End of the Japanese Empire?

[Jackmck]

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)?

No let's not change the game so drastically. It's great the way it is.
Following up on your points:
1. Yes, but you transport the garrison out and then you can place new unit.
2. That's the cost of doing business (war). Spending on defense is necessary sometimes but see #4.
3. True- but sea superiority will be contested early in the War, and it will be a challenge for the Allies to quickly take garrisoned islands.
4. No need to garrison everthing- just a few key positions- Nagasaki, Tokyo, Kyushu, and Taiwan. With that, Japan could maintain convoys and would be able to place most of the new units.

I would also recommend that Japan build a few extra subs - they would really make it difficult for an early UK attack.

[Chernobyl]

No let's not change the game so drastically. It's great the way it is.

That's fine. I enjoy posting my thoughts so I do it.

I will add that aside from unitspawn-blocking cheese, in general I do believe there should be a balance between Allied incentives to focus on Germany, Japan, or equally. Historically the Allies went Germany-first, but I think it would be most fun if this remains a dilemma for the Allied player. And that involves weighing the difference in "pace" for getting to Berlin and Tokyo (obviously not completely equal accomplishments).

[ThunderLizard11]

No let's not change the game so drastically. It's great the way it is.

That's fine. I enjoy posting my thoughts so I do it.

I will add that aside from unitspawn-blocking cheese, in general I do believe there should be a balance between Allied incentives to focus on Germany, Japan, or equally. Historically the Allies went Germany-first, but I think it would be most fun if this remains a dilemma for the Allied player. And that involves weighing the difference in "pace" for getting to Berlin and Tokyo (obviously not completely equal accomplishments).

Don't agree - at a minimum - Jap unts should be allowed placement someplace else and secondly some sort of homeguard should be triggered like in later invasions.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Was able to pull this off on ThunderLizard. Only 1-major problem. Don't DOW on Vietnam, Borneo, etc.
USA never joined. Found empty Hiroshima, too.

[LoneRunner]

Hey Pete,
I'm checking if you got any of my PMs. I know you read this section of the forum so I figured you would see this message. We may need to exchange email addresses.

Yeah, the implementation of this new forum has not gone too well. They really should have tested it before replacing the old one. But, hopefully, in the long run, it will be an improvement.
Bill

[petedalby]

Hi Bill - just saw this. My apologies - no PMs from you recently so not sure what is occurring with the forum changes?

I'm still here. 3 games on the games. 2 as Allies 1 as Axis, Allies definitely have the whip hand now.

Hope all is well.

Pete

[LoneRunner]

Great to hear from you Pete.

I have only one game going, against Dmitry. He's a brilliant opponent. You can follow our game in the AAR "End of the Japanese Empire". An interesting and exciting game. Almost as awesome as you and I's last game .

Currently I have time for only one game. Hoping to change that soon. I've been on the road a lot, so my posts to the AAR have been suffering too. Plan to change that too.

We'll exchange emails in our next game. Soon I hope.

Take care,
Bill

[AlbertN]

From my perspective - as I am trying to learn more of the game reading the forums - the main issue is that if the UK can pull this type of stunt, it's because the Euro.Axis cannot apply enough pressure on the UK early on; and that UK probably is far too strong already.

In a phase of 'UK stands alone' they should be direly on the ropes, hardly capable of grand offensive operations or sparing units for an aggression on Japan. (In a game I am in UK did a 'Torch early '41, figure out).

So I think the problem is not how much US reacts to it but how overly performing the Commonwealth is in the early stages of the war.