Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic?

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic? - 8/11/2011 12:30:11 PM   
No New Messages
James Fennell
Matrix Trooper



Posts: 135
Joined: 12/25/2010
From: Gloucestershire
Status: offline
I've moved this over from the war room...

One thing struck me. Since WiTP begins on 7th Dec, we tend to focus very much on the IJN initial strategy - but in real life there was years of thinking about this and planning for this, so changing it is a bit silly - and it worked a treat anyway. However the real crunch came in early '42 - go south or go Midway or go north. A sort of naval equivalent of the German dilemma in Russia of the same period. Would not a scenario beginning just before or after coral sea offer much more interesting and realistic strategic options than one beginning at PH? As it stands, to have a more historical game one really needs to play out moves much as they occurred in reality until the Spring of '42, when those options opened up and could have gone in any direction - for both sides.

_____________________________

....gone to the dark side
Post #: 1
RE: GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic? - 8/11/2011 2:40:15 PM   
No New Messages
herwin
Matrix Legion of Merit


 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
+1, especially with DaBigBabes or the economic version.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to James Fennell)
Post #: 2
RE: GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic? - 8/11/2011 2:51:03 PM   
No New Messages
James Fennell
Matrix Trooper



Posts: 135
Joined: 12/25/2010
From: Gloucestershire
Status: offline
Cheers - I'm gonna be a bit dumb as I've been playing all on my tod for these past 8 months - where is +1 to be found?

_____________________________

....gone to the dark side

(in reply to James Fennell)
Post #: 3
RE: GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic? - 8/11/2011 3:00:58 PM   
No New Messages
herwin
Matrix Legion of Merit


 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stringbag

Cheers - I'm gonna be a bit dumb as I've been playing all on my tod for these past 8 months - where is +1 to be found?


See slashdot. I'm modding the posting up.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to James Fennell)
Post #: 4
RE: GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic? - 8/11/2011 5:58:45 PM   
No New Messages
Big B
Matrix Legion of Merit


 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
That's an interesting note, because that is precisely where most games concentrate on from the Japanese POV, yet in that period - it's on the Allied side that interesting possibilities of changing history are most relevant.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stringbag

I've moved this over from the war room...

One thing struck me. Since WiTP begins on 7th Dec, we tend to focus very much on the IJN initial strategy - but in real life there was years of thinking about this and planning for this, so changing it is a bit silly - and it worked a treat anyway. However the real crunch came in early '42 - go south or go Midway or go north. ......



_____________________________


(in reply to James Fennell)
Post #: 5
RE: GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic? - 8/11/2011 8:38:04 PM   
No New Messages
ckk
Matrix Elite Guard


 

Posts: 1268
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: Pensacola Beach FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stringbag

I've moved this over from the war room...

One thing struck me. Since WiTP begins on 7th Dec, we tend to focus very much on the IJN initial strategy - but in real life there was years of thinking about this and planning for this, so changing it is a bit silly - and it worked a treat anyway. However the real crunch came in early '42 - go south or go Midway or go north. A sort of naval equivalent of the German dilemma in Russia of the same period. Would not a scenario beginning just before or after coral sea offer much more interesting and realistic strategic options than one beginning at PH? As it stands, to have a more historical game one really needs to play out moves much as they occurred in reality until the Spring of '42, when those options opened up and could have gone in any direction - for both sides.

Which is why we are waiting (patiently) for the Spring of 42 Nik mod like we had with WITP vanilla

(in reply to James Fennell)
Post #: 6
RE: GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic? - 8/12/2011 12:36:03 AM   
No New Messages
el cid again
Matrix Legion of Merit


 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Stringbag

I've moved this over from the war room...

One thing struck me. Since WiTP begins on 7th Dec, we tend to focus very much on the IJN initial strategy - but in real life there was years of thinking about this and planning for this, so changing it is a bit silly - and it worked a treat anyway. However the real crunch came in early '42 - go south or go Midway or go north. A sort of naval equivalent of the German dilemma in Russia of the same period. Would not a scenario beginning just before or after coral sea offer much more interesting and realistic strategic options than one beginning at PH? As it stands, to have a more historical game one really needs to play out moves much as they occurred in reality until the Spring of '42, when those options opened up and could have gone in any direction - for both sides.



This is both true and untrue, depending on what counts. Japanese planning to invade and occupy Hawaii dated from 1910 - but it was also not implemented. War Plan Orange dates from WWI - and although related to what was done in the USN Central Pacific offensive - it also was not implemented as such. So it is true that general planning had gone on for decades.

On the other hand, in spite of Allied wartime and postwar propaganda, Japan did not intend to or plan to "wage aggressive war" and it did not "fortify the Mandated Islands in violation of the rules." [Fortification began after the Makin Island raid] The best account we have is by the head of the most effective - and probably longest constituted - planning unit - Col Tsuji's Japans Greatestl Victory, Britains Worst Defeat - in re Malaya. He says the Formosa Special Planning Unit (informally the "robber rope" unit - which makes sense in Japanse as "too late brigade" or "barn door brigade" might in English) - was formed AFTER the decision for mobilization.

Mobilization occurred in July, 1941 - not years before - and required agonizing decisions because the Army high command (that more or less dominated the regime) was wedded to "strike North" - for which purpose JAAF planes were designed for cold weather and short ranges suitable to fighting in the North. Mobilization occurred after the embargo of iron ore, rubber and oil by US, UK and NEI - putting Japan in a bind - it had about 30 months stockpile of oil - and no easy way to get more sans taking some oil sources. Sakhalin did have oil - but not enough (at least with then knowledge and technology - offshore it probably DID have enough!) Tsuji briefly went to the general staff - witnessed the agonizing decision process - and describes it in his book (one of only two he wrote - the other is almost impossible to get - only 26 copies in the USA - one at the Library of Congress - but it is about late war and post war things mostly in Thailand and China). Tsuji is widely discounted and ignored - but should not be. He was a fanatic nationalist who never lies - he just believes truths from a very different point of view than is comfortable for Western readers - starting with it is wrong for Asia to be colonized and exploited. In spite of this, when it serves Japan's interests, and when ordered to do so, he serves US intelligence in the early Cold War era. And we trusted him to do that - because trusting him was never an issue.

Anyway - better planning is certainly more interesting - and the basis of several games and mods I myself have done. But generally, it should be assumed that (a) detail planning starts about July 1941 and (b) longer term planning (e.g. for a Grand Escort Command) is simply folded in (instead of delayed for years as IRL). A 1938 vintage 3 inch gun was almost not produced - one cruiser gets four guns - eight more go ashore at Maizuru - but if you build it INSTEAD of the older 3 inch - you almost change the war - it is so superb. It uses the same fire control system (different cams) as the 4 inch gun - which itself should be even more produced (it went to sea on one class of AA destroyers, was intended for several larger classes - and 114 eventually were mounted ashore). One might focus on Kaidai type submarines - faster to build and cheaper - instead of long range fleet boats - and dozens of other concepts in place but not given priority. Certainly more production of fewer plane types would make sense, more widespread production of certain systems, and a focus on efficiency (do not let the Navy rob Army factories of specialists, and vice versa) would go a long way.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/12/2011 12:41:36 AM >

(in reply to James Fennell)
Post #: 7
RE: GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic? - 8/12/2011 1:01:53 AM   
No New Messages
el cid again
Matrix Legion of Merit


 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
It is perfectly true that the war changes entirely at Midway. And the Midway plan itself was bloody awful - Morison says it violated every one of the maximus of warfare all at the same time! Fujita writes the Japanese were infected with "victory disease" and felt anything was possible - so the initial caution of the Navy (that the war could not be won if protracted) was forgotten. Until the South Seas Regiment took a ridge SE of Stanley, and including that occasion, IJA was wholly successful - even when faced with vastly greater numbers. At that moment, a lot of strategic options occur.

As well, the first American offensive is badly planned. Guadalcanal was planned beyond the range of air support - something we never ever tried again - and the lessons we learned in the Aleutians were still in the future. Lessons learned by doing it wrong. We learned of the need for recon on the ground before the landing, on the need for joint command, and many other things - still future concepts in spring 1942. The Marines of First Division had not exercized even as regiments - not even in one case - and were entirely too green for offensive action vs IJA. We were saved more by enemy errors than our own clever planning. Tsuji records THEY really underestimated conditions on Guadalcanal - he apologized in person to the theater commander - taking personal responsiblity - saying "we asked too much of our troops." It is easier to shoot yourself in the foot than to win - and for both sides. Victory is often not because of superior planning, but in spite of inferior planning.

So a game that lets Japan have another shot at "what next" might be very interesting. Probably starting about the time of Coral Sea, they could try Coral Sea and then the follow up ops vs New Caledonia and Fiji supported by the entire Kiddo Butai - and likely that would work. The idea was to cut (or greatly lengthen) the SLOC between Australia and the USA - and also to gain the mineral wealth of NC - which Japan had invested in FYI. It is more important than generally understood - not only as a source of minerals for Japan - but because it hurts the Allies not to have the only significant source of antimony - and the best source of several other minerals - in the entire world. [The US had a total of one antimony mine - in the mountains not too far from Thompson Falls Montana - a tiny operation - still there if you want to go on gravel roads to see it]

Midway was just Round One for invading Hawaii - a bad idea - by Spring 1942 it was not feasible. [An invasion of Hawaii was only possible - if at all - as a follow up at war start - and Japan never contemplated that - any other attempt was doomed to fail - and even that one might well fail. The Hawaii Separate Coast Artillery Brigade, backed by the former Hawaii Division - expanded to two divisions late in 1941 - was the most powerful coast defense organization on the planet - once it cleared some buildings from its line of fire and got the manpower it needed to actually man the guns. And Oahu has mountains that must be seen to be understood - you cannot really climb many of those cliffs - particularly if defended by anything. The soldiers on Oahu were the most profesisonal in the US Army - and the 16 inch guns could hit a moving target on the first round off any and all of its coasts.] NOT going for Midway and then Oahu would give Japan a shot at a war situation that might, indeed, bring the Allies to the table - which was the strategic plan.

The problem is that the game requires the plan, whatever it may be, be in the database. You need to have units planned up, and in initial cases, TFs formed and loaded - to not require there be excessive time to execute the plan. Otherwise - it will be 1943 - and too late for Japan.

(in reply to James Fennell)
Post #: 8
RE: GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic? - 8/12/2011 1:29:25 PM   
No New Messages
James Fennell
Matrix Trooper



Posts: 135
Joined: 12/25/2010
From: Gloucestershire
Status: offline
Thanks for all these thoughts. El cid - fascinating stuff - i'm getting up to speed on Japan as i am about to embark on a PBEM as Japan - which will be an exciting exploration of new (for me) territory in military history as well a a game i think. Lots of Peattie and Evans on order. Will get Conway's out now on naval artillery.

I was thinking about midway earlier today (sad!). Maybe what it reveals is a actually the solid core of Yamamoto's understanding of strategy. His job was to knock the US carriers out of the game - to buy time for the resources gained DEI, Burma and Malaya to allow Japan to play in the big league. In that sense getting the US carriers might have been a good option in '42. As to wait longer - even while cutting the supply line to Oz, would presage eventual defeat by a strengthened US carrier fleet. Of course he reckoned without code breakers.

I guess, I was suggesting that the focus of the discussions on the forum are around the first few months of war - given how intensive the game is - i guess many don't make it much further. Having a few alternative start points fro the GC/DBB might also allow more strategic exploration. E.g. say a pre-Coral Sea start points - at the zenith of Japanese expansion, a pre-Guadalcanal start point, and maybe a pre-Philippines (when there was all that fighting between King and McA over Formosa versus PI - more personal that strategic really!). I suppose then those who don't stay to the end of the big campaigns but like the scope and range of options, can also get into some of the later war strategic issues (I'm not suggesting I'm one of them - I have got to July '42 in my one and only game so far - since Nov last year at 1 day turns (should have gone for 2D!)) - but would make more a wider breadth of game experiences?


Thanks everyone.

_____________________________

....gone to the dark side

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> GC scenario beginning spring '42 more realistic? 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

1.406