Bringing the Outer Islands into Play

[SeaMonkey]

I'm planning ahead here. I've only played one AI game, still in the midst of, actually.

I'm remembering other Pacific games I've played where the garissoning of the outer island rings was an issue for the Japanese player as there is no incentive. Same here?

They were historically used as outposts for the Empire, but a savy Allied player will not attempt early operations against them waiting until his fleet is unstoppable. So what to do?

Suggestions welcome. I've already stated one idea of the MPP value, but that is not realistic IMO. So...how about a morale and/or readiness adjustment for successful occupations of these outlier islands.

Think of it as having an impact on the Home Front as the people formulate their visions of how the war effort is going and passing it on to their soldiers. Perhaps after a group of islands is thoroughly garrisoned there could be a slight MPP adjustment also, to simulate the extra effort the war industries at home would see by high morale of their workers.

[Timskorn]

The main incentive is the projection of airpower and its ability to scout enemy naval movements. By itself, Japanese airpower based on islands is fairly ineffective when facing Allied air from either nearby carriers or ground aircraft. Bringing the USN within reach of those aircraft, along with your own navy fighters, helps give you better odds which in Japan's case...ya need all you can get!

If the US wants to move in amphib troops, they'll want to make sure nearby Japanese air is either destroyed or rendered ineffective. But, if you don't plan to station aircraft out there, then yeah...there is little reason to garrison islands that the US player can essentially just bypass. Neither of you will find much reason to waste resources over something with little to no value.

As either side too, you want to make sure you have ports available for how far you want to take your navy and this is especially important in delaying the US advance. They need those ports otherwise any damaged ships need to pull back farther for repairs. I've found as the US, local ports can be in short supply when trying to repair and/or upgrade multiple ships in a timely manner.

And if you suspect an Allied player is "building up" to a large force and not going on the offensive until 1943, this can leave Australia wide open to a concentrated IJN attack.

[SeaMonkey]

Does having Australia have an impact on Japanese victory conditions(early victory)? What if the US just decides to go right at the Home islands ignoring everything else in 44?

I'm by no means an expert at the game idiosyncracies but it seems to me the Home Islands must be defended at all costs. And again, the impression I get is that nothing can stop a determined USN effort by 44 to deny that success.

Of course ...I could be wrong.

[Timskorn]

Canberra is part of Japanese victory conditions, but not sure what would trigger early victory without looking at them in the game. I mean, if the US waits until 44 to do anything significant then they are basically letting the IJN do whatever they want. This includes wiping out Australia and likely the British in Burma too, as the IJN can go and sweep the floor with their navy.

If you're suggesting the USN just fights the IJN and does no island-hopping until 44 when they go straight for the Home Islands, that is definitely an option. Will it work? Only one way to find out! In a head vs. head game, and as Japan yes, you should always have some sort of defense and/or way to screen any invasion to give you time to rally the defenses.

[SeaMonkey]

See that's just it, Japan can never be sure USN will allow them anything, essentially USA will dictate.

With everything the Japanese have to manage their plans can easily be derailed, seems to me.:confused: The essence of having the outer islands is the buffer from the USA dictation of events early and delaying the later inevitability of destruction.

If Japan chooses to assert the buffer then obviously it detracts from the other arenas and she loses the benefit of Burma/India, Australian conquests, but why would she do that?

The buffer...lacks the historical benefit, the western map locations offer so much more, hence my original hypothesis, how do we increase their importance?

Generally, I hope my theory is irrelevant with regards to SC PTO vs the other Pacific oriented games I've played. But just in case, I wanted to address it early.

[Blashy]

The fact is all that island hoping was a waste by Japan, they should have concentrated on China but instead they spread all over the place which just made it easier for the Allies to crush them.

What you see in this game is players using a smarter tactic by not trying to do the same thing Japan did, we all concentrate on China because we know it can and must be taken out. We have the benefit of hindsight of course.

You can never make this little islands any more useful as they had very little use to begin with.

Of course Japan players will want to hold on to Tinian at all cost as holding it prevents the launching of atomic bombs.

[scottsmm]

What if you have units get created for the buffer islands that SeaMonkey is talking about. All you would have to do then is set those units to an AI setting of 0 in the editor, and there you have it. I do agree though that Japan, wasted time by it's island hoping campaign it's just it would also allow the play balance to even out a little bit too.

[Big Dog]

Perhaps an answer might be to limit the distance (or time) a unit can be in an amphibious transport. I am not aware of the longest distance covered by an invasion force in the Pacific, but I doubt they started in California and saled all the way to Iwo Jima. I recall one of Eisnhower's concern for delaying the Normandy invasion was the length of time the troops were aboard their ships, and this was a matter of days. If invasions could only occur over a short distance, all of the islands would gain in importance becasue you would need one to invade the next. Perhaps an Amrican unit would have to transport to New Caledonia before getting on an amphibious transport to invade Guadalcanal.

I also like the idea of a lend-lease convoy (as in SC 1) that could be interdicted. However, I would like to see such interdiction be able to occur by air and other capital ships. I love seeing the MPP convoy from British held Singapore travel right through the straits between Malaya and Sumatra, and through two Japanese Battleship groups. But put a submarine there and you have something. If air and ships could interdict, especially a lend-lease route, the islands would also gain in importance.

[LampCord]

Perhaps an answer might be to limit the distance (or time) a unit can be in an amphibious transport. I am not aware of the longest distance covered by an invasion force in the Pacific, but I doubt they started in California and saled all the way to Iwo Jima.

At the end of the war, when the Allies were planning to invade the home island, they did indeed plan to have some of the troops go directly from the West Coast of the US to Japan. But that would be Level 5 amphibious tech in this game's language.

Limiting the range of amphibious transport by tech level is an interesting idea and could cause the remote islands to become much more important.

[Timskorn]

I don't know, I'd like to see a repeatable, viable strategy for Japan that proves they can succeed better by ignoring the outer islands against a good US player that would move quickly against such a strategy before any final judgments are made.

Is it known that Japan can do this without sacrificing something significant to the US? Allowing US forces so close to places like the DEI opens up Japanese supply ports to bombing, or even invasion. Blashy, are you saying that leaving the outer islands wide open is worth it to take China down quickly? Has this strategy been proven to work effectively against a good US player?

I've unfortunately not played Japan enough to say, but the thought of leaving the outer islands open makes me worry about the entire, and crucial, underside of the empire being compromised early. If I played against a Japanese player I knew was doing this, I'd be more than happy to bring my bombers and fighters in close to hit their supply ports in the south.

[AZGungHo]

I know for the invasion of Okinawa many Marines started their voyage at Guadalcanal! All the pacific invasions had much longer to go than the ones in Europe.

[scottsmm]

Of couse remember your playing with two major Oceans + Asia, and America a huge portion of Earth in short.

[jon_j_rambo]

The remote islands are a complete waste of time, unless you're going on vacation. There's no Burger King (food) or Exxon Stations (gas). No value.

[scottsmm]

Jon what about those of us that want a nice destination when winter comes around? Makin island seems like a pretty good spot. I'm sure the Emperor would approve of its conquest for that reason alone . Back to reality Jon they have no value, but they prove themselves as vital Intel hubs with long range bombers. Often times they stop surprises that you would get if you didn't have them in your possession.

[jon_j_rambo]

Okay Scotty, I'll give them a "little" value, that's fair enough. Throw a radio station & a spotter plane there. The Japs are going to get their ass kicked anyways....so you can spot that shoe coming to your rear end

[scottsmm]

Right they have nothing more than little value, and that's it there’s no income or victory cities there so there is not much of a reason to throw yourself into attack all those small islands Unless of course your playing me, and want to be nice so I can sail off for Tokyo while you attack Makin Island.

[Blashy]

Blashy, are you saying that leaving the outer islands wide open is worth it to take China down quickly? Has this strategy been proven to work effectively against a good US player?

I've unfortunately not played Japan enough to say, but the thought of leaving the outer islands open makes me worry about the entire, and crucial, underside of the empire being compromised early. If I played against a Japanese player I knew was doing this, I'd be more than happy to bring my bombers and fighters in close to hit their supply ports in the south.

You HAVE to take out China if you want any chance of surviving to the end date and getting a Japanese victory.

You have to protect the Islands that give you MPPs, the rest are simply too costly to send troops over there. Amphibious cost + the lost of a unit from China or vs. UK is just too much and those units on little islands have no HQs with poor supply so they end up dying costing you full price to get them back.

[Happycat]

What if you have units get created for the buffer islands that SeaMonkey is talking about. All you would have to do then is set those units to an AI setting of 0 in the editor, and there you have it. I do agree though that Japan, wasted time by it's island hoping campaign it's just it would also allow the play balance to even out a little bit too.

I am in fact experimenting with a mod where I added a dozen corps to the Japanese force pool, at a cost of 60 mpp each. They are seriously crippled, stats-wise, and can not be reinforced. So essentially they are divisions, and not very robust ones either.

Still, I am hoping that they will bring the islands into play in a meaningful way, without screwing up the game balance.

I also added two more SNLF's at start up, although both sitting in Japan. My early experience with the game leads me to think that the Japanese do not have enough amphibious capability early enough.

The "China first" strategy is a common one in war games covering the Pacific theatre, but over the decades that I have been playing war games (too many decades ) my experience has been that Japan loses because of the American juggernaut, not by neglecting China.

Of course, the joy in any game is found in trying different approaches and seeing what works best. SC-PT is already demonstrating to me that it will stay on the hard drive for a very, very long time.

[Baron]

Perhaps an answer might be to limit the distance (or time) a unit can be in an amphibious transport. I am not aware of the longest distance covered by an invasion force in the Pacific, but I doubt they started in California and saled all the way to Iwo Jima. I recall one of Eisnhower's concern for delaying the Normandy invasion was the length of time the troops were aboard their ships, and this was a matter of days. If invasions could only occur over a short distance, all of the islands would gain in importance becasue you would need one to invade the next. Perhaps an Amrican unit would have to transport to New Caledonia before getting on an amphibious transport to invade Guadalcanal.

I also like the idea of a lend-lease convoy (as in SC 1) that could be interdicted. However, I would like to see such interdiction be able to occur by air and other capital ships. I love seeing the MPP convoy from British held Singapore travel right through the straits between Malaya and Sumatra, and through two Japanese Battleship groups. But put a submarine there and you have something. If air and ships could interdict, especially a lend-lease route, the islands would also gain in importance.

I think Big Dog is onto something. I've noticed no loss of readiness on ships in transports(I have not checked with amphibs). The reason the US took islands was to build bases to support air power to cover the next invasion. As it is now load up your invasion force and then sail it 10 turns across the Pacific to get to your target.

I'd propose a readiness and moral loss hits while a unit is in amphib mode and transportation mode. Make these big enough to make the islands important to fight over. The 1st MarDiv fought from Guadalcanal until the end of the war yet it was only involved in 3 invasions (Guadalcanal,New Britan, and Pelilu) this was due to the time it took to rebuild and prepare for the next invasion. The US can steam roll the Japanese with pure numbers but if the units are in no shape to fight after being at sea for so long then you would have to fight for the islands.

Please excuse the spelling I'm tired!

[AZGungHo]

Uh, I'm afraid you left out Okinawa. The first Marine division was part of that brutal battle too.

[SeaMonkey]

Okay I've been thinking about a friction value for bypassing islands. Perhaps not all islands are worth assessing a rub factor, but maybe the larger the island chain or the size of the garrison could increase the attrition cost to enemy combatants if they leave to many in their rear.

See this was one of the things I had in mind when I suggested a communication net for the Pacific theater, although the down side is another program layer for HC and the AI.

Now the way the attrition cost is applied would be something like the way stormy conditions sometimes cause damage to naval vessels or the sudden pop-up of partisans. Think of it as patrol craft of nominal size or operations on a smaller scale then would be modeled in a normal SC strategic scale based from these bypassed islands.

Still thinking, but threw this one out there for comments.

[SeaMonkey]

One more idea before rack-time. If certain islands are left with strong enough occupation forces perhaps a condition_position script would delay the entry of US reinforcements.

Again the rationale would be these delayed units from the USA build Q would be allocated for neutralizing these Japanese dispositions. Historically I would pull from the extensive raids that reduced Truk to irrelevance as an example.

[jon_j_rambo]

Far as the theory that the "US took islands for supply" is utter garbage!!! The US took islands for political reasons! Showing victories to the American public, the Japs, and the world.

[arado234]

I dont know alot about the Pacific battles but I tend to agree with Rambo.In the book I have:World War II,The Encyclopedia of Facts and Figures;when you look at what the Allies(Amis)had(it is incredible) it is unreal to think that they would have real problem with supply even over such disatnces.Remember the Aleutains arenot that far from Japan(yes I am aware of the weather).

Rambo are you saying politics had an effect on war strategy(lol).

[scottsmm]

hahaha, but seriously war is just the tool of Politicians used to gain foreign influence around the world with that nations armed soldiers are simply nothing more than the people that carry out the "dirty work". Needless to say this is over simplifying the matter as you could write multiple research papers on war and why it exists, and then you could write even more, and so on and so on. With that said everybody on this site is one MAJOR politician.