The Pacific part of the war.

[JanSorensen]

I am curious if others are seeing actual island hopping when the US turn the tide in the Pacific.

Personally, I tend to go directly from PH/LA to Bonin Island completely ignoring the South Pacific and the Marianas, Carolines and Marshalls with the US - and if playing the Japanese I tend to also abandone all the Pacific islands and just stay back home in Japan ready to set Ketsu-GO into motion should Olympic happen.

It is quite possible that this is party because the Japanese tend to only attack in late 42 rather than late 41 - but it still feels a little stale.

Somehow it would be good if there was more need to island hopping and if there was more reason for the Japanese to attack in 41 or even just early 42.

Mind, I am not terribly interested in making a mod. I just find that mods make it too hard to find opponents as each player will want his own favorite details to be played. No offense to the modders - its just not for me.

[Scott_WAR]

Hmmm. I agree, the lack of fighting in the south pacific has always bothered me too.

I think its a problem with the tranport system and supplies. In real life I think the islands were needed for fuel depots to supply the fleets operations. Is the ability to store enough fuel for a 30 unit fleet on one tranport unit realistic? Just a thought.

[JanSorensen]

Aye, the ease of supplying / bringing reinforcements clear across the Pacific is one reason.

The other could be the ease of invasion at longer range. I realise that the US did invade Morocco so long range invasions have happened. I also realise that there is an evasion penalty from invading at long range.

But, that penalty matters not at all most of the time because air/naval power will reduce the number of defenders enough that you just bring extra invading inf/mil and force a retreat. Thus casulties for the invading force is rarely an issue and the penalty of little consequence.

Sadly I dont have an easy yet good solution that does not break other parts of the game. Mind, a solution that could make it into the official game not merely a private mod.

[Forwarn45]

Another interesting issue I hadn't thought of. Actually - I think truly long-range invasions without local bases were rare. You mention Operation Torch and Morocco, but the Allies used Gibraltar as an initial staging area and had the advantage of that base. I think all the points raised are good ones.

Also - I think some of the reason the Pacific seems somewhat stale has to do with the supply costs. Historically, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor then raided the Indian Ocean then attacked midway with carriers. All the while, they were engaging in offensive operations on a braod front and attempting to repair captured bases! If you tried to duplicate this in the game, you would run through 200+ supply very quickly!

[ilovestrategy]

I aways practice island hopping, I like to base bombers when I bomb tokyo. I very rarely do anything near the solomon islands though, I just liberate everything north of Australia and west of Hawaii and go straight to Japan.

[a511]

lack of fighting in the south pacific bothers me as well.

the ease of supplying / bringing reinforcements clear across the Pacific is one reason.

imo, its the main reason!

my idea on the situation is to try to reflect the difficulties in supplying the fleets in the middle of the ocean by:
1) adding more supply penalty for the fleet to move and/ or engage in combat if the fleet is "x" areas (say 2 areas) from any friendly depots; and
2) reducing the max range of the fleet by "x" (say by 2) if the route of the fleet is "x" areas (say again by 2 areas) from any friendly depots.

just some rough ideas and i know that it wont really stop the US from going straight to Japan and bomb all the defenders into dust with the pacific island untouched ... but at least it will make it a lot more costly (in terms of supplies and the logistic to transport those supplies) for the WA fleet to actually move there and start the bombing.

AN

[Harrybanana]

a511; actually I posted something similar a few months ago. I even proposed a new naval combat system which I think would work very well. I don't think it likely the developers will retool for this game; but was hoping they would consider my suggestions for GGWAW2 (if there ever is such a beast). IMHO fleets defending near a major base should have combat bonuses while those attacking far from a major base should have some negatives. An exception could be made for the 1st turn "surprise attack" on Pearl. These modifications could also help the Italians retain control of the Central med and the british maintain control of the East Med.

[a511]

i think i miss ur post harry but im glad to know we have similar feeling on this issue!

An exception could be made for the 1st turn "surprise attack" on Pearl.

agree to this as well, both in terms of the combat bonus and the supply penalty.

wish some modder will give this idea a try but i really dont know whether it is possible ...

AN

[JanSorensen]

My suggestions is somewhat different -its not 100% fully developed - but here goes.

I would love for harbours to matter more. Say invasions can only be made on a territory if you have a unbroken link of no more than 3 sea-zones with transporters back to a port. Mind, the invading units dont have to come from a port but you need the link back to the port.

For that to work - the Pacific islands would need more ports though or the gap between Hawaii and the Marshalls would get too large. Maybe a harbour on Midway and another on the Marshall Islands. I would also suggest adding a port to the Azores - so the Atlantic does not become impossible hard to cross after a successfull Sealion.

Viola - suddenly those islands with ports would suddenly be absolutely needed in order to do any sort of invasion and some sort of Island hopping would have to happen.

In Europe: No effect.
Across Atlantic: Some effect but nothing major.
Around Africa: Some effect but there is nothing down there anyway.
Across the Pacific: Large effect.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
I would love for harbours to matter more. Say invasions can only be made on a territory if you have a unbroken link of no more than 3 sea-zones with transporters back to a port. Mind, the invading units dont have to come from a port but you need the link back to the port.

That's too much.

How about this. The last land-to-land leg of an amphibious assault costs the full amphib assault cost on ALL transports on that leg, not just the last one.

If you have Gibraltar as a staging area, there is no change to attack North Africa even if the troops are coming from the USA. If you don't have Gibraltar and want to go directly from the USA, you're going to need a heck of a lot of transports.

I think it would solve the Pacific issue quite well. You really would want nearby staging areas.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
I would love for harbours to matter more. Say invasions can only be made on a territory if you have a unbroken link of no more than 3 sea-zones with transporters back to a port. Mind, the invading units dont have to come from a port but you need the link back to the port.

That's too much.

How about this. The last land-to-land leg of an amphibious assault costs the full amphib assault cost on ALL transports on that leg, not just the last one.

If you have Gibraltar as a staging area, there is no change to attack North Africa even if the troops are coming from the USA. If you don't have Gibraltar and want to go directly from the USA, you're going to need a heck of a lot of transports.

I think it would solve the Pacific issue quite well. You really would want nearby staging areas.

For many invasions your suggestion would make it much harder than mine. Quite often you should need nearly twice the transporters as you are hopping from one sea-area to the next. Both have merits - but I might say that overall your suggestion is more restrictive than mine. Thus I dont understand why you say that my suggestion would make it too hard and then present a solution that makes it even harder in many cases.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
I would love for harbours to matter more. Say invasions can only be made on a territory if you have a unbroken link of no more than 3 sea-zones with transporters back to a port. Mind, the invading units dont have to come from a port but you need the link back to the port.

That's too much.

How about this. The last land-to-land leg of an amphibious assault costs the full amphib assault cost on ALL transports on that leg, not just the last one.

If you have Gibraltar as a staging area, there is no change to attack North Africa even if the troops are coming from the USA. If you don't have Gibraltar and want to go directly from the USA, you're going to need a heck of a lot of transports.

I think it would solve the Pacific issue quite well. You really would want nearby staging areas.

For many invasions your suggestion would make it much harder than mine. Quite often you should need nearly twice the transporters as you are hopping from one sea-area to the next. Both have merits - but I might say that overall your suggestion is more restrictive than mine. Thus I dont understand why you say that my suggestion would make it too hard and then present a solution that makes it even harder in many cases.

OK, what I didn't like about your suggestion is that it is a "hard" limit. My suggestion is still a "soft" limit. You can invade from as far away as you like, as long as you have the resources.

[WanderingHead]

Here is another idea, which I like more than my previous, and relates not just to amphib assaults but transports in general.

Assess a transport capacity penalty to any transport that is not immediately adjacent to a friendly land zone. For example, cut capacity in half (round down). I would suggest that transports might need to be bumped up to 40 base capacity, 20 for transports not next to friendly land zone.

This would represent fueling opportunities, being able to utilize more available smaller boats, etc.

It would be easier to supply Guam if you also own Midway and Hawaii, as opposed to now where you zip right by. It would also be easier, in general, to shuttle troops short distances rather than long distances.

Perhaps similar concept for amphib assault, which would make France easier to take than Japan (unless you're staging on the mainland), which seems reasonable.

Friendly land zone should probably mean same world power, not including allies (e.g. WA can't use Soviet Far East).