Leaders

[Major Tom]

I would like to see a larger base of leaders than PacWar offered. Every leader down to about Brigadier General/Rear Admiral should be included.

Also, LCU's should have leaders assigned specifically to them (instead of just allowing leaders at bases). Divisions would have Major Generals, Brigade/Regiments Brigadier Generals, etc...

I think that Aircraft HQ's should also be included. the 5th USAAF operated with MacArthur's SW Pacific force, the Royal Air Force had branches in Malaya, Burma, Ceylon and India. Airgroups, like LCU's should be attacked to specific Air HQ's and would only operate in the region, designated by their HQ. This would also require a set of new leaders (RAF Air Marshals).

I think that subordinate HQ's not seen in the game should be included as well. Citing the British 14th Army, there should be IV Corps, XV Corps, and XXXIII Corps. The US formations would have sub-units like I Corps, III Amphibous Corps, V Amphibious Corps, etc.. The Japanese should have ALL of their Area Armies included in the game, along with a few Armies that were left out (BY 1944 there were 3 Armies under the Burma Area Army in Burma, not just the 15th Army).

[dhuffjr]

Great idea! Along with including ALL of the leaders with a sky is the limit memory how bout all of the land units involved. Obviously as a strategic game you draw a line on how far down the chain to go but there are many units like Corps artillery units etc. that could be up to the whim of higher levels of command where to send them. Also the rocket equiped LCU's and tracked landing vehicles. Both are a big plus for the amphib assault but there numbers are finite and the decission to use for one assault over another effects both. While I don't want to see the game broken down to a battalion level land combat focussed game I would like to see some reality to the divisions of units, say to brigade or regiment level or battalion level where appropriate and then stop the division there.

[Drex]

Yes, definitely a good idea with the historical leaders pre-assigned and manual replacement(from a leader pool) occurring if they are killed or perform badly.

[RevRick]

Regarding LCUs:
I would really like to see Land Combat and LCU's handled realistically. Divisions should be logically broken down (i.e. regiments or brigades, battalions [as in engineers, etc.] and not by percentages. Also, the LCU headquarters should not grow when a smaller unit is split off of it - unless that unit is replaced.

I would rather see divisional level combat, even corps level (on mainland Asia) with attention to terrain, training and preparations levels, morale, and equipment which would give a better feel for that aspect of the game. Also, it should NOT be possible to load an atoll, Kwajalein, Tarawa, up with several divisions preparing for an invasion. They just were not big enough.

God Bless;
Rev. Rick

------------------
tincanman

[Kris Hubble]

Just a bit of extra chrome, but I would like the ability to promote to 5-star rank for appropriate leaders.

[mjmooney]

I think there should be an option to have leaders values kept hidden and they should be randomized. It is easy to replace a admiral with a low naval rating for one with a high one..In real life the only way to judge a leader was performance. Also you should make it tougher to replace leaders (especially somone like MacArthur). This system was incorporated in the old SSI No greater Glory game (ok I just Dated myself)-this should be an OPTION-I still like playing with leaders with their historical abilities.

[sethwrkr]

Yeah,

I would like to spend my time doing personell management. I do not get enough at work. Maybe we should model everyone down to Captain? Can we model draft boards?I would like to take active part in managing the Japanese rationing system.

Seth

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by sethwrkr:
.... I would like to take active part in managing the Japanese rationing system.

LOL! That rationing system is a little complex. You sure you're up to the challenge?

Seriously, we don't need more leaders. We need leaders whose capabilities are not automatically known at the beginning. Force the player to test all the leaders before discovering the good ones. This would be an option. Allow the player if they wish to have leaders with their historical capabilities.

I won't mind more HQs but only if they are easier to manage. In PAC you can't even put 2 HQs in one base (easily), even if the second HQ is a subordinate of the first HQ. Subordinate Army HQs should automatically follow their parent HQ unless the player specifically assigns it elsewhere. An alternative is to allow Army HQs to move to bases without requiring the base be turned over to that Army HQ. The presence of the Army HQ causes higher supplies to be sent to that base as normal (for that Army HQs LCUs) but the base is still controlled by the parent HQ.

[sethwrkr]

Not knowing learship quality at the beginning may make it hard for the Japanese to take advantage of this Historical advantage in leadership quality. Of course the default leaders could be good. Also it might take away from game play by not having historical leaders with historical characteristic. Say no Tanaka or worse yet, Tanaka is a scrub.

Seth

[chanman]

Not sure about having thousands more leaders to keep track of. I do suggest having some more characteristics for them.

I suggest some sort of matrix to model how the leaders will get along. Not everyone is a good fit to be a subordinate of MacArthur, for example. Stillwell did not get on well with Wavell, but cooperated well with Mountbatten and Alexander. This can impact which leader you are going to put in charge of a task force or base. You might take this further to determine how troops will perform under a commander (Australians functioning well for MacArthur, but maybe not so good for Geiger).

I also think that a leaders confidence, possibly modified by some other factor (stubborness? bad name, but maybe useful). When a leader has lost his confidence (Wavell after the fall of Burma, Ghormley after Savo, for example), the leader should be reassigned "to a position more commesurate with his abilities" to recover his confidence.

Just some rambling.

[Major Tom]

Actually, Australians in the military tended to dislike MacArthur, it was only the civilians who bought into him. When he constantly downplays their actions in the field and states publically that every Australian victory is really an Allied victory, but every US victory is an American victory didn't sit too well with officers and enlisted men. This might be too difficult of an option to implement, as, for one we will never know how well Halsey might command a multinational command, since he never did!

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Major Tom:
and states publically that every Australian victory is really an Allied victory, but every US victory is an American victory

Damn, did he really say that? I always considered MacArthur to have too much of an ego.

[Major Tom]

He also refused to allow Australians to take part in the liberation of the Philippines. He wanted it all American, so that he can portray himself not needing outside support, when in reality much of the brunt of fighting early in the PNG campaign was taken up by the Australians. If not for the Australians doing most of the work in 1942 he couldn't have got to the Philippines by 1944.

[chanman]

I didn't know about MacA's issues with the Australians. Difficult to model in game terms, maybe a readiness hit for certain nationality LCU's assigned to certain leaders. Marines should suffer no penalties serving under Geiger, for example, but maybe wouldn't do so well for Brett. US Army units should suffer no penalty for serving under Hodge or Wainwright, but would suffer a penalty for serving under Van Helfrich (probably misspelled). And so on. Just a thought.

[mdiehl]

This is just the sort of speculation that made me cringe in the politics section. There is no evidence that Mac's propaganda adversely affected logistics and supply to Australian troops in 1942-43, or that USA units serving under Australian command were shorted.

One might argue that, "for realism," a special prohibition against the use of Aussies in the PI could be in effect, based on the historical precedent. Overloaded with restrictions that affect tactical felxibility, a game would not be too appealing, at least not to me. IMO unless you constrain both players to exactly the same moves and strategies that were used historically, and therefore the same results (one hopes, if the simulation is a good one, but then that would be boring), then it is better to acknowledge that players are taking on the job of operational and strategic planning, and should therefore be allowed to make their own decisions about allocation of resources, and the units that will be used for assaults.

[This message has been edited by mdiehl (edited February 13, 2001).]

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by mdiehl:
One might argue that, "for realism," a special prohibition against the use of Aussies in the PI could be in effect, based on the historical precedent. Overloaded with restrictions that affect tactical felxibility, a game would not be too appealing, at least not to me.

If the restrictions are *historical* then they should be in the game. We can have an option to turn off all restrictions so you can play an unrestricted, but totally ahistorical, game.

[chanman]

Hi mdiehl, the mechanics of the game can be used to *influence* behavior instead of force it. For instance, some of the forces the British sent into CBI were rushed there for the purpose of defending Singapore. Should I decide to abandon Singapore, the game could stretch out the reinforcements. I still get to play the "what if" so the game hasn't forced me to replay history.

In terms of your comment: "There is no evidence that Mac's propaganda adversely affected logistics and supply to Australian troops in 1942-43, or that USA units serving under Australian command were shorted." I agree. Let me choose a more extreme example to illustrate what I was getting at. Should I , as allied commander, place someone like Slim or Alexander (or any other British commander) in charge of Lashio containing the Chinese 5th and 6th armies and then activate the armies to attack a Japanese LCU, the Chinese armies readiness should drop to zero. This is historical, Chiang Kai Shek would interfere with his units performance in the field and countermand orders he did not agree with. On the other hand, if the commander is Stilwell or maybe Chennault, maybe the readiness would only drop by 50%.

The example is extreme, but shows what I am getting at. Some troops behaved better for some commanders than others. The granularity that the game could model this by could be pretty coarse (nationality or type of troop compared to nationality of commander) or very fine (specific commmanders compared to specific units) or somewhere in the middle. The purpose is to influence the player, but not force him. If y'all think that victory is best achieved by having that expeditionary force of the 1st Cav, 17th Inf (UK), 1st Mar and 1st Arm (AU) commanded by Van Helfrich, go ahead.

Chanman

[mdiehl]

Fair enough, Chanman. Some of the restrictions on Chinese units are already in place in GGPW anyhow. Activating a Chinese unit usually burns readiness points, but almost never initiates a combat (unless the IJA has completely vacated the location).

Restrictions though should be avoided unless there is overwhelming and compelling evidence that the institutional or interpesonal rivalries really caused problems.

More often than not, boardgames that I've tried that have diplomatic tables and unit restrictions seem to create ludicrous results based on what amounts to pure speculation.

It is as though the thought process moves automatically from "I wonder whether or not army units would have fought as effectively for a marine commander" to "they might not" and therefore, "would not." Then, as in some board games, the hypothesis is hypostatized as a game mechanic without any compelling historical evidence to support its use.

[Major Tom]

Unfortunately if we were to ignore every possible scenario that didn't happen we would be restricted to having a game that would only be able to follow the historical process. Probably having conflicts with individual leaders is going too far, but, nationalities and HQ's will have problems. The Chinese were more responsive to American commanders than British ones (ie. they tended to be more subordinate in following logical orders). Also, after the fall of the Dutch East Indies, Australia went close toward the American camp than the British camp. Certain things CAN be fairly easily modeled, and remember, this isn't a board game relying on humans to ensure that they remember each rule and implement it to the creator's vision on how it should be implemented. From what I know of these games, the rules are long and complicated, and easy to misinterpret or skip a section. In a computer game the engine itself can solve these problems.

What I just don't want is a game devoid of any practical considerations to restrictions. The Royal Navy COULD NOT abandon the Indian Ocean to sail off its carriers and battleships to the South pacific. The IJA and IJN could NOT coordinate effectively after the 1st 6 months of the war. The Japanese could not remove any unit from Manchuria for fears of possible Russian moves. The Japanese were forced to initiate a decisive battle (at Midway?) as this was what all of their prewar planning dictated would happen. The British could not abandon Singapore without a fight. An international force of Allied vessels who have not worked up with one another will perform badly in action (Java Sea, et al.). The Japanese will suffer in the South Pacific due to the fact that Rabul and the Solomans were IJN territory, resulting in the IJNAF having the job to maintain air superiority, one better suited to the IJAAF. The IJA wanted Australia, the IJN wanted New Caledonia-Fiji, neither could/would support eachother.

The problem about Pacific War and War in the Pacific, is, that the role of the player technically did not exist. There wasn't an entire Japanese commander (not even Tojo) and there was no Allied commander (no Pacific version of Eisenhouer). A way must be devised in order to place restrictions on a position that was in all practice impossible to have in the first place


Ignoring politics would be like ignoring land combat. It isn't critical to playing a Pacific war game (like Carrier Strike, Carriers at War) but it sure adds a lot to the game. Before you say that it is impossible to put into practice (before you have any comparison), why not let the Matrix team tell you how/if it is to be done?

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Major Tom:
There wasn't an entire Japanese commander (not even Tojo) and there was no Allied commander (no Pacific version of Eisenhouer).

We Yanks are quick to forget the Soviets aren't we? Ike was only in charge of the western half of the European Theatre, he had no say in the east, so even he doesn't count.

Ignoring politics would be like ignoring land combat.

True, who was it that said "War is merely an extension of Politics"? They were right, you really can't separate the two.


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 15, 2001).]