Different how?

[Numdydar]

So we have SC World at War, Warplan Pacific, plus other titles. How is this game going to be different other than a SC WiE re-skin?

Obviously the scale will be different than WaW so smaller unit sizes as a guess. but that alone does not seem to be enough of a difference.

Will WiE be able to tie in as an option? I doubt it but would be nice. The main issue I had with WaW was the scale was too big. So, it would be really nice to have the scale of WiE in the Pacific. I do not care that most of the map would be water. It's a computer game. It's not like we have to have a huge physical space to play it.

More details on how this title will be different enough from existing games to be worth a buy.

[tarfman]

+1

[Platoonist]

Will WiE be able to tie in as an option? I doubt it but would be nice.

Since it seems like that would be too big a selling point not to mention I doubt it also.

But, at least now some of the atolls like Truk and Eniwetok look more proportional to the map with the decrease in hex scale from WaW.

I'd be curious to know if the game will simulate one of Japan's major weak points, lack of oil and tanker losses which limited everything from pilot training to warship movement. Traditionally, the SC series has never tracked oil as a limiting resource.

[FOARP]

Will WiE be able to tie in as an option? I doubt it but would be nice.

Since it seems like that would be too big a selling point not to mention I doubt it also.

But, at least now some of the atolls like Truk and Eniwetok look more proportional to the map with the decrease in hex scale from WaW.

I'd be curious to know if the game will simulate one of Japan's major weak points, lack of oil and tanker losses which limited everything from pilot training to warship movement. Traditionally, the SC series has never tracked oil as a limiting resource.

My first impression on this is I'm glad it's happening and I have confidence that the game dev team on this will pull off another highly playable game. This should be said before anything.

Regarding how to address the Pacific war, I personally would favour a fuel mechanism as well. Without that, the whole logistics aspect of the game risks falling away and a lot of the limitations it places on the players. For example, Japan needed Hawaii to be able to even think of doing anything to the east of there, but to model this correctly you have to have them refuelling there. However, I think if this was planned it would have been mentioned.

Also, if we're doing "WiE on a Pacific map" then diplomacy becomes a question-mark. In WiE there's at least two countries when playing as Germany that it makes sense to try to get on your side (Turkey and Spain), but for Japan the ONLY thing you're ever going to be doing as Japan is trying to delay a USSR war-entry. There are no meaningful allies you can win to your side through diplomatic means. The only allies Japan had in the war were ones that they had invaded and forced to their side, there were no substantial neutrals (except maybe in South America? but this isn't shown in the map) they could bring on side. In fact the only historically neutral state on the whole map shown is probably Afghanistan.

My answer to this diplomacy issue would be adding some kind of mechanism for establishing puppet states to the diplomacy interface. That way Japan still has something to do other than begging Uncle Joe not to attack them.

36k hexes is . . . just a bit less than a 190x190 square map (obviously the map isn't square, this is just to give a feel for the area). Frankly for the Pacific war, just from a personal perspective, I'd like to see a larger map than this combined with a smaller area (maybe 150x300, with the southern edge of the map being in Central Australia?). I am heartened, though, by what appears to be an East Asia map as well as the Pacific map, so perhaps there will be also a map showing the land war in Asia in more detail? I'm sure an Operation Olympic scenario will ship with the game. Maybe also a China 1937 scenario?

I'll admit that having loads of empty blue is also a game-design issue. There's UI improvements that could be implemented to help here - most notably by implementing multi-turn moves (i.e., the player can order moves that take multiple turns to complete, without having to repeatedly order the moves each turn), but I have no knowledge of how difficult this would be to implement in the StratCom game engine and it could be that it's just too difficult and needs the next-gen engine to come along before it can be done. I would, however, urge the Game Devs to consider doing this and other QoL improvement if at all possible - the problem of having to remember to move ships/units each turn is something that have been mentioned by many players, and in a Pacific scenario would be particularly acute.

Also as far as I know pretty much all naval invasions in StratCom need to be essentially scripted. That's a problem in a game where naval invasion are going to play such a big role.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to playing this game.

[Platoonist]

Also, if we're doing "WiE on a Pacific map" then diplomacy becomes a question-mark. In WiE there's at least two countries when playing as Germany that it makes sense to try to get on your side (Turkey and Spain), but for Japan the ONLY thing you're ever going to be doing as Japan is trying to delay a USSR war-entry. There are no meaningful allies you can win to your side through diplomatic means. The only allies Japan had in the war were ones that they had invaded and forced to their side, there were no substantial neutrals (except maybe in South America? but this isn't shown in the map) they could bring on side. In fact the only historically neutral state on the whole map shown is probably Afghanistan.

My answer to this diplomacy issue would be adding some kind of mechanism for establishing puppet states to the diplomacy interface. That way Japan still has something to do other than begging Uncle Joe not to attack them.

I imagine some of the Chinese puppet regimes in China will be represented but like all the members of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere they were essentially working with a gun to their head. Even a nominal ally like Thailand only joined after being delivered an ultimatum demanding, at a minimum, unhindered passage for troops on their way to Malaya and Burma. Japanese diplomacy towards its collaborationist governments in Asia was often so ham-fisted, arrogant, and demanding that virtually all the Asian nationalist movements had turned against Japan by the time the war ended. Frankly, as Japan I'd be more worried about an MPP hegemon like the U.S. yanking one of my "allies" out from under me.

That brings up another question. Since the US is also fighting an off-map war against the Euro-Axis I'm thinking it's overall MPP production will have to be split in some regard. Same for the British Commonwealth.

[ncc1701e]

That brings up another question. Since the US is also fighting an off-map war against the Euro-Axis I'm thinking it's overall MPP production will have to be split in some regard. Same for the British Commonwealth.

Good point. There is also the Royal Navy in Indian Ocean that was there from time to time before being called back in the Middle East. This is only in 1944 that the Royal Navy was really back when German navy was defeated.

[ncc1701e]

There is another aspect that is very important in a game about the Pacific War. It's intelligence. Decoding the codes and intentions of the enemy. For me, this point is fundamental.

[FOARP]

There is another aspect that is very important in a game about the Pacific War. It's intelligence. Decoding the codes and intentions of the enemy. For me, this point is fundamental.

This is already modelled in the base StratCom system to a significant extent by researching intelligence and getting information about unit-positions. How would you like to see it further developed on?

I think anyone who's played WiE as the Axis will know the joy of seeing an Allied troop convoy out in the Atlantic and vectoring all available ships and subs in to annihilate it!

I guess further ways of elaborating on this could involve giving insight in to the other side's build-queues? Maybe sabotage operations (though I'd be strongly against any RNG "click and get a result" system)?

That brings up another question. Since the US is also fighting an off-map war against the Euro-Axis I'm thinking it's overall MPP production will have to be split in some regard. Same for the British Commonwealth.

Good point. There is also the Royal Navy in Indian Ocean that was there from time to time before being called back in the Middle East. This is only in 1944 that the Royal Navy was really back when German navy was defeated.

I think more generally some kind of way of investing MPP to shape how the European/Middle East war shapes the Asia-Pacific war could be interesting.

One thing could be that committing to an early war against the USSR as the Japanese player gives you a strong chance of getting the Africa Korps invading India from the west, and defeating the USSR gives you German forces in Vladivostok. Alternatively as the Allies you can choose between a "Europe First" strategy and a "Pacific First" strategy, with choosing the later giving you more MPP and units but also the risk of the USSR collapsing and Axis forces showing up on the Western side of the map.

Unfortunately at present the StratCom platform does not support "invisible majors", and doesn't give country-specific graphical sprites to minor countries, so there's no way of having German/Italian units with country-specific sprites without having Germany/Italy present in the game as majors from the start. I'm not sure what the coding requirements are for solving this.

A less ambitious implementation would simply be giving the Japanese a large piece of the USSR to simulate a victory for the European Axis, and European Axis naval units showing up (since the graphics for these are essentially generic AFAIK).

[ncc1701e]

There is another aspect that is very important in a game about the Pacific War. It's intelligence. Decoding the codes and intentions of the enemy. For me, this point is fundamental.

This is already modelled in the base StratCom system to a significant extent by researching intelligence and getting information about unit-positions. How would you like to see it further developed on?

I think anyone who's played WiE as the Axis will know the joy of seeing an Allied troop convoy out in the Atlantic and vectoring all available ships and subs in to annihilate it!

I guess further ways of elaborating on this could involve giving insight in to the other side's build-queues? Maybe sabotage operations (though I'd be strongly against any RNG "click and get a result" system)?

My point is about the intel level a naval combat is performed. Maybe I am influenced by Pacific War board game but each combat outcome is directly impacted by an intel level. Situation like Midway can then be emulated. Also, US were always wrong when evaluating the size of Japanese troops on invaded islands even after several aerial reconnaissances. This is the type of things I am looking for.

Also, Pacific War is about task force, its composition, its screen and when I see the screenshots, I am under the impression that you can't put a BB with plenty of AAA guns to protect your CV in the same task force counter. Am I wrong?

[Platoonist]

Also, Pacific War is about task force, its composition, its screen and when I see the screenshots, I am under the impression that you can't put a BB with plenty of AAA guns to protect your CV in the same task force counter. Am I wrong?

Thats' always been a glaring issue with Strategic Command games...the one unit per hex rule. You can't stack units or ships, so no task forces per se. As a result, by 1945 in some games of SC World @ War I had Japan literally surrounded by a triple wall of Allied ships when in reality all of them could fit in one hex with room for hundreds more.

shipwall.jpg (154.35 KiB) Viewed 2177 times

[ncc1701e]

Also, Pacific War is about task force, its composition, its screen and when I see the screenshots, I am under the impression that you can't put a BB with plenty of AAA guns to protect your CV in the same task force counter. Am I wrong?

Thats' always been a glaring issue with Strategic Command games...the one unit per hex rule. You can't stack units or ships, so no task forces per se. As a result, by 1945 in some games of SC World @ War I had Japan literally surrounded by a triple wall of Allied ships when in reality all of them could fit in one hex with room for hundreds more.

Well this is not my taste at all. Thanks, I will certainly not invest here.

[FOARP]

Also, Pacific War is about task force, its composition, its screen and when I see the screenshots, I am under the impression that you can't put a BB with plenty of AAA guns to protect your CV in the same task force counter. Am I wrong?

Thats' always been a glaring issue with Strategic Command games...the one unit per hex rule. You can't stack units or ships, so no task forces per se. As a result, by 1945 in some games of SC World @ War I had Japan literally surrounded by a triple wall of Allied ships when in reality all of them could fit in one hex with room for hundreds more.

Well this is not my taste at all. Thanks, I will certainly not invest here.

Naval war has always been a weak spot of this series but I wouldn't judge it so harshly and I'd certainly give it a chance first. I've had some great games of the WW2 in Europe version of this game, and the WW1 game is probably the best WW1 strategy game I've played.

[gwgardner]

Problem solved if the new game has task force counters, and a separate window of some sort for placing ships in a task force.

[sfbaytf]

I like the SC series, but modeling the Pacific War is very difficult for any game. Also single player vs AI can be tricky to model/program. The one unit per hex rule is definitely a glaring issue. In other games of the series you could overlook that when it came to naval warfare, because the theater of war was land centric.

In addition to the naval aspects, the air aspect was vital and with many key islands and atols being just one hex how would you garrison and base air units if you can't stack? Having air units that have ground/naval attack capabilities as well as fighters to defend the base and escort the bombers as well as search aircraft was vital.

It will be interesting to see how SC will handle all of this. Some of the monster board games have separate smaller scale maps that represent the tiny atols and islands that have more hexes so its not so abstracted.

[Numdydar]

I like the SC series, but modeling the Pacific War is very difficult for any game. Also single player vs AI can be tricky to model/program. The one unit per hex rule is definitely a glaring issue. In other games of the series you could overlook that when it came to naval warfare, because the theater of war was land centric.

In addition to the naval aspects, the air aspect was vital and with many key islands and atols being just one hex how would you garrison and base air units if you can't stack? Having air units that have ground/naval attack capabilities as well as fighters to defend the base and escort the bombers as well as search aircraft was vital.

It will be interesting to see how SC will handle all of this. Some of the monster board games have separate smaller scale maps that represent the tiny atols and islands that have more hexes so its not so abstracted.

^ This (Bolded)

With both SC WaW and Warplan Pacific this is a massive issue. They should use airfield boxes (or some other method) like Carriers at War 4 does it.

Also, how will searching for both sides be done? The players should be able to set search arcs and assign planes to them. I could live with controlled bases having automatic search areas. But it should be dependent on 'something'. Like number of planes at the base, supplies, etc. since it does take an effort to have search operations ongoing.

[FOARP]

Problem solved if the new game has task force counters, and a separate window of some sort for placing ships in a task force.

Realistically they aren't likely to launch a heavily modified/new game engine, and that would be required for this.

I like the SC series, but modeling the Pacific War is very difficult for any game. Also single player vs AI can be tricky to model/program. The one unit per hex rule is definitely a glaring issue. In other games of the series you could overlook that when it came to naval warfare, because the theater of war was land centric.

In addition to the naval aspects, the air aspect was vital and with many key islands and atols being just one hex how would you garrison and base air units if you can't stack? Having air units that have ground/naval attack capabilities as well as fighters to defend the base and escort the bombers as well as search aircraft was vital.

It will be interesting to see how SC will handle all of this. Some of the monster board games have separate smaller scale maps that represent the tiny atols and islands that have more hexes so its not so abstracted.

^ This (Bolded)

With both SC WaW and Warplan Pacific this is a massive issue. They should use airfield boxes (or some other method) like Carriers at War 4 does it.

Also, how will searching for both sides be done? The players should be able to set search arcs and assign planes to them. I could live with controlled bases having automatic search areas. But it should be dependent on 'something'. Like number of planes at the base, supplies, etc. since it does take an effort to have search operations ongoing.

I think on this what you see in the screenshots shows you what you're going to get - they deal with the island-size problem by making the islands large enough that they can have a ground unit and an air unit on them. If you want an air -attack that is both fighters and bombers (assuming it works like WiE) then you need carriers to do that.

Also, Pacific War is about task force, its composition, its screen and when I see the screenshots, I am under the impression that you can't put a BB with plenty of AAA guns to protect your CV in the same task force counter. Am I wrong?

Thats' always been a glaring issue with Strategic Command games...the one unit per hex rule. You can't stack units or ships, so no task forces per se. As a result, by 1945 in some games of SC World @ War I had Japan literally surrounded by a triple wall of Allied ships when in reality all of them could fit in one hex with room for hundreds more.


shipwall.jpg

If I was going to propose a solution that works within the context of the WiE engine as it stands, it would be having an "escort" technology to simulate the escorting force for BB/CV/CA units. To increase the protection of these units against subs/aircraft, you spend the MPP to add escorts to them as a upgrade. Destroyers would therefore be modelled as escorts attached to BB/CV/CA units and not as on-map units. This would at least take all the destroyers off the map which are half the units anyway.

A more elaborate solution would be to have the escorting force as something similar to the air-wing that CVs have in WiE - a modifier that you have to spend MPP to increase but which gets reduced in combat. This might be difficult to implement for CVs as they would need to be put on top of the air-wing.

[sfbaytf]

Would it be too much of a change to allow stacking of units and use handle it in a way the other games like Flashpoint Campaigns handles stacked units?

[James Taylor]

I'm thinking that a new unit that could sail into the harbor of the smaller atolls as a CV would, could be appropriate as a representation of an island airfield.

Larger atoll conglomerations could have more than one harbor, ie more airfields, for the air element deployment. Of course a supply level of say, at least 3 or 5 or whatever would be necessary for activation of the air group(s).

These harbor(air field) placements would also have an activated auto search mechanism as soon as the supply reached the necessary level.

[FirstPappy]

Starting to wonder how much different will it be from this current mod.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3lP2eklBg8

[ncc1701e]

Problem solved if the new game has task force counters, and a separate window of some sort for placing ships in a task force.

Good idea.