the idea of adding value to the islands in the form of +1 IPC, I just wonder how much that money could actually change events.
That being said, I will definitely be giving some of those a look and try them out in our games!
Right on Chris_
I’ve been playing with the 1 IPC islands pretty much since late last year. I really like it. I don’t activate them until you’re at war though. It doesn’t really make one go out of there way too much to attack them but if they’re right there for a easy score I say why not ?
Usually Japan gets Guam and I make a point of taking Ceylon after I’ve mopped up the islands. I also like to make a early landing on NG. Not only does it contest the ANZAC NO you get an extra 2 bucks out of the deal as well. That’s one where the US and ANZAC can battle back pretty early for and there can be some good battles there.
While not a lot the few extra bucks really can make a difference. Especially for ANZAC and even UKP usually has enough for a extra dude until they’re bombed to pieces. It makes for some fun little builds.
The Aleutians also have a little more incentive for Japan. If the US leaves it unguarded or isn’t prepared for an adequate conterattack, you can suicide a tranny and a couple dudes from Japan. That’s a buck for you and six less for the US. Plus they usually have to mount a small to moderate size task force to get it back depending on what you have in sz6. You can also send a small fleet and drop em off and cruise back so you don’t lose the transport depending on US force deployment. Anyway it encourages some action there as well.
I just looked at the map and thinking about what you said about garrisoning some of the islands, I think I’ll give Formosa, Okinawa, Iwo, PHI and HI a extra buck too. Even though it gives Japan a extra buck and two counting PHIs then US (which they don’t need) Formosa, Okinawa and Iwo will all be worth two. Might make the US go for them towards the end game before a mainland attack. If Macarthur and Nimitz did their jobs that is. :)
Anyway sorry to ramble let us know what you end up with :)
I think I’ll make Midway worth 2. Even out the Japan boost. Japan would probably still ignore it, but if US goes south maybe they’ll trade it. Might get a little Midway action anyways :)
I’m gonna add Midway, Wake and Guam as a NO. Own em all and get 3 bucks. Probably won’t change much, but might encourage a little action from time to time.
I’ve always thought about making essentially everything worth at least 1 IPC anyways, hoping that that if nothing else would get some fighting. Maybe you’re right and pushing a couple IPC’s for each might do the trick as well!
I’ll have to try it out and will let you know how it does. May try the prerequisites that were mentioned as well. Always wanted to do that with the Med as well (Allies must control Sicily before they can attack mainland Italy), so I may expand that and see if it brings some of those small territories into it. A Midway battle would be pretty sweet! :-)
Thanks for the feedback.
