Very insightful and well thought out!
It is pretty clear to me that the +1 for airbases on movement doesn’t do a lot. It breaks with the general idea in the old games that fighters moved 4 spaces. 2 out and 2 to return where you landed. Or the same thing with Strat Bs, 3 out and 3 back. When you give air an odd number of movement points it creates weird anomalies.
I noticed this in a tripleA game we made called Great War, where the fighter unit (a biplane in that case) had a movement of only 3, but still had to land in controlled territory. So 2 to attack, but only 1 back. Or 1 to attack and then 2 on non combat. You could never attack and land in the same territory, unless it was already adjacentry with these nerfed fighters. It was kind of novel, but it also illustrated to me the importance of the 2 out 2 back move for fighters in A&A games, returning to land where you took off from.
What if airbases provided a movement bonus of 2, but it was split over combat and non combat +1 in each? And the second bonus to movement could only be applied if unit is returning to the base on non combat.
Or you could seperate out the concept and make it more general. Any airbase gives a +1 movement bonus to aircraft that are landing there on non com.
By focusing on aircraft that are “returning” separately from air that are “taking off” you could prevent it from being too overpowered.
The logic is that the airbase expects to receive the air units, and is prepared for them to return. Knowing when they are expected to come back, and coordinating things from the base HQ.
Whatever way you want to construe it. Then you could say that all airstrip islands get this feature of bonus +1 for “returning” air.
Oh and I like that idea that just came in!
+1 for the island. +1 for the sz!The draw of a potential 2 ipcs is much greater than 1 ipc alone. And that would give players a reason to contest sea zones by themselves, which is good for naval gameplay.
You probably get the right distinction.
Any Air Base on an Island (PTO or ETO) gives +1 CM move to outbound planes and +1 NCM to inbound planes.
This gives a better mobility to such planes and will not isolate them on the Island.
Formulate with CM bonus and NCM bonus, Islands’ Air Base will act like Carrier in a SZ.
Would you go as far as allowing it to Strategic Bomber also?
Because, that way, Air Bases on Hawaii or Aleutian Islands would provide the range bonus to allow SBR on San Francisco.
And I find this a pretty cool Tactical incentive.
Interesting. One approach which might also work, and which has been suggested before, is to only award the bonus if the territory/zone is occupied.
The idea is that while the troops are stationed on the island they create a kind of economy for the otherwise valueless territory. This bonus is not collected if the island is unoccupied (even if still under your possession). When the troops leave the mini economy of the island goes with them. This gives an incentive to keep 1 unit on an island, whether an inf unit or a fighter.
A similar concept if applied to the surrounding sz, you could say that the ship is guarding trade.
I prefer bonuses to penalties. The game is more fun with one added in I think, rather than taken away. But I can see the merits of adapting the convoy system. I just think the ability to destroy ipcs, is more game breaking than helpful.
Heavy Bombers in the old games and convoy raids against Italy in G40, along with the new SBR concept of purchase to repair rather than losing ipcs directly.
The ability to affect the enemies purse directly is very game driving. If a play has 30 ipcs, and you have some way to take that 30ipcs down to 24ipcs before the enemy player even moves, then that is a move that players will always want to exploit. It’s the danger of destroyed or stolen ipcs, that you can go through all this effort on combat, only to lose money.
French raid against Germans taking S. France is another example.
I think the move to repair SBR rather than destroy ipcs directly was a positive move. Convoy raids seem to move in the opposite direction, by giving players a way to destroy the enemies ipcs again.
It would be nice to come up with different convoy-like ideas or sz with ipc bonuses. I’m definitely on board, and happy to kick around ideas in that direction.
Convoy Raid are not entirely in the opposite direction because this Phase is coming at the end of Power’s turn.
This means that you or your allies can attack and destroy the warships in the just conquered Islands SZ.
So, one way you bring a few more IPCs on the table (via NO), but on the other hands you need to get ride of the enemy’s warships to not loose IPCs.
If you want more positive incentive, then I suggest to rise to +2 Bonus to the occupied Island.
The NO can be formulated as requiring that at least 1 ground unit occupied the Island to get+2 IPCs bonus.
And a negative penalty, against the ex-owner, for occupying the SZ, as above: -1 IPC for any surface warship or -2 IPCs for any submarine.
The gains and the loss will be according to Global system rule.
Actually, in Global, there is no such bonus for having warships in a given SZ.
But there is Convoy Raiding Rule which fit the situation.
I would definitely go so far.
:-D
As that would at least give Japan some sort of option against North America, which is currently lacking I think.
Anything to make the islands more valuable strategically would be helpful. The bonus should apply to all aircraft equally.
You could attach this ability to the existing AB unit, and to “airstrip” zero ipc islands if desired. In this case the advantage of the airbase on a zero-zero - ipc island would just be the scramble I suppose? Would the scramble ability alone make ABs worth it? Perhaps. I know many players who buy ABs specifically to gain that advantage to help protect ships.
Perhaps a cost reducation of the AB unit, to keep it relevant might be in order, if applying a movement advantage to the islands by themselves? Or might the AB provide additional movement on top of the island bonus? It would seem a shame to make the unit totally reduntant, but I’d still put an island hopping campaign in the Pacific or Med, as a chief priority. I’d be willing to HR mod the air base unit cost or abilities, if I thought it was necessary to support or more general ideas regarding the islands.
The need to ground occupied even his own Island to get the +2 IPCs bonus, will probably give an important incentive to, at least, invest a transport to put an Infantry on it and gaining the IPCs for the actual turn and subsequent ones.
There will be much more ships travel in the Pacific.
I would definitely go so far.
:-DAs that would at least give Japan some sort of option against North America, which is currently lacking I think.
Anything to make the islands more valuable strategically would be helpful. The bonus should apply to all aircraft equally.
You could attach this ability to the existing AB unit, and to “airstrip” zero ipc islands if desired. In this case the advantage of the airbase on a zero-zero - ipc island would just be the scramble I suppose? Would the scramble ability alone make ABs worth it? Perhaps. I know many players who buy ABs specifically to gain that advantage to help protect ships.
Perhaps a cost reducation of the AB unit, to keep it relevant might be in order, if applying a movement advantage to the islands by themselves? Or might the AB provide additional movement on top of the island bonus? It would seem a shame to make the unit totally reduntant, but I’d still put an island hopping campaign in the Pacific or Med, as a chief priority. I’d be willing to HR mod the air base unit cost or abilities, if I thought it was necessary to support or more general ideas regarding the islands.
For my part, I advocate Air Strip (AS?) to provide scramble (up to 3 Fgs or TcBs) and nothing else.
While the Air Base give this +1CM & +1NCM additional movement allowance (and the scramble, of course).
I just see the AB bonus move is gained by more equipment and adapted planes, such as drop-tanks, radio, radar positioning, etc.
Maybe you can built the AB from an AS for 6 IPCs only. Like paying for making an AB operational?
That does sound cool, and I like the idea of upgrading at a reduced cost from AS (island) to AB for the movement bonus.
With this concept in play, and some sort of NO that grants an additional 1 ipc or 2 per island/sz based on occupation, then I think we’d have enough to jumpstart a legit island hop.
If unoccupied the island remains worthless, if occupied, then certain bonuses acrue.
Especially if a similar dynamic was adopted on both sides of the board, so that this concept could be universal. Crete or Cyprus or Malta, Sicily and Sardinia, Ceylon as well as the Pac. Just put the same ideas into effect all around, and see how the balance goes.
I’m eager to try something like this on the board to see how it holds up :-D
That does sound cool, and I like the idea of upgrading at a reduced cost from AS (island) to AB for the movement bonus.
With this concept in play, and some sort of NO that grants an additional 1 ipc or 2 per island/sz based on occupation, then I think we’d have enough to jumpstart a legit island hop.
If unoccupied the island remains worthless, if occupied, then certain bonuses acrue.
Especially if a similar dynamic was adopted on both sides of the board, so that this concept could be universal. Crete or Cyprus or Malta, Sicily and Sardinia, Ceylon as well as the Pac. Just put the same ideas into effect all around, and see how the balance goes.
I’m eager to try something like this on the board to see how it holds up :-D
Probably Italy will crave for these Islands Bonus in his perimeter: 5 x 2 IPCs = 10 IPCs upward!
And, in this case if ever playing with a kind of Convoy Disruption, only Sicily and Sardinia can be put to -2 to -4 IPCs, while UK can be deprived of 3 to 6 additional IPCs via Convoy Disruption for Crete or Cyprus or Malta.
Keep up us posted when you will play such a game.
That also means that Iceland and Greenland can also be activated by ground units (or simply any units?) to provide such a bonus.
Maybe this can help Allies, instead of a bid.
Right on guys!
Hadn’t even thought of iceland and greenland:) So 1ipc for an island an 1 for the sz. Island has to be controlled with unit presence to get the sz bonus. Enemy sub disallows sz bonus. So if you have destroyer must attack sub or lose bonus.
I think it might take to many dudes if you have to garrison them all. Maybe just garrison non original territories?
In my test games when US conquered carolines or liberated wake or midway, Anzac was able to fly in fighters to support the fleet. I think the airstrip/air base idea could be pretty key.
Right on guys!
Hadn’t even thought of iceland and greenland:) So 1ipc for an island an 1 for the sz. Island has to be controlled with unit presence to get the sz bonus. Enemy sub disallows sz bonus. So if you have destroyer must attack sub or lose bonus.
I think it might take to many dudes if you have to garrison them all. Maybe just garrison non original territories?
In my test games when US conquered carolines or liberated wake or midway, **Anzac was able to fly in fighters to support the fleet. I think the airstrip/air base idea could be pretty key.**This is cool. :-)
Giving 1 IPC for Island control and 1 IPC for having 1 warship in SZ, is a costly requirement.
At least, it cost 9 IPCs (Inf+Sub) to get the 2 IPCs.
My suggestion required only 3 IPCs (1 Inf) for the Island Territory to get the 2 IPCs.
And, even if the SZ is surrounded by enemy’s units, as long as the territory is owned, there is no IPC lost.
For an original Island owned, it must be conquered (so the owner lose the 2 IPCs NO) and whether there is a warship or a Sub in the surrounding SZ, the ex-owner lose also an additional 1 IPC or 2 IPCs during Convoy Disruption Phase.
If the original Island is still in enemy’s hand but the SZ has been cleaned, then the original owner suffer no penalty while the conquerer still keep his 2 IPCs NO.
If the original Island return in owner’s hand, then it get 2 IPCs, and even if the enemy’s succeed to put warships in the SZ, the owner doesn’t suffer any penalty. As long as he keeps his Island.
In addition, if enemy wants to put a -1 or -2 IPCs Convoy Disruption penalty, he must at least invest 9 IPCs: 1 Inf + 1 Sub.
An extensive Convoy Disruption strategy would imply leaving many Subs or warships dispersed in the Pacific Ocean, not necessarily a good defensive formation.
I will agree that 1 ground or 1 air unit (including operational Naval Base and Air Base) is satisfying the basic requirement to get the 2 IPCs bonus.
After all, it is a high cost to garrison an Island with 1 Plane.
And in some cases, after a battle, it is probable that only planes survived and that would be complicated to not give the bonus in such situation.
Even though, NB and AB will be interesting targets because they would not required to garrison additional unit on the Island group.
:cry: KISS :cry:
@SS:
:cry: KISS :cry:
Said otherwise, to lose IPCs in Convoy Disruption Phase, the enemy need to capture one of your originaly held valueless Islands AND put in the surrounding SZ a single submarine (-2 IPCs) or warship (-1 IPC).
Those penalties cannot be cumulative, even if there is more units in SZ, it is either -2 IPCs or -1 IPC, no more no less.
For instance, once Guam taken by Japan and having as many IJN Subs as you want in the surrounding SZ of Guam, it will cost 2 IPCs to US until all IJN Subs move elsewhere or are sunk by Allies.
A different NO, simpler but probably costlier to original owners, based on my suggestion made earlier:
All valueless Island groups controled by at least one stationed unit (Ground, Air, operational Air Base or Naval Base) gives 2 IPCs.
But cost 1 IPC to any original ex-owner, this penalty applied during Convoy Disruption Phase of this ex-owner.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34839.msg1355089#msg1355089
