Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?

 
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] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 2:06:28 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		Consider this -- WWII could be considered to have started when the Japanese invaded China in 1937. This was followed by the battles between the Japanese and Russians at Nomonhan in the summer of 1939. In between all this, American gunboats were attacked, and a strained relationship between the US and Japan started on the inevitable downslide to war. All of this happened BEFORE the Germans invaded Poland.

As for the Pacific campaign itself, most folks only associate it with the famous island assaults of the US Marines, but SO much more was happening simultaneously. The jungle combats in New Guinea and elsewhere ultimately involved over 1 million men and 18 US Army infantry divisions. Add to this the continuing war in China, in which Chiang Kai-Shek established his reputation. Let's not forget the combat in Burma/India, which led to some legendary reputations for men like "Vinegar Bill" Stilwell and Lord Mountbatten.

The Pacific Theater was THE largest combat theater of WWII, encompassed half of the world, and involved many nations' armed forces. IMHO, this needs to be addressed by the scenario designers -- the multi-national nature of the war has many possibilities here.

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 2:38:37 AM   
BulletMagnet


Posts: 132
Joined: 8/29/2003
From: Ocala,Florida
Status: offline 		May be the largest, Mr Jarhead but its just not as fun as Tigers,T-34's and Shermans. I have found slogging one hex a turn with ass tons of infantry to be the recipe for a boring game. I think it could be better if someone did a squad leader type game, busting bunkers and taking beaches.

_____________________________

"What we do in life,echoes in eternity"

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 2
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 3:40:30 AM   
soldier

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 5/24/2005
Status: offline 		Probably because of the non event of armour vs armour and AT/TDs in the pacific. I actually find infantry combat more interesting now but initially i liked driving tigers around and blowing things up (no germans in the pacific). For those that like tank vs tank the japanese (although having strength in other areas) leave much to be desired.
On a personal level, I find the PTO as interesting as anywhere else and don't ignore it if a doco or book is around and there are some good scenarios in the game (Brave men at Betio was my first PTO experience in wargaming) but my favourite theatre is the Eastern front. All the major battles have a very unique flavour being fought amongst open land, trenches and defences or the unrivalved infantry Hexenkessel Stalingrad. On top of that it has all the coolest toys (US & UK weapons very much included historically) and an utterly ruthless no holds barred nature also common in the PTO.
How is the Pacific the largest theatre, it must be in geographical terms ? I would have thought the largest theatre in terms of men, machines and casualties involved would have been the eastern front.
Having said that I always wondered why there is no Japanese campaign ? (much overlooked). I started designing a hypothetical campaign as Australia under invasion from the IJA in 42 but it was too grandiose for a first attempt at designing and i lost the maps (had some good ideas though knowing Australia like i do )

(in reply to BulletMagnet)
Post #: 3
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 3:57:03 AM   
soldier

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 5/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Consider this -- WWII could be considered to have started when the Japanese invaded China in 1937. This was followed by the battles between the Japanese and Russians at Nomonhan in the summer of 1939. In between all this, American gunboats were attacked, and a strained relationship between the US and Japan started on the inevitable downslide to war. All of this happened BEFORE the Germans invaded Poland.



I agree and all this is true but when i open my old kiddies encyclopedia it says WW2 started when Germany invaded Poland as do many other books which totally ignore what Japan was up to and consider the conflict only European in origin until Pearl harbour. Anyone who has studied the war a little deeper knows different but not so the man on the street.

(in reply to soldier)
Post #: 4
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 4:00:05 AM   
plloyd


Posts: 179
Joined: 8/8/2001
From: Colorado, USA
Status: offline 		I think it may also be visibility issue. Often you can only see one or two hexes. That can make for a lot of apprihension. After all, do you want to move when you know you get to play target for someone?

_____________________________

If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.

(in reply to soldier)
Post #: 5
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 4:10:35 AM   
FlashfyreSP


Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline 		"Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?" Compared to the North African Theater, it isn't. Look through your scenario lists and count how many scenarios take place in the desert of 1940-1943. Then compare that to the number of battles in the Pacific.

According to the latest Scenrio List by dutchiexx, there are 104 Mediterranean/North African scenarios available, and 284 Pacific ones. This out of 903 scenarios and campaigns.

So I would say it's high time for the designers to step up and help me correct this injustice!

_____________________________


(in reply to soldier)
Post #: 6
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 4:35:17 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		Injustice, huh?

Why I did a whole mega-campaign on NOrth Africe, dozens and dozens of scenarios! Just kidding Flashfyre. Hey, I bet if you look at who did the majority of those Mediterranean and North African scenarios...well, you know

Of course, you could say the same thing about the Pacific, I guess. That one is my favorite too.

And while I might agree in part with my colleagues who speak in favor of western Europe, East Front, there are dozens and dozens of scnarios on the Pacific that are so different and challenging. They are NOT the assault-defend in dense jungle scenarios at all.

Let me point out a few:

012 Did you Hear That
014 A Rough Rescue
042 Fading Light (Wake Island)
047 A Surprising Rescue
052 Hospital Heroes
063 Bigger Troubles
069 Los Banos
071 Sniffin 'em out
328 Lazy River

At least for me they are different, challenging and fun.

But I understand your points. I love tank fights too!

WB

Still, you've stirred me up. I may just do some now on NA and also Italy, truly neglected in this game. I'm on it.

WB

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 7
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 6:43:19 AM   
sabrejack


Posts: 158
Joined: 9/9/2005
Status: offline 		I've tended to stick to European battlefields for a number of reasons.

I prefer games where I get to move more than 1 or 2 hexes per turn. I enjoy making use of mobility, which allows for more fluid battles (in my opinion). The Pacific Theatre often restricts that, hence my avoiding it in the main.

I've only recently gone back to the North African Theatre, as the dust trails put me off for a long time. I'm now looking at various tactics to avoid telegraphing my every movement to an opponent (once again, not so much of an issue against the AI, but in PBEM can be a real problem).


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 8
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 8:11:35 AM   
FlashfyreSP


Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild Bill

Injustice, huh?

Why I did a whole mega-campaign on NOrth Africe, dozens and dozens of scenarios! Just kidding Flashfyre. Hey, I bet if you look at who did the majority of those Mediterranean and North African scenarios...well, you know

WB


Ahh...MegaCampaigns. Those are horses of entirely different colors.
Some of my scenarios in the NA/Med theater:

Knives in the Night
Race for the Bridge
The "Kasbah"
Gardner's Horse
"Clear That Pass!"
The 'Rats' Are Born

And of course the 'Raiders of the Sahara' campaign.

And I am working a few more.


_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 9
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 10:18:14 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		I play the ETO (on land anyway) 'cuz Dad was there, as was my Uncle Frank, Uncle Ed, Uncle George
Obvously, as a kid, I took pains to study Dad's exploits more. (Like most vets, he would not discuss much of them to me till I "joined the club")
Uncle Jim was in the Pacific, as was my Dad-in law, but with Uncle Jim "out-numbered" 4 to 1, and my Dad-in-law entering my life late, I just did not share the enthusiasm for the PTO.

Then again, there IS that whole "tank thing"..........

_____________________________




(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 10
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 3:23:01 PM   
Colonel von Blitz

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline
quote:

I agree and all this is true but when i open my old kiddies encyclopedia it says WW2 started when Germany invaded Poland as do many other books which totally ignore what Japan was up to and consider the conflict only European in origin until Pearl harbour. Anyone who has studied the war a little deeper knows different but not so the man on the street.


Before Germany began their assault in Poland in 1939, the action in the pacific alone could not be said to be 'a world war', but rather a more local war. Afterall, it was going on only on one continent. After 9/39 this conflict started to escalate throughout the europe and world, culminating late 1941, after Pearl Harbor and after Germany also declared war on USA.

I'd say that it's not false statement to say that the WW2 itself started 9/39 when Germany invaded Poland. This is just a short way to describe the events and also, there has to be some date, that can be said to be the first day of a major conflict. What kind of historical accuracy would it be, if we said that WW2 took place somewhere around 1930 - 1950 ?

-Colonel-

_____________________________

--Light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak--

(in reply to soldier)
Post #: 11
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 4:33:04 PM   
Poopyhead

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 3/17/2004
Status: offline 		Actually, the "tank thing" works in the PTO long campaign just fine. If you haven't tried your combined arms skill against the Japanese, then you are missing a real challenge. The Japanese are the perfect choice for the AI. Even in a jungle, I was still able to employ sweeping movements to outflank the AI or a mobile defense in depth. Add an AI force of maddogs and you've got a great game. Just do it!

_____________________________

Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)
Post #: 12
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 5:05:59 PM   
Swamprat


Posts: 129
Joined: 8/30/2005
From: Shrewsbury UK
Status: offline 		It's no accident that WWII is seen as largely European centred. In the 19th and 20th Century, the 'West' was the powerhouse of the world, with a hegemony that extended (almost) globally. The two world wars were when Europe tore itself apart, ultimately losing it's top seat in the world, whilst handing the baton of the West permanently to the US.

The war in Burma and Africa were fights over the west's possessions. But the ETO was a fight in the west's back-garden, and indeed the lounge and kitchen. That's why the war is considered to have started in 1939.

The US could have gone to war against Japan in '37, but if Hitler hadn't attempted to dominate Europe then it would just have been seen as another war, like countless others.

Roosevelt recognised the tipping point of history taking place in Europe, which is why he wanted to get involved, but many at the time in the US had good reason to wonder why so much attention was being given to defeat a nation that, although having declared war (rather pointlessly), had not attacked the US, whereas Japan appeared to be on the verge of doing so.

The US could have lost all it's influence (which is what the PTO was all about, ever since US gunboats sailed into Tokyo harbour with guns blazing in 19th Century) in Pacific Asia, without threatening US completely, since the US was not reliant on it's possessions in SE Asia, and it was still only a growing power, so didn't have much to lose.
Britain and France, on the other hand, were on the verge of being knocked off the world throne, so weak had they become. Thus Stalin, Hitler and Roosevelt took very great interest in a throne that was about to become vacant, at a time when it wasn't clear which nation would get his ass on the seat. In the end Hitler got beat, Stalin beat him but still found himself 'outside' of Europe's heart, and Truman (since Roosevelt didn't quite make it) got the throne, plus the debt of the old Kings (England and France) which yielded much to the new power in the world.
And the Japanese got settled in the end too, in spite of the lower priority, which saved the new power from having to go to war again to take it's lost possessions back.

The fighting was done all over the world, and everything was interdependent, but History is cruel, and while all battles or campaigns influence events locally and in the short term, only a few have a truly long term effect on the passage of history (not always realised at the time), and it's these that future historians remember the most.

One day, when China, India or even Africa (in about 200-500years time) are the ruling powers in the world, and Europe has fallen to the state that other once great civilisations (Greece, Egypt, etc) occupy, THEN, a war of total ferocity in Europe will be shrugged off as just another squabble among degenerate states (which is how we see Somalia and Sudan now) that will barely raise eyebrows in Beijing or wherever the world's biggest stock exchange ends up.


_____________________________

[IMG]http://i326.photobucket.com/albums/k436/Swamprat98/need_help_3_126.jpg[/IMG]

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)
Post #: 13
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 6:35:13 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Probably because Steel Panthers largely attracts people who love to fight tanks and see them fight. The pacific offers a much more limited ability in this regards vs. Western europe, Russia, or the Desert.

By "limited ability" i mean that Pacific battles, at least the majority of historical created battles tend to have few tanks and even when they do it is in terrain that limit's alot of their abilities. There are also rare historical opportunities for tank vs tank battles and where there are, its usually a lopsided matchup. Japanese tanks were built with dependability at the forfront. the need to pile on bigger guns and armor were not as necessary for them as they were fighting primarily an infantry war in China agianst ill equipped troops or later in WWII, in restricted terrain where massed tank tactics were impractible.

This viewpoint is all from a 'game viewpoint'. As a taste of something different, i like to occasionally do a Pacific or China scenario but its rare in comparison to the other types of engagements described. It can be slow and tedious to fight battles with tanks vs fortifications (though challenging too) Japanese tanks that show their snouts have a typical result. (but again, the challenge factor if playing Japan can make it fun)

Infantry heavy battles also tend to take longer....the majority of historical scenarios i've played pacific tend to be drawn out slogging matches wth slow careful infantry advances.

on a side note....i think too, that despite the massive improvements to the infantry component in the game that the Japanese infantry tend to get represented least well in terms of the game's mechanics. Their big squads are formidable but they tend to evaporate very quickly under fire...even in cover terrain. Its better than before though...before the "no surrender" aspect of them had the squads sitting in the hex getting chewed up to nothing. Now they can retreat a little but they still often suffer massive casualties first.

_____________________________


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 14
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 7:53:01 PM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		I remember playing a couple of these, flash. Good scenairos. Knives in the Night sticks in my mind.

I recommend them to all of you. Good stuff!

WB

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 15
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 7:54:51 PM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		I have not checked but I think you can turn it off by clicking off the smoke thing.

WB
=================

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 16
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 8:11:23 PM   
greg_slith


Posts: 490
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline 		Isn't it "Vinigar JOE" Stilwell?

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 17
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 10:43:28 PM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

Isn't it "Vinigar JOE" Stilwell?


You are correct, sir! OOPS -- I was thinking of Wild Bill's great Pacific scenarios, so it was a Freudian slip. Sorry.


_____________________________


(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 18
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/22/2005 11:53:10 PM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: Wild Bill

I remember playing a couple of these, flash. Good scenairos. Knives in the Night sticks in my mind.

I recommend them to all of you. Good stuff!

WB


Oh certainly WB...dont get me wrong....I'm not knocking em they can be helluva fun.....very challenging too. I've junked more Shermans in the jungle than probably anyone d=*(&@ Japanese fortifications and INF AT teams!!!!

However one good game of that usually has me pining for nice open tank country after that..... easier on my blood pressure.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 19
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/23/2005 12:29:25 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

... I've junked more Shermans in the jungle than probably anyone d=*(&@ Japanese fortifications and INF AT teams!!!!

However one good game of that usually has me pining for nice open tank country after that..... easier on my blood pressure.


What's interesting is that I'm just the opposite -- I prefer the confined terrain of the jungle over "open tank country". One reason for this is that I play with human-controlled op-fire "ON" -- this makes for reaally-looong turns in open country. "Jungle fever"? Maybe.


_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 20
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/25/2005 11:00:27 AM   
SiG

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 10/29/2005
Status: offline 		I don't know if the PTO as a whole is overlooked, but the Japanese perspective certainly is. Scenarios designed to play as Japan are allmost inexistant, especially after mid-1942. (which I find quite annoying since I usually enjoy playing as the underdog - my personal dream campaign would be the Gulf War playing as Iraq in SPMBT)

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 21
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/25/2005 8:47:25 PM   
Puukkoo


Posts: 472
Joined: 7/19/2005
From: Seinäjoki, Finland
Status: offline 		Japan did not much conduct offensives after 1942. Amphibious landings always require a human player to do the attackers part.

SPWW2 has a Jap campaign in China 1937. SP1 had Philippine Campaign from Japannese viewpoint. Battles of Guadalcanal and the capture of Singapore might also turn into Japannese campaigns.

_____________________________

Don't be shocked, I AM funny.

(in reply to SiG)
Post #: 22
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/26/2005 12:08:49 AM   
SiG

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 10/29/2005
Status: offline 		Perhaps the battle for the Philippines in 1944/45 would be suitable for some scenarios playable from both sides. There was not much fighting onthe beaches there. most of the battles were fought inland.
What do you think?

(in reply to Puukkoo)
Post #: 23
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/26/2005 1:50:09 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		There was (is) an excellently rendered amphibious assault on Corregidor. Played from the Japan side it was challenging (a human player as US would make it more so)

For a chinese scenario to be sufficiently interesting for the Japan player, it should probably either be a city type fight or have them face a numerically superior Chinese force (by a wide margin), sort of similar to early Russia where small but experienced Germans face hordes of conscript Russian troops.

A PI scenario depicting US attempts to clean out the islands would be a challeging scenario for both sides. While the US owned the coastlines thx to crushing air and naval superiority it was a bit of different story in Manila and the foothills of the mountains.

How about this...a few scenarios depicting the Akyab battles and the Japanese offensives during U-GO at Imphal and Komina would prove interesting. Granted..no tanks as the Japanese had to foot it over the mTns limiting them to very few heavy weapons...but the battles were fiercely contested non the less.





_____________________________


(in reply to SiG)
Post #: 24
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 11/26/2005 3:04:56 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		Yes -- presenting battles from the Japanese side in the Burma/India campaigns is a good idea. Even a reversed role in the USMC vs Japanese battles in the south Pacific 1942-43 (Guadalcanal, New Georgia, Bougainville) would give the Japanese plenty of chances to take the offensive and reverse history.

By the time of Peleliu (September 1944) , there was NO chance for the Japanese to reverse the tide. This is when they reverted to the suicidal but costly method of static fortifications and defending to the death. The PTO DOES offer plenty of what-ifs.

The BIGGEST what-if has not yet been completed, and that's the invasion of mainland Japan in 1946-47. Roland Rahn started it, but never finished it. THIS, IMHO, would be a horrific hell-on-earth. You'd have civilian militia, veteran troops, kamikazes galore and a fight to the death that would dwarf the costs that the Russians paid for taking Berlin in 1945. I briefly considered taking it up, but it is the stuff of nightmares. We should be thankful it never happened, so perhaps it should be left alone.

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 11/26/2005 3:06:06 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 25
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 12/4/2005 12:16:52 AM   
Randy

 

Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/22/2000
From: Torrance, Calif. USA
Status: offline 		Fighting in the Philippines would probably be a combination of fighting in the jungle and in the city. Manila was quite a blood bath, since it was the only real urban fighting in the Pacific War. One area that is rarely ever covered is the Aleutian campaign. While it is rarely covered, it was pretty brutal also. I think that it was here that we saw how fanatical the Japanese would fight.

_____________________________

Semper Fi
Randy

The United States Marines: America's 911 Force-The Tip of the Spear

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 26
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 12/4/2005 2:42:22 PM   
Warrior


Posts: 1808
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: West Palm Beach, FL USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

"Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored?" Compared to the North African Theater, it isn't. Look through your scenario lists and count how many scenarios take place in the desert of 1940-1943. Then compare that to the number of battles in the Pacific.

According to the latest Scenrio List by dutchiexx, there are 104 Mediterranean/North African scenarios available, and 284 Pacific ones. This out of 903 scenarios and campaigns.

So I would say it's high time for the designers to step up and help me correct this injustice!


I'll hop right to it.


_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.



(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 27
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 12/12/2005 12:25:23 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		Ah, that means good stuff coming our way! Warrior has left the building and is churning away

WB

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Warrior)
Post #: 28
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 12/12/2005 4:44:14 PM   
DoubleDeuce


Posts: 1247
Joined: 6/23/2000
From: Crossville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SiG

Perhaps the battle for the Philippines in 1944/45 would be suitable for some scenarios playable from both sides. There was not much fighting onthe beaches there. most of the battles were fought inland.
What do you think?

Sounds good, OR even some Singapore area fighting.

< Message edited by Double Deuce -- 12/12/2005 4:46:59 PM >

_____________________________

My Combat Campaigns Blog

(in reply to SiG)
Post #: 29
RE: Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? - 12/12/2005 4:58:39 PM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		There is a Singapore Scenario already in SPWAW, called "Singapore Sling." I won't even say who designed it. The Corregidor Scenario should be in there, too. It was done by Stuart Millis and received recognition in Bill Trotter's old column in times past.

The numbers are:

Singapore: 044

I can't find Stuart's scenario but I'll see if I can get it from him.

WB

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to DoubleDeuce)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Why is the Pacific Theater So Ignored? 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

0.797