The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress

Post suggestions and discuss the scenario and database editors here.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Status Update

Post by Terminus »

Well, 2500, obviously, just like it says in the book![:D]
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress

Post by Terminus »

Have you considered making it a limited map scenario, cutting off the map immediately to the west of the Philippines? Under the premise of Bywater's story, I see no way in h*ll that the Japanese would attack any of the other powers.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress

Post by Terminus »

On the Nagasaki (non-ML), the 20cm turret should be 2/2, not 2/1. The first number is the total number of barrels in that facing (here C), and the second is the number of barrels per mount. From the book, it reads like a double turret.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Mike Carroll
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 8:09 pm

RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress

Post by Mike Carroll »

Thanks I will make the changes to the Nagasaki.

I do not want to make it a limited map scenario because I have placed "Commerce Bases" with limited daily supply and fuel for the Japanese near India and at the lower right corner of the map. These bases represent trade with Europe, Africa and South America. The supply and fuel is there, they just have to go get it:-) The Americans get to raid the commerce if they can.

No warships from either side are allowed within 3 hexes of these bases.

The Minelayer variant will NOT have 2500 mines. [:D] Probably something around 244. For some reason it keeps resetting the mineload to 244. Wonder if there is some sort of built in limit. I do not think WPO can adequately represent the problems these units had. So I think with will operate the way the Japs wanted them too. They should be extremely powerful.
Mike Carroll
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 8:09 pm

Question

Post by Mike Carroll »

Question should the US have access to non-US transports or just the US and Philippine transports?

I think I have moved all US transports back to the West Coast. I placed them in the reinforcement schedule for the first 3 months of the war. My question however is does the US have enough cargo ships? In my other game they had access to neutral cargo ships, but would like your opinion for this scenario.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Question

Post by Terminus »

Based on the book, I'd say no. Neutrality is strictly observed. Maybe you could give them a few extra representing Japanese ships confiscated in US ports on the outbreak of war?
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Mike Carroll
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 8:09 pm

RE: Question

Post by Mike Carroll »

Yes perhaps I will add 30 or so transports to the reinforcement. My concern is that there should be quite a few new production ships, so perhaps I will add some of those as well.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”