What would be the perfect WITP III?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

What would be the perfect WITP III?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> What would be the perfect WITP III?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 2:25:31 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

We all know that there are some limits about what can be done with the current/near future game. That's ok - all computer programs have these limits - that doesn't take away from the game.

But, if you could have a WITP-style, brand new game designed from the ground upon your ideas, which ideas would they be? That is, if your dream WITP game could be built (it certainly can't), what would you incorporate to it?

The purpose of this thread is just to have fun with blue-sky ideas, so a cookie will go out for the most interesting (albeit realistic) idea coming out there.

Cheers

fbs

Post #: 1

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 2:37:30 AM

Alikchi2

Posts: 1785
Joined: 5/14/2004
Status: offline

OOB of AE++, zoomable map like Google Earth down to, say, a 30 square mile/hex scale, an extremely complicated air combat resolution engine with more order options, naval surface combat again, quite detailed indeed.. more data to take into account re weather, leader stats, positioning, radar, blah blah blah. Naval combat would not be the current interface but rather a top down view 2D of the hex in which you saw combat play out with fast forward and rewind buttons.. before the turn began you could set 'battle settings' ie attack in line, defensive/aggressive posture, protect transports/seek out enemy/scatter on contact, etc etc.

Japanese (and American) industrial stuff would have a lot more flexibility. You'd be able to prioritize certain research areas over others, and build custom-designed (or at least pre-selected) ship classes, or go fully historical if preferable.. but say you're contemplating an invasion of New Zealand in late 1942 and want LSDs. You could add them to the build queue. Or hey, what if you want to build the Montanas, or accelerate Vanguard (at a huuuge expense in PPs/VPs or whatever point system exists)? In WitP III (and AE for that matter), you're Roosevelt, Marshall, Nimitz, Spruance, and John Thatch all at once. You should be able to build the ships you need.

Ground combat.. god knows how you'd remodel that.

WitP IV would break from the shackles of hex-based combat..

< Message edited by Alikchi -- 10/23/2009 2:40:53 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 2

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 2:37:44 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

My take: 1-minute continuous steps like Hearts of Iron; event system like TOAW III; weapon purchase/reorganization like Steel Panthers; a ship designer; mission designer like BOB/BTR; storylines.

As you see, not many original ideas from here, but a bunch of reusing of great ideas from some excellent games

What to _not_ add: 3D graphics (blergh) -- once games go in that way, it becomes all about 3D and nothing about gameplay.

Cheers

fbs

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 3

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 2:46:19 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

OK, what do you mean by WITP style, the units and game engine?
I would love a prewar diplomacy and research oriented start, with perhaps turns in months.. followed by a witp style game with player designed production, including setbacks. IE no guarenty your b 17s research is successful.
World wide or theatre wide works

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 4

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 8:39:47 AM

The Gnome

Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline

UI Improvements are on my wishlist. As we include more and more data with each version and the level of housekeeping goes up for every player, we need a modern UI to help us sift through the data, and be as efficient as possible when entering our turns.

Every task should be completable with the minimum number of clicks and keystrokes possible.

Some ideas for a nicer UI:
- Hi-Res support for modern monitors, including widescreen (16:9/16:10)

- Clean, clear, sizable fonts, larger standard sized buttons that appear in the same places on each window (ie ok, cancel always in the bottom right of the window)

- Standard window behavior on most in game windows: Resizable, movable

- all tabular data should allow column resizing, column moving, sorting.

- moving data between lists (eg Task Force Creation) should allow multi-select(lassoing data, ctrl-clicking, shift-clicking) and drag-and-drop.

- Printable lists could be a nice little add.

Just a few ideas

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 5

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 11:39:01 AM

Djordje

Posts: 537
Joined: 9/12/2004
Status: offline

Map that you could zoom in/out from the satellite view to individual ship view. Those who played Supreme Commander could get an idea.
It would still have to be turn based, but once turn resolution starts player would be able to go through 24h turn at the speed he likes, back and forth. So the turn starts at 00:00 and goes on, and as things happen on the map you can zoom in and watch actual naval / air battles in nice shiny 3d engine...

Oh let me dream some more!

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 6

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 11:39:27 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Redesign the entire program from the ground up to do away with the "it's hard coded" problem. Seperate scenarios for play against the AI/play against humans..., so that one doesn't interfere with the other. And a designed-in capacity for multi-player games and commands.

(in reply to The Gnome)

Post #: 7

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 12:32:17 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

I always liked Talonsoft games and the videos which popped up in some of them. For me, it lended visual flavor to the game, and was a nice break from the sometimes monotonous pushing around of little "cardboard counters"..

It's not like there is a shortage of suitable film clips, or anything, its' just a matter of pandering to those of us who like that kind of "chrome"..

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/23/2009 12:43:06 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 8

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 12:57:29 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

Although AE is not the finished article, it seems to be playing well despite only having one patch done to date.

I think the level of detail is about right, some people want to be able to micromanage everything down to the last supply point, but that is just total overkill in my opinion. Fancy graphics add nothing to long term playability.

Besides, if (And its a big if!) there ever is a WITP 3 I dont think it will be released this side of 2014......

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 9

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 1:02:05 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

a surface combat resolution system just like Storm Eagles Jutland tactical naval simulation.

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 10

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 1:06:18 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

A pop up 40's style jukebox loaded with a bunch of period songs, kinda like the radio room in "Aces Of The Deep"..

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 11

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 1:07:26 PM

Zacktar

Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline

A few quick ideas:

Complete tear-down and replacement of the user interface.

Treat the Earth as a sphere, not a plane.

Start with the world at peace and simulate the pre-war period. The more aggressive Japan gets, the greater the chance that the Allies detect what's coming. Turn 1 surprise can be lost, or the Allies can even get the chance to give a full set of orders for turn 1.

Much better intelligence simulation.

Proper organizational structure of sea, land and air units. Ships are grouped into divisions and squadrons. Land units into divisions, Corps, Field Armies and Theaters. Reorganizing them takes time, using them piecemeal without reorganizing should have some penalties.

Fleet headquarters (especially the US numbered fleets) should serve their historical planning role -- the availability of Third and Fifth Fleets should significantly accelerate US operations.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 12

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 1:12:10 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

A small numbered pennant on the map which would tell me the intended (historical) destination of some of the HQ units, so I don't need to look them up. Once the game starts, I could drag/drop those penants to suit my needs.

Oh,yeah, the enemy can not see them.

_____________________________

(in reply to Zacktar)

Post #: 13

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 1:27:04 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zacktar

Start with the world at peace and simulate the pre-war period. The more aggressive Japan gets, the greater the chance that the Allies detect what's coming. Turn 1 surprise can be lost, or the Allies can even get the chance to give a full set of orders for turn 1.

I like this notion. On game turn one as the Allies, I simply embargo all trade with Japan (on the basis of whatever she's already done) and pass the "Three Ocean Navy" Bill ( to provide jobs in the shipyards). Japan collapses economically, and I save billions of bucks and thousands of lives by not having to fight the War in the Pacific!

(in reply to Zacktar)

Post #: 14

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 1:41:57 PM

Graymane

Posts: 520
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Bellevue, NE
Status: offline

More organizational capabilities. For a start, admin versus tactical organizations. I'd like to assign some destroyers to a destroyer squadron and say a tender to it as well. Then I'd like to base it somewhere as a whole and then assign the squadron to a surface or air combat task force and have the game manage rotating destroyers in and out. I'd like the same level of admin control for LCU and Air Groups as well.

I'd like better GUI support for operations. Say I create an operation called Cartwheel. I'd like to assign units/groupings of units to Cartwheel and be able to examine all the units assigned to Cartwheel.

More and better "spreadsheets" since this is a spreadsheet game.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 15

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 2:43:59 PM

gladiatt

Posts: 2576
Joined: 4/10/2008
Status: offline

Priority targets for planes !!
-attack the transport
-attack the escort
-attack the BB
-attack the CV

- aim at fighters
-aim at bombers

That would be great. But i like the game anyway !

_____________________________

(in reply to Graymane)

Post #: 16

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 3:14:24 PM

Panther Bait

Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline

1. I think my biggest wish for a redesigned game would be more of a mission-based gui rather than a strictly unit-based gui. By mission-based gui, I mean that if I want to bomb Rabaul, I don't find a bunch of bomber units that have the right range and click them individually to bomb Rabaul, and then do the same for a bunch of fighter units to escort them. Instead, I right-click on the Rabaul base and choose Bombing Mission in a drop down. That brings up a screen where all my fighter and bomber air units that can reach Rabaul are listed. I add a check mark next to the ones I want to assign to the mission and hit go. And for even more effective control, it would be great if I could set options like: repeat until canceled; repeat every ## days; max pilot/air unit fatigue level; minimum morale level; minimum sortie number (i.e. only launch mission if ## bombers will fly); minimum escort #; etc. That way I set the mission up once and it continues without my constant input without driving my air units into the ground either.

2. Better TF design. It would be nice if you could design a TF with a little more of a formation aspect. Not literally laying out the formation so much as assigning different ships different duties/roles. So, rather than have an ASW TF following a transport TF, you'd assign the escort to different "boxes" on the TF setup screen. You'd have screening/picket destroyers that are primarily providing ASW and close in destroyer's providing mostly AA. In surface combat TF's you could setup a very general battle line setup and decide if you want your DD's in close or detached. In support of this, it would be great to have more of a command structure for naval units with destroyer squadrons and divisions, submarine squadrons/flotillas, carrier divisions, etc. The TF setup screen would include options to assign these groupings in addition to single ships, and the groupings would have their own leaders. That way 31-knot Burke can be commanding your DD's in a surface combat TF overall led by Tip Merrill.

3. Another layer of organzation/planner above TF (call it an Operation) that can include all branches of the armed forces. I designate a target base(s) and then start assigning forces. HQ's and LCU's assigned begin training/prepping for the combat. As time goes on, I can designate ships/TFs to haul the units to the target (if necesarry). I can add air groups that will support the operation. It would probably be more of an organizational/planning tool rather than a command tool, but I could see specific commands that would be useful. For example, if I assign some APA's to haul a division, the planner allow me to give orders to have those APA's rendevous at the division's current location. Ideally the tool could give me some idea of time necessary to load up and move to the target, so that I could set a D-Day and a rendevous point for various Operational components (e.g. multiple LCUs coming from different ports). It would also be a one-stop place to check the status and condition of all the various components of the operation.

Anyway, those are some of my big dream items.

Mike

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to Graymane)

Post #: 17

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 3:19:51 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

The purpose of this thread is just to have fun with blue-sky ideas, so a cookie will go out for the most interesting (albeit realistic) idea coming out there.

Non manipulable production unless a toggle is flipped.

_____________________________

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 18

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 3:45:45 PM

scott64

Posts: 4019
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Real Life, to be able to transport us back in time.

_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me

Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !! :)

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 19

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 3:58:26 PM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

I'd love for WITP III to pay me. That way I wouldn't have to work and could devote more time to it.

Not going to happen? Oh well.....

How about having LCU and Air units named down to the Regiment/Squadron. When combined, they take on the name/designation of the higher unit and when divided, they get their smaller unit designation. No more 519th Fighter Group/A.

(in reply to scott64)

Post #: 20

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 4:15:01 PM

Zacktar

Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zacktar

Start with the world at peace and simulate the pre-war period. The more aggressive Japan gets, the greater the chance that the Allies detect what's coming. Turn 1 surprise can be lost, or the Allies can even get the chance to give a full set of orders for turn 1.

I like this notion. On game turn one as the Allies, I simply embargo all trade with Japan (on the basis of whatever she's already done) and pass the "Three Ocean Navy" Bill ( to provide jobs in the shipyards). Japan collapses economically, and I save billions of bucks and thousands of lives by not having to fight the War in the Pacific!

Except that trying any of this will get you impeached and removed from office before the Emperor asks his cabinet why razor blades have gotten so expensive!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 21

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 7:16:36 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

[/quote]
Except that trying any of this will get you impeached and removed from office before the Emperor asks his cabinet why razor blades have gotten so expensive!

[/quote]

Impeached for what? The "high crime and misdemeanor" of not supporting the Rape of Nanking and all the other various atrocities the Japanese Army committed during the "China Incident"? You must be living in the same "cloudcookooland" as the rest of the Japanese High Command.

(in reply to Zacktar)

Post #: 22

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 8:09:03 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

I would have it so you could merge unit fragments into an existing combat unit. The best examples are the dutch/Burma units. Anybody can be a rifleman, so if you get fragments, just fold them in as rifle squads.

I would also change the way HQ's work. I think anything over the corp level would be only for supply and support. The ranges that they influence supply/reinforcement would be limited by zone of control. If you can get a supply ship in or fly in a transport then combat units are in range. Combat bonuses would come from corp HQ's and/or division leaders.

To give the Japanese a chance I would not make changes to the allied R&D or manufacturing with one exception. Allow the allied player the ability to convert more of the Cleveland CL's hulls to CVL's than they did historically.

The previous comments about UI changes would be nice. We really do have to play wearing a lot of hats but sometimes it feels like we are missing some

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 23

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/23/2009 10:09:01 PM

Zacktar

Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Impeached for what? The "high crime and misdemeanor" of not supporting the Rape of Nanking and all the other various atrocities the Japanese Army committed during the "China Incident"? You must be living in the same "cloudcookooland" as the rest of the Japanese High Command.

Reckless deficit spending, cutting off trade that American businesses depend on and provoking a war that the American people want to stay out of, for starters. If we're going to extend play that far beyond the initial run-up to hostilities, it doesn't take a Gary Grigsby to see that there have to be costs and benefits to be balanced, after all.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 24

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/24/2009 1:28:25 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zacktar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Impeached for what? The "high crime and misdemeanor" of not supporting the Rape of Nanking and all the other various atrocities the Japanese Army committed during the "China Incident"? You must be living in the same "cloudcookooland" as the rest of the Japanese High Command.

Reckless deficit spending, cutting off trade that American businesses depend on and provoking a war that the American people want to stay out of, for starters. If we're going to extend play that far beyond the initial run-up to hostilities, it doesn't take a Gary Grigsby to see that there have to be costs and benefits to be balanced, after all.

Do you know anything about "The New Deal"? It's called "Keynesian Economics"..., and had been going strong since 1933. What do you think financed the WPA? The TVA? The Bolder Dam? Etcetera. etcetera...

And do you really think that Roosevelt couldn't have "managed" the news and editorials over Japanese atrocities in China well enough to make any American Company trading with Japan look like "baby-raping skunks" and "traitors to the American Ideal"?

True, as the Allied Player I would be making use of "hindsight"..., but isn't that exactly what you want the Japanese Player to be able to do?

(in reply to Zacktar)

Post #: 25

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/24/2009 1:39:23 AM

Zacktar

Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Do you know anything about "The New Deal"? It's called "Keynesian Economics"..., and had been going strong since 1933. What do you think financed the WPA? The TVA? The Bolder Dam? Etcetera. etcetera...

And do you really think that Roosevelt couldn't have "managed" the news and editorials over Japanese atrocities in China well enough to make any American Company trading with Japan look like "baby-raping skunks" and "traitors to the American Ideal"?

Then why, pray tell, didn't he? I think I made this abundantly clear in my last post in this thread, but I'll try to be clearer: If you provide an "I win" button that costs nothing to push, of course every player will push it and you won't have much of a game, will you?

What I want is for both sides to have options available to them before the war. These options would have advantages and disadvantages attached to them, just like operations during the war do. To be more specific, imagine a "November 1941" start. Kido Butai rides at anchor in Empire waters, Japanese Army forces are fighting in China or planning for their invasion targets. The Japanese player orders his troops around, sends KB off towards its target, and awaits results. The Allies don't get many options to start with, but if the Japanese player is highly aggressive (or somewhat unlucky) surprise is lost and the Allies can wake up to a lesser or greater extent. A little warning means that CAP is flying over Pearl Harbor and AA guns are all manned and ready. Greater warning could see the Pacific and Asiatic Fleets on a full war footing, with the Allied player free to send them out to sea before the attack hits.

< Message edited by Zacktar -- 10/24/2009 1:48:02 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 26

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/24/2009 1:51:44 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

I would like WITP III to make it so a 4 ship Surface TF does not consistently whip the crap out of a well structured 15 ship surface TF with decent exp ships and excellent leaders. I'm tired of facing 1 BB, 2 CA and 1 DD only to see 1/2 of my ships take a stroll through the tulips and have the other 1/2 of my ships take damage/sink due to facing a much weaker force and not return the damage/sink option to the wimpy 4 ship TF.

Oh, but Japan has superior exp in all forms of naval warfare in 42. BS... Yamato is just as new as So Dak, Wash and NC. Yet Yamato can get penetrating hits each round on 2 BB and 2 CA, and not get hit in return, except by 5" rounds.

just venting. I guess I'll stop trying to have surface fights as the allies.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 27

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/24/2009 5:40:34 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

But, if you could have a WITP-style, brand new game designed from the ground upon your ideas, which ideas would they be? That is, if your dream WITP game could be built (it certainly can't), what would you incorporate to it?

The purpose of this thread is just to have fun with blue-sky ideas, so a cookie will go out for the most interesting (albeit realistic) idea coming out there.

A "virtual staff" would be the real time saver. Think of it as a limited, task-focused AI - not designed to carry an entire nation through the war, but one that's capable of looking at a task and providing useful recommendations on how to achieve it. For example, lets start small:

Suppose I want to set up a series of convoys that will carry fuel and supplies from the West Coast to Australia. I begin by clicking on the destination hex and then click on one or more hexes that contain the assets which my "staff" is free to use in it's calculations. Default would be unallocated units, but you can define other options at your staff interface. So the staff asks how much supply/fuel I'd like to transport from San Diego and LA, and I plug in a value. The staff plots out a suggested route as a line on the map and I can "click-and-pull" it into waypoints. Perhaps I can make the convoys repeatable or one time and maybe specify their frequency or limit the number of ships and or escorts. At some point I say "go" and the staff quickly calculates out a few options, one of which I select, and it's on to the next task.

That's a fairly simple example, but the key idea is to provide a single goal and a relativly small number of resource points, and then let the "staff" do the dirty work of assembling the task forces and maintaining them. Even big invasions aren't necessarily that hard, so long as you break it down into discrete activities. I want to invade Japanese controlled Rabaul in mid-42, so the first step is to determine the invasion "launch point" and use the staff to assemble all the required assets there. Step two would be to use the staff to set up all the various invasion related TFs and send them on their way.

Even things like CAP. Set some rough parameters, click the bases where you want it, select those containg the units that can provide it, and let the staff determine the units and altitudes, and all the rest. Your job as CinC is to set goals and then approve or deny the staff's recommendations - maybe even put up an "aggression" slider to alter the types and/or content of the recommendations.

What makes AI "hard" is the number of individual data points to be calculated. When you limit the number of variables, suddenly a "Virtual Staff" becomes a possibility. Maybe not WitP 3 even. Maybe WitP 2.

< Message edited by Kull -- 10/24/2009 5:41:17 AM >

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 28

RE: What would be the perfect WITP III? - 10/24/2009 5:55:40 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Zacktar. The following is called "sarcasm"...

"I like this notion. On game turn one as the Allies, I simply embargo all trade with Japan (on the basis of whatever she's already done) and pass the "Three Ocean Navy" Bill ( to provide jobs in the shipyards). Japan collapses economically, and I save billions of bucks and thousands of lives by not having to fight the War in the Pacific! ".

And even in your last post, you still sound like you don't get it.

If you were only talking about a month or so of pre-war manuevering (as you claim in your last post), then nothing I said above should matter. The embargoes were already in place, and the Two Ocean Naval Bill and it's later suplement were already ordered and under construction. So all that stuff about "impeachment" and "deficit spending" and "provoking a war" is meaningless unless you were talking years and not months of leadtime.

And if you were talking about "years", then you have to face the prospect that both sides will have "hindsight"...., and be able to use it. Or were you only going to allow this "freedom" to the Japanese?