why cant we have the option to choose how the game starts?

[iceboy105]

why cant we have the option to choose whether or not we decide to start the game by bombing pearl harbor or not? since we get to choose how the rest of the game plays out why cant we choose how it starts? what if i would rather attack india or the phillipines first? do we have to start on Dec 7? what if we want to attack a month earlier or something? i think it would be cool if the game were to start in November or something to give us time to plan our strategies and deploy our forces. just my humble opinion. the more options the more fun!

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Why don't we start the game in 1600 when Europeans first started to get involved in Pacific Politics?

There are many reasons of when the game should start. Should it start exactly on December 7, 1941, one month earlier, one year earlier, 10 years earlier, 100 years earlier....

Why should it start on December 7, 1941? It should start, because that is when the war started. If you are given a month's leeway, you will just mess the start of the war around (the US will just put everything they have in the Philippines). Realistically, a peacetime military is not the same as a wartime military. Readiness will be lower, as well as severe limitations on deployment.

I am sure that there will be an option for a 'historical start', like in PacWar.

Why not the option? Another good question is why have the option? There are thousands of possible options for any game. They have to eventually decide which options will be in, and which will be left out. It won't please everyone, but that is impossible.

[byron13]

Iceboy,

I think you caught Jeremy in a bad mood. This idea has been kicked around a bit already. Just looking around, I see the "9th December, 1941" thread and the "When Should the Game Start" thread that are pertinent.

There are some problems with starting early. Personally, I'm not opposed to allowing the Japanese a month to reposition stuff but only if the Allies are locked in position. Some would say that this is too unrealistic, e.g., the U.S. would reinforce the Philippines if they saw too much of a buildup nearby. Same goes with anywhere else. Maybe you just say that it takes the Allies longer than a month to react. Anyway, the idea has been kicked around.

And we're all a little moody because we've pretty much discussed everything AND WE JUST WANT THE GAME!

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I am sorry that I came off as tough or rough, I didn't mean to and didn't think I was.

However, there have been countless debates about adding countless features to the game. I can understand the desire for features, but know that most do not realize the complication that it raises up in programming and time consumption. If the game starts earlier, you have to create a revised OOB for that particular scenario. These OOB's take time to make, and make correct.

I have taken part in a lot of discussion about options in WitP, and many people do not understand the difficulty of adding features that enhance the game. Almost any game produced can have more options to increase the fun of a game, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Again, I didn't mean to slam you for coming up with a suggestion, they are indeed welcome, but I do believe that it is getting a little late in production (they are hard at work writing code, scenarios and graphics) to start requesting features. Indeed, 3 years ago I was one of those asking for a lot of features to be added, but after working on the Pacific War patch, and realizing the time, programming and code limitations in that game, I know that sometimes you have to shelve some options in order to make the game as a whole work.

[pasternakski]

Why this topic is so volatile, I do not know. I spent some time trying to talk sense about it on another thread (which I hope, for the sake of us all, is dead).

At the risk of igniting another fire, I will say the following - again:

WITP is a game that presents the players with the situation Japan and the Allies faced on December 7, 1941 (or thereabouts). Scenarios are, of course, enrichments to the game experience, but they can only stretch the original concept (and the engine developed to make a game of that concept - the engine that gives us so much pleasure in Uncommon Valor) so far.

In this context, production, situational, and other variants must be limited by the scope of the game's coverage. If you want to play a game that explores the permutations from political, scientific, technological, and other variations occasioned by differences that arose from hypothetical deviations in the 'teens, 'twenties, and 'thirties, I'm all for it.

BUT THIS IS NOT THAT GAME!

I would love to play it, and would be glad if Matrix/2by3 developed it, BUT THIS ISN'T IT!

[TIMJOT]

I have know real problem with the game starting on Dec 7th, but does it always have to start with a Pearl Harbor attack? Shouldnt this at least be an option?

Personelly I dont think a scenerio starting say in late Nov 41 to allow different options in starting the war would require drastic programing changes. The OOB would remain essentially the same and it really isnt much different than current UV scenerios starting in May or August. 42

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by TIMJOT
I have know real problem with the game starting on Dec 7th, but does it always have to start with a Pearl Harbor attack? Shouldnt this at least be an option?

Personelly I dont think a scenerio starting say in late Nov 41 to allow different options in starting the war would require drastic programing changes. The OOB would remain essentially the same and it really isnt much different than current UV scenerios starting in May or August. 42

Of course. I agree with you completely. This game, like its predecessor, Pacific War, will provide multiple options for the starting time and situation. PacWar already gives you the option whether to start with the historical first turn or to allocate your forces to other priorities. I believe that WITP will not only allow that option, but will offer many other alternatives, as well.

UV is a theater, rather than a strategic game, and is relevant to WITP only to the extent that its game engine is the progenitor to the fully developed WITP system. UV scenarios are relevant only to that game, not WITP scenarios (except as they may resemble each other within the particular game system).

[jules]

I think with a little editor-option of the OOB one can easily create different starting-options ....
I also think that there should not be a "pre-war" period in the game. Too much "what-if´s".


jules

[iceboy105]

Thank you TIMJOT and pasternakski. You two seem to be the only ones that understood what I was saying. I hate it when people blow things out of proportion and put words in your mouth. All I was saying was it would be cool if we could start a few weeks earlier and attack what we prefer to attack as we will be doing this the rest of the game anyway. Who plans to play this whole game exactly like the real historical war anyway? Its not possible and will not happen as something will always be different. Has anyone here played PTOII? This game did this exactly and it worked very well. I believe it started out on the day the Japanese fleet was to leave for Pearl Harbor after the Hull Notes were released. You could either choose to go on to Pearl or attack somewhere else. The OOB would remain the same and I dont see how this would be such a horrific problem. Anyway just my humble opinion. I just think options are what makes a game great.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by iceboy
Thank you TIMJOT and pasternakski. You two seem to be the only ones that understood what I was saying. I hate it when people blow things out of proportion and put words in your mouth. All I was saying was it would be cool if we could start a few weeks earlier and attack what we prefer to attack as we will be doing this the rest of the game anyway. Who plans to play this whole game exactly like the real historical war anyway? Its not possible and will not happen as something will always be different. Has anyone here played PTOII? This game did this exactly and it worked very well. I believe it started out on the day the Japanese fleet was to leave for Pearl Harbor after the Hull Notes were released. You could either choose to go on to Pearl or attack somewhere else. The OOB would remain the same and I dont see how this would be such a horrific problem. Anyway just my humble opinion. I just think options are what makes a game great.

Sounds good to me, too. Just think: "Nagumo to Kimmel. Nagumo to Kimmel. I was gonna surprise the heck out of you and your miserable old battlewagons (your ships, not your mistresses), but I decided to go whack the crap out of the Dutch this week instead. Hope all is well with you. May be paying you a visit soon. Love, Chuichi."

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard

Why should it start on December 7, 1941? It should start, because that is when the war started.

Umm…no. That’s when the U.S.A. got involved in the war. The Japanese had been at war with China for a long time. I for one would like to see how much Chinese butt I could kick before being distracted with fighting the U.S.

Perhaps different theaters of the war could open up at certain dates. Say in 1939 you would only control the Japanese army or the Chinese army. Then, in late November, the Japanese player would gain control of all of his forces. The American player would gain control of all of his forces on December 8th or whenever he was attacked, whichever came first.

Yamamoto

[mdiehl]

If the game starts before 7 December 1941 then the Allied player should have complete control over all Allied forces with respect to disposition, location and movement. Some units should be placed at higher alert status at the Allied player's discretion, with a random chance of more units being placed in high readiness depending on the nature of the aggression. Mobilization should also automatically increase with each act of aggression, with a random chance of additional increase.

The only limitation should be on launching an attack. The Allied player's level of restriction on launching an attack should be set according to a hidden (from the Japanese player) alertness table, so that each Japanese act of aggression has a random chance of pushing the Allies plast their tolerance limit. Any Japanese attack on Dutch, UL/Commowealth or US possessions should be considered at automatic start of hostilities for all Allied powers.

[jules]

These are all excellent ideas in their own ,but when a minor power as Japan in 1941 attacks the number one industrial nation in all means , we should not give the US the further option to mobilize their forces or set them on high alert. It´s already for sure that they can´t lose, but why should they win in 1943 ? In my opinion the japanese should have more freedom in decision making (knowing the location of some US CV on day one, no agression from USSR, availability of troops located in China, option for better ASW capability, option to use the subs in their role against merchant ships, shipping of ressources directly to the combat area not to japan first ,...)

[showboat1]

One thing to keep in mind is that CinCPAC did not have full control of the positioning of his very limited forces. Kimmel couldn't just send the fleet wherever he wanted. Moving around a fleet with eight battleships and three carriers was a big deal. Also keep in mind that his PRIMARY responsibility would be to defend Hawaii first and everytihng else second. Since he had NO IDEA where the Japanese Striking Force was he was essentially anchored to the waters near Hawaii. The option that I would like to see is to allow the Japanese player to have two weeks to change the focus of his offensive striking power. Perhaps using the CV's to quickly conquer Wake and Midway and then lure the USN out for the "Decisive Battle" that their doctrine called for. Or a Pearl Harbor type strike at the British Fleet in the Indian Ocean. Either way, the Allied player could not change his force distribution until the Japanese player attacked, and the Japanese could not set an attack date BEFORE December 7th. Perhaps thia compromise will satisfy the option cravers and to some extent the purists.

[TIMJOT]

I personally think there should be at least 3 start options

1) Historical: Dec 7,1941 (Post attack) with all the historical dispositions, deployments and losses.

2) Semi-Historical: Dec 7, 1941 (Pre attack) with precentage chance attack is not surprise, chance of counterstrike and perhaps a chance some CVs are in port.

3)A-historical: Nov.1941; allowing for non Pearl Harbor strategies.

Option number three may be probmatic when determining what constitutes the start of hostilities. I think for game purposes you would have to give the IJN player the initiative on when and where to attack. I dont think the Allied should be allowed a first strike option. Unless, say a IJN TF is discovered within a certain number hex ZOC around a allied base.

Regarding option #3. I for one, would also like a non-automatic USA declaration of war if US forces or bases are not attacked. Perhaps you could have a certain percent chance of a US DOW with that percentage increasing incrementally every turn. A US DOW would be automatic if any US unit or base is attacked or IJN player enters into US ZOC. Of course the US player should have a free hand to redeploy its forces within his ZOCs and perhaps allocate resorces to the UK and Dutch. I admit all this would probably be too difficult to program, but if it could then I think it would open all sorts of interesting scenerios.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by TIMJOT
I personally think there should be at least 3 start options

1) Historical: Dec 7,1941 (Post attack) with all the historical dispositions, deployments and losses.

2) Semi-Historical: Dec 7, 1941 (Pre attack) with precentage chance attack is not surprise, chance of counterstrike and perhaps a chance some CVs are in port.

3)A-historical: Nov.1941; allowing for non Pearl Harbor strategies.

Option number three may be probmatic when determining what constitutes the start of hostilities. I think for game purposes you would have to give the IJN player the initiative on when and where to attack. I dont think the Allied should be allowed a first strike option. Unless, say a IJN TF is discovered within a certain number hex ZOC around a allied base.

Regarding option #3. I for one, would also like a non-automatic USA declaration of war if US forces or bases are not attacked. Perhaps you could have a certain percent chance of a US DOW with that percentage increasing incrementally every turn. A US DOW would be automatic if any US unit or base is attacked or IJN player enters into US ZOC. Of course the US player should have a free hand to redeploy its forces within his ZOCs and perhaps allocate resorces to the UK and Dutch. I admit all this would probably be too difficult to program, but if it could then I think it would open all sorts of interesting scenerios.

Great post. With regard to option three, given the historical stance of America and the Commonwealth pre-occupation with Europe, I would be tempted to disallow an Allied first strike under any circumstances. I would also severely limit Allied redeployment options. They just were not cognizant, alert, or able IMHO.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by pasternakski


Great post. With regard to option three, given the historical stance of America and the Commonwealth pre-occupation with Europe, I would be tempted to disallow an Allied first strike under any circumstances. I would also severely limit Allied redeployment options. They just were not cognizant, alert, or able IMHO.

Hi pasternakski

I agree I would be tempted to disallow an allied first strike also. Im just thinking that in option three you might have a circumstance such as an IJN TF is sited just off Hawaii. If US recon sites this TF before it can launch a strike than I would think the US should have a chance for a pre-emptive strike.

I believe I have read somewhere that the US had drawn an imaginary line in the Pacific; roughly running down from the Aluetians thru to Midway, Johnston atoll and Samoa. That if crossed by IJN warships would constitute an belligerent act. Perhaps option three could incorporate this.

Regarding redeployment. Historically there were several reinforcement convoys in route to the PI, Midway and Wake when war broke out and many more scheduled in the pipeline. So I dont see why the Allied player shouldnt be allowed to reinforce his US bases even if no US DOW. I do agree that an allied player should not be allowed to deploy US forces at non US allied bases, until a US DOW is triggered.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by TIMJOT


Hi pasternakski

I agree I would be tempted to disallow an allied first strike also. Im just thinking that in option three you might have a circumstance such as an IJN TF is sited just off Hawaii. If US recon sites this TF before it can launch a strike than I would think the US should have a chance for a pre-emptive strike.

I believe I have read somewhere that the US had drawn an imaginary line in the Pacific; roughly running down from the Aluetians thru to Midway, Johnston atoll and Samoa. That if crossed by IJN warships would constitute an belligerent act. Perhaps option three could incorporate this.

Regarding redeployment. Historically there were several reinforcement convoys in route to the PI, Midway and Wake when war broke out and many more scheduled in the pipeline. So I dont see why the Allied player shouldnt be allowed to reinforce his US bases even if no US DOW. I do agree that an allied player should not be allowed to deploy US forces at non US allied bases, until a US DOW is triggered.

Yup, I have read of that line, too. It all smacks of Mahanism, gunboat diplomacy, and a general lack of preparedness. The Pacific Fleet comprised a collection of weenie boats at the time, and I suspect that the command structure from top to bottom realized as much without saying it. As in Europe, the Allies were playing for time - and hoping not to be defeated in the meantime. The act that would have taken place historically? Probably a stern note of warning just after the bombs started falling and the torpedoes started splashing, IMHO.

But what were we sending? Clem and Fred? Besides, the pipeline stuff got through, eventually, to the places the Allies still held and could get to. A scenario starting before 12/7/41 needs to take into account the realities of the materiel and capabilities of the forces involved - on both sides (we haven't even begun to talk about how the Japanese would have been hamstrung by an early start, which I think could have been disastrous for them). A lot of development, research, and serious contemplation required by the design crew if such a scenario is to be produced, I think. I hope that the editor is freewheeling enough that we can experiment on our own in this regard. If we get such a scenario with the original, great, but I'm not counting on it.

Anyway. I like yer stuff, TIMJOT, and when we get the real article, let's fire 'er up and see what she's got. I'd bet that you're gonna be a real NASTY player in this game (when we finally get the darned thing).

P-Q4?

[mdiehl]

but when a minor power as Japan in 1941 attacks the number one industrial nation in all means, we should not give the US the further option to mobilize their forces or set them on high alert. It´s already for sure that they can´t lose, but why should they win in 1943?

I can give you amny reasons but will stick with a few. (1) An ahistorical set of initial conditions should come with altered risks. (2) The game victory conditions of PW do not guarantee a US win, never mind a win by 1943. (3) The Japanese have a huge ahistorical advantage even using, say, the historical campaign game in PW, because they know at start what the Allied preparedness levels are and where the troops are deployed. I think many people greatly underestimate the value os tarting the game with the initiative against an unprepared foe when you know exactly where the forces are deployed and when you know exactly his reinforcement schedule (the historical game). These "Japan gets to conduct counterfactual wars anywhere it wants without fear of counterfactual Allied response/reaction" scenarios are just the usual Axis fanboyism. Basically the goal is to have the war to expand the Resource Area without the risk that the other potential enemies would intervene. Yet this was exactly the risk that Japan most feared and it was exactly the reason why they attacked PH, the HongKong Garrison and the PI
*first* rather than immediately driving for Indonesia.

In my opinion the japanese should have more freedom in decision making (knowing the location of some US CV on day one, no agression from USSR, availability of troops located in China, option for better ASW capability, option to use the subs in their role against merchant ships, shipping of ressources directly to the combat area not to japan first ,...)

I do not agree that the Japanese player should have access to any of these altered doctrines or that the Japanese player should have any concrete knowlegde of Allied production, reinforcement schedule, or any deterministic ability to predict Allied responses to small scale aggression.

P'ski says:

The Pacific Fleet comprised a collection of weenie boats at the time....

Japan did not think so. Their historical judgement was pretty good, IMO, and at least reflects the reality as it was perceived at the time.

As in Europe, the Allies were playing for time - and hoping not to be defeated in the meantime.

"Playing for time" is a fairly content-less phrase. It makes me think of an athletic team with a marginal lead trying to run out the clock. This is exactly the strategy that the Allies did *not* use in Europe. The UK attempted quite a bit considering what little they had at their disposal prior to the US entry into the war. Playing for time" better describes Germany's strategy vis the US and UK, and Japan's vis the US and UK. Both were hoping their initial leads and subsequent war fatigue would simply erode the Allies willingness to fight.

The act that would have taken place historically? Probably a stern note of warning just after the bombs started falling and the torpedoes started splashing, IMHO.

I'm not sure what this is a response to. Any attack on any US possession would have resulted in an immediate war. Heck, any attack on a US warship would do the job, since Japan used up her "1 Free Gunboat" tolerance limit in the '30s.

Tim says:

I do agree that an allied player should not be allowed to deploy US forces at non US allied bases, until a US DOW is triggered.

Why? The US deployed at UK bases well-before Germany was at war with the US. US stationed ships in Iceland in 1940, and enforced neutrality patrol *into* Greenland in 1941, even though Greenland was a possession of occupied Norway. There's no doubt that the US would have finagled some mutual defense agreement and lend-lease agreement in the PTO had the necessity arisen.

[showboat1]

Once again everyone must keep in mind that US deployments were POLITICALLY motivated and directed. The JCS were told by the Pres. and Secs Def, Navy, Army where to deploy and the JCS told the theater commander what to deploy there. Kimmel's options were so limited as to be laughable. Once again keep in mind that he was anchored to Hawaii by the Plan Orange mentality. US player should have VERY, VERY limited options as to what he due before the Japanese commit an overt act of war.