Reinforcement possibilities...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Reinforcement possibilities...

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 II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Reinforcement possibilities...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Reinforcement possibilities... - 1/9/2001 3:03:00 AM

Major Tom

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

Much has been done to determine and talk about how the Japanese and United States will produce reinforements, units, and aircraft, but, little has been questioned on how the other nationalities will do this. Neither the British, Australians, New Zealanders, Dutch or Chinese in the Pacific had the control over production in that theatre than a Japanese or United States commander would have. They were basically given what was available from other fronts. I think that aircraft and ship replacements for these 'marginalized' nations to be a lot like how War In Russia did leand lease. Types of Tanks and Aircraft being sent through leand lease could not be changed or modified in any way. You had to make due with what was being sent. So, unlike in PacWar you could not change a Hurricane II factory into a P-40 factory. One thing about troop/ship/squadron replacements that sort of bugged me in Pacific War, was, that they were all hardcoded. I know that this was a memory restriction, but, since WitP is not really facing such a problem a more random, or possibly logical system of reinforement could be implimented. Many British/Indian formations were sent to the Pacific because of certain events. The 18th Division was released to Singapore after Malaya quickly fell. If that didn't happen, then it might have remained on course for the Middle East. Certain reinforcements should be triggered, like with the fall of a base, as they were historically. For example, if Imphal would have fallen to the Japanese I am pretty sure that the British would have sent A LOT of infantry formations from North Africa to ensure that India doesn't fall. Also, holding bases might gain you extra units. If the British hold on to Singapore until March or April 1942, maybe more British Divisions, ships and aircraft will be sent to help out? This will also give them an incentive to hold out in Singapore as long as possible. The same could be said with holding on to the East Indies, or the Philippines, possibly more units will be sent to the theatre to beef up a succeeding defence? Another thing I would like to see, is, that EACH nationality would have its own pool of available aircraft. Letting the RAAF squadrons take planes from the American P-40 pool is unrealistic. The P-40 planes that the RAAF used were ones offered through Leand Lease. The Australians had really no choice to use these aircraft. What I would like to see, are, different aircraft pools for different nationalities. RAAF squadrons would be totally restricted to planes in the RAAF pool, and so on. Also, graphically I think it would be a neat addition to have each different type of national aircraft use a picture with camoflage and national roundells signifying that this is either a RAAF P-40 or a USAAC P-40.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 1/9/2001 4:24:00 AM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Major Tom: The same could be said with holding on to the East Indies, or the Philippines, possibly more units will be sent to the theatre to beef up a succeeding defence?

Not sure of the logic for this. If your country is doing poorly elsewhere, you're not going to get reinforcements if you're managing to do fairly well. Besides this I agree with everything else you said, Major. The thing about who can use what equipment has always bothered me with Pacwar, and as for your reinforcement ideas, I've got a label for it: "Conditional Reinforcement".

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 2

- 1/9/2001 7:39:00 AM

Possum

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/27/2000
From: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Status: offline

Hello. Australia had its own aircraft industry making licence'd copies of British and American aircraft and some home designed ones. So I would like to have control of those factories as the Australian player, so I can decide what aircraft I can build for the RAAF. These factories should be able to build any British, or American aircraft, as well as the unique Australian designs. In real life, we build Wackets (Harvards), Beauforts, Blenheims, Dragons (DH89), Beaufighters, Wirraways, Mosquitoes, Dakotas, Lincons (Lancaster IV), and CA-18's (Mustangs w/t 4 x 20mm cannon). Aircraft we could have build, but didn't due to time, easy avaliability of American a/c, etc include the Womera, Hurricane II, Spitfire IX,& CA-17 (a Spifire like fighter)

_____________________________

"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 3

- 1/9/2001 11:28:00 AM

Major Tom

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

Regarding reinforcing areas that are doing well... This has repeatedly happened throughout war. For example. When the Greeks repelled the Italian invasion the British heavily reinforced them... At Galipoli, the Turks repeatedly reinforced their area after sucessfully repelling an assault... At Wake I. an attempted reinforcement convoy was heading over after repelling the 1st attack... The reason for getting reinforcements for successfully defending these areas is to reward successful action, so that the next attempt (undoubtedly stronger than the last) will be up against a stronger defensive position, so that they might fail again in taking their target. Plus, it might give the British a reason to hold on to Singapore, and the Americans to hold on to Luzon. If Singapore held on to March 1942, I am pretty sure that the British would send further reinforcements to either ensure that it holds, or, to counterattack.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 4

- 1/9/2001 2:01:00 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Do players need a reason to hold/attack certain bases? If a base starts under my control I do everythng I can to keep it. If I only had 1 base I would send it everything. The problem of course is there are many far flung bases and only a limited amount of resourses to defend with. There seems to be 2 schools of thought in war games. 1 wants everything to be like it was historicly. The player must meet certain conditions or face certain restrictions. My school wants the units and a combat/supply system and a map. I know what happened in the Pacific war. I don't want to be a reinactor but rather see what other possible directions might have been. Just give the other countries a production value and let the player controling them "buy" what he wants. This production value will of course be a measure of his nations "political" concern. I want control of production as Japan/US. I know what was built historically but dab blanit I was not in control then I am now!!!. So what if IJN and IJA did'nt get along back then they will now or heads will roll. Send a division to Singapore when I know it will die. Nope I ain't a gonna do it "Get thee to Port Blair 18th". ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 5

- 1/10/2001 5:30:00 AM

Major Tom

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

OK, what I am trying to say, it shouldn't be an all or nothing thing. I don't think that you MUST reinforce Singapore, or liberate the Philippines, HOWEVER, if you don't there should be some 'penalty'. If not, then it is not reflecting certain restrictions on commanders that actually existed. It will give the Allies WAY too much freedom than they were historically allowed. So, you could send the 18th Division to Port Blair, or Burma, BUT, you might lose out on VP's if Singapore falls early. You could avoid the Philippines, but, possibly get some flak back home. Every action has a consequence. As Pacific War is now, there is ABSOLUTELY NO incentive for the Allies to fight the war the way they did. In reality, they had little other choice. If we ignore this important point, then why bother create a wargame representing the Pacific War?

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 6

- 1/10/2001 7:18:00 AM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Major Tom: OK, what I am trying to say, it shouldn't be an all or nothing thing. I don't think that you MUST reinforce Singapore, or liberate the Philippines, HOWEVER, if you don't there should be some 'penalty'. If not, then it is not reflecting certain restrictions on commanders that actually existed. It will give the Allies WAY too much freedom than they were historically allowed.

As for reinforcements, are all those examples you gave have the reinforcer as being hardpressed anywhere else? Greece/Britian: the Brits were only facing ground combat in North Africa, so I think they could afford to help the Greeks. Gallipoli: The Turks were reinforcing the only major combat theatre occuring on their territory (they were fighting to the south too, but Gallipoli was the more important combat zone). The problem with this issue is knowing what the penalty would have been if the given event never occured. We went to the Phillipines because MacArthur wanted to. If we skipped the Phillipines and went for Tawian and shut off Japan from all its captured territories, bombed them to hell and back using B29s based out of the Marianas, Tawian, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and maybe a couple more outlying Japanese islands, and finished them off with nukes, where is the penalty for not having gone to the Phillipines? Do we know that the American people would have been upset with that? I don't think so, they would have wanted to avoid unnecessary casualties which was the argument against retaking the Phillipines. I think this problem will boil down to dealing with the penalties on a case-by-case basis, and not creating penalties where we aren't sure they would have existed.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 7

- 1/10/2001 9:37:00 AM

Major Tom

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

Actually, the forces sent to Greece were primarily Infantry forces. This weakening of North Africa resulted in Rommel's triumph in 1941. Strategically, the commanders knew that sending troops to Greece wasn't wize, however, if they left Greece in the lurch it would look VERY BAD. I do think that the American people would have been upset had the Philippines not been liberated. It was used in propaganda as much as Pearl Harbour, and not to avenge the defeat there would be politically embarassing. Raising the American flag on Corregidor was probably as important a propaganda tool as raising the flag on Iwo Jima. Why else do you think that Roosevelt was so keen on it, and that the Japanese were so aware of it as well. I don't think that the Allied players MUST ALWAYS HAVE TO liberate the Philippines or reinforce Singapore in order to win. There was a reason that certain things were done in history, and to leave these out entirely would not result in a historical game that reflects history very well. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited January 09, 2001).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 8

- 1/11/2001 12:48:00 AM

Doug Olenick

Posts: 91
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: ny
Status: offline

The reinforcement issue aside for a second, I am intrigued by the "base force" troops. I always thought one PacWar's more unrealistic features was the ability to hop squadrons across the Pacific to a new base with no need to bring in service troops. Since most squadrons and groups had dedicated service personnel, an airbase should not be up and running until both the aircraft and men are on the ground together. Logistically, this is much more difficult, but would add to the realism.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 9

- 1/11/2001 3:20:00 PM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Major Tom: Actually, the forces sent to Greece were primarily Infantry forces. This weakening of North Africa resulted in Rommel's triumph in 1941.

Hmmm, I always thought Rommel's success in the desert happened because of Rommel's inate skill.

I don't believe more infantry would have made much difference against Rommel in '41.

quote:

Why else do you think that Roosevelt was so keen on it, and that the Japanese were so aware of it as well.

I'm not sure Roosevelt *was* keen on this. My memory is poor, but when I read about the meeting between Roosevelt, MacArthur, and a USN representative, I got the impression Roosevelt didn't go into this meeting already decided on which strategy he would ok. The USN wanted to skip the Phillipines and go for Formosa, the Army (MacArthur) wanted to go to the Phillipines. MacArthur was more persuasive.

quote:

I don't think that the Allied players MUST ALWAYS HAVE TO liberate the Philippines or reinforce Singapore in order to win. There was a reason that certain things were done in history, and to leave these out entirely would not result in a historical game that reflects history very well.

Agreed.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 10

- 1/11/2001 11:52:00 PM

Major Tom

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

Regarding Rommel's 1941 escapade, though most of my readings, I find it a bit over-exaggerated. What Rommel was up against... 2nd British Armoured Division (less one Armoured Brigade) equipped primarily with old Cruiser tanks and captured Italian Tanks and was scattered around the frontlines. This was its first engagement. 9th Australian Division, like the 2nd Armoured, it was scattered and not battle experienced. What was sent to Greece. 2nd New Zealand Division 6th Australian Division 1st Armoured Brigade (from 2nd Division, containing most of its best tanks). These formations proved their worth in Greece and Crete, but, would have been more effective in North Africa, where they were trained to fight, and where they weren't completely overwhelmed by numbers. Also, a lot of the Western Desert Force's air support was also diverted to Greece. With the 7th Armoured Division in the rear refitting after giving most of its AFV's to the 2nd Armoured, and most of the Indian divisions off fighting in Italian East Africa, the defences in Allied occupied Libya consisted of two untried and under equipped divisions. The 7th Australian and many other divisions were busy in the Middle East against Iraqi and Vichy French forces. They were spread out, trying to cover all of the important bases, and overrun. If the Two Divisions and One Armoured Brigades from Greece were left in North Africa, the British would have more than doubled their strength on the ground, and had sufficient air cover to gain air-superiority. So much has been stated of Rommel's brilliance, but, a lot of his success was due to the situation at hand and with the ability to exploit it. If the British had more than just two over-extended and ill-equipped Divisions, then Rommel could not have reached the Egyptian border with his three concentrated and fresh Divisions.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 11

- 1/12/2001 11:40:00 AM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Major Tom: Regarding Rommel's 1941 escapade.

Thanks, Tom, I never knew about the Brits' deployments during that time.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 12

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Reinforcement possibilities...

Page: [1]