Ghost of Doorman?

Warpup · Post by **Warpup** » Fri Jun 08, 2001 8:12 am

I was checking out the 1942 campaign and I noticed that Doorman was available to command TFs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he killed in the earlier Battle of the Java Sea????

Rich Dionne · Post by **Rich Dionne** » Sun Jun 10, 2001 8:47 pm

You're absolutely correct Warpup,

We'll have to pick this up in the updated OBC's that Major Tom has been working on.

Thanks for the observation!

Rich Dionne

dmeans · Post by **dmeans** » Tue Jun 12, 2001 1:24 am

Yes Doorman was killed in battle. But that is no reason not to have him in the game.
The leaders in game do not suffer the same fate as the real ones did. Some who were not killed or captured in real life are in the game, and vise-vera.
I say let the leaders be.

Pacwarrior

Bing · Post by **Bing** » Tue Jun 12, 2001 5:00 am

Under the original GGPW, I had Adm. Phillips killed - off Malayasia, right on schedule. About six months later he showed up on the duty roster again. Guess he swam to shore and walked home, wherever that might have been after the IJA took Singapore. The fascinating aspect of this was that it was the ONLY tinme this happenbed in roughly 100 games! Small wonder we kept coming back to GGPW -m there really was a reason to replay!

A funnier incident involved a Japanese general, killed in action, who was then put into the hopper for return to action in 1946!

But I agree: The game gives us possibilities. If you want absolutely faithful and 100% historical, read the book, you don't need the game. No reason at all why Doorman can't survive and fight on - he was not incidentally a pretty good naval officer, thus ought to be a true asset to any staff.

Bing

Rich Dionne · Post by **Rich Dionne** » Tue Jun 12, 2001 7:34 am

In my opinion, if you want Doorman, then play the 1941 campaign or edit him into the 1942 campaign. The 1942 campaign is intended to start historically in May 1942, with the Pacific Fleet at the bottom Pearl Harbor, Doorman gone, etc. Of course, all the history after May 1942 is then yours to create...

Regards,

Rich

dmeans · Post by **dmeans** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 12:13 pm

If you don't play the Campaign 41 game you miss all the challange if playing allied of trying to save as much as you can while still doing maximum damage to the Japs. Besides I like a long game.
What bothers me more then leaders who should not be there are the ones who for no reason just disappear. Vandergrift is really
good at it.

Regards,
Pacwarrior

Ringbolt · Post by **Ringbolt** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 8:37 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PacWarrior:
What bothers me more then leaders who should not be there are the ones who for no reason just disappear. Vandergrift is really
good at it.

Vandergrift disappears because he became Commandant of the Marine Corps. Not Long after Guadalcanal he went to D.C. and was not in combat command again. You can easily "demote" him with the editor though.

Ringbolt

dmeans · Post by **dmeans** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 8:58 am

I haven't noticed but does Yammamoto drop out of the game after the date he was killed on? And where does MacAurther go to. I can't find him anywhere. And both Kimmel and
Short remain active.
I downloaded the editor but it doesn't work with the Corel spreadsheet I have. I tried it on the NT4 machine at work but get an error message about some file not found

Regards,
PacWarrior

Ringbolt · Post by **Ringbolt** » Sat Jun 16, 2001 7:27 am

Originally posted by PacWarrior:
I haven't noticed but does Yammamoto drop out of the game after the date he was killed on? And where does MacAurther go to. I can't find him anywhere. And both Kimmel and Short remain active.
I downloaded the editor but it doesn't work with the Corel spreadsheet I have. I tried it on the NT4 machine at work but get an error message about some file not found

Regards,
PacWarrior

If you start a game before a leader was historically killed they will not die, unless of course they get killed from game results (seems I most often lose Admirals).

Dugout Doug shouldn't go anywhere unless he is killed or if Manila falls before you can transfer him to Australia, in which case the HQ surrenders and for game purposes he is KIA. I prefer to leave him in Bataan to his fate instead of transfer him, after all we dont have to fight the Korean war in this game do we?

Short and Kimmel don't "retire" because you know, if you do an historic first turn, that PH will get nailed and they are not blamed for it. I can't remember the name now, but there is a Dutch officer that stays for the whole war if you manage to hold an ADBA base and you don't try to reassign him. If you try to reassign him you never get him back even if he is not killed.

Ringbolt

dmeans · Post by **dmeans** » Sun Jun 17, 2001 4:36 am

The fact that Kimmel and Short do not "retire" in the game does not bother me as I think they both got the shaft. But thats another topic.
It would be nice if when a leader is removed for a non game related reason the game would let you know as when one is promoted.

Its a great game anyway!

Regards,
PacWarrior

Cmdrcain · Post by **Cmdrcain** » Thu Jun 28, 2001 12:45 am

Originally posted by Ringbolt:

Dugout Doug shouldn't go anywhere unless he is killed or if Manila falls before you can transfer him to Australia, in which case the HQ surrenders and for game purposes he is KIA. I prefer to leave him in Bataan to his fate instead of transfer him, after all we dont have to fight the Korean war in this game do we?

Ringbolt

Ummmm Bataan to his Fate? McArthur historically LEFT Phillipines, "I will return" Returns later taking back phillipines historically.

Leaving him at Bataan to his fate is to allow him to be killed which isn't his fate

Ringbolt · Post by **Ringbolt** » Thu Jun 28, 2001 7:37 am

Originally posted by Cmdrcain:

Ummmm Bataan to his Fate? McArthur historically LEFT Phillipines, "I will return" Returns later taking back phillipines historically.

Leaving him at Bataan to his fate is to allow him to be killed which isn't his fate

Hello,

I am aware that Mac left, and came back. It is very easy to move him and his HQ to Australia as happened unless Manila falls on the first move, which is not often but I have had it happen.

I should have been more clear in saying that I prefer to leave him in Bataan with his command unlike what really happened. PacWar not being a political game, I dont suffer any penalty by losing him like FDR would have. He is not worth the PP's it takes to move the HQ as far as I am concerned so I leave him to his "fate" in Bataan. I have never missed him as by the time I go on the offence there are plenty of good generals around, Roy Geiger being my favorite.

Mac was made important for morale reasons IMO, and I feel that if he had been left there he would now be ranked with Percival, Short, and Kimmel, right where he belongs. At least Short and Kimmel, although largely their own fault, were unaware that an attack was comming. Mac on the other hand knew some twelve hours ahead of time about the Pearl attack and STILL did nothing.

Ringbolt

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Sat Jun 30, 2001 9:45 am

This has warped from a Doorman thread into a McArthur thread. Mac would be a useful commander of a base (6 Land, 7 Aggr), but would the computer get all bent out of shape if he was put in charge of a base being a 4-star while perhaps a 2-star (like Geiger) was in charge of the controlling HQ??. Speaking of Doorman, I would like to keep him around because he is a good surface commander. Lastly, can the stats on "the generalissmo" (Chaing) be altered? He could not possibly have been that bad. It looks like Gary G got a case of the a$$ on Chaing (somewhat like his ratings of Hitler in the War in Russia and Western Front games).

Ringbolt · Post by **Ringbolt** » Sun Jul 01, 2001 4:54 am

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
This has warped from a Doorman thread into a McArthur thread. Mac would be a useful commander of a base (6 Land, 7 Aggr), but would the computer get all bent out of shape if he was put in charge of a base being a 4-star while perhaps a 2-star (like Geiger) was in charge of the controlling HQ??. Speaking of Doorman, I would like to keep him around because he is a good surface commander.

Agree on Doorman, I try and move one Dutch ship to every theater just so I can pop him in a TF if I run out of agressive skippers. I know that is manipulating the game system and is very ahistorical, but hey it works. I do the same for the Brits as sometimes I need Phillips, Doorman, Halsey, Spruance and Turner all in one invasion force.

Ringbolt

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Sun Jul 01, 2001 7:35 am

So,,, I should put a Dutch ship like say the De-Ruyter into Pearl and park it there until I need Doorman in a battle?? Sounds ok to me...

Warpup · Post by **Warpup** » Sun Jul 01, 2001 10:39 pm

I like to put a Dutch CL or two in Ceylon and a CL or two in Australia or the South Pacific, with one to three Dutch DD groups in each place. I don't think that's too ahistorical, considering the Dutch would likely have been in those two spots if their ships and admiral hadn't been sunk in the Java Sea. A British CL and a couple of DD groups can help in the Australia/South Pacific area also. It's fun forming up TFs with a Dutch Cruiser and then moving Doorman's flagship from his Dutch ship to a USN or RN BB.

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Sat Jul 21, 2001 6:38 pm

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
Lastly, can the stats on "the generalissmo" (Chaing) be altered? He could not possibly have been that bad. It looks like Gary G got a case of the a$$ on Chaing (somewhat like his ratings of Hitler in the War in Russia and Western Front games).

Hi Mike
I'm not sure Gary G gave Chiang his crappy ratings because of "Hitler fallout". I know a bit about Chiang and his track record. During WWII, he should have struck a truce with Mao's commies to fight the Japanese, instead of letting the Japanese do a blitzkrieg on them. A quick analogy: Let's say at the height of the US Civil War (say 1862) Britain decides to return to America to regain her lost colonies. Don't you think Lincoln and Jefferson would have struck some kind of deal to eject the FOREIGN party? From 1937-45, Chiang left like 99% of the task of defeating the Japs to the US, when he could have done a good deal to harass if not defeat the Japanese garrisons in China. Remember, China had/has the largest population in the world and lots of territory to play around with, like the Russians did.

After WWII ended, he had about 3 million or so troops under arms, a good many veterans from fighting the Japanese, AND ample US military equipment, advice, etc short of active intervention, YET he still lost China to Mao's commies who started off with only a million men.

Mark

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Sun Jul 22, 2001 9:58 pm

Hi Chimera,
I know about Chaing and Mao, They both knew the Japanese would eventually be defeated and they purposely didn't let their armies get involved in the fighting. It was like the middle east and the balkans, they hated each other almost as much or more than they did the enemy. And I agree that Chaing was a poor general, but 1's across the board? I made him 2's but I'm going to try to leave the HQ "leaderless" as I found one can do with every other HQ. That way, the Chinese will default to "5" in land battles. I's doesn't really matter in the end, because China is a black hole, I've seen more than a year go by (solo game) with no japanese advances whatsoever. I just concentrate the Air groups and they slowly gain experience so that they can give the Japanese some payback later on The air groups got up to 90 experience in about a year, flying Buffalos and B-18s..

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 4:42 am

I think that Chaing should reselmble much like a very poor commander of other nations, with points of 3 and 4 instead of 1's. He was VERY bad, but he is also abstracting every other Chinese commander as well. In regards to air and naval, it sould be very low, possibly 1 or 2, but land and aggressiveness should be a bit higher.