Are islands worth fighting for?

[Clausewitz]

Apart from the three VC island territories, it seems to me that these pieces of real estate are always going to be ignored by most players, hence the usual lack of action in the pacific.
As an example, the first time I played UK in the new version I took Borneo on turn one and, although it provided 4 IPCs per turn from then on, it did not divert Japanese attention much. After knocking out my fleet Japan just left my 3 inf stranded uselessly and continued ferrying units to the Eurasian mainland where the game is always decided. Essentially, the cost and time of launching amphibious assaults on islands is not worth it.
I beleieve islands will only ever become valuable when utilising fuel and supply rules, when they may become vital fueling stations and supply dumps for forces far from friendly ICs.

[holywolfman]

...Or if one should change Vpt cities (like put one in Hawaii for instance)-that way, there would be more 'action' in the Pacific! Maybe more island hopping too.

-Nick- [img]smile.gif[/img]

[elbowmaster]

Originally posted by Clausewitz:
Apart from the three VC island territories, it seems to me that these pieces of real estate are always going to be ignored by most players, hence the usual lack of action in the pacific.

Essentially, the cost and time of launching amphibious assaults on islands is not worth it.

I beleieve islands will only ever become valuable when utilising fuel and supply rules, when they may become vital fueling stations and supply dumps for forces far from friendly ICs.

i also agree with your assessment, id suggest not having economic ipc value drives, but stategic ipc value drives...that will involve a different look and approach to how territories are now valued, including a revamp of the boards approach to "valued" territories and how they relate to stategic locations...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[series]

I know a play-style that needs island captures:

Load many ground units onto an island close to Japan/USA/A place you want to capture (*Works best on territorys without Industrial Complexes). Then, using only about 3 or four transports, do assault after assault after assault until it is yours. This will save you the money for many transports, but unfortunately take up a lot of time.

[Yardstick]

Hi Clausewitz,

The developers of A&A Revised thought that making island territories worth more IPCs would be enough to liven up the action in the South Pacific. Obviously, they failed to factor in the cost of building transports and a support fleet to protect them. You're right in this regard: the power and unmitigated flexibility of territory-to-territory attacks is enough to deter most players from 'island-hopping'.

However, we don't want to go back to the RISK-style system of movement that unrealistically connects islands with fine lines that ground forces can miraculously 'slide across' on. While that eliminates the need for huge navies, it is also extremely unsatisfying. So: how do we spice up island battles without resorting to this kind of disingenous abstraction? I have three suggestions:

(1) Make Australia a victory city. Every island around Oz will then have a strategic as well as an economic value.

(2) Import the blockhouse piece from A&A D-Day and give it the power to attack ships in the sea zone surrounding the territory it is located on (i.e.: on the attack, each BH gets 1 free shot per turn at 3 or less at naval units). Now the Allies can't afford to ignore or simply bypass the islands, but have a reason to move in and crush their defences.

(3) Give island defenders some kind of combat advantage, so that occupying an island makes the units there stronger than they would be on the mainland. This will give players a motive to retain garrisons on and move units to islands, using them as safe stepping stones in their advances toward enemy territories, while inflicting grievous casualties on enemies who give in to the temptation to attack them. [Xeno's Pacific at War has a rule for this: all units defending against an amphibious assault get one free shot each at the attackers before combat begins as usual (this was also a rule in the MB game Shogun, as I recall). The new blockhouse pieces could play a role here, too.]

So, Clausewitz, what do you think?

-YW

P.S.: Where can I find a copy of the fuel and supply rules you mentioned? I'm interested to learn more about them.

It seems to me if all unit movement (except infantry) was contingent on having 'oil tokens', and if a great deal of these oil tokens were generated on islands, then taking those islands would become vital to winning the game.

[Frog]

I have been thinking about making a post that fits in neatly with your question.

I have found That every person I’ve played with, does not use the victory city condition. All play for a “victory” by gentlemen defeat. I know this is not competition play, but we all feel if you only fight for VC’s then everything else in not important. you just fight for the territories you need to win.

So most of my games have had activity in the Pacific, Africa, Brazil (yeah), and other places.

[Sinister]

My ideas is to make islands worth more IPCs. This isn't a real popular idea, but if every island was worth 2-3 dollars more than it is now you'd be seeing lots of island battles.

Another idea I had was getting to place an infantry on an island without an IPC value per turn. If you could build up over a few turns it would make the enemy real nervous.

[pagan]

The idea that the USA tangles up japan is worth enough to make a pacific war.

But the problem with this is that it takes USA so long to build up a fleet + loaded tranys.

The power of the ENTIRE japanese navy sitting in striking range of W.USA at the begining of USA round 1 makes it less likely.

So this is my idea. Add a BB to SZ64 just under alaska for the USA setup. USA could on its turn consolidate a navy close to equal of japan. sz64 is far enough away from being brought around to the east coast that it is a sitting duck if left exposed.

24IPCs is a big number, but we are dealing with a single piece. USAs advantage is production, Japan's advantage is Time-delay.

If Germany only is still done as a strategy the BB would most likely be used to try to kill some kind of japanese ship so japan would Have-To deal with it. But that is the only draw-back I am envisioning.

USA vs Japan ; UK+USSR vs germany as a POSSIBLE strategy

Now that I put this out here, perhaps I could get blasted by some of you out there for my lunacy.

[ May 01, 2004, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: PAGAN ]

[frimmel]

I'm with Pagan on the more US navy in the Pacific thing. I find the game very balanced so far but mostly if you concentrate on Kill Russia/Save Russia. My limited experience so far (about 10 games) has indicated any willingness of Japan to trade navies or stay in position to kill any US ships in the pacific to pretty much end the battle of the Pacific and keep the game concentrated on the eastern front.
However I can't really say the game needs changed but more US ships at the start seems to be a way to keep the Axis from killing Russia before any sort of USA presence can get built up anywhere. But that is the game part.

[ May 01, 2004, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Frimmel ]

[DocD]

Originally posted by Young Wittgenstein:
Hi Clausewitz,

(1) Make Australia a victory city. Every island around Oz will then have a strategic as well as an economic value.

(2) Import the blockhouse piece from A&A D-Day and give it the power to attack ships in the sea zone surrounding the territory it is located on (i.e.: on the attack, each BH gets 1 free shot per turn at 3 or less at naval units). Now the Allies can't afford to ignore or simply bypass the islands, but have a reason to move in and crush their defences.

(3) Give island defenders some kind of combat advantage, so that occupying an island makes the units there stronger than they would be on the mainland. This will give players a motive to retain garrisons on and move units to islands, using them as safe stepping stones in their advances toward enemy territories, while inflicting grievous casualties on enemies who give in to the temptation to attack them. [Xeno's Pacific at War has a rule for this: all units defending against an amphibious assault get one free shot each at the attackers before combat begins as usual (this was also a rule in the MB game Shogun, as I recall). The new blockhouse pieces could play a role here, too.]

YW

Hey YW. I like a couple of your ideas. The move of the VC to Aussyland is a good one. The Japanese have to then divert their attention and forces from the mainland. This would then make the US and UK want to force the Japanese from the surrounding isles.
Also, having a blockhouse piece that could fire on passing ships (or adjacent seazones) traumatically increases the US desire to remove all enemy forces from the islands. However, I'm not sure how this would play out in the game mechanics. It would surely give an already strong Japanese player more strength, but could be tried.
The reasons I don't like the idea of increasing the islands IPC production or making them needed oil spigets, is strictly historical.
If we remember, historically , the only reasons the US paid attention to these 'rocks in the ocean' were to get bombers within striking range of Japan and to eliminate any possible threat to their supply lines. Having Japanese gold mines, oil rigs, or wheat farms in the middle of the Pacific is wholly ahistorical.
I haven't played with the US NA of Island bases yet, but something of this nature 'suped' up could be the missing link.