|
magic87966 -> RE: Pacific Theatre (7/10/2020 10:19:50 PM)
|
I agree completely with your statement and I am definitely not a game designer so I'm speaking from ignorance. But the facilities at Pearl were so unique to the theater of operations. I can't think of a single target in Warplan that can be attacked in ONE turn that equals it's importance. It was the only target of such huge value that was within the capabilities of the IJN to attack.*
Would something like this be possible?
(And the current game mechanics already support the attacker's choice of bombing targets.) Because of it's uniqueness to the entire logistics lifeline of the USN in the Pacific, if the IJN decides to attack Pearl**, with 2 operation points they can target the fleet, air, ground or strategic targets. It's up to the IJN player to decide his targets. An attack on the strategic targets ought to have a chance (what percent I have no idea) to deal a significant blow to USN oil and/or repair abilities. Maybe there's a chance the US oil reserves get cut by a hefty percent. Maybe there's a chance Pearl goes from a "9" harbor to a "3" for a period of time.*** The point is, due to the distances and logistical situation this was a target unlike any other in the PTO as far as the US is concerned. I would think there could be "special rules" just for Pearl. The variability of the outcomes of a Pearl Harbor attack could add many different layers to the game as a whole.
Just my 2 cents and thank you for your dialogue on this forum. You want to create a great game and it shows.
*Excepting the USN CV's of course and I'm curious to know if you'll be having any basing requirements for the USN at Pearl prior to US entry. If there's not even a tiny chance of the IJN catching the CV's at Pearl and you can't deal a significant blow to the oil and repair facilities, why even attack? USN BB's aren't worth it. As the IJN, I would welcome those old battle wagons in the Western Pacific early in the war. War Plan Orange was doomed to fail, IMHO. I understand that unlike SC, this is not an "event" driven game but the surprise attack at Pearl was also unique to WW2. The "surprise" attacks of Taranto, Mers El Kebir, Barbarossa and the Battle of the Bulge can all be replicated in the game. Any number of Dieppe-type raids can be replicated in the game. But due to the distances involved and Warplan's FOW system, the surprise of Pearl can't be replicated and it's outcome could have potentially added 2 years to the war (Nimitz) and fundamentally changed the way the USN prosecuted the early part of the Pacific war. I for one would find it fascinating as the US player to have to start the war operating from San Diego and Bremerton.
Ultimately, my argument comes down to at least a scenario option (similar to Warplan Italian option?) that would have basing requirements and the chance for severe Oil and infrastructure damage if a Pearl Harbor raid is successfully (and luckily?) carried out by the Japanese player. And for those that say the player shouldn't have to re-create the stupidity of the decisions made in WW2 ("I don't have to behave like the French Generals, etc..."), basing the USN CV's at Pearl wasn't stupid. It was routine. The IJN just got unlucky. Change that one outcome and you allow the game strategies for Warplan Pacific to be even more varied than previously thought. And for those that might argue that Warplan Pacific starts at Pearl Harbor (assuming the IJN player gets a choice and how you've set up the game) just like Warplan starts in Poland - "it's just the beginning and get on with it": Poland will fall and fall quickly. It's a fact. Unless the Axis player is incompetent, nothing that happens in Poland will so fundamentally change the rest of the war as compared to the variability of the results of the Pearl Harbor attack. Hence the thrill of the unpredictability. IMHO, the argument for CV or Oil or Infrastructure damage at Pearl isn't an argument for an unbelievable or impossible result. It was a very real (and likely) outcome if Admiral Nagumo hadn't been so short sighted (or unlucky in the case of the CV's). It would fun to let the IJN player not make the same mistake.
**I'm also curious as to how the game will handle the actual bombing raid at Pearl if the IJN player decides to do it. Under the current system (if unchanged), as the IJN I sail all the way to Pearl. The USN will see me coming (yes, they won't know my fleet composition and it could be a feint). I can't bomb a neutral country without a DOW. So I DOW the US and launch a 6 CV strike at Pearl Harbor against a low reconnaissance hex. With 2 operations points I get "Fleet not found" twice (this happens in Warplan all the time even against ships in port). Now what? I can't take my DOW back. As the IJN player, the entire war just changed (which is not a bad thing as I've been arguing but it is a nearly impossible result if the attack was launched in clear weather, but an all too likely possibility in the game). On a "Fleet not found" result, there is no battle report. Could a system be put in place where that outcome cancels a DOW? It seems crazy but under the current system, I could see this happening.
***All major wars are wars of logistics. The Pacific war demonstrated this more than any other. In Warplan, port strengths are fixed entities. The US's ability to move into the central and western Pacific (and stay there) was impossible without their ability to improve port facilities as they moved west. Could this be modeled in any way? Could the US (or IJN for that matter) capture an island and improve it's port facilities over time? Supply in Warplan primarily ruins over rail. In Warplan Pacific, it's port to port. The ability to improve/attack/degrade port facilities would open up interesting possibilities.
|
|
|
|
