All,
My worry is that it becomes too ahistorical. Deviations I expect, but the French Navy's Dunkerque and Strasbourg I do not <g>.
Why don't we come up with two lists (one Allied, on Japanese) of things that would make an impact on the war if they had been done diferently. Things like "doctrine shift from battleships to carriers", or ""relaxed policy for minor infractions in IJN flight corps training."
Maybe out of them we can define what would be important to include and what would not be?
Production options
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Backwards looking
Hi, Most of know enough history to know things that could/should/might have been changed. We know it because the people in the period we talk about (any period will apply) learned it the hard way. I don't want a "Empire" game with ship design and weapons research (others may and that is their choice) In short I want no 20/20 hindsight (impossible to remove since of course having said this I will try to avoid Midway as Japan
and select TF for night fighting in Solomons etc etc).
Basiclly we have to allow Operational hindsight. (its the reason for the game) But when we want to also be able to change national culture (and Have Japanese Army and Navy work hand in hand) And the foresight to build CV's (when most Navy planners were gunners) And some of the other things I think we don't need a game on WW2 in the Pacific but a giant Diplomacy/Empire/Civ II mutant.
and select TF for night fighting in Solomons etc etc).
Basiclly we have to allow Operational hindsight. (its the reason for the game) But when we want to also be able to change national culture (and Have Japanese Army and Navy work hand in hand) And the foresight to build CV's (when most Navy planners were gunners) And some of the other things I think we don't need a game on WW2 in the Pacific but a giant Diplomacy/Empire/Civ II mutant.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Obviously, if the players are able to choose and change things that do not follow history the results could be very different.It won't be realistic, I know, but if the same conditions repeated, it is very difficult to change the fate of Japanese.They were outpowered and the result was logical.Givem that fact why not to give players freedom to choose?
At first you can think having a lot of freedom would make a fantasy game.Perhaps, but if you know which possibilities you will have, for example build carriers or battleships (which had already been designed), and choose between them, you can react to events that in the past could be different from the ones that happen in the game.If the other player changes the tactics historically used, perhaps the other would change his production plans.It seems quite logical to me.In a game where the fight longs a lot of years, historical events would not be possible.If you play specific scenarios, this freedom does not make sense because of the time scale involved, but in a Campaign covering all the length of the war it is essential.
Having money to divide between plane production, ship production, troop mobilization(which would decrease economic expansion), economic expansion (leading to a future increase in production instead of immediate building of weapons) or speed up historical technology advances.Combining this with availability of resources which enable economic expansion and production, you could plan a global strategy.
At first you can think having a lot of freedom would make a fantasy game.Perhaps, but if you know which possibilities you will have, for example build carriers or battleships (which had already been designed), and choose between them, you can react to events that in the past could be different from the ones that happen in the game.If the other player changes the tactics historically used, perhaps the other would change his production plans.It seems quite logical to me.In a game where the fight longs a lot of years, historical events would not be possible.If you play specific scenarios, this freedom does not make sense because of the time scale involved, but in a Campaign covering all the length of the war it is essential.
Having money to divide between plane production, ship production, troop mobilization(which would decrease economic expansion), economic expansion (leading to a future increase in production instead of immediate building of weapons) or speed up historical technology advances.Combining this with availability of resources which enable economic expansion and production, you could plan a global strategy.
Re: Backwards looking
An optional new Japanese "CV first doctrine" would only cause a slight change of the Japanese OOB in 1941 (replacement of Yamato/Musahi by 2-3 new CV + corresponding air squads) - Not at all a Diplomacy/Empire/Civ II mutantOriginally posted by Mogami
Hi, Most of know enough history to know things that could/should/might have been changed. We know it because the people in the period we talk about (any period will apply) learned it the hard way. I don't want a "Empire" game with ship design and weapons research (others may and that is their choice) In short I want no 20/20 hindsight (impossible to remove since of course having said this I will try to avoid Midway as Japan
and select TF for night fighting in Solomons etc etc).
Basiclly we have to allow Operational hindsight. (its the reason for the game) But when we want to also be able to change national culture (and Have Japanese Army and Navy work hand in hand) And the foresight to build CV's (when most Navy planners were gunners) And some of the other things I think we don't need a game on WW2 in the Pacific but a giant Diplomacy/Empire/Civ II mutant.
In a way, it is the way chosen by Rich in the scenario 19 in UV with better unhistorical Japanese pilots training
Such unhistorical scenarios would increase the WITP appeal outside of the PacWar grog community because so many people are interested by "what if" ... and we need Matrix to sell as many WITP copies as possible !
Otherwise, what would be very helpful is a very robust scenario editor with as few things hardcoded as possible.
BTW, your mutant WWII game already has a name : Hearts of Iron (HOI).
Spooky
Spooky, I agree with you.
What I see is that the Japanese player will have all the fun at start, and changing things like that will lengthen a bit the period in which the Japanese can remain in the offensive.
But let's face it, American industrial output will overwheelm Japan in the end. The only question remaining is how tenaciosly can Japan hold on to its early gains?
Most of the variants I can think of could be devised as scenarios, not necessarily hard-coded, but I really think the what-ifs are what will give the game 2 things: appeal to additional potential buyers and replayability value.
Just my 2 cents.
What I see is that the Japanese player will have all the fun at start, and changing things like that will lengthen a bit the period in which the Japanese can remain in the offensive.
But let's face it, American industrial output will overwheelm Japan in the end. The only question remaining is how tenaciosly can Japan hold on to its early gains?
Most of the variants I can think of could be devised as scenarios, not necessarily hard-coded, but I really think the what-ifs are what will give the game 2 things: appeal to additional potential buyers and replayability value.
Just my 2 cents.
Tenno Heika Banzai!
The biggest problem with historical ship production is you need the historical operational outcomes to justify it. The US sinking 4 Japanese fleet carriers at Midway was just luck but it effected the outcome of the war and the future ship production from that point onward. I would think that if only 1 Japanese fleet carrier were sunk the US would not have cancelled as many ship orders that they did or been able to scrap those ships in production because the war would have lasted longer. The ship production programs need to reflect the operational losses and battle outcomes of the actual game not what happened historically. If the game follows the historical timeline then the ship production programs should be historical but if there is any deviation then ship production programs should be flexible enough to allow for this.
Svar
Svar
The sinking of 4 IJN CVs at Midway was a little bit of luck and a lot of deliberately planning on the part of the USN. And the loss of 4 IJN CVs did not change planning for CVs under construction. The build program anticiapted the need for lots of fleet carriers because you need lots of CVs if you're to have a prayer operating near airbases operated by your enemy.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Production
You know, these are some pretty good ideas! Perhaps we can convince the Matrix staff to make the production options flexible and interesting. 
Bottom line: I think we should make the game should have flexible production options. I'm sure once the game is finished, we would be able to look back on to all our posts and be proud of the finished product.
Bottom line: I think we should make the game should have flexible production options. I'm sure once the game is finished, we would be able to look back on to all our posts and be proud of the finished product. 
The most basic reason for production control.
If the game allows for the negation of the IJN submarine ops doctrine - we will need to have production control quickly because anyone playing the USN side will need to start popping out DE's and other ASW types like hot rolls. Just a simple change like that would necessitate some degree of change in production in order to respond to an ahistorical threat. Question: How much longer would the war in the Pacific have lasted if the IJN had adopted KM sub tactics and instituted unrestricted submarine warfare? Hmmm. Long lance (for want of a better moniker) vs. liberty ship. Goodbye supply load. Enough of these and things get very dicey for a long time.
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Even if the production variables are not included I was wondering about plane types. How many will there be? There were numeroud plane types being developed in 1944 and 1945 that I would love to see come into play in long scenarios. The A7M Sam was a GREAT design that matched the performance of the best US fighters. Also, how about the J7W, that pusher propellor fighter that was developed but never came into service. The Japanese were also developing several four engine bombers and I even think a six engine bomber. What's the potential on these? Then on the US side there are the F7F and F8F and the AM-1 Mauler (a replacement for the Avenger, but single seat in the idea of the Skyraider) was ready at the start of 1946.
Then there are ship types. The Kentucky and Illinois (Iowas), the Midway CV's, additional Alaska BC's, and even Montana BB's should be available by 1946.
Then there are ship types. The Kentucky and Illinois (Iowas), the Midway CV's, additional Alaska BC's, and even Montana BB's should be available by 1946.
SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)
I would agree with everything you said with the exception of the Montana class BBs. While the Iowas and Alaskas could keep up with the carrier task forces the Montannas would only have been able to do 28 knots and the age of the battleship was really over. The Montanas were all cancelled in 7/12/43 without ever laying a keel. The Kentucky and Illinois were scrapped incomplete along with the Hawaii after the war.Originally posted by showboat1
Even if the production variables are not included I was wondering about plane types. How many will there be? There were numeroud plane types being developed in 1944 and 1945 that I would love to see come into play in long scenarios. The A7M Sam was a GREAT design that matched the performance of the best US fighters. Also, how about the J7W, that pusher propellor fighter that was developed but never came into service. The Japanese were also developing several four engine bombers and I even think a six engine bomber. What's the potential on these? Then on the US side there are the F7F and F8F and the AM-1 Mauler (a replacement for the Avenger, but single seat in the idea of the Skyraider) was ready at the start of 1946.
Then there are ship types. The Kentucky and Illinois (Iowas), the Midway CV's, additional Alaska BC's, and even Montana BB's should be available by 1946.
As far as speed considerations go the North Carolinas and South Dakotas were also only capable of 28 knots and they were more than adequate. Carrier task forces didn't travel with the throttles wide open. The Montana class could hae been laid down and finished. It was really just a matter of priorities. With the IJN less of a threat they weren't considered necessary. While we're on the subjct of alternate types, will the RN's Vanguard battleship class be included?
SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)
"Question: How much longer would the war in the Pacific have lasted if the IJN had adopted KM sub tactics and instituted unrestricted submarine warfare?"
Not much longer. The problem with WW2 submarines is that they had to come up for air. For the shallow-depth, slow-diving IJN boats, the nemesis would have been airpower. The USN deployed several auxiliary carriers by September 1942, so forming H-K attack groups or providing really good, *dedicated* asw support would not have been that challenging. You'd see fewer unescorted ships crawling across the Pacific, but the US had the resources available to provide proper escort by the time the G'canal campaign started. And by then, convoying vessels was common practice.
Of course, if you're gonna give the IJN "altered" sub doctrine it, in effect, means that they've thrown away the "Decisive Battle Doctrine" in favor of siege warfare. The price for changing IJN sub doctrine should be the significant retardation of delivery of CVs and IJN naval aviation in favor of army aviation, container ships for the co-exploitation sphere, substantial reductions in IJN doctrinal aggressiveness, and smaller budgets for naval R&D and training. It may even mean giving up the Long Lance, since the expenditures might easily have been granted to an army weapon system... like a tank that worked, for example.
Not much longer. The problem with WW2 submarines is that they had to come up for air. For the shallow-depth, slow-diving IJN boats, the nemesis would have been airpower. The USN deployed several auxiliary carriers by September 1942, so forming H-K attack groups or providing really good, *dedicated* asw support would not have been that challenging. You'd see fewer unescorted ships crawling across the Pacific, but the US had the resources available to provide proper escort by the time the G'canal campaign started. And by then, convoying vessels was common practice.
Of course, if you're gonna give the IJN "altered" sub doctrine it, in effect, means that they've thrown away the "Decisive Battle Doctrine" in favor of siege warfare. The price for changing IJN sub doctrine should be the significant retardation of delivery of CVs and IJN naval aviation in favor of army aviation, container ships for the co-exploitation sphere, substantial reductions in IJN doctrinal aggressiveness, and smaller budgets for naval R&D and training. It may even mean giving up the Long Lance, since the expenditures might easily have been granted to an army weapon system... like a tank that worked, for example.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I think people are getting confused here.
This is a war game, not an empire building game.
War games have you fight during an historical era, using what commanders then used. It places you in command of the military forces of the nation, and you must do your best to fight with what you are given.
What is being asked here is to expand the game from a war game, to an empire game, where you control the military, but industry and government as well. Historically there was no single individual who had this power, say except an extreme version of Hitler.
The way I would like to see production is to fit more or less what history did, produce what is needed. When the IJN lost a bunch of CV's at Midway, the industry automatically compensated by planning the construction of the Unryu and Shiano CV. Had the Japanese not lost their CV's all at once, they probably would have completed the Shiano as a BB.
I would like to see a War in the Pacific where the production does change, but is not up to the whim of the player, it adds too much control to the process of the game, relying particularly on hindsight. Production should change in regards to the course of the war.
The thing that I know of that COULD be under the control of the player is accepting and refusing proposals of the industrial community. What miltaries did was to place an order to meet a requirement (i.e., the IJAAF requirement for an inline interceptor eventually resulted in the Ki-61). Originally, in the Ki-61 saga, the Ki-60 was given priority, and eventually cancelled by the military and had the Ki-61 instead. What this did was to slow down the introduction of a high speed interceptor for 6 critical months. Now, what I believe the extent of player manipulation would be for accepting and declining projects, and putting input toward requirements. Actually designing 'the perfect aircraft' was impossible. However, it could be a gamble. You put your resources toward the Ki-60 over the Ki-61, and you end up with a poor aircraft (while putting cash toward the Ki-61 instead of the Ki-60 would result in a good aircraft appearing early, or possibly even accepting the Ki-60 for production would result in an aircraft reaching production sooner, but be not quite as good had you waited). However, this also might be too much control.
Even Pacific War offered the player way too much control over production. Most players would never build the Ki-43-II over the Ki-61/Ki-44 and changed factories to produce these two aircraft. The problem with offering control to industrial output results in games never following their historic results, primarily because things are too manipulated.
Wargames are NOT a matter of repeating history over and over again, but to try and change history by using the tools avalible with better skill and cunning then your historic counterparts. Just because you get the same ships does not mean you have to use them the same way.
This is a war game, not an empire building game.
War games have you fight during an historical era, using what commanders then used. It places you in command of the military forces of the nation, and you must do your best to fight with what you are given.
What is being asked here is to expand the game from a war game, to an empire game, where you control the military, but industry and government as well. Historically there was no single individual who had this power, say except an extreme version of Hitler.
The way I would like to see production is to fit more or less what history did, produce what is needed. When the IJN lost a bunch of CV's at Midway, the industry automatically compensated by planning the construction of the Unryu and Shiano CV. Had the Japanese not lost their CV's all at once, they probably would have completed the Shiano as a BB.
I would like to see a War in the Pacific where the production does change, but is not up to the whim of the player, it adds too much control to the process of the game, relying particularly on hindsight. Production should change in regards to the course of the war.
The thing that I know of that COULD be under the control of the player is accepting and refusing proposals of the industrial community. What miltaries did was to place an order to meet a requirement (i.e., the IJAAF requirement for an inline interceptor eventually resulted in the Ki-61). Originally, in the Ki-61 saga, the Ki-60 was given priority, and eventually cancelled by the military and had the Ki-61 instead. What this did was to slow down the introduction of a high speed interceptor for 6 critical months. Now, what I believe the extent of player manipulation would be for accepting and declining projects, and putting input toward requirements. Actually designing 'the perfect aircraft' was impossible. However, it could be a gamble. You put your resources toward the Ki-60 over the Ki-61, and you end up with a poor aircraft (while putting cash toward the Ki-61 instead of the Ki-60 would result in a good aircraft appearing early, or possibly even accepting the Ki-60 for production would result in an aircraft reaching production sooner, but be not quite as good had you waited). However, this also might be too much control.
Even Pacific War offered the player way too much control over production. Most players would never build the Ki-43-II over the Ki-61/Ki-44 and changed factories to produce these two aircraft. The problem with offering control to industrial output results in games never following their historic results, primarily because things are too manipulated.
Wargames are NOT a matter of repeating history over and over again, but to try and change history by using the tools avalible with better skill and cunning then your historic counterparts. Just because you get the same ships does not mean you have to use them the same way.
A few "historical" ships never mad the history books!
An interesting variant for WIP might be to give the Japanese several ships that WOULD have been built if they were not sunk first. The Japanese built several ships that could be converted to carriers quickly once the war started (the shadow fleet). The Zuiho and Shoho were submarine support ships completed as CVL's. Chitose and Chiyoda were seaplane carriers converted in 1942/3 into light carriers. Two very similar ships, the Mizuho and the Nisshin probably would have been converted if they had not been sunk first. The CA Ibuki was converting to a carrier and never completed since there was no air wing for her to embark. If there was, she would probably would have been completed much earlier and been available in late 1944 (she was 80% complete in March 1945 when work stopped). A sister ship (Brazil Maru) to the CVE Kaiyo was also sunk prior to being converted. The Kamakura Maru was similarly sunk prior to converion to a CVE.
The game also might consider the case of the BB, Mutsu which was sunk in 1943 due to a magazine explosion. The Mutsu had a Japanese secret weapon on board, and it exploded. This accident could have happened to any of the Japanese battleships! I believe the Japanese should have a small chance of losing this ship or another ship or two at random during the war. Imagine the reaction of the Japanese player if the Yamato blows up with Admiral Yamamoto!!!
I would suggest that the Mizuho, Nisshin and/or Ibuki appear at some point late in the war with the possibility that a couple of other small units never appear or sink mysteriously due to sub attacks or internal explosions. This would increase the fog of war and keep the American players guessing how many carriers, or battleships the Japanese have left.
The game also might consider the case of the BB, Mutsu which was sunk in 1943 due to a magazine explosion. The Mutsu had a Japanese secret weapon on board, and it exploded. This accident could have happened to any of the Japanese battleships! I believe the Japanese should have a small chance of losing this ship or another ship or two at random during the war. Imagine the reaction of the Japanese player if the Yamato blows up with Admiral Yamamoto!!!
I would suggest that the Mizuho, Nisshin and/or Ibuki appear at some point late in the war with the possibility that a couple of other small units never appear or sink mysteriously due to sub attacks or internal explosions. This would increase the fog of war and keep the American players guessing how many carriers, or battleships the Japanese have left.
Perhaps the problem with production is this: Some people want to play a game that allows them to be the Joint Chiefs of Staff AND CinCPAC while others only wish to play as CinCPAC. Unfortunately, a war game will NEVER incorporate all the characteristics that we want. The most realistic situation would be an online game where numerous players play various roles, JCS, CinCPAC, SOPAC, AIRSOPAC, etc. with things working through a chain of command like in the real world. Players would have to request things down the line with the JCS getting the final word on what strategies to take, ships to build, aircraft to produce, divisions to raise, tanks to deploy, etc., etc., etc. Though this would be a GREAT game to play, it is probably lightyears away. A great editor should be included if for no other reason than to allow those players who wish to heavily modify their scenarios.
SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)
Originally posted by showboat1
Even if the production variables are not included I was wondering about plane types. How many will there be? There were numeroud plane types being developed in 1944 and 1945 that I would love to see come into play in long scenarios. The A7M Sam was a GREAT design that matched the performance of the best US fighters. Also, how about the J7W, that pusher propellor fighter that was developed but never came into service. The Japanese were also developing several four engine bombers and I even think a six engine bomber. What's the potential on these? Then on the US side there are the F7F and F8F and the AM-1 Mauler (a replacement for the Avenger, but single seat in the idea of the Skyraider) was ready at the start of 1946.
-Agree with you, but there is a difficult with this, because we should have graphics for each of that planes. I suggest the
game should game with all those graphics and players would
choose planes and ships that take part in the scenario using
the editor. I would also add the necessity of older planes too
(D2A´s, B4N´s, Type 89´s, B-10´s, F3F´s, Sea Gladiator´s,
Skuas...)
Then there are ship types. The Kentucky and Illinois (Iowas), the Midway CV's, additional Alaska BC's, and even Montana BB's should be available by 1946.
Don't forget the CCS; Combined Chiefs of Staff. They had the final say over allocation between theaters.Originally posted by showboat1
Perhaps the problem with production is this: Some people want to play a game that allows them to be the Joint Chiefs of Staff AND CinCPAC while others only wish to play as CinCPAC. Unfortunately, a war game will NEVER incorporate all the characteristics that we want. The most realistic situation would be an online game where numerous players play various roles, JCS, CinCPAC, SOPAC, AIRSOPAC, etc. with things working through a chain of command like in the real world. Players would have to request things down the line with the JCS getting the final word on what strategies to take, ships to build, aircraft to produce, divisions to raise, tanks to deploy, etc., etc., etc. Though this would be a GREAT game to play, it is probably lightyears away. A great editor should be included if for no other reason than to allow those players who wish to heavily modify their scenarios.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
Production change!
I would gladly exchange all the material put into the Alaska's for Illinois and Kentucky, at the same time in the game, thank you! I gamed out SPI's game a lot in dealing with production - and in reading - theater commanders had a lot to say about what was produced - not that the General Board paid a lot of attention to them - re the Worcester class CLAA's - but they had some input. But, in this game, the design was not to alter the ships (although that might be fun) but to manipulate the rate of construction of ships vs. airplanes vs. troops vs. merchant shipping, etc., etc., etc. The one thing that is immediately noticeable, for example, is that if IJN sub doctrine is altered - say, I-boats began ripping up supply lines between the West Coast and Pearl - the USN is going to need a lot more escort types or the big ships are going to be sitting in port trying to run on croton oil. So the production of CVE's, DE's, AK's, TK's goes up the list while the capital ships are slowed down. The game becomes much more complicated and longer.
I don't think the proposal was to alter R&D to allow for P-80's operational in 1944, or for the six Midways to be built in time for Okinawa - but instead to allow for the player to make necessary reactions to conditions of the game.
I don't think the proposal was to alter R&D to allow for P-80's operational in 1944, or for the six Midways to be built in time for Okinawa - but instead to allow for the player to make necessary reactions to conditions of the game.
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer