Page 2 of 2
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 9:00 am
by SiG
I don't know if the PTO as a whole is overlooked, but the Japanese perspective certainly is. Scenarios designed to play as Japan are allmost inexistant, especially after mid-1942. (which I find quite annoying since I usually enjoy playing as the underdog - my personal dream campaign would be the Gulf War playing as Iraq in SPMBT)
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:47 pm
by Puukkoo
Japan did not much conduct offensives after 1942. Amphibious landings always require a human player to do the attackers part.
SPWW2 has a Jap campaign in China 1937. SP1 had Philippine Campaign from Japannese viewpoint. Battles of Guadalcanal and the capture of Singapore might also turn into Japannese campaigns.
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 10:08 pm
by SiG
Perhaps the battle for the Philippines in 1944/45 would be suitable for some scenarios playable from both sides. There was not much fighting onthe beaches there. most of the battles were fought inland.
What do you think?
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:50 pm
by Nikademus
There was (is) an excellently rendered amphibious assault on Corregidor. Played from the Japan side it was challenging (a human player as US would make it more so)
For a chinese scenario to be sufficiently interesting for the Japan player, it should probably either be a city type fight or have them face a numerically superior Chinese force (by a wide margin), sort of similar to early Russia where small but experienced Germans face hordes of conscript Russian troops.
A PI scenario depicting US attempts to clean out the islands would be a challeging scenario for both sides. While the US owned the coastlines thx to crushing air and naval superiority it was a bit of different story in Manila and the foothills of the mountains.
How about this...a few scenarios depicting the Akyab battles and the Japanese offensives during U-GO at Imphal and Komina would prove interesting. Granted..no tanks as the Japanese had to foot it over the mTns limiting them to very few heavy weapons...but the battles were fiercely contested non the less.
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:04 am
by KG Erwin
Yes -- presenting battles from the Japanese side in the Burma/India campaigns is a good idea. Even a reversed role in the USMC vs Japanese battles in the south Pacific 1942-43 (Guadalcanal, New Georgia, Bougainville) would give the Japanese plenty of chances to take the offensive and reverse history.
By the time of Peleliu (September 1944) , there was NO chance for the Japanese to reverse the tide. This is when they reverted to the suicidal but costly method of static fortifications and defending to the death. The PTO DOES offer plenty of what-ifs.
The BIGGEST what-if has not yet been completed, and that's the invasion of mainland Japan in 1946-47. Roland Rahn started it, but never finished it. THIS, IMHO, would be a horrific hell-on-earth. You'd have civilian militia, veteran troops, kamikazes galore and a fight to the death that would dwarf the costs that the Russians paid for taking Berlin in 1945. I briefly considered taking it up, but it is the stuff of nightmares. We should be thankful it never happened, so perhaps it should be left alone. [X(]
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:16 pm
by Randy
Fighting in the Philippines would probably be a combination of fighting in the jungle and in the city. Manila was quite a blood bath, since it was the only real urban fighting in the Pacific War. One area that is rarely ever covered is the Aleutian campaign. While it is rarely covered, it was pretty brutal also. I think that it was here that we saw how fanatical the Japanese would fight.
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:42 pm
by Warrior
ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
"Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?" Compared to the North African Theater, it isn't. Look through your scenario lists and count how many scenarios take place in the desert of 1940-1943. Then compare that to the number of battles in the Pacific.
According to the latest Scenrio List by dutchiexx, there are 104 Mediterranean/North African scenarios available, and 284 Pacific ones. This out of 903 scenarios and campaigns.
So I would say it's high time for the designers to step up and help me correct this injustice!
I'll hop right to it. [:)]
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:25 pm
by Wild Bill
Ah, that means good stuff coming our way! Warrior has left the building and is churning away
WB
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:44 pm
by DoubleDeuce
ORIGINAL: SiG
Perhaps the battle for the Philippines in 1944/45 would be suitable for some scenarios playable from both sides. There was not much fighting onthe beaches there. most of the battles were fought inland.
What do you think?
Sounds good, OR even some Singapore area fighting.
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:58 pm
by Wild Bill
There is a Singapore Scenario already in SPWAW, called "Singapore Sling." I won't even say who designed it. The Corregidor Scenario should be in there, too. It was done by Stuart Millis and received recognition in Bill Trotter's old column in times past.
The numbers are:
Singapore: 044
I can't find Stuart's scenario but I'll see if I can get it from him.
WB