supply

[bowenw]

The outer islands forum got a little out of hand, the question I thought was of what value are the outer islands to Japan and the USA. I thought in the beginning of the dialog there were good ideas brought up by different players.

I feel some of the islands were important historical and also for this game. What I tried to say is to change the supply rule that is in this game. I was told leave it alone but I feel it should be modified, the way it is now the USA navy can go right up to Japans front door without ever having to resupply unless they get into combat. This leaves the islands totally out of the game except for spying on enemy fleet movement, well somebody went to the trouble to graphically show these islands in the Pacific, must have been a reason. The supply rule worked very well in SC2 in the Atlantic why not here?

Every move you are at sea your supply value drops, if that became the case then you would have to take a few outer islands to resupply your fleet or go back to Hawaii or the USA for major repairs, maybe some players wont like that but it makes sense to me. A side bonus to taking these islands is the Marine units fighting in these islands will build up there experience for the large major battle for the main islands of Japan.

Willy

[LampCord]

bowenw,

I really like your idea and I agree about the other thread. I also had some ideas and I will reproduce them here since maybe starting this thing over is the only way to make progress on this issue:

1) While its true that the islands weren't used for supply in real life, they also weren't used for upgrades or repairs either. Since we allow tiny islands like Iwo and Tarawa to be used for repairs and upgrades which normally require major naval ports, is it really that much of a stretch to have them affect supply for purposes of making the islands more valuable?

2) If the islands really were just for political purposes, is it possible that they could affect the game in that way like some sort of national moral modifier?

3) Since it is impossible to teleport an entire airbase from San Francisco to Rangoon, would it be possible to limit the range of air operational movement to something a bit more realistic and thereby make the worthless little islands of some value as they would aid the player in transferring his air units around the map?

[Timskorn]

Make the island towns and port values zero. You can still take them. You can still defend them. The importance of them are up to you. Plus, the US won't be able to do major ship repairs in the middle of the Pacific. Finally, this would tilt balance slightly towards Japan's favor as any damaged US ships would need to head back home for repairs. They could buy time, at least, in damaging a CV even if they don't sink it.

[bowenw]

This is the kind of dialog I like thoughtful and helpful, I agree no major repairs should be allowed in the outer islands, you would have to go back to Hawaii or the US for major repairs but only for ship or carrier damage, planes could be allowed to reinforce from the outer islands, maybe I get confused between supply and the word damage to ships. If you get damage say from a ten to a four you can go to any island port and be brought up to at least an eight, and to be brought up to a ten you have to go to Hawaii or the US, everyone who has said the island ports dont have the equipment to fix major or minor ships are 100% correct, I believe all ships with damage have to go too Hawaii or the US for any repair if you wish to repair them. Another reason this might be a good thing is it will make you a little more careful as the US navy not to go barreling around the Pacific without a care. I still believe that a ships supply should dwindle every move and that the outer islands can bring all ships up to full supply, it is more imperative in the Pacific war than the Atlantic war.

Willy

[LampCord]

Make the island towns and port values zero. You can still take them. You can still defend them. The importance of them are up to you. Plus, the US won't be able to do major ship repairs in the middle of the Pacific. Finally, this would tilt balance slightly towards Japan's favor as any damaged US ships would need to head back home for repairs. They could buy time, at least, in damaging a CV even if they don't sink it.

But I think that's exactly the opposite of the direction most players want to go. We want some reason to take the islands. Something to make them strategically important. What you propose would do the opposite and make them even more worthless. Sure, the ship repair issue would be more realistic but now there would be absolutely no reason why anyone would want these islands other than the limited use for air spotters and ground based anti-naval air.

I can't believe I'm the only person on this forum who has a problem with the ability to move air bases all over the entire Pacific in one turn even without controlling a single landing spot in between. I think its a HUGE advantage to the Allies as it allows the US player to get air units anywhere he needs them in one turn. The Jap on the other hand has his hands full in China and can't as easily afford to take advantage of this rule. The US can max out his air units in about 6 months and move them willy nilly all over the map as needed.

[Stitch]

It is sort of gamey that US air units can relocate from San Francisco to Kukum to Calcutta in 2 turns.

Once Britain takes back Burma, I like to shove air up to China. This quickly and permanently saves them, especially with that committed US HQ already there. Easy Peasy, just watch out for the monsoons.

[Happycat]

I don't really have a problem with the air relocation system. It's abstract as hell, but for a game of this scale it works, imo. But I do agree with bowenw that the supply and upgrade issues.

If I understand Timskorn's advice, lowering ports and towns to "zero" would render the port incapable of repairing or upgrading. Could we just lower the port only, I wonder? Then the town still has some value, and it can support an air unit and/or land units nearby.

Looking at this from the other angle, if it's left as is, that's ok too. I can certainly see both points of view, and while it might be nice to force the US Navy to send its damaged CV's all the way back to San Francisco for full repair, perhaps the time scale in the game would make that approach non-workable.

So as an alternative approach, for pbem games, perhaps players could adopt a house rule for victory conditions, making each island with a port worth a certain number of victory points, and when one is captured, the points pertaining to the island become a "plus" for the new occupying power, and a "minus" for the previous owner. This then ensures that some attention will be paid to the outer islands.

For my own part, I like capturing the islands as the Japanese player anyway, and sticking air units into key locations. The recon is very valuable. I like to find American CV's by reconnaissance, not by having bushels of bombs and torpedoes dropping on my head

[SeaMonkey]

OK another possibility here. Japan always touted the islands as "Unsinkable Aircraft Carriers", the answer is obvious. Those islands allowed for the forward staging of aircraft, that was their value.

But in SC, because aircraft take such a beating from surface vessels, especially as they acquire greater naval tech, it makes attacks by land based aircraft too expensive. Look at BBs, they start out with a bomber defense of 2, with 3 levels of naval tech they are at 5, way over powered IMO.

We need some rebalancing of Combat Target Values(CTVs) so that land based aircraft can deal out more punishment, ie...when fully supplied and HQ supported, to naval vessels and not take so many losses.

The next problem is the effectiveness of the double strike carriers on land units. By somewhat neutering the CV assault on land units(as it should be) it will elevate the importance of land based air(TAC) in proximity to the island you want to assault and occupy.

This rebalancing will have need of testing to fine tune but in the end it should bring the island bases into the realm of importance to what they were in history.

And that was as a staging platform for land based aircraft so they could attrite the island occupiers in a more efficient manner than naval air. Now later in the war the USN did have so many carriers that in effect they made the island bases obsolete except for strategic bombing.

But if the Japanese player husbands his TAC, upgrades & escorts them and uses the kamikaze approach, he should be able to delay the Allied naval assault to a certain degree, albeit at a very great cost. If this can be accomplished then islands supporting land based TAC will attain the value necessary for Allied players to rexamine their approach to the Japanese home islands and the Japanese to defend them.

Maybe!

[Timskorn]

I was only half-joking in my suggestion.

Maybe the towns don't have to be zero, but ports being unable to repair ships should be explored I think. Yeah, it'll be annoying having to send damaged ships back to home waters for repair, but that means your naval engagements will be all the more important and critical. Smashing the USS Yorktown down to 1 strength, and then allowing it to repair to 8 strength in 2 turns is a little crazy. Especially with the massive MPP's the US has it costs nothing to repair. "Just a flesh wound".

If I do that kind of damage to critical ship like a CV I want to at least know I'm not going to have to deal with her for a few months.

As for making the islands worth something? We're talking two different languages here in these threads. On one hand, it happened historically, so we want it to be important in the game. On the other hand we're arguing that historically Japan was wrong in taking the outer islands and the US was wrong for taking them back…so Japan shouldn't have to take the islands, and the US shouldn't either in the game.

Too pretty big different points of view here. The fact is the US is a juggernaut, islands or no islands, Japan is doomed. But what is being suggested here is that Japan should always focus on China, and the US should just sit and build a massive fleet and then smash Japan in one big attack. In that sense then, the game experience seems broken. The joy of wargames is having different strategies to try. If it's concluded the islands are currently worthless for both the US and Japan, then that will be the MO in multiplayer games. Is this true?

[LampCord]

Another thing that has been confusing me on the issue of whether the islands are valuable:

If the islands are worthless, and that is BY DESIGN because they really were in history, why does the AI fight for them?

Seems like a contradiction doesn't it? On one hand we are being told that the Admirals for both sides were complete morons and never should have bothered fighting for these islands. On the other hand, I have played 6-7 games now against the AI and I assure you it will attempt to attack and occupy most of the islands.

Is the AI purposely stupid to behave like the moron Admirals of WWII? I don't buy it.

The people who programmed the AI certainly thought the islands were of value.

This is a glaring contradiction.

[arado234]

Not knowing alot about the Pacific battles(although im now becoming more interested),I do also think moving planes all over the map is gamey but I think the Allies need that because remember this game still doesnt represent the true Allied industrial might.The Amis.built 141 Carriers(this does include the smaller escorts)to Japans 16.As it is now I believe they can only build 12.The Atomic bomb is only a scripted event.What if it wasnt and the Allies could just go allout for it.Who knows what they would have in this game by 44.So in one way this game is still dummied down to give Japan a chance to''win''which is a good thing.I think Hubert and everyone else involved did a great job in desiging this game to show Japans futility but still leaving them some small hope in getting a ''victory''.

It does make some sense though in giving the Islands some sort of political effect(maybe on overall morale).

[Hubert Cater]

Good thread and discussion guys and just to add some thoughts on the AI scripting, more or less the AI is scripted to mimic what would be expected in a historical sense when it comes to the island campaigns. I can see the value of the pros and cons when it comes to players fighting for the islands but either way we felt that it was important that at least the AI give players a game that played close to history. So in this case both sides can expect some movement when it comes to the outer islands even if Multiplayer games play out differently.

Hope this helps!

Hubert