(Full Version)

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



Message

A_Master -> (5/26/2000 9:02:00 PM)

Now comes the big 'game question'. How realistic to you want the game. You may order your squadron to attack the main enemy TF, but how often did the planes attack something else. I can recall at least twice that airplanes reported sinking enemy carriers, where in reality they sunk an oilier or similar type ship. Just because you order an attack on TF1, it might not occur. Other targets in the area, squadron experience, command experience, weather, time of day (this is tough on weekly turns), range of target, spotting level, random factor, etc.... should all factor into the attack.



DougAngle -> (5/27/2000 12:56:00 AM)

Just remember that this is being touted as a strategic level game and not a tactical level game. A that level most of the detailed tasks (how big of CAP etc) is left to the on-scene commander, not the Admiral back at Pearl Harbor or Tokyo. My vote is to let them get the strategic part right and maybe add-on later a module for more of the tactical decisions.



Dunedain -> (5/27/2000 5:26:00 AM)

Good points about this being a strategic wargame and not having quite that much tactical crontrol to get to decide numbers of fighters for CAP, etc. But one thing that I think should be in is the option for the player to decide if he want's his TF to attempt to withdraw, continue the engagement or pursue the enemy TF after the initial round of exchange of fire between the TF's. This is realistic and would represent the TF commander requesting additional orders. "The enemy TF is attempting to flee, we have sustained substantial losses ourselves. Shall we pursue them and continue the fight?". That sort of thing. Of course, commander traits would play into that as well. An aggressive commander might attack even when you tell him to withdraw. What do you think?



Major Tom -> (5/28/2000 12:37:00 AM)

I would like some more orders than the game presently offers. I would like the ability to send my commanders out on only a one day mission (or one night mission). Of course it would only stick around the target area for a short while, but, it wouldn't be constantly at prey to enemy aircraft. The Japanese were very good at sending task forces out just at night to bombard Guadalcanal or attack the American fleet by traveling just at night and avoiding air attack. I would also like an option for the attacking commander to tell them to try to engage at night, or during the day. Since the Japanese (at leasst early in the war) had a distinct advantage for night engagement you should be able to order your commanders to take full advantage of this and to have them battle mostly at night, if you choose to.



Dunedain -> (5/28/2000 2:59:00 AM)

Yes, you should be able to order the TF commander to try to engage at night or in the day, whichever is your preference. Of course, if the TF does fight at night, any carriers would be useless, with only capital ships with their own guns participating in the battle. The carriers would still be there and be fully vulnerable to enemy guns and torpedoes, but they wouldn't be able to take any offensive action. I also like the idea of being able to order TF's to make rapid night time sorties, always leaving enemy territory well before light. This is an important part of Japanese strategy. But this would require some sort of special order menu. Perhaps the player could decide how many nights during the current weekly turn he would like to send TF's on night time incursions into enemy territory. The player would pick which path for the TF/TF's to take and assign the missions to them (engage any TF's you come across, bombard this port, etc.). Then each nightly excursion would be seperately calculated to see what, if anything, happens. You might send them out 1 time in a weekly turn or 7 times. And each TF could have it's own individual orders for where to go and what mission to undertake. It would be great if this could be implemented. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] And wouldn't be too hard to do either, I think. [This message has been edited by Dunedain (edited 05-27-2000).]



A_Master -> (5/29/2000 9:03:00 PM)

I agree. The original game had an option for night operations for aircraft. This should be available for surface TF well but with a caviet. A slow TF should be automatically targeted by available aircraft if within range (lots of luck trying to program something like this). Also ships should be able to lay mines.



Von Rom -> (5/30/2000 6:13:00 AM)

I definitely like the strategic element that is planned for this game. Also, I think it would be very interesting to have a tactical naval game. SSI's Pacfic General may have had a few flaws, but I liked the way the tactical naval battles were handled, and I liked their naval units - very cool. You could click on an aircraft carrier and enter the hanger to order repairs or the launching of a particular type of aircraft. Also, it might be interesting later (maybe as an add-on?) to use the maps and game engine to model a modern-day or post-1945 strategic naval game. I don't know how difficult that might be, but it would be interesting if it could be done [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Finally, with regard to targeting priority: it probably depends on what the enemy intends to do at the time. For example, if the Japanese are planning to invade the Phillipines, then you would want to target troop transports and landing craft as well as aircraft carriers. Usually, whenever I play a Pacific wargame, generally I strive first to achieve air superiority, then naval superiority (or at least drive the enemy from that local theatre of operations). If my force is too weak to achieve these two objectives than the third option is to hurt and/or deprive the enemy of the means for carrying out his particular mission (ie landing troops on an island). ------------------ A King Tiger can give you a definite edge...



moore4807 -> (6/3/2000 7:54:00 AM)

Just a few notes on my Pacific War wish list... 1) As a fan of KOEI's Pacific Theatre of Operations, I liked the 4 hr time window which allowed time to organize attacks (either day or night). The bases, fleets,divisions and commanders should be assigned numerical values for effectiveness and ability to supply/command ARMY,NAVY,MARINE and AIR CORPS types,units & fleets with manpower,equipment,food & fuel. 2) Break down the Pacific into commands and major & minor bases(type & color coded). Then yearly budgeting with quarterly staff meetings to review and amend decisions. 3) Morale could be very important with ability to recruit or draft manpower/workers for industry, as well as feeding/housing clothing the workers. Sabotage and intelligence gathering abilities would be affected by this. 4) SEVERAL good ideas are already on posts here, there are many games out there that have already done this type of work. I suggest there be a idea list posted by the designers to be debated weekly or daily to get our feedback on specific issues. Also last word of mine- NO ADVERTISING in the game screens, save it for the web sites! Thanks Jim



norsemanjs -> (6/4/2000 12:33:00 AM)

A note on morale. Morale was of course extremely important especially as it affected the troops on the front lines. I think this should be an incorporation of the troop quality or experience. Of course even the most experienced troops could be demoralized and have there ability to fight reduced or made less effective. Morale could be a seperate factor on each unit being affected by victories, high unit losses or damage, supply, length of time at the front or in action. This was something which was easily seen on the American side, Marine and Army divisions would cycle back to bases to recover, they seldom went from one major engagement directly into another. The marine divisions did a lot of training and preparations for their next amphibious op during these times. I think the japanese were less methodical in their amphibious ops, especially early in the war. They often used the same unit to carry out several landings in rapid succession. I'm not sure how this could be covered in the game but it was a big factor in Japan's early successes. Lets hear your thoughts on how to handle morale. Norseman



Bulldog61 -> (7/24/2000 10:31:00 AM)

There are several OB's out that keep changing the load capacity and speeds of Transports. I think there should be two modes of transporting units. Transit mode and Assualt mode. In Transit mode space is important and equipment is loaded to maximze space. In Assualt mode equipment is "Combat Loaded.



Don Bowen -> (7/24/2000 10:39:00 PM)

First, let me say that I am 100% willing to pay for this game. I believe the original PacWar cost $40 or so. Considering the number of hours spent playing the game that probably works out to about 2-cents an hour. A very worthwhile investment, and one I'd gladly repeat or increase. As to features, I'd like to cast my vote for historical realism and for detail. The more of each, the better. I believe PacWar has been played by people that are interested not only in war gaming, but in World War II history. Many of the modified OOB's point to historical detail and reflect painstaking historical research. I hope the new version will be expanded in scope, accurate in detail, and have some of the same expandability that kept Steel Panthers alive and growing (icons, OOB, etc). Don Bowen



David Heath -> (7/24/2000 11:46:00 PM)

Hi Don Well that is what we are hoping to give you. This is a real labor of love for Mike Wood, Gary Grigsby and myself. David



Andy Johnson -> (7/25/2000 2:22:00 AM)

Hail to all I have enjoyed many of the past Pacific War games primarily Pacific War. Since this is a strategic level game, there are two things I wish i could do. First, be able to re-direct the war production effort as needed. Based on how many resource locations I control would provide me an "x" amount of production allowing me to say build more carriers or aircraft or to even increase my industrial output or train more pilots. The second is the ability to build new bases where I deemed necessary rather on just historical locations. The US was good at quickly building new airbases, but even for the Japanese, this could add a lot more to the game. Let me know what you all think. Andy



brisd -> (7/28/2000 1:19:00 PM)

Looking forward to this game more than any other in recent memory (since original PACWAR). I have been rereading some of my Pacific war history books and several items came to mind that might be good suggestions to work in: 1. Leaders - very critical even on a strategic level. Some ideas - have two possible leader modes, at front and at the HQ. Leaders like Halsey led from the flag bridge, Ghormsey (sp) was back in Nomeua and less effective. Also by leader being actually at front (on ship, directing battle close up), there should be possibility of wounding or death (Yammamoto, Bolivar, Scott). Japanese probably more likely to go down with ship? Also like leaders to improve in rank and skill as utilized. 2. China - limited by supply - Burma road critical to any offensive ability the allies have in China. 3. Guerrillas - only PI had any effective ones except China of course. 4. Many people mention changing production - good idea but remember it took YEARS to build BB's and CV's. Not to easy to change but give each side a decision tree for production, training priorities - allows Japan to make some changes that might prolong war. I like GG's original premise - Japan has little chance to WIN but can cost the allies so much blood they can force a draw. 5. Fleet trains - repair ships, destroyer/submarine tenders, oilers, ammo ships - all gave the USN a huge advantage from about '43 on. Perhaps a squadron of support ships rather than individual AD's, like the AO's are represented now. Feel that is original PACWAR's big weakness, fleets sailing for months, never returning to port for maintenance - that should be a big issue, readiness of ship. Hope to see this baby under my XMAS tree - please NO friggin' ads, your free games are the best advertising. Make them pay for this one! Brian



Ed Cogburn -> (7/28/2000 6:19:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by brisd: 4. Many people mention changing production - good idea but remember it took YEARS to build BB's and CV's. Not to easy to change but give each side a decision tree for production, training priorities - allows Japan to make some changes that might prolong war. I like GG's original premise - Japan has little chance to WIN but can cost the allies so much blood they can force a draw.
This brings up a point about Gary's PAC and WIR model games: they never take into account the people in the tanks and planes. Germany was still rolling fighters off its assembly lines at the end, they just didn't have trained pilots to put in them (and fuel was scarce). As we all know, at the end, they were giving children rifles and panzerfausts and telling them to go save their Fatherland. Japan after Midway retained a long and difficult training process for pilots, unlike their adversaries. Japan thus had a shortage of pilots even though they, as I understand it, did not have much of a manpower problem partly because they were stealing from their Korean and Chinese garrisons. Japan's industry really was in a shambles, but they always managed to scrap up enough planes to throw away in massive kamakaze attacks. In PW the replacement system for Allied personel seems flat wrong to me. It doesn't take long for you to build up a huge reserve of men. According to what I've read, this isn't the case. The campaign in Europe from DDay till VE day cost the Army badly, and replacements were supposedly becoming hard to find. The Marines disbanded those raider units to reconstitute frontline Marine divisions, so there was clear manpower pressure at least for the Marine Corps. Now I suspect that we could have relaxed the requirements for new recruits, thus getting a new surge of troops into the pipeline if things were desperate, but the point is that Allied replacements were not easy to come by, and at least in a political sense, they were expensive, not just for the US, even worse so for the Brits. PW simply doesn't deal with this issue at all. I think its time for a wargame like WITP to show the true importance of manpower in WWII. Those tanks and planes are useless without trained people to operate them, and almost every major country in the war had difficulty with a tight manpower supply as the war dragged on and the losses mounted, only excepting the USSR, and maybe Japan.



showboat1 -> (7/29/2000 7:48:00 AM)

The idea of incorporating captured supplies is great, especially in the China-Burma-India Theator where the Japanese Army subsisted for long periods on "Churchill Stores" or captured supplies.



showboat1 -> (7/29/2000 8:19:00 AM)

Okay, here we go with a history teacher's perspective on improvements to PacWar. From someone who wrote his thesis on the Pacific Theater of Operations I have accumulated a lifetime in info on the subject. First of all, an editor to allow the IJN to convert a limited number of ships (ie CA's or CL's)into CV's like the Shinano would give the IJN players a chance to replace some losses. How about giving the player the option to rename ships or modify armaments. Also, how about adding some new ship possibilities to the allies (Vanguard and Montana BB's, Midway CV's). Some new planes would be nice - RUFE float fighters, PBM, PB4Y, P-43 (CHINA), P-35 (Philippines), PV-2, A-24 (USAAF SBD), A-29 (bomber version of Hudson). Or changing the makeup for carrier air groups (changing VF from 27 F4F to 40 F4F would change composition on ALL VF for that type of CV). Airborne operations should also be included (airborne reconquest of Corregidor) to make use of the ABUNDANCE of C-47's that get built. Perhaps even an ability to launch special missions like the Raider landings in the Gilberts and the B-25 raids. Also the US fleet class CV's were often used to trasport USMC air groups to remote bases. Making the fog of war tougher to see through would be a great idea. It would also be great to get a detailed summary at the conclusion of the game giving the ship info, when sunk, where, how, by what unit(s) or ship(s). I don't know about anyone else but i have my favorite ships (BB55 North Carolina "The Showboat") and would love to see how much personal damage they did during the game. Don't get me wrong. This was the greatest strategy game I have ever played. These are ideas to put more control into the hands of the player. I, for one, love to tinker in these type of games. Hope these were useful.



Don Bowen -> (7/29/2000 10:09:00 PM)

If anyone has not seen this site: http://www.freeport-tech.com/WWII/index.htm check it out. It lists the dispositions of forces at the beginning of the Pacific War (and the Atlantic War) in wonderful detail. For "New" Pacwar, I'd love to have the ability to deploy forces at this level of detail (or close to it). That means more of everything - bases, ships, air groups, land units, etc. Here's a few specific items from my wish list: 1. Extend the map East/West to include Madagascar and the Panama Canal. 2. For lend lease and other-service-usage of aircrart (A-24, Martlet, etc), give a different icon and separate reserve pool. 3. Land units that split sub units do not regrow to their original size, but stay permanently reduced (usually to 2/3rd original size). If all three units (Regiments from a Division, for instance) are split off, the original unit remains as a small shell. Split units can be named and can, of course, rejoin their parent unit. Thus the units split from the 41st U.S. Infantry Division could be named the 162nd, 163rd, and 186th Regiments and the 41st Division HQ would remain (about battalion sized??). 4. Difference between normal and amphibious troops and between normal and combat loaded transports when making amphibious assaults. 5. Paratroops. 6. Ability to detach air groups from carriers. They'd still be lost with their carrier, but could be used elsewhere when the carrier is under repair. 7. Air groups vary in size (squadron, group, wing, even flight) as land units do. Same split ability - break a wing into groups, etc. Lots, I know! Also, if I may be permitted a personal message to Showboat1. I have been studying World War II for ever 40 years, and I would be very interested in your thesis. Is it possible to get a copy?? I'm at dbowen@austin.rr.com. Thanks Don



showboat1 -> (7/29/2000 11:03:00 PM)

I just came up with a change on my earlier suggestion to allow IJN to convert CA's and CL's. Instead allow them to convert CS's like Chitose and Chiyoda were during 1943. It could work out that a CS would take anywhere from 9 to 24 months to convert depending on the IJN supply and industry situation. That way a player who loses carriers early has chance to recoup some losses.



brisd -> (7/30/2000 2:00:00 PM)

I don't want to slam people for their ideas - the more the merrier. BUT Don those ideas would add so much detail to the game it would become an operational level game instead of a strategic level game. GOOD ideas, but wrong scale for this baby. Like comparing War In Russia to the Operational Art of War series. Showboat - you hit on something that I read about all the time in Pacwar histories - the inability for the allies to sustain high casualties, mostly for political reasons. As far as Midway class carriers they should become available historically, available if the war drags on to their commissioning dates. All carriers were highest priority - the poor IJN has no chance, there were another dozen Essex class planned as well if the war dragged on. Interested on anyones ideas on victory conditions/ending the game. Japan surrenders automatically when? Allies forced to peace table by what disasters? One semi-tactical item I would like to see is the ability to target facilities during air strikes - like the oil storage tanks at Pearl Harbor that if taken out on 12/7/41 would have forced the fleet to relocate to San Diego (where they should have stayed - much nicer place!) Brian in San Diego



Don Bowen -> (7/31/2000 1:39:00 AM)

I've put together an historically accurate deployment for the Netherlands East Indies as of 12/7/41. This shows the level of detail that I would love to see in the new PacWar, and also illustrates the rational behind one of the items on my wish list: the ability to split air groups. Netherlands East Indies Recommended OOB for PacWar This is an historically accurate Order of Battle and deployment for Netherlands East Indies Forces, structured for use in PacWar. It requires a number of additions: New Bases: Kendari (hex 24-31) – Major airfield, taken by Japan and used to support Timor, Ambon, and Darwin operations Bandung (hex 15-26) – Capital of Java, Army HQ and center of defense – roads to Batavia and Tjilatjap Padang (hex 13-19) – Major oil port, used by Japanese and German submarines raiding Indian Ocean Banjermasin (hex 20-28) – Defended port in Southern Borneo – entrance/exit point for reinforcements/refugees Meruake (hex 31-41) – Capital of Dutch New Guinea, small airfield developed during war. Held by Dutch/Australian and eventually U.S. forces. Aroe Islands (Optional, hex 30-38) – Site of raids and skirmishes during early part of war. Jolo Island (belongs to Philippines, hex 26-25) – level 4 airfield captured first week. New Ship Classes: Surabaya – Coast Defense Ship Soemba – Sloop O-19/21 – Sub TM04 Class – PT boat KPM ship – Small Transport (shallow draft civilian transports of 2000 tons or so, requisitioned and very useful in NEI, Australia, and eventually New Guinea). New Aircraft Types: Do24K – Seaplane Reconnaissance CW-22 – Fighter/Reconnaissance B339 – Dutch Buffalo with own reserve pool H75/CW21 – Dutch P36 with own reserve pool The following dispositions assume the ability to split airgroups into squadrons and that NEI versions of Buffalo, P-36, and PBY have separate reserve pools. NEI Army: 1st Division (-) – Bandung 1st Reg/1st Div – Batavia 2nd Division (alternately, 4th Regiment) – Tjilatjap 3rd Division (alternately, 6th Brigade) - Surabaya VI Battalion – Balikpapan VII Battalion - Tarakan *Battalion – Medan *Battalion - Palembang *Battalion - Banjermasin *Battalion – Menado *Battalion – Makassar *Battalion – Ambon *Battalion - Timor Also: British 2/15th Punjab Bn at Sarawak * = Named for station, i.e. Medan Garrison. Approximate size of each = battalion. NEI AF I Group (M-139), 1st Squadron at Balikpapan --------------- 2nd Squadron at Sarawak II Group (M-139) at Surabaya III Group (M-139) at Bandung (to Singapore first Week) IV Group (Hawk 75/CW-21 = P36) at Bandung -----------------3rd Squadron (with Buffalo) at Bandung (to Singapore first Week) V Group (B339), 1st Squadron at Sarawak ----------------2nd Squadron at Balikpapan VI Group (B339) at Tarakan Vka (CW-22) at Bandung *GVT-1 (Do24k) at Sarawak *GVT-2 (Do24k) at Sorong *GVT-7 (Do24k) at Tarakan *GVT-16 (PBY) at Surabaya *GVT-17 (PBY) at Ambon * Small recon sections of 3 aircraft. Actual units GVT-1 to 8 with Do24k, 16-17 with PBY (others forming) and 11-14 with other aircraft. Combined (based on stations) to reduce number of units. Also large reserve force which would be in reserve pools. NEI Navy Java – At sea hex 17-29 enroute Singapore Sumatra – Surabaya (refit) with 25% damage De Ruyter – At sea hex 21-33 enroute Surabaya Tromp – Reinforcement, Turn 1 Heemskerck (CLAA) – Reinforcement, Turn 8 Van Nes Group 1 (1 ship) – In port Surabaya Van Nes Group 1 (4 ships) – At sea hex 21-33 enroute Surabaya (2 groups of 2 would be better) Van Nes Group 2 (2 ships) – At sea hex 17-29 enroute Singapore Isaac Sweers – Reinforcement, Turn 11 2 “N” Class – Reinforcement, Turn 27 Surabaya – in port Surabaya Soemba – in port Surabaya TM04 (8 boats) – in port Surabaya SS (5 K boats) – at sea hex 20-18 SS (3 K boats) – at sea hex 22-21 SS (2 O boats) – at sea hex 25-18 SS (2 O boats) – Reinforcement, Turn 39 SS (5 K boats) - under repair/refit, should be in Surabaya with damage. Transports (KPM x 8) – Reinforcement, Turn 2 It may be necessary to designate some late arriving reinforcements as British – they really did report to Eastern Fleet after NEI fell. This may be a little overly detailed for the game, but it does represent the aggressive forward deployment of the NEI forces. Main problem, in the game, is the tendency to over-reinforce these units. Note that the Dutch had built a number of forward airfields, but were not able to defend them. Capturing these airfields intact (as happened at Kendari, for example) was partly responsible for the rapid Japanese advance. [This message has been edited by Don Bowen (edited July 30, 2000).] [This message has been edited by Don Bowen (edited July 31, 2000).]



showboat1 -> (7/31/2000 4:26:00 AM)

Dan triggered another idea i had. Germany did deploy U-boats into the Indian Ocean and these could be deployed as computer controlled. Also in 1945 a number of German U-boats were turned over to Japan (for verification see Edwin Hoyt's "Closing the Circle") These could be included as end of game reinforcements. And while we're on the Submarine topic, how about some Kaiten?



Kev -> (8/6/2000 7:09:00 PM)

I would like to see an accurate representation of Australian industrial capacity, the ability to recall units from the Mid East/UK (RAAF Sqns) and the ability to influence Aust production. I would also like a few "what if" scenarios - one where pearl harbour is totally destroyed on Dec 7, one where Hawaii is captured by Japan and a one where Japan gets a decent sized merchant fleet at the start, perhaps also a Chinese surrendered scenario. I don't think any of the above were likely, but it would add some interest to playing the allied side.



brisd -> (8/9/2000 8:39:00 AM)

The past few days I have been playing the original Pacific War in anticipation of the new patch/upgrade due out soon. Also have been reading up on histories of some of the US battleships and a major suggestion came to mind. In PacWar ships automatically have their flak and radar values upgraded. In reality ships had to spend months in a shipyard to get such upgrades. In addition maintenance was required to keep a ship's engineering plant, weapons and electrical system operational, again at a dedicated shipyard or alongside a fleet tender. While I don't want the game to be buried in needless details and made unplayable, there should be some automatic feature where ships lose readiness between overhauls. During those overhauls any upgrades to the ship would occur automatically. Another idea expanding on this is the ability to modify a ship drastically (Ise class CV's?) as determined by the player/computer. Perhaps another item to be added is the idea of rare but critical non-combat casualities to the ship that would necessitate an overhaul period to correct. I have a background in shipboard maintenance and these events are all too common. Perhaps an automatic Red Flag could show up on a ship when it reachs a readiness level below a preset (by player/computer) level so action can be taken to correct. Of course if like at Midway the Yorktown is needed despite her wounded condition, the player can use the ship in a reduced state. One more example - the liners of ship's guns wear out and need to be replaced. Again these are suggestions for adding a level of realism/chrome to the game that can be turned on or off by the player.



Ed Cogburn -> (8/9/2000 12:24:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Kev: I would like to see an accurate representation of Australian industrial capacity, the ability to recall units from the Mid East/UK (RAAF Sqns) and the ability to influence Aust production.
I'm just curious Kev, what's wrong with the way Australian industry is portrayed now?



Kev -> (8/11/2000 9:14:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn: I'm just curious Kev, what's wrong with the way Australian industry is portrayed now?
It has been a long time since I played Pac War but as I recall (I could be wrong) Australia was not given much of an option to produce very much - in reality Aust made over 50 Corvettes, Various Fighters, Bombers, AFVs as well as Arty etc. I would like to see the ability to better control what can be produced - particularly given the masses of available troops and (up to) divisional level weapons produced in Aust.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.671875