seeing as there is interest in the Pacific lets give it it's own topic. most recently in Tank speeds bazokajoe mentions the real truth about the Pacific theater most of the best gaming situations involve the other allies. now there are actions where the Americans vs the Japanese are doable. China has lots of possibilities early and certainly in 1944-45 as they have received more aid.

BJaffe01

Since it is beyond the scale of ToI to model, for example, the entire battle of Iwo Jima in one scenario, interesting and mostly balanced company actions should be the target here.

I'm sorry and I mean no offense, but I really do not see why US vs Japan could not provide balanced scenarios. Moreover, as a previous poster said; at the company or squad level there really shouldn't be any problem whatsoever. Also, as I mentioned in the other thread, even when one side enjoyed a clear advantage in men and firepower, the scenario could still be balanced if you make them capture their objective(s) within limited time or with limited casualties. These are just possible ways of balancing scenarios. It would even work for a Pacific based CAMPAIGN (I.e. the Americans might almost certainly win in the end, but didn't they sustain too many casualties, didn't it take them too much time etc.?)

Finally, if memoir 44, AAM can make balanced USA-Japan scenarios, why couldn't TOI?

I do agree that there are many interesting battles possible between the Japanese and the Chinese, ANZAC, Dutch and British as well, though (Singapore, Malaya, Java,Phillippenes (US), Burma etc..

Again, I really mean no offense, but I really don't see the problem.

I am wondering how best to represent:

- Ambush tactics

- Bunker and tunnel systems

- Jungle terrain

Beach assaults we have in Normandy, these rules should do for the Pacific, but I would like to see more amphibious vehicles like the Amtracs (amphibious landing vehicle tracked).

Kingtiger, some nice elements there. Amphibian vehicles being attacked by enemy artellery, and or AT guns before they can unload their infanteri on the beach sounds fun. Maybe this addition may enforce the attacker to be swift on the beach. If they cannot destroy the AT guns fast enough, to many infanteri would die in the ocean.

Tunnel system would be simple to introduce. Ambush tactics a bit tougher as it might requier better concealment rules. Ie it is easy to avoid an ambush if you know where it is going to happen. I know this problem has been discussed before, but I still think introducing dummy token is a good ide. If 2 out of 3 tokens are dummy, then the concealed infanteri could be one out of 3 places. Placing traps the same way would also be fun. As the rules are today, it is way to easy just not stepping on a mine, and mines seldom has any effect, as it often (not always) is just to walk around them.

well i do beleive that there will have to a better system for ambushes and the tunnels dummy tokens is a sound idea. amtracks are fun there are transport types and close support types. you know truly i agree that scenarios of US vs Japan can be balanced if a i did a pacific game out of 6 or more scenarios i;d do 2 i think the other Allies deserve more exposure for their efforts against Japan

BJaffe01

As an expansion to the base game, you could use the US forces from that and then add both Japanese and Commonwealth forces in the expansion.

There probably won't be a great deal of tanks in comparison to the Western front, but certainly plenty of scope for special rules/troop specialisations.

TeufelHund said:

And just think, they'll probably have a Pacific expansion in out in just 4-5 years.

TeufelHund said:

it depends on how you want to do the plastic. some folks really want us marine figures. yeah the number of tanks is low but that's okay by me

BJaffe01

I house ruled a dummy token setup that works very similarly to the Hoax Tannhauser invisibility rules. certain actions or conditions force one of the tokens to be revealed as "the one" and other actions allow the squad to remain hidden. So an enemy has the ability to out the concealed squad and in balance to that, if careful, the squad acn almost "cheat" movement restrictions. It is not perfect but works well enough for me. It makes defending fixed positions while severely outnumbered less of a foregone conclusion in my games. I also allow for more concealed squads in all scenarios for this reason by allowing a command cost to hide certain types of squads, dependent on terrain and troop types. Any ideas for allowing concealed squads ina ny scenario? I mean any squad could conceivably focus on stealth and hiding. Ambushing enemies as written is not particulary engaging to me froma atctical standpoint for the aforementioned reasons. Love to hear other ideas for this.

BJaffe01 said:

Seeing as how the original post to this thread was made back in August of 2010, I was just wondering if there is still any interest from FFGs point of view of trying to scrape together a Pacific expansion sometime in the future for ToI?

BJaffe01 said:

RMCBRIDE01 said:

Couldn't marines, paratroopers, SAS, SS, mountain troops etc. simply be represented by elite figures?? If they do want to make additional figurines, I'd rather see more vehicles (tanks and armored cars) and AT guns. Possibly even aircraft. Not that they would require stats of their won, but simply to liven up the air support decks.

The name of the game is "tide of IRON "not "tide of soldiers".

AFV! AFV! AFV!