Suggestions

[Don Bowen]

First, let me say that I am 100% willing to pay for this game. I believe the original PacWar cost $40 or so. Considering the number of hours spent playing the game that probably works out to about 2-cents an hour. A very worthwhile investment, and one I'd gladly repeat or increase.

As to features, I'd like to cast my vote for historical realism and for detail. The more of each, the better.

I believe PacWar has been played by people that are interested not only in war gaming, but in World War II history. Many of the modified OOB's point to historical detail and reflect painstaking historical research. I hope the new version will be expanded in scope, accurate in detail, and have some of the same expandability that kept Steel Panthers alive and growing (icons, OOB, etc).

Don Bowen

[David Heath]

Hi Don

Well that is what we are hoping to give you. This is a real labor of love for Mike Wood, Gary Grigsby and myself.

David

[Andy Johnson]

Hail to all

I have enjoyed many of the past Pacific War games primarily Pacific War. Since this is a strategic level game, there are two things I wish i could do. First, be able to re-direct the war production effort as needed. Based on how many resource locations I control would provide me an "x" amount of production allowing me to say build more carriers or aircraft or to even increase my industrial output or train more pilots. The second is the ability to build new bases where I deemed necessary rather on just historical locations. The US was good at quickly building new airbases, but even for the Japanese, this could add a lot more to the game. Let me know what you all think.

Andy

[brisd]

Looking forward to this game more than any other in recent memory (since original PACWAR). I have been rereading some of my Pacific war history books and several items came to mind that might be good suggestions to work in:

1. Leaders - very critical even on a strategic level. Some ideas - have two possible leader modes, at front and at the HQ. Leaders like Halsey led from the flag bridge, Ghormsey (sp) was back in Nomeua and less effective. Also by leader being actually at front (on ship, directing battle close up), there should be possibility of wounding or death (Yammamoto, Bolivar, Scott). Japanese probably more likely to go down with ship? Also like leaders to improve in rank and skill as utilized.

2. China - limited by supply - Burma road critical to any offensive ability the allies have in China.

3. Guerrillas - only PI had any effective ones except China of course.

4. Many people mention changing production - good idea but remember it took YEARS to build BB's and CV's. Not to easy to change but give each side a decision tree for production, training priorities - allows Japan to make some changes that might prolong war. I like GG's original premise - Japan has little chance to WIN but can cost the allies so much blood they can force a draw.

5. Fleet trains - repair ships, destroyer/submarine tenders, oilers, ammo ships - all gave the USN a huge advantage from about '43 on. Perhaps a squadron of support ships rather than individual AD's, like the AO's are represented now. Feel that is original PACWAR's big weakness, fleets sailing for months, never returning to port for maintenance - that should be a big issue, readiness of ship.

Hope to see this baby under my XMAS tree - please NO friggin' ads, your free games are the best advertising. Make them pay for this one!

Brian

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by brisd:

4. Many people mention changing production - good idea but remember it took YEARS to build BB's and CV's. Not to easy to change but give each side a decision tree for production, training priorities - allows Japan to make some changes that might prolong war. I like GG's original premise - Japan has little chance to WIN but can cost the allies so much blood they can force a draw.

This brings up a point about Gary's PAC and WIR model games: they never take into account the people in the tanks and planes. Germany was still rolling fighters off its assembly lines at the end, they just didn't have trained pilots to put in them (and fuel was scarce). As we all know, at the end, they were giving children rifles and panzerfausts and telling them to go save their Fatherland. Japan after Midway retained a long and difficult training process for pilots, unlike their adversaries. Japan thus had a shortage of pilots even though they, as I understand it, did not have much of a manpower problem partly because they were stealing from their Korean and Chinese garrisons. Japan's industry really was in a shambles, but they always managed to scrap up enough planes to throw away in massive kamakaze attacks.

In PW the replacement system for Allied personel seems flat wrong to me. It doesn't take long for you to build up a huge reserve of men. According to what I've read, this isn't the case. The campaign in Europe from DDay till VE day cost the Army badly, and replacements were supposedly becoming hard to find. The Marines disbanded those raider units to reconstitute frontline Marine divisions, so there was clear manpower pressure at least for the Marine Corps. Now I suspect that we could have relaxed the requirements for new recruits, thus getting a new surge of troops into the pipeline if things were desperate, but the point is that Allied replacements were not easy to come by, and at least in a political sense, they were expensive, not just for the US, even worse so for the Brits. PW simply doesn't deal with this issue at all. I think its time for a wargame like WITP to show the true importance of manpower in WWII. Those tanks and planes are useless without trained people to operate them, and almost every major country in the war had difficulty with a tight manpower supply as the war dragged on and the losses mounted, only excepting the USSR, and maybe Japan.

[showboat1]

The idea of incorporating captured supplies is great, especially in the China-Burma-India Theator where the Japanese Army subsisted for long periods on "Churchill Stores" or captured supplies.

[showboat1]

Okay, here we go with a history teacher's perspective on improvements to PacWar. From someone who wrote his thesis on the Pacific Theater of Operations I have accumulated a lifetime in info on the subject. First of all, an editor to allow the IJN to convert a limited number of ships (ie CA's or CL's)into CV's like the Shinano would give the IJN players a chance to replace some losses. How about giving the player the option to rename ships or modify armaments.
Also, how about adding some new ship possibilities to the allies (Vanguard and Montana BB's, Midway CV's). Some new planes would be nice - RUFE float fighters, PBM, PB4Y, P-43 (CHINA), P-35 (Philippines), PV-2, A-24 (USAAF SBD), A-29 (bomber version of Hudson). Or changing the makeup for carrier air groups (changing VF from 27 F4F to 40 F4F would change composition on ALL VF for that type of CV).
Airborne operations should also be included (airborne reconquest of Corregidor) to make use of the ABUNDANCE of C-47's that get built. Perhaps even an ability to launch special missions like the Raider landings in the Gilberts and the B-25 raids. Also the US fleet class CV's were often used to trasport USMC air groups to remote bases.
Making the fog of war tougher to see through would be a great idea. It would also be great to get a detailed summary at the conclusion of the game giving the ship info, when sunk, where, how, by what unit(s) or ship(s). I don't know about anyone else but i have my favorite ships (BB55 North Carolina "The Showboat") and would love to see how much personal damage they did during the game.
Don't get me wrong. This was the greatest strategy game I have ever played. These are ideas to put more control into the hands of the player. I, for one, love to tinker in these type of games. Hope these were useful.

[Don Bowen]

If anyone has not seen this site: http://www.freeport-tech.com/WWII/index.htm
check it out.

It lists the dispositions of forces at the beginning of the Pacific War (and the Atlantic War) in wonderful detail.

For "New" Pacwar, I'd love to have the ability to deploy forces at this level of detail (or close to it). That means more of everything - bases, ships, air groups, land units, etc.

Here's a few specific items from my wish list:
1. Extend the map East/West to include Madagascar and the Panama Canal.
2. For lend lease and other-service-usage of aircrart (A-24, Martlet, etc), give a different icon and separate reserve pool.
3. Land units that split sub units do not regrow to their original size, but stay permanently reduced (usually to 2/3rd original size). If all three units (Regiments from a Division, for instance) are split off, the original unit remains as a small shell. Split units can be named and can, of course, rejoin their parent unit.
Thus the units split from the 41st U.S. Infantry Division could be named the 162nd, 163rd, and 186th Regiments and the 41st Division HQ would remain (about battalion sized??).
4. Difference between normal and amphibious troops and between normal and combat loaded transports when making amphibious assaults.
5. Paratroops.
6. Ability to detach air groups from carriers. They'd still be lost with their carrier, but could be used elsewhere when the carrier is under repair.
7. Air groups vary in size (squadron, group, wing, even flight) as land units do. Same split ability - break a wing into groups, etc.

Lots, I know!

Also, if I may be permitted a personal message to Showboat1. I have been studying World War II for ever 40 years, and I would be very interested in your thesis. Is it possible to get a copy?? I'm at dbowen@austin.rr.com.

Thanks

Don

[showboat1]

I just came up with a change on my earlier suggestion to allow IJN to convert CA's and CL's. Instead allow them to convert CS's like Chitose and Chiyoda were during 1943. It could work out that a CS would take anywhere from 9 to 24 months to convert depending on the IJN supply and industry situation. That way a player who loses carriers early has chance to recoup some losses.

[brisd]

I don't want to slam people for their ideas - the more the merrier. BUT Don those ideas would add so much detail to the game it would become an operational level game instead of a strategic level game. GOOD ideas, but wrong scale for this baby. Like comparing War In Russia to the Operational Art of War series.

Showboat - you hit on something that I read about all the time in Pacwar histories - the inability for the allies to sustain high casualties, mostly for political reasons. As far as Midway class carriers they should become available historically, available if the war drags on to their commissioning dates. All carriers were highest priority - the poor IJN has no chance, there were another dozen Essex class planned as well if the war dragged on.
Interested on anyones ideas on victory conditions/ending the game. Japan surrenders automatically when? Allies forced to peace table by what disasters?
One semi-tactical item I would like to see is the ability to target facilities during air strikes - like the oil storage tanks at Pearl Harbor that if taken out on 12/7/41 would have forced the fleet to relocate to San Diego (where they should have stayed - much nicer place!)

Brian in San Diego

[Don Bowen]

I've put together an historically accurate deployment for the Netherlands East Indies as of 12/7/41. This shows the level of detail that I would love to see in the new PacWar, and also illustrates the rational behind one of the items on my wish list: the ability to split air groups.

Netherlands East Indies Recommended OOB for PacWar

This is an historically accurate Order of Battle and deployment for Netherlands East Indies Forces, structured for use in PacWar. It requires a number of additions:

New Bases:

Kendari (hex 24-31) – Major airfield, taken by Japan and used to support Timor, Ambon, and Darwin operations
Bandung (hex 15-26) – Capital of Java, Army HQ and center of defense – roads to Batavia and Tjilatjap
Padang (hex 13-19) – Major oil port, used by Japanese and German submarines raiding Indian Ocean
Banjermasin (hex 20-28) – Defended port in Southern Borneo – entrance/exit point for reinforcements/refugees
Meruake (hex 31-41) – Capital of Dutch New Guinea, small airfield developed during war. Held by Dutch/Australian and eventually U.S. forces.
Aroe Islands (Optional, hex 30-38) – Site of raids and skirmishes during early part of war.
Jolo Island (belongs to Philippines, hex 26-25) – level 4 airfield captured first week.


New Ship Classes:

Surabaya – Coast Defense Ship
Soemba – Sloop
O-19/21 – Sub
TM04 Class – PT boat
KPM ship – Small Transport (shallow draft civilian transports of 2000 tons or so, requisitioned and very useful in NEI, Australia, and eventually New Guinea).


New Aircraft Types:

Do24K – Seaplane Reconnaissance
CW-22 – Fighter/Reconnaissance
B339 – Dutch Buffalo with own reserve pool
H75/CW21 – Dutch P36 with own reserve pool


The following dispositions assume the ability to split airgroups into squadrons and that
NEI versions of Buffalo, P-36, and PBY have separate reserve pools.

NEI Army:

1st Division (-) – Bandung
1st Reg/1st Div – Batavia
2nd Division (alternately, 4th Regiment) – Tjilatjap
3rd Division (alternately, 6th Brigade) - Surabaya
VI Battalion – Balikpapan
VII Battalion - Tarakan
*Battalion – Medan
*Battalion - Palembang
*Battalion - Banjermasin
*Battalion – Menado
*Battalion – Makassar
*Battalion – Ambon
*Battalion - Timor

Also: British 2/15th Punjab Bn at Sarawak

* = Named for station, i.e. Medan Garrison. Approximate size of each = battalion.


NEI AF

I Group (M-139), 1st Squadron at Balikpapan
--------------- 2nd Squadron at Sarawak
II Group (M-139) at Surabaya
III Group (M-139) at Bandung (to Singapore first Week)
IV Group (Hawk 75/CW-21 = P36) at Bandung
-----------------3rd Squadron (with Buffalo) at Bandung (to Singapore first Week)
V Group (B339), 1st Squadron at Sarawak
----------------2nd Squadron at Balikpapan
VI Group (B339) at Tarakan
Vka (CW-22) at Bandung
*GVT-1 (Do24k) at Sarawak
*GVT-2 (Do24k) at Sorong
*GVT-7 (Do24k) at Tarakan
*GVT-16 (PBY) at Surabaya
*GVT-17 (PBY) at Ambon

* Small recon sections of 3 aircraft. Actual units GVT-1 to 8 with Do24k, 16-17 with PBY (others forming) and 11-14 with other aircraft. Combined (based on stations) to reduce number of units.

Also large reserve force which would be in reserve pools.

NEI Navy

Java – At sea hex 17-29 enroute Singapore
Sumatra – Surabaya (refit) with 25% damage
De Ruyter – At sea hex 21-33 enroute Surabaya
Tromp – Reinforcement, Turn 1
Heemskerck (CLAA) – Reinforcement, Turn 8
Van Nes Group 1 (1 ship) – In port Surabaya
Van Nes Group 1 (4 ships) – At sea hex 21-33 enroute Surabaya (2 groups of 2 would be better)
Van Nes Group 2 (2 ships) – At sea hex 17-29 enroute Singapore
Isaac Sweers – Reinforcement, Turn 11
2 “N” Class – Reinforcement, Turn 27
Surabaya – in port Surabaya
Soemba – in port Surabaya
TM04 (8 boats) – in port Surabaya
SS (5 K boats) – at sea hex 20-18
SS (3 K boats) – at sea hex 22-21
SS (2 O boats) – at sea hex 25-18
SS (2 O boats) – Reinforcement, Turn 39
SS (5 K boats) - under repair/refit, should be in Surabaya with damage.
Transports (KPM x 8) – Reinforcement, Turn 2

It may be necessary to designate some late arriving reinforcements as British – they really did report to Eastern Fleet after NEI fell.


This may be a little overly detailed for the game, but it does represent the aggressive forward deployment of the NEI forces. Main problem, in the game, is the tendency to over-reinforce these units. Note that the Dutch had built a number of forward airfields, but were not able to defend them. Capturing these airfields intact (as happened at Kendari, for example) was partly responsible for the rapid Japanese advance.


[This message has been edited by Don Bowen (edited July 30, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Don Bowen (edited July 31, 2000).]

[showboat1]

Dan triggered another idea i had. Germany did deploy U-boats into the Indian Ocean and these could be deployed as computer controlled. Also in 1945 a number of German U-boats were turned over to Japan (for verification see Edwin Hoyt's "Closing the Circle") These could be included as end of game reinforcements. And while we're on the Submarine topic, how about some Kaiten?

[Kev]

I would like to see an accurate representation of Australian industrial capacity, the ability to recall units from the Mid East/UK (RAAF Sqns) and the ability to influence Aust production.

I would also like a few "what if" scenarios - one where pearl harbour is totally destroyed on Dec 7, one where Hawaii is captured by Japan and a one where Japan gets a decent sized merchant fleet at the start, perhaps also a Chinese surrendered scenario.

I don't think any of the above were likely, but it would add some interest to playing the allied side.

[brisd]

The past few days I have been playing the original Pacific War in anticipation of the new patch/upgrade due out soon. Also have been reading up on histories of some of the US battleships and a major suggestion came to mind.

In PacWar ships automatically have their flak and radar values upgraded. In reality ships had to spend months in a shipyard to get such upgrades. In addition maintenance was required to keep a ship's engineering plant, weapons and electrical system operational, again at a dedicated shipyard or alongside a fleet tender. While I don't want the game to be buried in needless details and made unplayable, there should be some automatic feature where ships lose readiness between overhauls. During those overhauls any upgrades to the ship would occur automatically. Another idea expanding on this is the ability to modify a ship drastically (Ise class CV's?) as determined by the player/computer. Perhaps another item to be added is the idea of rare but critical non-combat casualities to the ship that would necessitate an overhaul period to correct. I have a background in shipboard maintenance and these events are all too common. Perhaps an automatic Red Flag could show up on a ship when it reachs a readiness level below a preset (by player/computer) level so action can be taken to correct. Of course if like at Midway the Yorktown is needed despite her wounded condition, the player can use the ship in a reduced state. One more example - the liners of ship's guns wear out and need to be replaced. Again these are suggestions for adding a level of realism/chrome to the game that can be turned on or off by the player.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Kev:
I would like to see an accurate representation of Australian industrial capacity, the ability to recall units from the Mid East/UK (RAAF Sqns) and the ability to influence Aust production.

I'm just curious Kev, what's wrong with the way Australian industry is portrayed now?

[Kev]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

I'm just curious Kev, what's wrong with the way Australian industry is portrayed now?

It has been a long time since I played Pac War but as I recall (I could be wrong) Australia was not given much of an option to produce very much - in reality Aust made over 50 Corvettes, Various Fighters, Bombers, AFVs as well as Arty etc.

I would like to see the ability to better control what can be produced - particularly given the masses of available troops and (up to) divisional level weapons produced in Aust.