Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding

Message

mind_messing -> Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/28/2015 6:53:43 PM)
So, after a couple of weeks poking about the editor, I'm debating making a scenario based on Scen 1. I'd love to have some input from the community on how we can make the most popular base scenario a bit better for PBEM play. Unlike some scenarios, I plan to stay fairly close to the base scenario. To that end, I'm keeping actual changes fairly restricted. Bar a few oddities, it is an excellent scenario and very enjoyable. From my own experience and that of others, most issues seem to be centered around the early game and the late game. A rough list of my planned changes: Allied - Change all US West Coast combat LCU's and air squadrons from white restricted to yellow restricted (so they can be bought out). - Increase Allied PP starting pool to 500. - Increase Allied supply production within China (amount to be determined) Japanese - Add a '45 IJA infantry squad with improved AT value(arriving 9/45) to represent the Type 4 rocket launcher being issued for the defense of the Home Islands. - Add the Type 4 Medium tank (arriving 9/45) that most Japanese tanks can upgrade to. - Add Ohka Model 43B Otsu and Shinyo as devices organized into some sort of coastal defense units that arrive in the late war. My question to the community: is there anything else that you would like to see added to Scenario 1, and can you make a good argument for it to be there?

Terminus -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/28/2015 7:40:11 PM)
So that first one for the Allies presupposes that Germany doesn't declare war on the US, I guess?

mind_messing -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/28/2015 8:18:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus So that first one for the Allies presupposes that Germany doesn't declare war on the US, I guess? Presupposes of the possibility that the Allied High Command might realize that Japanese war goals don't involve an invasion of the West Coast. Withdraw dates will remain the same, so what went to fight Germany will go to fight Germany.

Lokasenna -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/28/2015 9:01:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus So that first one for the Allies presupposes that Germany doesn't declare war on the US, I guess? Presupposes of the possibility that the Allied High Command might realize that Japanese war goals don't involve an invasion of the West Coast. Withdraw dates will remain the same, so what went to fight Germany will go to fight Germany. I'd pay some PPs to get temporary access to a few of those divisions, particularly the armoured one(s). Almost all of them withdraw in 1943-1944, but if you're in a real crunch and need to stop, say, an invasion of eastern Australia... or lost a division at sea... Obviously you could play without buying them out, but the number of white-restricted units is frustrating - to the point where I find them more of a nuisance than anything, because the odds of actually fighting in North America are stupendously low. So I find myself simply moving them to a base where I can forget about them, and they won't clog up bases where I actually put units that I check on or want to use.

mind_messing -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/28/2015 9:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus So that first one for the Allies presupposes that Germany doesn't declare war on the US, I guess? Presupposes of the possibility that the Allied High Command might realize that Japanese war goals don't involve an invasion of the West Coast. Withdraw dates will remain the same, so what went to fight Germany will go to fight Germany. I'd pay some PPs to get temporary access to a few of those divisions, particularly the armoured one(s). Almost all of them withdraw in 1943-1944, but if you're in a real crunch and need to stop, say, an invasion of eastern Australia... or lost a division at sea... Obviously you could play without buying them out, but the number of white-restricted units is frustrating - to the point where I find them more of a nuisance than anything, because the odds of actually fighting in North America are stupendously low. So I find myself simply moving them to a base where I can forget about them, and they won't clog up bases where I actually put units that I check on or want to use. The intention is to add the possibility of using the West Coast combat units if they are willing to pay the PP. However, these units aren't cheap, and they do withdraw, so they're not the most sensible investment. The armored units are interesting cases, as they're only really going to be effective in Oz and India - too many trucks for amphib invasions. Guess the two places where JFB's are running rampant at present?

wdolson -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/28/2015 10:47:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing Presupposes of the possibility that the Allied High Command might realize that Japanese war goals don't involve an invasion of the West Coast. Withdraw dates will remain the same, so what went to fight Germany will go to fight Germany. The US government knew from the start that an invasion of the US was not in the cards for Japan. And if they did attempt such folly it would be disastrous for them. Japan simply didn't have men to do the job. The forces that did remain on in the US were there for two reasons: training and public morale. My father got a deferment to go into the military so he could finish his second year of college. He said he saw US fighters flying overhead in Los Angeles and felt safer. Only after he got into the military did he realize those guys were so green they probably would have been useless in a fight. Stripping the home front to put more units in the field was a non-starter from a political as well as a logistical point of view. The game only has training for pilots, but ground troops need training too. Allowing those units to be bought out would be gamey IMO. However, it's your mod so you can do with it what you want. Bill

PaxMondo -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/28/2015 11:44:40 PM)
I think the title is miss leading ... It suggests that Henderson is going to approve an updated Scen 1 in release. I would suggest a title change for this thread.

wdolson -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/29/2015 12:00:43 AM)
The title does say "Community Project". I assumed from the get go this was a fan based mod. Anther detail, I thought DaBabes went a long way towards fixing a lot of the problems with Scen 1. I would suggest a mod based on one of their scenarios rather than using the stock scenario. One thing no mod has addressed are some ships that were at sea at the start of the war that show up as reinforcements in ports on map like they are new builds rather than enter the map in one of the holding box bases. The one ship that pops to mind at the moment is HMAS Australia which shows up in an Australian port a couple of weeks after the start of the war. She was at sea in the Indian Ocean, I believe, when the war started. In the original WitP she showed up in an Australian port a couple of weeks in because where she was at start was off the map. However, in AE, she is on the map and could easily be at sea at the start of the scenario. The same is true of a number of ships that appear in ports in Columbo, India, Australia, and the West Coast of the US. Some of those ships were built in those ports, so it makes sense for them to appear there, but many were not built there and would be better to show up in an off map port instead.

mind_messing -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/29/2015 12:02:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing Presupposes of the possibility that the Allied High Command might realize that Japanese war goals don't involve an invasion of the West Coast. Withdraw dates will remain the same, so what went to fight Germany will go to fight Germany. Stripping the home front to put more units in the field was a non-starter from a political as well as a logistical point of view. The game only has training for pilots, but ground troops need training too. Allowing those units to be bought out would be gamey IMO. However, it's your mod so you can do with it what you want. Bill That's interesting input. Thanks for taking the time to do so; I'd move more. It was my understanding that the "national average" of LCU EXP was an abstraction for ground unit training. Units mostly arrive at the average (as they've been trained to standard), a few arrive well over the average (elite units) and a fair number arrive well below the average and require additional training (Japanese late-war units, mostly). Considering how the training of LCU replacements is abstracted for both sides, I don't think it's a strong enough argument to keep the West Coast units restricted. As far as I can tell, the West Coast units were all out and out combat units and not training cadres (unlike the Japanese Depot Divisions). Some (most?) even saw combat in NorPac. As far as I'm concerned, the political cost of stripping the West Coast is represented in the PP's you pay for the troops. The logistical cost doesn't exist as it's abstracted within the game design. What are your thoughts on this?

mind_messing -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/29/2015 12:10:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo I think the title is miss leading ... It suggests that Henderson is going to approve an updated Scen 1 in release. I would suggest a title change for this thread. I disagree, it's just what it says in the title. A community project for an improved scenario 1. Now, if I'd had "official" in the title, you'd have a point. quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson The title does say "Community Project". I assumed from the get go this was a fan based mod. Anther detail, I thought DaBabes went a long way towards fixing a lot of the problems with Scen 1. I would suggest a mod based on one of their scenarios rather than using the stock scenario. One thing no mod has addressed are some ships that were at sea at the start of the war that show up as reinforcements in ports on map like they are new builds rather than enter the map in one of the holding box bases. The one ship that pops to mind at the moment is HMAS Australia which shows up in an Australian port a couple of weeks after the start of the war. She was at sea in the Indian Ocean, I believe, when the war started. In the original WitP she showed up in an Australian port a couple of weeks in because where she was at start was off the map. However, in AE, she is on the map and could easily be at sea at the start of the scenario. The same is true of a number of ships that appear in ports in Columbo, India, Australia, and the West Coast of the US. Some of those ships were built in those ports, so it makes sense for them to appear there, but many were not built there and would be better to show up in an off map port instead. Yup, fan mod, the community part being that I want to hear the community's thoughts on changes to Scen 1. DaBabes is a pretty big departure from stock. Lots of small ships, that while important, don't really add all that much to the core game (in my view!). My hope for this was a simple improvement of the scenario 1 data. No extra units, no added airframes, conversions, ships or anything else. About the only thing I'm considering adding is some plausible late-war stuff for Japan that the Japanese side won't have the armaments to build much of. Thanks for the tip on the HMAS Australia. I'm reluctant to mess with the deployment of units on Dec 7th, as once you move one thing, you'd need to move hundreds of other things that aren't quite historically accurate. I may keep this limited to warships, as the war isn't going to be decided if xAKL Trampsteamer arrives in Cape Town or is at sea off Deigo Garcia.

Yaab -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/29/2015 5:52:56 AM)
Mind_messing, as for PPs at start, this is what I do on first turn in DaBigBabes C scen 28( I hope it can be replicated in scen 1): PPs at start: 150 points Withdraw following air units for additional PPs: 19/32 BG (B-17) in San Francisco � 26 points 7/22 BG (B-17) in San Francisco - 68 points Hudson Det in Rabaul � 24 points Empire boats in Port Moresby - 42 points Hudson detachment in Sydney - 23 points Beaufort recon in Kuantan - 12 points Walrus (7 planes) in HK (move to Kweilin, withdraw) � 22 points Vildebeest Det in HK( move to Clark Field, withdraw) � 17 points You earn 235 political points. You should have now 385 political points. So, you could set the initial PP pool at 300, withdraw the aforementioned groups, and arrive at 535 PPs.

Barb -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/29/2015 6:41:25 AM)
I would check all the arrival dates on US ships (particularly Destroyers and Submarines) - I had noticed several of them not arriving at all, while others arrive more than year earlier... I would also be happier if the fixes were made over DaBabes scenarios - it is not just the small ships that add flavour...

mind_messing -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/29/2015 8:11:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab Mind_messing, as for PPs at start, this is what I do on first turn in DaBigBabes C scen 28( I hope it can be replicated in scen 1): PPs at start: 150 points Withdraw following air units for additional PPs: 19/32 BG (B-17) in San Francisco � 26 points 7/22 BG (B-17) in San Francisco - 68 points Hudson Det in Rabaul � 24 points Empire boats in Port Moresby - 42 points Hudson detachment in Sydney - 23 points Beaufort recon in Kuantan - 12 points Walrus (7 planes) in HK (move to Kweilin, withdraw) � 22 points Vildebeest Det in HK( move to Clark Field, withdraw) � 17 points You earn 235 political points. You should have now 385 political points. So, you could set the initial PP pool at 300, withdraw the aforementioned groups, and arrive at 535 PPs. I'll have a look and see if that's still the case in Scen 1. If it is, I'm not sure I'd even change the VP's downwards to 300 - I like the notion of the trade-off for the Allies: do you strip your frontline assets for extra VP's that early in the game... quote: ORIGINAL: Barb I would check all the arrival dates on US ships (particularly Destroyers and Submarines) - I had noticed several of them not arriving at all, while others arrive more than year earlier... I would also be happier if the fixes were made over DaBabes scenarios - it is not just the small ships that add flavour... Do you have particular examples of these ships that don't arrive when they're due? As for DaBabes, I handle that with trepidation. It changes alot, and not many of the changes can be seen on the surface. It's something for future consideration, but would require additional work. DaBabes, for example, splits the IJA infantry squads into regular infantry squads and "heavy" infantry squads. That means I need to work out where my proposed '45 IJA squad fits within the scenario 1 paradigm, and then do the same for the DaBabes scenario. Considering I still need to find out what the formula for defining a squads anti-soft/anti-armor values are, there's some work to be done. I'm not saying I won't apply my changes to DaBabes, but not yet (and if the DaBabes folks let me!).

Barb -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/30/2015 5:56:27 AM)
Yup, as for DDs I have it written down at home (now at work) at least for ships arriving till the early 1943. As for subs the work is much harder, but I may take on it in few days/weeks...

mind_messing -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (9/30/2015 12:54:58 PM)
For the Ohka Model 43B Otsu, I think I've caught onto an elegent solution. It should be an aircraft, as otherwise Allied CAP wouldn't get a chance to shoot them down. The only issue with that is that the Japanese can R&D the plane to bring it forward, and we could end up with it being in action far earlier than was the case in history. My solution is to keep it as an aircraft, so the Japanese can R&D it to get it early, but to limit the number of groups that can use it, and to keep those groups as arriving after 9/45, so the Allied player will never need to face them before the historical date. I'm thinking of 3 big groups of 50 planes each, for 150 Ohka's total - big enough that the Japanese player can get a massed strike, but too big in that it will take the best part of a month for the Japanese player to get the squadrons back up to strength after using them. What are people's thoughts on this? quote: ORIGINAL: Barb Yup, as for DDs I have it written down at home (now at work) at least for ships arriving till the early 1943. As for subs the work is much harder, but I may take on it in few days/weeks... Yeah, that would be great!

BJStone -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 4:39:32 AM)
mind_messing, What do you think about adding more mines to each side? What do you think about taking off the STATIC setting on the CD units? I think many of those are also white-restricted. There are also a lot of Japanese engineer units with air support that are statically assigned and white-restricted (hint-hint).

Barb -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 6:00:48 AM)
So far I've got my notes about destroyers, I just have to check them out first, before sending. As to the subs, I have written down notes and arrival dates for SS-105 S-1 to SS-239 Whale. After finishing the notes, I will check them up against game DB.

HansBolter -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 12:19:05 PM)
You might want to consider looking over the Focus Pacific mod. In that one the emergency reinforcements do not enter automatically as a triggered result. The Allies have to buy them. They can also buy them at any time, not trigger dependent. The cost for these units is considerably higher than the cost of buying out ordinary on map restricted units. You might want to consider a similar high cost for release of the West Coast garrison units.

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 1:45:24 PM)
Re-base the Prince of Wales and Repulse TF to Colombo headed for Singapore. The only reason they were sunk was because they were stupid enough to sail into an enemy AZoC without air support THREE DAYS after the Pearl Harbor attack. USN pre-war BB upgrades are borked. Their re-builds are about 2 years behind schedule.

mind_messing -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 1:59:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter You might want to consider looking over the Focus Pacific mod. In that one the emergency reinforcements do not enter automatically as a triggered result. The Allies have to buy them. They can also buy them at any time, not trigger dependent. The cost for these units is considerably higher than the cost of buying out ordinary on map restricted units. You might want to consider a similar high cost for release of the West Coast garrison units. I'll have a look. Focus Pacific changes too much for my tastes. At the core, I just want to give the Allied player the option of buying out the units that start on the West Coast. The emergency reinforcements are not something I want to change. quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan Re-base the Prince of Wales and Repulse TF to Colombo headed for Singapore. The only reason they were sunk was because they were stupid enough to sail into an enemy AZoC without air support THREE DAYS after the Pearl Harbor attack. USN pre-war BB upgrades are borked. Their re-builds are about 2 years behind schedule. PoW and Repulse will stay at Singapore as that's where they were on Dec 7th. What USN BB upgrades do you speak of, and do you have any documentation to back it up? Side Note: when I said "can you make a good argument for it [your proposed changes ]to be there?" that was me politely asking for some evidence to back up what you say. I like some hard facts to back things up.

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 2:15:44 PM)
My bad on PoW and Repulse. Thought I read that they were in Colombo on 2 Dec and didn't reach Singapore until 8 Dec. Now I can't find the source (figures). I'm working on specifics on the USN BB rebuilds.

mind_messing -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 2:47:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan My bad on PoW and Repulse. Thought I read that they were in Colombo on 2 Dec and didn't reach Singapore until 8 Dec. Now I can't find the source (figures). I did find this - http://www.microworks.net/pacific/personal/pow_repulse.htm I cannot vouch for the validity, but it seems that the PoW and Repulse arrived in Singapore on the 2nd. The Japanese spotted them there on the 3rd. quote: I'm working on specifics on the USN BB rebuilds. That would be fantastic.

Lecivius -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 3:17:03 PM)
I would be interested as well. Everything I can find shows the upgrades are pretty darned historically accurate. A good example of data can be found at http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/battleships/bb-list.asp

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 3:34:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan My bad on PoW and Repulse. Thought I read that they were in Colombo on 2 Dec and didn't reach Singapore until 8 Dec. Now I can't find the source (figures). I did find this - http://www.microworks.net/pacific/personal/pow_repulse.htm I cannot vouch for the validity, but it seems that the PoW and Repulse arrived in Singapore on the 2nd. The Japanese spotted them there on the 3rd. Yeah, it must have been a dream, or wishful thinking. I just hate being forced to lose them right off the bat.

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 4:27:30 PM)
Nevada and Pennsylvania rebuilds ok. Tennessee and California rebuilds started started in July 42, not Jan 43 TENNESSEE: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VII, pp. 88-100 CALIFORNIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. II, pp. 14-15 Maryland 5"/38 rebuild started in May 45 for 90 days, not 270 MARYLAND: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. IV, pp. 257-259 West Virginia 5"/38 rebuild started June 43 until June 44, but that time included hull repair. Currently she morphs into the Maryland tree, and doesn't get upgrade until 1945. WEST VIRGINIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VIII, pp. 222-227. I'm of the opinion that Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia should have an option to start rebuilding no later than Oct 42 (much like the Tennessee class) with a maximum of 120-180 days to rebuild

pontiouspilot -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 4:35:08 PM)
Sorry for being slightly off topic but based on existing 1 or 2, the scenario I would love to see (I have zero ability to create myself!!)would involve the Japanese ability to attack non-USA until they choose otherwise. The US would be able to move assets (I suppose) but could only themselves enter the war based on random events ie. x percentage if Soviets attacked, x percentage each turn after Sing falls, x percentage each turn if DEI key cities fall, x percentage if Aust mainland attacked....etc, etc. This is based on what I take to be the fairly low chance of USA declaring war without first being attacked in Pearl or Philippines. This would also allow for the rationalization of the Japanese war strategy in a more global sense.

warspite1 -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 7:50:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan My bad on PoW and Repulse. Thought I read that they were in Colombo on 2 Dec and didn't reach Singapore until 8 Dec. Now I can't find the source (figures). I did find this - http://www.microworks.net/pacific/personal/pow_repulse.htm I cannot vouch for the validity, but it seems that the PoW and Repulse arrived in Singapore on the 2nd. The Japanese spotted them there on the 3rd. quote: I'm working on specifics on the USN BB rebuilds. That would be fantastic. warspite1 Yes, Force Z arrived on the afternoon of the 2nd. HMS Repulse then sailed on the 5th for Australia with the destroyers Vampire and Tenedos but was recalled in view of the worsening situation and returned to Singapore on the 7th.

warspite1 -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/1/2015 7:55:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan The only reason they were sunk was because they were stupid enough to sail into an enemy AZoC without air support THREE DAYS after the Pearl Harbor attack. warspite1 [8\|] Deleted. Can't be bothered.

mind_messing -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/2/2015 1:28:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan Nevada and Pennsylvania rebuilds ok. Tennessee and California rebuilds started started in July 42, not Jan 43 TENNESSEE: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VII, pp. 88-100 CALIFORNIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. II, pp. 14-15 Maryland 5"/38 rebuild started in May 45 for 90 days, not 270 MARYLAND: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. IV, pp. 257-259 West Virginia 5"/38 rebuild started June 43 until June 44, but that time included hull repair. Currently she morphs into the Maryland tree, and doesn't get upgrade until 1945. WEST VIRGINIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VIII, pp. 222-227. I'm of the opinion that Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia should have an option to start rebuilding no later than Oct 42 (much like the Tennessee class) with a maximum of 120-180 days to rebuild Q1: In game terms, is this merely a case of moving the upgrade dates or do changes need to be made to the upgrades themsevles? Q2: Does the WV deserve a "class" of it's own in light of it's upgrade? Q3: Was the WV hull repair due to operational damage or a deliberate decision to modify the design of the ship? If the former, how long should the rebuild take, assuming no damage to be repaired. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan My bad on PoW and Repulse. Thought I read that they were in Colombo on 2 Dec and didn't reach Singapore until 8 Dec. Now I can't find the source (figures). I did find this - http://www.microworks.net/pacific/personal/pow_repulse.htm I cannot vouch for the validity, but it seems that the PoW and Repulse arrived in Singapore on the 2nd. The Japanese spotted them there on the 3rd. quote: I'm working on specifics on the USN BB rebuilds. That would be fantastic. warspite1 Yes, Force Z arrived on the afternoon of the 2nd. HMS Repulse then sailed on the 5th for Australia with the destroyers Vampire and Tenedos but was recalled in view of the worsening situation and returned to Singapore on the 7th. Thanks for the clarification. On Dec 7th they were in Singers. In Singers they shall stay. quote: ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot Sorry for being slightly off topic but based on existing 1 or 2, the scenario I would love to see (I have zero ability to create myself!!)would involve the Japanese ability to attack non-USA until they choose otherwise. The US would be able to move assets (I suppose) but could only themselves enter the war based on random events ie. x percentage if Soviets attacked, x percentage each turn after Sing falls, x percentage each turn if DEI key cities fall, x percentage if Aust mainland attacked....etc, etc. This is based on what I take to be the fairly low chance of USA declaring war without first being attacked in Pearl or Philippines. This would also allow for the rationalization of the Japanese war strategy in a more global sense. Interesting idea. The only problem is that it's waaaaaay beyond the scope of what we're trying to do here. I don't even know if what you suggest is even possible without extensive modification to the game.

JeffroK -> RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1? (10/2/2015 1:35:27 AM)
http://www.rina.org.uk/hres/Death%20of%20a%20Battleship%20-%202012%20update.pdf

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8144531