Pacific Theatre

[ncc1701e]

Any Pacific teaser to show?

Thanks

[AlvaroSousa]

Working on opening scripts. It is much harder than Europe.

[ncc1701e]

Do you intend to include admirals in addition to the generals?

Thanks

[AlvaroSousa]

I was not intending too. If I did they would have these factors

Carrier Operations
Surface Combat
Aggression which is Tenacity for ships but only on the aggression side.

Like all Japanese admirals would have low Aggression except for Tanaka who would be a beast. I'll see maybe if things go smoothly.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

I was not intending too. If I did they would have these factors

Carrier Operations
Surface Combat
Aggression which is Tenacity for ships but only on the aggression side.

Like all Japanese admirals would have low Aggression except for Tanaka who would be a beast. I'll see maybe if things go smoothly.

[ncc1701e]

Oh no, Tanaka is here. [X(]

[morphin]

Any progress? i will buy Warplan as soon as pacific theatre is released[:D]

[AlvaroSousa]

A.I. is far more difficult than expected. Not as tedious but way more complex.

[morphin]

So your first plan was later this summer. I suppose it will be next year maybe but i fear (but i hope not) that this great Project could be death?

[kennonlightfoot]

Don't waste much time on AI. It's going to be lousy no matter what you do. [:-]

[AlvaroSousa]

Sorry Ken. I have to make it at least slightly annoying to the Human player.

I can't NOT make a crappy A.I. I have to do my best.

[ncc1701e]

If the AI is smart, it must destroy the oil stock of Pearl Harbor to immobilize the Pacific fleet.

[magic87966]

Re: The Pearl Harbor Oil Tanks.

I don't know how this would be done within the game system, but I would hope there is some sort of provision for the Japanese forces to bomb oil, drydocks and infrastructure at Pearl.

As we know, unless the US refused to fight back, this war was lost by Japan the moment they conceived of the idea to take on the United States. Allowing the AI or Japanese player some options to target the US logistics system (including their small supply of fleet oilers) would open up many more possibilities for a Pacific based wargame.

Here is a link to a brief article that describes the trouble with the US logistics system in the Pacific at the start of the war. Oil Logistics in the Pacific War. In this article, Admiral Nimitz is quoted as saying “Had the Japanese destroyed the oil, it would have prolonged the war another two years.” Additionally, with no working drydock at Pearl, the Yorktown isn't present at the battle of Midway.

I have read extensively on the Pacific war and I can't think of any other decision the Japanese made early in the war that had a greater impact on the course of the rest of the war. There must be some way to add this possibility to the game.

[AlvaroSousa]

While accurate this is still a corps level game. There are somethings that can't be reproduced without really complicating things.

For example allowing strategic bombing of specific targeted industries.
At one point the USAAF was targeting the energy grid in Germany as they leveled cities. If they pushed a little further they would have shut down the entire German economy blowing up enough power stations. Can't put that in a game. It's too problematic and an absolute decision.

It can be simulated by not giving the USA much oil and having no supply oilers though.

[magic87966]

I agree completely with your statement and I am definitely not a game designer so I'm speaking from ignorance. But the facilities at Pearl were so unique to the theater of operations. I can't think of a single target in Warplan that can be attacked in ONE turn that equals it's importance. It was the only target of such huge value that was within the capabilities of the IJN to attack.*


Would something like this be possible?

(And the current game mechanics already support the attacker's choice of bombing targets.) Because of it's uniqueness to the entire logistics lifeline of the USN in the Pacific, if the IJN decides to attack Pearl**, with 2 operation points they can target the fleet, air, ground or strategic targets. It's up to the IJN player to decide his targets. An attack on the strategic targets ought to have a chance (what percent I have no idea) to deal a significant blow to USN oil and/or repair abilities. Maybe there's a chance the US oil reserves get cut by a hefty percent. Maybe there's a chance Pearl goes from a "9" harbor to a "3" for a period of time.*** The point is, due to the distances and logistical situation this was a target unlike any other in the PTO as far as the US is concerned. I would think there could be "special rules" just for Pearl. The variability of the outcomes of a Pearl Harbor attack could add many different layers to the game as a whole.


Just my 2 cents and thank you for your dialogue on this forum. You want to create a great game and it shows.



*Excepting the USN CV's of course and I'm curious to know if you'll be having any basing requirements for the USN at Pearl prior to US entry. If there's not even a tiny chance of the IJN catching the CV's at Pearl and you can't deal a significant blow to the oil and repair facilities, why even attack? USN BB's aren't worth it. As the IJN, I would welcome those old battle wagons in the Western Pacific early in the war. War Plan Orange was doomed to fail, IMHO. I understand that unlike SC, this is not an "event" driven game but the surprise attack at Pearl was also unique to WW2. The "surprise" attacks of Taranto, Mers El Kebir, Barbarossa and the Battle of the Bulge can all be replicated in the game. Any number of Dieppe-type raids can be replicated in the game. But due to the distances involved and Warplan's FOW system, the surprise of Pearl can't be replicated and it's outcome could have potentially added 2 years to the war (Nimitz) and fundamentally changed the way the USN prosecuted the early part of the Pacific war. I for one would find it fascinating as the US player to have to start the war operating from San Diego and Bremerton.

Ultimately, my argument comes down to at least a scenario option (similar to Warplan Italian option?) that would have basing requirements and the chance for severe Oil and infrastructure damage if a Pearl Harbor raid is successfully (and luckily?) carried out by the Japanese player. And for those that say the player shouldn't have to re-create the stupidity of the decisions made in WW2 ("I don't have to behave like the French Generals, etc..."), basing the USN CV's at Pearl wasn't stupid. It was routine. The IJN just got unlucky. Change that one outcome and you allow the game strategies for Warplan Pacific to be even more varied than previously thought. And for those that might argue that Warplan Pacific starts at Pearl Harbor (assuming the IJN player gets a choice and how you've set up the game) just like Warplan starts in Poland - "it's just the beginning and get on with it": Poland will fall and fall quickly. It's a fact. Unless the Axis player is incompetent, nothing that happens in Poland will so fundamentally change the rest of the war as compared to the variability of the results of the Pearl Harbor attack. Hence the thrill of the unpredictability. IMHO, the argument for CV or Oil or Infrastructure damage at Pearl isn't an argument for an unbelievable or impossible result. It was a very real (and likely) outcome if Admiral Nagumo hadn't been so short sighted (or unlucky in the case of the CV's). It would fun to let the IJN player not make the same mistake.


**I'm also curious as to how the game will handle the actual bombing raid at Pearl if the IJN player decides to do it. Under the current system (if unchanged), as the IJN I sail all the way to Pearl. The USN will see me coming (yes, they won't know my fleet composition and it could be a feint). I can't bomb a neutral country without a DOW. So I DOW the US and launch a 6 CV strike at Pearl Harbor against a low reconnaissance hex. With 2 operations points I get "Fleet not found" twice (this happens in Warplan all the time even against ships in port). Now what? I can't take my DOW back. As the IJN player, the entire war just changed (which is not a bad thing as I've been arguing but it is a nearly impossible result if the attack was launched in clear weather, but an all too likely possibility in the game). On a "Fleet not found" result, there is no battle report. Could a system be put in place where that outcome cancels a DOW? It seems crazy but under the current system, I could see this happening.


***All major wars are wars of logistics. The Pacific war demonstrated this more than any other. In Warplan, port strengths are fixed entities. The US's ability to move into the central and western Pacific (and stay there) was impossible without their ability to improve port facilities as they moved west. Could this be modeled in any way? Could the US (or IJN for that matter) capture an island and improve it's port facilities over time? Supply in Warplan primarily ruins over rail. In Warplan Pacific, it's port to port. The ability to improve/attack/degrade port facilities would open up interesting possibilities.

[magic87966]

The maps look great!

[AlvaroSousa]

The game starts in 1941 with the Japanese Fleet outside of Pearl Harbor. The player just needs to right click on Pearl Harbor to attack. There is an additional map option that gives maximum spotting value for Pearl Harbor. As for the mulberries I have thought about this already. I have been thinking about how to do this what's up breaking the game

[magic87966]

If the game starts that way, as the IJN player can I forego the attack on Pearl Harbor and go CV hunting? At dawn on 12/7/41, the Enterprise was 215 miles west of Oahu, the Lexington was 500 miles southeast of Midway and the Saratoga was en route to NAS San Diego. Depending on the map, at least 2 of the task forces should be visible. If I use one operation point to bomb Pearl Harbor and the combat results show no CV's in port, can I sail away for bigger game? It would be a shame to have to repeat the same mistake as Nagumo made. Give the IJN a chance! And if you say "the game has to start somewhere/sometime" (it's your game!), just think of the possibilities if the game started, not in 1939 like SC but simply on December 6, 1941? That one day could make a huge difference!

[AlvaroSousa]

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.

[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.

Still think the AI in these type games is only useful for learning the interface before you take on a player. The only times the AI in war games works is when it handles most of the work for both sides like in the Scourge of War series. Then it can be equally stupid. The customer base is to small to put the kind of work into an AI that would produce an AI opponent like Chess games have. Of course it would ruin these games for players if you had to dumb down the AI to keep it from beating the c*** out of you like it can in Chess. [:)]

Victory in the game I assume will be relative to actual. Whether you can do better or worse than Historical. Since the atomic bomb kind of ends the war. Hopefully the A-Bomb is handled as an event that ends the war on a certain date like August 14th, 1945 just like Germany one ends rather than part of production system.