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

@CWO:

@toblerone77:

I think a good solution would be assigning each island a “prestige” or “propaganda” value. Such as a newly captured island in the PTO awards the conquering nation a set amount of unit placement for capturing it. Example the US captures Okinawa. The US during it’s placement phase may place “x” amount of units there for that turn. For it’s propaganda value a die roll is also awarded 1D6 is rolled for each island captured and IPC are rewarded to reflect a warbonds drive during the collect income phase. Both of these bonuses would be a one time deal. Example:Okinawa is recaptured by the Japanese they will recieve the same bonus as the US did.

By that same “prestige / propaganda” rationale, however, it could be argued that a nation which loses an island would suffer an IPC penalty (the country would earn fewer IPCs than its territorial holdings add up to) to reflect a drop in industrial output on the home front due to worker morale being adversely affected by the bad news.  If good news gives the affected player a bonus, then bad news should cost the affected player a penalty. The system can’t simply work in one direction.

You’re right again here too. We tried earlier in the thread to limit a bonus in the PTO once per capture recapture.

My personal disagreement with IPC values is the actual root concept of what IPCs and territory values actually represent. My take is that the concept of IPCs representing “x-million production hours” was artistic license rather than a hard fact. Essentially is was just artwork for the money in the game.

Secondly, if we take a nations entire IPC value as representative of it’s production capability a territory worth 1 IPC contributes to the economy yet cannot have an industrial complex due to its value? That by that particular logic brings into question as to why then can a territroy worth 3 IPCs produce units worth more than three IPCs?  Also why would we combine all territory values under these factors?

I think Global has done the best job of making this make more sense with major and minor ICs. I do howere think it leave some to be desired.

@oztea:

So my point is, the value you are getting from the enemy NOT having islands to land on is that your forces in the rear areas can steam at full speed, and fuel doesn’t need to be wasted escorting them with convoys. Now in the game, the limits of air units movements represents this to a degree. But only for units we can actually touch. In reality, there are all sorts of things happening in the game that aren’t being represented with plastic pieces. Supplies are moving to your fleets at sea, while raw materials are moving back to your factories from far flung possessions. So the idea of awarding IPCs for control of worthless islands is not far fetched. We already have this happen with the Japanese NO for control of Guam, Midway, Wake, Gilberts and Solomons.

Absolutely agree here!

@oztea:

What I had proposed ages ago went something like this:

Japan (replaces Guam, etc. bonus)
1. Collect 5 IPCs per turn if Japan controls any 8 Pacific islands that have no IPC value.
Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.
United States
1. Collect 5 IPCs per turn if the United States controls any 8 Pacific islands that have no IPC value.
Theme: Islands considered to be vital strategic forward bases.

The problem with this NO idea is, under certain circumstances, when you lose just one island, you would lose 5 IPCs. Also, as either country, you would have to take, what, 4 islands before you get any income at all?

A simpler, more accurate, and more incremental income system is to just put 1 IPC on each island. Then if you take one, your income goes up just one, and so forth. And it’s all right there on the map to see.

@Baron:

Why not just using this mechanics: paying 2 IPCs from the looser to the winner, instead?

I personally don’t care for that idea, the main reason is it is an exception to all the rest of the rules of taking territories. In order for this game to be learnable and enjoyable, the rules should be consistent with as few exceptions as possible.

The second reason is that it goes against the general reasoning that Oztea brought up. The islands should be worth something because of morale and shipping reasons.

1. Morale - if an island is lost on Japan’s perimeter, the citizens would feel bad about it EVERY turn the island was in enemy hands. Not just the first turn.
2. Shipping - islands taken from your defensive perimeter would result in enemy forward bases and thus better recon for directing submarine attacks, etc.  This would continue to damage your economy EVERY turn, not just the first.

@Der:

The second reason is that it goes against the general reasoning that Oztea brought up. The islands should be worth something because of morale and shipping reasons.

The concept of having islands be worth IPCs because of shipping efficiencies is pretty solid, as I mentioned in an earlier post, but I’m dubious about the whole “morale value = IPCs” concept for a couple of reasons.  First: the strategic bombing campaigns against Britain, Germany and Japan showed that populations in wartime can “keep calm and carry on” to a remarkable degree even when their own homes and family members are being blown to bits by enemy bombers, and that wartime industries can keep functioning as a result.  If wartime populations remained resilient (and industrially productive) in the face of having their towns demolished and/or incinerated, I doubt that their productivity would have been seriously dented just from reading bad news in the papers.  Second: there’s no guarantee that wartime citizens would even have learned that a particular island territory had been lost to the enemy – especially in dictatorships like Germany and Japan, where the media was tightly controlled.  Japan in particular was notorious for suppressing bad news; as an example, survivors of the sinking of the Yamato were put into detention when they returned to Japan to prevent them from talking.  Even in the US and Britain, which were democratic states with a free press, the government sometimes filtered bad news to some degree: delaying its release, providing few details on security grounds, putting a positive spin on events and so forth.  Wartime governments of all stripes are always happy to play up their successes (to the point sometimes of exaggerating or inventing them, such as when Japan portrayed Midway as a great victory for the IJN), but they’re understandably reluctant to discuss their failures.

Good reasoning on the morale subject CWO Marc. But even if the morale issue were totally thrown out, there is still the economic issue of sea lanes. Owning more islands would result in a greater network of protection and less shipping losses, while losing islands would bring the enemy closer, resulting in more shipping losses.

@Der:

Good reasoning on the morale subject CWO Marc. But even if the morale issue were totally thrown out, there is still the economic issue of sea lanes. Owning more islands would result in a greater network of protection and less shipping losses, while losing islands would bring the enemy closer, resulting in more shipping losses.Â

Yes, as I mentioned in my posts #28 and #35, I agree that the economic/logistical aspects of sea lane control provide a reasonable justification for assigning IPC values to the sea zones that surround islands.

Well you guys all know my tendency to notch up the “wild west” factor. In almost every house game me and my brother play we assign any 0 value territory at least 1 IPC. That’s just me/us I guess.

@Baron:

Ok for the principle. But could you go in the details for Global?

Well now we’re starting to talk apples and oranges, because I don’t usually play global - if I do it’s as a guest at someone else’s place. Here at home I have a custom AA 50th type map and we don’t have any NOs when we play. Admittedly it would be a lot easier for me to implement this rule on my map than for global players.

But if I did have global, I would probably drop the NOs related to the islands. Then drop or raise other territory values around the map to restore income balance.

@Der:

@Baron:

Ok for the principle. But could you go in the details for Global?

Well now we’re starting to talk apples and oranges, because I don’t usually play global - if I do it’s as a guest at someone else’s place. Here at home I have a custom AA 50th type map and we don’t have any NOs when we play. Admittedly it would be a lot easier for me to implement this rule on my map than for global players.

But if I did have global, I would probably drop the NOs related to the islands. Then drop or raise other territory values around the map to restore income balance.� Â

Basically you just have to find some factor to make them worth attacking. I haven’t seen to many in-game mechanics that make me want to spend a whole bunch of IPCs to take a worthless island. The whole propaganda/prestige idea was to grant that incentive. I’ll admit it can be unrealistic but there’s a motivation to actually attack in the PTO. The easiest way I’d say is to just give a 2/3 IPC bump to unmarked islands.

There have been games where someone takes command of the ETO and the other takes the PTO it helps somewhat.

The other “weird” option would be to have UK/US PTO and UK/US ETO as separate players.

I dunno LOL. I have a ton of different ways you could do it. I’m working on a private project right now that uses aftermarket units as well as OOB components to make a VERY HUGE variant of A&A on the G40, AA42SE, or AA50 boards. It’s in the works and I will distribute via PDF rather than on the open forum but it needs a tremendous amount of work and play-testing.

Mind you, I’m only brainstorming gents. I don’t have a map in front of me right now.

I was going to say what you are talking about in Grasshoppers NO’s posts. Why not try to make other territories ( land and sea ) besides the islands  worth 1 or more ICP’s  where you don’t need NO’s. Like US and Japan fighting over certain islands, which you mentioned and Japan and Anzac, Japan and Uk, Germany and Russia, Germany and UK, Italy and UK, US and Germany and maybe a Italy and Russia. Make it were its worth it for these countries to control certain territories and not get any 5 icp bonus for controlling a certain territories. Just a thought.

What I mean is like you said have some islands worth more or all so it would be worth fighting for these islands due to the increased value of territories. Midway 3 icp’s, Solomans island 3 icp’s for samples and then have it where certain land territories are worth more where there is back and forth fighting. Like some land territories between Germany and Russia increased values.

Its under house rules on first page at bottom under Reinstating the lost NO’s. What I meant was I was going to post there until I saw your other post in ( increasing action in PTO ). Also referring to not having any NO’s by just raising Territory values. It probably will be to unbalanced to work.

I for one hate the notion of zero IPC territories altogether. Regardless of where they are on the map.

I would be in favor of doubling the value of all territories, making 0 IPC tts worth 1

Right now most nations income is much inferior to their production capabilities, ICs are sometimes a rare purchase

Doubling the IPC values of all territories would swap this, nations would have insufficient factories to start the game, and would likely purchase additional ICs and/or upgrade the ones they star with
You would obviously have much more units on the board, but this I believe would lead to less board space being ignored for large portions of the game
Battles would also average out better with regards to dice rolling

Just giving a possible solution and arguments for it :)
It may be a terrible one, but it’s more feasible for F2F games with marking all over the map