the Pacific War and amphibious invasions

[WanderingHead]

Hi all.

I'd like to solicit opinions on the state of the Pacific War, amphibious invasions, and the motivation (if any) for either side to take and defend the Pacific Islands.

From what I've seen, many believe that there is insufficient motivation to take those islands. Do most people still feel this way?

I feel it is true, and I see two reasons why there is insufficient motivation:
1) it is too easy to supply and support navies far from any land base.
2) it is too easy to do long distance amphibious assaults.

I know 2by3 wants to close out this game (justifiably), and it is working pretty damned good as it is, but I'd like to open discussion for maybe some final code changes with two suggestions.

A) For 1), there could be a supply penalty for any naval surface units that are supplied _solely_ from the sea. I think that a penalty of only 1 supply is sufficient. So, if you are supplied solely by sea, it takes 2 supplies to move one seazone, <4,5,6> to move more for <LF,CV,HF>. If you take 2 supplies, move 1 zone, and then supply from land to move more then the total cost is only <3,4,5>.

B) For 2), I proposed this before and the more I think of it the more I like it. The amphib assault cost could be assessed against all transports through which assaulting troops move between a staging land zone and the attacked territory.

I think (B) makes perfect sense. I view transport links as ships going back and forth several times over a 3 month span, and the concentration of transports for amphib assaults I view as the additional concentration required to support those ships going back and forth over the much shorter ~1 week time required to get the troops ashore (note 3/30*90days=9days, a pretty good analogy based on standard transport capacity).

An amphibious invasion won't work if you spread the troop landings over 90 days. It must be concentrated, and that requires more ships not just at the landing site but also all the way from the staging area.

Now, (B) may hinder Japan in the early phases. But you can still pre-position your troops at sea to avoid the penalty, Japan can easily exploit that by the DEI. Later in the game, this represents a reasonable increase in risk by having troops massed at sea for an invasion, where they could be vulnerable to naval attack.

[Daykeras]

I don't know about you, but Japan is a war I don't want to fight til I've pummelled them so fully that I can basicly waltz onto their shore. It's hard enough to beat them when they're really dug in. They won't win, sure, but it'll take forever to whittle away at them until you can get a large enough force to land and a means to do it.

They don't need more help . The last boost giving them units when invaded is perfectly fine.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Daykeras
They don't need more help . The last boost giving them units when invaded is perfectly fine.

True, in exchange I'd like to reduce the insta-militia, perhaps 2x instead of 3x.

It'd be more fun to have Japan defending further out than defending by virtue of fanatical citizens.

Do you find that the islands are fought over?

[Daykeras]

Only the islands that are directly between the USA and Japan, because they're pretty good to stop a quick invasion with their opp-fire.

The other islands are mostly ignored. In truth, Japan's best bet is to expand west into russia and not west, so stretching yourself out there while having to supply via easily sinkable ships seems pretty stupid.

It's just not a good tactic to go for empty islands and to try to hold them. They offer no factories, pop points, or resources. No... Russia is the way to go.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Daykeras
It's just not a good tactic to go for empty islands and to try to hold them. They offer no factories, pop points, or resources. No... Russia is the way to go.

Well, that's rather my point. It would be nice if establishing a buffer zone could be an effective alternate strategy. So you could at least effectively trade sea for time.

Seems good for game play (more alternatives, and historical play is at least reasonable), and realistic.

I just feel it would be nice to have "soft" motivation for taking some (not all) islands. My suggestions would provide some motivation without requiring it. I don't think these ideas would lead to every island being taken, just some to serve as forward bases. Many would be left as isolated Japanese holdouts, as really happened.

But I'd love other suggestions!

[toddtreadway]

What would you all think about increasing the RAIL cost to move through double-cost borders so that it cost double the normal strategic move cost? I.e., instead of simply costing five to move a unit through the far east, it would cost ten. Supplies would cost two, etc.

[Daykeras]

The problem is Japan has it hard enough as well.

To be honest, it's rather balanced the way it is. Any changes will either make Japan too powerful or give the WAllies too much of an edge.

In real life we only took the islands because the range of our planes was only so long, and you never leave an army behind you. So if the Japanese happened to hold an island the WAllies would just bombard it, take it with 1 guy via a supply chain, then ship in the airplanes.

That bombardment would be the "fighting" over the islands. Realisticly speaking, we're talking months here and I don't recall any island hopping that took more than a few weeks. There were no back and forth fights over the islands either. The Japanese took them while we were ignoring the world, and we took them while they were suiciding on our ships. They might've put up a hard fight, but they sure as heck didn't take any of them back.

So it's closer to history the way it is implimented now, and I think it's a perfect match for balance. The islands are only important for planes. Ships can't really be supplied via island anyway.

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

ORIGINAL: Daykeras
It's just not a good tactic to go for empty islands and to try to hold them. They offer no factories, pop points, or resources. No... Russia is the way to go.

Well, that's rather my point. It would be nice if establishing a buffer zone could be an effective alternate strategy. So you could at least effectively trade sea for time.

Seems good for game play (more alternatives, and historical play is at least reasonable), and realistic.

I just feel it would be nice to have "soft" motivation for taking some (not all) islands. My suggestions would provide some motivation without requiring it. I don't think these ideas would lead to every island being taken, just some to serve as forward bases. Many would be left as isolated Japanese holdouts, as really happened.

But I'd love other suggestions!

Are the two of you aware that in Franco's Alliance v2.2 this very issue is addressed? To WanderingHead: Yes establishing a buffer zone can be an effective strat to trade sea for time and with my latest update island hopping is the norm. To Daykeras: Taking empty islands to try and hold them is only a bad tactic when the US can ignore them. On the other hand if the US can't ignore them then holding the Solomon Islands as long as possible would be a great strat. With that idea Russia is no longer the only way to go. I also want to point out another reason why in real life the US could not ignore the South Pacific, they had to save Australia from potential invasion. It would have been so politically incorrect not to come to Austrailia's aid after Japan publically announced their intent. Of coarse you could say let Austrialia burn I don't need it to win, but then you really would not be playing WW2. So if you actually consider real world issues, and stop metagaming, the US had to commit itself to driving the Japs from the South Pacific first. Places like Port Moresby had to be saved from falling into Jap hands. FYI I added this port onto the map since its an objective now.

In my latest update I have taken a particular interest in making the Pacific theator play strategically accurate. I developed a "hop list" and placed graphical marking on the map to assist players in following this guide. Its a semi historical island hop that allows some fudging so players are not locked into a fixed path. When the guide is followed it plays and feels like the Pacific war should. Our coarse it works on the honor system, which isn't a problem really. When the hop list is followed, many of the other issues like the long distance amphibious assault short themselves out. Most amphibious assaults will only need to travel one sea zone so the combat penalty that we asked to have increased will not be an issue now. What I do when playing as the US is stage at New Caledonia to strike at the Solomon's or Gilbert Islands. Then you suffer no combat penalty. Interestingly this is historically where the US actually did stage from. After you gain one of these islands its only a small hop to the next, so increasing the combat penalty is unecessary. Its also unecessary to come up with an alternative supply system as you will see.

I based my hop list on the US's actual Pacific campaign with some flexabilty built in. Here is the actual historical time frame estimated in game seasons.
Battle of Coral Sea Su1942
Solomon Islands(Guadalcanal) Su1942-Su1943 It took a full year to totally secure all them islands.
Bismarch Arch(Rabaul)Su1943
Gilbert Islands(Tarawa)Fa1943
Marshall Islands Wi1944
Caroline Isalnds(Truk) Sp1944 Not actually invaded. Just bombed to death.
Mariana Islands(Saipan) Su1944
Guam Su1944
Battle of Philippine Sea Su1944
Palau Islands Fa1944
Battle of Leyte Gulf Fa1944 Largest naval battle in modern history.
Philippines(Leyte and Luzon) Fa1944
Bonin Islands(Iwo Jima)Wi1945
Ryukyu Islands(Okinawa)Sp1945-Su1945
Borneo/Sarawak Fa1945

What I discoved in my playtesting is just how closely WAW matches this historical time frame when Japan puts up a stiff resistance on these islands and the US plays honestly by following the hop list. It sure is a lot more fun playing the Pacific war this way. Below is a piece from Franco's Alliance v2.2 readme. I know it should be cleaned up to make it clearer but I think for now it will do the job.

Pacific theator: The Hop List
28. In the Pacific WAW's game mechanics kind of flop. This is no incentive for the US to fight a traditional Pacific war, and because of that Japan has no reason to take islands like the Solomon or Gilbert's. Doing so would be a waste of Japans resources. These islands are supposed to act as an outer ring of defense but can't when the US doesn't have to obey strategic realities. There is no way to prevent a US player, once they realize the South Pacific doesn't matter, to sail directly to the Jap home island. That's not that much fun and gets old fast, so I created a 'Hop List' to guide the US into playing the game honestly. Islands in this hop list fall into categories marked A to I. Those marked A are the US's highest priority and must be secured first. Islands marked B are the next priority and so on. Within a category the US may attempt to capture in any order he chooses. For instance, the 'B' islands listed below can be captured in any sequence. Another guideline is that no surface ships may raid into the next category until all conditions are met. Example: The US has lost nothing in category A so he is free to enter sea zones that are part of category B. He may not sail any surface ships into 'C' or greater until all 'B' islands are secured. Example 2: The Philippine Sea is adjacent to F, so its considered an F sea zone, and therefore can't be entered until E is secured. All sea zones surrounding the Philippines are considered F except Palau's sea zone which is E. All sea zones surrounding Australia are considered A. All sea zones surrounding Borneo/Sarawak are considered category I, except the ones next to the Philippines which have already been designated F. Note: Air and subs are not bond by these rules, but remember surface ships are. The reasoning behind not allowing surface ships to raid deep behind enemy lines is that in real life they rarely did that. To risky. Its better to secure the surrounding islands before advancing the fleet. The raiding was done by subs. Here's the Hop List.

A: Midway, Papua(Port Moresby), New Caledonia, Any part of Australia. Once all under A are secured the US may go to B.
B: Solomon, Gilbert, Bismarch Arch. Once all under B are secured the US may go to C
C: Marshall, Wake, Territory of New Guinea, Caroline*(this one is optional) Once all under...........
D: Mariana, Guam. Once both are secured.........
E: Palau, Dutch New Guinea. Once both are secured........
F: Philippines. Once all 3 parts are secured........
G: Bonin. Once its secured.......
H: Ryukya. Once its secured.......
I: Borneo and Sarawak. Once both are secured the US may invade the Jap home island.
X: Sea zones 205,206,211 are adjacent to the Jap home island and are off limits to surface ships until Borneo and Sarawak are secured. There are letters on the map to assist you.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: toddtreadway
What would you all think about increasing the RAIL cost to move through double-cost borders so that it cost double the normal strategic move cost?

Yikes, that's a whole different subject. I don't see a need for it and it doesn't solve the problem I am worried about (little motivation for staging areas and supply depots). I view the double bordered zones as "wide open ocean, full steam ahead", the single borders as more confined areas with slower overall shipping. I.e., I find that the current transport costs considering double borders make sense.

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
Are the two of you aware that in Franco's Alliance v2.2 this very issue is addressed?

Yeah, I was aware of it. To be honest, I felt it was too scripted. I want rules that yield the strategic desirability without actually enforcing the behavior.

But I think it is an attempt to address a real issue with gameplay.

ORIGINAL: Daykeras
In real life we only took the islands because the range of our planes was only so long, and you never leave an army behind you.

...
There were no back and forth fights over the islands either. The Japanese took them while we were ignoring the world, and we took them while they were suiciding on our ships.
....
The islands are only important for planes. Ships can't really be supplied via island anyway.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect Japan to retake any of the islands. Only looking for a motivation for the Japs to take them in the first place, and the USA to take them back.

Basing planes is indeed one of the most important reasons we took them. But they also served as supply depots and staging areas.

In real life, there is a benefit to having nearby supply depots, even if you 100% control the sea lanes. In the Pacific war of WAW, there really isn't. It is in fact easier to ship supplies directly by transport than it is to drop them on an island (the depot) and then get them to the ships.

Maybe there is no reasonable way to implement this within the current game framework. I was surprised to read just now that it took 5-6 months to get supplies from San Francisco to Brisbane, which kind of seems to invalidate the transport model. I really had thought it only took 1-2 months.

[center]http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-con ... qm-ww2.htm[/center]

I have a revised idea for "too easy to supply far from any land base", better I think than my (A) above. All supply movement across transports that does not end on a land territory costs double to transport. If you move a supply in multiple stages (in a single turn), stopping in a sea zone then continueing to a land zone then the additional cost would be credited instantly on landfall all along the route as though it were a single move.

Say you have fleets in North Pacific 2 (east of Japan) you want to supply from California. With a single line of 5 transports to NP6 (off Bonin Island) you can currently get 30 supply to that fleet. With this modified scheme you could only get 15 supply directly, or require 10 transports to get 30 supply directly. But if you have Bonin Island, you can land them on the island, and with 2 extra transports (7 total) you can get a full 30 supplies to that fleet (you would still need 90 capacity in NP6, 30 to get supplies to the island, 60 to get them off again since they don't end on land the second time).

You could get a further efficiency for naval "fuel cost" if you only used 1 supply each to move the ships 1 sea zone to the supply depot (Bonin in the example), to complete fueling there. So if you have 6 HFs requiring 30 supply, with 6 transports (2 in NP6) you could get 30 supply to Bonin, move 6 back off, use those 6 to move the fleets to Bonin, and then they are good (and 18 capacity still left in SP6).

In this way, you would have an actual motivation to have supply depots as close to the action as you can, and you can use them to fan out supplies to nearby locations. And you sometimes have motivation to move fleets backwards a bit for refueling (and in this game you could consider it minor repairs, etc as well).

Sounds good to me.

[Lebatron]

You say my mod feels scripted? That's the wrong way to look at it. I know you havn't liked the idea of making Spain a frozen minor ally to prevent Germany from always attacking them, and so have avoided trying my mod. But I could equally argue that the basic game feels to scriped in the fact that its to tempting to metagame with Germany and always attack Spain and Gibraltar just because you can and ignore the political realities of the time period. Unless players agree before hand to leave Spain off limits this will happen every game. Doesn't that feel scripted to you?

I can make the same argument for the Pacific theator in the basic game. Its to scripted to put it in your terms. It feels scripted from the lack of an island hop campaign. All the US has to do is stage at Wake island, since its nice and close to Bonin, and keep attacking from there until they have the Bonin Islands. In that example, there is no need to capture other islands. Doesn't that feel scripted to you? Where's the choice and variety? Its like the whole rest of the Pacific map might as well be erased from the game. The problem, once again, is its just to tempting to metagame. The US will ignore the South Pacific islands because it can. What a player is doing when he does that, is he is ignoring political realities once again, just like in Europe, and is using loopholes in game design to play the game in an unintended way. That's metagaming. Many gamers do this and ruin games. It was intended that the Jap player take New Guinea, Solomon, Gilbert, etc to create an outer ring defense, but when the US jumps the fence, so to speak, it makes it pointless for Japan to do so. Then the game suffers because much of the fun and excitement of the Pacific theator is lost.

What I have done in Franco's Alliance v2.2 is put the fun back into the Pacific theator. If you would only try a game you would see that it doesn't feel scripted. In fact, it opens up a whole new dimension to play possibilities. Not only will it feel more historic, it opens the doorway to many new strategies that have never been used before.

I almost have V2.3 ready. It will be compatible with the latest patch. I would really like to play a game with you, or anybody else, to demonstrate how much better the game plays using my map changes and house rules.

[dobeln]

Having been through a full Franco 2.2 game, I can attest to that actually having a pacific island hopping campaign adds a lot to the game, as does having an actual Med campaign. Really liked the mod!

[Daykeras]

I'm a huge fan of Franco, but I do mostly play vanilla because I'm not very big into mods. I can understand if you think it feels scripted, but it is a good solution.

Anywho, you're talking about some internal changes to how supplies are done which could have radical effects on other parts of the game as well. I think the best solution is to deal with it ... or make a mod that somehow solves it. There is a rather active modding community, and the Mods here would be glad to give you tips and help.

Just no internal script changes, unless you can debug in assembly

[WanderingHead]

Lebatron, I was agreeing with you that something could be done to improve over the stock game. I'm just saying I would rather not have the route forceably planned out, I'd rather that strategic realities of the game be close enough to the strategic realities of, well, reality, so that similar courses are reasonable but not required.

For example, I would prefer to play with house-rules making AV lower for Axis if Australia is taken, if the political importance of Australia is underplayed in the game. Then let everyone decide how they want to respond to that.

BTW, I think we should remember that "island hopping" actually meant specifically that the USA left many Japanese outposts behind, to "whither on the vine". The USA took what they needed to base air, establish supply, and isolate the holdouts, but not more. You could argue that Japan screwed up by trying to establish a distant defensive line that they could not maintain.

ORIGINAL: Daykeras
Just no internal script changes, unless you can debug in assembly

Well, I could debug the c++. But I really don't want to do that. But I'd pay for GGWAW II.

I didn't necessarily want to push my ideas, I also wanted to solicit better and/or more easily implemented ones. I thought there might be more support for a solution to the issue, but without support clearly 2by3 will not and should not make any changes.

One more thought I have. Some time ago people brought up that some of the amphibious assault awkwardness is due to the fact that amphib and cargo is all muddled in to transports. Similar thing here. It's not like most merchant vessels could actually be used to refuel fleets at sea.

It seems like another solution would to split transports into 3 unit types:

1) merchant marine, capacity 30, can ship cargo only from friendly land to friendly land zone.
2) amphibious assault vehicles, capacity 2-8 (researchable), can ship only from friendly land to any land (i.e. either friendly or enemy).
3) naval refuelers, capacity 10 or 15, can ship cargo from friendly land to friendly land _or_ to sea for at sea refueling.

Each would cost 2 PP and 2 pop. Only merchant marine would be useful for collecting resources for production. You'd have an interest in estabilishing nearby supply depots because even the WA would probably only have a handful of the refuelers.

It would probably be difficult to get the code to properly work with these potentially interracting with each other, however.

Thanks for the feedback. At least I've had fun brainstorming with myself .

[Daykeras]

Hmm... well let's see then. If this is a brainstorming session I'm all for it.

Let's see... Well... I think to get the islands to be more used, the Japanese would have to stack defense on it, but that's not efficient. Maybe all "taken" islands have an auto-opfire that can never be removed unless taken for yourself?

[JanSorensen]

Two issues to consider
- the AI
- the graphical interface

If a specific idea would badly foul the AI its unlikely to happen. For some ideas it may be possible to exempt the AI from observing the restrictions but that would require extra care and thought.

If a specific idea would require new graphics or changes to the current interface its less likely to happen. The oilers and landing craft would be one such example as several screens would need to be redesigned.

[JanSorensen]

Personally, I could see something like:

If a sea-area does not

• Contain an island controlled by the phasing power OR
• Borders a land region controlled by the phasing power OR
• Is next to a sea-area that contains a port controlled by the phasing power

then moving into that sea-area costs two additional movement points for surface naval units. In addition any transports in that area have their transport capacity reduced by 10.

This should then be an optional rule and the AI would be exempt from it.

The effect would be to make ports valuable as well as make taking atleast one island in each area meaningfull when no ports are nearby. A few extra ports may need to be added - Formosa comes to mind - but it should not be overdone.

[SeaMonkey]

This is a difficult scenario to simulate with the current game mechanics. I have posted on this before about multi-roles the transport unit will have to fulfill.

Transports do two things in WaW, carry supply and enable amphibious/transporting combat units. There are two factors connected to transports for these operations, each should be researchable or different for each participating major power.

What I invision needs to be done is that transports need to be able to move when carrying supply or units. That way convoys are represented and not a continuous line of transport icons. The movement allowance would most likely have to modified accordingly.

There may also be a need for the ability to move resources to factories, perhaps some auto routines that can be intercepted by enemy units. Maybe the supply(truck) icon could be a simulation of resources also, 1 resource point = 5 trucks. The color of the truck icon would denote if it was supplies or resources. Resources being transported to factories from originating regions would be red. Supplies produce by factories, blue.

Just some thoughts to elaborate on.

[SeaMonkey]

Another idea, how about a die roll modifier that is proportional to the number of movement points, double border lines = 2, the invasion units cross when conducting the assault.

Same for Naval/CAG units, representing the stress on long periods at sea diminishing the combat performance = fatigue.

[MrQuiet]

One simple idea might be that everytime a interdiction point is generated then a movement point is lost.

Passing by a couple islands would really cut down on your retreating range.

-MrQuiet

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
If a sea-area does not

• Contain an island controlled by the phasing power OR
• Borders a land region controlled by the phasing power OR
• Is next to a sea-area that contains a port controlled by the phasing power

then moving into that sea-area costs two additional movement points for surface naval units. In addition any transports in that area have their transport capacity reduced by 10.

I don't know man, I think this is brilliant. Simple to implement, effectively gets most of the job done (not precisely, but in an abstract way), and it doesn't really impact the Atlantic that much.

I wouldn't include the movement limitation though, only the transport reduction. I might add that I'd just reduce transport capacity by a factor of 1/2, and I'd be inclined to similarly cut amphibious capacity by 1/2 (round up). This would have the effect I was after for amphib as well. The factor could even be a configurable game option ... ?

And I do agree that it would be a good thing to do something to make ports more significant, particularly for transport, where now it is completely irrelevant. Canton would even have some significance to supporting operations in the south.

Open questions:

• is the distance from a port computed as surface fleets move, or as air moves? I'd say surface fleets, so that e.g. "240 North Pacific 5" does not benefit from the port in Luzon and "14 North Atlantic 5" does not benefit from the port in England. I think this is what you intended.
• should it be the phasing power or the phasing side? It is quite important to lendlease to Russia, as WA would have to take Norway to have efficient transport to Archangel. I don't have a strong feeling either way right now.

I'm not even sure that more ports are required. Too many makes the whole thing moot. But maybe one or two. Maybe at Panama, so things don't get stalled going through "300 North Pacific 24".

Now, if we add factory in Hawaii that can build only supplies, we'd find with Jan's modification of the damaged unit repair teleportation (to nearer factories when available) that we'd finally even have a model for all those strategic shipyards at Pearl Harbor! Note that with no resources, it still could not build/repair anything if it were isolated.

This could compensate a little for knocking the WA back with the transport rule.

I'm excited folks! I hope something like this can be incorporated.