Scenario/campaign suggestions

Oleg Mastruko · Post by **Oleg Mastruko** » Sat Aug 17, 2002 8:07 pm

Inspired by an interesting thread re importance of India, here are some more suggestions re different approaches that this game could and should cover, to make it more interesting (hell, for 70 USD that is planned price of the product we may get something more).

Scenarios/campaigns I'd like to see in WITP, from most serious to the least:

1. America strikes first. US loses it's patience with Japs and strikes first: where and how, remains to be seen (player decision). Victory conditions very harsh for US player, as he must get as much points as fast as possible, since the anti-war sentiments are brewing back at home (remember: no Pearl Harbor, so the US public is not delighted with the prospect of lengthy war in Pacific backwaters)

2. Pacific war without US (or without US for as much time as possible). I admit that I don't know details of all the treaties that obliged countries to help each other. For instance, had the Japs choose to attack only British possesions in Hong Kong, Malaya etc. and Dutch East Indies, and to leave the US alone, was the US obliged to go to war? If not, and even if it was, I'd like to see a scenario/campaign with NO US involvement whatsoever, or at least not for first 6-10 months of war, allowing the Japs to fight it out with whatever Brits, Australians and Dutch manage to scrape together. (Of course, this scenario too assumes no Pearl Harbor.)

3. Soviets attack. Bizarre perhaps? Anyway, could be interesting. Soviets attack Japs first, in 1940. or whatever, bolstered by their victories at Nomonhan in 39., and feeling secure as they have non-agression pact with Germans to secure their backs. Brits may or may not join in later. Again - no US involvement as this would make for very unbalanced scenario. Chinese/Indians/Dutch etc have their historic roles.

4. As for really really bizzare how about this? Soviets become full time Axis member in 1940 (highly unlikely given the Germans, but then again who knows? - they were kinda allies for some time), they reach an agreement with Japs as to how to divide up the China, like an oversized Poland (not so impossible after all), and then they toghether (Japs and Soviets, with a help from an U-boot or two) await for Allied counter attack on their possesions (or they attack first as historical in Pearl Harbor). Japs have their Chinese/Manchurian/Russian flank secured so they may bring more toys to Pacific proper.

These scenarios don't have to last for full 4 years, it would be possible to make them interesting diversions to the "main course" (ie. historic scenarios in the game), covering 6-12 months in duration, much like mid-sized scenarios in UV.

Comments?

O.

Spooky · Post by **Spooky** » Sat Aug 17, 2002 10:00 pm

Very Interesting scenarios ideas

However, since the Matrix/2by3 team is quite small, their time would probably be best used by developing at least a really powerful game editor rather than building hard-coded scenario.

Then we would be able to build all the "what-if" scenarios we all dream of

BTW : I like the scenario 2 ... there was no defense treaty between the US & the UK so no obligation for the US to be in war along with the British if the Brits are attacked ...

Spooky

John Carney · Post by **John Carney** » Sun Aug 18, 2002 4:40 am

Love 1 and 3, 4 is a little far from possible since Hitler was determined to attack Russia. 2 However is the one Japan could not see with the Philippine Islands at their throat Yamamoto was positive a first strike on the US was required. I am sure somone can figure out away around the proplem.
Matrix please spend more time on the editor, the player scenarios will follow.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 6:49 pm

1. America strikes first. US loses it's patience with Japs and strikes first: where and how, remains to be seen (player decision). Victory conditions very harsh for US player, as he must get as much points as fast as possible, since the anti-war sentiments are brewing back at home (remember: no Pearl Harbor, so the US public is not delighted with the prospect of lengthy war in Pacific backwaters)

2. Pacific war without US (or without US for as much time as possible). I admit that I don't know details of all the treaties that obliged countries to help each other. For instance, had the Japs choose to attack only British possesions in Hong Kong, Malaya etc. and Dutch East Indies, and to leave the US alone, was the US obliged to go to war? If not, and even if it was, I'd like to see a scenario/campaign with NO US involvement whatsoever, or at least not for first 6-10 months of war, allowing the Japs to fight it out with whatever Brits, Australians and Dutch manage to scrape together. (Of course, this scenario too assumes no Pearl Harbor.)

Both seem like interesting scenarios. Re: 2. There were no formal treaties binding the US to the UK in defense of the Pacific possessions. However, I think you can take the US policy in the ETO as emblemic: multiple lend-leases (possibly transferring critical resources to American control, such as Balikpapan, forcing Japan to attack the US anyhow), in return for modest infusions of vessels and aircraft. At the same time, a huge buliding and reinforcement program would occur in the Phillippines and US Pacific Island bases at Wake, Guam, Midway, &c. All this assumes IMO that the UK is *not* war with Germany. If it is, IMO, the US makes every effort to get the war that is needed to relieve the UK and force the Japanese to operate on a much broader front.

The Japanese actually analyzed and considered the option and did not, after preliminary analysis, spend much further effort studying a move on the NEI and Malaya without first neutralizing the US Pacific Fleet and the PI. The basic problem was the extreme risk entailed in leaving a large and growing garrison and air force sitting on your flank, astride your lines of communication, supply, and movement, and within bombing range of S. Japan. Ironically, much of the fear had to do with the potential effect of B17s on shipping; apparently the USAAF's position on this matter was pretty much adopted by Japanese operational planners. No one knew at the time that it would be so bad at hitting moving targets. (I just finished Wllmott's "Barrier and the Javelin," which deals with this in the introductory chapters. It makes me want to read the prequel.)

Drongo · Post by **Drongo** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 6:58 pm

mdiehl,

What was the prequel to "Barrier and the Javelin"?

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 8:12 pm

Empires in the Balance: Japanese and Allied Pacific Strategies to April 1942. Naval Institute Press, 1982.

Drongo · Post by **Drongo** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 6:17 am

Thanks mate,

Sounds interesting. Might chase it up.

TIMJOT · Post by **TIMJOT** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 9:12 am

Originally posted by mdiehl

Both seem like interesting scenarios. Re: 2. There were no formal treaties binding the US to the UK in defense of the Pacific possessions. However, I think you can take the US policy in the ETO as emblemic: multiple lend-leases (possibly transferring critical resources to American control, such as Balikpapan, forcing Japan to attack the US anyhow), in return for modest infusions of vessels and aircraft. At the same time, a huge buliding and reinforcement program would occur in the Phillippines and US Pacific Island bases at Wake, Guam, Midway, &c. All this assumes IMO that the UK is *not* war with Germany. If it is, IMO, the US makes every effort to get the war that is needed to relieve the UK and force the Japanese to operate on a much broader front.

The Japanese actually analyzed and considered the option and did not, after preliminary analysis, spend much further effort studying a move on the NEI and Malaya without first neutralizing the US Pacific Fleet and the PI. The basic problem was the extreme risk entailed in leaving a large and growing garrison and air force sitting on your flank, astride your lines of communication, supply, and movement, and within bombing range of S. Japan. Ironically, much of the fear had to do with the potential effect of B17s on shipping; apparently the USAAF's position on this matter was pretty much adopted by Japanese operational planners. No one knew at the time that it would be so bad at hitting moving targets. (I just finished Wllmott's "Barrier and the Javelin," which deals with this in the introductory chapters. It makes me want to read the prequel.)

Actually according to Javaline, Adm Nagano (Chief of Naval general Staff) was pretty adamament on not attacking the US. He thought it was doable or at least worth the risk in order to ensure a quick victory in SE Asia. He only gave in becuase Yamamoto threaten to resign and Yamamoto was known to be one of the Emperors favorites.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 7:27 pm

He was overruled, and the given reasons were basically the ones mentioned before. The reasons were military ones; you can't take the NEI, Borneo, and Malaya unless your fleet is free to do so without worry of US response. If you take the gamble that the US will not respond to such a move, and the US then does, you're scragged.

Were I modeling this as an "alt-history" scenario, I'd let the IJN pick a move against everybody but the US. But, I'd give the US player free hand to alter the at-start deployments, and I'd throw in a random (and high enough to be scary) probability that the B17 turns out to be the mighty ship killer that everybody thought that it was prior to 7 Dcember 1941.

John Carney · Post by **John Carney** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:23 pm

If Japan's attack against these possessions does not trigger US declaration of war, what would be a possible start point for hostilities, what would US preparedness be at.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 9:33 pm

Seems like it would depend on when the war starts. But even so it's speculation. IIRC someone posted a table of scheduled reinforcements for the PI on one of these threads, a while back. That'd be a good beginning. But, consider that if the US is not in the war, then everything historically sent to the ETO is available for the PTO.

By 1941 US had hit the ground running on accelerating shipbuilding and all other armaments mfr, on mobilizing infantry and pilots, and ratcheting up production. The services were also quite interested in the a-a results from the Battle of Britain. So if the UK takes the brunt of the initial Japanese attacks, you can pretty much guarantee that USAAF and USN training and doctrine are going to substantially improve with respect to the Japanese, even *faster* than historically *because you have the lucury of learning without combat losses, diversion of a/c, pilots, instructors and so forth to units in the field engaged in actual combat). Basically you see the USN and USAAF getting bigger and better even faster than they historically did.

TIMJOT · Post by **TIMJOT** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 7:07 pm

Originally posted by mdiehl
He was overruled, and the given reasons were basically the ones mentioned before. The reasons were military ones; you can't take the NEI, Borneo, and Malaya unless your fleet is free to do so without worry of US response. If you take the gamble that the US will not respond to such a move, and the US then does, you're scragged.

Were I modeling this as an "alt-history" scenario, I'd let the IJN pick a move against everybody but the US. But, I'd give the US player free hand to alter the at-start deployments, and I'd throw in a random (and high enough to be scary) probability that the B17 turns out to be the mighty ship killer that everybody thought that it was prior to 7 Dcember 1941.

Hello Mdiehl

Well technically, being the Chief of the Naval General Staff, Nagano could only be *overruled* by the emperor. Besides he wasnt the onlyone, just the most senior. The *excuses* may have been vailed as military neccessity, but in truth the *reasons* had more to do with an ingrained and perpetual interservice rivalry than anything else. To be sure not striking the US would entail a certain level of risk, but perhaps no more so than taking on the worlds 2 greatest maritime powers simutaneously while being fully engaged on the continent.

As far as being *scragged*. The capability of the US to signifanctly interfer with the southern operations in late 41/early42 has been greatly exagerated.

As far as the scenerio is concerned. I agree with you that certainly the US player should have a free hand in redeploying his forces on the map and have a high probability of substantial reinforcements at the expense of ETO. But to have the B-17 magically become a ship killer simply because the Japanese player chooses not to attack the US initially is just plain silly. Especially comming from you, the Champion of *historical* aircraft capabilities in games.

TIMJOT · Post by **TIMJOT** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 7:24 pm

Originally posted by John Carney
If Japan's attack against these possessions does not trigger US declaration of war, what would be a possible start point for hostilities, what would US preparedness be at.

I think to make this scenerio interesting. You would have to have a pontential chance of a US declaration of war increase every turn. The chance could increase expontentially the further the Japanese player expanded towards US possesions. Also any attack on US bases or forces would trigger an automatic DOW.

Drongo · Post by **Drongo** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 7:27 pm

Posted by TIMJOT

But to have the B-17 magically become a ship killer simply because the Japanese player chooses not to attack the US initially is just plain silly. Especially comming from you, the Champion of *historical* aircraft capabilities in games.

Whoops, now you've done it.

TIMJOT · Post by **TIMJOT** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 8:07 pm

Originally posted by mdiehl
Seems like it would depend on when the war starts. But even so it's speculation. IIRC someone posted a table of scheduled reinforcements for the PI on one of these threads, a while back. That'd be a good beginning. But, consider that if the US is not in the war, then everything historically sent to the ETO is available for the PTO.

By 1941 US had hit the ground running on accelerating shipbuilding and all other armaments mfr, on mobilizing infantry and pilots, and ratcheting up production. The services were also quite interested in the a-a results from the Battle of Britain. So if the UK takes the brunt of the initial Japanese attacks, you can pretty much guarantee that USAAF and USN training and doctrine are going to substantially improve with respect to the Japanese, even *faster* than historically *because you have the lucury of learning without combat losses, diversion of a/c, pilots, instructors and so forth to units in the field engaged in actual combat). Basically you see the USN and USAAF getting bigger and better even faster than they historically did.

I agree. The US should get some sort of training/pilot rateing bonus for being able to observe combat results between UK, Dutch and Japanese forces. I dont agree however that the US player should get *everything* historically sent to the ETO because there would still be an adherant threat from that theater to be taken into account. Not sure why you think production and mobilization should be any greater than the historical.

Jeremy Pritchard · Post by **Jeremy Pritchard** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 8:21 pm

I think that the main historical option in War In the Pacific should be to do with Pearl Harbour. There is the possibility of 4 choices.

1. Historical Pearl Harbour Attack

2. Pearl Harbour Attack but war was declared 1 hour before the attack (like was planned)

3. Japan declares war on the United States without a strike at Pearl Harbour.

4. Japan attacks England and the Dutch and waits for the American declaration of war.

As you go down the list, the possibility of Japan ending the war through an armistice increases, since the American population would be less willing to expend the resources and lives on unconditional surrender. As you go down the list, the chance for an early Japanese defeat also increases (since the last sequence leaves initiative in the hands of the United States).

John Carney · Post by **John Carney** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 8:38 pm

Using Jeremy's four start points, how do you change US build up and commitment levels?
Maybe 100% for 1 and 2, 85% for 3, and 70% for 4. Allowing training levels to increase US air units, with no restrictions on their deployment.
Is WITP starting date 7 December 1942?

Jeremy Pritchard · Post by **Jeremy Pritchard** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:18 pm

I don't really think production would be affected, but rather realistic victory conditions. Had Pearl Harbour happened as it did, the only way Japan could have won would be to capture the Hawaiian Islands and destroyed the US Pacific Fleet decisively that the US West Coast was patrolled by the IJN. Had it not happened, the chance of getting an armistice, or negotiated peace, would be much higher.

John Carney · Post by **John Carney** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:29 pm

I would not change production, but limit forces deployed from US to the Pacific, until US decleration of War for #4 or Japan attack of US base for #3.

TIMJOT · Post by **TIMJOT** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 11:01 pm

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
I don't really think production would be affected, but rather realistic victory conditions. Had Pearl Harbour happened as it did, the only way Japan could have won would be to capture the Hawaiian Islands and destroyed the US Pacific Fleet decisively that the US West Coast was patrolled by the IJN. Had it not happened, the chance of getting an armistice, or negotiated peace, would be much higher.

I think the likelyhood of an armistice would be *zero* under the above mention circumstances. Do you really think the US would sue for peace with Hawaii (considered a integral part of the USA) and the west coast directly theaten? I think it would only strengthen the Americans resolve for total victory.

On the otherhand, I do see it as a possibility the Americans would tire of fighting a war protecting European colonial interest As per your scenerio #4