How to promote fighting in the Pacific?

What are some various ways to promote fighting in the Pacific?  I am tired of the game being Japan rush to Moscow while USA rushes to Berlin ignoring the Pacific 90% of the time.  House rules, strats, anything.

I already know Axis and Allies:  Enhanced cures this, I’m just looking for other things to play around with.

@DarthMaximus:

I’ve never tried this, but make Hawaii (or Ala) a VC instead of WUS.  Throw another inf or 2 on there and see if that helps.

Or maybe make both HI and Aus VCs?  Instead of WUS and Ind.

Maybe put the other Japan VC on another island instead of at Kwa?

Making Hawaii a VC would be cool… because if japan held Hawaii and India, and Germany held Leningrad, the Axis just won (in a 9 VC game).  To counter this, US would have to make SURE that Hawaii doesn’t fall, hence investing a bit in the Pacific.  While there, might as well take a couple islands… I could see that working nicely, and being an easy change.  I wonder why Larry made Western USA a VC anyway, knowing it will more or less never see play…

@Rakeman:

What are some various ways to promote fighting in the Pacific?  I am tired of the game being Japan rush to Moscow while USA rushes to Berlin ignoring the Pacific 90% of the time.  House rules, strats, anything.

I already know Axis and Allies:  Enhanced cures this, I’m just looking for other things to play around with.

Require Japan to capture the Indonesian Archipelago by turn 3 or their ships, planes, and tanks run out of fuel and are immobiile.  Any game where the Japanese rush to Moscow is not even remotely historical.  The Japanese needed the resources in the Dutch East Indies to continue the war with China.  Without them, the Japanese military has no fuel.

@timerover51:

@Rakeman:

What are some various ways to promote fighting in the Pacific?  I am tired of the game being Japan rush to Moscow while USA rushes to Berlin ignoring the Pacific 90% of the time.  House rules, strats, anything.

I already know Axis and Allies:  Enhanced cures this, I’m just looking for other things to play around with.

Require Japan to capture the Indonesian Archipelago by turn 3 or their ships, planes, and tanks run out of fuel and are immobiile.  Any game where the Japanese rush to Moscow is not even remotely historical.  The Japanese needed the resources in the Dutch East Indies to continue the war with China.  Without them, the Japanese military has no fuel.

Well, the problem isn’t getting the Japanese in the Pacific, but getting America to go into the Pacific, because it can completely ignore it, hence Japan has nothing better to do than tank-rush Moscow.

Put in a rule that if the Japanese loose control of either the Philippines or Indonesia, their ships, planes, and tanks become immobile for lack of fuel.  That should motivate the US to attack in the Pacific.  Alternatively, bar the Japanese from attacking Russia, so that they continue the Pacific offensive against the US.

Your problem is, with the limited IPC production of the US, it makes the most sense for the US player to ignore the Pacific and put his/her efforts into killing Germany.  In the real war, the US had enough production to help the UK and Russia kill Germany first as well as attacking Japan.
.

@Cmdr:

I’d say I like the constant non-aggression treaty between Russia and Japan.  Make it unbreakable.

I think that in revised, going after Russia as Japan is the symptom, not the problem.  The problem, to me, is that the Pacific has a total of 4 IPC for Japan to conquer, as opposed to 5 IPC in the middle east/india, 4 in China, and the ability to capture Russia… plus, since Japan can’t threaten a capital, which is what really matters, USA can completely ignore Japan.  If USA sent ships into the Pacific, taking Japan’s 4 IPC islands, I am sure that Japan would be sending people down there to clean things up.  But until the USA can be forced to either pay some sort of attention to the Pacific or lose, there is no reason for Japan to do anything but attack Russia.

@Cmdr:

If the problem is IPC then I think the following would solve it:

1)  Japan and Russia may not attack each other, even to liberate friendly territories.
2)  America must spend at least one third (33%) of it’s income in the Pacific and one third (33%) of it’s income in the Atlantic. (Building a fighter on W. USA would count as Pacific, so it’s not iron clad.)
3)  Hawaii is now worth 3 IPC
4)  Midway is now worth 1 IPC
5)  Wake is now worth 1 IPC
6)  Okinawa is now worth 3 IPC
7)  If the United States has lost both W. USA and either Hawaii or Alaska or Central United States at the end of America’s turn, then the Axis win.
8.)  Submarines cost 6 IPC
9)  Transports cost 6 IPC
10) Battleships cost 20 IPC
11) Destroyers cost 10 IPC
12) Aircraft Carriers attack and defend at 1, cost 12 IPC

Did you ever test any of this out?  Just wondering, it’s a lot of changes lol.

I’m not too keen on changing the map’s IPC values, personally.

Perhaps, and this is a crazy idea, make Eastern USA and Western USA 2 different nations… each collects from their side of the board, PLUS the central US income (so USA is now a 48 income nation in total, but this is divided).  Of course, this could upset balance greatly…  :-(

@Weca:

Japan hits Russia because Russia is the only IPCs/Capital Japan can seriously threaten. If Japan can’t attack Russia then they’re just useless.

So to make Japan more threatening in the Pacific you can do some combination of the following:

1. Upgrade LA to a second capital.
2. Upgrade LA to a second treasury (USA loses all IPCs to Japan if it falls).
3. Make Hawai’i richer (probably by subtracting from CUSA).
4. Give Japan one free IC that may be placed at the beginning of any J turn on a conquered American (not Chinese) territory.

Conversely the USA needs more incentive to island hop. Right now capturing Japan is possible but by the time it happens the game has already been decided by what’s happening in Europe.

So, to give the USA incentives, I would make Hawai’i an IC.

These are interesting as well.

I dislike any house rules that mandate “this by Turn X” or “Do this by Turn Y”

State the ends…  let me determine the means.  That is the whole POINT of the GAME.

@ncscswitch:

I dislike any house rules that mandate “this by Turn X” or “Do this by Turn Y”

State the ends…  let me determine the means.  That is the whole POINT of the GAME.

I agree with this, that seems to be the point of the game as you say, lol.

If you would rather avoid mandated actions, then this might also be a viable option, without requiring a lot of playtesting to determine the effects on game balance.  Include in the Allied victory conditions that two of the following must be retaken from Japan:  the Philippines, Borneo, or Java.  That would pretty much follow the actual course of the Pacific War, and not add a large number of new conditions.  Essentially, the US player would have to duplicate what was actually done in WW2 to win the game.

@timerover51:

If you would rather avoid mandated actions, then this might also be a viable option, without requiring a lot of playtesting to determine the effects on game balance.  Include in the Allied victory conditions that two of the following must be retaken from Japan:  the Philippines, Borneo, or Java.  That would pretty much follow the actual course of the Pacific War, and not add a large number of new conditions.  Essentially, the US player would have to duplicate what was actually done in WW2 to win the game.

I do like this idea.  Perhaps just completely changing the victory conditions would be best.

I know you had resource ideas before, with a time limit.  Maybe instead, something along the lines of:

“If Australia falls to the Axis, all British fighters defend at one less than usual.  If Hawaii falls to the Allies, US ships can only move 1 SZ per turn.  If the Middle East falls to the Axis, British tanks can only move 1 territory per turn.”  Of course, trying to simulate the bonuses so it represents the loss of resources.  Then, give some to the Axis too, for the sake of being fair.  Perhaps, “If red territories belong to Japan, Japanese tanks can only move 1 territory per turn.”  This would represent Japan’s inability to supply an invasion into Russia.

Any ideas for what territories held vital resources/ports/etc., and what type of unit the loss of this territory should affect?

Hmm… this sounds similar (but not identical) to “Objectives” in AA50.

Okay, I whipped up some rules with the idea, “Give real penalties for losing victory cities.”  Thoughts?

Axis and Allies Revised:  Victory City Penalties

All non-Capital Victory Cities give a penalty when captured by the enemy team.  Sydney, Honolulu, and Stalingrad are all considered Victory Cities now, giving every nation 2 victory cities.

Russia

Leningrad:
Port’s Closed
All non-Russian units on red territories defend at 1.

Stalingrad:
Oil Disruption
Russian land units on non-red territories lose all mobility.

Germany

Paris:
Resistance
Whenever Axis forces attack Western Europe, they take one additional casualty during each of the defender fire steps of the combat phase.  This does not apply if there is no combat.

Rome:
Mediterranean Defeat
German land units on tan territories all behave like infantry, regardless of what unit they are.

UK:

Calcutta:
Oil Shortage
British fighters attack at 2 and defend at 3.  British bombers are shot down on a roll of 2 or less by anti-aircraft guns.

Sydney:
Convoy Loss
British transports can no longer be loaded with both an infantry and an armor unit simultaneously.

Japan
Shanghi:
Chinese Forces
Whenever Axis forces attack Kwangtung or Manchuria, they take one additional casualty during the defender fires step of the combat phase.  This does not apply if there is no combat.

Manila:
Vital Supplies
Japanese armor units attack at 2 and defend at 2.  They can no longer blitz and must end movement when entering an empty enemy territory.

USA

Honolulu:
Port Seized
US naval units may only move 1 Sea Zone per turn.

LA:
Virtual Capital
The US player must give one half of his IPCs (round down) to whatever player owns Western USA every round during that player’s Collect Income phase.

For some of this, you might want to look at my house rules for A&A Pacific in the House Rules section of the Board.  I would have to do a little work on looking up exactly were resources are, but you need Borneo and the East Indies for Oil, French Indo-China for rice and rubber (actually in Malaya), the East Indies for tin (vital for cartridge cases and canned goods), the Phiippines for rice and to protect your shipping lanes, and Manchuria for iron, coal, and aluminum.

One factor that also would work against a Japanese assault on Russia from Siberia is the lack of supply lines.  You would be dependent on the Trans-Siberian Railway, and given the Russian thoroughness in “scorched earth” policy, you are not going to have a functioning railway without a lot of work.  The Japanese had a terrible time maintaining the rail net in China, and the few expansion took enormous effort.  I do not think that Japan could have maintained any significant force at any distance from Manchuria.  There would be no way to supply it, especially in winter.

As for advancing to Moscow, it is 3988 air miles from Vladivostok to Moscow.  Manchuria would shorten that slightly, but it would still be close to 4000 miles on the ground, including the detour around Lake Baikal.  Berlin to Moscow is 998 air miles, although on the Revised board, the distance from Manchuria appears to be almost the same.  The Germans could not get enough supplies forward to support an attack on Moscow.  The Japanese are supposed to maintain supply lines over 4 times the distance?

A lot of the strategies used in Axis and Allies would not be possible from a logistics standpoint.  Supply rules would quickly eliminate the “9 Japanese tanks per turn” mentioned in one of the posts on the Nominations for Revised Axis and Allies Strategies thread.  Aside from the fact that during the entire war, Japan built only about 4,000 tanks, most of them extremely light.  The US built over 50,000 Shermans.  The Japanese never fielded anything comparable.  Okay, former supply officer rant over.