Info about 2.3 Patch

[mogami]

I know you can't make everyone happy. I wish that people would remember the game is called Pacific War not China War or 'The Great India Invasion game. Why do PBEM players always think they are being brillant by invading India? India is an abstract!!!! Its purpose is the same as the US East Coast a place to put British supply/new units/factories. If a player actually targets it he is not being fair. (There is nothing the Allied player can do) The real world does not just end 100 miles West of Ceylon if Japan had attacked in these direction the British would have been able to react. India is not a single base that Japan could land 2 divisions and a few Regts on and capture in 1 week. The factories the game has there were not really there, subject to capture or bombing (they merely represent that portion of British production sent to this theatre.) Quite honestly I am getting sick of playing PBEM games. I admit I often try to capture Port Blair. I admit I send my CV's to bomb Ceylon (not India)
A game about Island hopping/Carrier/Surface battlesalways turns into the Japanese march to the Suez. How many of you have ever played someone who will actually send his carriers to bomb the US West Coast? I don't mind those Japanese who try to capture Pearl Harbour or go deep into the South Pacific early. The Allied player can at least have some impact in these moves. Operations in China or against India are just in my opinon 'cheap tricks' taking advantage of game limitations and calling it strategy.

Japan should stay within the concept the game was meant to simulate IE: Capture of the Southern Resource Area and the establishment of the defense perimter. Then they can plan their own Operations in support of these. But making China/India a part of those plans is exploting the game in a most unrealistic manner. Please add a unmovable garrision to represent those British units available but never used. Remove land paths in China except for those along the coast (remove both Japanese and Chinese units the game does not really need to make room for units the allies and Japan can use else where. ) I have been unable to come up with 'House Rules' suitable for PBEM games. It appears human players will look for any loophole so just make these 'Flights of Fanasty' impossible. It drives me crazy...(crazier) to watch Japanese transport TF's steaming around in the Indian Ocean after the Japanese player reads "units withdrawn from Eastern fleet" Like Winston would withdraw ships while Japan was landing on Port Blair or Ceylon (the entire Royal Navywould sail around the world if India was threatened by sea) India can not in reality be isolated as easy as Pac War allows. I have played this game from it's first release. And never in PBEM or against the AI did I as Japan try to conquer China invade Ceylon land on US West Coast (thats right Japan the US really has more then 5 bases) If actual conditions could be represented it would quickly dispell these myths about Japans ability (India's airbase would be a 20-same with US bases)(on a similar note US players who bomb Japanese home Islands with CV's should realize this is baloney also.
(Doolittle did little and was too small for the game to portry-several cities with a dozen bombers) All bombing supply cities with CV's does is trigger the isolation bug in these cities. bombing PH a second time results in it's going islotation for rest of game (so I don't try as Japan) Well enough of my whinning

[Warpup]

Agree with you Mogami, though there has to be something that Japan can do more than it historically did to make the game worth playing as the Japanese. I would like to see the British in the fight somehow, but that board-edge problem is horrible!!!

I guess it will never be fixed until we someday have a game that depicts the whole world at war in one global game. What a pleasant thought!!!

As for fighters, I like having fighters without bombs. They seem to fly and fight twice as often as fighter-bombers. Love those active and aggressive pure fighters!!!

[moore4807]

Mogami,
To reply about NOT taking India- simply put If I dont take India/bottle up that sector- then who cares what happens when USA starts piling it on you. To get a front-door steamroller coming either historically up from Australia or a Reverse Tokyo Express across the Pacific... followed by getting back-doored by Allied players shuttling non historical units thru India is just double suicide!

You neglect to say that once India is taken, my freeing up these "occupation" troops and doing battles thru the Dutch Indies ties up the Australia plan and siphons off some off the historical oversupply of Australia... I have actually won more than one game this way...

Not being historical? absolutely correct...
Strategy? Are you saying that the Royal Navy in 42-43 would send the fleets to go save India at the expense of starving England or delaying TORCH? I think NOT! Would they continue to send supplies to India if its fallen-nope...

Finally - I play games with the simple idea of winning, not playing exactly like the history allows... otherwise why bother?
I submit this-as I said in an earlier post
Japan doesnt "do" PH or invade Phillipines, instead goes after Hong Kong and Dutch Indies.. how many months more before US gets involved? How much more steel and oil reserves does Japan get to make products with? how much different a war does the Allies fight without US production?
Think about it...I'm not trying to flame you here, but how can you win as Japan without being strategically different otherwise?
Jim

[Ringbolt]

Mogami,

I have to agree with you in PBEM as a human can think of ways to manipulate the system, but I have never had AI get farther than Mandalay or Pt Blair. However, I give up on Singapore, and ADBA and get any/all troops worth an AP out to India.

Jim,

I think what Mogami is saying, and I agree, is not that play should be resticted to totally historical moves, but that the system allows things that just could not happen. I myself have, as Japan, attacked San Francisco. The game allows this, but just getting to Pearl was stretching the IJN to its operational limits at the time. Going another 1200 miles is pretty far fetched, yet absolutely doable in Pacwar.

Same for India. Remember, as they get closer to India, SEAC gets closer to their supply source and large numbers of India garrison troops not represented (for good reason as they would be abused in the opposite manner no doubt) in Pacwar. The IJA had a hard time supplying Mandalay, much less all the way to India, yet the game allows this easily. Something that IMO, was logistically just not possible. This is not to say I dont think it should be done, unless in a PBEM game there is a rule against it. I have also done this, but I knew that it was pure game manipulation and not my strategic genius <grin> that did it.


Ringbolt

[Ranger-75]

I must come down firmly on the side of "he names himself after the floating wreck that spent nearly a year in Japan getting repaired" (Mogami).

There should be a "base" NW of India separated by a 15 hex front of land (whatever is needed to prevent the permanent isolation bug) with no march path, thereby not invadable / bombable (new word I made up) labelled "British Isles" That's where the British factories should be. Then, as MC hammer said "you can't touch this".

Commonwealth / Empire reinforcements would have a priority of appearance locations, so long as one place was still under Allied control (you want to try and take all of Australia mr Japanese game exploiters?) then no Commonwealth reinforcements would be lost., likewise any dutch or Australian reinforcements would have a appeaance location priority.

A non interdictable overland supply from the new "base to the India base would allow routine supply to India in the event of "isolation" of India by successive air attacks.

The marching through burma to india can be made much less desirable with additonal level 9 bases in the march path, taking the ones that Mogami suggests removing in China. You want India?, you need to take 4 level 9 hexes now, not 1, and you still won't destroy any factories or remove the British reinforcement locations.

The LA factories should be moved one hex inward with no land march path, no more wrecking US production. Call it Southern US. LA would retain the shipyards and maybe one factory only.

SF can be "garrisoned" with 4 Coastal artillery "divisions" with say 1000 squads, 1000 artillery, 500 AFV, 99 exp, ent 9 and 99 readiness (each). Come and get it, if you dare.

These items would make game system exploits less likely or desirable and I think they are feasible without major code changes - Any comment especially from Mike Wood or Rich Dionne???

And I would still limit splitting of units to 10 per side, unless the parent can be made to never expand beyond it's new size.

[mogami]

If you want to conquer the world play 'RISK'
"Pac War' is supposed to be WWII Japan vrs Allies. The game makes the allies incapable of acting for several months to allow Japan to take the SRA and establish her defense perimeter. Using built in game weakness and limits is not very sporting and certainly unrealistic. The is plenty of room for Japan to be inventive in the areas the game meant for the war to take place without using China/India where the game can not reflect real conditions. The land combat routine works fine on Islands and bases but fails anywhere a front line type of combat would have taken place. India in reality is not one base that can be captured in 7 days!!!!
Japan had barely enough troops to guard the supply lines/city centers in China. Not enough for an across the board offensive. Sure the game allows it but common sense should prevent it. This is a Naval/Air/logistics game. Not a ground campaign simulator. The British defense capabilities for India are much stronger then provided in game. The US defense capabilites on the mainland US would defeat any force Japan could transport there. Does this really need to be pointed out???
I do not think US CV's should be allowed to bomb mainland Japan. The airbases for the Home Islands are barely larger then what the US can build around PH (if Truk can have 8 air groups what do you suppose Tokyo really could deploy?) only the built in game limits allow US CV's to imagine they can bomb the Home Islands. (In most PBEM games Japan will have large numbers of well equipped and trained airgroups waiting)The targets in the home Islands are much too large for carrier planes. there are too many actual airbases for them to knock all of them out. The game limit of 1 base makes it unreal to target them with CV's Also using CV's to bomb supply cities (and some others) results in a game long isolation bug. No matter what the designer intends or does there are going to be flaws. Finding them and exploiting them is not good game playing.

As to Japan being unable to win the war without exploiting game flaws, I scratch my head. Japan can not/ could not win the war. Simple truth. However a human player of Pac War can win the game. Capture the SRA establish a defense ring and then defeat the allied attempts to breach it. As well as this old simple method she can push the envelop early by going into the South Pacifc and cutting off Austraila (and hopefully winning the major battles this will trigger) or she can make a major effort in the Cen Pac (also designed to provoke early major battles with the USN) by defeating the USN early and often Japan can prevent that build up of massive forces. The game needs to address what appears to be a built in collapse of Japans air arm starting in 43. If she suffers large lossess and can not train new pilots, that is well and good but I have seen where Japan re-equipps and trains large numbers of new groups only to see them slaughtered same as rookie pilots would be. But basicly as Japan you win if you don't lose. Japan needs a lot of work and the ability to predict and prepare for what is coming. I would not brag about winning games where I figured out how to use bugs

For every PBEM game I have played as Allies I have played 3 as Japan. I never do any of the funny stuff. I get my butt handed to me early sometimes. And other times I am in control of the situation well into 43. It is up to the IJN to win or lose the game.
But I personally think Pac War is much more a game of air combat then it is anything else. Making the air routines as good as possible is the most import thing any up date could do.

[ July 25, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]

[Doug Olenick]

Just a couple of comments.

I agree with the plan to boost Japanese aircraft endurance rating, but historically speaking, the game in its curren state reflects what really happened. However, these changes will make the game more fun.

In 1944-45 individual task groups in TF58 and TF38 would annihiliate huge Japanse attacks, such as those during the Marianias operation, Philipines, and the early attacks on Taiwan. Granted the units attacking were not well trained, but that was the reality of the situation. The US pilots were really that much better.

If you wish to make the game "real" than technically you should limit the skill level attainable by Japanese air units to somewhere in the 60s or 70s. The ability to leave air groups in the Empire's rear training for several years is not something that the Japanese could ever have done during the war because of supply problems and the need for pilots at the front.

As far as using unique maneuvers, I think the more the better. Personally, I like closing out the British from the CBI theater. It is one less thing to worry about later in the war. Could the Japanese have taken and garrisoned India? Of course not. But so much of the game is already historically inaccurate a few more details won't matter. How many players out there actually garrison Borneo, Java or Singapore for the entire game?

[moore4807]

Mogami,
I keep re-reading your post and cant get by one topic -"cheating"- seems all of your time is spent saying you "shouldn't be able to do this" or "thats unrealistic" Yet you sure know a lot about the cheats available???
EVERY game made is going to have flaws- fact of life, every life and action will have flaws-guaranteed... This game is one of the better wargame simulations out there. Japan lost in real life and this game reflects that for the most part, flaws included.

Your point is ludicrous if I'm playing I should expect to lose every time I play the Japanese because thats how it happened and supply couldnt do this, because historically the IJN did that! Its not a game then -its a historical recreation with the names kept fresh!
I'd welcome your suggestion to beef up the Indian bases to "realistic" levels- same rules that keep me from moving my Chinese divisions can keep the Indian divisions penned up there too! While were at it lets try to make the Home Islands issue go away,
say 25 bases of high experience fighters on the Home Islands. That war would actually never end because NO bomber would survive the flights to lovely Japan... Ill have to try that soon...

As to your RISK comment- thats the gauntlet thrown down in my book! You conveinently ignore the fact that Japan needed oil and supply from the Indies (Dutch, French, British) What they did'nt need was the good old USA in the fight which is what the Phillipines and Pearl Harbor got em (HORRIBLE strategy decision that I shouldnt be bound to)... Factually FDR couldnt have dragged the USA into the war without PH... So as the Japanese player-if I dont attack PH and the Phillipines... go into the Indies & China to get what I need... ergo there isnt any opposition except lend-lease F2A's and Airacobras flown by 2nd line pilots from largely minor European/Chinese countries.
Give me til early 42 with the USA on the sideline NOT PRODUCING... I'll step up production and have say 3-4 full CV battle groups to meet the USA should she decide to join in- I really think the Allies negotiate a peace accord instead...

Now thats a scenario I want from the game and it cant possibly get it no matter who I control. Realistic- it didnt happen, but it was exactly Yamamoto's battle plan submitted in 1941 to IJN Brass and the Empire/Prime Ministers' staff. Think Japan wins that battle/war?? I do. I'll also leave the Chinese interior alone-how many troops do I free up to use then?-not in this game (historical accuracy strikes here!)....

You can cry in your coffee all you want, there are US cheats too- try a fleet action in Solomons 1942 -the US night gunnery is as good as IJN? the game gives damn near 1-1 ratio of hits for night firing (even you know it wasnt true- US gunnery radar wasnt WIDELY used until mid 43)but do I bitch? Deal with it-its a game...

Nobody plays the game without a chance of winning- some "cheats" are playability issues and some are coding issues- I'll support you if you said these are house rules we all should abide by... until some punk decides to run the whole US fleet down my throat while jamming it up my rear with P-40E's,F6F's,and B-25's thru India (some cheat huh?) while I cant move too meet em or my PP's go to s*** and I'm really screwed for months. You think I should really play Queensbury rules then? YOUR KIDDING right?

Anyway you are entitled to your opinions and me to mine -but lay off the juvenile remarks OK? I'm sure YOU keep playing this game to lose as Japan huh?

RISK players aren't even aware places and games like this exist! I'd expected better than that from you...

[Marc]

Originally posted by Mogami:
The British defense capabilities for India are much stronger then provided in game.

I recommend reading the book 'Rising Sun Victorious'. It's about what perhaps could have happened in the Pacific Theater. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/185367446X/qid=996179313/sr=2-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/102-7399524-5638548

Originally posted by Mogami:
But I personally think Pac War is much more a game of air combat then it is anything else. Making the air routines as good as possible is the most import thing any up date could do.

Absolutely my opinion. Especially the effectivness of the size of the unit should be changed as was in War in Russia. I remember one lonely landbased SBD unit without fighter cover attacking my carrier force of 3 CV and 1 CVL and sinking the Shokaku with just one hit only because my fighter groups were smaller than the SBD group.

[ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: Marc ]

[ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: Marc ]

[mogami]

OK cease fire Moore. Are you saying Japan can not win the game without taking India?
I never Ignored resourse/oil in fact thats the first thing I say after 'Risk' SRA (Southern Resourse Area) All Japan need do to secure the India/Burma area is advance to Mandaly (does not matter if they capture the place just get there and put 2 divisions there. The Brits can't push them out for years by which time there have arrived plenty of new Japanese LCU's. Capturing Port Blair closes the Indian Ocean to the British. All they can do is sit on Ceylon (or risk losing capital ships on bombardment missions to try to kill Jap aircraft on Port Blair or Rangoon. Once these things are done that flank is secure intill Japan wins or loses against the USN. It has no effect on the game other then giving Japan a few more VP's in base control/kills to knock out India, the allied player will win or lose whatever happens up here based on what happens in the Central Pacific in battle between the IJN and USN. My only point is how incredably easy it was and how unrealistic it was. Japan attacked the US because the US had started a major Naval build and Japan knew by 1944 their Navy would be hopelessly out numbered so they went in Dec 41 rather then chance the future.
They also knew the French/Dutch/British could not defend their holdings in the SRA so they could be had with the modest means Japan had available. It turns into a Risk game when players think it is about invading India/West Coast/Austrailia. I don't mind japanese players who want to do these things but I keep hearing this is the only way for Japan to win the Game. I think it is one of the quickest ways for Japan to lose the game but thats what PBEM is for. Capturing India does not win the war for Japan. If it takes material and ships away from the US in the Central Pacific and South Pacific it is a good thing for the allied player. That is not my point. Only how incredably easy it was and how in every PBEM game it is what Japan does. PBEM players use 3-4 SLNF BNs to capture the empty SRA while the units actually used in Mayla and PI go right to Ceylon/India/Port Moresby/New Calodonia The South and SouthWest/Cen Pac areas the allied player can contest (and get slaughtered since he is outnumbered) but the IO there is nothing that can be done. A wise Allied player will learn to just send everything to Cairns/SW Pacific right off the bat and we will really have an unrealistic game (The British abandon India on their own?) Japan should just leave it alone. (In PBEM games since it is where one of the human players lives, in AI games do what you want) Otherwise you will run out of PBEM people who will be British. (I play most games as Japan) I also said Japan could not win the war. I never said Japan could not win the game, thats a big difference.

[ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]

[Warpup]

I agree with you, Mogami. The game just isn't set up to work well on the CBI front. And Japan can win the war on the defensive if one or two large allied invasions can be killed. The kill point multiplier is the balancing factor.

It is distressing to see the Japanese air units, both land and naval, collapse in '44, in spite of being carefully preserved and trained by good Japanese strategy. I just had a great long PBEM come to a crashing halt in August '44 when my opponent (Ramjet) saw his magnificent airforces with great experience and excellent planes do nothing against my forces in that month. He had done everything right to prepare for the decisive battle for Guam that month. His forces were as good as they could be, but they fought as if they had experience levels of 30 or 40. It was ridiculous, and we called it quits...

[mogami]

Hi Warpup yes that is a major problem that needa addressing. I do not want to pretend I know every stratagy for winning Pac War but it seems Japans Airforce collapses no matter what the Player does. I would think at some point an air battle vacum (I call them meat grinders) would take place (historical in the Solomons but it could be someplace else) but what a meat grinder does is draw large numbers of Japanese airgroups into air combat for an extended time where it is wore down. I have seen games where this never occured and then (starting in mid 43) the once invincible air groups just stop winning. They go right to mass slaughter. I would want the game to force (I know its a strong word) The Allies into finding a location Japan has to fight for and having to win the meat grinder (early in the game China/India are Allied meat grinders where Japan can train airgroups cheap) After Japan occupies many bases her vetern airforce gets spread out and a large battle over Port Moresby begins (no matter who controls it) This is where the allies first begin to train their air groups, and cycle the Japanese air groups through the process that lowers their fighting ability (the allies eventually have more airgroups so they can afford this battle). However as Japan I always try to keep around 20 fighter groups aloof from this battle and just keep training but when they finally have to be commited later on I find it was a waste of time. In 2-3 weeks they are gone with out having done much. Is this result for ordained?

[Ringbolt]

Originally posted by moore4807:
Give me til early 42 with the USA on the sideline NOT PRODUCING...

Uh, you had me until here. The fact is the US was gearing up well before PH and the Japanese knew it. They went in '41 because if they waited it would have been too late. The first person I know of the REALLY identify the Japanese as the next enemy was the USMC's Pete Ellis who wrote a paper on it, and was later killed in 1921 by the Japanese while scouting their islands (Guam I think). He, twenty years before the fact, first put the idea of "island hopping" down on paper LONG before Yamamoto or Nimitz had a clue as to what was going to happen.

I do agree with you that if the game allows it then it's OK, yet having said that, the game allows some pretty FAR fetched scenarios as you must admit.

The only problem I really have with the game is that the Malaya campaign was actually a fairly close run thing and not the "sure" thing it seems in the game. Even with Percy's bumbling moves the IJA had barely enough supplies to get the job done. If any half harted attempt had been made against them they would have been in deep trouble as they hugely underestemated their opponents, which, they paid for dearly at Guadalcanal, the first place where almost any real defence was put against them.

Ringbolt

[Doug Olenick]

To everyone's point about air group ineffectiveness late in the war. I agree that the Japanese air groups with high experience should not be immediately wiped out. The first strike should be as powerful as the experience rating allows. After that all bets are off because historically the Japanese pilot pool could not supply trained reinforcements.

But under the current conditions when playing Japan this means I have to win the war before mid-1943. Period. Japan cannot fight a war of attrition, I know it, Yammamoto, knew it and so did the US leadership at the time. There is little reason to horde your aircraft and ships as this time approaches so they might as well be thrown into battle with the goal of doing a horrendous amount of damage to the Allies, such as landing in LA.

The game can certainly be altered to make Japan an industrial powerhouse, but then you would not be re-fighting the Pacific War.

As I said in a post on the War in the Pacific thread, the first decision the gamer designers need to make is how realistic to make the game. If realism/historical accuracy are not important, then by all means fiddle with Japanese industrial capacity and air group efficiency.

With a good game editor, both options are available.

[moore4807]

Mogami,
I agree to the cease fire-and to other points... Yes your absolutely right about India-CBI Theatre being too weak for the Allies, but as the game is set up-is it vital to obtain it? Yup my book says so...

Priority 1 - to obtain oil and SECURE supply bases ASAP for shipping back to Home Islands.
Priority 2 - to place emphasis on shipping that IJN historically did'nt -they knew they needed it,but didnt defend it properly.
Priority3 - to make favourable conditions to draw off Allied surplus in battles... Exactly what you said in your post to Warpup- couldnt have said it better myself.
My complaint about PBEM opponents is they "ALWAYS" use India to produce unhistorical aircraft to kick my back door in (see previous post) one favorite Allied trick I've learned is pull out of Clark Field immediately- send planes to HK then China and put Chinese Air Forces on training in backwater China bases til their experience is 75 or better and shuffling in RAF units that historically stayed in CBI fights (not that I'm saying they cant- it just changes the formula for battle). Then the Chinamen come in 8-12 mos later and decimate my IJA air forces to piecemeal attacks that do nothing and bleed me dry (starting to sound familiar?)Now that is reason #1 why I'll take Singapore as it really happened then wheel northward instead of south after PP's are restored. Now Ive isolated the entire area AND India will start making A/C for me if I put enough shipping there... (makes it worthwhile-never mind the VP's) Changes the strategy completely and although unhistorical- its not unsettling to me- I like the choices it makes me consider- thats why I said that in my post.

Why the emphasis on realistic? If this or that changed in real life -everybody scrambled to adapt quickly (ie; Germany bouncing the wingtip to wingtip Brits early in the BoB- Brits quickly adapted to finger 4 formations to stay alive...)So same thought process here if its a fleet or A/C composition or base accquisition that wasnt historical- its ok by me... I'll still brawl VBG

I apologise for getting rammy but being called a RISK player is like being called a little leaguer or worse in my book. I take gaming seriously and will listen to just so much before popping off myself... I do respect your opinion and think your a pretty good informed gamer from your posts... So I'm all calmed down now and hope we can match up soon...
Jim

[moore4807]

Originally posted by Ringbolt:


Uh, you had me until here. The fact is the US was gearing up well before PH and the Japanese knew it.

Not to disagree but Congress had some pretty influential people dedicated to keeping the USA out of the War at all costs (my source for this is Time/Life WWII Series) Frigidare was still making refrigerators, RCA was'nt working on radar sets in 1941, generally speaking America was just getting out from the depression.
While ships were "ordered"- they werent funded by Congress yet so it wasnt a sure thing (until PH). Sikorsky P-35's were the mainline fighters still rolling off assembly lines custom made (no mass production) P-40's were considered hi-tech at the time...

They went in '41 because if they waited it would have been too late. The first person I know of the REALLY identify the Japanese as the next enemy was the USMC's Pete Ellis who wrote a paper on it, and was later killed in 1921 by the Japanese while scouting their islands (Guam I think). He, twenty years before the fact, first put the idea of "island hopping" down on paper LONG before Yamamoto or Nimitz had a clue as to what was going to happen.

No argument here on either point- I have some vague recollection of Ellis (I thought he was one of those non-commissioned Chief "stripe" pilots- I could easily be wrong though)

I do agree with you that if the game allows it then it's OK, yet having said that, the game allows some pretty FAR fetched scenarios as you must admit.

Again no argument- my preference is variety for gameplay...

The only problem I really have with the game is that the Malaya campaign was actually a fairly close run thing and not the "sure" thing it seems in the game. Even with Percy's bumbling moves the IJA had barely enough supplies to get the job done. If any half harted attempt had been made against them they would have been in deep trouble as they hugely underestemated their opponents, which, they paid for dearly at Guadalcanal, the first place where almost any real defence was put against them.

Again tough to find fault with your reasonings. Historically its accurate but IMHO thats the purpose of the game, to play what-ifs? My point is I play by overemphasising the shipping- supply the IJA and IJN properly and its a WHOLE new ball game especially in the beginning.
Japan's poor military planning, poor intelligence and communication and OVERALL thier atrocious management and treatment of conquored lands ensured thier doom -saying that they nearly beat those odds too.
My game is to do non-historical things beginning in PacWar because its the only way to assure myself of having a chance to win- I'll train pilots in the homeland, I'll avoid the usual invasions to get the oil rich Indies and Singapore then use shipping to make them strongpoints praying I can hang on. (I'd avoid China if I could-minimal garrisoning to use troops elsewhere)

Just a thought- If Yamamoto would have participated in the cherry blossom massacres (instead of schooling in the USA) he likely could have been Imperial Staff making the decisions -not taking thier orders...
Then would the war have been differently played out? I'm betting my bottom dollar it would have ended in a peace treaty and Indies likely would be Japanese oilfields now! To have that scenario to play out from the beginning...hmmm just my opinion feel free to disagree.

Think about it
Jim

[Ringbolt]

Jim,

Lt.Col. Earl H. "Pete" Ellis wrote the USMC's part of the "Orange Plan" in 1921. It was called "Operations Plan 712, Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia". He predicted that the Japanese would attack first and that we would have to fight our way back across the Pacific into their waters seizing bases in the Carolines, Marshals and Palaus. He predicted that we would need new "reef crossing" vehicles, special landing craft and fleets of support vessels. To take Eniwetok, one of his objectives in plan 712, he predicted it would take a strongly reinfoced brigade of two regiments, exactly what it ended up needing in 1944.

In 1923, having been granted a years leave of "unspecified foreign travel" personally by the commandant of the Marine Corp, he died mysteriously at the hands of the Japanese while paying a "tourist" visit to Japan's newly aquired Palau Islands. The Japanese still refuse to give any information about what happened to him.


Ringbolt

[moore4807]

Ringbolt,
I didnt know that, thanks! I'll have to look that up...

[mogami]

Hi, I am a Ellis fan too (former Marine) but he did not come up with idea that US would have to fight Japan. He was assigned to study this possibilty when
In 1920, the Office of Naval Intelligence prepared a study concerning the possibility of a transpacific war against Japan, and various agencies within the Navy Department were directed to implement the study with plans of their own.

The Marine Corps contributed to what ultimately became known as the "Orange Plan," and Major (later Lt. Colonel) Earl H. Ellis made a major contribution to that portion of the plan which dealt with advanced base operations. The document he wrote, Operation Plan 712 (Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia), was approved by the Commandant on 23 July 1921.

He was pretty acurate in seeing what/hows/wheres of the war to come. The first American writer I am familiar with who predicted a future war with Japan was Sydney Tyler. In his book 'The Japan-Russia War' Copyright 1905 D.W. Caskey. He stated the industrialzion of Japan and it's militarization would within the next generation provoke a war between Japan and the U.S. quote from page 6 introducing the Japan-Russia War volume "American readers have a more immediate interest in the struggle then the universal love of stories of battle. With Japan victor over Russia, with the great Muscovite Empire deprived of a foothold on the Pacific. Japan and America remain the only Powers there to divide the rich spoils of Oriental commerce. Our possessions, the Phillippines are Japans nearest neightbors, and their proximity to Japan , their bearing on the Asiatic problem open the way for events of more then ordinary importance, if not of seriousness.
Will the United States, one day be called upon to go to war on their behalf?......Will the Mikado come to believe that having humbled and crushed what was Europes mightiest power, he can as readily drive from the Pacific the American Republic?"

While this book was written before the airplane he later points out Japans willingness to go to war by making a suprise attack. And their interest in Torpedoes, and night Naval battles. Lt Col Ellis no doubt had read Mr Tylers books (he also reported on Spanish-American War) Mr Tyler also predicted that Japan would feel betrayed when the US forced the return of Port Arthur to Russia in the peace treaties that ended the 1905 war, and this mistrust would only grow as Japan tried to match the West in modern military/industrial terms.

It was from reading Mr Tylers book in the early 1960's I first became interested in studing the orgins of Japans involvement in WWII.

[ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]

[moore4807]

Mogami,
Quite impressive! since this guy wasnt the one I'm thinking of- maybe you know?
What was the name of the fellow updated all the Pacific sea & air routes for the Navy (mostly to get to Australia & Phillipines) in the mid to late 30's? He flew against Lindburgh across the US in races then, then got brought back by the Navy to do this project (was retired from Navy then learned to fly, if my memory serves me correctly) I cant find the books I need... (wife packed em away again!!) I thought his name was Ellis too. If you dont know never mind- I'll keep looking in the attic
Neat story- sad ending-

Jim