Matrix Games Forums

Instead of "War in the Pacific: Struggle Against Japan", what about "War in the Pacific: Clash of Leviathans"? An epical game deserve an epical name.

I've always liked "The Pacific Boils Over", used by Morrison in USN WWII NAV OPS and by R.Rogers as a song title for Victory at Sea.

I think the book title "Eagle vs Sun" is perfect for the game but I guess its a TM that is protected. Anyway the title is quite good as it is. Its a shame how this forum just died after UV came out. Perhaps someone at Matrix could ask for advices on the game to get a discussion going.
Dan

Originally posted by U2
Its a shame how this forum just died after UV came out. Perhaps someone at Matrix could ask for advices on the game to get a discussion going.
Dan

In fact, some of the more important WITP aspects such as user interface, naval & air combat reports, naval combat code, ... are tested (and improved ) through the UV patch

But an interesting debate would be : what alternative scenario for WITP (as the #19 scenario from Rich in UV) ?

A first suggestion is a IJN doctrine change in the 30's with the replacement of the Yamato Class BB by some more CV.

Maybe also a stronger emphasis on aircraft R&D with an advanced availability of some planes ...

What would be great is to give Matrix 2 or 3 alternative scenarios ... and the changes it would induced ...

Any suggestion ?

Spooky

Hi

What about this:

No Japanese involment in China except Manchuko which would free up quite a large force now availible for the drive south.

I really liked your idea of building carriers instead of the Yamato class super battleships. We know what they would look like ( Shinano)

Better R&D? Hard to do that when we dont know how these planes would have looked like and performed. Or do you mean this Jap capability would make existing planes like Oscar II better for example?

Dan

Originally posted by U2


Better R&D? Hard to do that when we dont know how these planes would have looked like and performed. Or do you mean this Jap capability would make existing planes like Oscar II better for example?

Dan

I would rather think to an accelerated introduction of new Japanese airplanes (ie : 6 months before historic introduction time). However, in this case, we would have to get a close look at the japanese prototype airplanes in 1945 in order to introduce them in 44.

To change the Airplanes historic capabilities seems to me quite more dangerous.

BTW, the "No involvment in China except Manchuko" scenario would be very interesting - I hope Rich is thinking about it :rolleyes:

Hi

I get your point on Jap aircraft R&D and how it would make the planes appear in the Pacific six months ahead of time for example. Good idea.

I take it the :rolleyes: in my "no china scenario" was not to your liking. Or what did you mean? Most likely it has been discussed before perhaps and it was your idea? Really dont know.

Dan

Hi

The Japanese discovered how important escorts for convoys and ASW weapon systems was way too late. What if this was not the case? Sure hope I get no :rolleyes: this time.
Dan

Originally posted by U2


I take it the :rolleyes: in my "no china scenario" was not to your liking. Or what did you mean? Most likely it has been discussed before perhaps and it was your idea? Really dont know.

Dan

Oooops - Sorry It's your idea and a very good one ! My :rolleyes: only intended to emphasize " I hope Rich (Dionne) is thinking about it"

This "no China scenario" is an ideal "whaf-if" along with probably the "full-carrier strategy" and a scenario involving a change in the USSR-Japan relationship.

We can now hope that Matrix is already thinking about these WITP "what-if" scenarios since the new UV scenario n°19 is already a huge "what-if" scenario.

Hi Spooky

Thank you for the kind words. When you exchange ideas with someone for the first time its hard to know. To play PBEMs with forum members really helps you know but Ijust cant play against you all:D
Dan

About Japanese ASW/Convoy, I totally agree with you.

Maybe a "Jap Convoy historical Doctrine" option such as the submarine doctrine option would be useful ...

Originally posted by Spooky
About Japanese ASW/Convoy, I totally agree with you.

Maybe a "Jap Convoy historical Doctrine" option such as the submarine doctrine option would be useful ...

Yes! Very good. What would a non-historical Jap convoy system really mean? More hit oppertunities on US subs, harder for subs to hit merchants?
Dan

Originally posted by U2


Yes! Very good. What would a non-historical Jap convoy system really mean? More hit oppertunities on US subs, harder for subs to hit merchants?
Dan

I am not a PTO specialist but I read a long time ago that the Jap. use of convoy system for merchant ships (TK, AK) was quite limited ... and a lone Jap tanker is not really a match to an US sub

If the Jap had introduced convoys then their merchant ships losses would probably have been lower ... and US subs losses higher ...

Originally posted by Spooky


I am not a PTO specialist but I read a long time ago that the Jap. use of convoy system for merchant ships (TK, AK) was quite limited ... and a lone Jap tanker is not really a match to an US sub

If the Jap had introduced convoys then their merchant ships losses would probably have been lower ... and US subs losses higher ...

Very true. Also the japs was very sparse in their use of good radars for ASW, aircraft and good aircrews was not used on ASW duties(not much anyway). Many things plus the two mentioned in my previous post must be taken into cinsideration if we are to have such an option.
Dan

To sum up, we could have 2 geo-political scenarios :
* No China involvement
* Japan-USSR friendship

and at least 3 changes of doctrines :
* Carriers instead of BB
* Accelerated Aircraft R&D
* Emphasis on convoy & ASW

Spooky

Originally posted by Spooky
To sum up, we could have 2 geo-political scenarios :
* No China involvement
* Japan-USSR friendship

and at least 3 changes of doctrines :
* Carriers instead of BB
* Accelerated Aircraft R&D
* Emphasis on convoy & ASW

Spooky

Yes, a very good summary Spooky. We must continue this brainstorming another day perhaps.
Also please remember in the future that the guy with the rolling eyes is not for thinking but for being sarcastic so you dont have any other future missunderstanding on the forum:)
See you on the forum soon I hope.
Dan

Hi Folks, While we are on geo politics, lets remember several important things. The Japanese and Russians have been hositile towards one another for over 50 years in 1941. It was China that lead to Japans enstrangment with the USA. While prior to the 1920's the IJN had been against the China adventure they were all for the drive South. (The Navy had switched from coal to oil and wanted a secure supply) This is one of the reasons the Japanese Army and Navy had trouble getting along and going for the same goals, they each had differant set of needs. The Army needed China the Navy the Southern resource area. The Army had been unable to defeat China and had just suffered a major defeat from the Russians. The Navy had been largely uninvolved and for over 20 years had known it would someday have to fight the USN. Scenarios that have a friendly USSR or those without the Army in China leave the question "what need for war"
The USA would not have embargoed the oil so the IJN would not have advocated war. The would have been no embargo of material so the IJA would not have advocated war.
War came because of the above and the situation in Europe provided a window of opportunity for the Japanese (the French Dutch and English and Russians were all distracted only the USA posed a threat hence the Pearl Harbor strike to start.
Effects on production. The Japanese pretty much have to have a victory secured prior to 1943. Any large ships they lay down after the war begins will not help them to win. Smaller ones could aid in the defense. (producing 5-6 CV against the horde the US produces will not alter things if they have not already won.) It was not so much aircraft type that hurt but rather the limited number of aircrew (I am refering to the IJN air arm) even in late 1942 it only had 4k aircrew (it lost 2.6k in the campaign in the South Pacific) It would require a major shift in doctrine to allow it to expand (and require the use of several carriers for training) The USA could no doubt have had many ships after mid 45 that they decided against finishing because there was no need for them. If things go against them these ships should appear (several large CV BC and a slew of CA/CL)
Ship production for capital ships and CV's will not be in game so much as most of these ships were in fact already funded before Dec 7th 1941. Many were already under construction
(another reason Japan went to war in 41 was they realized by 43 it would be hopeless since they could not keep up with the peacetime building of the US. On the part of the US this was a delibrate policy. The error was thinking the Japanese would not go to war. (IE the US thought it could force Japan to accept the conditions over China simply by proving they could force Japan if they chose to)

Hi Mogami

You are right for sure and I should have remebered what I read in Barnhart's Japan Prepares For Total War: The search for Economic Security 1919-1941. A darn good book by the way that I used for my essay which gave me a degree in history.

Anyway we were just toying with ideas here. For sure without China there would have been no conflict with the USA and no oil embargo and no war. But in a hypotetical scenario we create different events that would lead to war. This would mean that we had to produce another storyline. Unfortunately we had no time to do that right now.

I have never been very good with hypotetical scenarios and I should have stuck to things I like to see in the game. I should have known my buddy Mogami would show up and give me a great history lesson. Great as always to have you on the forum.
Dan

Thanks Mogami for your insight

In another WWII game forum (Paradox Forum), there was a long & interesting discussion to know if Japan could have won the Pacific War and the answer is NO ... even without Midway

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum ... adid=36244

However, a hypothetical change of the Japanese doctrine in the 30' could have lead to the suggestions :
* No more BB - more CV : Yamato / Musahi are replaced in 1942 by 3-4 Fleet Carriers
* Emphasis on pilots training : less aircrew shortage
* Emphasis on aircraft R&D : quicker developement of new airplanes
* Emphasis on ASW : more DD with ASW capabilities & tactics

Of course it would not have allowed the Japanese to win the war ... but to create these "what if" scenarios would improve the gameplay (and help the Japanese AI !).

Spooky

Hi

Nice to have contributed to a discussion on the forum again. Been too long. BTW: Historical events are NOT historical in a hypotetical scenario.
SPOOKY: What about trying to create a storyline for our scenario? Perhaps if we were asked otherwise it would be too much hard work for nothing.
Dan