Page 1 of 1

Idea for WITP 2: Re-Writing Post-WW1

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:07 am
by GaryChildress
Just a thought for a potential WITP 2. This would involve a radical restructuring of WITP but it might make for an interesting new game experience in itself.

Have a grand campaign that starts in 1920 with all the military forces then present to each participating country: The United States, Japan, Britain, Netherlands, etc. Each turn would represent one month (until the Japanese player decides to declare war, then the turn increments adjust to 1 to 3 days per turn, depending on player preference).

During the initial part of the game, the monthly turn phases, both Japan and Allies are given a monthly income for their war treasury. Using this monthly income you can fund ship production, aircraft production, armament production, etc. You can use your treasury to either build your forces or expand your production facilities. But you can't change the amount of income you receive each month, nor can you change your manpower (until you go to war and impose a draft). You can also design your own ships, planes, and LCUs to some degree and then control how many of each you create.

One of the biggest questions at hand would be how to treat China and Manchukuo during the initial monthly phases of the game. A possibility might be to have areas of China and Manchukuo automatically fall to Japanese control at their historical dates. then when war is declared on the Allies the clock slows down to daily turns or whatever. At that point territory in China and Manchukuo would have to be taken by normal military means. There would no longer be automatic aquisition of territory by the Japanese.

One feature of the game would be direct control over ship yard slips. You design a ship and then choose a slip big enough to fit the construction of it. If you don't have a big enough slip, then you have the option of lengthening an existing slip. Of course lengthening the slip takes extra time. You also have to control the availability of facilities to fit out the ships after they are launched.

Another question that presents itself would be what constitutes victory for the players. Obviously, at some point the players will have to go to war to play out the final phases of the game. It will be up to the Japanese player to decide when the time is right to make his power move and declare war on the Allies.

Perhaps there could be an automatic declaration of war on December 7, 1941, whether the Japanese commander is ready for it or not. However, if the Japanese commander thinks he has a better advantage earlier on, then he has the option to declare war earlier.

Basically the chief difference of the game would be that you could custom design your forces leading up to WW2.

Also, to prevent games from lasting too long if war is declared early in the 1930s or something, there would be a limit of how long the war can be fought before the will to fight gives out on the part of the public. Depending upon how successful one side or the other is during that period (say 5 years max) would determine who wins the game.

Any thoughts or criticisms pertaining to the above? Would this game be fun? Is it possible to create a playable version of this?

RE: Idea for WITP 2: Re-Writing Post-WW1

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:20 am
by Mynok

Kinda reminds me of Days of Decision leading into World in Flames. Cool idea.


RE: Idea for WITP 2: Re-Writing Post-WW1

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:59 am
by wworld7
It might be fun. But I doubt any company would allocate the needed resources to complete such a project properly. And doing it on the cheap would result in a bad game.

RE: Idea for WITP 2: Re-Writing Post-WW1

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:39 am
by Sredni
I've been thinking about how if even a 10th of the forces I currently have in play in 1943 were in theatre and ready the japanese wouldn't have taken any islands at all.

A modern division or two in the Philippines along with enough fighter squadrons to provide aircover and a few dive bomber units to utterly destroy all of the invasion attempts and MacArthur could have spent the entire war safely in Manilla.

So with hindsight in play from 1920 onward I really don't see how you could have any sort of real game. You would either have the same political pressures that resulted in a complete walk in the park for the Japanese early war (and thus the same game we have now), or you'd have enough free reign to nip any imperialistic adventures in the bud.

RE: Idea for WITP 2: Re-Writing Post-WW1

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:46 am
by GaryChildress
ORIGINAL: Sredni

I've been thinking about how if even a 10th of the forces I currently have in play in 1943 were in theatre and ready the japanese wouldn't have taken any islands at all.

A modern division or two in the Philippines along with enough fighter squadrons to provide aircover and a few dive bomber units to utterly destroy all of the invasion attempts and MacArthur could have spent the entire war safely in Manilla.

So with hindsight in play from 1920 onward I really don't see how you could have any sort of real game. You would either have the same political pressures that resulted in a complete walk in the park for the Japanese early war (and thus the same game we have now), or you'd have enough free reign to nip any imperialistic adventures in the bud.

Why would the game be any less "real" than what we have now?

RE: Idea for WITP 2: Re-Writing Post-WW1

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:00 am
by Sredni
I mean we'd either have enough limitations in place that we ultimately just end up with what we already have in regards to starting forces and positions now with AE, or given the freedom to place units in advance by years we'd have a game where the war doesn't even start because the japanese wouldn't be able to make any advances.

I don't think the japanese had the capability to produce more starting forces then they already had in 1941, so giving them control of 1920+ production and placement couldn't make a big difference to what they had IRL in 1941. However giving production or placement control to the allies from 1920 onward would have a huge impact on how ably the Japanese could prosecute a war, to the point that I feel they wouldn't have been able to even start the war.

RE: Idea for WITP 2: Re-Writing Post-WW1

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:12 am
by GaryChildress
ORIGINAL: Sredni

I mean we'd either have enough limitations in place that we ultimately just end up with what we already have in regards to starting forces and positions now with AE, or given the freedom to place units in advance by years we'd have a game where the war doesn't even start because the japanese wouldn't be able to make any advances.

I don't think the japanese had the capability to produce more starting forces then they already had in 1941, so giving them control of 1920+ production and placement couldn't make a big difference to what they had IRL in 1941. However giving production or placement control to the allies from 1920 onward would have a huge impact on how ably the Japanese could prosecute a war, to the point that I feel they wouldn't have been able to even start the war.

You have a good point. Probably better from a gaming standpoint that we have what we have now than something worse for the IJN. Back to the drawing board.

RE: Idea for WITP 2: Re-Writing Post-WW1

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:56 am
by DOCUP
Look at wastelands bitter glory game.

doc

RE: Idea for WITP 2: Re-Writing Post-WW1

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:04 pm
by Historiker
You might simulate this by a RPG before you start. You then simply edit the game to the extent of your changes.
If you do this just at ships, it should be possible, though a lot of work...

RE: Idea for WITP 2: Re-Writing Post-WW1

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:40 pm
by topeverest
It sounds like DOD...but on steroids...doesn't it.

The real question is if you are going the way of a strategic or tactical game.  Is the evolution to become Hearts of Iron-like but at the individual ship and unit level?  Is it a tactical simulation only.  All us hardcore players certainly would play it.  It is a logical...and exciting evolution of the game IMHO.  The tough part is deciding if the buying public will support the development cost.

I do like the idea.