Proposed Changes

[Lucas]

I have been playing PacWar since about 1994. It seems like once a year I go into Pacwar mode and just can't get enough of the game for several weeks.

My ideas for the great game's remake

1) Inclusion of Air Forces as HQ. This would allow all of those great Army Air leaders such as Hale and LeMay from being just one of the 3 "Army" air leaders. The Air Commands could be subordinate to the major regional CA HQ's

2) A corp and division unit model such as in Western Front should be used. While WIR has similar approach, the divison unit with attached tanks and extra artillery.

3)Many individual battalions should be added such as Tank, Amphibian, Amphibious Tank, special weapons groups like the Marine M-3 MGC, AA, and island defence groups.

4) All divisions and corps ,if added, should have a leader assigned.

5) Linked Tash forces. This would be a new addition to the game. When naval operations are conducted, particulary by the Americans, their task forces were set up to provide different missions at the same location yet overall the force had one objective. For example, at Guadalcanal, Turner's force had a Surface covering force under RA Crutcheley (RAN), a bombardment force under RA Norman Scott, and a transport force under himself. Under the current set up, only one force might be used for the attack due to the benefits of combine AA. If the linked task forces could exist, several missions could be met while providing the benefit of larger defensive groups.

6) Potential leader fatigue. While land commanders die left and right in ground combat, few naval officers die save for whole task forces being wiped out. What prevents the US from using any one save Montgomery, Sherman, McCain, and Mitscher from commanding the air task forces. I realize the last two are the historical air leaders for the 3rd and 5th fleets, but a 5 or 6 air leader can do those jobs and quickly move up in air rated due to the sheer volume of sorties flown. A command time limit should be imposed on the number of turns a leader commands a task force. After X turns he is out for y turns.

6)This one may be a stretch but different classes of artillery. Given the shipping war in the Pacific. Light artillery would be the Japanese 70 mm or the US 75mm pack howitzer. Medium the 25# British and US 105. Heavy Japanese 150 mm and US 155. By doing this not abastracting it into more or less artillery factors per unit, tradeoff in production a shipped would occur.

7) LCU need a better way of being divided up. Major Tom is correct in that different Japanese types of formations exisited. For most of the main land units a 4 regiment/2 brigade TOE existed. This is what PW allows. Later in the war and the Allies tended to use the Triangle System or three regiments existed. The USA on many occasions employed a RCT for small operations. A 1/3 breakdown should be used. Also a 1/3 breakdown of the regiment should occur for battalions or BLT.

8) If a unit is detached from the LCU, the computer should not replace the detached unit.

9) As part of a strategic game refits should be included. LCU can be refited to go to full TO&E. Ships need refits in order to prevent damage.



[This message has been edited by Lucas (edited 06-24-2000).]