Matrix Games Forums

It's early, but here are some ideas for V 3.1
1. F7F Tigercat --- PLEEEAASSSSEEEE
2. B-32 Dominator --- At least one group went into combat b4 VJ.
3. G8N Renzan and G5N --- Four engine bombers, some flew, not just a design idea
4. J7W --- Pusher propellor interceptor, rear wing, canard nose
5. MONTANA CLASS --- Enough said, bad to the bone
6. Ibuki class CVL --- Late war reinforcement for IJN
7. Rufe --- Zero floatfighter

8. Scenario where the IJN has additional Zuikaku, Taiho, and Amagi class CV's with the understanding that hostilities did not start until late '42

What is already in 3.0....

F7F Tigercat
J7W Shiden
Ibuki Class CVL

The others are possibilities, but through reading, were not very good possibilities in occuring, unless the war was delayed until 1943, and lasted until 1950. The G8N might be a possibility, as it could have gone into production had the Japanese faired better. What I want to do with PacWar, is to make the game run with a slight possibility of changing history with production. You will notice that there were many IJN CV/CVL's included in the game (3 Unryu and 1 Ibuki) that never saw service, however, if the Japanese manage to keep the US away from the Home Islands until late 1945 they should appear (as they would have historically). Having the G8N as a late war possible aircraft could be possible, as maybe the Japanese are doing very well in the game, and need a heavy bomber? If they are not doing well, they probably would not have wasted resources on this aircraft (sporting more tactical craft), and would choose not to build it.

Most sources credit the B-32 as a failure, with all aspects of operation suprassed by the B-29. I was going to include it, but then thought, who would make it?

The use of the Rufe Fighter-Floatplane was relatively limited when you look at other aircraft 'abstracted'. The E13A type actually encompasses a large number of different types of floatplane recon, and floatplane fighter aircraft. The success, or rather failure, of this type did not really warrant its individual creation, as, its abilities would be worse then the A6M (of any type) and would immediately be changed to that aircraft type by any competent player. Also, fighter groups increase up to numbers of 50, while fighter-floatplane groups were only very limited in number, and operational use. In such a strategic game as Pacific War, these little details tend to fall through the cracks.

Haven't noticed the F7F, Shinden, or Ibuki yet. Have only had new version for about 48 hours. The idea behind adding something like more Zuikakus, Taihos, G8N's, etc. could be a way to balance the game some more. Guess maybe those theoreticals should be left for WITP, but I've played UV and I still like PACWAR better. The new version looks GREAT!!! Though I'm kind of a nut, I LOVE having a HUGE choice of ships and planes and LCUs. I've played historical games to death and I need LOTS of variety. If I could change ONE thing in PAC it would be to shorten turns from 7 days to 3.

How about TBY Sea Wolf, or BTM Destroyer, or P-50 Skyrocket (USAAF F5F)? Sorry, can't help myself.

this is a good place for a few american a/c questions/suggestions.

1. P38J - range is too short, there is no reason to ever produce them. it is inferior to P47D in every aspect except range and there they are equal. range of the P38J should be increased to 6-8 to make them a viable a/c.

2. P47N - a fighter-bomber with no load? either make it a pure fighter or give it a bomb load.

3.TBF/TBM - I think this has been discussed before. same aircraft.

4. B25- range of 6 with load of 30 too high? maybe a range of 5 would better model it.

5. P40C/P40E - i do miss the split of F and F/B in the early game. I like the idea of a pure fighter with a range of 3 and the F/B with a range of 2. Makes the allied player make a decision, not just automatically select the newer P40E.

6. P51B - like the P38J, there is no reason to produce these a/c, there is no stat that is better than the P47D. maybe an increase in range to 5 would make them useful.

7. P47D - to cheap to produce? a cost of 1 makes this the only fighter one needs for much of the game. maybe both the P47D and P47N are too manuverable?

no real information or background on these, just a feel for how the game goes and trying to balance things. anyway, things to look at while you are doing research for ver 3.1.

Thanks a bunch Matrix

Okay, found he Shinden, F7F, Ibuki AND jet fighters! Now that's wat I'm talkin 'bout! Used Bear's editor and added the Illinois, Kentucky, and an additional Yamato BB. Thinking about using Icon editor and making myself a B-32 to come in late. I like lots of stuff!!!

By the way, the individual CVEs are a great addition. Wish there was away to tell which had air groups and which did not to make TF building easier, but I'm being picky on that one.

All in all though I'm having a blast!!!!! I love this game!!!!!

Thanks for the aircraft information.

I would like for more aircraft selection in the game. Indeed, it was difficult to make aircraft different, especially when statistics are virtually nonexistent for the types of information required.

I will retool the aircraft mentioned to make them more individual, and useful. The reason for making the P-40 Warhawk one aircraft was because by 1941 most P-40's were the P-40E version, with very few P-40C and D aircraft out there. The P-40E was the most common used version of the type in the war, in fact, there were only around 400 P-40C and D aircraft (maximum) produced, and all of these before the war (compared with the thousands of P-40E's).

I think that I will create a 3.0b version before 3.1 comes out, especially since 3.1 will get rid of the individual Allied CVE's to make for more CV's (as in 3.1 we will get rid of the US dead ship replacement).

jeremy, i'm glad you found the info useful. the only reason for the P40C/P40E thing was to try to add some versitility to the game and add hard decisions.

one of the problems with a/c is the limited number of slots for definitions and the limited info for each a/c. The intent was to show a P40 fighter and a P40 fighter/bomber. in the early stages of the war the range difference really makes a difference. the range of 2 for the fighter/bomber version feels exactly right, however, that leaves all P40's with a transfer range of 8 and an operational range of 2 which causes a few problems. a fighter/fighter-escort mission by a P40 really should be able to go 3 hexs. anyway it is only a minor thing and whatever you decide is fine.

Whil you're retooling, in OBC42 the Wasp's VB-7 is flying TBD's instead of SBD's. Probably just a typo, but man have I launched some LETHAL torp bomber attacks!!!!!

BTW, I did away with the Richelieu and converted it into a 2 ship Montana class. Used the Iowa as a base and Iconmap to redraw to Montana likeness. Hated giving up the Richelieu though.

Again - I love this game!!! Even better than UV.

Is it possible to modify PACWAR to 3 day turns or is it locked at 7???

I've played over 5,000 hours of the game since 1992. I;d say half of that time was pre-1999, version 1.0 and 1.1 (which i got from SSI). So ,too much change is not necessary for a fun game.

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
The use of the Rufe Fighter-Floatplane was relatively limited ...

Ah, but isn't that what makes the possibility of using it interesting? Granted the Rufe is not as agile as its carrier or land based cousins, but it does provide the possibility of having fighters where you otherwise couldn't. In Pacwar terms that would be on level 1 bases. And late in the war the Japanese built an excellent seaplane fighter the - Kawanishi N1K1 Kyofu - that nearly equaled the performance of the A6M2 even with floats attached. Its land-based spinoff became "George" in the Allied nomenclature.

I have always wished, though, that we could try another tack- what if all those Japanese seaplane tenders could carry a squadron of Rufes or Kyofus? They could be included in transport TFs to provide CAP, much like CVEs. At a minimum, it would provide protection against unescorted bombers. I realize it is just a variant, but that is part of the fun of playing these games - trying out an alternate way of doing things. I would love to see this capability in WITP when it comes out...

Great idea.I've alwsy been a fan of seaplanes, as the AV's with Rufes are a vital component of my IJN tactics.

Originally posted by GET TRANSPT
...the AV's with Rufes are a vital component of my IJN tactics.

Have you employed these tactics in some other game? It seems like there might have been some in the old board game "Flattop" but I'm not sure I've seen them anywhere else... clue me in as I might like to investigate!

Here are some things that are already in 3.1

1. US ships do not receive sunk replacements.

2. Allied CVE's are in groups of 2 instead of individual ships.
(except for Sangammon and Commencement Bay Class)

3. Philippine and Dutch LCU's will now receive troops, tank and gun replacements. Historically they did experience troop replacements, and the Dutch did get an influx of new troops and weapons. So now they will be a little less useless, but will start off weaker.

Hi, J. P. grear work on ver 3.1 ! i've noticed few map thigees"

Addu Atoll is an atoll ( max cap 4)in 41, but has a port capacity of 6 at start in 41. In later scenarios, it is back to 4

Truk starts 1941 as an "island" (max cap 6) but with port/AF of 8 each.

Dili and Flores are switched with each other in post 1942 scenarios. (The correct placement is in the 1941 data)


"Columbo" is a TV series from the 70s. Colombo has always been the name of the city in Sri Lanka/Ceylon


And could you post a readme /update file since ver 2.3?


thanks for your indulgence in my quibbles

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
Here are some things that are already in 3.1

1. US ships do not receive sunk replacements.

2. Allied CVE's are in groups of 2 instead of individual ships.
(except for Sangammon and Commencement Bay Class)

3. Philippine and Dutch LCU's will now receive troops, tank and gun replacements. Historically they did experience troop replacements, and the Dutch did get an influx of new troops and weapons. So now they will be a little less useless, but will start off weaker.

i was thinking, maybe after september1944 remaining dutch LCU's can be''revived'' as the first part of the netherlands are liberated

I am very happy with the new ships and planes added to 3.0. I would like to see some new scenarios.

And I would REALLY REALLY would like to see a splash screen for when an atomic bomb attack is successful. With damage details etc. And if the attack is not successful there might even be a chance the Japanese recover and repair and perhaps use the bomb on the US. That would be interesting. Though probably not a realistic thing to happen. But the splash screen showing the most powerful weapon of war ever created would be a nice touch. After all that is what made the Japanese surrender. Or should I say for the Emperor declare the war over. His Generals were ready to fight off an invasion.

Scenarios:

Axis powers agree to not start the war till June 1942. A few more builds for both sides with the US at a slight disadvantage production wise. This way the F7, F8 and perhaps the Montana’s would see some action.

Hitler is incapacitated in December 1941 and does not declare war on the US. Resulting in the US putting a full effort deployment to the Pacific. This scenario probably wont last more that a year this way. Would be fun to see how fast the US could take out the Japanese.

I would love to see the Russians involved.

That’s about all I can think of.

I am 99% done working on the preliminary for 3.1.

I will not add any new scenarios yet, as it would delay the arrival of 3.1.

Planned scenarios...

Japan wins at Midway 1942 (very tough for the Allies)

Operation Coronet 1946

War in 1940
explanation: After France falls, Japan takes this opportunity to attack England and the East Indies after securing Indo-China. The US Declares war. Empires must fight with a lot less equipment, troops and ships. (very tough for Japan)

War in 1942
explanation: The US did not believe that war with Japan would occur until 1942. This scenario takes place when the US is fully prepared for war. (very tough for Japan)


Although these scenarios are improbable, making the game more interesting probably requires these alternate history scenarios.

Thanks Jeremy. I love the work you done so far. I can't wait to see the update. Any idea how long till its out? I want to start a new game but wont have a of time and don't want to get caught between versions.

Any chance of a atomic bomb splash screen? How about if I say please?? I might even grovel a little if I must.

I do not think that the Atomic Bomb screen is possible at all, due to the age and limitation of the 1992 code.

I am not sure when it will be sent out, I want to check over the files to make sure that there are no bugs, and inconsistencies.

I enjoy the scenarios, Jeremy. In the Leyte Gulf scenario ( "f") in version 3.0 the 18 Rudderow class DE's are still "Japanese" (this has been around forever) and sitting at Makin atoll while US bomber attack them on turn 1 (and the DE's show up as sunk USN ships!). However, the Allied MCS docked in Japanese occupied Timor seems to have beem removed.

thanks