Bringing the Outer Islands into Play

[scottsmm]

Arado234,

That's probably there only function in the game. In less you made a MOD for just the islands. That would obviously be different.

[Timskorn]

Arado, the problem is, as Japan you put air out on the islands to spot, but what are you spotting for? Your US opponent is ignoring the islands. He's building up a big force to attack Japan directly in 1943, or possibly the DEI. He has no reason to go and spend a couple years island hopping when he can send a massive force from Midway to Japan.

I'm getting tired of this theorycraft. Who wants to play the Allies against me? You can try whatever strategy you want. Go straight for Japan. Go for DEI. Island-hop, whatever you want. I want a chance to prove Japan can kick some ***.

[scottsmm]

Timskorn feel free to send me your first turn scottmmoore@verizon.net. I can promise you that I won't go for Japan early as last time I tried that I got burned by a younger member who deserved to win. He simply outplayed me.

[Bill101]

One thing being missed in the discussion of the islands is that having them provides the Japanese navy with more manouevring space.

If Japan only had from the Philippines moving on south and south west to the DEI under their control, then the USN could hit the Philippines or Taiwan or even the Chinese coast without any warning.

I've found that when I start losing as Japan, one factor in the eventual demise of my navy is that I run out of places to hide. In providing that space, from the Marshalls to the Marianas, the islands do serve a purpose. Admittedly it's not a tangible, MPP providing one, but I think it's there.

[Happycat]

One thing being missed in the discussion of the islands is that having them provides the Japanese navy with more manouevring space.

If Japan only had from the Philippines moving on south and south west to the DEI under their control, then the USN could hit the Philippines or Taiwan or even the Chinese coast without any warning.

I've found that when I start losing as Japan, one factor in the eventual demise of my navy is that I run out of places to hide. In providing that space, from the Marshalls to the Marianas, the islands do serve a purpose. Admittedly it's not a tangible, MPP providing one, but I think it's there.

Yes! Of course, the trick is for the Allies to survive until that happy day.

[SeaMonkey]

Well since I haven't actually played from the USN viewpoint I could be wrong in this assumption, but.

Bill, it seems to me that the USN has enough units to literally canvas the entire map slowly working his way westward discovering any hiding places?

Failing in that, surely the tech edge the USN gets will deliver LR5 soon enough to spot anything that exists on the perimeter of his slow moving sphere of influence to the west?

There has to be some logical circumstance that compels the Japanese player to project force to the outer islands and in turn for the Allied player to want to establish a network of support bases as his forces careen to the final battle of the Japanese homeland.:confused:

[arado234]

What could you do to the Islands to make them more valuable?Other than spotting,what would anyone want them for?

Timskorn,as far as Japan being able to kick ass,they can for a while,but in the end they had no hope no matter what they did.Once the Allies survived the early attacks by the Axis overall it was curtians for the Axis no matter what they did.Even in this game America is still dummied down because if they werent it would even be more hopless for Japan.Im assuming the idea for Japan is to hang on longer than they did in reality?Which from what im reading is possible.That in itself makes sense.

[Colin I]

Japan thought a perimeter of fortified islands would blunt the Allied counterattack. The problem was that the Allies could isolate such islands and only assault the ones it deemed necessary. Well, the US assaulted a few pointless ones too, but thats beside the point.

The thing is, because the game localizes engineers into a few units, Japan cannot do what it did quite well - which was turn them into nightmares of defense - futile but unpleasant.

The only fix I can think of with a degree of historical basis is that if a Japanese unit holds an island for X turns then a minor fortification is built where it is entrenched.

[AZGungHo]

I like Colin's idea, sounds reasonable given how the Japanese were able to construct defenses. It would motivate the Japanese player to get his troops to the outer islands fast - and so might change up some common game strategies.

[Timskorn]

But again it begs the question, why would the US want to attack a useless, fortified island? What in-game benefit is there for either Japan to hold it, and for the US to take it? Supply isn't an issue. Both sides have plenty of places to re-supply both land and naval units in the Pacific.

And technically, the war is won and lost at sea. The US doesn't even need Marines until they want to retake important places, like the DEI and Japan. Once the USN controls the skies and sea, all those IJA divisions on the islands are just sitting ducks. The USN could even technically avoid them altogether and just make sure they can't transport away back to Japan.

From what I've been reading, historically the Allies took it to the Japanese at Guadacanal and Solomon Islands because the Japanese were building an airbase that would threaten Allied supplies and communications between the US and Australia, and could be a staging point for further invasions into the Pacific such as New Caledonia.

So I suppose two of those three concerns aren't really in the game (supplies and communications) and aren't a factor. The last one, concerns about further Japanese expansion, aren't really a factor either unless you're worried about Australia. The islands then only become important in the game if you end up having both navies fighting in that area, as having land-based air to support your fleet is definitely important.

[Happycat]

But again it begs the question, why would the US want to attack a useless, fortified island? What in-game benefit is there for either Japan to hold it, and for the US to take it? Supply isn't an issue. Both sides have plenty of places to re-supply both land and naval units in the Pacific.

And technically, the war is won and lost at sea. The US doesn't even need Marines until they want to retake important places, like the DEI and Japan. Once the USN controls the skies and sea, all those IJA divisions on the islands are just sitting ducks. The USN could even technically avoid them altogether and just make sure they can't transport away back to Japan.

From what I've been reading, historically the Allies took it to the Japanese at Guadacanal and Solomon Islands because the Japanese were building an airbase that would threaten Allied supplies and communications between the US and Australia, and could be a staging point for further invasions into the Pacific such as New Caledonia.

So I suppose two of those three concerns aren't really in the game (supplies and communications) and aren't a factor. The last one, concerns about further Japanese expansion, aren't really a factor either unless you're worried about Australia. The islands then only become important in the game if you end up having both navies fighting in that area, as having land-based air to support your fleet is definitely important.

You're right that supply and communication are not a factor, but I think that what some people are implying on this thread is that they should be, thus giving the islands a raison d'etre. Otherwise, they are just eye candy on the map.

For a game at this scale, it's hard to inject the realism that some people crave, but I think the game would be all the more interesting if it can be done.

[coolpepaw60]

Ok I know this game is on a large scale but what if it could be worked into the game that if say the Japanese took the Solomons and then were able to move on to New Caledonia and further and cut off Australia that the US would suffer some type of penalty ( Don't know what) until the communication and supply lines could be reopened. After all if the Japanese had been successful at Guadacanal this is what the US was afraid of would this option pull the US into this area thats what took place anyway, and with the naval battles that would take place who knows what might happen. On the other hand the Outer Islands that the Japanese control when the US retakes some of them the Japanese would suffer some type of penalty, and the thing is none of these options would have to be used the Japanese do not have to try and cut off Australia the US does not have to take any of the Outer Islands but it might add some interesting options if the details could be worked out.

Coolpepaw60

[SeaMonkey]

I've been remembering two books I read, "Storm Over the Gilberts", and "On to the Marianas" as to what was the real motivations to garrison and attack the outer islands in the offensive and defensive scheme of things.

Among other things mentioned I want to pay particular attention to the land based air parameters and how it applies to the SC PTO mechanics. TAC & Bombers should be very effective against ground units, causing not only casualties but demoralization and effectiveness degradations. Bombers(SAC) do that in SC and TAC also when upgraded with AT but I think we need a rebalancing and some testing of CTVs of many of the units.

I believe the double strike CVs are correct for attacking naval forces, but not ground units, perhaps the CD (carrier defense value) for ground units needs adjusting as the SA and TA values for the CAGs are cemented at 1.

What I'm hoping to accomplish is raise the importance of land based air vs carrier air groups(CAGs) so that the islands find their proper historical role(unsinkable aircraft carriers). The only thing is that if we do that the risk of an exagerated Japanese air campaign on Chinese conquest will be elevated and its already ahistorical. A dilemma to say the least.

Since CAGs should be smaller in aircraft numbers than TAC and SAC groups maybe they should only have one strike when compared to 2 for land based. This means an upgrade for TAC so their effectiveness on a single strike basis would need to be minimized vs ground units(the Chinese syndrome). They begin at 1 for TA and SA ctv(instead of current 2), upgraded through AT tech and a greater demoralization %. In turn though they should be most effective against naval units, upgraded through naval tech, so that island basing would be desirable for both offensive and defensive operations.

On the other hand since we now have only single strike CAGs, their effectiveness would have to be enhanced vs naval targets and when they elevate to naval tech 3 they should be able to take out a naval unit with that one strike. Their effectiveness could be further enhanced by not taking so many aircraft losses per strike giving them staying power able to stay on station longer.

Once the USN has upgraded and floated its build Q it will be as it was with widespread very effective CV task forces all over the Pacific.

I'm sure that Hubert and company can think of other ways to make the outer islands more involved in the gameplay, but it seems a shame to relegate half the map to irrelevance.......which brings me to one other suggestion.

Why not take out a lot of the eastern Pacific tiles by using the looping arrows for US west coast to Hawaii movements and expand the western Pacific. I mean there's nothing going on there, let's get those extra tiles into the area that counts. Its a wargame, we want maneuver and combat not the tedium of USN deployments to Hawaii and points west. You can still work the Aleutians in.

[Nupremal]

Has anyone considered this:

1) My first idea - increasing damage for amphibious transport back to the old level, so long range is hard (i.e. you need the islands more to leapfrog with so the amphibs dont get trashed)

2) I also notice that Carriers do not get upgrades to Bomb attack or defense - this makes their fighters ineffective against land-based bombers compared to land-based fighters, which get a bonus in bomb attack & defense!

[arado234]

My question is,How many planes does a land based airlfeet have compared to a Carrier?Imho,this should have a huge influence on how potent each type of weapon is.

[SeaMonkey]

Well, as I remember from the CAGs in the Midway battle, take the Enterprise for instance, Torpedo 6 has about 15 TBDs and Bombing 6 had about 40 SBDs, so say about 55 attack aircraft and another 30 fighters in Fighting 6.

If each CV counter is 2 carriers, then you have approximately 170 aircraft of which 110 are attack types. Japanese carriers didn't have the capacity to operate as many planes as USN CVs, so maybe 90 for them of the attack variety.

I would expect a TAC or SAC group would be about a couple hundred, equal to four carriers' attack groups and a land based fighter counter, maybe 6 carrier compliments of fighter types.

I'm not at home currently or I could confirm that, but still you see where I'm going how a single island group(the Marshalls for example) with numerous airfields could support hundreds of aircraft making them comparable to 8 to 10 CVs.

You come close to one of these island groups and they're going to put a hurting on you, see how important they can be? CVs are much too valuable to risk, better to use land based to soften them up?

[Razz1]

I like the idea of org loss for troops in amphibious transports.

Seems easy to implement and make the islands worth fighting for.

[Nupremal]

I have noticed that when I move amphibs they lose supply every turn, so that if you go a long distance they can barely move and take heavy casualties when they land. Was this always the case or was it in patch?

[Timskorn]

Do they really take extra casualties? I thought the chance of losses when invading enemy tiles was just a random amount, but don't quote me on that. Besides, as long as you land your units with an HQ, the next turn their supply goes right back up to normal. Most bigger invasions aren't decided in a couple of turns, so as long as you can land with an HQ and some naval/air support you can do so anywhere. This pretty much negates any penalties an amphib receives when at sea too long, as those penalties can be quickly recouped upon landing.

[arado234]

Since bringing the outter islands into play would mostly benefit Japan and belive it or not this game is tilted in Japans favor,what would be given to the Allies to offset this?As the game is now, other than the Allies ability to operate planes very quickly the game is in Japans favor,which just goes to show that when all is said and done Hubert has done a great job at making the game playable,giving Japan a slight hope to hang on and get some sort of victory and last but not least showing the overall futility of what Japan tried.

[Colin I]

ARADO: I'm far from convinced game in pro-Japan. Allies can make multiple mistakes but Japan cannot. Perhaps this is more for inexperienced players, with SC2 Axis were harder to play but in the hands of a good player became more dangerous.

Still feel Japan needs Russia less aggressive and some minor tweaks for parity in terms of game balance. I would end game slightly earlier, give a chance for a decision event for peace in China and some minor stuff (one unit in SE Asia with mobility 1 to simulate rapid advance).

With outer islands - Japan's strategy was to use them as a defensive shield - it doesn't work in game but it did not really work historically either, except where US chose to butt heads with entrenched troops.

But here I would raise the build threshold so Japan can build more bombers because it lets them create a better early warning network/defensive shield. I'm in a game with Baron with me as Japan, and not to give too much away but the decision as to where to place them is proving crucial. The are useful in China, keeping MPP down and reducing entrenchment, but also vital to warn me of naval moves. But with only three in play its really not that hard to find a way round them.

[Timskorn]

Colin you're correct about being crucial to noting naval movements, but I still have to disagree that is their best use. Using them in China is huge. Helps keep MPP's down, hurts their ability to op-move reinforcements and helps de-entrench units. What if the US player decides to just sit back and build up into late 1943? Your bombers will have been wasted for 2 years sitting on some island.

If Japan is allowed more bombers though, that is just more firepower to concentrate onto China.

I'm pretty convinced at this point that the outer islands are the last thing the Japanese should worry about. In a multiplayer game the only thing I would use them for is to maybe place a fighter or something on Truk or Marcus Island just to keep an eye out, but otherwise I see no reason to defend them. If the US player wants to just push through into the Phillipines area in 1942, be my guest. Either way I have to fight the USN, and it's better to do so deep in my territory, not out in worthless island chains.

[scottsmm]

Tim what you just said doesn't have anything to do with our game right lol? I noticed a bomber on Bablethrup (sp?) for quite some time.

[arado234]

Colin the game isnt pro Japan as far as them having a real chance to win but it is as far as what the Allies(Amis.)really had and could produce.It also doesnt allow for the real effect the Atomic bomb had and by 1945 Japans oil reserves were so low(even us Canadians were producing more)that if in this game the Japanese navy and airfleets are still intact but Japan has lost prettywell all her possessions then there is noway she should be able to use all that equipment because she had no fuel for it all. As it is now the Japanese can do all they want and if all they have left is just Japan they can still move and use all the planes and ships still left.That alone is a huge unhistorical ability of the Japanese.

[Razz1]

What about fish oil!

They used alot of that!