Yes - So we have been playing with ZOCs for a long time. They have been added to the newer rules. I like that fleets can operate only so far from naval bases - maybe that can be incorporated.
Thanks-John
John,
I really hope that this something that you do in the next game. I think the lack of oil rules and some sort of rules for naval basing is the biggest fault I can find with the current game.
A lack of supply rules in a game like Axis & Allies isn’t a problem, because it’s obviously very abstracted, with no attempt to model history; with The Struggle, however, you ARE trying to model history. The way I sometimes put it is that A&A is a game set in WWII; The Struggle is WWII as a game. I can’t recall ever playing a strategic game of WWII (other than A&A) that didn’t have oil and/or supply as a factor in the Pacific; The Struggle seems to be unique in that regard. Not having naval supply rules doesn’t make The Struggle a bad game – far from it. It’s just that Europe feels so much like what WWII was like, whereas in the Pacific you never really get that same feeling. The Pacific is playable; it just doesn’t really feel like WWII (at least, not to me).
In The Struggle Japan has a lot more leeway to do things in the game than they could ever have been able to pull off historically. Sure, it’s a lot of fun to invade Hawaii, but in real life this was completely beyond the capabilities of Japan unless they wanted to make a much more significant commitment of resources than they did. Actually, in real life, they didn’t really have any hope of pulling this off. I think this is also a direct result of the lack of oil/naval supply rules. After playing once or twice a week for more than a year, we’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that the European theatre plays like World War II; the Pacific plays more like…well…Axis & Allies.
I understand that The Struggle is supposed to be of relatively low complexity when compared to games like World in Flames. And certainly I don’t want to turn it into something that complex. However, I think that The Struggle is more complex than the Europe Engulfed and Asia Engulfed – and this combo has oil and naval supply rules for the PAcific. And although not as complex as The Struggle, I can tell you that Asia Engulfed feels more realistic than the Pacific side of The Struggle.
The first thing I can think of is that oil rules need to be added to the current game. In my mind, the simplest way to do this would be to give each oil-producing territory a value of X number of points each turn. Japan has to track the oil they control and use each turn. Each ship uses one point of oil per territory moved. This would force Japan to be played a little more historically. They would have to make hard decisions about just what operations they wanted to do and which ones they really couldn’t afford to commit to. The Japanese player could try a Hawaiian invasion if he wanted – but he’s going to have to commit the same kinds of resources to such an endeavor that would have been required in real life.
With this option, the US would no longer make die rolls against the Japanese economy at tension levels one and two. Instead, the US begins the game supplying the Japanese X number of oil points each turn. At TL one this would be reduced (by a set amount or randomly by die roll); at TL two all oil exports to Japan cease. It’s been too many years since I’ve played, but I think this is similar to the way oil is handled in World in Flames.
You could also say that each Japanese combat (offense or defense) uses one oil point. This would make the need for Japan to secure oil resources more urgent. It would also force them to consider how engaged they want to be in China, as well as give China some motivation to launch attacks to try to bleed Japan down. Amphibious assaults would still be free for Japan, but they would each cost an oil point.
Adding oil to the game would almost certainly cause Japan to go after the Dutch East Indies (or Siberia) to secure the oil they needed. Oil was the primary reason why Japan went to war in the first place, but in what’s probably the biggest historical anachronism in our games, I can’t remember Japan EVER taking all of the DEI. Except for the last month, while I’ve been remodeling my bathroom, we’ve been playing at least once a week for well over a year now, so that represents quite a few games. Because of the victory point triggers, Japan always rushes to get the VP’s in the Solomon Islands area. My suggestion would be to say that once Japan takes the DEI, the oil points come online gradually – say, 25% per turn (or whatever). This would motivate the Japanese player to go after them as quickly as possible (again, as in history).
I also think that something needs to be done regarding stacking limits on certain islands. When going for Hawaii, the standard gambit is to hit Wake or Midway with 6 to 8 infantry on the first turn Japan is at war, then use these forces the next turn to invade Hawaii. A good tactic, but it ignores the reality that neither Midway nor Wake was large enough to serve as a base of operations from which to launch an invasion consisting of 10+ divisions. My suggestion is that when attacking these two islands the invader can use no more than two ground units; and no more than two ground units and one air unit can be based on either island. The US cannot base more than one ground unit on Wake or Midway until the winter 1941-42 turn.
I don’t think adding oil to the game would be a problem logistically. You could add another player card where Japan would track oil points (or just make some oil markers (1, 10, and 100) and they could track oil on their build chart). Oil points could be marked on the map using stickers or thin counters. Since everyone is using Plexiglas on their maps anyway it wouldn’t be a problem to place the oil point markers in place on the map then put the plexi down. Adding oil to the game would require minimal physical changes to the game or map. The only real issue I can see is firming up exactly what the rules should be and then playtesting them to determine just how many oil points Japan should have, how much oil various territories should have, etc. Admittedly, this part is not easy.
Another idea – would it be possible to adjust the current economic system to take oil into account for Japan? The way this would work is that each turn Japan could convert economic points to oil points (oil points could not be reconverted back to economic points). Japan would have to pay 1 point for each ship they want to move per sea zone. The beginning point total for Japan could be adjusted as was done for event driven US entry; they could also have X number of points already converted to oil from before the game started. This would almost certainly force them to go right after the DEI once at war in order to be able to fight. If there is a way to do this it would probably mean the least amount of disruption to the current game.
Also - for the current game, has any thought been given to reducing the ranges of aircraft on the Pacific map? This was done in at least one other game I know of (World in Flames). The Pacific represents a much larger area than the European theatre, and you’ve already reduced the ranges of ships and strategic movement there – perhaps the same should be done with aircraft. It seems to me that several islands on the Pacific map are within mutual supporting distance of each other when in reality they weren’t.
To sum up, this is sort of a “wish list” of things I think need to be done to make the war in the Pacific play a little closer to reality.
First, oil rules for Japan. I don’t think this needs to be done for anyone else. In WWII the US was still producing more oil than they needed. In Europe, I think things play pretty well (except for those darn airbases – but that’s another subject) as is, so I don’t think adding oil rules there is needed. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Second, related to above, I think there needs to be some sort of naval base added to the game. The idea would be that ships can only operate tactically within so many zones of a naval base (they could still use strategic movement to move from the operational range of one base to the operational range of another). Naval bases would take 1 or 2 turns to construct, and could be destroyed by combat. They would automatically be destroyed when taken by the enemy – this represents not the destruction of a harbor or base, but rather the destruction of the stockpiled oil and supplies. I think this would force the US to be more realistic in working their way toward Japan. It would definitely force them to do what they did historically and build depots (naval bases) as they advanced so they would have supply sources close by.
Third, ships must be in supply just as ground units, with negative die roll modifiers if they aren’t.
Fourth, adopt the ZOC rules you’re apparently using, and say that all sea zones are neutral. To block supply you must either have a combat ship occupying that sea zone or be able to exert a ZOC into it.
Fifth, implement some realistic stacking limits for Pacific islands. Midway and Wake are just the two most obvious examples where you couldn’t have corps- or army-sized formations; there may be others that should be added to the list.
Sixth, create a fairly simple sighting mechanic for fleets. Ships can only fight if they can find each other. Fleets with a DD or CA get a bonus, CV’s and land-based air gets a higher bonus (or take Craig’s idea and add flying boats to the game which get a high sighting bonus). There would be a small chance for surprise (granting a +1 combat modifier in first round), and also a chance that combat would be low-intensity (only one round can be fought). Similar to the “fronts” rules you’re testing for ground combat in the new game, these rules would possibly prevent one side from being able to fully take advantage of superior numbers (kind of like the Japanese at Midway) for any number of reasons – morale, intelligence, bad weather, etc.. This would mean a change to the rules in which it would be possible for fleets of opposite sides to simultaneously occupy a sea zone at the end of a turn.
This can’t be done in the current game, but in the next one you should consider adding more sea zones to the Pacific map. I don’t have the map here, but if I recall correctly just about every sea zone on the Pacific map has an edge or corner touching a land area or island. In reality, there are vast areas of the Pacific that are totally empty. Adding some more empty areas to the map would reduce the effectiveness of land-based aircraft; it would also force players to pay more attention to supply considerations. With more empty sea zones you couldn’t just sail past every island; add basing rules and you’re going to have to start taking some of the outer islands in order to be able to continue the advance. Another effect of having so many sea zones touching land is that it’s fairly easy to be able to cover most of the Pacific map with land-based air; in real life there would be large “holes” where LBA couldn’t reach. If you added more sea zones and reduced aircraft ranges it might make some of the islands more important than they are currently. From what we’ve seen of the next design it’s obvious that it’s going to be another step up in complexity and detail than the current game. Given that, I really think that naval supply rules need to be brought into the game; a failure to address these points in the next game would result in the same problem of the Pacific Theatre not really playing out very realistically that we have with The Struggle.
My two cents (or, given the length, maybe two dollars) worth,
Bob
