Mariana Islands: Winning Strategy, the Zero IPC Island Crush

@CWO:

Perhaps the solution that would stick closest to the OOB rules without getting into too many complications would be to simply give each IPC-less Pacific island territory either a naval base marker, or an air base marker, or both (depending on the role played in WWII by each island group).  This would:

• Give players an incentive to fight for their possession.

• Reflect the fact that many of these islands in WWII were indeed valuable as naval bases or air bases (or both).

• Reflect the fact that these islands actually produced little or nothing from an economic point of view.

• Avoid the problem of house-rule IPCs being generated on these Pacific islands and spent on the war in Europe.

• Require no supplemental or variant rules governing how units are used.

I like your idea because it allows to play-test with Triple A if any tactical incentive via either Air Base to all Islands or Naval Base to all, or both to all, or a combination of the three options amongst the Island groups, could be interesting somehow and enough to make a more Island Hopping game in Pacific Theatre of Operation.

United States

Hawaiian Islands (1 IPC): 2 infantry, 2 fighters, air base, naval base
Midway: air base
Wake Island: air base
Guam: air base
Philippines (2 IPCs): 2 infantry, 1 fighter, air base, naval base

Japan

Japan: air base, naval base, major industrial complex
Iwo Jima (1 IPC): 1 infantry
Okinawa (1 IPC): 1 infantry, 1 fighter

Formosa (1 IPC) : 1 fighter
Palau Island: 1 infantry
Caroline Islands: 2 infantry, 1 AAA, air base, naval base

• See more at: http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/setup-chart-for-axis-allies-pacific-1940-second-edition/#sthash.vuOfgURe.dpuf

Japan 5 valueless oceanic territories: Hainan, Palau, Marianas, Caroline, Marshall. 3 empty, 1 Inf, 1 both
USA 6 valueless oceanic territories: Guam, Wake, Midway, Johnston, Line, Aleutian. 3 empty, 3 Air Base
Anzac 3 valueless oceanic territories: New Britain, Solomon and “New Guinea”. 3 empty
UK Pacific 4 valueless oceanic territories: Ceylon, Gilbert, Fiji, Samoa. 4 empty
French 1 valueless  oceanic territory: New Hebrides. (Can be activated by a friendly Allied Power unit.) 1 empty
Dutch 1 valueless oceanic territory: “Dutch New Guinea”. (Must be activated by a Pacific Allied Power.) 1 empty

Sum: 20 IPC-less territories
15 empty Island territories.
1 territory have 1 Infantry only.
3 US Islands already have Air Base.
1 IJN Islands already have both Air Base and Naval Base.

Iwo Jima and Okinawa should also receive Air Base to follow more precisely history.
Probably Okinawa should get a Naval Base but Iwo Jima was such a small and barren island, it shouldn’t receive any additional Naval Base, unless it is payed for.

And what about Formosa?
The opening set-up of 1 Fighter let us think that an Air Base should be appropriate but a Naval Base?

These three 1 IPC territory should receive a special treatment also in this context.
Otherwise, being ordinary will make them less interesting and tossed aside.
Do you think Okinawa could have support a Naval Base during WWII?

In another part, Espiritu Santo in New Hebrides was an important US Naval Base.
Is there something to do with it by putting an NB on it?
This Island is already too near Queensland NB and AB or New Zealand Naval Base to have any value.

Just looking at the US, does the three Air Bases of Guam, Wake and Midway are a sufficient prize for Japan to take?
I’m not quite sure for Wake and Midway.
It is also because taking these islands should part of a bigger strategy.
Is there any interesting one when moving toward Hawaii or San Francisco?

I think that Air Base should be on every Pacific Island including New Guinea and Dutch New Guinea.
But, Naval Base should be put on the start up board more scarcely.

@Black_Elk:

I think this will only work, without totally breaking the set up, if the bases are added after the DoW. Just thinking about it purely from a gameplay interest perspective. Starting with Japan and taking each territory 1 at a time…

Hainan with a naval base would make it a much more interesting territory. As Japan would have more reach out of sz 36.

Formosa with an air base would be potent, because it would give that fighter extra reach and would allow a scramble into sz20.

Okinawa would be doubly potent with a naval base, as this would allow Japan to move that fleet in sz 19 an extra space. Same deal as Formosa with the AB, since the fighter could move farther and allows a scramble into sz 19.

Iwo with just an airbase, might encourage Japan to park a few aircraft there to launch on islands like Wake or Midway.

Mariana Islands, Palau, and Marshall Islands present more of a problem. Without a naval base they don’t seem to be worth going out of the way. With naval bases, they become a bit more interesting, as they could allow strafes (and then retreat to a friendly sz to repair carriers or battleships.) I’d say they are pretty strong candidates for the NB. Though would this be historical? I suppose since players are already allowed to purchase such bases if they want, this wouldn’t break too much with the games internal historical logic. For example, the game doesn’t require there to be a natural harbor necessarily, for you to purchase a naval base, so it seems that in A&A any territory meets the criteria. Even an island like Iwo. Here I think in order to make Marianas, Palau, and Marshalls significant enough to draw action NBs, would be better than ABs.

Now if this was a pure set up change, the balance would tilt way too far in Japans favor, which is why I think it would have to come into effect the DoW. Similar to the way USA is allowed to upgrade their factories to majors automatically, for free. Even after DoW the advantage would be to Japan, since they have more TUV in the area to exploit the new bases. So this would definitely need to be counterbalanced by more NBs for the Allied territories.

Question:Does it bug anyone else that Sicily is never invaded?

Valueless islands like Malta or Sicily, might also benefit from some kind of auto upgrade.
I also like that this sort of change is very easy to implement in tripleA for testing. You can do it on the fly via the edit mode.

Before expanding to Europe maps, I think it is needed to find the appropriate incentive in PTO.

I agree I think this will only work, without totally breaking the set up, if the bases are added after the DoW.
I would add that all bases become operational at the beginning of the next round after DoW, to minimize the effect on known strategy.

Putting everything in perspective, +1 Move Bonus from Naval Base create a smaller Pacific Ocean and offer occasion to go faster against the main targets.
This will make for less Island Hopping than with actual set-up combined to only Air Base-like bonus for Islands.
It is not possible to conquer land by air only.
So planes cannot conquer faster than transports are moving Infantry and other ground units.

However, if I put the analogy forward about Islands as unmovable aircraft carriers.
There should be one more special ability bonus of Pacific Islands.

Since, any aircraft carrier gives the possibility to land planes in a once embattled but now controlled SZ.
Why don’t try this?
A maximum of 2 planes are allowed to land on a just conquered Island by, at least, 1 ground unit.
To be eligible, the planes must have at least 1 move left while above the island.
So this ability will not give any extra range.
(This extra move point required can be understand as the “time” to built or repair the Airfield, once the territory is captured).

Example 1, this will allow such a direct move as 2 IJN Fighters in Marshall Islands to support an amphibious assault on any US unit in Wake Island.
It takes 3 move point to be above Wake and a last one to land after winning the combat.
However, if it is not conquered any of the 2 surviving planes must land on any carrier in the nearby SZ or crash in the ocean.
(But this will not happen because any player will prefer to sacrifice planes while keeping up the attack inland or take planes as casualty while keeping 1 last standing ground unit.)

Example 2, let’s suppose Johnston, Wake and Midway were captured and on each islands there is 2 IJN Fighters to support the next amphibious assault on Hawaii.
Since there is a maximum of 2 planes (only 2 IJN Fighters can take off to attack Hawaii and able to land on it after victory), unless there is some room available on any Carrier.

Combined with this other points (from above), islands will work as a Carrier:
Any number of plane landed on a Pacific Island can protect the nearby SZ.
Islands’ Planes could choose to either protect the ground or the SZ (which ones must be stated during Combat Move) while Carriers’ planes could only defend the SZ.
Moving from the island through the SZ still cost 1 move.

Pacific Air Base provides +1 Bonus Move (as OOB) and up to three planes can scramble to prevent an amphibious assault or an attack against a friendly fleet to any adjacent SZ to the island’s SZ on which is the Air Base.

That way, in example 2, if an IJN fleet was stationed in Hawaii SZ and is under attack, up to 6 planes (3 coming from Wake AB and 3 coming from Midway AB) can scramble in the Hawai SZ to provide Air Cover against whatever is attacking the IJN fleet (except Subs, if there is no IJN DD present).

Finally, the most controversial aspect:
For any Pacific Islands Air Base, up to 3 Fighters or Tactical Bombers are considered in the SZ, like if they were on a Carrier, for movement allowance.
Said otherwise, Pacific AirBase on Island provides up to three Fgs or TcBs +1 outbound and +1 inbound to the same unit taking off and coming back to the same island.
In other situation, it provides only +1 outbound move.

In example 2, up to 3 IJN Fighters from Wake and up to 3 IJN Fighters from Midway can launch an assault on Hawaiian island and come back to their Air Base.
1 Movement to reach SZ 26 (Hawaiian SZ), 1 move to enter Hawaiian Islands, 1 move to return in SZ 26 and 1 move to come back on the Air Base via reaching SZ 25 or 31.

@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.

Here is when I push forward this last idea the first time:
Global 1940, Airbase on PTO islands:an immobile aircraft carrier for Fgs and TcB
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32188.msg1204629#msg1204629

I’m currently playing oztea’s 41 set up with the 1 ipc islands. As to what you guys were just talking about it already starts out with extra NBs and ABs. Extra dudes too. So it’s kinda like a double wammy. I usually play against myself and find it to be pretty even compared to 40.

Anyway their was a lot more action in the pacific. I’m more of a opportunistic player then a set strategy guy but generally always end up in the DEI trying to wack india with the US usually in queensland.This time japan took the aleutians first turn and forced the US north while having  singapore and carolines fleets mop up the big money islands. They then left the singapore fleet in india while carolines took new guinea. After that their was a large fleet action at wake island after japan took it in the 3rd turn.

Well not to ramble too much but the US had a hard time getting going. Japan got huge and by the 4th turn halved the objective. The highest they got to was 11 after they took midway. They got india but couldn’t hold java and the US finally got midway and wake back. Looks like the axis are going to win. Russia is bout to fall and it’s too little too late in the pacific where US is gaining momentum.

It seemed to favor japan more than anybody although that might be due to the setup. Hard to say after one game. I think more NBs, ABs and ipc’s should definitely stir things up:). Maybe even a minor allied bid in the pacific to make things a little different.

Anyway it was fun :) P

@Baron:

I think that Air Base should be on every Pacific Island including New Guinea and Dutch New Guinea.
But, Naval Base should be put on the start up board more scarcely.

This is an interesting point you raise because the requirements for building an airbase in the Pacific in WWII were much less demanding than the requirements for establishing a naval base.  An airbase, at its most basic, is simply a runway and some fuel storage facilities; all you really need, in a pinch, is about a mile of straight-line, reasonably flat land area.  The Seabees proved very adept at building runways in the Pacific, rapidly and efficiently, even when starting from scratch with solid jungle (and often while fighting off Japanese counterattacks in the process).  Through the use of heavy construction equipment like bulldozers and steam shovels (which the Americans were accustomed to using, since they were a routine feature of civil engineering projects back home in the States), and with such time-savers as prefabricated metal grid sections that could be assembled to form runway surfaces on muddy terrain, the Seabees could put a basic airfield into operation in just a few days on islands newly captured from the Japanese.

Naval bases are much more finicky from a topographical point of view.  Ideally, you need a reasonably deep anchorage that’s close to an easily accessible shoreline and that’s protected by natural breakwaters.  Not all islands (even large ones) offer that combination of features.  Some Pacific coral atolls proved to be ideal.

In my proposal from a few days ago to put airbases and/or naval bases (unmodified by any house rules) on Pacific islands, I was only referring to the ones that had no IPCs at all, since the idea was to compensate for their complete lack of IPC value.  I imagine, however, that the concept could be extended to other islands too if that was considered useful.  Iwo Jima, for example, would be an island that would validly support an airbase (it was used by the US as an emergency landing strip for damaged B-29s returning from Japan), but not a naval base (I think Iwo Jima didn’t have any decent anchorages).

If you like, later today or tomorrow (my agenda is kind of full today) I could have a quick look at the Pacific territories on the map and give a rough estimate of which ones had significant naval bases and which ones didn’t.  All of them probably had airbases of one sort or another.

Cwo, what if you looked at when in the war there was air and naval bases. Like what islands had them at start of war and then find out what year they were built after the war started if possible histrory wise and then add them to game during certain turns?

@SS:

Cwo, what if you looked at when in the war there was air and naval bases. Like what islands had them at start of war and then find out what year they were built after the war started if possible histrory wise and then add them to game during certain turns?

Tonight I’ll check a couple of reference books that I have at home to see what I can find.  One of them is a chronological atlas of WWII at sea, and I think it has map symbols that identify naval and air bases (or at least just the naval bases).  I’ll report back on Thursday with the results.

@CWO:

@Baron:

I think that Air Base should be on every Pacific Island including New Guinea and Dutch New Guinea.
But, Naval Base should be put on the start up board more scarcely.

This is an interesting point you raise because the requirements for building an airbase in the Pacific in WWII were much less demanding than the requirements for establishing a naval base.  An airbase, at its most basic, is simply a runway and some fuel storage facilities; all you really need, in a pinch, is about a mile of straight-line, reasonably flat land area.  The Seabees proved very adept at building runways in the Pacific, rapidly and efficiently, even when starting from scratch with solid jungle (and often while fighting off Japanese counterattacks in the process).  Through the use of heavy construction equipment like bulldozers and steam shovels (which the Americans were accustomed to using, since they were a routine feature of civil engineering projects back home in the States), and with such time-savers as prefabricated metal grid sections that could be assembled to form runway surfaces on muddy terrain, the Seabees could put a basic airfield into operation in just a few days on islands newly captured from the Japanese.

Naval bases are much more finicky from a topographical point of view.  Ideally, you need a reasonably deep anchorage that’s close to an easily accessible shoreline and that’s protected by natural breakwaters.  Not all islands (even large ones) offer that combination of features.  Some Pacific coral atolls proved to be ideal.

In my proposal from a few days ago to put airbases and/or naval bases (unmodified by any house rules) on Pacific islands, I was only referring to the ones that had no IPCs at all, since the idea was to compensate for their complete lack of IPC value.  I imagine, however, that the concept could be extended to other islands too if that was considered useful.  Iwo Jima, for example, would be an island that would validly support an airbase (it was used by the US as an emergency landing strip for damaged B-29s returning from Japan), but not a naval base (I think Iwo Jima didn’t have any decent anchorages).

If you like, later today or tomorrow (my agenda is kind of full today) I could have a quick look at the Pacific territories on the map and give a rough estimate of which ones had significant naval bases and which ones didn’t.  All of them probably had airbases of one sort or another.

I will be very please. It is a generous offer. I’m sure I gonna read it and details with excitement.
Thanks.

I like this expression: “Seabees”.

the Seabees could put a basic airfield into operation in just a few days on islands newly captured from the Japanese.
This show how it can be conceivable that a just conquered territory could receive 1 or 2 planes during NCM landing phase if someone decides to HR this.
At least, this could work for Islands since this doesn’t require to provide air cover to a wide land territory.

Then, on the next round, it becomes possible to built an Air Base.

@Black_Elk:

@Baron:

Putting everything in perspective, +1 Move Bonus from Naval Base create a smaller Pacific Ocean and offer occasion to go faster against the main targets.
This will make for less Island Hopping than with actual set-up combined to only Air Base-like bonus for Islands.

It is already possible to cross the Pacific in 2 moves/rounds along the northern route. Along the southern route in 3. We can’t change this basic fact of the map, unless you want to start removing Naval Bases from places like Japan, W. USA, and Hawaii. TRUE.

Adding additional naval bases on worthless islands would not allow players to cross the ocean any faster than they already can, along the normal routes to the major targets. All adding additional Naval Bases would do, is to make it more worthwhile to go out of your way (not along one of the normal routes) since you would be less likely to strand your fleet. I think it would encourage more island hopping, because the bonus to movement out of new sea zone locations would put you on more/different target territories.
You convinced me on this specific point.

Say for example, that there was a Naval Base on a place like Johnston Island. Rather than going from sz 10 to Hawaii, the US player might drop down to Johnston instead. From this position they would still be on target for Iwo and Marianas, but also to Palau and Dutch New Guinea, as well as Queensland. Instead of 1 possible route (through Hawaii) now you have two routes. No one ever wants to move from sz 10 to Johnston island OOB, because you would then be trapped the following round with no movement bonus, stuck at a range of 2. The same thing could be considered from the reverse direction at a place like Marianas. OOB Japan has little incentive to put a fleet here, because once they do, they are trapped the following round. So what players usually do, is try to go from Naval base to Naval base to maximize the range on the following round. This is why there are specific routes along which fleets are always moving OOB with little or no deviation. Without the extra Naval Bases, and with no actual money at stake, I think it would be irregular to see players doing a whole lot of island hopping. Wake is like this OOB, often its airbase is just ignored by both sides.

I think its worth remembering that the game in no way restricts where you can purchase and drop a Naval Base (beyond the requirement that it border a sea zone.) So even if the island was in no way suitable, for example with no natural harbor or sheer cliffs dropping straight into the sea, right now the game doesn’t prohibit it at all. Agree.

I suppose we could try to do one better than OOB, by including starting naval bases in all suitable locations. And then any locations that aren’t suitable or with no historical analog, then those are islands where you have to actually buy a Naval Base. The logic here would be that the huge cost, is associated with creating artificial harbors.

Again though, I think the addition of NBs would do more to draw fleets and encourage island conquests than air bases. Even if air bases make much more sense from a historical and geographical point of view. I think the problem is, what to do with an airbase once you have it, if the island is totally out of the way and not in a position to see much scramble action? I guess bomber launching is always an option, but then most sz are already covered out of places like Philippines, Hawaii, or Queensland, so would players go out of there way to park bombers in other spots? Spots they’d have to conquer anyway? I still think the simplest way to change the dynamic is to up the IPC value of the islands, though this discussion of bases is interesting. The thing about a base, is that it has to serve some strategic role in your gameplan enough to draw you off the main routes and main targets, otherwise they are just bypassed. But IPCs are different, they are always a draw, and players will go out of position if there is money to be had from the move. The best option is probably a combination.

So, Naval Base are much more interesting to maximize mobility and gives an incentive. But it is at the cost of historical accuracy and if all or most of all Pacific Islands get a Naval Base it is almost like giving a 3 moves to all ships and makes Pacific a smaller area.

The northern route is the direct way for Japan against San Francisco via Aleutians, Alaska, Canada.
It is possible to launch Strategic Bombing Raid from Aleutians, since it is 3 spaces range via continental road.
But, there is no way, even by putting a regular Air Base on Aleutians, to reach San Francisco with Fighters or TacBs.
It is even harder from Hawaii, since it is not possible to launch SBR from it.
So, from Japan perspective, with a high number of aircrafts, there is no strategic or tactical advantage to win these islands.
Aircraft Carriers become mandatory.

For USA, Iwo Jima can be a parking lot of Fighters and TacBs wanting to make a full blown attack on the Japan SZ6, but not against Tokyo itself.
USA must rely on Carrier to provide an escort to any SBR and TacBR against AB or NB.
It can only be a small incentive to conquer Iwo Jima.

So, Islands cannot be used as a Carrier, even when it is only one SZ away.
Their main tactical function remains only to provide a safe landing territory for grounds units instead of staying vulnerable on transports, as ShadowHawk put it.

If the nearest Islands don’t work for Japan neither for USA, why bother about them?
Besides giving the IPCs incentive, I say that it should be try to play them as immobile Carrier when an Air Base is present.
Hence, giving the best advantage to rivalize with Carrier:

For any Pacific Islands Air Base, up to 3 ALL Fighters or Tactical Bombers on the Island are considered in the SZ, like if they were on a Carrier, for movement allowance.

If Aleutians can be a place to launch, at least, Fighters and TacBs to support an attack by IJN fleet against San Francisco SZ10,
then you get a strategic incentive to use these Islands.
On the reverse, letting USA put an AirBase on Aleutians will not be a good idea for Japan because US Fighters and Tactical Bombers will be in range to reach Japan SZ6.

For USA, an Air Base being used, as depicted above, on Iwo Jima can provide a way to SBR Tokyo with bombers escorted by Fighters.
And Iwo Air Base can lauch any number of TcBs and Fgs toward Tokyo.
That way, it becomes clear for IJN that Iwo should’nt be an easy target for USA.

Providing a tactical benefits for aircrafts support without using Carrier, seems to me an important incentive.

Of course IPC is universal ones but a revised Pacific Air Base should be try.

@Uncrustable:

Revised edition rulebook page 38

“When moving your air units, you may treat island groups as part of the seazone containing them”
-An optional rule for a USA national advantage

In essence, a plane on the island is considered in the seazone for movement purposes (not combat).
So an airbase would still be required for scrambling.

Just decide which islands will fall under this rule on the gameboard

Another option is to just make airbases cheaper on islands than on mainland.
Again just decide which islands would fall in this category as certain islands such as Japan shouldn’t be considered.

To play-test maybe this kind of gambit should be tried again with this modified Pacific Air Base:

Japan into Alaska on J1
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33344.msg1269156#msg1269156

@ShadowHAwk:

Giving them an airbase wont make a difference, you can still just sail right past them. Also 1 ipc is not worth the efford it takes 1 transport a full turn and requires you to protect it. Since the map is so small your transports are always at risk from bombers and fighters.

So you have to invest 10 ipcs to get 1 back. That is a losing proposition.

To make the islands worth it the map needs to become bigger so that you have to capture the islands or have your full transports hang out in the middle of the ocean. Nobody wants fully loaded transports at the end of their turn it is a huge risk ( it is paining a big target on your fleet saying please hit )

Also with a bigger map your transports will be safe from air attacks now a lone bomber can nearly cover the whole pacific map.

Or make it so cruisers can transports 1 inf. That makes cruisers a bit more usefull and helps you take the islands. They are worth taking but not worth 10ipcs.

Maybe the whole flaw on Pacific Map is that loosing units on Island-hoping is too costlier and a distraction from the main targets because their is so few IPCs reward.
But giving real IPCs reward on Islands controled makes for an unbalance game when fighting the usual way on Asia.

You guys have some good ideas. I think the ipc’s are the way to go though. IDK if I would go to big on the NBs. If it’s off the beaten path it might encourage more smaller fleets as opposed to one huge one due to your limited range. I think you just have to make the areas you want more action in worth more. Maybe 1 ipc if it’s originally owned but two if it’s your enemies? Might need one or two higher spots.

Have to be careful too much dough could throw things outta wack. I say throw some money at it and give it a try. :)

Well then just make a few important islands worth 2 icp’s and possibly have an airbase but no naval bases.

@Baron:

I like this expression: “Seabees”.

It was the nickname of the US Navy’s Construction Batallions, or CBs.  John Wayne once made a movie about them.

Well, I had a look at my sources at home last night and they weren’t as helpful as I thought.  They contain useful information, but the level of detail they provide was too inconsistent for me to put together a satisfactory answer in the amount of time I had last evening – so what I’ll do is work on this question during the weekend, when I can devote a proper amount of time to it.  I’ll use my two sources from last night as a starting point, but I’ll then supplement them by looking elsewhere.

There’s a question I’d like to ask, because the answer will be helpful to me when I’m looking at my sources in detail.  From what I read last night, compiling a list of naval and air bases will quickly start getting very complicated if I need to take into account (which I don’t have time to do) all the distinctions between major and minor naval bases, major and minor airbases (some having no more than the status of airstrips), bases for one type of plane as opposed to another type of plane, multiple versus single bases on a given island, bases situated on multiple real-world islands which in A&A are represented by just a single simplified island group, and so on and so forth.  It would not only be too much information to look up, it would also for the most part be wasted information because there’s no way (and no practical reason) to reproduce that level of detail in a potential A&A houserule – and especially in a houserule concept that hasn’t gathered much support, since several people have already said that they prefer the IPC option and/or that the base concept wouldn’t be an adequate motivator for them.  Basically, I don’t want to invest a lot of time doing research for a houserule concept that isn’t likely to go anywhere.

So my question is: would SS and Baron Munchhausen (the two people who seemed interested in pursuing the idea) be satisfied if I simply did some general research and produced a fairly simple list giving my interpretation of whether each named IPC-less island territory in the Pacific should be given an air base and/or a naval base, and if so at what rough stage of the war (pre-war, mid-war, or late-war), and if so under which side’s control?  In essence, my interpretation would hinge on whether major bases (naval or air) historically existed at such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time, and I’d disregard things like minor airstrips and minor anchorages (which, frankly, existed just about everywhere, French Frigate Shoals being an example of the latter type).

That be great with some kind of list. I don’t play G40 but have 3 39 games and they have airbases and values on some islands. But they do have more sea zones. Start at the year of 1939. I could use your list of air and naval as information for maybe some islands I have that don’t have anything of value or bases. Possibly add the bases as game goes on to.

Thankyou very much for your time and effort on this subject.

Here’s a triplea mod that awards the 1 ipc per valueless territory regardless of who attacks first. If the US remains neutral it won’t receive the bonus. If japan doesn’t attack first and remains neutral with the US they will still receive the 10 ipc bonus from US.

I like the airstrip idea Baron. Maybe place airstrips on the islands CWO deems worthy at the start. If you conquer a island with a airstrip you can land up to two, ftr or tac, on same turn. Allows a two plane scramble into the immediate sz. This would help protect the landing fleet to counter attack. You could send a dstry and a trprt for a smaller landing force and have a better chance of defending it. At least make the enemy commit more to destroy it.

I think for starters limit the scramble to immediate sz and if you need more incentive boost it to adjacent sz’s, but that may prove too powerful. I wouldn’t give any extra range to the airstrip either although on a normal build turn you could upgrade to AB for 10 ipc’s?

If the airstrips were placed at the start I don’t think it would be too hard to adapt triplea to something like that. The japanese were fortifying islands before the war albeit in treaty violation. Anyway it seems promising to me. :)P

ww2global40_2nd_edition_Island_NO_Any_Attack.xml

@CWO:

There’s a question I’d like to ask, because the answer will be helpful to me when I’m looking at my sources in detail.  From what I read last night, compiling a list of naval and air bases will quickly start getting very complicated if I need to take into account (which I don’t have time to do) all the distinctions between major and minor naval bases, major and minor airbases (some having no more than the status of airstrips), bases for one type of plane as opposed to another type of plane, multiple versus single bases on a given island, bases situated on multiple real-world islands which in A&A are represented by just a single simplified island group, and so on and so forth.  It would not only be too much information to look up, it would also for the most part be wasted information because there’s no way (and no practical reason) to reproduce that level of detail in a potential A&A houserule – and especially in a houserule concept that hasn’t gathered much support, since several people have already said that they prefer the IPC option and/or that the base concept wouldn’t be an adequate motivator for them.  Basically, I don’t want to invest a lot of time doing research for a houserule concept that isn’t likely to go anywhere.

So my question is: would SS and Baron Munchhausen (the two people who seemed interested in pursuing the idea) be satisfied if I simply did some general research and produced a fairly simple list giving my interpretation of whether each named IPC-less island territory in the Pacific should be given an air base and/or a naval base, and if so at what rough stage of the war (pre-war, mid-war, or late-war), and if so under which side’s control?  In essence, my interpretation would hinge on whether major bases (naval or air) historically existed at such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time, and I’d disregard things like minor airstrips and minor anchorages (which, frankly, existed just about everywhere, French Frigate Shoals being an example of the latter type).

Very much satisfied indeed. Even beyond my expectations. Your 4 points will be great.

• Island Name

• Types of base

• Stage of War

• Owner’s side

You reminded me that friendly planes can land on any friendly island or a friendly transport can unloaded on it all his units.
In both case, it shows that an Airstripe is not an Airbase and an seaport is not a Naval Base.

@barney:

Here’s a triplea mod that awards the 1 ipc per valueless territory regardless of who attacks first. If the US remains neutral it won’t receive the bonus. If japan doesn’t attack first and remains neutral with the US they will still receive the 10 ipc bonus from US. Thanks man for your good work, this is great.

I like the airstrip idea Baron. Maybe place airstrips on the islands CWO deems worthy at the start. If you conquer a island with a airstrip you can land up to two, ftr or tac, on same turn. Allows a two plane scramble into the immediate sz. This would help protect the landing fleet to counter attack. You could send a dstry and a trprt for a smaller landing force and have a better chance of defending it. At least make the enemy commit more to destroy it. This will allow little skirmishes over Islands without too much investment.

I think for starters limit the scramble to immediate sz and if you need more incentive boost it to adjacent sz’s, but that may prove too powerful. I agree, probably not necessary, there many other incentives than allowing scramble in 3 or 4 Sea Zones around the Island SZ, there is no similar situation in A&A.
I wouldn’t give any extra range to the airstrip either although on a normal build turn you could upgrade to AB for 10 ipc’s? No extra range for Airstrip, OK. But AirBase should get a real movement allowance. That’s why I talked about making the Island Air Base to work as an unmovable Carrier for 3 planes. The Pacific Air Base cost can be much lower (than 16 IPCs carrier’s cost) to give an incentive to buy them. But I think that the real incentive to buy them is to create tactical situations in which planes from such Air Base gives a real support when attacking a strategically positioned enemy’s fleet. Otherwise, even though you give a lower cost, the overall strategy will not require it, so the IPCs will be invested in other units.

If the airstrips were placed at the start I don’t think it would be too hard to adapt triplea to something like that. The japanese were fortifying islands before the war albeit in treaty violation. Anyway it seems promising to me. :)P  Sorry, here I don’t see what you are thinking about.

What do you mean by airstrips put into tripleA?
How can you allow only 2 planes to land on a just conquered PACIFIC island and to be able to scramble in the SZ, without AB?
Actually, it is probably possible to adjust the number of planes that can scramble from an Air Base (2 planes Air Stripe + 3 planes AB= up to 5 planes could scramble),
but is it possible to increase the range of planes outcoming and incoming to the Island Airbase by 1 (to simulate the Carrier effect on aircrafts movement)?

@Baron

yea disregard the last part about placement it’s not relevant. You could place them the same turn you conquer but unfortunately it doesn’t look like you can land planes on the same turn. I’m not fortunate to have a group to play ftf and not enough room to leave the board up. Triplea is basically the only way I can play so I try and think in those terms.

Anyway really like your idea about the airstrips. I think it has great potential.