Why Hawaii matters

Do you have something in mind -Let's hear it.
Post Reply
Black_Elk
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:10 am

Why Hawaii matters

Post by Black_Elk » Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:12 pm

I would like to outline my simple argument for Hawaii

Please note the historical map below, the curious projection of which, helps to illustrate why Hawaii means what it means, when the Japanese Empire is at war with the United states...

This is all I'm saying...

Hawaii 1 ipc, Borneo 1, Dutch East Indies 2: Classic
Hawaii 1 ipc, Borneo 4, Dutch East Indies 4: Revised
Hawaii 1 ipc, Borneo 4, Dutch East Indies 4: 1942 and sec Edition
Hawaii 1 ipc, Borneo 1, Dutch East Indies 2: 1941 in the latest starter board, meant as the intro to A&A

Given the flexibility demonstrated in re-imagining IPCs for the 1941 game, which allowed for those two spaces to share an equivalent IPC value, why could you not consider raising the IPC value of Hawaii so that they are roughly the same on the larger boards?

It seems to me this would give a more important anchor for Japan to fight over. Especially since it is now meant as a VC.

My hope is that a future A&A world game, at the moderate scale like those listed above, may experiment with a base 1 ipc value for every territory, instead of base 0 (like it is now.) And then balance the values according to that based on the needs of the history and the gameplay. It seems to me like if you start at one it makes going up more flexible, and doesn't introduce all that many more ipcs onto the map. The max for the small games now with 1942 sec ed is 70 territories? Which feels nice and round. If 70 is the base, then just balance the other values off that number to start, distributed in ways that service the best game balance?

Basically you go up to 1 as the base, which gives you the flexibility to go down in areas that already feature production, as a way to offset. And pull a few more ipcs into contested areas, and out of the core.

In which case you could justify the jump up on Hawaii's ipc value to 2 or 3 ipcs, while not having to increase say Borneo/Dutch East Indies relative to it.

It seems like it would work, willing to try it? I mean if we have seen the relative values territory to territory change already. Why not try the other way?

Just thinking

Best,
Hope you are all well
Attachments
world_divided_1941-distance.jpg
world_divided_1941-distance.jpg (181.47 KiB) Viewed 6354 times

WILD BILL
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Why Hawaii matters

Post by WILD BILL » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:35 am

I agree that many of the islands could have a 1 -2 IPC value based more on strategic value, and 2-4 IPCs for resources. Being AA is based on economy derived from what territories you control, it would encourage more island hopping by both sides if some of these more important bases were worth something (especially in games that don't have NO's). I will say though, as Japans empire starts to crumble, the swing in control of the Pacific islands might be too much for balance if they all had values.

Thinking Global1940 here, there are a lot of 0 IPC islands in the Pacific. Quick glance puts it at about 20? This would overhaul the map quite considerably and many adjustments would need to be made to base economies and NO's. If all the islands had a value, then yea you could make more strategic harbors like Hawaii worth 2 IPCs I guess. In G1940 though Hawaii is also worth +5 bonus IPCs for Japan, and -5 IPCs to the USA if they don't get it back (so its value is definatly recognized in this game anyway).

I have always wondered for instance why Caroline Isle has no value, it was a very important forward base for Japan, and it isn't even linked to an NO in the G1940 2nd edition. They have attempted to lure both sides to fight for some Pac islands by linking NO's to them. I liked the old Pac island NO (see below) much better then what we have now in the 2nd edition, it encouraged much more island hopping IMO for both sides. This was for Japan, but the USA had the same NO.

"Collect 5 IPCs per turn if Axis controls 5 of the 7 following islands. Midway, Wake, Marianas, Iwo Jima, Carolines, Solomon Islands and Guam. Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter"

Many people have house rules for what is known as the 0 IPC islands giving a bonus based on how many of them your side controls. Maybe something like this would be a better solution for existing games.

Again in the later AA games the NO's attempt to give more value for control of groups of islands in a region rather then individual islands per say (but are somewhat lacking IMO). The ANZ NO for the group just northeast of Australia comes to mind (both sides of New Guinea, Solomon, and New Brit).

The DEI could be cut slightly, but their values are higher because of resources (oil), and the economies of both sides rely on it. Japans economy is more heavily dependent on it because of the NO (and Japans lower starting econ). It is the same as the other oil territories (Mid East, or Caucasus). They are generally worth more to the enemy (Axis) in game NO bonuses, because resources were more scarce to the Axis. Theoretically it would also be a devastating blow to the original owner as well (Allies), so the higher IPC territory values are warranted IMO. The Allies also had more access to such resources because they controlled the sea's for the most part (US and other global trade). I think the NO's reward a power for reaching a certain goal controlling an entire region or in some cases not giving up territory. They don't mean that the enemy can get more resources out of the ground then its predecessor, so there is a fine line to be walked here.

User avatar
Craig A Yope
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Saint Clair, MI

Re: Why Hawaii matters

Post by Craig A Yope » Sat Mar 08, 2014 12:08 pm

Game play in the Pacific and the islands there has to forced by the need of the Allies to use those islands as bases for military operations. IPC carrots aren't going to be enough to drive play.

As such, the need to go to those places would have to come from mechanisms like greater distances to travel (more map spaces), limiting the movement of naval vessels (three space movement only in non combat), or more involved ideas like supply/out of supply rules that force a more methodical advance.

As long as a player can just shoot directly into the heart of the enemy without regard to logistics or security of lines of supply and communication you will have them bypassing those "worthless" islands.

timerover51
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:31 am

Re: Why Hawaii matters

Post by timerover51 » Sun Jul 20, 2014 6:23 pm

Craig A Yope wrote:Game play in the Pacific and the islands there has to forced by the need of the Allies to use those islands as bases for military operations. IPC carrots aren't going to be enough to drive play.

As such, the need to go to those places would have to come from mechanisms like greater distances to travel (more map spaces), limiting the movement of naval vessels (three space movement only in non combat), or more involved ideas like supply/out of supply rules that force a more methodical advance.

As long as a player can just shoot directly into the heart of the enemy without regard to logistics or security of lines of supply and communication you will have them bypassing those "worthless" islands.
Interesting, as the issue of logistics being totally disregarded is one of my biggest issues with the game. However, if you put in anything to force players not to ignore the Pacific Islands, then you need to put in corresponding rules for land supply as well. Being able to blitz from Egypt to South Africa in two moves is a bit bizarre, considering the distance and the terrain to be covered. Or the Japanese being able to attack through Siberia with no problems. After reading about Japanese logistic supply in the Nomanhan Incident in 1939, their heavy dependence on railroad supply in China, and the total supply fiasco that occurred in the attack on Imphal and Kohima in 1944, the idea of Japan racing across Siberia is a bit ridiculous, not even considering the likely Russian "scorched earth" policy. When it comes to logistics and supply, the Japanese High Command were complete amateurs.

Edit Note: I checked the A&A Spring 1942 board and the A&A Revised map boards, and the number of territories between Manchuria and Moscow is the same as the number of territories between Berlin and Moscow, in both cases 3. The actual distance difference is Moscow to Berlin, about 1000 miles. From Moscow to Vladivostok is about 4000 miles. There is an awful lot of difficult terrain between Manchuria and Moscow.

timerover51
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:31 am

Re: Why Hawaii matters

Post by timerover51 » Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:53 pm

I came across the following quote in PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN-BRITISH JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF CONFERENCES HELD IN WASHINGTON, D. C. ON TWELVE OCCASIONS
BETWEEN DECEMBER 24, 1941 AND JANUARY 14, 1942
. It can be found online at archive.org. It makes for interesting reading.
ADMIRAL STARK brought up the question of the critical situation in the Curacao-Aruba area with respect to Allied oil supply, pointing out that 95% of the oil used on the eastern coast comes from that area; and that one-half of the Lend-lease oil for Britain comes from that area.
I need to figure out how to get Curacao and Aruba on the map, along with Venezuela. They should have a reasonable IPC value.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests