Great comments from both of you guys. After playing a few more games, I think Queensland is the safer bet early on in the war also. It allows the allies to build up and hopefully unite all three fleets UK, Anzac, and USA. Japan has to really come out to attack you and if they do the USA can counter with units from Hawaii and Anzac from Sydney. I feel like the Caroline’s islands are more when the allies are winning the war, but it also holds a great strategic position. So if I had to pick one, I now say Queensland. 👍
Island garrisons
-
In every game I’ve played of every pacific or global A&A variant I own (which is all of them), I find that for both my opponents and myself, by the mid-game, all islands have been effectively gutted of troops. Those land forces just seem to be too valuable elsewhere on the offense, capturing new territories and projecting power, to waste them on garrison duty. My (and my opponents’) philosophy has been that if you can’t kill or drive off their navy, the massive firepower that those navies can bring to bear will make a mockery of all but the most prohibitively large island garrisons.
Nonetheless, as I was watching my opponent (for the Nth time) send unescorted transports ahead of the fleet to pick up some of the ‘freebies’ I had left around ungaurded, I began to wonder if building up to ~4 infantry on every economically or strategically important island would be worth the cost by forcing the US navy to similarly devote more money to land unit production.
If it works, it would be a nice change of pace from my typical strategies. Plus it would be great aesthetically. I’m not one of those (you know who you are) who insists that the game match historical patterns, but I appreciate the accuracy of the simulation when the game mechanics encourage historical behaviors (inherently, not by brute force).
-
The problem is troops and transport shortages. Yes, leaving all of the islands ungarrisoned is a recipe for disaster but it’s tough to have enough combat power to leave some on each critical island and still have enough to push into India/China in time.
I’m one that usually strips the islands bare and uses those troops for attack, but that can be costly if you cant hold the Allies out of the area….
-
The problem is troops and transport shortages. Yes, leaving all of the islands ungarrisoned is a recipe for disaster but it’s tough to have enough combat power to leave some on each critical island and still have enough to push into India/China in time.
I’m one that usually strips the islands bare and uses those troops for attack, but that can be costly if you cant hold the Allies out of the area….
Same here. The two boys on the Carolines and Palau are the first to go.
-
In my experience its only really been worth garrisoning an island that has an airbase (or an airbase and naval base like the Philippines). Though in real terms, if you’ve massed your air forces there, and can get an AA gun to them, you dont need an exceptionally large number of land forces.
But otherwise, I would generally agree that if a power is in position to make landings without a naval challenge in advance, then they’re usually likely to succeed regardless of how many troops you place.
In fact in certain instances, it may be better to lure a player into a landing, particularly if the supporting naval forces are withing striking distance of your own air and sea power.
-
There are only 2 islands that I feel are worth this treatment, Carolines and Pearl. But, the key is to put a decent amount of men on them, 4-6, and the land planes with the airbase. This makes it a nightmare to assault.
Suggested Topics
