Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> Scenario Design >> The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress - 3/9/2006 6:20:41 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
The Great Pacific War
1926 to 1930

Unlike most countries Japan comes out of the Great War with very little loss and gaining significantly in territory and treasure. Between the Great War and the Russo-Japanese War the military has gained in ascendancy and there is a significant push to expand Japan’s status as a Great Power.

Japan aggressively expands its interests in Manchuria and forms a close alliance with Chinese Warlord B. By 1920 Manchuria is a virtual client state of the Japanese Empire. Japan has troops stationed at major strategic spots and they are providing weapons and training to their client Chinese troops. Raw materials and food are flowing to Japan.

Alarmed at Japan’s open aggression in China and rapid expansion of military power, the US attempts to find a warlord in China to support. They also want to limit world-wide naval expansion and work to get the Washington Naval Talks underway. Through deft political maneuvering they get the British, French, Italian, and Japanese to agree to meet in Washington to discuss imposing limits on warship production. Things seem to be going well when disaster strikes. The Japanese Intelligence Service learns that the US has broken their diplomatic codes and is using the information from the intercepts to gain an advantage at the talks (this actually happened). Outraged Japan leaves the talks and the Washington Naval Conference ends in a shambles with the US disgraced and an unbreachable rift between the US and Japan.

In China the presence and actions of Japan in Manchuria, starts a limited unification movement under Warlord A. Warlord A captures Peking in 1923 and begins the process of unifying the outlying provinces. The US is covertly providing support and help.

In 1924 the Anglo-Japanese Neutrality Pact is reached. This allows the British to deactivate a portion of their fleet as a cost saving measure and focus on the growing unrest in their own colonies. The French and Dutch are also having problems with their colonial populations and conclude Non-Aggression Pacts with the Japanese that same year.

In late 1924 Japan begins to plan for a war with the US. Their economic, political, and military status as a Great Power is tied to their control of Manchuria. The rising unification movement in China is a direct threat to their future. They know the US is supporting Warlord A and would oppose any open movements in China proper. The Japanese believe that if they can capture Guam and the Philippines they will have deprived the US of any bases to strike into their territory, which will allow them to deal with the situation in China at their leisure. Through diplomacy they have neutralized the British, French and Dutch so it comes down to a naval war with the US. A war they believe they can win.

Since the Washington Naval Conference ended in a shambles, the Presidency of Warren Harding was beset by scandal. Warren Harding died of a heart attack in 1923, and his successor Calvin Coolidge was easily defeated in 1924 by Democratic Governor James Cox. The Coolidge administration had been trying to strengthen the US military and expand the bases at Guam and the Philippines. But Congress was in no mood to support the disgraced administration and the people of the US, flush in an economic boom began to look inward. President Cox’s initial diplomatic agenda was to try to join the League of Nations and repair the breach with Japan. Not wanting to further enrage the Japanese he drastically cut back on base expansion in the Philippines and Guam as well as the support being given to Warlord A. Unfortunately the Japanese had already decided on war.

In May 1926 the Japanese formally declared war on the United States.

List of scenario features: (this is still being worked)

Japanese:

1) 50% of Japan fuel production will be moved to Manchuria and Sahkalin Island (sp), most in Manchuria.

2) 35% of Japan supply production will be moved to Manchuria.

3) Approximately 60 destroyers will be added to Japan’s reinforcements – 20 No. 35 and 30 No. 19. I will also add maybe an additional 10 No. 2 for a total of 60

4) Manchurian Chinese units will be added to the Japanese OOB in Manchuria. I am thinking 6 divisions – with 3 more as the war progresses.

5) A large number of smaller patrol/sub-chasers will be added to the OOB as reinforcements say 50 to 70.

6) 20 transports and 2 tankers will be added as reinforcements, 8 transports and 2 tankers will be added to the OOB (see below).

7) Commerce Bases will be added. 1 Base in the Indian Ocean (200 supply/400 fuel per day) and one in the lower right corner of the map (300 supply/100 fuel). No warships of either side will be allowed within 3 hexes of the base. Each base will have 4 transports and 1 tanker in port at the start of the war.

8) Will add at least 2 “Nagasaki” class submarine cruisers. One normal and one minelaying variant. (Large fast sub with 8” guns, minelayer will carry 300 mines)

9) Will add a couple of small merchant ship carriers as reinforcements.

10) Will add 15 Minesweepers as reinforcements.

United States:

1) All available US destroyers will be added as reinforcements (this will bring the total up to around 275 eventually). Approximately 30% of the older, obsolete destroyers will have their class changed to newer classes and be later game reinforcements.

2) Will add approximately 90 small sub-chasers/patrol craft as reinforcements.

3) Will add 20 Minesweepers as reinforcements.

4) There will be 2 late game fast cruisers added. (Pensacola Class)

5) Some older obsolete cruisers will be added to the Asiatic fleet OOB.

6) Will add regiment sized defense forces to Guam, Midway, and Pago-Pago. Guam will also get a coastal arty rgt.

7) USMC units will not be assigned to a restricted HQ.

8) 3rd Division will be assigned to Hawaii Nine Corps.

9) US battleship reinforcements will be reworked slightly. They will show up a bit sooner.

10) Republic of China will have approximately 8 divisions that are not static. They will receive another 10 divisions as reinforcements over the course of the war. This should put Japan in the situation of protecting their vital supply/fuel in Manchuria.

11) Will add a couple of merchant class carriers.

This will be a war between US/China and Japan. If Japan attacks the British, French or Dutch then those powers will come into the war.

I am sure there will be other changes, would appreciate feedback as well. Do these ideas seem out of whack? Do you have something better?


< Message edited by Mike Carroll -- 3/10/2006 7:09:32 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress - 3/9/2006 7:58:26 PM   
Layer

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Sounds good. If you read "Sea Power in the Pacific" one of the causes of tension between Japan and US was the status of Japanese in US. This was a serious matter at the time and had been for for a number of years. Bywater refers to the anger in Japan particularly from the press about the way Japanese were treated. There were various agreements to limit immigration but he certainly felt it could be a causus belli. Incidently he credits the Amagis with 8 16" as does Parkes. Sorry if I seem a bit of a Bywater bore but I am lucky enough to own most of his books through my Great Grandfather who knew him.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 2
RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress - 3/9/2006 8:14:17 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Don't forget "up"grading the Akagi and the Kaga from carriers to battleships.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Layer)
Post #: 3
RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress - 3/9/2006 9:12:33 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Don't forget "up"grading the Akagi and the Kaga from carriers to battleships.


Akagi and Kaga are already battleships I think. In WPO they were never completed as carriers:-)


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 4
RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress - 3/9/2006 9:18:38 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Layer

Sounds good. If you read "Sea Power in the Pacific" one of the causes of tension between Japan and US was the status of Japanese in US. This was a serious matter at the time and had been for for a number of years. Bywater refers to the anger in Japan particularly from the press about the way Japanese were treated. There were various agreements to limit immigration but he certainly felt it could be a causus belli. Incidently he credits the Amagis with 8 16" as does Parkes. Sorry if I seem a bit of a Bywater bore but I am lucky enough to own most of his books through my Great Grandfather who knew him.


I have become something of a fan myself. His "The Great Pacific War" kind of matches in many respects my own vision of how this war would be fought:-)

I checked in the database and the Amagi has 10 16" guns, should this be reduced? My Conway's has not arrived yet - not even sure if it is in there.

(in reply to Layer)
Post #: 5
RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress - 3/9/2006 10:08:54 PM   
Layer

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Regarding the the "Amagis" every source I've read credits them with 10 16", Bywater and Parkes seem to be the only ones who suggest 8. I have to say Bywater could almost be a game developer for WPO if he was still around today. The GPW sounds an excellent scenario. Another one could be based upon the Royal Navy's plans for war against Japan in the 20's when they assumed the US would be neutral. I wish I had the skills that you guys have in developing these scenarios. Doing this reply and trying to play WPO is about my limit. Beats Solitaire though!

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 6
RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress - 3/9/2006 10:22:20 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
I don't have skills - I am just playing around in the database editor. It is very intuitive. Working on the US destroyers right now.

(in reply to Layer)
Post #: 7
Status Update - 3/10/2006 11:58:41 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
Well I have been digging in and trying to get stuff done. Here is what has been done so far.

1) Added Commerce Bases in the Indian Ocean and in the lower right part of the map (down by the credits). These bases have a small amount of daily supply and fuel and only Japanese transports can move within 3 hexes of the base.

2) Added 4 transports and 1 small tanker to each of the above commerce bases. I also brought back roughly 20 transports and tankers that were not being used as reinforcements.

3) Brought back all US destroyers (except those sunk in 1923) as reinforcements. This gives the US some 290 Destroyers over the course of the game. Roughly half in the starting OOB and the other half coming as reinforcements. I believe this number is low, but a better situation than the standard game so I am going to leave it as it is. I upgraded a handful (10 or so to better classes)

4) I added 60 Destroyers to the Japanese reinforcements. 20 No. 35 class, 30 No. 19 class and 10 No. 1 class. I am sorry but I just gave them numbers, I do not have the time to name them all:-)

5) I created a Japanese patrol/sub-chaser based on the W5 Minesweeper. I added 20 to the starting OOB and added another 40 as reinforcements. These are named WSC 1 etc.

6) I brought 10 sub-chasers to the US starting OOB and added 20 to the Reinforcement schedule.

7) I brought 15 Eagle Patrol craft to the US starting OOB and added 40 to the Reinforcement schedule.

8) I added 15 minesweepers to the OOB as reinforcements for both the Japanese and the US.

9) Added 5 AO to the Japanese Reinforcement schedule, added 7 AO to the US reinforcement schedule.

10) Added 3 AV to the Japanese Reinforcement schedule, added 4 AV to the US reinforcement schedule.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 8
RE: Status Update - 3/11/2006 12:37:02 AM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
11) Ok I did the "Nagasaki Sub Cruiser" Minelayer variant.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 9
RE: Status Update - 3/11/2006 12:37:43 AM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
Ok the Nagasaki




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 10
RE: Status Update - 3/11/2006 12:42:47 AM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
I am really worried about adding these but I wanted to just to get closer to the book. Obviously this is loosely based on the book since it is taking place 6 years earlier and in world where the Washington Naval Talks failed. It will be interesting to see what happens in the game.

I don't have time to play around with it but will email the scenario to whoever wants it. Just understand that the AI is not programed and there is still alot to do. Shoot me an email or PM and I will send it to you.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 11
RE: Status Update - 3/11/2006 2:02:48 AM   
Rysyonok


Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline
Is this USA vs Japan or the whole world vs Japan like in WPO stock?

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 12
RE: Status Update - 3/11/2006 3:25:31 AM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
US vs Japan.

(in reply to Rysyonok)
Post #: 13
RE: Status Update - 3/13/2006 8:38:23 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
Another update.

1. Okha-Sakalin is moved back to Japanese control. The Japs had occuppied Okha in 1920 and gave it back to the Soviet Union in 1925. I am postulating that in the growing crisis with the US the Japs would have kept this vital oil resource area. The downside is that the Manchurian garrison requirement is going to increase. I added a Jap Brigade and Base force to Okha and increased the port size to 3.

2. I reinforced the Base forces at Guam, Pago-Pago, Canton and Midway. Some got 8" or 12" CD guns and some increased Marine Squads.

3. I added "garrison" Marine Rgts to Guam, Pago-Pago and Midway. They will be fixed in place.

4. Changed USMC units to Nine Corps Hawaii.

The Nagasaki ML variant is not working so I am still playing around with it.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 14
RE: Status Update - 3/13/2006 8:44:37 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
The reason the Nagasaki ML isn't working is that the mineload MUST be in weapons slot #2; all of it, no exceptions...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 15
Question - 3/13/2006 9:47:34 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
Ok question on Manchuria Garrison requirement. Is there any way to change this and if so where do I do it? I need to bump it up considerably.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 16
RE: Question - 3/13/2006 10:03:40 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
It's hardcoded, unfortunately. When we messed around with it in beta, Mike Wood had to change it for us. You'll have to handle it with house rules.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 17
RE: Question - 3/13/2006 11:07:01 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
Thanks - Well I guess there is absolutely no possibility of the Soviets coming in unless the Japanese attack. That is ok with me.

House rule will have to be that no Manchurian units may leave Manchuria or China and have to set a minimum number of Japanese Assault force for garrison.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 18
Status Update - 3/13/2006 11:29:17 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
Ok I know this will be somewhat controversial but fits in with the backstory and scenario.

1. Added Manchurian Warlord Army - this is a Japanese Ally. He gets 5 divisions and 2 cavalry divisions, 1 base force and 1 FA Arty Rgt. These are all based on Japanese OOB without the combat engineers. Instead of Japanese squads, they use Manchurian Squads which have similar numbers to the Chinese squads. The Manchurian Army receives the following reinforcements:

2 divisions
1 cavalry division

2. There should be a total of 6 Corps, 4 Divisions, and 1 Cav Corps in the the Republic of China Army (units are designated ROC). These units do not have warlords so are mobile.
In addition the ROC receive the following reinforcements.

1927 - 3 Corps
1928 - 3 Corps and 4 Divisions
1929 - 7 Corps, 1 Division, 1 Cav Corps

If the game lasts until 1929 then the Republic of China should be able to at least tie down a significant number of Jap forces, threatening the supply and fuel in Manchuria and Korea.

3. Added 1500 daily supply at Peking. Japan could potentially strike here in 1927 and capture Peking. Without this supply it might be harder for China to attack later in the game.

I know alot of people say this is a naval game, so they could always take the scenario and just not use the Chinese, leave the Manchurian units in Manchuria and agree to a minimum garrison requirement for Korea. I will propose that as some honor rules that go with the scenario.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 19
RE: Status Update - 3/14/2006 12:55:40 AM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The reason the Nagasaki ML isn't working is that the mineload MUST be in weapons slot #2; all of it, no exceptions...


Missed this answer thanks. Now I will have to decide how many mines to give it

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 20
RE: Status Update - 3/14/2006 1:15:46 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Well, 2500, obviously, just like it says in the book!

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 21
RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress - 3/14/2006 1:18:18 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 22
RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress - 3/14/2006 3:40:37 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 23
RE: The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress - 3/15/2006 5:56:04 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
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. 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.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 24
Question - 3/16/2006 6:15:14 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 25
RE: Question - 3/16/2006 6:23:13 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)
Post #: 26
RE: Question - 3/16/2006 6:48:41 PM   
Mike Carroll

 

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> Scenario Design >> The Great Pacific War - Scenario in Progress Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.219