Dream Features

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Dream Features

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 >> Dream Features

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Dream Features - 2/9/2002 1:56:00 PM

mogami

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

Hi, This is not a request for anything to be added to WITP just my rambling about what the ultimate Pacific War simulation would have. 1. A menu that computes supply required to perform a mission-so I would know if I could do it or how much supply and what kind I need to stage before I can do the mission-example I want to sent a Rgt landing team from my base to one of my opponents bases how much supply do I need to get there and how much will the Rgt need per turn of combat once it is there. 2. A "hey boss you have not given me any orders for a while" message so I don't forget one of my units located in some off the wall corner of the pacific (something I do all the time in Pac War, then when I need them I have to go hunting using the 'HQ unit/air''find ship' menus to find them-usally of course their transport has long sailed to the other corner of the Pacific or if they are an air unit events have left them out of range of transfering anyplace. 3. Something like airzone only used with a TF to show how far it can travel in a turn 4. In Pac War you can look at islotated base and know who could not recieve supply but you have to cycle through your bases to find out who actually recieved it (and move HQ or hand convoys to the neglected ones) A little smiley face display used with a 'base supply status' request to quickly ID bases low on supply. note: personally I believe most large scale war games are won by the player best understanding and coping with how supply is handled. Supply not units decides where battles can be fought and with what. 5. A submarine manager. I pick op areas and decide how many subs I want in an op area and the manager handles all the details (sends a fresh sub and brings back the ones needing repair/refit/refuel while maintaining the requested number on station)(Hehehehe in Pac War I sometimes forget a patrol and what started out as 12 subs when I finally bring it home is 3 subs that have been out for 25+ turns (I don't believe WW2 subs liked 6month deployments) (maybe just another smiley face when 'sub patrol status' request made.) 6. Production control, one of my pets. I love to juggle production (like supply what units decides where and how you fight) My all time dream scenario for Japan is beginning in 1923 cash in production and rebuy. More CV or fewer CV No monster BB but more Nachi CA, A Tank Division in 1941 Operational Brigade or larger Parachute units in 1941 blah blah. Also one with free deployment.
(Yes yes it would benifit Japan but how much experimenting do the allies require? (unless of course the game covers all theatres of WW2 in which case an argument for allied varients would also be interesting) But I am looking strictly from the point of view that I am running Japan starting before the outbreak of war. Only I know where and when so I deploy according to my plan. FDR does not get different till I bomb PH (of course the allied player would be allowed to tweek his pre war production a bit and have total control of it once war began) 7. Trick units...those silly balloon bombs, midget subs, Baka bombs etc etc etc (all the stuff that did nothing or very little but still had to be worried about before it's use)(I would try a campaign of large subs constantly releasing migets outside PH or SF or SD (hawhaw) 8. In game political requirements detirmined by pregame options. Prior to turn 1 both sides make choices that will require them to meet criteria for victory. Example Japan war objectives
a. US unconditional surrender
b. limited war aims

example 2 must control certain objectives
Japan
a. total victory in China
b. Control of SRA
c. force US to offer/accept compromise settlement (this refusal is what led to war in first place. These would reflect in what victory totals would have to be met and in what catogory points would need to be scored in. Allies would score the most points using production from Europe first option and then forcing UC surrender of Japan in a set period of time. There would be a political meter that both players would have to keep above a certain point or allow the other victory (battle casulties, captured/lost base etc influnence meter-the effect of a victory would move it but gradually wear off) OK anyone else have a dream feature?

_____________________________

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

Post #: 1

- 2/14/2002 10:25:00 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

Hehe, the unlimitted/limitted Supply button

Hm, to be ernest, many good points named mogami. One thing i would really love is a complex choice of helps, different for many things, like supply, weapons (dud chance, hit rate, technology and and and) production, repair rate, quality of the personal, INTEL, Fog of war... Why ? Well like you said, the supply is the key of the most great war games... but i dislike the idea of the to historical production of ressources... if i am the japanese "Supergeneral", i want to produce more oil and more ships to transport them... but normaly i can�t do that, because the game can�t do it... so i want more chances to "cheat", but not like in pacwar with maximum jap help (everything) but only in small degrees... In Silent Service you had an percentage of difficulty, everybody could manipulate, i think such a way would be great. You help the japs and/or the americans a little, but your "score" is low, because it is "easy"... also i don�t like the Pointsystem of nearly every game, if the japs could defeat most of the american troops in the pacific, i don�t think that the americans had stopped war....

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 2

- 2/15/2002 1:26:00 AM

Ranger-75

Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline

Hi Mogami, A couple of things. In Pac War, I think subs ARE mamaged by the game engine. I NEVER brought a sub unit back to port unless I wanted to change its patrol base (started at PH, moved to Midway, then Wake, Marcus, etc.) I never saw a "damaged sub" when looking at the patrols and the game generally kept the sub units replaced. I never did see any subs in the ship pool and only "equalized" the sub groups when I was re-basing them. What I DID do was every two turns I moved the subs to a new patrol hex. What I would do was "shift" them along a string of patrol hexes. It DOESN'T put the subs out of action as long as the new patrol hex as about 10 or fewer hexes away from the prior patrol hex. This solved the problem of having the subs sit too long in a patrol hex and I was able to keep constant pressure on the convoy routes. About pre war Japanese production. As much as everyone would like to pretend, Japanese Naval building was not done in a vacuum. The rest of the world, particularly Britain and the US were closely watching events in Tokyo. Japan as a signatory to the 1922 Washington Naval Agreement, had her hands tied behind her back as it was. It was not until the 1930s that Japan was able to start increasing the size of the IJN and they were still bound to the later (I think 1930 treaty) naval agreement. Of course Japan deliberately broke this treay almost right away, but it was in small increments, somewhat like Germany's rebuilding of the Luftwaffe during the same time. If they went too far others would find out and they did and they reacted. The US fast BBs were designed to counter newer IJN units (Yamato class) so the effects of this have been demonstrated. Also, the Alaska class cruisers were also built to counter "supposed" IJN ships. What I am saying is this: if one wants to alter the pre-war naval building program for the IJN, then the game should cause a reaction from the US and GB in the form of more and stronger reinforcements for these 2 navies. The Japanese did about the best they could with the conditions they were in. I am in agreement that the Yamato BBs should never been built 3, 4, or 5 additional Shokaku class CVs would have been a far better investment. But then for the US the 4 Iowa Class BBs (all of which were completed as opposed to only 2 Yamatos) would have been better off as 8-10 Essex class CVs. So,,, as the IJN you can have 5 extra Shokakus (2 in 1942,1 ea in 43,44,45) and I'll take 10 extra Essex Class CVs (2 ea in 42,43 and 3 ea in 44,45) along with several extra Formidable class CVs for the RN in place of the Lion and Vanguard class BBs which also would not have been needed. I'll take that deal anytime. Lastly I red somewhere that The Shinano CV was changed in v2.3 PacWar to give it a larger AC capacity. That ship should have anything higher than 60. It was the most poorly laid out CV ever built. [ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mike Santos ]

_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 3

- 2/15/2002 1:35:00 AM

Ranger-75

Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline

I almost forgot the US Super Cruisers, the Alsaka, Guam and Hawaii. I'll kindly take 3 more Essex CVs (1 in 44, 2 in 45) instead. That makes 13 more US CVs. to 5 (maybe 6 in we're feeling generous) Shokaku class CVs some of which won't get built (because of yard problems and steel shortages, etc.) Could you imagine a game with that many additional CVs running around??? Of course the IJN pilot training program could not possibly equip those new carriers with air groups but we'll give that one to the IJN too. Still want to adjust pre-war construction

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mike Santos ]

_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 4

- 2/15/2002 6:40:00 AM

crusher

Posts: 115
Joined: 3/14/2001
From: philippines
Status: offline

will the inj have some type of signet capability. even if on a minor scale

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 5

- 2/15/2002 2:33:00 PM

mogami

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

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
I almost forgot the US Super Cruisers, the Alsaka, Guam and Hawaii. I'll kindly take 3 more Essex CVs (1 in 44, 2 in 45) instead. That makes 13 more US CVs. to 5 (maybe 6 in we're feeling generous) Shokaku class CVs some of which won't get built (because of yard problems and steel shortages, etc.) Could you imagine a game with that many additional CVs running around??? Of course the IJN pilot training program could not possibly equip those new carriers with air groups but we'll give that one to the IJN too. Still want to adjust pre-war construction [ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mike Santos ]

Hi, why yes I still want to play with production.
But I never did say what changes I personally would make. 6 CV's in Dec 41 seems to work fine. BB's are not all that wonderfull. (I love Nachi class CA's) But I think DD's is where I would put war time ship construction. I would tinker with things Japan did not have like the para's or a tank division. No matter what it is easer for a goverment controled by the military to change production before the war then it would be for the democracies to increase spending. Both the Mogami and Aoba class CA were built as CL. The gun turrents were designed to be replaced with 8" when the time came (when built the Mogami class turrents were 3 6" guns rather then the 2 8" guns they mounted during the war) Another ruse could be to lay down the keels of large 'commerical' Liners. Several years of construction could be done before they began to convert into a CV (thus gaining a head start in building)
The problem really with pre-planning is simply it was maddness to consider war with the United States. To change and pre-plan means Japan would have had to go mad 10 years before the diplomatic events thats triggered the maddness had actually occured. Japan was spending it's self broke as it was, my fantasy requires her to actually have set out from the beginning to war with the U.S. (rather then China)
To be absoulty perfect a game would only have to have what Japan had in inventory on Dec 7 1941
plus what was already under construction. Any ship not laid down (or already funded) would not be required (I would take over production on Dec 7th) Then the game would need to replicate what Japan was capble of producing. I only ask for the other 'dream' feature because I have a tendency to adjust/tweek/modify little things to see what impact it has (or might have) I don't really want these features to use against another human in simulating the war. Questions like did Japan build Nates because there was a shortage of 7mm MG? because she needed large numbers of aircraft and in China quailty did not matter but quanity did? What if there were no Nates but 20% more Oscar? What if production was under a single command rather then split between army and Navy (could there then be both More Zeros (but fewer overal fighters) and could the Army land based air fly them)
What if Japan had built a four engine bomber?
What if load had been more important then range?
Really only things that would satisfy someone doing a solotaire war (but hey it's my fantasy!!!)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 6

- 2/16/2002 5:57:00 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Bring in the Midway class too. One thing I'd like to see is all the PT boat squadrons. Rather than dismissing them in PW I have fonud them to be very very useful indeed, even in the early going. I missed them in the new PW OOB. I understand their omission had something to do with the limitations of the old code. So for UV I say "bring 'em back."

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 7

- 2/16/2002 5:40:00 PM

mogami

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

Hi, I agree about PT boats, But from the UV thread I gather that they and many other small class ships will be included

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 8

- 2/17/2002 1:03:00 PM

Lex Morton

Posts: 16
Joined: 6/24/2000
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Hi Mogami I take it you are aware of the Japanese 4 engined bomber,the Nakajima G8N Renzan (Mountain Range). Allied Code Name: "Rita".

Have a look here for more info on this very impressive beast. http://www.214th.com/ww2/japan/g8n/

Lex Morton

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 9

- 2/17/2002 1:22:00 PM

ratster

Posts: 166
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: PA
Status: offline

Thanks Lex! Don't remember ever hearing or reading about that one.

_____________________________

" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 10

- 2/17/2002 7:13:00 PM

mogami

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

Hi, Yep she's purtty, but where was she in 41?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 11

- 2/18/2002 7:36:00 AM

Ranger-75

Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline

Hi Mogami: "Yep she's purtty, but where was she in 41? " It probably was not even on the drawing boards yet

_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 12

- 2/18/2002 10:16:00 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Personally, I would like to see some kind of variabily built into the start of the game. Like the US declaration of war is not automatic if the Japanese avoid attacking US forces. The percentage chance could increase every turn and would of course be automatic if the Japanese attack any US base of ship. The Japanese player would have to decide for either a quick first strike or try to delay a US entry as long as possible. Not knowing that on any given turn the US might declare war. The US player would have to decide how to best deploy his forces not knowing when or where the Japanese might strike. I think such a feature would go a long way in increasing the re-playabilty of the game, by taking out the usual predictablity that generally hinders historical games.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 13

- 2/18/2002 10:18:00 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

A decent idea that last one. There should be some teeth in it to mitigate against a Japanese strategy that attempts to overrun everything-but-American-possessions and then entrench. Probably US factory expansions and ship FRAM and new a/c designs should be significantly enhanced, as a protracted peace would have allowed the US to focus on infrastructure rather than mobilization. By 1941 the US plan was to go to war anyhow; it was merely a matter of wanting to mobilize more equipment before the shooting started. Such a change would also see the nominal Phillippine divisions turned into the real thing. Is it too much of a stretch, though, to think that a Japanese attack against UK or Commonwealth nations would provoke a US DOW anyhow?

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 14

- 2/18/2002 10:22:00 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Nice reference on the Rita. With the payload, defensive armament and speed indicated the plane must have lacked any armor or self sealing tanks. Basically a Flying Fortress without the Fortress part. Otherwise, those stats on range and airspeed are obviously in error.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 15

- 2/18/2002 10:31:00 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

More on the Mountain. The 2000 HP stated output from the Nak NK9K-L appears to be 180-500 HP exaggerated. The correct output is 1820 at sea-level take-off and 1500 @ 6500m elevation. The US should be so fortunate that Japan would expend a lot of resources building this big, expensive, coffin.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 16

- 2/18/2002 10:53:00 PM

Jason629

Posts: 83
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Charlotte NC
Status: offline

The "mountain" was more like a landslide. Just a Betty with a couple of more engines. Might as well mount the fuel tank on the roof and paint a big bullseye on it. But then again, as Neil Young said......"its better to burn out than to fade away."

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 17

- 2/19/2002 12:52:00 AM

Lex Morton

Posts: 16
Joined: 6/24/2000
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Jason if you think a Rita:

looks like a Betty:

with two engines strapped on,then I suggest a visit to your optician pronto!

Personally I think it looks like a B29 from the front,A B24 naval varient,the Privateer from the side and vaguely B17-esque from the top. Some more figures are available here http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/g8n.htm Mogami regarding your question "where was she in 1941?" well it was a 44 crate so nowhere is the answer but they DID have a four engined crate in 41,this one:

The Nakajima G5N Shinzan (Mountain Recess)Allied Code Name: "Liz".Production: Four G5N1s and two G5N2s were built in 1941-42 by Nakajima Hikoki K.K. in their Koizumi plant.The first prototype flew on April 10,1941.

It didn't work too great but was used operationally as a supply crate during WW2.Good info here http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/g5n.html Here is a pic for size comparison with a Zero (A6M5)

Good article here titled "Some Thoughts on the Japanese Naval Airforce Land Based Bomber Program
by Dwight Cox" http://libraryautomation.com/nymas/dwightcoxbettybomber.htm Banzai! Lex Morton

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 18

- 2/19/2002 1:12:00 AM

Jason629

Posts: 83
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Charlotte NC
Status: offline

Lets just consider my "betty" comment was more related to the rather incendiary properties I am sure were indemic to this and many other Japanese aircraft of the era. If you look at the power relative to performance (range,speed)you can come to one of two conclusions. 1.) The performance data is wrong. 2.) The plane was a flying matchbox with little or no armor protecting fuel tanks or pilots.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 19

- 2/19/2002 1:14:00 AM

Jason629

Posts: 83
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Charlotte NC
Status: offline

It is a pretty looking plane though!

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 20

- 2/19/2002 2:42:00 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by mdiehl:
A decent idea that last one. There should be some teeth in it to mitigate against a Japanese strategy that attempts to overrun everything-but-American-possessions and then entrench. Probably US factory expansions and ship FRAM and new a/c designs should be significantly enhanced, as a protracted peace would have allowed the US to focus on infrastructure rather than mobilization. By 1941 the US plan was to go to war anyhow; it was merely a matter of wanting to mobilize more equipment before the shooting started. Such a change would also see the nominal Phillippine divisions turned into the real thing. Is it too much of a stretch, though, to think that a Japanese attack against UK or Commonwealth nations would provoke a US DOW anyhow?

Its not too much of a stretch at all. Considering that Churchill was was deathly afraid of just such a thing. He repeatidly tried to convince FDR to base USN ships at Singapore and to give a formal declaration that attack on the UK would constitute war with the US. Politically, FDR would not or more accurately could not make such formal assurances. Add this to the fact there was historically no treaty obligations with the UK or Dutch and you have a very real possiblty the US declaration of war would not be automatic. I agree that you would need to put some teeth into the varible. I would suggest that every Japanese conquest would increase the percentage chance that the US would Declare war. For example any move expanding toward Austrailia or the south pacific ferry routes would increase the chance greatly. The US player would not have to just stand idly by and watch the Japs conquer the pacific. Like you suggest the US could benefit from some sort of production bonuses. He could be eligible to receive emergency reinforcements from the Atlantic (ie additional carriers). He could have the option of sending aditional supplies to the Brits, Dutch and Aussies. He could even have the option of escorting convoys to Austrailia and secureing Allied bases such as Fiji,Tonga,New Caladonia and even the Solomons. Sort of a pacific Lend/Lease so to speak. All of which would not be a stretch historically. All these variables would prevent a Japanese decision not attack the US from becoming a defacto slam dunk. It would be very risky in that he could never no what move could provoke war and thus risk being unprepared or out of position to meet such a threat. He would have to weigh the risk and rewards of watching the US secure a line of communication to Austrailia , reinforceing its bases on the PI, Guam, Wake and building up its Fleet assets virtually unmolested. It really would make for a lot of interesting "What ifs"

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 21

- 2/19/2002 3:29:00 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by mdiehl:
A decent idea that last one. There should be some teeth in it to mitigate against a Japanese strategy that attempts to overrun everything-but-American-possessions and then entrench. Probably US factory expansions and ship FRAM and new a/c designs should be significantly enhanced, as a protracted peace would have allowed the US to focus on infrastructure rather than mobilization. By 1941 the US plan was to go to war anyhow; it was merely a matter of wanting to mobilize more equipment before the shooting started. Such a change would also see the nominal Phillippine divisions turned into the real thing. Is it too much of a stretch, though, to think that a Japanese attack against UK or Commonwealth nations would provoke a US DOW anyhow?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 22

- 2/19/2002 5:28:00 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

I will beg for one feature PLEASE!!!!!! Do NOT use that stupid auto-center feature
that you used in BTR and BOB. PLEASE I BEG you. It is NOT always needed to see the combat in progress. Sometimes it is FAR MORE needed to
see what is going on at a specific point.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 23

- 2/19/2002 10:23:00 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Re: Rita. Bearing in mind that this a/c never made it past the X-plane (so this is pure speculation).... Odd that the IJN commissioned this one. Strategic bombing would have been a lousy role for the IJN and this a/c far outranged any conceivable escort. (Note, the 4000 kilo bomb load was the short range payload). It would have been mincemeat in an unescorted attack, and the Japanese ought to have known this by the time this a/c was designed, by virtue of shared information with the Germans (about B17 losses in the Reich) and captured US B17s. Its only conceivable naval role is as a low-altitude high-speed torpedo bomber operating at night. In short, at best a special ops plane. That'd be consistent with what I assume must have been a high price tag (all those high-end radials and that big airframe). The Japanese army could have used such a beast for preemptive strikes on USAAF airfields in China, where its high approach speed and the generally primitive state of USAAF/Chinese early warning systems in China would have given this bomber half a decent chance of taking a target by surprise. Who'd expect a deep raid launched from Japan. This is the sort of thing that could be pulled off once or twice before they'd get caught and slaughtered. So again, it seems to me to have a possible special ops role, but it would be criminally wasteful of men and material to use this beastie in a regular strategic bomber role.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 24

- 2/19/2002 11:25:00 AM

mogami

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

Hi, A scenario were Japan did not attack the US won't hurt. But it is highly unlikely. The drive south and the attack on the US was a product of the IJ Navy not the army. The Navy was against going to war at all but paradoxly it was the Navies position that if Japan was going to have to war with the US then Dec 41 was the best time.
(1941 ratio was 70/100 IJN USN by 1944 the peace time build programs of the two countries would result in a 30/100 ratio (if Japan had been able to actually afford her 1942 build program which in the event she was not) It would not harm the US to wait till 43 to go to war with Japan. Nothing laid down after Dec 41 would be complete but the US Navy would be much stronger. A real question to attach to this scenario would then be how long does US stay out of European War? US DD's are ready fighting U-boats Do the Germans withdraw them to avoid a 'Lusitania' type inccendent? Does Adolf get angrey and declare war on the US? (there really was no need for him to declare war after the Japanese struck PH and many consider that a stupid blunder) If Japan moves South without attacking the US Pacfic fleet I would expect several thing to occur in side Japan.
A. The Japanese Naval Command resigns and commits protest suicide. or B. Young Naval Officers go and murder the person(s) responsible for not declaring war on US.

We will just pretend the US does nothing, when Japan attacks in the Southern Resource Area except issue 'stern' warnings and protests.
I think the Japanese players would find their position even more hopeless when at long last the US does enter the war. Things that might have been possible in 41/42 will be impossible in 43 (the US had moblized in 1940, time was an issue-the more time allowed the more prepared the US Pacific bases will be. How many B-17's will Mac have in 43?)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 25

- 2/20/2002 6:23:00 AM

ratster

Posts: 166
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: PA
Status: offline

I think it would be interesting to have the option to start in 36 as the Japanese player, no restrictions, with declarations of war(concerning the allies) being based on logical criteria. It would also be interesting if the game could be allowed to run into the jet/atomic age, say to 47-48, and have some out-of-theatre what-if options that could be set. Like no A-bomb, or different European scenarios which would add, or subtract, forces in the Pacific.

_____________________________

" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 26

- 2/20/2002 9:40:00 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

You don't need to run into 1946-48 to get into the jet age. US P80 wings were operationally deployed in Italy in early '45 and UK Gloster Meteors in Britain in 1944. The late 1945 blocks of the P80 were as fast as the ME262 but had more reliable engines, better acceleration and greater range. I think allowing the Japanese to start in 1936 is a fair idea. I also think that if you give the Japanese that kind of flexibility, then the UK should be allowed to upgrade Singapore's landward defenses, and the Allies should be allowed to invoke the oil embargo whenever they want. Of course doing all of that complicates the reseach considerably. The US' F2As and and biplane F3s would be hell on those Japanese CV-based biplanes.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 27

- 2/21/2002 1:32:00 AM

ratster

Posts: 166
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: PA
Status: offline

I really should have said 37, not 36. The Japanese were at war with China by July of that year. I don't think any concessions or adjustemnts need to be made for the allies however. They were aware of the Sino-Japanese War, and still acted as they did historically. By allowing the Japanese to start in 37, the Japanese player could prosecute the war in China differently then their historical counterparts, which could be interesting. Again obvious criteria would need to be observed in regards to early allied intervention. I really have the single player game in mind here, not multi-player, by the way. The computer controlled allied player would only become "active" if the Japanese met specific threshold criteria. Of course what that would be is highly debatable. As far as letting it continue into 46 or beyond, for the jet age. My reasoning was to allow time for large numbers of jets to be deployed, as opposed to just a few early operational squadrons. Another thought is to allow an non-historical start that assumes the Japanese did not start(or restart depending on your point of view) their war with China. So all the resources that would have been expended there are available in Dec of 41. China would be considered neutral, in this case.
Anyway, just daydreaming, I don't expect any of this to be implemented.

_____________________________

" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 28

- 2/21/2002 4:08:00 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

If you assume that the war is prosecuted ahistorically you can assume that the Allies' response could be ahistorical as well.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 29

- 2/22/2002 3:13:00 PM

Graham Smith

Posts: 51
Joined: 7/30/2001
From: australia
Status: offline

The war was really about oil, but when I play the Japanese side,I dont see any consequence of not having oil converted into fuel....I should not be able to launch aircraft, train pilots or sail fleets out of a base, when my fuel at that base reaches zero. And I dont see fuel consumed when I create a task force or launch an airstrike. Shifting aircraft into a freshly captured base is unrealistically quick....to move a squadron with all its support staff was a major undertaking. First couple of weeks in a new base should be very ineffective. But hey, these a pretty trivial wish list items for a game that is so awesome. When I first started playing the internet version of this, I had one piece of my mind that was permanently occupied with this game all day long. Grigsby has to be a true genius.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 30