China, the land path. (Full Version)

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



Message

C3I2 -> China, the land path. (12/14/2000 1:59:00 AM)

Well I like game that gives strategic choice. That is why I generally like games that cover this war to start in 1935. This gives me the chance to change history, and win with Japan. I do hope Japan is playable despite the working name of the game. I do hope that its possible to make strategic choices, so you can chose the land path or the sea path - not are forced to do a middle of the road variant as did happen in reality. Not always good? That is why you have optional rules and different starting senarios (starting dates). Frankly I'm not sure if you are making a grand strategy game or if you make a tactical game with strategic implications (like the old SSI game Panzer General, forinstance, not realistic but fun). I guess I'll see in a year or so. (Yes, that wish list tread is to long, so I post here instead)



nittany -> (12/14/2000 6:36:00 PM)

Disagree slightly, the Japanes involvement in China in the early 30's, I would consider separate from the war started at Pearl Harbor. The actual war, or one reason, was started for resources. Especially, oil, which Japan did not have in abundance. It would be nice to include a "China" scenario, but start the game in 1935? Can't see it. What would the other countries do, knowing in game terms, that war is coming. I would be building capital ships, like it was going out of style!!!



Sapphire -> (12/14/2000 11:13:00 PM)

This would be ferociously difficult to do well, but I do like the idea. The U.S. made some major strategic decisions too in the 1920's and 30's that had a huge impact on the war. Imagine how things might have been different if Guam had been turned into a major fortress, or if the Phillipines had gotten started on building a military just a little earlier. Not to mention the obvious possibility of building up the Navy. The question is whether a game could give the player some choices while also recreating the diplomatic and political constraints that drove the historical decisions. My guess is...no.



Ed Cogburn -> (12/15/2000 4:26:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by nittany: Disagree slightly, the Japanes involvement in China in the early 30's, I would consider separate from the war started at Pearl Harbor.
I don't have a problem with a game starting early enough to include China, but why would you want to? Infantry versus infantry in rough/jungle terrain, with one side hopelessly outclassed in military capabilities and industrial resources. I don't know for a fact, but I've always assumed that Japan didn't take the rest of China because it didn't *want* the rest. The coastal cities and regions were the most desirable, so once they had those, they ignored the remainder. The late offensive in '44 in China was triggered, I believe, by the attempt to use B29 bombers from bases in China, not because they wanted all that terrain, which would have to be garrisoned (because of Chinese guerillas) and managed. If you want it because you want to make different decisions than were historically made then you're asking basically for a "Diplomacy: Pacific Rim". That would need as much work as the design of the rest of the wargame, considering all the strategic decisions and permutations possible, with each affecting the other in various ways.
quote:

The actual war, or one reason, was started for resources. Especially, oil, which Japan did not have in abundance.
Well, don't forget Shanghai. It has 95 resource points in PW, so resources must have been a major reason for invading China in the first place, at least for the coastal regions.



nittany -> (12/16/2000 6:17:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn: Well, don't forget Shanghai. It has 95 resource points in PW, so resources must have been a major reason for invading China in the first place, at least for the coastal regions.
Ed, this 95 resource points for Shangai, may be applied as a game mechanic. You know, for the purposes of the game and to get Japan involved on mainland China. If you are playing PW and don't have to invade China and get involved there, you wouldn't. What real world resources did Shanghai have? Besides, do you think that conquering China would be the way to win a Pacific Theater game?



C3I2 -> (12/16/2000 9:04:00 AM)

Yes, there is a lot of resources in China. The infrastructure is a problem in some cases, but then there is no submarines to trouble you either. Historically, you had different factions in Japan with different ideas. Some wanted to go in and take china, some wanted the reasources from the islands instead. These factional politics has always been the case in the Japanese colonial developement. Starting with the Black Dragon Society and Korea. The actual outcome and decisions made during the war period was influenced by both these sides. Checks and balances on the Chinese war policy, can be earlier political restrictions on Japan (by the US), a possible war declaration an so on. As Japan, you got to chose the moment when to do your Perl Harbor attack. Not to early, not to late (US prepared or declared war on you). Perhaps you strike somewere else instead? A game with this inbuilt, can still include very historical variants, starting at other dates. Generally those will not stay historical for very long when you play, but that is always the case with games.



Ed Cogburn -> (12/16/2000 4:59:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by nittany: Ed, this 95 resource points for Shangai, may be applied as a game mechanic. You know, for the purposes of the game and to get Japan involved on mainland China.
As far as GGPW is concerned, Japan is already involved in China, so why then give one base an ahistorical amount of resource points when its not needed to "entice" Japan in?
quote:

If you are playing PW and don't have to invade China and get involved there, you wouldn't.
Thats probably true for most. Players aren't likely to emulate the internal politics of Japan as C3I2 pointed out. I'd take the army and go after a bigger prize. Being able to invade Western US is grossly unrealistic, but maybe India, or Australia?
quote:

What real world resources did Shanghai have?
I don't know. Quick, what are the "real world" resources that are represented by the 12 resource points in Perth? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Whatever they are, GG put them there.
quote:

Besides, do you think that conquering China would be the way to win a Pacific Theater game?
Of course not, like I said the players are trying to win the game, not to emulate internal Japanese politics. Players will almost always go after a bigger fish, if given the chance.



nittany -> (12/16/2000 5:51:00 PM)

You guys, are killing me!! -LOL- All good points, I must admit that China looks as not so foolish mistake by Japan anymore. However, I'll stick by one point, who would get involved there if they didn't have to!! I think emulating the real world politics of Japan is necessary (somewhat) for game purposes. Why else the knockout blow against Pearl Harbor when the U.S. was not at war with Japan? I think it was internal politics.



chanman -> (2/12/2001 7:19:00 AM)

Any inclusion of China should, in my opinion, be careful not to neglect the hideous supply problems in the region. The reopening of the Burma road by Stillwell was an incredibly difficult operation, militarily, geographically, politically and culturally. Any general less knowledgable of the Chinese culture, less stubborn, or less optimistic couldn't have done it. The level of difficulty cannot be overrated. To respond to a post above, the Japanese weren't able to take China mainly because their logistics weren't up to the challenge. In 1944, when Chennault's airforce got to be too annoying to ignore, they took the airfields without too much trouble. In addition, the inertia of the Chinese politicians and their military is not modeled well in PacWar. Chinese armies in PacWar can sometimes attack, though the AI will not. Properly led, the Chinese armies could defend, as shown in Burma. Records of successful attacks by Chinese armies in WW2 are rare. Note that this is not an indictment of the Chinese fighting man, but more an indictment of the political situation in China at the time. Chiang Kai Shek was more interested in being able to defeat the Communist Chinese after the US and Britain got Japan out of the way than he was in fighting the war at hand. References available upon request. Not sure how to model this in the game. The US was committed in China because of Roosevelt's desire for it to be a major player in the postwar period. The difficulty of getting anything must be high.



Major Tom -> (2/12/2001 12:47:00 PM)

There were basic tensions between Japan and the West throughout the modern era. Japan was continually striving for economic and political independence along with official recognition from the West. They saw expansion as the only means of attaining this. Why not? Britian, France, Netherlands, and the United States practiced policies of imperialism, both economic and military, and the Japanese felt it was their 'turn'. One of the last un-officially imperialised nations was China. In reality, it was controlled by France, England, Russia, Japan and the US, but Japan felt that it had a certain right over it, and the other Pacific/Asian 'nations', similar to the US Monroe Doctrine regarding North and South America. What I am trying to get at, without Japan in China, there wouldn't probably have been a war in the Pacific. If Japan left the status quo alone and didn't try to emulate the west then there would have been no need for them to go to war. The US put sanctions on Japan because of China and French Indo-China, because of both legitimate military fears, and economic fears as well. Japan has been going after China since the turn of the century, it is their logical choice for a first round of Imperial expansion. Wether or not expansion into the South Pacific was done because of sanctions from America because of action in China, or they were trying to repeat their territorial gains from WWI by siding with who they though would be the victor of WWII.



chanman -> (2/16/2001 1:27:00 PM)

Hi Major Tom, we seem to get into some pretty esoteric conversations about a wargame... I am not sure that Japan's involvement in China is the triggering factor. Japan was definitely the rising star (Sun?) in the Asiatic theatre, but didn't have the resources to conduct the expansion they wanted. If anything, PacWar seriously underrates the resources in the U.S. and I think that those of us who live here have a warped view of what the rest of the world is like and can do. Japan has virtually _none_ of the resources necessary for a wartime (or expansionist) economy in the home islands. If Japan is going to be the great power, they have to seize the resources. Oil, rubber, aluminum, steel, coal, copper, the stuff of life to a modern industrial base and with very few exceptions, none of it is obtainable in Japan (some poor coal and iron deposits are it, I think). China is a stepping stone, not causal, I think. An additional point to ponder. The Japanese military performance in China in the 30's led the British and the U.S. to seriously underestimate the capability of Japan's army and air forces. The Japanese learned from many of their mistakes to the immense surprise of many of our commanders in 1941. PacWar seems to simulate this by almost paralyzing the Allied commands with a severe lack of PP's in 12/41. An optional scenario starting in 1936 would have a completely different feel than the 1941. The U.S. Navy would be a shell of the force that it is in 1940, the U.S. Army would be extremely tiny, and the British would not be at war in Europe, but may be limited in what they send to Asia by the rise of Germany. I think that Roosevelt's decision not to go to war then despite more provocation than used for some of the U.S.'s other wars was a good one. All those nifty carriers, cruisers and destroyers we get to play with in PacWar are a result of the Navy building programs of the late 30s and especially 1940. Lets not even talk about aircraft. [This message has been edited by chanman (edited February 16, 2001).]



Ed Cogburn -> (2/16/2001 3:28:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by chanman: Lets not even talk about aircraft.
I don't know, maybe we should talk about aircraft. Those ships were nifty, but the airplanes we had for the first two years were to say the least underwhelming. We started preparing for war in 1940 as you suggest, but two years later the only thing they could come up with was a P39 Airacobra?



Major Tom -> (2/18/2001 4:03:00 AM)

Actually, the Japanese were in pretty much the same situation in 1936. I was creating a scenario to start in 1938, and at that time the Japanese and American battle fleets were virtually equal (regarding ships in the Pacific). There were 3 IJN Carriers (Akagi, Kaga and the just launched Soryu) against 5 USN Carriers (Lex, Sara, Ranger, York, Enterprise). The IJN would not have the Yamato Class to rely upon as well. Their airforce was just getting small numbers of the Ki-27 into production along with the A5M vs. P-26 Peashooters and a non-existant RAF/RAAF. The majority of their air forces were made up of biplanes or foreign models. The disparity experienced early on in regards to Allied/Japanese strength would have been much less, however, the Allied response in building projects would have been able to produce more ships/aircraft than the Japanese industry. Late 1941 had the Japanese in a peculiar situation. Not only did they have overwhelming numbers of Carriers, but, they also had a greater superiority in quality of aircraft being introduced in the theatre. The Ki-43 and A6M outclassed the existing Allied Fighters in the Pacific War, and/or outnumbered them severely. Their quality was also a lot better through constant hard training and actual combat experience. Historically, the Japanese started massively rearming in 1936, while the US started only haphazardly (in comparison to wartime production). If they both started as much as they could in 1936/8 then the later war would be much more one sided than it was in 1944. I still think that a hypothetical 1936/8 scenario would be very possible and interesting. British/French contributions would still be small (as there was the growing threat from Germany and very little resources to spare in Pre-War Western Europe). Plus, we could 'warp' or use some creative guessing to fill in the 'what if's'. Possibly many of my preditions were wrong as well, eh? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Ed Cogburn -> (2/18/2001 10:37:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Major Tom: I still think that a hypothetical 1936/8 scenario would be very possible and interesting. British/French contributions would still be small (as there was the growing threat from Germany and very little resources to spare in Pre-War Western Europe). Plus, we could 'warp' or use some creative guessing to fill in the 'what if's'. Possibly many of my preditions were wrong as well, eh? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
I would like to see those pre '41 what-if scenarios for WitP along with the historical ones. WiR and PAC never came with any. Some what-ifs, though, shouldn't have to be provided as separate scenarios. If the game has a deep enough "structure" to handle ahistorical possibilities, and handles the politics well, it should be able to evolve a "what-if scenario" from a historical one, given different choices by the player(s). This doesn't impact pre '41 what-ifs of course, they would still need to come as separate scenarios.



David Heath -> (2/19/2001 2:53:00 AM)

There will be many what-id scenarios. I do not know if there will be a China 1931 scenario but China and the Soviet Union will be in the game. David



chanman -> (2/21/2001 4:03:00 AM)

Hi Ed and MT, since WitP is probably way far away, if you two are willing to work with me on learning how to build an ob, I am willing to do the grunt work to create a 1935/36 campaign ob for PacWar. Wouldn't be perfect, probably a _ton_ of issues to deal with, dates may look hokey even. Still, if you think that's a workable idea, let me know.



Ed Cogburn -> (2/21/2001 7:03:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by chanman: Hi Ed and MT, since WitP is probably way far away, if you two are willing to work with me on learning how to build an ob, I am willing to do the grunt work to create a 1935/36 campaign ob for PacWar. Wouldn't be perfect, probably a _ton_ of issues to deal with, dates may look hokey even. Still, if you think that's a workable idea, let me know.
I'm still kinda busy as volunteer playtester for the WiR project, so I'm messin' around a lot with WiR, still. The other thing is I'm not sure PW is a good engine for this kind of scenario. Take away the large carrier TFs from PW, and what's left isn't particulary realistic, IMHO. Air combat TFs are the heart and soul of the PW game engine; the engine was designed around them. Finally, I'm not sure such an effort is worthwhile, because I'm not sure how far away WitP is. How far WitP is away from us largely depends on far away UV is, and I don't know UV's status either.



grumbler -> (2/23/2001 10:58:00 PM)

A key element of creating or editing an OB is knowing what slots you cannot monkey about with (as I found to my chagrin when I edited the hopelessly confused OOB41 to put all the battleships together in reverse order of commisioning, for instance, eliminating all the duplicate ship types - especially british DDs, and correcting the errors in the US destroyer armaments). Much work can be wasted when the OOB cannot play because the computer needs certain things in certain slots (I created an error that had almost all the British CV air groups embarked on Japanese CVL Shoho after the computer "resolved" the errors!) I would be glad to help work on a 1936 scenario, however. If one learns from one's mistakes, I must be about eligable for a PhD in editing PacWar!



dtatum -> (2/24/2001 6:12:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by C3I2: [B]Well I like game that gives strategic choice. That is why I generally like games that cover this war to start in 1935.This gives me the chance to change history, and win with Japan. I do hope Japan is playable despite the working name of the game. REPLY--All the discussions about starting the game in 1935 and what or what not the US and Japan might have done have all failed to mention the ultimate possible change. Japan never had to attack the US, by simply going after the British and Dutch assets and then placating the US by giving back some some token territory, Japan could have had its cake and eaten it too, delaying the US entry into the war for a long time. The ONLY way Roosevelt got the US into WW II was via the ultra slap in the face to the US people, a.k.a. Pearl Harbor. If Germany running roughshod over all of Western Europe failed to draw the US into WW II, what makes anyone think that Japan's taking a few islands would have made a difference? This one choice alone makes altering the Pacific war a very dicey proposition. The twin points of US economic power and her proclivity to avoid foreign wars are very difficult to fool with and still have WWII resemble anything historically. To start a game in 1935 would have to require a host of restrictions on how democracies could act and under what conditions. And these conditions would somehow have to be secret from the Axis player, or else they would just carefully avoid whatever trigger would bring the US into the war. Not that I wouldn't love to play any kind of game that took a good stab at simulating democratic restrictions, I just haven't seen it done.



chanman -> (2/25/2001 1:22:00 AM)

Hi dtatum, the "causus belli" (don't trust my spelling) I would be using for a 1935/6 campaign would be the bombing of the U.S.S Panay. The event was filmed, but the films were suppressed to avoid inflaming popular opinion. The Japanese claimed that they couldn't identify the ship as a United States naval vessel, despite the very large stars and striped draped over part of the ship. The film showed that the pilots got close enough to the Panay that their facial expressions were visible. In any case, we are in "what if" land. If Roosevelt and company could have gotten Congress to declare war in 1935/6, what....". Worth a look in my opinion, though I think that it could be frustrating to play from both sides. The ability of both the U.S. and Japan to project power in 1935/6 is so limited compared to 1941 (Japan) and 1943 (U.S.). Anyone remember Guns of August and 1914? Lots of noise and fury without a whole lotta movement. Grumbler, can I see your dissertation on using PacWar editors? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/cool.gif[/img]



grumbler -> (2/25/2001 8:06:00 AM)

There is no way, obviously, to create a political game within PacWar, and only a limited ability to do so in WitP. Clealry, if there is an ability to edit the game, one can create any starting position one wants with a set of diplomatic assumptions that lead to war at that point. Somebody did an early 1930s PacWar with the assumption that the Washington naval Treaty was never signed. Sot of a "Great Pacific War" scenario set a few years later. Alas, I lost that in a computer disk crash and never found it again. However, it goes to show what can be done with the flexibility of PacWar editors. chanman, if you email me at dferg@knight-hub.com, I will email you the brilliant but hopeless (ie non-working) edit job I did on OBC41. If anyone knows for sure what slots in OBC41 cannot be safely edited/moved, I would appreciate hearing from you. I probably know most of them by now, but it never hurts to be sure!



LTC S -> (2/27/2001 12:45:00 AM)

A point to be made. In 1920, the British Empire id'd Japan as a possible enemy. This is where Singapore came from. Jellicoe went out and did a study which in the end required a fortifed port in the East and a 20 BB fleet. The British did neither, but did create a partially fortified fleet base at Singapore, built to accomadate and support those 20 (non-existent) BBs. Where this comes in is that until 1936, there was insufficient threat against the UK directly to absorb the Royal Navy. They could rely on the French (who were an ally) to screen the Italians (who were a quasi-ally) and they could have sent a very large proportion of the Royal navy to Singapore between 1932 (when Singapore reached the level of readiness needed) and 1936, when the situation in Europe starting getting serious. So any League response to Japanese agression in 1932 could have seen a combined international fleet at Singapore. (hey, it could have happended?)



grumbler -> (2/28/2001 8:24:00 AM)

Singapore never reached her designed support capability while in British hands (tody is a different story!) but it is very true that Singapore had a great capability to support a fleet. The entire US Pacific Fleet could have been based out of Singapore, according to one 1930s US study referenced on warships1.org. It is true that an earlier war with Japan may have featured a more powerful British fleet (at least for the times), plus a much stronger (i.e. not-nonexistant) French one. In fact, an entirely Japanese versus British and French 1930s campaign (no USA) might make for an interesting minicampaign.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125