RE: New Pacific Games

[mogami]

Hi, IF you make the US attack PI before the war starts Japan will modify it's strategy to defend the place. If taking the Marianas and bombing Japan is all US has to do then Japan should ignore PI and defend them better. I do not want the war aims already in place before the game even starts. Let it be decided by the players. As Japan in Pac War I never lose to allied AI (I capture the South Pacfic and sink US CV's with land based air. My CV's only do react missions and clobber the poor US when ever and where ever they appear.) The point being if I knew the US HAD!!! to invade PI I would turn it into a fortress long before they got there rather then build the defense of the Marianas. This way the Japanese player has to pay attention to both. There are good reasons for a US player to attack PI without making it hardcoded. Sadly it is true that Japan against all but a complete Allied idiot can not win the war (in reality they will fight as many years as it takes to win) and Japan is under equipped/supplied to fight. Their infantry weapons were a joke, their aircraft obsolete within the first 18 months and their Navy could not keep up with allied building. The whole reason for being Japan in any game is to try to force a victory in the first 2 years before these factors can come into play. While this is nearly impossible (reality) the Japanese player is resigned there after to putting up the most costly defense he can in the hope the game (not war) will end before he surrenders. The capture of PI would under any set of rules aid an allied victory. I want both players to have to guard every thing they own all the time because they do not know in advance what the other player might be considering. As far as Doolittle raid's are concerned personally I would not hazzard the CV's they way the US did historically and any allied player thinking to try it with me had better be prepared to kiss them goodbye.

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by Major Tom:
Personally I would like for there to be a certain bit of politics. Why else would you as the British want to reinforce Singapore? Why would you attack the Philippines instead of just going for Formosa? What would be the purpose of a Doolittle Raid? The IJA and IJN working in harmony? At least make politics an option.

2 cents: I agree with Major Tom. In my current game the Japanese AI has conquered Hawaii and Xmas Is., but then lost his carriers and is now unable to exploit his successes. I use these enemy bases to give my LBA and carriers some target practise. But I'm pretty sure, if this had happened historically, not only military but also political consideration would have dictated that the US liberated at least Hawaii. You can't leave parts of your home country in the hands of the enemy, can you? This happened in the Aleutians, the US using considerable resources to liberate Kiska and Attu, although these bases were of absolute no value for the Japanese and didn't pose a threat to the security of North America (weather, logistics). The decision to retake those islands was governed by politics and public opinion.

Concerning TF size, it should be linked to port sizes. It is highly unrealistic to form a convoy of 200 MCS and send them to a size 1 port, where they all (un-)load within a week despite nonexisting cargo handling facilities. Also, don't allow shuffling AP and MCS back and forth over the entire Pacific using the ship pool. If you want ships from Australia back in SF, you'll have to send them back in a TF. Ship pools should be restricted to individual ports.



------------------
If your attack is going really well, you're walking into an ambush.

[grumbler]

On task force sizes:

It really has to do with both span of control and physical space occupied. Large task forces cannot communicate UHF or signal, because these are line of sight. Yopu are forced to either break radio silence or else relay messages (which is both slow and introduces error). Soon, it became obvious to everyone that it was better to have linked Task Groups (which the Japanese also emplyed at Midway) rather than a single task force under a single admiral when dealing with large forces.

One could try to code all the possibilities of effects of large size (increased chances of collisions as ships receive word of c/s changes at different times), the lack of effective central control of AA defenses as many defending units are out of sight of the central control authority, longer times to change course into the wind as course changes have to be signalled far longer in advance (meaning fewer strikes per carrier from such a force), etc. However, such programming is very hard. I think a reasonable limit on the size of the force commanded and controlled by a single authority is reasonable and much easier to program for.

On politics:

Yep, that would be neat. Especially if one gets political credit for a valient try that fails militarily (like Wake Is) and gets hammered for not responding to silly politics (like the reinforcement of Singapore in the wake of Australian complaints).

Perhaps, for the Allies, political success could influence the portion of the war effort sent their way, while for the Japanese it would represent the increased dominance of one service over the other, forcing more coordination from the weaker service. Tojo is reported to have rejoiced when the IJN lost four CVs at Midway, because that gave the army more control over what happened next (Tojo had opposed the Midway op).

Doug

[mogami]

Hi, How about a system where each side in secret and before start of game assigns 100 political points to bases (both yours and theirs) Then without other player knowing it the computer gives back so many political points per turn based on how well you are meeting your own critira and you use them for future ops. My point with politics is both sides know the other sides problems/concerns before the game even begins and can make plans based on them. If the Jap takes Pearl Harbour there is no question about US retaking it, they have to even to stay in the Pacific but what about the IJN taking Canton? there is no reason US would allow it but it's priorty should be up to the player. If I dump Mac you are still going to stick me with his baggage? Nimitz did not have the desire for PI Mac did. The US did not go back for any reason other then him (though they might have without him under different circumstances (I don't see going to Formosa without at least part of PI being under my control) I guess you can not escape politics but what about a method of making your problems secret (to a degree) from the enemy. Did the US use the friction between IJN and IJA in their stratagy and planning?

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited January 08, 2001).]

[Major Tom]

I think in a way the US did exploit the IJA and IJN friction. Attacking both in New Guinea and the Solomans at EXACTLY the same time was not mere conicidence. New Guinea was under IJA juristiction with the Solomans in control of the IJN. Troops and ships were repeatedly being stolen from one command or the other to support their causes. Inevitably, they were unable to quickly reinforce either of their fronts which resulted in total defeat.

Certain bits of politics should be included, as, they are just obvious (ie. holding Singapore). Going back to the Philippines was a very obvious issue as well. The IJA and IJN knew that it was the next step (seeing that it was massively reinforced). Leaving the Philippines to the Japanese would be paramount to leaving the Alamo to the Mexicans. So much propaganda like "remember Bataan" was floating around that if people heard of the invasion of Formosa, and bothered to look at a map, they would wonder why they aren't liberating the Philippines. It wasn't JUST MacArthur.

[mogami]

Hi, not once in the hundreds of games I have played as allies have I not retaken PI. (bombers in Clark reach Japan) But I don't do it for politics I do it to cover the flank of the Central Pacific island hopping. In all these games I have never invaded Formosa. Attacking in New Guina while attacking Solomons is also something I always do for pretty much the same reason. As allies I attack as many places at the same time as I can to overload the Japs defensive resources. These things I would do regardless of in game measures. My point is if you make them a requirement above and beyond any other consideration you are dictating stratagy to both sides before the game ever starts. Because of this you would force the war to follow it's historical path and we would merely be replaying what happened instead of having a whole new war. Now I realize that the pacific war was really just about airbases. Each side in order to advance or defend has to control a certain number/size airbase. When one side wishes to go into a new region the first consideration is where these are/can be built. As a result the options are finite By requiring certain places to be captured/defended you make it very easy to allot resources, just put them where the game designers said to. Allied stratagy does not interest me as much as Japans. The allies just advance in Central/South/Southwest Pacific. The difficult side stratagy wise is Japans. You could require allies to capture everything that was not Japan's prewar and they could do it given time. Heres something I always wish I could do, once the allied military is out of PI I would grant it independence and remove all the Japanese forces from there. Resource wise they would have to trade with me since no one else could get there. Hows that for a political option for Japan?

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!



[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited January 09, 2001).]

[Major Tom]

One historical possibility actually considered by MacArthur and many other US politicians was to grant the Philippines FULL independence if war with Japan was imanent. Since they knew that they couldn't defend it, they figured that if the US was out of there, the Philippines wouldn't be a threat to Japan, thereby not invaded. However, Japan went into Thailand, which was neutral in order to gain access to British held Burma, and I am pretty sure that the Philippines might have been invaded to secure Japan's centre.

Interesting idea, about a Japanese sponsored Philippine indepenence. Might give the US no option to invade, as, who are they liberating?

[grumbler]

I am not in favor of the player dictating political values of various objectives. Other games cover the grand strategy of WWII. As a military commander, the player is responsible for carrying out political policy, not making it.

Politics for Japan are difficult because, simply by making the player the commander of both the IJN and IJA one has invalidated the entire basis for Japanese politics in the period! The only way I can see for Japanese politics to work in a game would be the player choose to be either the IJN or IJA, and I don't see many people going for that!

The Japanese DID, of course, create an "independent" Phillipines under their control. It was a meaningless puppet, and everyone knew it.

The Japanese could not afford to allow the PI true independence. If the US went back into the PI, Japan's crucial access to oil in the DEI (the entire reason for going to war to begin with) would be cut by American air power.

Had the US granted the PI independence when war was imminent, Japan would have attacked the PI and NOT Pearl. After all, the PH attack was launched to prevent the US from interfering in the invasion of the PI, not the reverse (attack the PI because they are at war with the US). Japan would have loved nothing better than to be able to advance on the DEI oil without US interference.

Imagine Roosevelt trying to rally the country with a PH to call upon. It would be much slower and less certain. When would the US declare war on Japan in defense of the European Empires in Asia? January '42? Feb? March?

Prewar independence for the PI would have been a disaster for the US and the allied cause.

Doug

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by grumbler:
I am not in favor of the player dictating political values of various objectives. Other games cover the grand strategy of WWII. As a military commander, the player is responsible for carrying out political policy, not making it.

Why is WitP not going to be one of those "grand strategy" games you mentioned? It will cover 100% of the Pacific Theatre, so politics in the form of what-if options sounds very reasonable.

Politics for Japan are difficult because, simply by making the player the commander of both the IJN and IJA one has invalidated the entire basis for Japanese politics in the period! The only way I can see for Japanese politics to work in a game would be the player choose to be either the IJN or IJA, and I don't see many people going for that!

I would, if the restrictions are truly based on historical realities.

Prewar independence for the PI would have been a disaster for the US and the allied cause.

Therefore its unlikely to have occurred because everyone sees the disaster that would follow. I'm sure an independent PI would desperately want a military relationship with the US to counter the Japanese threat, which was obvious to everybody. Either way, we would have become involved in the war, whether the Japanese attacked us directly or not.

I still fail to see why these what-if scenarios, presented as *options*, are so disagreeable. If you don't like it, then never play the game with that option on.

[Major Tom]

Just like historical production is an option, the addition of politics will be an option as well.

Most of the 'complaints' about Pacific War in the Pacific War List for the past 4+ years was the lack of representation of politics. People found 'unrealistic' stratagies that would work much better than the historic ones, as, playing Pacific War one isn't restrained on defending or attacking a single base.

Many people were totally adamant that evacuating a single unit from Singapore/Malaya was very unrealistic. Sending the RN en-masse into the US controlled Pacific, while leaving Ceylon and India wide open was also seen as a no-no.

Politics are slightly included in Pacific War. Limits on the deployment of Australian Militia, and Japanese forces in China are present. All that most people want for WitP is to better represent OTHER handicapps, or advantages that Politics may offer.

Even with the inclusion of politics, it isn't like every game MUST follow a certain pattern, of defend Singapore to the death, invade Philippines at soonest possible time, etc... Holding Singapore longer, or Liberating the Philippines should just add to the chance of the Allies winning sooner, or, to gain some sort of other benefit (ie. more people volunteer for war, therefore more squads and pilots are available). you should be able to decide to skip these missions EVEN IF you select the decision to use politics. After all, you are the military commander.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited January 09, 2001).]

[moore4807]

Regarding the posts (especially Major Tom's)about politics in the game. I view this as an essential part of WWII.
That is why I proposed in another post that the computer randomly select "political events" to affect the operational directives during the war. This along with points allotment by the "events" to player goals will entice the war efforts of the player to follow the politics agenda as it was in real life- by meeting the goals it will allow the player to draw from civilian economic, staffing, and research/development supplies.
I liked the idea of pre-war manuevering, and think if it could be an option (you make recommendations to Chiefs of Staff and they come back with Cabinets decision for 3 mos Ops Plan and budget)also Ops intelligence can be used to sway for budget, (ie; Japanese buildup of capital ships= more US shipbuilding or British Army buildup of Asia = less US aid needed in the area). How the budget is divided Army vs. Navy and how much each command gets would be very important in pre war strategy.
Also this would infinitely change the start of each war as say the Japanese player sees US buildup at PI he may choose to solely attack China/Burma/India more heavily and keep the US out of the war longer. If he then concentrates on making economic policy improvements he could then realistically end the war by agreeing to a truce and consolidating the Southeast Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere to his advantage. Japanese win- British lose East Asia -US never gets involved in two front war. (wargamer would hate fighting this way-BUT it is a real option in politics style war)
By the way- any thought on breaking down command by country (Japanese, US, British, Australian, Dutch...) and AI auto-control the remaining Allies (WITH fog-of-war of course) so inter service rivalries can be replicated in the game.
Just some thoughts,
Jim

[grumbler]

I like very much the idea of politics in the game. I just like the style that Jim proposed (where politics is imposed by the system on the player) rather than the style Mogami proposes (where the players determine the politics). Things like forcing the player to employ a suboptimal commander because of his connections, or being forced to reinforce Singapore if one ever hopes to get access to any Anzac units, would be cool. These are the sorts of decisions national command authorities handed to the theater CinCs all the time.

On the other hand, I like my role in the game to be more specified than the grand strategic model proposes. I do NOT change factory production, for instance, because such decisions were not in the hands of a single CinC but were the result of balancing global interests over the CinCs paygrade. I think it owuld be interesting, and not wholly unrealistic (at least from the Japoanese player's viewpoint) to bid for resources prewar based on promises of success, and have to back up those promises or lose (whatever, prestige points, maybe?) The objective of the game using a political option might be to accumulate a reputation that would survive even military defeat (a la Rommel). This would give a Japanese player incentive to play on even when the situation has turned against him.

In any case, I favor politics, but want them to be as realistic in terms of player/role impact as the military simulation, not just a tacked-on bit of chrome.

Doug

[Major Tom]

I see politics as a way to change the game from a strictly inhuman process to almost one with a story line. Given full freedom to do everything is fun, but, it is even more fun for some people to try and accomplish something with both of their hands tied behind their backs. Politics will help guide the military process, just like it did in history. It isn't there to force every strategy, as, most battles and engagements took place without any political purpose (Solomans, New Guinea, Marshall and Marianas Islands, etc...). It is up to the player how they shall accomplish these goals set out politically and/or economically.

A brilliant game can keep two PBEM players interested in playing until the very last turn. The addition of politics can add a lot of flavour and 'outs' for a losing player (ie. the Japanese knew that the US were going for the Philippines, and thereby saw it as their best chance for a prepared destruction of their armed forces). Without politics, the Japanese player will only be sure that the Solomans, Marianas and then the Home Islands will be attacked.

Changing goals is interesting. Letting the Human player determine it could result in a lot of 'gamey' things happening (ie. if you set your enemies VP's, then they would be invariably in the hardest to take areas, and if you set your frieldy VP's, then they would undoubtedly be in the easiest to take areas).

Politics should not always hurt, it should help. If you achieve a political goal you should not just avert a negative (ie. unrest back home) but gain a positive (ie. better/more units released from other threatres or production sped up a bit though enthusiasm).

[mogami]

Hi, It is a true fact of life that no commander is ever free from outside ("polictical") pressure. This being so it really (to my chargrin) has to be represented. When I proposed that the player set goals prior to the game start, I meant they submitt their plans to their own higher authority (these plans must meet the basic victory requirements for that side) Then during the course of the game they recieve or lose "political points" based on performance (if you are doing well you get to change direction a little if poorly higher command starts interfering more). I do not think a player should choose his opponenents victory conditions (but by choosing some of your own you will of course effect his). The root reason for my system is every player has their own style and play prefrence. (some like defensive Japan others a much more aggressive Japan) If the aggressive Japan player suffers a major defeat he is more likely to lose the support of the higher command then a defensive player who loses a hard fought battle.
An example of what I mean would be as Japan prior to start of game I submitt plan where my goal is to score 500 victory points in South Pacific by May 1942. As well as securing Southern Resource Area. If in May of 42 I had done so I would receive political points I could spend for units for further operations but If I had failed I would suffer a political penalty restricting me. (For players who like interservice/commander friction you could have commputer award PAP's to a rival commander/theatre which would force the player into taking actions they may or may not want to). The biggist single objection I have against politics is both players have 20/20 hindsight and know what they are and the game effects before they begin. It is like requiring the IJN to attack Midway in June of 42 in that there are no surprises. If it can be generated randomly/secretly I think it could be fun and interesting. And I whole heartly would support a system that rewarded/punished players for success/failure
even up to where the game could end with the player being fired/relieived!!!


------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!