Rising Sun Scenario - CHS Style

[spence]

OK - it appears that there is no CHS version of the Rising Sun Scenario so I guess if I want one I'll have to make it myself.

Basic attributes:
1. I'll use the OOB (modified) for CHS Scenario 155 for the period 12/07/41 to 03/15/42. A number of units that entered the SRA campaign from "off map" and omitted from stock will be added into the Allied OOB...notably HMS Exeter and many of the Pensacola Convoy reinforcements (some P-40s and A-24s, some American Artillery units)
2. I'll use AB's map v2.08 cut down to the following dimensions (corners) - from Aden to Siberia to Coen to Perth. This is considerably larger than the map in Stock Scenario 2. I do want to allow the Brits to have some sea room to hide in after the KB comes into action in the last month of the game. Most of China will be mostly empty of either sides forces - the only forces in China that will be used will be those forces and bases in/around Hong Kong/Canton and the Chinese forces who got involved in the Burma theater/Kunming.
3. Bases and so forth will be modified to lower SPS/Size as in Treespider's variant. This scenario will be designed for PBEM (mostly).
4. I intend to create a "new" variety of G3M and G4M that carries torpedos (specifically the units around Saigon that participated in the sinking of PoW/Repulse. All others will carry bombs only. Additionally there will be a new type of B5N that carries bombs as its standard loadout instead of torpedos which will equip all non-KB IJN carriers: I have been looking for an instance where Ryujo launched a torpedo strike and haven't found a single one. Same goes for Zuiho (even late war), Shoho, Hosho, Taiyo. Before the screaming gets too loud I'll mention the Allies will only have the FAA Swordfish and Albacores as torpedo bombers (no Beauforts, land based Swordfish or Vildebeests. Hopefully the FAA torpedo bombers will have a working surface search airborne radar and therefore be able to fly attack missions at night though). [slots won't be an issue I hope since I'll have all the slots for later war weaponry to play with]
5. No production for either side (reinforcements fixed).

I do have some quick questions though. I more or less want the overwhelming majority of units in China to essentially disappear. Not sure how to edit out units/bases.
I could use some help with Japanese units that may have assisted 38th Division in its assault on Hong Kong.
I am also wondering if adding all the bases in India is going to throw off the victory conditions by giving the Allied Player so many points at start that there'll be no way for the Japanese to win by performing as well as their historical forebears (which I sort of want to "add up" as just barely a Marginal Japanese Victory).

At any rate I think Scenario 2 is one that can be fun for both sides. It was fun for me (as Allies) in my PBEM. There were some things seriously wrong with Stock though.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

OK - it appears that there is no CHS version of the Rising Sun Scenario so I guess if I want one I'll have to make it myself.

Basic attributes:
4. I intend to create a "new" variety of G3M and G4M that carries torpedos (specifically the units around Saigon that participated in the sinking of PoW/Repulse. All others will carry bombs only. Additionally there will be a new type of B5N that carries bombs as its standard loadout instead of torpedos which will equip all non-KB IJN carriers: I have been looking for an instance where Ryujo launched a torpedo strike and haven't found a single one. Same goes for Zuiho (even late war), Shoho, Hosho, Taiyo. Before the screaming gets too loud I'll mention the Allies will only have the FAA Swordfish and Albacores as torpedo bombers (no Beauforts, land based Swordfish or Vildebeests. Hopefully the FAA torpedo bombers will have a working surface search airborne radar and therefore be able to fly attack missions at night though). [slots won't be an issue I hope since I'll have all the slots for later war weaponry to play with]
5. No production for either side (reinforcements fixed).

I do have some quick questions though. I more or less want the overwhelming majority of units in China to essentially disappear. Not sure how to edit out units/bases.
I could use some help with Japanese units that may have assisted 38th Division in its assault on Hong Kong.
I am also wondering if adding all the bases in India is going to throw off the victory conditions by giving the Allied Player so many points at start that there'll be no way for the Japanese to win by performing as well as their historical forebears (which I sort of want to "add up" as just barely a Marginal Japanese Victory).

At any rate I think Scenario 2 is one that can be fun for both sides. It was fun for me (as Allies) in my PBEM. There were some things seriously wrong with Stock though.

IMHO a great problem with historical gaming is too much certainty. The Allies did not even know about oxygen torpedoes - nor have any sense of their range / speed capabilities. Whatever we do - you cannot change the 20/20 hindsight of both sides. Making no production and fixed reinforcements only exaserbates this: the game with both of them at least creates a bit of uncertainty. And forcing JNAF to use only a tiny fraction of its units with torpedoes is moving in the wrong direction re uncertainty: the Allies can know this is a minimal problem. Indeed - there is not much basis to think only these few units could carry torpedoes. Both services were using torpedoes in joint ops in 1944 - so it seems the idea of torpedoes was anything but limited to early operations. Japan is inherantly weak in a relative sense - forcing it to be even weaker than history - combined with the Allies understand the things they could not have understood - only makes for an unchallenging opposition for the Allies.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: spence

OK - it appears that there is no CHS version of the Rising Sun Scenario so I guess if I want one I'll have to make it myself.

Basic attributes:
4. I intend to create a "new" variety of G3M and G4M that carries torpedos (specifically the units around Saigon that participated in the sinking of PoW/Repulse. All others will carry bombs only. Additionally there will be a new type of B5N that carries bombs as its standard loadout instead of torpedos which will equip all non-KB IJN carriers: I have been looking for an instance where Ryujo launched a torpedo strike and haven't found a single one. Same goes for Zuiho (even late war), Shoho, Hosho, Taiyo. Before the screaming gets too loud I'll mention the Allies will only have the FAA Swordfish and Albacores as torpedo bombers (no Beauforts, land based Swordfish or Vildebeests. Hopefully the FAA torpedo bombers will have a working surface search airborne radar and therefore be able to fly attack missions at night though). [slots won't be an issue I hope since I'll have all the slots for later war weaponry to play with]
5. No production for either side (reinforcements fixed).

I do have some quick questions though. I more or less want the overwhelming majority of units in China to essentially disappear. Not sure how to edit out units/bases.
I could use some help with Japanese units that may have assisted 38th Division in its assault on Hong Kong.
I am also wondering if adding all the bases in India is going to throw off the victory conditions by giving the Allied Player so many points at start that there'll be no way for the Japanese to win by performing as well as their historical forebears (which I sort of want to "add up" as just barely a Marginal Japanese Victory).

At any rate I think Scenario 2 is one that can be fun for both sides. It was fun for me (as Allies) in my PBEM. There were some things seriously wrong with Stock though.

IMHO a great problem with historical gaming is too much certainty. The Allies did not even know about oxygen torpedoes - nor have any sense of their range / speed capabilities. Whatever we do - you cannot change the 20/20 hindsight of both sides. Making no production and fixed reinforcements only exaserbates this: the game with both of them at least creates a bit of uncertainty. And forcing JNAF to use only a tiny fraction of its units with torpedoes is moving in the wrong direction re uncertainty: the Allies can know this is a minimal problem. Indeed - there is not much basis to think only these few units could carry torpedoes. Both services were using torpedoes in joint ops in 1944 - so it seems the idea of torpedoes was anything but limited to early operations. Japan is inherantly weak in a relative sense - forcing it to be even weaker than history - combined with the Allies understand the things they could not have understood - only makes for an unchallenging opposition for the Allies.

The problem with your argument Cid is that the game currently models the situation with no uncertainity - every player knows the Japanese Betties and Nells will fly with torpedos if certain conditions are met. So the players start to make decisions in the game contrary to what was made IRL because the games capabilities have created an alternate universe requiring a different decision making dynamic. Spence will reintroduce uncertainity by only allowing some groups and locations to be torpedo capable - which is different than the current game situation where every Betty and nell group is torpedo capable and can operate from most areas in the SRA with that capability. With Spence's changes a player has a chance of operating his ships in the SRA as they did IRL, because the torpedo armed Betties and nells will be fewer in number and will not dominate the map.

[spence]

Japan doesn't have to win WWII in this scenario...just conquer the SRA in the same time frame that they really did.  The IJN did not launch a single 2E bomber torpedo attack in this time frame after sinking the PoW and Repulse.  Nor did any of their carrier B5Ns for that matter (including from the KB though that was because the Vals sank everything in sight before the Kates could get warmed up).
I found an intriguing reference to Japanese sources that in fact indicates that the Ryujo, Zuiho and Shoho carried a total of 6 torpedos in their magazines and that (presumably due to flight deck length and spotting space) was the maximum number of torpedo bombers capable of launching at a single time from not only them but Junyo and Hiyo as well.  To the best of my knowledge, none of the first three ever launched a torpedo armed Kate on a strike IRL. 
 
The Allied Player is fighting a delaying action in this scenario.  He'll never have the forces to get really offensive (though sometimes I try).  Seems to me that taking "all torpedos all the time" out the game makes it a reasonable contest.    

[el cid again]

Ideally, in a more complex system, players will be able to specify loadouts. On the other hand, area commanders and fleet admirals really should not be in control of tactics either - so perhaps the code could do it for us.

I have fundamental problems with the concept that we know what was attempted. A student of this campaign for decades, our knowledge has approximately doubled only in the last decade - and there are many things long believed (and still widely believed) in the West which were not so. Just because we don't know about them does not mean they did not happen.

More fundamentally still, because something was not attempted in peculiar operational and tactical circumstances does not tell us anything about what might have been attempted in a different situation? Our games are not the historical campaign - ever - but quite different ones. These games should be like sports software - tell us what might - or could - have happened in the context of different plays we specify.

More fundamentally still, a focus on naval battles and naval air battles to the exclusion of economics seems to turn the entire campaign on its head. What does it matter if Japan takes the SRA if there is no change in reinforcements for either side? Japan will get everything if it does not take the area. The Allies will get everything even if Japan takes San Francisco and Bombay and Melbourne. And more to the point, the SLOC are not important. You have AKs and AOs to burn, if you wish - and sinking them - or even not risking them - has no impact on reinforcements at all. It makes the strategic context for any operation very abstract - not tied to game mechanics or events.

I think there is considerable merit in attempting to be historically strict. But I think the focus on "only the units we know launched torpedoes can launch them" is far too strict. Note that in all versions of WITP torpedo bombers (carrier and land based) do carry bombs on many missions - its not as if they only carry torpedoes. However,

let me help you with a technical suggestion if you really want to go this way:

You do not have to create dual slots for a single plane type to get different loadouts! Instead - define the plane with your preferred standard loadout (say bombs given your attitude) - and define UNITS with a DIFFERENT loadout - say torpedoes. Then any unit upgrading to the type will get the default version. Further - if you made a later type (P1Y or Ki-67) default to torpedoes - units upgrading to them would get that standard. You can do this in lots of combinations. In RHS we have "bombers" with NO bombs - in recon units - and "drop tanks" (various kinds of internal tanks) to extend range in that form (particularly on the Allied side). We now have more than 100% too many plane types if every possible loadout is counted - so many loadouts are available. Since there are only 75 Japanese aircraft slots, not needing to use multiple slots is a big help - otherwise you lose a type for every dual type you create.

I also think there is considerable merit to taking production out if your goal is to simplify play and speed up turns. While it is a waste of the great code available to us - and while it is anything but historical - and while it gives players no incentive to play for economic objectives that matter IRL - nevertheless this game takes a long time to play - and simplified versions are welcome. Players who understand the limitations of the simplification diserve to have the option of such mods.

[spence]

Cid, you apparently haven't a clue as to what Scenario 2 is all about.

The game is over after turn 100 and a winner is determined at that point based on the number of points the player has.

Which brings up a question: I expanded the reduced map of the orginal scenario so that it now includes Aden and all of India (the main Allied supply bases are Aden and Perth now so all those AKs etc are likely to be busy). That's a lot of Allied bases that are now on the map and theoretically contribute to the Allies point total. The way the map is now the Home Islands and China/Manchuria simply aren't there (they weren't in the original either) so those points won't contribute to the Japanese Player's total.

I haven't seen anyway to give a player a "handicap" in the editor but I really don't know much about using it. Anybody want to offer some help?

[Nikademus]

you can only really handicap (short of changing device stats) by manipulating the VP amounts for various bases that are the main goals of the scenario.

manipulating the supply/fuel structure (including reinforcement) is another.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

Cid, you apparently haven't a clue as to what Scenario 2 is all about.

The game is over after turn 100 and a winner is determined at that point based on the number of points the player has.

Which brings up a question: I expanded the reduced map of the orginal scenario so that it now includes Aden and all of India (the main Allied supply bases are Aden and Perth now so all those AKs etc are likely to be busy). That's a lot of Allied bases that are now on the map and theoretically contribute to the Allies point total. The way the map is now the Home Islands and China/Manchuria simply aren't there (they weren't in the original either) so those points won't contribute to the Japanese Player's total.

I haven't seen anyway to give a player a "handicap" in the editor but I really don't know much about using it. Anybody want to offer some help?

You are correct - I have no clue what this is about? Why do the Japanese not get credit for control of the bases in China/Manchuria? What is the war about if it is not about the Japanese empire on the mainland? How can Japan hope to feed its self in any sense (food, iron ore, coal) without them? And how can any strategic decisions the Allies make have any context without these places? Is the AVG not going to China after all?

Yes - you can handicap a player in the scenario editor - in a variety of ways. Limit or eliminate their pilots in the startup list. Limit or eliminate their political points to start or daily. If you use a reduced map - you get a lot of control using the modules - and you can mess em up bad that way too. And Nik is quite right - you control VPs - but not in the scenario editor - in the regular editor (any flavor)- in the location file for places.

[spence]

You are correct - I have no clue what this is about?

The game is about the campaign to conquer the SRA testing the Players' ability to match or resist the initial RL Japanese expansion.

IMHO, the stock scenario was not thought that out well but rather hurriedly added to the list of scenarios (in stock there is no possible way for the British to withdraw any ships since the two places they can do so are not even on the map - yet in about 5 run throughs solitaire and one PBEM the Brits had to withdraw some ships during those 3 months). Also the Japanese Player can easily trap and sink any Allied ship left afloat towards the end of the game by using the map edges.

China/Manchuria/Home Islands/US/Hawaii/Pacific/Solomons/New Guinea and most of Australia, etc are not on the map. Thus the bases held in those places by either side don't contribute to the victory points of either side. Both sides get a certain amount of supply/fuel at their designated (editor) "Main Bases" each turn. Don't think my opp (Mike Dixon in PBEM) ever ran short of fuel even though he was running BBs all over the place. Supply for the IJF might have been short once or twice in certain areas (perhaps Mike would comment). Allied supplies were more limiting IMHO.

In any case for the Japanese Player there is no opportunity to upgrade much of anything except some A5Ms to Zeros and Nates to Oscars....no other new a/c become available in the time frame of the game so production wouldn't figure in the game basically.

Has the potential to be a real good scenario...the Japanese have everything except time...the Allies have just enough to drag things out (and have fun BTW). Both players have to really be on their toes.

[el cid again]

If the Japanese player loses control of the bulk of his forces (in China and Manchukuo) - and the few units remaining also are not able to use torpedoes (with exception of the few units in Southern Indochina) on land bombers (a capability that technically existed and could have been implemented in any unit if priority existed IRL)

perhaps this is really a Japanese Extermination Scenario.

Japan transferred numbers of troops out of China and Manchuria - early - mid and late - and could have done so sooner - at risk

it also could have launched offensives in either or both - mid early or late

taking these out means the Japanese player has no control of primary strategic options. Is this a game intended for Japan controlled by AI?

If you force the Japanese player to make almost every significant decision the same as history - given the sheer size of the problem Japan faced - you are only going to watch Japan lose. Only details will differ. And the Allies should do much better than history because they do not face anything like the undertainties that existed IRL. Only by permitting the underdog player some strategic and operational options do you create a situation in which the Allied player has any significant amount of uncertainty to be concerned with. If you don't do that - it is almost like reading a history book.

[treespider]

Cid -
 
The scenario Spence is working on is a scenario about the first 100 days of the war strictly in the SRA. The objective is to see if the player can equal or exceed the historical Japanese achievements only utilizing the historic forces that were alltotted to the campaign.
 
The area is vast enough to permit many different permutations of the Japanese drive south...even if using the historical forces allotted.
 
The Scenario is not about how many extra units or aircraft the Japanese could have made available for the operation.
 

[Reg]

Spence,

Have you seen the thread below.

P-40 replacements in Dec'41 to Jan'42

Quite a lot of good suggestions came out (such as reinforcement fragments). You might find that some might add something different to your scenario.

[TheElf]

What I wouldn't give to see El Cid, Tristanjohn, and mdiehl go at it. It might be the start of Cold Fusion! That is the self sustaining energy...

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

What I wouldn't give to see El Cid, Tristanjohn, and mdiehl go at it. It might be the start of Cold Fusion! That is the self sustaining energy...

You'd have to come up with some kind of virtual Ouija board first, Ian...

[treespider]

R.I.P.....he is missed...

[Mike Dixon]

Spence,

In our PBEM I remember that I had to garrison Canton, otherwise the Chinese Partisans started to have their merry way - though the rules stated it shouldnt have happened. Also land air didnt seem to want to bomb Hong Kong, though I guess you will not want to debug the code for this little problem.......[:)]

Let me know if you want a playtester!

Mike

[spence]

Don't anybody hold their breath for this one. My lack patience for all the editing that appears to be required will be offset by my persistence...eventually.

Mike I do recall you saying something about Canton getting overrun by partisans and will put an adequate static garrison there to prevent that.

Unfortunately for el Cid's "Japanese Extermination Scenario", Tokyo Bay does not appear on the map and thus the conquering fleet, USS Marblehead and USS Alden, will have not a place to hold the surrender ceremonies.[;)]

[Mike Dixon]

Spence,

Another problem, which I cant see anyway around unless you use histrorical reinforcements, was that the KB arrived over a period of a month because we used variable reinforcements, rather than all at once, which I presume is what happened IRL.

Mike

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: treespider

R.I.P.....he is missed...

Did I miss something? Did mdiehl or TJ actually die IRL? If so: when and how?

[Nikademus]

"Tristan John" passed away over a year ago according to Chez who had email correspondence returned to him by his widow.