Page 2 of 2

Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:01 am
by polar
The more I think about it the less I like the ide of refuling.
If the ide of refuling is implemented, USA will never go after Japan, as it will be way to expensive and time consuming. Sending troops towards Europe is a better way to go.

Besides, in real life, if you wanted to, you can load up an big boat with lots of lots of supplies, enough to run all over the world without needing to resuply in a very long time.

Blockadingports however can be fun and a nice strategy. It should be possible to blockade a port for as long as you have navy for it.

Some simple fixes to avoid abuses could be applied however.
-all units can safely move through an area containing only enemy transports.
Meaning, transports cannot block anything. You can put any navy you want
in an area containing only enemy transporters.

Second, if there is a small navy blockading your port, send an small fleet, or partion of your fleet to destroy it. Then allow whatever you want to move through the battle-area, AFTER COMBAT.

Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 12:15 pm
by adlertag
Or send your aircrafts to bomb the ships off the sea, and then your navy just sail peaceful through in non-combat move

Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:39 pm
by Flashman
polar wrote:The more I think about it the less I like the ide of refuling.
If the ide of refuling is implemented, USA will never go after Japan, as it will be way to expensive and time consuming. Sending troops towards Europe is a better way to go.
But experienced US players never go after Japan anyway.

Historically, US strategy in the Pacific was all about "Island Hopping" precisely so that it could gain a chain of island bases bringing it near enough to attack Japan directly.
This adds much value to island territories which are too small to have IPC values.
Sending troops towards Europe is the standard strategy, but if we implement Soviet Xenophobia and the J/R non-aggression treaty the Pacific suddenly gains much more importance and viablity as a theatre. Without island-hopping, however, it would just be a case of building a huge fleet and sailing it straight to Japan for the big invasion. Not realistic, not historical, and not much fun.

Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 7:35 am
by polar
I completly agree with you analysis.

The sole benefit of refuling would be that USA is forced to attack Japans Islands BEFORE taking down Japan directly.
But experienced US players never go after Japan anyway.
And your suggestion will make it even worse. First you got to get a navy capable of surviving, THEN you have to start taking islands.

Besides, it will feel very strange if you cannot move from england to egypt with a ship (if you are unlucky with how things goes etc) cuz you got to go back to england and refule.

But if you implement a port which can be a safe place for your navy,
thats a small start to make islands more important. If you in addition
allow a player to place max 1 ship and 1 infanteri (marine)
on a navel base, that would further improve the importance of these islands.

Damaged 'battleships' needs to go to a port or navel base is an further improvement. This we seem to agree upon. If japan dominates the seas, this rule may give US enough time to maybe attack and take an island.

Maybe also add a rule that if a ship is in port, and that area is invaded by land units, then you take over all or some of the ships laying there. (maybe at 4+? per ship).

Last thing, and this I find very important, even if you do not have an supperior navy, you should be able to use it. It should not be just dead meat.

Lets say US sends two full transports and one destroyer to escort her. Then japans attacks with 2 battlships and two fighters. One of the transports manage to escape from combat while the destroyer and other transport must fight. They are both destroied, but the destroyer manages to damage one of Japans battleship forcing it to retreat to a port next turn.

The following turn, US may with the surviving transporter take over one of the island, for a nice naval base, enabeling you to place infanteri and a transport, submarines or whatever there in the future.

In short, if you allow some ships in an sea zone to escape combat, you will
be able to be a threat for a far less cost. And be a threat much faster!

As long as the given Island is in the hands of US, it will be of a constant threat for Japan. Japan have to constantly blockade the port, (force partion of the navy to be stationed there constantly), retake the island, or accept that some of the islands nearby with high income will fall in the hands of the enemy.

I know that the pesky english transport outside Australia can be irritating for Japan, and as Japan I do want that transporter destroied. As the rules are today, I can easily do that.

Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 3:30 pm
by Flashman
Some good points. To reply:

This is the problem with porting ships; in this case the US fleet would be caught unable to fight by a Japanese r1 strike at Hawaii. However, the strike would have to be an amphibious assault so the Japanese ships would only get the BB bombardment - the other attacks would be by aircraft and the two infantry transported from Japan. They would have to contend with the 2 defending infantry (and I would give an AA gun to Hawaii and the Carolines.)
Moreover the transport being used in this attack is usually badly needed by Japan to get ground units over to the mainland. On my map, incidentally, Japan and Hawaii would not be reachable of each other in one turn anyway.

Perhaps each player must write down, in secret, which ships are at sea and which in port before turn 1.

Regarding RN ships having to "sail back to England from Egypt to refuel". This is precisely why Britain established a chain of naval bases along the Mediterranean - Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Alexandria, and Aden at the other end of the Suez canal.

The idea of capturing ported ships is one I had considered. Just how inert are ships in port? We agree that they cannot fire, but can they be taken as casualties? It's an expensive way to protect infantry, but maybe you'll lose the ships anyway if your ground units are destroyed. Better get some AA guns into your ports...

I prefer to give the defender the option of "scuttling" the ships when the territory is attacked. If succesful, they are sunk. If not, they are captured by the attacker (if he wins the battle) and converted to his own equivalent piece, to be used NEXT turn (they have to have new crews trained).