An alternative title of WITP

An alternative title of WITP (Full Version)

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

Message

Sun Tzu -> An alternative title of WITP (5/27/2002 4:30:27 PM)
Instead of "War in the Pacific: Struggle Against Japan", what about "War in the Pacific: Clash of Leviathans"? An epical game deserve an epical name. :)

Ron Saueracker -> (5/28/2002 11:09:34 AM)
I've always liked "The Pacific Boils Over", used by Morrison in USN WWII NAV OPS and by R.Rogers as a song title for Victory at Sea.

U2 -> (6/16/2002 4:50:18 AM)
I think the book title "Eagle vs Sun" is perfect for the game but I guess its a TM that is protected. Anyway the title is quite good as it is. Its a shame how this forum just died after UV came out. Perhaps someone at Matrix could ask for advices on the game to get a discussion going. Dan

Spooky -> (6/17/2002 5:47:53 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2 [B]Its a shame how this forum just died after UV came out. Perhaps someone at Matrix could ask for advices on the game to get a discussion going. Dan [/B][/QUOTE] In fact, some of the more important WITP aspects such as user interface, naval & air combat reports, naval combat code, ... are tested (and improved :)) through the UV patch But an interesting debate would be : what alternative scenario for WITP (as the #19 scenario from Rich in UV) ? A first suggestion is a IJN doctrine change in the 30's with the replacement of the Yamato Class BB by some more CV. Maybe also a stronger emphasis on aircraft R&D with an advanced availability of some planes ... What would be great is to give Matrix 2 or 3 alternative scenarios ... and the changes it would induced ... Any suggestion ? Spooky

U2 -> (6/17/2002 11:49:46 PM)
Hi What about this: No Japanese involment in China except Manchuko which would free up quite a large force now availible for the drive south. I really liked your idea of building carriers instead of the Yamato class super battleships. We know what they would look like ( Shinano) Better R&D? Hard to do that when we dont know how these planes would have looked like and performed. Or do you mean this Jap capability would make existing planes like Oscar II better for example? Dan

Spooky -> (6/18/2002 12:00:17 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2 [B] Better R&D? Hard to do that when we dont know how these planes would have looked like and performed. Or do you mean this Jap capability would make existing planes like Oscar II better for example? Dan [/B][/QUOTE] I would rather think to an accelerated introduction of new Japanese airplanes (ie : 6 months before historic introduction time). However, in this case, we would have to get a close look at the japanese prototype airplanes in 1945 in order to introduce them in 44. To change the Airplanes historic capabilities seems to me quite more dangerous. BTW, the "No involvment in China except Manchuko" scenario would be very interesting - I hope Rich is thinking about it :rolleyes:

U2 -> (6/18/2002 12:07:46 AM)
Hi I get your point on Jap aircraft R&D and how it would make the planes appear in the Pacific six months ahead of time for example. Good idea. I take it the :rolleyes: in my "no china scenario" was not to your liking. Or what did you mean? Most likely it has been discussed before perhaps and it was your idea? Really dont know. Dan

U2 -> Japs and ASW (6/18/2002 12:18:17 AM)
Hi The Japanese discovered how important escorts for convoys and ASW weapon systems was way too late. What if this was not the case? Sure hope I get no :rolleyes: this time. Dan

Spooky -> (6/18/2002 12:39:10 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2 [B] I take it the :rolleyes: in my "no china scenario" was not to your liking. Or what did you mean? Most likely it has been discussed before perhaps and it was your idea? Really dont know. Dan [/B][/QUOTE] Oooops - Sorry :confused: It's your idea and a very good one ! My :rolleyes: only intended to emphasize " I hope Rich (Dionne) is thinking about it" This "no China scenario" is an ideal "whaf-if" along with probably the "full-carrier strategy" and a scenario involving a change in the USSR-Japan relationship. We can now hope that Matrix is already thinking about these WITP "what-if" scenarios since the new UV scenario n°19 is already a huge "what-if" scenario.

U2 -> (6/18/2002 12:41:27 AM)
Hi Spooky Thank you for the kind words. When you exchange ideas with someone for the first time its hard to know. To play PBEMs with forum members really helps you know but Ijust cant play against you all:D Dan

Spooky -> (6/18/2002 12:43:58 AM)
About Japanese ASW/Convoy, I totally agree with you. Maybe a "Jap Convoy historical Doctrine" option such as the submarine doctrine option would be useful ...

U2 -> (6/18/2002 12:46:10 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky [B]About Japanese ASW/Convoy, I totally agree with you. Maybe a "Jap Convoy historical Doctrine" option such as the submarine doctrine option would be useful ... [/B][/QUOTE] Yes! Very good. What would a non-historical Jap convoy system really mean? More hit oppertunities on US subs, harder for subs to hit merchants? Dan

Spooky -> (6/18/2002 12:51:14 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2 [B] Yes! Very good. What would a non-historical Jap convoy system really mean? More hit oppertunities on US subs, harder for subs to hit merchants? Dan [/B][/QUOTE] I am not a PTO specialist but I read a long time ago that the Jap. use of convoy system for merchant ships (TK, AK) was quite limited ... and a lone Jap tanker is not really a match to an US sub :) If the Jap had introduced convoys then their merchant ships losses would probably have been lower ... and US subs losses higher ...

U2 -> (6/18/2002 12:56:11 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky [B] I am not a PTO specialist but I read a long time ago that the Jap. use of convoy system for merchant ships (TK, AK) was quite limited ... and a lone Jap tanker is not really a match to an US sub :) If the Jap had introduced convoys then their merchant ships losses would probably have been lower ... and US subs losses higher ... [/B][/QUOTE] Very true. Also the japs was very sparse in their use of good radars for ASW, aircraft and good aircrews was not used on ASW duties(not much anyway). Many things plus the two mentioned in my previous post must be taken into cinsideration if we are to have such an option. Dan

Spooky -> (6/18/2002 1:12:01 AM)
To sum up, we could have 2 geo-political scenarios : * No China involvement * Japan-USSR friendship and at least 3 changes of doctrines : * Carriers instead of BB * Accelerated Aircraft R&D * Emphasis on convoy & ASW Spooky

U2 -> (6/18/2002 1:19:53 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky [B]To sum up, we could have 2 geo-political scenarios : * No China involvement * Japan-USSR friendship and at least 3 changes of doctrines : * Carriers instead of BB * Accelerated Aircraft R&D * Emphasis on convoy & ASW Spooky [/B][/QUOTE] Yes, a very good summary Spooky. We must continue this brainstorming another day perhaps. Also please remember in the future that the guy with the rolling eyes is not for thinking but for being sarcastic so you dont have any other future missunderstanding on the forum:) See you on the forum soon I hope. Dan

mogami -> Geo-political conciderations (6/18/2002 3:01:58 AM)
Hi Folks, While we are on geo politics, lets remember several important things. The Japanese and Russians have been hositile towards one another for over 50 years in 1941. It was China that lead to Japans enstrangment with the USA. While prior to the 1920's the IJN had been against the China adventure they were all for the drive South. (The Navy had switched from coal to oil and wanted a secure supply) This is one of the reasons the Japanese Army and Navy had trouble getting along and going for the same goals, they each had differant set of needs. The Army needed China the Navy the Southern resource area. The Army had been unable to defeat China and had just suffered a major defeat from the Russians. The Navy had been largely uninvolved and for over 20 years had known it would someday have to fight the USN. Scenarios that have a friendly USSR or those without the Army in China leave the question "what need for war" The USA would not have embargoed the oil so the IJN would not have advocated war. The would have been no embargo of material so the IJA would not have advocated war. War came because of the above and the situation in Europe provided a window of opportunity for the Japanese (the French Dutch and English and Russians were all distracted only the USA posed a threat hence the Pearl Harbor strike to start. Effects on production. The Japanese pretty much have to have a victory secured prior to 1943. Any large ships they lay down after the war begins will not help them to win. Smaller ones could aid in the defense. (producing 5-6 CV against the horde the US produces will not alter things if they have not already won.) It was not so much aircraft type that hurt but rather the limited number of aircrew (I am refering to the IJN air arm) even in late 1942 it only had 4k aircrew (it lost 2.6k in the campaign in the South Pacific) It would require a major shift in doctrine to allow it to expand (and require the use of several carriers for training) The USA could no doubt have had many ships after mid 45 that they decided against finishing because there was no need for them. If things go against them these ships should appear (several large CV BC and a slew of CA/CL) Ship production for capital ships and CV's will not be in game so much as most of these ships were in fact already funded before Dec 7th 1941. Many were already under construction (another reason Japan went to war in 41 was they realized by 43 it would be hopeless since they could not keep up with the peacetime building of the US. On the part of the US this was a delibrate policy. The error was thinking the Japanese would not go to war. (IE the US thought it could force Japan to accept the conditions over China simply by proving they could force Japan if they chose to)

U2 -> (6/18/2002 3:16:18 AM)
Hi Mogami You are right for sure and I should have remebered what I read in Barnhart's Japan Prepares For Total War: The search for Economic Security 1919-1941. A darn good book by the way that I used for my essay which gave me a degree in history. Anyway we were just toying with ideas here. For sure without China there would have been no conflict with the USA and no oil embargo and no war. But in a hypotetical scenario we create different events that would lead to war. This would mean that we had to produce another storyline. Unfortunately we had no time to do that right now. I have never been very good with hypotetical scenarios and I should have stuck to things I like to see in the game. I should have known my buddy Mogami would show up and give me a great history lesson. Great as always to have you on the forum. Dan

Spooky -> (6/18/2002 4:13:44 AM)
Thanks Mogami for your insight In another WWII game forum (Paradox Forum), there was a long & interesting discussion to know if Japan could have won the Pacific War and the answer is NO ... even without Midway :( http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=36244 However, a hypothetical change of the Japanese doctrine in the 30' could have lead to the suggestions : * No more BB - more CV : Yamato / Musahi are replaced in 1942 by 3-4 Fleet Carriers * Emphasis on pilots training : less aircrew shortage * Emphasis on aircraft R&D : quicker developement of new airplanes * Emphasis on ASW : more DD with ASW capabilities & tactics Of course it would not have allowed the Japanese to win the war ... but to create these "what if" scenarios would improve the gameplay (and help the Japanese AI !). Spooky

U2 -> (6/18/2002 4:22:48 AM)
Hi Nice to have contributed to a discussion on the forum again. Been too long. BTW: Historical events are NOT historical in a hypotetical scenario. SPOOKY: What about trying to create a storyline for our scenario? Perhaps if we were asked otherwise it would be too much hard work for nothing. Dan

Sardaukar -> (6/21/2002 3:00:28 AM)
One good option would also be accelerated aircrew training for IJN. Saburo Sakai mentions in his book "Samurai" that 90 % of those booted out of pre-war training by minor "offences" or faults were 10 times more better pilots than replacements IJN got during years (If I quote right..just from memory). "What if" with larger "good quality" but not "great quality" pilot supply for IJN to add to historical replacements during years as option might be also good. Even 1944 those pre-war trained IJN pilots that were left were **** good. Cheers, M.S.

U2 -> (6/21/2002 3:11:12 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sardaukar [B]One good option would also be accelerated aircrew training for IJN. Saburo Sakai mentions in his book "Samurai" that 90 % of those booted out of pre-war training by minor "offences" or faults were 10 times more better pilots than replacements IJN got during years (If I quote right..just from memory). "What if" with larger "good quality" but not "great quality" pilot supply for IJN to add to historical replacements during years as option might be also good. Even 1944 those pre-war trained IJN pilots that were left were **** good. Cheers, M.S. [/B][/QUOTE] Hi This is quite possible to do and isnt that what they have in the new scen 19(?) in UV that came with the patch. The Jap replacement pilots are better than in other scenarios. Dan

Kitakami -> Ruso-Japanese war, take 2 (6/21/2002 6:24:59 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky [B]To sum up, we could have 2 geo-political scenarios : * No China involvement * Japan-USSR friendship and at least 3 changes of doctrines : * Carriers instead of BB * Accelerated Aircraft R&D * Emphasis on convoy & ASW Spooky [/B][/QUOTE] All, I think a more plausible scenario would have been a Japan-USSR war, not Japan-USSR friendship. Now, the strategic implications of that, I leave to the experts, but it would (maybe): 1. Affect the outcome in the European Eastern Front during the first winter and maybe beyond that. Would that have consequences in the PTO? 2. Change the US's public perception of Japan, particularly if they pulled out of China (but not from Manchuria). 3. Change the resource base of Japan's industry, with raw materials that had but a short water trip to make (Korea to Japan). Thoughts?

mogami -> Resource (6/21/2002 12:40:23 PM)
Greetings, It has been said that the allies knew they defeat the axis because: Germany was a country with industry but no resources and Japan was a country with resources but no industry. The Army wanted Manchuria for the resources (but no oil) and China for food. The Navy wanted the SRA for the oil. One of the very few ships sank by submarines early in the war was the transport carrying the few Japanese oil field experts and the limited amount of oil field equipment. The result was that Japan was never able to get the oilfields up to full production and it took more time for each increase. Consider what it would do if Japan is able to construct cracking plants right at the oilfields. Not only would production oil gasoline and av gas be easier the load on the transport system would be lessened. (as is Tankers have to first carry raw oil to Japan then the fuel to where it is required. Traffic to Japan would only be what Japanese industry and home Island military required all other transport would be between oil centers and depots. The Army would not give up China, the goverment would not give up China (the Chinese went hungry but fed Japan) There are resources controled by USSR within range of Japanese however there were too few units to spare even after Germany and USSR went to war. Count the divisions Japan used in WW2 outside of China. The Russians could match this twice over and not miss it. (This army would not contain much offensive power but the lack of railheads means the Japanese will not be able to move very fast since Japan has no mobile formations and the defense can shift to meet the threat) They held the units in the East till after the US was in the war. In 1945 the Russians massed 3 moblie armys hundreds of miles from a railhead and smashed the Japanese.

U2 -> (6/21/2002 3:31:13 PM)
Hi Mogami I think your observations on a possible Russo-Japanese war is correct. The infantery based Jap army was ill prepared for a more mobile enemy on a vast frontier. Just take a look at the border dispute that became a limited war in 1939 between these two countries and we see why. The point you made about the Japs not being able to get the oil flowing from the start(also thanks to sabotage to some wells before capture) is very true indeed. Dan

Kitakami -> (6/21/2002 6:51:31 PM)
I think the point I am trying to make is: What would have happened in the German Eastern Front if the Siberian Armies had not arrived to reinforce due to being tied down in a border war with the Japanese? And, if Germany would have succeeded taking Moscow and advanced beyond their historical gains, How would that have affected Japan?

RevRick -> Or another variant. (6/22/2002 7:46:34 PM)
How about no Washington Treaty? That ought to really mix up the game play - and call for a whole bunch of new ships on the ways. Or, FDR gets involved earlier and calls for the Two Ocean Navy and gets it in 1938-39 instead of 1940. Postulate changes in the European War - both ways. If the Brits are knocked out of the effort in the Pacific - that makes the US position much more untenable. If Australian forces are held up in North Africa - they aren't available for home defence, etc.

Kitakami -> (6/22/2002 7:50:13 PM)
I'd love to see such things, yes. I would give the feel that the PTO was not isolated, but part of a greater effort of trully worldwide proportions. Question is, how to implement it? Would it be hard to code them in such a way so that a player could set a certain amount of toggle buttins and the engine takes all that into account when deploying forces at start? That would really be interesting.

U2 -> (6/23/2002 9:37:27 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kitakami [B]I think the point I am trying to make is: What would have happened in the German Eastern Front if the Siberian Armies had not arrived to reinforce due to being tied down in a border war with the Japanese? And, if Germany would have succeeded taking Moscow and advanced beyond their historical gains, How would that have affected Japan? [/B][/QUOTE] Hi Moscow taken (severe blow to morale not only because its the capitol but that Stalin himself would have fled in the face of the enemy) and no Siberian forces ( forces that helped to stop Operation Typhoon and then went on the offensive ) would have been a disaster for Russia and the war might/would have taken a different turn. If we play with the idea that Russia would have surrendered everything west of the Urals and was kept as a country east of it then it would have given Japan an easier target for sure. I'm just toying with the idea that Germany would not have occupied the entire Sovietunion because the strain it would be on Germany and its armed forces. This could be used in a hypotetical scenario. Thoughts? Dan

Kitakami -> (6/23/2002 9:46:55 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2 [B] Hi Moscow taken (severe blow to morale not only because its the capitol but that Stalin himself would have fled in the face of the enemy) and no Siberian forces ( forces that helped to stop Operation Typhoon and then went on the offensive ) would have been a disaster for Russia and the war might/would have taken a different turn. If we play with the idea that Russia would have surrendered everything west of the Urals and was kept as a country east of it then it would have given Japan an easier target for sure. I'm just toying with the idea that Germany would not have occupied the entire Sovietunion because the strain it would be on Germany and its armed forces. This could be used in a hypotetical scenario. Thoughts? Dan [/B][/QUOTE] I agree on both accounts. There was no way Germany would have been able to occupy all of the USSR. And if they had been lenient in their occupation policies in the Ukraine, they would have had an easier time ruling it. Japan, after such a German victory, would have had an easier time picking up Siberian resources (which at this point I am not able to quantify), and thus might have improved her strategic position. You are right this would make for an interesting hypothetical scenario.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.375