ww2wargame.com
WWII: Struggle for Europe____WWII: Struggle for Asia => After Action Reports / Playtesting => Topic started by: John D. on October 25, 2010, 12:37:37 PM
-
Well - we started in the Winter 1941 set up - with Pearl ready to go
-
OK - Japanese spread fast and furious - The US fleet moves West - near the Japanese Islands to create a diversion and this bold move manages to get the fleet trapped and out of supply. A series of epic naval battles takes place as the US fleet tries to untangle itself
-
Sorry - the pics are small - next sets will be much larger
-
Japs really push hard into India and take over all the Dutch Pacific territories
-
More
-
I think that you mean Dutch Pacific territories, not Danish.
It's the Dutch East Indies. Holland. Netherlands.
Not Denmark.
I hope that helps. ;D
Also, turn up the heat in that basement (or insulate it) so that dude doesn't have to wear his knit cap indoors. ::)
US fleet got caught hanging out? I didn't know Mark was there playing as the Americans? ;)
Looks like fun! Can't wait to get a chance to play this game and try out the new ideas.
-
john
could you post the new US battle board for this game
thanks
kenb
-
Thanks Yoper! - made the correction. This should be a wild game. The Japs are at 20 VPs right now - almost right in the middle of the VP conditions...
-
Who is playing who? Is Mike the Japanese and Brian the Allies? I can see the Japanese are driving on India - but what is going on out in the Pacific - it is hard to tell from the pics. . .
Mark
-
So Mike and I are playing the Japs while John has taken over the allied operations. Within the first 2 turns we landed troops on all of New Guinea, guadalcanal, new caledonia and Fiji with the use of our destroyers.
I think now we are on turn 6, The US has started taking back the pacific islands. Fiji is down and now they are making their way over towards New Guinea. A giant naval battle took place in the immediate area. We positioned our Navy to block the Fiji attack but instead found ourselves irresistibly charmed by the US fleet sitting alone northeast of our position. We bit down hard with everything we had but risked become entangled by american cruisers, unable to return to the defence of mainland Japan. We managed to deal a severe blow to the american navy and at the same time found the one path that would let us escape and not be cut from supply. This whole thought process took about a half hour, much to John's chagrin as he stood there not having much to do but listen to broadcasted enemy communications.
-
Ok - here are 2 rules clarifications we like:
Japanese Surprise attack - Once the Japs declare war on the Western Allies - the Western Allies lose the rest of their chit draws.
Anything in combat does not exert a ZOC.
More to come - I will post large pics for the next round - happening Sunday
-
Is this the first Pacific playtest?
-
No - it's not. We are just ironing out a few rules.
Another rule - air units can not participate in combat when flying over the Himalayas.
-
Actually - the rules states that black (impassible) territories like the Himalayas prevent movement for all units including air units - so you guys should not be flying anything over those territories.
I think that only air units to fly it regularly historically were the transport planes flying supplies into China. Air units would need to move around the Himalayas impassible space.
Mark
-
The position at the moment (start Autumn 43), from the Japanese perspective, is:
- MacArthur is fighting one hell of a defence of Bombay - it is very tight. If the US had lost the last initiative roll, India would have been unlikely to survive. In fact they won, so MacArthur can at least hold on with another pinning attack.
- The Allies are ashore on Papua New Guinea but will have to march up the island to the other end where the Japs are building a redoubt.
- The Japanese have a lot of airpower spread across PNG and the Phillippines. The Japanese fleet is spread between the Carolinas and Japan, with a secondary fleet off India.
- The Japanese were doing very well until the Summer of 43 - all carriers intact, all carrier air intact - then we lost two carriers to subs, one fully looaded with all air. We're now using islands as carriers (they seem to be harder to sink).
- China is getting ugly - we lost Shanghai due to force dispersal and being passive. Things are fairly balanced but the Chinese keep multiplying.
It is a WILD ride witrh all these carriers and rerolls.
The Japs have enjoyed a lot of PP - we have nice air, decent sub force, still lots of capital ships. Unfortunately the US have more: 2-hit carriers, 6 AA-value fighters, heavy bombers on the way, and our best naval commanders are gone now.
Banzai Banzai Banzai!!!!
Mike
-
I will have some photos up shortly. This looks like it will be a very tough game. I think India may hold for 1 more turn but I would say future prospects are grim. Yes - I got lucky with a couple of sub hits on Jap carriers but if you don't try...
I think the Pacific US should be able to build airborne divisions (they are not on the build chart).
The Japanese have an amazing amount of air.
Rule clarification needed - if a carrier is sunk during the movement phase by a sub and the planes can land on adjacent land - can they then be involved in the regular combat phase. We said yes. What say you?
BTW - island hopping is really tough and scary - if you mess your planning up - you can get in big trouble very quickly :o
-
I think I am OK with enabling the US to build paratroopers in the Pacific. . .
At first I was more of the line of thinking that air units on the carrier should be eliminated. . .I mean if the carrier is torpedoed, the planes are going down with the ship, right? (I know I will regret this the next time I play Britain). But after running some numbers, it may make sub hits against carriers too deadly. I think perhaps planes should get to fly their range off of a killed carrier - but should NOT be allowed to participate in combat (unless attacked) on the movement phase - they may move again on the non-vombat phase.
Why is India in such deep trouble? Not able to build enough / ship enough there to hold it - or are the Japanese going all out to take it?
Where is Stillwell and Slim?
What is the current VP level? It is going to start dropping 2 VPs a turn I think from now on out. . .
Anything broken? What are the challenges with Island hopping?
-
For my opinion the planes should be killed aswell.
Britain used a lot light carriers to secure their convoys
-
I have a rule suggestion, again having to do with the extremely overpowered american heavy bombers. As of right now they are a 4 air to air, which is +3 bonus over a regular heavy bomber. The impetus for this incredibly high str was to simulate the staying power of the bomber, but they weren't better at shooting down enemy fighters than another fighter, right?
So here is what I think: Drop the air to air down to a 2, giving them +1 AtoA over a regular bomber because of the ball turret of course. Then add 1 to the AtoA roll of any fighter that is in combat with the bomber. The bomber will get through a good deal of the time this way.
By the way, is the bomber damage still a whopping 2d6 or is it the roll 2d6 drop the lowest and add 1 to the die roll of the other die?
-
Oh and Slim is in a japanese prison. We took his hat. He is real pissed.
-
For the submarines, I was referring to when subs sink a carrier during a snap fire. This snap fire happens well before any battles take place, it happens during the initiative phase. So the planes have not even gotten a chance to move yet in the game, but they were going somewhere, we just hadn't actually moved the piece yet. We thought it reasonable that the planes would have time to rebase and move with all the planes at the end of the initiative phase. On writing down all my logical steps now I see that I may have some holes in that logic. I guess my main problem with it is that the subs do things in the game well before the simultaneous choices could be made. It actually does make sense that subs have this "first strike" attribute associated with them, although.
-
I really think the heavy bomber is fine with a 4 air to air and 2d6 economic damage.
A regular U.S. Medium Bomber is a 2 air to air - so a heavy bomber should be at least a 3.
I think 2d6 is ok for economic damage - they seem to be pretty balanced now in the european theater.
I guess we could investigate a 3 air to air value and your suggestion of a +1 modifer for attacks made against them if you guys think it wors better.
-
I am sure Slim is being as unhelpful as possible and spending plenty of time in the cooler, Alec Guiness-style.
We made very effective use of paratroops in India, where there has been no Allied air power until just now. This, along with an amphib, allowed for a very rapid break-in to a depth of two Indian spaces. The tank we brought along has helped by meching into empty spots. And Yamashita was made for this kind of fighting.
Unfortunately - imagine the groans coming from Brian and I - our 2x paratroop assault on Bombay was defeated on the first turn - freshly-graduated Indian infantry, fighting from their training bases, destroyed both paras in round 1. Ouch!!
Cheers
Mike
-
[quote author=Mark link=topic=340.msg3914#msg3914 date=1288733231
I guess we could investigate a 3 air to air value and your suggestion of a +1 modifer for attacks made against them if you guys think it wors better.
As a mainly Allied player, I can see the appeal of keeping hvy bombers as tough as they are. They really perk you up as the force builds in 1942.
In terms of accuracy though, I think our current rules reflects the myth of the self-defending bomber.
I agree with Brian that a rule fix is needed to prevent so many fighters from getting killed by bomber defensive fire. That is the gist of his suggested fix, I believe. There is probably a history buff reading this (Joe? James?) who has stats on German fighter losses to B-17 defensive fire.
It is just plain silly that some fighters can pin a B-17, in theory as it sits on its base, and then have to battle it out at -1 air-to-air value. Maybe that's a broader problem with the issue of airbase attacks.
Cheers
Mike
-
We can perhaps move the heavy bomber value to a 3 air to air and just have AA and fighter attacks against them have a +1 die roll modifier - that may in fact work better than the 4 air to air value - if you guys agree with it. That would make them tougher to knock out, but less effective at destroying interceptors.
I think one of the rationalizations I had in the back of my head, was that Hy bombers would be bombing fuel and plane manufacturing as a primary target - which would in-effect impact enemy fighter strength - thus justifying the slitghtly higher A-to-A combat value. . .
But, keep in mind they are expensive units to purchase (14 PP) if we lower their effectiveness too much, they are not going to be worth buying.
We have made other adjustments for game playability, balance and fun - for expample - the Italian production and combat value is probably over-valued - giving the Axis a little more of an edge. Slightly over-valued hy bombers gives the allies a little bit of an edge.
Having said that, I am OK dropping them to a 3 and having shots against them be at a +1. Will this be acceptable? Let's lock this down then.
-
Looking at the math and the Air combat table:
A heavy bomber with a A2A value of 4 vs. a Me109 with an A2A value of 5:
Me 109 kills the bomber on a 3, returns it on a 6 or less.
Bomber kills the Me109 on a 2, returns it on a 5 or less.
If we make the Hy. bomber a 3, but attacks against it are a +1 then the results are:
Me 109 kills the bomber on a 3, returns it on a 5 or less.
Bomber kills the Me 109 on a 2, returns it on a 4 or less.
So actually, I think this suggestion makes it actually worse for defending interceptors. So maybe not a good idea after all.
I like the 3 or less kill, 6 or less return results for an Me109 against the hy bomber - the +1 column. You get a good mix of returns on that column which represents damaged bombers going home.
But, I like the bombers shooting back on the -2 column (2 or less kill, 4 or less return).
So - maybe the right adjustment is make Hy bombers a 3 Air to air value when firing A2A, but a 4 value when defending A2A. You actually don't gain much over the 4 A2A value for Hy bombers though, one lower return result for defending fighters - which does not mean much.
If you make them just a 3 A2A value with no modifiers then results are:
Me109 kills the bombers on a 4, returns them on a 6.
Hy. Bomber kills the Me109 on a 2, returns it on a 4.
With this, you kill bombers a bit more, but you do not increase the suvivability of your interceptors at all - so does not help your problem either.
-
Where is Stillwell and Slim?
Vinegar Joe is my favorite general of the war. ;D
Kicking the "Little Peanut" in the ass the whole way! :o
-
Yeah - I like Stilwell too. . . Ever since the movie 1941 with John Belushi. . .
With respect to Hy. Bombers - we could make the unit something like the following - if that is what you guys are after. . . .
-
You make a great point Mark, all units do not need to have comparable cost/effectiveness ratios. The heavy bombers were just better than regular bombers and they didn't cost so much more, this represents a superior technology, just like the german jet fighters. In terms of gameplay though, there is no contest. Heavy bombers cost 16% more than regular bombers and have AtoA increased 100% and bombing damage increased 100% and they probably are better land bombers and they have longer range, etc. In game terms this means that it really is just silly to build regular bombers anymore but once the US figured out this technology they didn't just stop building regular bombers, I think. You've already taken care of this by putting a limit on how many heavy bombers you can have on the build chart so if you need even more bombers you have to build the weaker ones. So I am not under the impression that the unit is broken anymore.
My main worry was that my fighters were getting shot down too much, not that the bombers were actually getting by. So the only change I would suggest now(with the mindset that the new bombers are just plain better overall and thats ok) wouldn't actually change if the bomber gets by or not. Keep him as a 4 AtoA and add 1 to the bombers die roll instead of the fighters. I leave it up to you historians to decide if this would better represent how many fighters were downed by hvy bombers or if it is represented correctly the way it is now.
-
I think Brian/Mark's fix works great! +1 to die roll vs fighters - easy fix!
-
Pics are here!!!
-
More start of Aut 43
-
Builds!
-
Great pics - and I can see them now! ;D
India looks in rough shape - but maybe the fleet off of Austrlaia will come to the rescue?
Ceylon is out of supply, right?
Looks like the Japanese have almost given up on mainland China - hard to tell though how that is going to play out. This is a fun stage of the game for the Japanese - too much to defend, not enough resources - its almost hang on as long as posible stage and hope you can hold onto enough VPs to negotiate a peace with the US.
Looks like the stage is set for some big battles for the Solomon islands and New Guinea - look forward to the pics for the next couple turns!
-
With respect to Hy. Bombers - I am really leaning to just leaving them a 4 A2A combat value. They only kill fighters on a 1/6 chance now. If you add a +1 modifier they will only kill fighters 1/12 which I think is just too low.
One thing I am a little concerned about - is it more effective to use your submarines against enemy fleets rather than doing economic damage? If so, I think it may be something that needs to be looks at. . .Given the same amount of ASW - I should think that the mechanics should tilt subs to be more effective against convoy zones than trying to kill carriers and combat ships. . . from the pics it looks like this may not be the case. Any thoughts?
Mark
-
No WAY! Listen - everybody can agree I got lucky (out of 3 shots - I hit 2) . They left carriers alone with no destoyer escorts, doing the job of what crusiers are better doing. Believe me - this was a learning experience for both sides. A 1 in 6 chance to sink something is not good odds...
It is fine - leave it be.
-
"A 1 in 6 chance to kill something is not good odds" . . . same odds for a heavy bomber to kill a fighter - I think we should leave heavy bombers where they are on the Air to Air table. If they are too powerful for the money, maybe they need to cost 8+8 instead of 7+7.
-
I had 2 destroyers and an 2 air with the second carrier sink actually. I didn't return you and you rolled low, you did get lucky.
But a 1 in 6 chance is great odds against the japanese because of their pitiful one hit carriers. The problem wasn't the subs in this instance, it was the carriers. A 1 in 6 chance against the japanese means that about every 6 shots, you should sink a fully loaded carrier which means you destroy 36 points worth of navy or about 6 pts a turn, not to mention time lost building another carrier and planes. This is better than doing economic damage with them.
Subs have to be the best piece in the game, I am just glad that both sides can build them.
-
Sub commanders didn't report seeing the destroyers during the 2nd sinking.... ;)
-
Well- hopefully most of the time the planes should be near land if a carrier goes down - but I do agree that they should forfeit movement during the regular combat phase if the carrier goes down (they essentially move 1 space to land).
Jap destroyers are a really flexible unit - VERY worth the money.
-
I have been thinking about this one too. It seems that all things being equal, a player would rather send his subs against a fleet to sink a loaded transport or a carrier rather than going after economic damage in a convoy zone. I don't think I like this. All things being equal (same level of ASW), I think the rules should tilt the sub mission against convoys and economic damage.
Now if someone leaves a carrier or a transport with little or no ASW protection, then it should be a great target for a sub. So - the answer is not lowering the subs killing ability - but maybe raising a fleet ASW protection to be tougher than a convoy ASW protection - to make well protected fleets less juicy targets for subs.
Otherwise I think we get games where players will commit subs to go after enemy combat ships all the time and ignore the convoy centers - I don't think this is a good dynamic.
-
OK - a couple options with respect to the observations that have been made.
Heavy Bombers:
Option 1: Reduce their Air combat value to 3, leave their cost at 7+7.
Option 2: Keep their Air combat value at 4, increase their cost to 8+8.
I think reducing their combat value does not do much to solve what you guys are looking at - what do you think about just making them cost more?
Submarines and ASW:
I know John will not like this - but I think we need to slightly increase the ASW protection for surface ships vs. protecting convoy zones to make it a little more of a deterent to hunt well protected transports and carriers. So I am proposing the following adjusted ASW table that improves ASW when protecting a fleet vs. protecting a convoy zone. Let me know what you think.
Also, I think planes and units that are aboard carriers and transports that are sunk during submarine movement interdiction combat are eliminated.
-
Heavy Bombers costing more is fine - they are not heavy units are they? ASW is interesting - I am not opposed. Seems pretty streamlined. Having destroyers (and in some cases carriers) committed to the protection of fleets makes me happy. If you don't do this then you deserve to get shot at...
Makes for a great logistical game. It makes it worth building subs just to force the other side to spend resources building ASW or things could spiral out of control and set timetables back. Woohoo!
-
I think the bombers are fine where they are now, I have no issues anymore.
Love the ASW change and the fact that everything goes down with the ship. Such events will be spectacular and a little more rare.
-
OK, adjusted ASW is fine - seems everyone is ok with that edit.
not sure which way you want to go with bombers though? Leave them as is / reduce them to A2A of 3 / or increase their cost to 8+8 ?
-
A2A of 3 is preferable to me then making them cost more.
-
Just make it clear that destroyer/carrier escorts must start and end movement with the fleets they are protecting in order to participate in snap fire defense. In other words a destroyer can't defend a convoy zone after escorting a fleet during the movement phase....
-
Yup - ok.
I am going through and editing the rules again now and will make sure this is highlighted.
-
Excellent - we will have a few other things. We needed a bit of clarification - when a leader moves and brings another leader with them, only the leader that moved the group can participate in the first round of battle (after that - the other leader can take over). Just make sure that is very clear.
Airbase/pinning attack. If the defending air units do not scramble - the pinning units only get one ground attack roll - correct?
I will have images for the Pacific up tomorrow. It is such a close game. Close to a Jap victory, that is...
The ENTIRE US fleet was sunk...
-
John should have the pics up soon but I can at least comment on the recent developments. Axis victory in the autumn of 44!
The Allies took back all of Papua New Guinea, Guadalcanal, and other nearby islands and were beginning to take over the Mariana islands, carolinas and whatever the 3rd one is in that group. The Japs started throwing their fleet, bullet-catching-saving-president style in front of a reduced capital ship US transport fleet. In particular for the fight of the Mariana islands(?) A staggering large number of US air was not enough to defeat the Yamato and Jap cruisers in the area. The thing is, a returned battleship will come back and fight but returned planes don't. The details will come back to me when I see the pics, this game ended 2 weeks ago. We did not play with the rule that a transport needs to survive one round of combat to land. John and I both had transports in the area ready to deploy troops to the island.
Quick question: Would my 6 troops be there for the defense of the island or would they go into reserve?
The allies couldn't retake Calcutta but managed to push in on both sides through Rangoon with Stillwell and his chinese forces.
The Oil fields in the malaysia/indonesia region remain unmolested.
-
Banzai banzai banzai!!!
A good result for the Axis.
Offsetting John's experience, Brian (and me for the sessions I was there) had some luck in terms of rules glitches. For instance, we all failed to correctly read that Chinese forces CAN enter Burma if Stillwell is present. Hence for quite a while the Burmese/China border was a secure flank for the Japs despite being completely unguarded; this made resourcing India a little easier.
My only observation on game balance - this was my first Pacific outing - is that it is probably much too easy to supply forces in the jungle. Might be worth making a "truck" piece (cost of 2) and saying that units in jungle areas can only be in-supply if they can draw line of supply AND (1) are in a space that also contains a port or (2) have a truck unit with them. This simulates, in a simple way, the added cost and planning required to sustain jungle offensives.
It would also make for great "Chindit" / Merill's Marauders pieces that could be supplied in jungle as long as there was an Allied transport aircraft within range during the check supply phase.
Oh, and the US needs a weak/cheap paratroop piece - maybe a 2/3 (3 offensive value on first round) to represent regimental not divisional strength.
Cheers
Mike
PS. Lesson #1: Never ever Banzai counter-offensive!!
-
PS. Lesson #1: Never ever Banzai counter-offensive!!
Hahaha! Truer words were ne'er spoken.
-
So - I am going to add a US paratrooper build to the US Pacific Build sheet - that makes sense.
I don't know about special units for the Burmese jungles. I think the lack of strategic movement must make reinforcing armies there dificult - command of the sea zones is critical to get troops forward and prevent the enemy from landing troops behind you - I think this is probably enough to make advances through Burma into India a challenge ( escpecilly if the Chinese flank poses some threat with Stillwell).
Contemplating why we have damaged and retreated ships go into reserve instead of having to retreat from the battle. . . may need to change that - not sure why we made it that way.
I think I need to understand better the comment on the 6 infantry on the transport question to try and answer what should happen. One round of naval combat is conducted before transports disembark for a battle - but the rules say if moving friendly, transports disembark immediately. I would take this to mean the reinforcements land before the attack takes place. But, it is a gray area if a naval battle is taking place in the sea zone as well. I would suggest that whoever had the initiative and moved their transports into the sea zone first, gets to land his troops on the island first.
Sounds like it was a solid Japanese victory if they still hung onto Calcutta and most of the Pacific except for New Guinea and the Solomons.
-
Sure - your clarification sounds good.
Very good playtest. Good solid Jap Victory. Clarified rules. Pics will be up soon - I have been too busy...
-
ok - Here are more photos! The first pic shows the casualties from a terrifying naval engagement. US got massacred in case this is not clear...
-
More
-
:)
-
;)
-
:)
-
:)
-
;D
-
:o
-
:)
-
:'(
-
:o
-
:)
-
Wow - great pics guys - and what looks like a great game! Did the mechanics give you the right feel for naval battles in the Pacific? Subs and carriers work OK?
-
Yeah - I felt like I was there...
It was a crazy - great game. We missed a couple of rules but it was a really good playtest!
-
It looks like the Japanese advance into India and holding Calcutta is what proved most decisive. . .that and it looks like the US navy was delayed a long time before going on the offensive. . .
-
So - this is the current rule with respect to naval combat prior to amphibious invasions:
Transports carrying cargo that will be conducting an amphibious assault that move into a sea zone with enemy surface combat naval units must wait until the naval battle has been resolved before disembarking cargo from that sea zone. The attacking player may attack with some of his naval units and reserve others to support the amphibious assault by conducting shore bombardment. Naval units may not both conduct naval combat and support the amphibious assault.
For battles where the defender has only air units attacking an enemy naval amphibious invasion force, only one round of air to ship combat is fought against naval units before transport disembark their cargo onto the beaches. Air units may continue to attack naval units on subsequent rounds of combat, but their cargo is considered disembarked after the first round.
Transports that are returned during sub movement interdiction, naval combat or the first round of air to ship combat may not disembark their cargo and remain in the sea zone with their cargo (they may be retreated out of the combat sea zone per the normal retreat rules at the end of the combat round).
-
So it is not clear - just one round of naval combat before you can disembark cargo or does the attacker need to clear the sea zone of defending ships. We played that the sea zone needed to be cleared... Which actually gave a reason for protracted naval battles - it was great.
-
The way it is - is that the sea zone must be cleared. Only when it is air only does one round of air combat happen before the troops are landed. No enemy naval units can be present before the troops are landed - you have to defeat them first.
-
;D
-
i want both of the new maps to play the original struggle on. :) 8) :o
kenb
-
have you guys thought about cutting Japanese paratroopers and replacing them with either special naval landing infantry (marines) or imperial guard units, or both. Another thought is that since there were so few guards units during the war, have Japan start with something like two guards units but be unable to build additional ones.
guards could be a 3/5 and defend home islands at +1 and SNLI could be 3/4 and attack amphibiously at +1. cost would be same as paratroopers.
-
also maybe us marines (I cant tell from pics if they are a unit). cost 3,3 combat 3/4 or 5 and attack islands at 4 for first round of combat. build capacity of 0 until at war, 1 at war and 2 in spring/summer of 1942 (can subtract this from regular infantry builds), and can only be deployed in the pacific.
-
You, sir - are a genius. . . ;)
-
Wow Norseman - you hit the nail on the head - great minds think alike. Marines are essential in the Pacific - man - have I lost my share - Japs are tough to pry out of islands - between jungle, amphibious advantage, forting and banzai defense they can be really painful! Man - is it fun (and scary)!
-
I just finished a game in which japan went wild. grabbed rabaul, guadalcanal, tarawa, the phillipines, all of new guinea, sydney and threatened india. on average they had something like 3 forts two infantry + planes on each island until their air force was completely destroyed around turn 20. I lost a ridiculous amount of infantry. on one attack 13 infantry 2 artillery and 2/3 planes attacked something like 4 forts and infantry that were out of supply. only the 2 artillery survived-brutal
-
and ceylon!!!
-
In Japan's case only, I don't think the out of supply penalty should affect the forts and infantry on any of the islands.
They fought just as effective using the island resources only.
just a thought
kenb
-
Hi any new on the pacific release date ? thanks :D
-
I heard december :)
-
Yes -
December is the plan! 8)
-
For the island out of supply penalty.
The out of supply is not only the food is the ammo to.
And build ammo on island Lol...
-
December is still the plan? thanks
-
I hope so 8)
-
January is the new plan? thanks
-
we need to be a bit more detailes on these posts - year was never specified.
Seriously though, we did not have a chance to playtest the Pacific again over the Holidays and the country sheets have not been updated. I think the map is pretty much finalized and the rules are pretty much the same as for Europe - except for a few country specific rules. But it has not been brushed up into a Pacific rules set. The counters for the miniatures are finalized and have not been altered for some time. A few leaders need some tweaking though.
I think we could get the map and the counters out electronically along with the draft country sheets - but it is not a fully baked deliverable yet (if you consider the Europe version as fully baked - seems like we are still tweaking and clarifying rules here and there with Europe as well).
-
Thanks for the news.
-
>In Japan's case only, I don't think the out of supply penalty should affect the forts and infantry on any of the islands.
They fought just as effective using the island resources only.
Actually I agree with this. Unlike American soldiers, Japanese soldiers didn't need a gazillion tons of materiel every day. They knew how to fight battles in slight resources.
AFAIK no Japanese held island was ever conquered by starvation. Every island had to be attacked or be bypassed, and virtually none of the bypassed island surrendered until after Nagasaki, even though some of them had been cut off from Japan for months.
The Japanese in the islands, in almost all cases, had enough ammo to make the out of supply rule irrelevant.
-
If Japenese have a lot of munition in island i dont practice a lot of desperate bayonet charge face of US mg...