Global War 1940 2nd ed.

@SS:

Well there was 17 techs in game and still didnt unbalance game. It would of been nice to finish out game but have a new game Saturday morning. Axis has 27 points with losing back Manila (1 point )and Cairo (1 point). That would of been 29 points and with the Mideast Oil fields control (1 point) giving them 30 would of won the game. These last 2 games were the best so far. I hope Saturdays game turns out just as good. But have more players now and some will need to learn some of the changes to game.

It is very promising for the next game.
I’m really happy you got such a satisfying experience with your newly develop unit profiles and House rules.

@Baron:

@SS:

US lost most of there fleet getting back Manilla a few turns ago and now with mostly US Pacific buys has helped FEC and China put some pressure on Japan in Saigon area. The US got the Tech Super Subs A6 D3 C7 and had 8 subs with fleet but decided to keep them on the surface for fodder in the big naval battle for Manilla. Would of been nice to see if them subs would of gotten in on some sneak attacks. Ill call them Labrador Packs.  With the M6 AB figs are deadly from any Capital defense and going out aways to attack or defend.
With Naval planes only M4 and can only land on Carriers in game, now Japan cant just have a walk in the park. There still deadly with there planes if you position them right.

It seems introducing land-based M5-6 aircraft is also a way to keep IJN overwhelming airfleet M4-5 carrier-based aircraft restraint and balance.

Carrier-based are still allowed to land on AB right?

Yes

Subs are best on offence role, probably not the best tactics but, if you don’t have enough DDs, you can use Subs for fodder. But opponent will be happy that A6 be underused as D3.

Yet, US Subs were the most efficient weapon groups of all WWII:

Employing boats of the Gato, Balao, and Tench classes, American submariners scored the most complete victory of any force in any theater of war. Having advanced considerably in design, technology, and reliability during the 1930s, the submarine was ready to become a very flexible weapon in the war against Japan. Each of these Fleet boats displaced roughly 1,500 tons, and carried a complement of 7 officers and 70 men. Four diesel engines provided surface propulsion at speeds up to 20 knots and charged the batteries that powered the electric motors for submerged operations.  […]

Despite a slow beginning because of the Pearl Harbor attack and the nagging problem of defective torpedoes, the Submarine Force destroyed 1,314 enemy ships in the Pacific, representing fifty-five percent of all enemy ships lost and a total of 5.3 million tons of shipping. Out of 16,000 U.S. submariners, the force lost 375 officers and 3,131 enlisted men in 52 submarines, and although this was a tragic loss, it was still the lowest casualty rate of any combatant submarine service on either side in the 1939-1945 conflict.

In the final months of the war, American submarines had difficulty finding targets, because the Japanese had virtually no ships left to sink. In response, U.S. boats employed newly-developed FM sonar sets to navigate through minefields in closely-guarded Japanese home waters to seek out the remaining targets. On 27 May 1945, a nine-submarine wolfpack led by CDR E.T. Hydeman on board USS Tinosa (SS-283) left Guam under orders from VADM Lockwood for the first major penetration of the Sea of Japan. After picking up the survivors of a downed B-29 en route, the pack traversed the Tsushima Strait on 5-6 June and once on station, set up their own shooting gallery. In 11 days, they destroyed 27 merchant ships with total tonnage exceeding 57,000. In the end, Japanese ships had no safe haven. There was nowhere to hide. The American submariner’s silent victory was complete.

http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_06/silent_victory.html

Among the U.S. Navy’s deadliest and arguably its most effective weapons were its submarines. The unrestricted submarine warfare during the Second World War in the Pacific knew no bounds, no limits concerning the sinking of Japanese ships. Shrouded in secrecy, the “Silent Service” depended on stealth for its success and resourcefulness to counter Japanese countermeasures.

Postwar records compiled by the Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee indicate Japan lost 686 warships of 500 gross tons (GRT) or larger, 2,346 merchantmen, and a total of 10.5 million GRT to submarines during 1,600 war patrols. Only 1.6 percent of the total U.S. naval manpower was responsible for America’s success on its Pacific high seas; more than half of the tonnage sunk was credited to U.S. submarines. The tremendous accomplishments of American submarines were achieved at the expense of 52 subs with 374 officers and 3,131 enlisted volunteers lost during combat against Japan; Japan lost 128 submarines during the Second World War in Pacific waters. American casualty counts represent 16 percent of the U.S. operational submarine officer corps and 13 percent of its enlisted force.

[…]

Despite the initial faults of America’s submarine force, there was optimism. For example, between 1941 and 1945, U.S. Navy codebreakers deciphered Japanese sailing dates, courses, speeds, and routes of naval convoys and formations, unbeknownst to the Japanese. This information was supplied to the U.S. submarine force, which would lie silently in wait for unsuspecting ships. By 1943, 22 Japanese warships and 296 merchant ships would be sent to the bottom, due to workable torpedoes and changed underwater tactics.
Increased submarine proficiency, founded on an all-volunteer service (submariners made fifty percent extra pay), new long-range fleet type models, and the successes of the U.S. Navy codebreakers, by August 1944, found the “Silent Service” inflicting prohibitive losses on the Emperor’s merchant marine, scoring key successes against Japanese warships that insured victory in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, and a blockade of the home islands that was strangling the Japanese economy.

[…] The situation for Lockwood and America’s submariners was slowly improving by late 1942: U.S. subs in 1942 sank 180 Japanese ships for a total of 725,000 GRT; yet Hitler’s U-boats sank 1,160 Allied ships of more than 6 million GRT.

[…] The German strategy of “wolfpacking” was adopted. It called for coordinating submarine attack groups during 1943. More submarines, of larger size and firepower, were being built in American shipyards. New torpedo designs added the necessary punch for U.S. subs to eventually penetrate the once forbidden Sea of Japan. By year’s end, American sub improvements had netted a total of 1.5 million GRT sunk. Eighty-six American subs had also rescued 380 downed aviators from Pacific waters.

American submarines flexed their naval might following the recapture of Guam in July-August 1944. U.S. subs based on Guam and Saipan imposed a virtual blockade against Japan. Few ships entered or left Japanese waters without being attacked or sunk by submarines. Japan ran out of oil for her naval armada, gasoline for aircraft and tanks, steel and aluminum for industry, and food for her people. […]

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/npswapa/extContent/wapa/guides/offensive/sec6.htm

The U. S. submarine service started the war with 111 boats, added 203, and lost 52 (50 of them in the Pacific). Of the 16,000 submariners who sailed on war patrols, 3,506 did not return- a casualty rate of 22 percent, the highest of all arms in the American services during the war. Nevertheless, the U. S. submarine campaign in World War II was the only campaign of its type in the history of naval warfare that can be rated a complete success. The submarines played a decisive role in the war by incapacitating the Japanese Empire�s economy. Of the 7.8 million tons of Japanese merchant shipping lost between 1941 and 1945, nearly two-thirds (4.8 million tons) was sunk by U. S submarines, which were also responsible for one-third of the Japanese warship losses. The U. S. Submarine Operational History, however, conceded that scholars would do well to �ponder the fact that Japanese anti-submarine defenses were not the best. If our submarines had been confronted with Allied anti-submarine measures, the casualty list of the submarine force would have been much larger and the accomplishment of Allied submarines much less impressive�

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/01/01/usn-submarine-campaign-against-japanese-shipping-1941-1945/

During the war the U-boats sank about 2,779 ships for a total of 14.1 million tons GRT. This figure is roughly 70% of all allied shipping losses in all theatres of the war and to all hostile action. The most successful year was 1942 when over 6 million tons of shipping were sunk in the Atlantic.

https://uboat.net/special/faq.htm?question=4

@Baron:

AA Gun
A0
D@2 at each plane
D@1 at ea H Bomb, Tac & Dive Bomb
M1
C5

I know there is a lot of details and exception in your game.
Maybe to be simpler for memory and emphasize the value of heavy bombers, I’m inclined to restrict AA@D1 to Hvy B only.
TacB were not able of such high altitude bombing.
AAA are going to be more efficient for 5 IPCs against TcB and N Dive-bomber too:

AA Gun
A0
D@2 at each plane (Med B, TcB&DB, Fg&NFg)
D@1 at each Heavy Bomber
M1
C5

And this also emphasize the usefulness of Fighter to intercept Heavy bombers.

Unless you got balance issues about it in previous games?

No balance issues. I agree I will just give H Bomber AAA D@1 only. I believe I had it for what I read history wise was it was hard for AAA gun to shoot down a Tac bomber due to its dive angle.

@Baron:

Tac Bomber  : Cannot land on Carriers.
A7 Can pick target with a return shot. Ground only.
A7 Roll of 3 or less can pick target with return shot. Naval only.
A3 against surfaced subs only. No return shot.
D5 Can pick target with a return shot. Ground only .
D5 Roll of 3 or less can pick target. Naval only.
M5
C11
Dog Fight @1  Every 1st round of combat only if enemy planes.
SBR 1d8 damage (Air - Naval ports, Train Stations and Oil Derricks)
SBR Kills AA gun on a roll of 4 or less
AA Gun D@1 against ea Tac Bomb

Naval Dive Bomber  : Can land on Carriers and ground.
A7 Roll 3 or less can pick target with a return shot. Ground and Naval.
A3 against surfaced subs only. No return shot
D5 Roll of 3 or less pick target with a return shot. Ground and Naval.
M4
C10
Dog Fight @1  Every 1st round of combat only if enemy planes.
SBR 1d8 damage ( Air - Naval ports, Oil Derricks)
SBR Kills AA gun on a roll of 4 or less
AA Gun D@1 against ea Dive Bomb

Naval Fighter  : Can land anywhere.
A5
D7
M4
C10
Dog Fight @3  Every 1st round of combat only if enemy planes.
AA Gun D@2 against ea N. Fig
Cannot hit surfaced subs.

Fighter
A6
D7
M5
C11
Dog Fight@3  Every 1st round of combat only if enemy planes.
AA Gun D@2 against ea Fig
Cannot hit surfaced subs.

To also keep the same repeating special @3 number, I would also place TcB and NDB special attack on AAgun at same odds:

SBR Kills AA gun on a roll of 3 or less

So, Fg and TcB are going to be parallels: Fg in dogfight, TcB & NDB against AAgun.

What do you think?
Any balance issues foreseeable or encountered?

Yes I agree and will make it @3.

@SS:

@Baron:

AA Gun
A0
D@2 at each plane
D@1 at ea H Bomb, Tac & Dive Bomb
M1
C5

I know there is a lot of details and exception in your game.
Maybe to be simpler for memory and emphasize the value of heavy bombers, I’m inclined to restrict AA@D1 to Hvy B only.
TacB were not able of such high altitude bombing.
AAA are going to be more efficient for 5 IPCs against TcB and N Dive-bomber too:

AA Gun
A0
D@2 at each plane (Med B, TcB&DB, Fg&NFg)
D@1 at each Heavy Bomber
M1
C5

And this also emphasize the usefulness of Fighter to intercept Heavy bombers.

Unless you got balance issues about it in previous games?

No balance issues. I agree I will just give H Bomber AAA D@1 only. I believe I had it for what I read history wise was it was hard for AAA gun to shoot down a Tac bomber due to its dive angle.

Just a case about Stuka and Sturmovik:

Rudel, the legendary Stuka pilot and unrepentant Nazi who flew the Ju-87G, claimed to have destroyed 519 Soviet tanks. But Rudel was also shot down or forced to land 32 times, which pointed to the Stuka�s major weakness. With fixed landing gear and a level speed of less than 250 miles per hour, it was very vulnerable to defending fighters and flak.
Sterrett rates the Sturmovik as the best close support aircraft of the war. It was certainly the most expendable. Some 20,000 were destroyed. Facing elite German fighter aces and thick German flak defenses, and flown by inexperienced crews, they took staggering losses, especially in the early years of the war.

�During the spring and summer of 1942, one Il-2 was lost for every 24 combat sorties, and in the Battle of Stalingrad the ratio increased to one aircraft per 10-to-12 combat sorties,� notes the Guards Units book. Perhaps that is why there is a story, likely apocryphal, that some Sturmovik rear gunners were prisoners drafted into special penal battalions.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/stuka-and-sturmovik-the-aircraft-that-inspired-the-a-10-8c8d885d61db

In the opening stages of the Battle of Britain, Stukas performed very well against shipping over the Channel but less so over land, where fighter opposition grew. There were some successful attacks against airfields, ships, and “Chain Home” radar stations, but during just 10 days in August, The Stukas lost 20% of their total strength. The plane’s low speed made escorting it difficult on the way to the target and its low altitude after dropping bombs was an even greater problem (the Stuka proved very vulnerable to ground fire at that point). After August 19, the Stukas were moved to the Calais area to concentrate against shipping, which they continued to do until being withdrawn late in the year to refit for operations in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe.

http://www.aresgames.eu/18649

@Baron:

@SS:

@Baron:

AA Gun
A0
D@2 at each plane
D@1 at ea H Bomb, Tac & Dive Bomb
M1
C5

I know there is a lot of details and exception in your game.
Maybe to be simpler for memory and emphasize the value of heavy bombers, I’m inclined to restrict AA@D1 to Hvy B only.
TacB were not able of such high altitude bombing.
AAA are going to be more efficient for 5 IPCs against TcB and N Dive-bomber too:

AA Gun
A0
D@2 at each plane (Med B, TcB&DB, Fg&NFg)
D@1 at each Heavy Bomber
M1
C5

And this also emphasize the usefulness of Fighter to intercept Heavy bombers.

Unless you got balance issues about it in previous games?

No balance issues. I agree I will just give H Bomber AAA D@1 only. I believe I had it for what I read history wise was it was hard for AAA gun to shoot down a Tac bomber due to its dive angle.

Just a case about Stuka and Sturmovik:

Rudel, the legendary Stuka pilot and unrepentant Nazi who flew the Ju-87G, claimed to have destroyed 519 Soviet tanks. But Rudel was also shot down or forced to land 32 times, which pointed to the Stuka�s major weakness. With fixed landing gear and a level speed of less than 250 miles per hour, it was very vulnerable to defending fighters and flak.
Sterrett rates the Sturmovik as the best close support aircraft of the war. It was certainly the most expendable. Some 20,000 were destroyed. Facing elite German fighter aces and thick German flak defenses, and flown by inexperienced crews, they took staggering losses, especially in the early years of the war.

�During the spring and summer of 1942, one Il-2 was lost for every 24 combat sorties, and in the Battle of Stalingrad the ratio increased to one aircraft per 10-to-12 combat sorties,� notes the Guards Units book. Perhaps that is why there is a story, likely apocryphal, that some Sturmovik rear gunners were prisoners drafted into special penal battalions.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/stuka-and-sturmovik-the-aircraft-that-inspired-the-a-10-8c8d885d61db

Ok

I read only DH Mosquitos was fast and so reliable to outrun fighter and give no time for Flak to ignitiate a counter.

Besides, I’m anxious to read your story about the last 13 hours game.

@Baron:

I read only DH Mosquitos was fast and so reliable to outrun fighter and give no time for Flak to ignitiate a counter.

Besides, I’m anxious to read your story about the last 13 hours game.

Yes I will post in about 2 hours.

Saturdays game lasted 13 hours and we got in 7 turns and the Allies held off the Axis for the win. Germany got there 2 best NAs at start of game. Sub Interdiction ( ea Ger sub in the Atlantic cost UK US 1 icp ea per turn. ) other one was Panzer Blitz ( where ea tank after combat can make a 1 non combat move ) and on top of that they also were convoy raiding. Hard to kill Ger tanks when they attack and back out. So Allies had to come back to buying more in the Atlantic after turn 3. On turn 1 Japan did not attack the 2 US fleets at start of game in the Pacific so Allies brought them to the Atlantic to try a Operation Torch to Africa and UK pressuring Italy in Cairo Area starting on T1 and also putting pressure on the Wolf Packs. On T3 then the UK and US went to Western France and Landed there to draw Germany cash away from Russia.
With 2 minor IC in India and 1 in S AF the UK was able to shuck troops from S AF to Madras and then to Cairo. This plan forced Italy to stay in Africa for most of game and got Cairo back near end of game but cost the Axis a Moscow victory because Italy normally goes and gets Stalingrad. But Italy only once brought a Small group for can openers. So the Allies plans where to try and keep Italy in Africa as long as possible. But the Axis had other plans. They where going for the money bonus fast and furious.
Germany was going to attack Moscow on T6 but didnt have enough fodder. I think also what hurt them was Russia did attack 3 territories on T2 that hurt Germany a bit and also got Finland. Germany should of attack into Russia on T1 but didnt. So that may have hurt them in the long run.
SO on T6 UK took a bunch of there ground out of Western France and took West Germany, Denmark and Norway. By taking Norway this gave the US on there turn 6 to land 20 ground in Norway plus planes on non combat. UK sacrifice there 5 transports and 3 surface ships by taking West Germany and  keeping Germany and the Italian planes from hitting the US fleet with trannys as picture shows. Why I dont know why Germany and Italy put all there planes in Paris. For defense ya but still there wasnt enough ground in Western France to come close to taking Paris back. So by taking Norway this forced Germany to attack Moscow for the win.

It was a great battle. So with first round only dog fight Germans killed 3 Russian figs and Germany lost 1 fig. But on Russia’s AAshots got 3 kills so final plane kills were Ger lost 4 planes and Russia lost 3 planes. Germany got good % hits but Russia got it back on a later round of defense. SO it came down to Russia having 3 SPA and 7 figs left to hold Moscow and start taking back the land around Moscow and some Victory Citys because there was nothing left on the front. By far the best game I ever played since I start playing. Guys loved it. Nothing was over powering any where. Thanks to Steve O, Justin and Steve Maddog from site here for playing. It took us awhile to get going due to the 3 guys werent familiar with the new changes yet. But the game ended in less than 10 turns and that is one of the main goals for this game.

As far as Subs cant Attack Subs was awesome. Subs were passing each other in the Atlantic. Only thing the Russian sub probably could do is try and go into the Port of Berlin. Other wise that sub never got killed in game. Germany to busy to Tac it. 2 US subs got into the Med and did some damage on thee Italians. Epic. The Wolf Packs were awesome to. With convoy damage being done outside of convoy boxes for 1 icp and any inside boxes was great. At least the German subs lasted for 4 turns in game. Funny though was 1 German sub is still in the Russian convoy box if im not mistaken in picture. oops looks like I forgot to land US TAc after he missed surfaced sub. UK US could not sink it and even 2 destroyers couldnt do it neither. The Sub Destroyer rule is also great. Did have some battles that took a few more minutes. The extra time is well worth that rule believe me. Japan had 4 subs being attack and half the time hed submerge and then try an escape but didnt so had to surface but then the attacker would miss and back to same issues. Took 5 mins but well worth the scenerial of that battle.

A lot of SBR going on also in game. Most Ive seen. Good techs for Axis and also Germany got a V-2 rocket from event card on T5. Got to SBR UK one turn before UK landed in West Germany and destroyed it. Japan keep SBR India every turn also. Goal there is to drain FEC money as fast as possible. Anzac never got Java till T6 but also took 4 islands on that turn. Japan has Hawaii but US would take back on T7 if it got that far.
Japan did there some what normal stuff but with the naval planes only M4 keeps Japan some what honest and has to move there Carriers around a lot more if they want to use there planes for any attacks. Russia put some pressure on them with China leaving a nice stack In Yunnan to keep Japan from moving towards Calcutta. Japan did get Jet Figs Tech so they were buying a few more Naval figs for the D8 and C10.
The Elite Inf is another nice piece. When you attack and you are not going to use them in another round of combat then you take them as casualties because of there D2 but A4. So there is a bit of planning there also. Japan was buying a lot of them.

Just an awesome game is all I can say.
The Axis was up to 189 total icp income for there 1 point bonus and 31 VC points but still lost the game.

Only 8 Techs for this game but a few good ones for Japan and German Rockets.
This game just had every little thing going on in it. You name it it probably happened.
If you look Russia was down to 10 icp income. Axis bombed the 2 Russian Oil derricks that cost them 6 icps a turn and SBR Both Ics
to the point where Russia just repaired enough to build in Moscow some what.
All im doing as far as game now is changing a few values that where just discussed in the above posts. Other wise we will just keep playing and see if the game needs any more tweaks.
Thanks Baron for your imput.

Well thats that and hope to play another game soon.

Baron. We do allow 1:1 fig dest if just subs attacking a fleet.
So if you have Battleship. Cruiser and a Destroyer  being attacked by 5 subs the defender can scramble only 1 fig from an airbase only for just the one defending Destroyer.

@SS:

Baron. We do allow 1:1 fig dest if just subs attacking a fleet.
So if you have Battleship. Cruiser and a Destroyer  being attacked by 5 subs the defender can scramble only 1 fig from an airbase only for just the one defending Destroyer.

Seems consistent since you have a 1:1 Destroyer blocking Surprise strike.

It provides a way to tweak balance of Subs vs other fleet.

Subs in your game are much able to withstand their own compared to 3G40 Sub and sequence where they don’t have much opportunity at first strike.
Forbidding scramble is a way to help giving more offensive punch to Subs, mostly around ATO.

Thee SS blitz is coming Saturday. The Germans will make it right this time !

Go for SS blitz!!!
:) :-) :-)

@Baron:

Go for SS blitz!!!
:) :-) :-)

Funny thing is I did get Germanys NA panzer blitz.
Kept Russia at bay at least. With allies landing constantly in Normandy
kept me from getting Moscow but delayed my taking of Stalingrad.
Axis victory in Ten turns. Another great game with Japan getting Calcutta late in game to help Germany in case they didnt get Stalingrad
Game report later today.

Axis victory in 10 turns. Played 8 but looked at map and all agreed to it.
Germany got there 2 best NAs but with Allies landing in Normandy right away kept them from getting Moscow and Russia keep them at bay on eastern front for most of game. Just couldnt get the push to Stalingrad until T9 with a major tank division support or can openers by Italy. As you see in map Germans are being threatin for Lengingrad but they can run down like 12-13 tanks with 8 inf transported from Berlin and W Germany for fodder. Axis will cut off road to Stalingrad also next turn. Take back Oslo.
Germany also got there V-2 rocket in game finally T6.

The German convoy raiding was awesome in the Atlantic again. Keep UK income down and UK E made the mistake by not buying Tacs and Destroyers to remove the Wolf Packs. Plus Italy sent out 3 subs to damage the convoy boxes inside and outside them for damage also by Gibr. Key is to keep UK income down in game. Same with FEC.
UK also didnt shuck troops from S AF and Cairo to Calcutta.

Will be making a change to game as far as tank buys. Major IC can only build 4 tanks max and Minor IC can only build 1 tank max.
Japan and Italy just pumping out to many tanks. This tank buy max may be reduced more but will play it out for now.

As you can see Japan pretty much just took over the Pacific. Part of that was due to 9 tank buys a turn. So now if Japan wants tanks they will have to buy more at Capital. If they buy there normal 2 Minor IC they still get 1 tank for each on land. Granted he lost all his tanks and most planes taking Calcutta this is not how I want the game to go. Also if the UK E just dropped 6-8 inf in Calcutta then Japan would have not gotten it. Plus I believe the US didnt get to Islands fast enough. You have to bring a US empty Carrier to Anzac so you can use there Naval figs and also buy a Dive Bomber to attack the Dutch Islands Oil derricks for damage against Japans income. I like to send a UK Carrier to Anzac in game.
From what I heard there was still some great battles in the Pacific. More now with change tweaks. The sub is an awesome piece now.
At least in pacific there was more convoy raiding going on with ships just touching outside of boxes for 1 damage.

As far as Techs in game only 7 this time and Germany bought 2 tech tokens first turn and rolled 2 dice for every turn and never got a breakthur or a free tech or spy steals a tech. Epic. The game does go the normal 60 -70 % way but the 30-40 % in game can go in many different small ways. Techs, NAs, Event Cards, SBRing, Axis total income bonus for getting more territories for the 1 point bonus to win and/or The 7 Mideast oil territories for 1 point bonus too for axis.
There is more SBRing in game than ever. Everything in Europe gets bombed. India ICs get bombed and Oil Derricks get bombed.

So will see how the new tank buy max rule works. Probably slow game down a bit but now should be more Mech Art buys with maybe a plane here or there. You can still buy tanks and its that you just cant drop a bunch on a Minor IC so you need to buy most in your Capital and move.

I came up with something I hope will boost the pacific side of map like the Atlantic side of map. Its going great with the convoy raiding campaign working out great. More small battles through most of game.

In another thread I was mentioning about raising some islands to 5 icps to make either side at least go get an island or 2 in the Pacific side but kinda didnt do that. I posted a picture in House Rules thread about showing what groups of islands to have to try and get more small battles in the Pacific without just fleets looking at each other or 1 big battle sometimes for the heck of it, and not just have Fleets move here or there or park here or there and just have Japan mostly do land battles besides going for Dutch Islands.

So I made up 6 NOs for the Pacific side. Im not a huge fan of them but saw I had no choice in the matter to see if I could add them to game on the Pacific side but make it easier to get them then the normal NO rules where you need like 5 islands to get a NO bonus.

NO 5 icp bonus

Green group for Japan or US
Grey group for Japan or US
Orange group for Japan or US
Red group for Japan or US
Blue group for Anzac
Black group for Anzac

So I have 6 groups of 3 islands that have NOs. For each 3 island group you control you receive 5 icp bonus. Now in picture below I used colored tokens to show which islands are in a group. Also I gave Midway, Carolina and Solomon islands a value of 3 icps each.
Now If you look at setup that I have in my game with Midway, Carolina, New Britain and Solomon (some say why Solomon, because naval battles ) islands have 2 different color tokens where if you control one of those islands you can deny 2 NO.  So Im hoping with Japan having a chance for 2 NO at home they need to control Midway. But then the US would just need to control Midway. So now maybe there will be more small battles at that area for both sides. Most islands you can hit from 2 sz away. Neither side can not just sit now. Other wise somebody going to get some money. Same thing in Carolinas. Japan holds that they can deny some NO down there. Both countries would need to leave small fleets near home to the North and down south they both need fleets. Or Japan would need to park in Manilla and could come from there if they get pushed out of Carolinas
and still protect Dutch Islands. But then US gets more money and maybe they get it in time before Germany gets the win the axis needs. If US goes to much in Pacific then Germany going to have a field day. Or is this going to be to much for Japan to control in the Pacific szs while not getting anywhere on land. Remember in my game Axis dont need Calcutta to win if Germany gets that extra VC. I need to watch for any balance issues where maybe the US may need a ship or 2 on setup. OR I change the NA for Germany Sub Interdiction from 10 subs max to 5 subs max. This should be fun anyway on first few games.

If you look at setup Japan in the Carolinas has to decide if they want to deny Anzac there NO or attack US Line Island fleet or do both.

Anyway I hope this is a starting point on the right track for a better Pacific side. Maybe some body would like to try it in there game also.
I also added two 3 island groups in Med. Italy pretty strong so I made the UK NO a little more easier. Closer to Cairo and making Italy have to go further to get islands.

Well will see how this goes. Cant wait to try out.

I really like this colored roundels mapping to visually understand each Islands NO group.

Each 5 IPCs NO will attract immediate interest. 
IMO, you will get more actions in PTO and the additional money influx could be to built more ships in this area.

I’m pretty excited about it.
I will certainly check how I can implement a smaller variant into AA50 or 1942.2.
Thanks for this game mechanic.