v1.00.03

[stjeand]

OR allow units on islands to be given supply trucks and the supplies do not get used.
That way they can "store" supplies, up to a max of X...

BUT they will still be out of supply.

The concern is a smart Axis player will blockade every port on islands on turn 1...then just start invading 3 or 4 turns later.

No way for the US to keep New Caladonia...no way to keep Fiji.

They should not be falling.

I was pondering making more important locations supply sources so that you can't blockade them...

Like Rabual, Port Moresby, New Caladonia, Fiji, Truk, and a few others basically stating these places are more heavily defended and have supplies for many many months.
I have to see if you can turn it on or off...maybe year based.

BUT blockading a small island I have no issue with. Just not the critical ones that should actually be able to put up a fight...

[Tacom]

A good solution that perhaps would mean too much changes would be to consider the current supplies ammunition and such, that are only used when combat occurs. And have a different, greater supply pile for basics. This way you have to attack or wait a looong time.

[AlvaroSousa]

Remember to blockade the enemy has to NOT have a naval unit of their own next to the port.

I removed the raider retreat rule for as eskuche pointed out it created more problems than it solved. So the hotfix will revert back until a better solution comes to mind. I do need to play a full game with Hadros from testing.

[eskuche]

I’ll just state again for the record that the most elegant solution is either disabling owner ships in the landing zone (not sure if possible), full six hex landing zones around the islands, or extension of the islands into beaches on multiple hexes (may require graphical changes because you don’t want these islands too big visually im guessing). If all else fails, you can house rule invisible blocking ships as a temporary solution.

[kennonlightfoot]

Or just eliminate the non-VP islands. Are they really serving any purpose in the game?
And, as eskuche suggested, put landing zones around the VP islands.

[Numdydar]

Or keep the islands as the map would look odd without them and just make them impassable terrain.

[eskuche]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Or keep the islands as the map would look odd without them and just make them impassable terrain.

There are some unconnected islands that give (important) free recon here and there.
I have made a temporary fix to the island mess in my balance mod by adding landing zone beaches where appropriate:

[kennonlightfoot]

The only thing that the islands seem to provide is some recon ability. Even ones with the 1 value ports are pretty useless since neither side can afford to waste air power putting it on them. Since I haven't found exactly how these islands improve spotting I don't know how much value they added.

I usually take them with a 1 or 2 factor unit then abandon them. Mostly, because it only cost the Japanese 1 or 2 Landing Ships and it will cost the Allies 10 Landing Ships to take them back because they don't get any low strength units to do this with. Might see if the Allies can stop upgrades to on of their island garrisons just to do this one chore cheaply.

But I still think the game wouldn't be effected that much by just eliminating them. If they actually effect spotting, then eskuche suggestion looks like a good solution. Just treat all these minor islands as a group. When the VP island like Kwajalein is taken, the whole group around it becomes the conqueror's territory.

[Remington700]

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Are they really serving any purpose in the game?

I have yet to use the single hex level 1 port islands to much advantage but I am playing Hotseat so the increase in area intelligence may be less of a factor. With that said, I do like the feel of the islands being playable terrain. If Japan captures them, they can be skipped simulating an "Island Hopping" doctrine.

I like how the islands play in the Gilberts and Marshalls because you have the option to put multiple planes in the area for defense. IMO Truk is much harder to defend once the Allies gain CV advantage because it sits by itself. And having the island of Nauru (and those like it) accessible is a fun option and does not hurt anything. I like the ability to explore inventive ways to use them for advantage.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: Remington700

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Are they really serving any purpose in the game?

I have yet to use the single hex level 1 port islands to much advantage but I am playing Hotseat so the increase in area intelligence may be less of a factor. With that said, I do like the feel of the islands being playable terrain. If Japan captures them, they can be skipped simulating an "Island Hopping" doctrine.

I like how the islands play in the Gilberts and Marshalls because you have the option to put multiple planes in the area for defense. IMO Truk is much harder to defend once the Allies gain CV advantage because it sits by itself. And having the island of Nauru (and those like it) accessible is a fun option and does not hurt anything. I like the ability to explore inventive ways to use them for advantage.

Definitely need more testing of the game using players. Hopefully, once the bug fix on 3 is made I can get one started. I particularly want to try the game again from the Allied side. We have had to much concentrations on early Japanese tactics. I am still worried that the Japanese can overrun India if they want too.

It isn't going to be easy to come up with any system that makes the small islands relevant given the map and time scale of the game. With only 26 turns in a year players can't be bothered with spending time taking little islands just because it happened in the war. As far as using them for air bases, against the game scale works against this. There aren't many air units since they represent very large formations. The player can't waste them on an island.

But again, we are suffering from lack of experience playing the game in 43-45. Until we get into seriously working on the tactics for retaking islands and major objectives like the Philippines we don't know what tactics are needed.

[ncc1701e]

Since the main goal of blockage is to destroy supplies of the enemy, I wonder if it won't be good to come back to the initial design of WPE for WPP.
Initially, transport ships were used for supplying ports. The problem is that they were not taking losses.

Perhaps this is too late for this engine but, if losses could be done for transport ships while doing supply interdiction, we could remove this blockade mechanism.
At the end, what we want to do is to destroy the transport ships fleet of the enemy so that he can't anymore supply all the islands he own.

[stjeand]

MS should be used for supplies, not transports. But in either case something should be used.

Taking every island in the game without needing ships to supply them is off.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: stjeand

Taking every island in the game without needing ships to supply them is off.

I think this is exactly the point. You want to invade an island, India, Australia, you can. But, you will need to have the needed ships to supply your armies there.

And, of course, with the losses, you will need to build ships for your supply network.

People seems to complain that Japanese can go too far away and too quickly. Well, if they don't have ships for supplying their armies, their islands, they won't go too far away.

USA won't have this problem. They will have the ships later.

That's the way I would solve the current balance issue. Add the usage of transport ships (as before) or MMs to perform port supply and not a fix amount of ships, an amount based on the size of the port. With supply interdiction of subs, or surface fleets, transport ships or MMs will be lost.

At the end, a crippled MM fleet will no more supply some islands, that could be ignored, and there is the island hopping.

[eskuche]

I may off the mark but I think you guys are not thinking about the game from Alvaro’s perspective and thus are unlikely to get the game changed as you want. It’s meant to be quick to play with less bean counting (supply falls into this category as soon as it surpasses a 0-3 supply count mode).

I highly recommend taking a look in the editor capabilities to rework the game from within its framework. Having to micromanage supply fleets is not gonna fly. Or sail. Imagine having to turn off and on supply routes every turn because you’re low on shipping that takes HALF the Japanese income to make one set of.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: eskuche

I may off the mark but I think you guys are not thinking about the game from Alvaro’s perspective and thus are unlikely to get the game changed as you want. It’s meant to be quick to play with less bean counting (supply falls into this category as soon as it surpasses a 0-3 supply count mode).

I highly recommend taking a look in the editor capabilities to rework the game from within its framework. Having to micromanage supply fleets is not gonna fly. Or sail. Imagine having to turn off and on supply routes every turn because you’re low on shipping that takes HALF the Japanese income to make one set of.

I don't know if I am off the mark. WPE game was initially designed just like this:
1. MMs used for convoy routes and providing PP.
2. Transport ships used for port supply and naval movement/invasion.

I think it was a great idea. Alvaro has then removed the need for tranport ships to do port supply.
For WPE, it was not an issue honestly.

For WPP, with plenty of islands to supply, I am asking myself the question if this is not a solution.

[eskuche]

You have more time with the series so know more of the (game) historical reasons for removing such. Here's the reason why I don't think it's a good idea in WPP:

Most of the time merchants are an all-or-nothing proposition. Currently, Japan has about 50-80 excess MM for delivery from China and DEI. Once they are taken down below the threshold, everything else is subtracted by in proportion. Dedicated naval attacking of shipping lanes, if the US is able to achieve naval superiority/supremacy, can kill 10-20 MM per TURN. This means that either 1) a new system needs to be added for supply shipping (i.e., new programming, which has a high time cost, with playtesting and balancing, assuming we don't want a repeat of 1.03), 2) manual control of every single island supply route so that players can min-max safe islands not getting shipping for a few turns (this is not fun, and Alvaro has specifically mentioned hating min-maxing), or 3) IJN MM is kicked up a few hundred.

The last option is an issue because it still makes the game a black-and-white affair. There are enough MM until there aren't, at which point everything is shaved off from proportionally. Thus, the Allied player will either commit fully to the strategy if it's possible (which makes it very hard to balance) or completely ignores it (which makes the effort into perfecting such a balance wasted). The two-week turns means the raider can just launch full raider-mode fleets at far away supply lines and destroy MM at will, since the chaser will only occasionally be able to make pursuit attacks. Something I WOULD like to see is multiple-interdiction. A fleet should not be able to wander into 10 LBA and only get interdicted once.

To me, the WPP distills down to patience, nail-biting carrier tradeoffs, and island-hopping management (with occasional surprise landings to cut off supply).