Jackmck wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 10:36 am
Neither is for Japan to not garrison the home islands or anything else.
There are too many reasons for Japan not to garrison those islands.
1) For one thing many of them may block units from spawning if you defend them with a garrison.
2) It costs MPP to ship units to the Gilberts or Marshalls.
3) You run the risk of your garrison being destroyed easily in low supply. It gives your opponent a target for their amphibious troops (they have to pay for amphibious troops anyhow to take your island base, now they get to use that free offshore attack).
4) There are far too many NM targets/bases for Japan to defend. If your opponent sees you have a garrison on one island and they don't have enough forces/tech to take it out, they can just take another NM island. Doesn't really benefit to defend Tarawa when your opponent can just move straight to Saipan Naha or Japan itself. If you place anything more expensive than a garrison on a hex like Eniweitok, the ALlied player might as well ignore it, knowing it's a wasted unit.
In fact, there should probably be a system of progression across the Pacific. Historically the Allies took the Marshalls in order to prepare for taking the Marianas. Partly for aircover and I believe partly also for logistical reasons.
Perhaps there should be some system where unless the Allies control the Marshalls they get a Malta-like supply problem in the Marianas? Perhaps the NM objectives should only trigger if islands are taken in succession? E.g. once you take Saipan then NM objectives appear on Iwo Jima and Naha? Perhaps the atomic bomb event should require control of the Marshalls and the Marianas to guarantee safe supply routes for the bomb?
Crazy idea: long range amph transports should lose their "free" attack from the sea ability (or weaken it compared to short range)?
