Dream Features

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Sat Feb 09, 2002 11:56 am

Hi, This is not a request for anything to be added to WITP just my rambling about what the ultimate Pacific War simulation would have.

1. A menu that computes supply required to perform a mission-so I would know if I could do it or how much supply and what kind I need to stage before I can do the mission-example I want to sent a Rgt landing team from my base to one of my opponents bases how much supply do I need to get there and how much will the Rgt need per turn of combat once it is there.

2. A "hey boss you have not given me any orders for a while" message so I don't forget one of my units located in some off the wall corner of the pacific (something I do all the time in Pac War, then when I need them I have to go hunting using the 'HQ unit/air''find ship' menus to find them-usally of course their transport has long sailed to the other corner of the Pacific or if they are an air unit events have left them out of range of transfering anyplace.

3. Something like airzone only used with a TF to show how far it can travel in a turn

4. In Pac War you can look at islotated base and know who could not recieve supply but you have to cycle through your bases to find out who actually recieved it (and move HQ or hand convoys to the neglected ones) A little smiley face display used with a 'base supply status' request to quickly ID bases low on supply.

note: personally I believe most large scale war games are won by the player best understanding and coping with how supply is handled. Supply not units decides where battles can be fought and with what.

5. A submarine manager. I pick op areas and decide how many subs I want in an op area and the manager handles all the details (sends a fresh sub and brings back the ones needing repair/refit/refuel while maintaining the requested number on station)(Hehehehe in Pac War I sometimes forget a patrol and what started out as 12 subs when I finally bring it home is 3 subs that have been out for 25+ turns (I don't believe WW2 subs liked 6month deployments) (maybe just another smiley face when 'sub patrol status' request made.)

6. Production control, one of my pets. I love to juggle production (like supply what units decides where and how you fight) My all time dream scenario for Japan is beginning in 1923 cash in production and rebuy. More CV or fewer CV No monster BB but more Nachi CA, A Tank Division in 1941 Operational Brigade or larger Parachute units in 1941 blah blah. Also one with free deployment.
(Yes yes it would benifit Japan but how much experimenting do the allies require? (unless of course the game covers all theatres of WW2 in which case an argument for allied varients would also be interesting) But I am looking strictly from the point of view that I am running Japan starting before the outbreak of war. Only I know where and when so I deploy according to my plan. FDR does not get different till I bomb PH (of course the allied player would be allowed to tweek his pre war production a bit and have total control of it once war began)

7. Trick units...those silly balloon bombs, midget subs, Baka bombs etc etc etc (all the stuff that did nothing or very little but still had to be worried about before it's use)(I would try a campaign of large subs constantly releasing migets outside PH or SF or SD (hawhaw)

8. In game political requirements detirmined by pregame options. Prior to turn 1 both sides make choices that will require them to meet criteria for victory. Example Japan war objectives
a. US unconditional surrender
b. limited war aims

example 2 must control certain objectives
Japan
a. total victory in China
b. Control of SRA
c. force US to offer/accept compromise settlement (this refusal is what led to war in first place.

These would reflect in what victory totals would have to be met and in what catogory points would need to be scored in.

Allies would score the most points using production from Europe first option and then forcing UC surrender of Japan in a set period of time. There would be a political meter that both players would have to keep above a certain point or allow the other victory (battle casulties, captured/lost base etc influnence meter-the effect of a victory would move it but gradually wear off) OK anyone else have a dream feature?

Adnan Meshuggi · Post by **Adnan Meshuggi** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:25 pm

Hehe, the unlimitted/limitted Supply button <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Hm, to be ernest, many good points named mogami.

One thing i would really love is a complex choice of helps, different for many things, like supply, weapons (dud chance, hit rate, technology and and and) production, repair rate, quality of the personal, INTEL, Fog of war...

Why ? Well like you said, the supply is the key of the most great war games... but i dislike the idea of the to historical production of ressources... if i am the japanese "Supergeneral", i want to produce more oil and more ships to transport them... but normaly i can´t do that, because the game can´t do it... so i want more chances to "cheat", but not like in pacwar with maximum jap help (everything) but only in small degrees... In Silent Service you had an percentage of difficulty, everybody could manipulate, i think such a way would be great. You help the japs and/or the americans a little, but your "score" is low, because it is "easy"... also i don´t like the Pointsystem of nearly every game, if the japs could defeat most of the american troops in the pacific, i don´t think that the americans had stopped war....

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 11:26 pm

Hi Mogami,

A couple of things.

In Pac War, I think subs ARE mamaged by the game engine. I NEVER brought a sub unit back to port unless I wanted to change its patrol base (started at PH, moved to Midway, then Wake, Marcus, etc.) I never saw a "damaged sub" when looking at the patrols and the game generally kept the sub units replaced. I never did see any subs in the ship pool and only "equalized" the sub groups when I was re-basing them.

What I DID do was every two turns I moved the subs to a new patrol hex. What I would do was "shift" them along a string of patrol hexes. It DOESN'T put the subs out of action as long as the new patrol hex as about 10 or fewer hexes away from the prior patrol hex. This solved the problem of having the subs sit too long in a patrol hex and I was able to keep constant pressure on the convoy routes.

About pre war Japanese production. As much as everyone would like to pretend, Japanese Naval building was not done in a vacuum. The rest of the world, particularly Britain and the US were closely watching events in Tokyo. Japan as a signatory to the 1922 Washington Naval Agreement, had her hands tied behind her back as it was. It was not until the 1930s that Japan was able to start increasing the size of the IJN and they were still bound to the later (I think 1930 treaty) naval agreement. Of course Japan deliberately broke this treay almost right away, but it was in small increments, somewhat like Germany's rebuilding of the Luftwaffe during the same time. If they went too far others would find out and they did and they reacted. The US fast BBs were designed to counter newer IJN units (Yamato class) so the effects of this have been demonstrated. Also, the Alaska class cruisers were also built to counter "supposed" IJN ships.

What I am saying is this: if one wants to alter the pre-war naval building program for the IJN, then the game should cause a reaction from the US and GB in the form of more and stronger reinforcements for these 2 navies. The Japanese did about the best they could with the conditions they were in. I am in agreement that the Yamato BBs should never been built 3, 4, or 5 additional Shokaku class CVs would have been a far better investment. But then for the US the 4 Iowa Class BBs (all of which were completed as opposed to only 2 Yamatos) would have been better off as 8-10 Essex class CVs.

So,,, as the IJN you can have 5 extra Shokakus (2 in 1942,1 ea in 43,44,45) and I'll take 10 extra Essex Class CVs (2 ea in 42,43 and 3 ea in 44,45) along with several extra Formidable class CVs for the RN in place of the Lion and Vanguard class BBs which also would not have been needed.

I'll take that deal anytime.

Lastly I red somewhere that The Shinano CV was changed in v2.3 PacWar to give it a larger AC capacity. That ship should have anything higher than 60. It was the most poorly laid out CV ever built.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mike Santos ]</p>

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Thu Feb 14, 2002 11:35 pm

I almost forgot the US Super Cruisers, the Alsaka, Guam and Hawaii. I'll kindly take 3 more Essex CVs (1 in 44, 2 in 45) instead. That makes 13 more US CVs. to 5 (maybe 6 in we're feeling generous) Shokaku class CVs some of which won't get built (because of yard problems and steel shortages, etc.)

Could you imagine a game with that many additional CVs running around??? Of course the IJN pilot training program could not possibly equip those new carriers with air groups but we'll give that one to the IJN too.

Still want to adjust pre-war construction <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mike Santos ]</p>

crusher · Post by **crusher** » Fri Feb 15, 2002 4:40 am

will the inj have some type of signet capability. even if on a minor scale

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:33 pm

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
I almost forgot the US Super Cruisers, the Alsaka, Guam and Hawaii. I'll kindly take 3 more Essex CVs (1 in 44, 2 in 45) instead. That makes 13 more US CVs. to 5 (maybe 6 in we're feeling generous) Shokaku class CVs some of which won't get built (because of yard problems and steel shortages, etc.)

Could you imagine a game with that many additional CVs running around??? Of course the IJN pilot training program could not possibly equip those new carriers with air groups but we'll give that one to the IJN too.

Still want to adjust pre-war construction <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mike Santos ]

Hi, why yes I still want to play with production.
But I never did say what changes I personally would make. 6 CV's in Dec 41 seems to work fine. BB's are not all that wonderfull. (I love Nachi class CA's) But I think DD's is where I would put war time ship construction. I would tinker with things Japan did not have like the para's or a tank division. No matter what it is easer for a goverment controled by the military to change production before the war then it would be for the democracies to increase spending. Both the Mogami and Aoba class CA were built as CL. The gun turrents were designed to be replaced with 8" when the time came (when built the Mogami class turrents were 3 6" guns rather then the 2 8" guns they mounted during the war) Another ruse could be to lay down the keels of large 'commerical' Liners. Several years of construction could be done before they began to convert into a CV (thus gaining a head start in building)
The problem really with pre-planning is simply it was maddness to consider war with the United States. To change and pre-plan means Japan would have had to go mad 10 years before the diplomatic events thats triggered the maddness had actually occured. Japan was spending it's self broke as it was, my fantasy requires her to actually have set out from the beginning to war with the U.S. (rather then China)
To be absoulty perfect a game would only have to have what Japan had in inventory on Dec 7 1941
plus what was already under construction. Any ship not laid down (or already funded) would not be required (I would take over production on Dec 7th) Then the game would need to replicate what Japan was capble of producing. I only ask for the other 'dream' feature because I have a tendency to adjust/tweek/modify little things to see what impact it has (or might have) I don't really want these features to use against another human in simulating the war. Questions like did Japan build Nates because there was a shortage of 7mm MG? because she needed large numbers of aircraft and in China quailty did not matter but quanity did? What if there were no Nates but 20% more Oscar? What if production was under a single command rather then split between army and Navy (could there then be both More Zeros (but fewer overal fighters) and could the Army land based air fly them)
What if Japan had built a four engine bomber?
What if load had been more important then range?
Really only things that would satisfy someone doing a solotaire war (but hey it's my fantasy!!!)

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:57 am

Bring in the Midway class too.

One thing I'd like to see is all the PT boat squadrons. Rather than dismissing them in PW I have fonud them to be very very useful indeed, even in the early going. I missed them in the new PW OOB. I understand their omission had something to do with the limitations of the old code. So for UV I say "bring 'em back."

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:40 pm

Hi, I agree about PT boats, But from the UV thread I gather that they and many other small class ships will be included

Lex Morton · Post by **Lex Morton** » Sun Feb 17, 2002 11:03 am

Hi Mogami I take it you are aware of the Japanese 4 engined bomber,the Nakajima G8N Renzan (Mountain Range). Allied Code Name: "Rita".

Have a look here for more info on this very impressive beast. http://www.214th.com/ww2/japan/g8n/

Lex Morton

ratster · Post by **ratster** » Sun Feb 17, 2002 11:22 am

Thanks Lex! Don't remember ever hearing or reading about that one.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Sun Feb 17, 2002 5:13 pm

Hi, Yep she's purtty, but where was she in 41? <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 5:36 am

Hi Mogami:

"Yep she's purtty, but where was she in 41? "

It probably was not even on the drawing boards yet <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

TIMJOT · Post by **TIMJOT** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 8:16 am

Personally, I would like to see some kind of variabily built into the start of the game. Like the US declaration of war is not automatic if the Japanese avoid attacking US forces. The percentage chance could increase every turn and would of course be automatic if the Japanese attack any US base of ship. The Japanese player would have to decide for either a quick first strike or try to delay a US entry as long as possible. Not knowing that on any given turn the US might declare war. The US player would have to decide how to best deploy his forces not knowing when or where the Japanese might strike. I think such a feature would go a long way in increasing the re-playabilty of the game, by taking out the usual predictablity that generally hinders historical games.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 8:18 pm

A decent idea that last one. There should be some teeth in it to mitigate against a Japanese strategy that attempts to overrun everything-but-American-possessions and then entrench. Probably US factory expansions and ship FRAM and new a/c designs should be significantly enhanced, as a protracted peace would have allowed the US to focus on infrastructure rather than mobilization. By 1941 the US plan was to go to war anyhow; it was merely a matter of wanting to mobilize more equipment before the shooting started. Such a change would also see the nominal Phillippine divisions turned into the real thing.

Is it too much of a stretch, though, to think that a Japanese attack against UK or Commonwealth nations would provoke a US DOW anyhow?

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 8:22 pm

Nice reference on the Rita. With the payload, defensive armament and speed indicated the plane must have lacked any armor or self sealing tanks. Basically a Flying Fortress without the Fortress part. Otherwise, those stats on range and airspeed are obviously in error.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 8:31 pm

More on the Mountain. The 2000 HP stated output from the Nak NK9K-L appears to be 180-500 HP exaggerated. The correct output is 1820 at sea-level take-off and 1500 @ 6500m elevation. The US should be so fortunate that Japan would expend a lot of resources building this big, expensive, coffin.

Jason629 · Post by **Jason629** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 8:53 pm

The "mountain" was more like a landslide. Just a Betty with a couple of more engines. Might as well mount the fuel tank on the roof and paint a big bullseye on it. But then again, as Neil Young said......"its better to burn out than to fade away."

Lex Morton · Post by **Lex Morton** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 10:52 pm

Jason if you think a Rita:

looks like a Betty:

with two engines strapped on,then I suggest a visit to your optician pronto! <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> Personally I think it looks like a B29 from the front,A B24 naval varient,the Privateer from the side and vaguely B17-esque from the top.

Some more figures are available here http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/g8n.htm

Mogami regarding your question "where was she in 1941?" well it was a 44 crate so nowhere is the answer but they DID have a four engined crate in 41,this one:

The Nakajima G5N Shinzan (Mountain Recess)Allied Code Name: "Liz".Production: Four G5N1s and two G5N2s were built in 1941-42 by Nakajima Hikoki K.K. in their Koizumi plant.The first prototype flew on April 10,1941.

It didn't work too great but was used operationally as a supply crate during WW2.Good info here http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/g5n.html

Here is a pic for size comparison with a Zero (A6M5)

Good article here titled "Some Thoughts on the Japanese Naval Airforce Land Based Bomber Program
by Dwight Cox" http://libraryautomation.com/nymas/dwightcoxbettybomber.htm

Banzai!

Lex Morton

Jason629 · Post by **Jason629** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 11:12 pm

Lets just consider my "betty" comment was more related to the rather incendiary properties I am sure were indemic to this and many other Japanese aircraft of the era. If you look at the power relative to performance (range,speed)you can come to one of two conclusions.

1.) The performance data is wrong.

2.) The plane was a flying matchbox with little or no armor protecting fuel tanks or pilots.

Jason629 · Post by **Jason629** » Mon Feb 18, 2002 11:14 pm

It is a pretty looking plane though!