Pacific Theatre

[AlvaroSousa]

The game auto ends in August 1945.

[magic87966]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

That has a lot of game balance/fun issues for the Allied side. I am just going to keep it as it was. If by chance you wax all Allied carriers in 1941 how fun will it be for the Allied player? Not very fun until late 1943. They can go after the CVs if they like and forego PH but the search chance is like 5%. PH = 100% sink some stuff.

Not having the possibility of "Fleet not Found" on the Pearl Harbor attack is a big deal. I can see not giving the IJN a realistic chance of sinking CV's outside of Pearl prior to 12/7. But I'd still love the option to target the oil tanks and drydocks with a chance for some real consequences for the USN. The consequences don't have to be so crippling as to take all the fun out of the Allied side but it would create more strategies for the players.

Thanks again for listening!

[magic87966]

One last(?) idea:

Don't automatically hamstring the Allies (thus taking out the fun) if the IJN chooses another strategy. According to most historians, while an attack on Pearl Harbor's oil and infrastructure would likely have been effective, there is no guarantee in war.

Again, because of Pearl Harbor's uniqueness as a target in relation to the PTO, here are the IJN options:

First operation point - must strike the fleet at Pearl Harbor
Second operation point - withdraw, second strike on fleet, strike strategic targets.

If you choose a strategic strike, aircraft losses significantly increase reflecting the lack of shipboard AA suppression by not targeting the fleet. (Now here comes the part where I have no idea what I'm talking about and getting the exact numbers right would take playtesting, but bear with me) And as an example, if your random number generator for resolving battles is a 20 sided die:

I roll 1-10 - no effect
I roll 11-17 and Pearl's oil storage goes down an additional 5% per number.
I roll 18 - oil storage is cut 50% and Pearl is reduced to a 7 port for x number of turns.
I roll 19 - oil storage is cut 70% and Pearl is reduced to a 5 port for x number of turns.
I roll 20 - oil storage is cut 90% and Pearl is reduced to a 3 port for x number of turns.

Admittedly, I'm not a programmer or a designer but this seems to me like a simple way to model a real world strategy that the Japanese had available to them. It gives them choices.

Or someone can just make it a separate scenario! And as a separate scenario, maybe there could be adjusted victory conditions based on the disadvantage to the Allies?

Or I could be the only one who's played PTO wargames and always wished the IJN had more choices.

[Numdydar]

Bumping this so I can find it easier [:)]

[BeirutDude]

So I'm not interested in Warplan (sorry not refighting WWII in Europe according to the actual War's script with "Barbarossa" scheduled for May-June 1942 or Russia attacks), I would buy this!

[AlvaroSousa]

There is no scripted Barbarossa.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Based on my experiences with War in the Pacific, the most dangerous thing the Japanese can do is build subs and target the US convoys. They aren't going to win a production war but they can starve the Allied forces. It is why the WiP game had an option of forcing the Japanese AI to use Japanese sub doctrine or not. The Japanese probably had the best sub and torpedo in the war, then wasted it using them to resupply islands and hunt war ships. IF they had given up on battleships and put all their production into subs, there probably would have been some problems for the US.

It is hard to conceive of any game mechanism that would mean some different result at Pearl harbour making a significant impact on the game. Even if the port capacity was reduced to zero, it would be back up to 5 soon and USA would still has it's oil resources. By analogy, Russia taking Ploesti early on and destroying all the facilities there would have had a huge impact on the Axis - probably no/very little production for many months and then reduced production for a while later, by which time the Russians will probably have conquered Romania anyway. In game - probably the loss of 1 month's production


The biggest problem for Japan was it's own lack of oil, though the USN didn't cotton onto that as quickly as any gamer will:). The next biggest problem was that Japanese tech was very poor compared to the USA's barring a few things like torpedoes and the zero. However, even the zero proved very vulnerable to later US a/craft. The Japanese just didn't get better kit during the war - no new a/c, no real anti sub tech, no light AT weapons like the bazooka/panzerfaust and their naval AA guns were hopeless too.

If the game is to be balanced, it won't be very true to life. It took over 3 years of war to stop the Axis. 1 year to stop the Japs.

I don't envy Alvaro trying to balance historic factors with a fair game, and knowing that he will be criticised from both angles - tho' hopefully always in a fair and constructive way. I have never tried to design a game, but I imagine that the Pacific war is the harder half of WWII, and then there is (hopefully) the meshing with the current game......................

Anyway, I look forward to having 7 US carriers in Nov '41 and the extra 160 that were built in the war, of which about 122 were escort carriers, which should be more than enough to see off jap subs and the uboats. UK also had some escort carriers for that role too (hint). By comparison Japan only completed proper carrier during the war -the Taiho commissioned in March 44, and a few uninpressive escort-style conversions.

[AlvaroSousa]

Pacific theater will be similar to this based on VPs.

The one issue is NEI oil. Clearly as the Allies you should want to go after that immediately. Making that balanced would be difficult.

[sillyflower]

To say the least.....................

[battlevonwar]

Interesting debate on Japanese Carriers and USN Carriers. Japanese could only buy themselves time but the US still needed operational bases across the Pacific to Island hop, refuel, repair, R&R, etc...

I heard of stories where the US fleet drove out at Pearl to meet the Japanese and it was pretty bloody overall. In war games. I imagine a lot of emphasis put on bases and time they buy to make the VPs the vital statistic for a victory? In a game I can see some hugely ahistorical exploits going down.

[AlvaroSousa]

I am trying to make it about bases and land based air.

FYI China does not cooperate with the Western Allies

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar



I heard of stories where the US fleet drove out at Pearl to meet the Japanese and it was pretty bloody overall.

What battles are you talking about? Midway was the only CV battle that came from Pearl. Coral Sea was launched from Australia.

[battlevonwar]

There were hypothetical Scenarios run on what would of happened had the use reacted to the invasion of Pearl with the information to do it.

Unfortunately I don't recall where and how I found that information but it was done pretty thoroughly.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar



I heard of stories where the US fleet drove out at Pearl to meet the Japanese and it was pretty bloody overall.

What battles are you talking about? Midway was the only CV battle that came from Pearl. Coral Sea was launched from Australia.

[kennonlightfoot]

In War in the Pacific and all out attack by US on Japanese Pearl Harbor fleet could be decisive if against the AI.

The key to the Pacific war is supply convoy routes. Nimitz Island hopping strategy was built around by-passing and cutting off Japanese held Islands while creating the supply routes and bases he would need to attack Japan.

The opposite strategy was being used by McArthur to reconquer everything in his path to getting back to the Philippines.

It will be interesting to see how Alvaro handles these two quite different strategies in his game.

I personally hope he just leaves China out of the war. Make it something that just happens by events or something in the background. One of the problems with Strategic Command is that the China war became a massive WW I style battle with lines extending across the Asian continent. Worse winning there could decide the war. The war in the Pacific in SC quickly degenerated into a massive commitment to India, Burma and China. Almost the complete opposite of the back water commitment made there by the Allies.

[wesy]

Yes include Admirals specifically The "Razor" as Tanaka was known to the US. My avatar agrees!

[miv792]

The Japanese were bad in everything, the ships did not float, the planes did not fly, they fought and fight badly, the lazy allies decided to defeat them only in 45. Please don't listen to fanboys so categorical

[magic87966]

ORIGINAL: miv792

The Japanese were bad in everything, the ships did not float, the planes did not fly, they fought and fight badly, the lazy allies decided to defeat them only in 45. Please don't listen to fanboys so categorical

Bad in everything? What about torpedoes, carrier ops, night fighting at sea and on land, defensive tactics, naval attacks by ground based air, individual sacrifice, discipline and determination? Just to name a few.

[baloo7777]

My Uncle Meyer who just passed away at 96 fought in the Pacific during WWII... I think he might have disagreed with the notion that the Japanese were "bad in everything."

[Platoonist]

The guy put a smiley face at the end of his post. I figure either kidding or trolling.

I believe a WW2 British officer once referred to Japanese soldiers as "first-class soldiers in a third-class army." They may have not always had the best kit or leadership, but certainly didn't lack for fighting spirit.

[miv792]

Bad in everything? What about torpedoes, carrier ops, night fighting at sea and on land, defensive tactics, naval attacks by ground based air, individual sacrifice, discipline and determination? Just to name a few.

This was Sheldon's sarcasm, at the previous destruction of the Japanese armed forces and this people. Do not take it for rudeness, just do not like the one-sidedness of people.