Pacific Islands worth 3 icps

@Argothair

-Assigning 1ipc values to the Pacific Islands would certainly help and encourage Japan to invade them but I doubt USA will try to retake them. For balance purpose, Japan has to start with significantly bigger fleet than the Allies. It requires minimum 15 ipc (transport+destroyer) just to invade one of the island with a protection. Even if Japan lose some of them, she is still capable of compensating these loses with another conquests. While if USA just ignores Japan, the huge Japanese fleet lose its all combat value suddenly for a long time.

-Yes, the capital rule does not make sense. Nations should be able to collect income and mobilize units even if their capitals are fallen. Also no losing all of incomes when capital is lost.

-That’s why I think Germany is too weak and Japan is absurdly too strong in A&A games which should have been the other way around and it results Germany just spamming infantry and waiting Japan ro rescue. It makes no sense. Historically by far the strongest Axis country should not have badly needed Japan’s and Italy’s helps to just stay even alive. This aspects also encourage USA to go only one front since if Uk-Russia is strong enough to defeat Germany-Italy. USA could choose to go Pacific only to just secure the British colonies but still no two ocean going USA unfortunately.

-Ipc vaules are known very abstract but still it would look very weird if these Pacific islands worth more than 1 except Hawaii. For example Australia was obviously a lot more than twice valuable than Guinea yet having Australia just twice valuable than Guinea is somewhat justifiable for playability but Australia cannot be same with Guinea. It would totally negate all WWII feelings as much as the Japanese tanks storming Moscow.
If Guinea becomes 2 then Australia should be minimum 4, India 5 or 6, South Africa 3, Egypt 3, Hawaii 2 etc.

-Having both Indian and Australian factories can actually help Japan more then Allies since if Japan concantrated southwest Pacific with East Indies Factories, UK might find itself spending more money than Japan in this area to just defend these factories because the Japanese units will be in range in both factories simultaneously considering USA needs 2 rounds to reinforce Australia.That’s why I’am fine with Indian factory but not with Australian factory.

-A solid way preventing USA going Pacific only is making UK-Russia doomed to fall without strong US assist in Europe. Preventing USA going only Atlantic is uhm… well I do believe not possible in A&A maps with its rules and cost structures. Totally needs redrawings, revaluings, new rules and costings.

-Expensive ships discourage naval investments for both sides when fighters just do well better than them with similar costs. Destroyer is too expensive for even mimic infantry abilities on sea such as blocking, baiting, deadzoning etc. Of course reducing ship costs do not magically create two ocean going USA, it is just one of the indispensible condition to achieve that. The expensive ships also reason too why Germany and Russia don’t build navy either.

@CWO:

I’m not sure I understand the concept of a Pearl Harbor attack involving no Japanese ships, since the whole operation revolved around the use of a Japanese carrier strike force to bring the attacking aircraft into range of Pearl Harbor.  Japanese aircraft in 1941 didn’t have the range to fly all the way to Hawaii from Japan and all the way back again.  The closest that Japan ever came to doing anything like that were one or two very small bombing raids carried out against Hawaii by (if I recall correctly) a couple of flying boats from Kwajalein Atoll.  These flying boats – Emilys, I think – were big and slow and clumsy, could hardly have done much damage, and would have had to fly unescorted since no Japanese fighters had the equivalent range.

As for the Doolittle Raid, it was carried out by B-25 Mitchell medium bombers, not by tactical bombers.  The rule section about these normally land-based planes being carrier-launched is correct (they used special training and techniques to launch from a flight deck), but the rule would have to be more precise than just saying that “The US player can launch 2 TB from 1 carrier” because it doesn’t restrict the location of the carrier and it doesn’t specify that the planes have to fly a one-way mission.  In the actual raid, Hornet had to get close enough for the planes to launch, hit their targets and continue to China.  The planes didn’t have the range to return to the carriers, and in any case could never have made a carrier landing; the techniques they used to launch from a carrier couldn’t work in reverse to land on one.

Also, the pearl harbor attack included Jaanese subs. It wasn’t a pure air attack.

I found a post which say that SBR AAA kill ratio was 10% max:

What Larry says have flaws, and contradict to to base mechanic.

It should be like this:

1. Attacking fighter escorts roll dice, each 1 is hit, and defender move casualties to casualty zone.

2. Defending AA-gun roll dice, each 1 is hit, and then defending fighters roll dice, 2 or less is hit. Attacker choose his casualties.

3. Surviving bombers roll SBR dice against factories.

In real world, the attacking airfleet would first face the intercepting fighters, and then the escort fighters would do dog-fight. Later, the bombers would face AA-fire at the target. This AA-fire killed historically less than 10 % of the aircrafts. Using Larrys rule where AA-guns target bombers, you could be lucky and roll two 1’s and kill both attacking bombers, and get an unhistoric result of thousands bombers killed and no harm to the factories. Since its an abstract game, let the attacker pick a fighter as casualty to represent a % loss, and still have bombers survive to SBR.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1706&start=8
He is talking about an older version of SBR (AA50 Anniversary).

These are just proposed for now, the goal is to reduce the incentive of a J1 DOW and to reduce incentive of an India crush, promoting a more global game.

Placement changes:

Removal of UK BB and 2 transports in SZ 37, replaced with a cruiser. Addition of a UK BB and 1 transport in SZ 39
Reason: Slow down UK DEI expansion and decrease J1 DOW incentive. Replacement of US bomber at Philippines with tac fighter.
Reason: increase SZ defense, also makes it harder to retreat the plane. Replacement of US transport with a destroyer in SZ 26
Reason: reduce dicey J1 pearl grab and sneaky sub J1 attack Addition of Minor IC to Manchuria
Reason: allow japan more build slots

NO changes
Removal of UK Kwangtung & Malaya NO, want to replace it with something but unsure of what.

ANZAC occupation of original jap territory to be for every round.

Replacement of US NO of Phi, to 3 of the following: Phi, Wake, Midway, Pearl.

Replacement of US NO of Iwo and Oki to 2 of the following: Iwo, Oki, Carolinas.

Replacement of Japan Haw NO to any 1 of the following: Haw, Mid, Wake.

Any thoughts.

Got a few more
Fritz X bomb (Germany) 5 points
Attack Britain with the rockets tech

United we stand (U.S and U.K) 10 points each
Preform a joint strike
This would only happen if there was a joint strike NA

All fail the commonwealth (Axis) 25 point
Control both British capitals at the end of turn three
25 points for the powers that captured the territories

Resistance what resistance (Germany) 10 points
Capture all three of the French home territories in Europe

No I was going to play tonight, but I just got TOI for my b day so I probably will be playing that to night instead.

I’ve changed my chart in accordance with the game pieces Field Marshal Games will be coming out with.

BREAKTHROUGH CHART 3

1. Atomic Bomb
You may build 1 Atomic Bomb per tern for a cost of 10 IPCs.  Only 1 Atomic Bomb may exist on the board at one time.  It can be captured.  It may be carried by a bomber or rocket.  An Atomic Bomb dropped on any territory destroys all units (including factories) in that territory.  Place 1 damage counter on that territory’s IPC value.  That territory now produces 1 IPC less,(applies to factory production).  When territory damage is equal to the territory’s value, remove counters and place 1 upside-down damage counter (the side that does not say “damage”) over the National Control Symbol.  This territory is now Impassable.

2. Super Carriers
Your carriers may now carry up to 3 fighters.  They can now take 1 free hit that can be healed at the end of the battle.

3. Underground Factories
Your factories now take half the damage from Strategic Bombing Raids, rounded down.

4. Combined Bombardment
Your surface combat ships can now fire in the first round of an amphibious assault, in addition to the Opening Fire stage.  Ships are vulnerable to enemy fire during the first round of combat.

5. Naval Night Fighting Skills
Your surface combat ships now fire twice in the first round of sea combat.

6. Stealth 
You accidentally discover stealth technology.  Your planes are no longer effected by enemy radar upgrade.

@Loki:

I heard someone mention the idea sometime of allowing tanks to take their second move after combat if they had one left. That might be interesting because in essence it would allow tanks to strafe like fighters can do. Maybe it would suck, I don’t know.

Its fun playing like this, definetely makes Germany better, but also helps the Soviets repel the Japs and Nazis after they move into one of their territories and it keeps Tanks with a def of 2, which means the enemy will probably use their fighters to bomb them when the bulk of your infantry is in the next territory blocking the enemy from hitting your tanks. I dont see tanks as a 3/3 unless they’re the heavier versions that appeared towards the end of the war (tigers/IS-2’s etc…)