Increasing action in PTO: The Case against 0 ipc territories (Pacific Islands)

Here is the OP from Black ELK:
In the follow up of my thread about Air Base HR for increasing strategy and action in PTO,

I think it worth the case to open this interesting topic to a wider community:

I’m talking about Iwo, Okinawa, Wake, Caroline Islands, Midway, and Solomon Islands… All at 0 ipcs?

I’ve made my views on this abundantly clear before, and until someone can provide me with a compelling counter argument I will keep arguing this point…

Island territories in the Pacific at a value of 0 ipcs makes zero sense! Seriously, I don’t know how many thousands of games you have to play, where the same thing happens time and again, before this point hits home. These territories should all be worth at least 1 ipc.

Any arguments about ‘real world production capacity’ or trying to stay true to some abstract, and highly relative, idea about the ‘real’ production value of a given Atoll or Island backwater, are totally negated by the fact that in game terms, having them at 0 ipcs takes them effectively out of play.

I’m talking about every worldmap version of A&A going back to Classic. These islands are consistently nixed out of the game, because they have no in game value.

Japan has no incentive to hold on to them.
USA has no incentive to attack them.

So what happens? Players just blow past these islands on their way to somewhere else that does have an ipc value. How many times have you seen this occur? Hundreds upon hundreds of times!

There is never any grand island hopping campaign, with a glorious crescendo at Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Never a brutal slog, jumping from island jungle to island jungle for the USA. At best they’ll land a few troops at Solomon’s and then immediately abandon it on the way to Borneo, or East Indies. It’s as if Nimitz never even existed.

Say what you will about strategic landing spots, or safe havens to unload troops. The reality is that these islands are being ignored in every single game. And the reason is pretty plain to me, because they don’t have any economic value attached to them. The difference between zero and 1 is massive, regardless of any other strategic value the territory might possess. If it’s worth 1 its worth attacking, if it’s 0 then it gets ignored.

The only game that seriously attempted to address this was AA50 with the National Objectives, like +5 to Britain if allies hold an original Japanese territory (which might tempt the US into an attack on a single island) etc. but even then, it took a special rule to get things going, that still didn’t encourage real fighting over these territories. Having Hawaii as a VC helps, but it’s not enough. There are still 6 other islands, that nobody is fighting over. They invariably remain yellow, even when Japan is against the ropes facing invasion of the home island.

The only way to truly bring these islands into play, is to give them an actual ipc value. Now, the term IPC in this game has already stood for two different things: Industrial Production Capacity, and Industrial Production Certificate.

Why not add a third possible meaning to the Acronym?
IPC = “Industrial Production Commitment”

It’s still the same IPC in game terms, but now you can justify the 1 ipc value for island territories on the argument that it’s strategic value warrants the commitment of industrial production to its protection. This is how to fix the game in the Pacific, in my view. It would also allow for the increase of Hawaii’s value. Or Iwo, or Okinawa, which should both be major targets for the USA, islands the Japanese are willing to defend with force. In current games battles there almost never occur. I would argue that these territories should be worth closer to 3 ipcs, 2 ipcs at the very least! Then, the game mechanics being what they are, people would actually fight over these territories.

Doesn’t require any special rules to get the Pacific war going, just increase the printed value on the board. Moreover, just to be clear, the notion that IPCs are in some way analogous to real world production doesn’t hold up to scrutiny for me. Or rather, I just don’t think the need for analogy is strong enough to trump gameplay necessities.

Having these islands at 0 ipcs also ignores the doctrinal differences between the warring nations with regards to a given territory’s strategic value. The deference in doctrine between say the Soviet war plan, which sought to destroy the enemy wherever they could be found vs. the American war plan, which aimed to take territory and deny it the enemy. It makes sense that for USA, and Japan, these islands should be worth IPCs, because in game terms that is how hard strategic value is expressed. Or, consider the fact that these places would clearly have had their production capacity effected after major battles were fought over them, just smoldering ruins not fit for producing much of anything.

So yeah, my point, if it is already an abstraction, then why not make it an abstraction that leads to more satisfying game play?

Increase the value of these pacific islands to 1 ipc, and watch how the game takes on a different dynamic. Japan suddenly has a reason to hold onto them, and US has a reason to attack them. With 6 or more ipcs potentially in play, that whole theater of war becomes way more important and way more interesting. Japan is less likely to just launch all their armies against Russia, and will instead have to concentrate more energy on the islands (which is what they actually did after all.)

So that is my point, for what its worth. The major problem with the Pacific conflict is that all these territories lack an IPC value. The best way to solve this problem is to simply give them an IPC value.

I think if you did that, the gameplay would be vastly improved. And I don’t think anyone would notice or care, that these islands were not at 0 anymore, but 1 or 2 or 3, depending on their strategic value under an ‘industrial production commitment’ scheme. Any thoughts? I would welcome any input or discussion on this point. I think these are strong arguments, or the best I could marshal while writing tonight. I hope you will at least consider them

Thanks for listening
Best,
always
J

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=18480

Here is the last post from Der Kuenstler on this thread.
It is the simplest solution propose to date:

I just read this and totally agree with black_elk - make all the islands - everything of historical value - worth at least one IPC.

Remember, taking a territory worth “1” is actually a swing of “2” as it denies the enemy country “1” in income.

It is the simplest way to get these territories involved in play. I’m going to look into changing my map this way.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=18480&start=8

Here is my proposition for 1942.2
Give +1 IPC to these 6 Japanese Islands:
1- Formosa
2- Okinawa
3- Iwo Jima
4- Wake Island
5- Caroline Islands
6- Solomon Islands

Give +1 IPC to 3 UK territories (bigger islands):
1- Western Australia
2- Eastern Australia
3- New Zealand

Give +3 IPCs to 2 US Islands:
1- +2 To Hawaiian Island
2- +1 Midway Island

All this increase in IPCs will be received at the end of the first turn for the next, second round purchase.

This increase in 6 IPCs can easily be put into this costlier naval war.

@toblerone77:

Baron, one idea is for every island captured a “prestige roll” is given to whatever nation capture a PTO island. A table would need to be created and an award of units or IPCs given to the victor.

That’s just some brainstorming. It’ll take some work, but that’s a general idea.

Adding any table is just adding a layer of complication.

Maybe just 1 roll of 1D6 for each island conquered, give this "Prestige bonus IPCs":
1-2 rolled gives 2 IPCs,
3-4 gives 3 IPCs,
5-6 gives 4 IPCs.
It works only for the conquest of an island territory or the retrieving of a lost one.

In other situations, when it is neither contested, nor lost or gained, then it gives nothing.

An island must change from one alliance to another to give the “prestige bonus IPCs” to the conqueror.

What do you think of this?

Nevertheless, it is your idea that makes me think about this kind of simplified table.

@Baron:

Maybe just 1 roll of 1D6 for each island conquered, give this "Prestige bonus IPCs":
1-2 rolled gives 2 IPCs,
3-4 gives 3 IPCs,
5-6 gives 4 IPCs.
It works only for the conquest of an island territory or the retrieving of a lost one.

In other situations, when it is neither contested, nor lost or gained, then it gives nothing.

An island must change from one alliance to another to give the “prestige bonus IPCs” to the conqueror.

I have the impression that it could be a real incentive for the player’s with a gamble habit.
Pacific islands will become a kind of “surprise IPCs bonus” at the end of a victorious turn.

A massive invasion of 3 islands could even lead to up to 12 IPCs cashing price!
It is not an incentive to keep those islands but it is certainly an immediate reward to fight back to retrieve them.
A 1 IPC territory take 4 turns to give 4 IPCs, now you can get all of it in a single turn!

There is more than this way (reducing the cost of ships) to increase action in PTO.
In all case, giving more IPCs for PTO islands territories let the Japan and USA with more money and more ability to buy ground and naval units for this campaign:
1- Increase IPCs (from 1 to up to 3 IPCs) value for “0” and “1” IPC islands.
2- Give a random (2 to 4-5-6? IPCs) but valuable one time “Prestige” IPCs bonus for each islands group conquered.

I do agree that:

The NO, however, is ONLY 5 IPC!!! I can’t see how you really think 5 bonus ipc are having any effect on the grand scheme in the pacific.

3- In addition to the last HR about “prestige” IPCs bonus, maybe you can add some more plausible NO perimeters of defence for Japan.

5 IPCs for the nearest perimeter:
1-Iwo Jima, 2-Marianas, 3-Guam, 4-Formosa 5-Okinawa 6-Palau 7-Philippines 8-Hainan;

5 IPCs for the middle perimeter:
1-Wake Island 2-Marshall Islands 3-Caroline Islands  4-Gilbert Islands 5-New Britain ;

5 IPCs for the outer perimeter:
1-Midway Island  2-Solomon Islands 3-New Guinea 4-Dutch New Guinea 5-New Hebrides;

5 IPCs for a PACIFIC Hegemony:
1-Aleutians Islands 2-Johnston Island 3-Line Island 4-Fiji 5-Samoa

In addition to all this:
any Power can have a 1 time -2 IPCs “low morale” penalty (immediate surrender of IPCs like the Classic SBR of IC) when loosing any islands.

@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.

I like every comment you post because there is always an accurate historical reminder in them which improve each thread and add depth about the specific topic link to this game.

First, I will also post your comments in the other thread related to PTO action because you emphasized on strategical HR way to improve PTO action more than an economic way.

@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.

From a geographical point of view, we can say that the board shows islands group not just isolated one.
Nevertheless, they are not economical centre for sure.

But here is my point of view:
IPCs with NOs can somehow represent strategical & political objectives which receive their reward when the goal is achieved.

Economically, it is also a way to go under the 1 IPC/territory limit fixed by the board.

(If all 1 actual IPC was converted by x10 giving 10 revised IPCs, it will be easier to assign an actual .5 IPC value to an island territory: becoming a 5 revised IPCs, etc.)

Because a Power must hold 5 territories together to gain access to 5 IPCs and loosing anyone means it loose these 5 IPCs income next turn.
So it takes time to get the 1 IPC/territory income in this situation and can easily be lost.

It is not historically accurate to give some islands groups a regular IPC income, that’s true.
But it can be correct to view it as a momentary boost on overall morale due to strategical success that allow a one time IPC bonus to get it.

So you get 1 territory, you get a one time reward : between 2 to 4 IPCs (to adjust).
You keep this territory thereafter and it won’t give anymore economical boost.
Reversely, you lose 1 territory, you get a one time penality: 1 or 2 IPCs.

I think it can also be acceptable to joined together many territories and give them an overall value when all of them are conquered.
A Geo-strategical advantage can be somehow implied in an IPC bonus.
At the end, more IPCs you will get you additional units which can give an edge over the enemy to better enforce some strategies.

Maybe some NOs can also be a one time bonus success.
And loosing some NOs can also mean getting a one time penalty.

Of course, when one or two key territories going back and forth means gaining and loosing every turn a NO, it could create an economical conundrum.
But, usually, the Pacific battles are not like the Russian front.

Of course, what I say here is just some rough draft ideas.

It will need much more fine tuning to get a balance incentive for PTO action with IPCs bonus and malus, combining NOs and one time immediate reward or penalty for taking or loosing an island territory.

@toblerone77:

Both of these bonuses would be a one time deal. Example:Okinawa is recaptured by the Japanese they will receive the same bonus as the US did. After recapture the Japanese will place one of their national markers on the board even though it is their original territory.
The marker will signify that all bonuses have been used for that particular island.

I think that could be a good way to manage 1 time bonus for both sides.

Giving free unit upon capture of an island is somewhat strange, that’s why I focus on IPC bonus and malus. They will be use in the next purchase and the unit will be mobilize 2 turns after the conquest.

The bonus and malus could be as simple as that:
when winning a “0” territory the loosing side gives 2 IPCs immediately to the conqueror.
That’s it.

@toblerone77:

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

Both of these bonuses would be a one time deal. Example:Okinawa is recaptured by the Japanese they will receive the same bonus as the US did. After recapture the Japanese will place one of their national markers on the board even though it is their original territory.
The marker will signify that all bonuses have been used for that particular island.

I think that could be a good way to manage 1 time bonus for both sides.

Giving free unit upon capture of an island is somewhat strange, that’s why I focus on IPC bonus and malus. They will be use in the next purchase and the unit will be mobilize 2 turns after the conquest.

The bonus and malus could be as simple as that:
when winning a “0” territory the loosing side gives 2 IPCs immediately to the conqueror.
That’s it.

I agree. the part of my idea with giving the unit placement bonus was simply that they could place, not receive units.

Example: US captures Okinawa. during their placement phase of that turn, if they purchased a transportable land unit during their purchase phase they could place it there during their one time bonus. This would reflect the fact that enlistment went up due to the propaganda of capturing a “home” island of the Japanese empire.

That is a better idea. That could change a bit the flow of unit in the Pacific since it requires a long logistic chain.
But adding 1 already bought Inf to a just conquered territory as a one time “Prestige” effect.
Worth the try from a game point of view even, if it is not physically and geographically accurate or plausible.

I agree with this kind of way of seeing it. PTO is very large and have many SZ between USA and Japan:

The one way it’s justified is that we assume there is “unseen” logistics going on in the oceans of the game board not represented by an actual unit (think convoy zones). If we assume that an actual plastic transport and it’s cargo are the representation of a “concentrated” convoy we can imagine that our nation’s “un-seen” convoys are moving small unrepresented amounts to the PTO front.

That’s why I suggested that it could only be 1 Inf “prestige” bonus.
The smallest one and the less costlier 3 IPCs.

Wish you retrieve  better health soon!
:-)