The Great Pacific War - Final Version 1UPDATE

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The Great Pacific War - Final Version 1UPDATE

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> Scenario Design >> The Great Pacific War - Final Version 1UPDATE

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The Great Pacific War - Final Version 1UPDATE - 3/16/2006 8:33:52 PM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

1) Added Commerce Bases in the Indian Ocean and in the lower right part of the map (down by the credits). These bases have a small amount of daily supply and fuel and only Japanese transports can move within 3 hexes of the base.

2) Added 4 transports and 1 small tanker to each of the above commerce bases. I also brought back roughly 20 transports and tankers that were not being used as reinforcements.

3) Brought back all US destroyers (except those sunk in 1923) as reinforcements. This gives the US some 290 Destroyers over the course of the game. Roughly half in the starting OOB and the other half coming as reinforcements. I believe this number is low, but a better situation than the standard game so I am going to leave it as it is. I upgraded a handful (10 or so to better classes)

4) I added 60 Destroyers to the Japanese reinforcements. 20 No. 35 class, 30 No. 19 class and 10 No. 1 class. I am sorry but I just gave them numbers, I do not have the time to name them all:-)

5) I created a Japanese patrol/sub-chaser based on the W5 Minesweeper. I added 20 to the starting OOB and added another 40 as reinforcements. These are named WSC 1 etc.

6) I brought 10 sub-chasers to the US starting OOB and added 20 to the Reinforcement schedule.

7) I brought 15 Eagle Patrol craft to the US starting OOB and added 40 to the Reinforcement schedule.

8) I added 15 minesweepers to the OOB as reinforcements for both the Japanese and the US.

9) Added 5 AO to the Japanese Reinforcement schedule, added 7 AO to the US reinforcement schedule.

10) Added 3 AV to the Japanese Reinforcement schedule, added 4 AV to the US reinforcement schedule.

11) Okha-Sakalin is moved back to Japanese control. The Japs had occuppied Okha in 1920 and gave it back to the Soviet Union in 1925. I am postulating that in the growing crisis with the US the Japs would have kept this vital oil resource area. I added a Jap Brigade and Base force to Okha and increased the port size to 3.

12) I reinforced the Base forces at Guam, Pago-Pago, Canton and Midway. Some got 8" or 12" CD guns and some increased Marine Squads.

13) I added "garrison" Marine Rgts to Guam, Pago-Pago and Midway. They will be fixed in place.

14) Changed USMC units to Nine Corps Hawaii.

15) Added Manchurian Warlord Army - this is a Japanese Ally. He gets 5 divisions and 2 cavalry divisions, 1 base force and 1 FA Arty Rgt. These are all based on Japanese OOB without the combat engineers. Instead of Japanese squads, they use Manchurian Squads which have similar numbers to the Chinese squads. The Manchurian Army receives the following reinforcements:

2 divisions
1 cavalry division

16) There should be a total of 6 Corps, 4 Divisions, and 1 Cav Corps in the the Republic of China Army (units are designated ROC). These units do not have warlords so are mobile.
In addition the ROC receive the following reinforcements.

1927 - 3 Corps
1928 - 3 Corps and 4 Divisions
1929 - 7 Corps, 1 Division, 1 Cav Corps

If the game lasts until 1929 then the Republic of China should be able to at least tie down a significant number of Jap forces, threatening the supply and fuel in Manchuria and Korea.

17) Added 1500 daily supply at Peking. Japan could potentially strike here in 1927 and capture Peking. Without this supply it might be harder for China to attack later in the game.

I know alot of people say this is a naval game, so they could always take the scenario and just not use the Chinese, leave the Manchurian units in Manchuria and agree to a minimum garrison requirement for Korea. I will propose that as some honor rules that go with the scenario.

18) I moved approximately 35% of the daily supply in Japan to Manchuria and Korea, plus added about 1,000 supply per day. 50% of the daily fuel got moved to Sahkalin Island and Manchuria and Korea.

19) Added the Nagasaki class sub cruiser and the minelayer variant. They both start in Saesebo. Nagasaki and Saesebo are the names. The Saesebo can lay 376 mines. This does not do the 2500 in the book. I just thought that would be an unbalancer.

20) I added reinforced Jap base forces to the Bonin Group, Iwo Jima and a couple of islands in the Carolina and Marshal Islands. I also reinforced several existing base forces. Iwo Jima is now a decent sized base.

21) I added 5 Patrol air groups, 2 torpedo bomber air groups, and 2 fighter air groups to the Jap OOB in the Caroline, Marshal and Bonin Islands.

22) I added 2 Hosho class carriers with air groups to the Jap reinforcements

23) I added 2 Langley class carriers to the US plus a new carrier the "Gettysburg" which is basically a fast Langley with a different type of air group. These all come in as reinforcements.

24) I have gone through and changed arrival bases of the British and Dutch ships set to arrive in US ports.

25) I have gone through and placed US cargo vessels that start in British, Commonwealth, Australian, and French ports into the Reinforcement schedule. They will arrive in the US somewhere between 1 week to 3 months later.

26) Because of issues with the Manchurian Garrison Requirement the Soviets will begin the game as active. They will start the game with 3 transports. There will be an honor rule to govern their activation as a belligerent.

I am sure there are some changes that I missed. But that about covers it. I did not keep as good a record as I thought:-) Proposed honor rules in the next post.

Post #: 1

Proposed Honor Rules - 3/16/2006 9:35:45 PM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

Version 1 Proposed Honor Rules

The Great Pacific War Honor Rules:

Everyone has their own opinions on �House Rules� or �Honor Rules� and each person has a different vision on what should be included or not. I am going to list some mandatory rules and some optional rules that I believe fit my vision of the scenario. The mandatory rules you should follow, the optional rules you can choose to follow or disregard as you wish.

Mandatory Rules:

1) Japanese Commerce Bases: Japan has two bases on the map that represent their commerce with the rest of the world. The following rules apply to these bases. These bases are located in hexes (4,4) and (126,135)

a. Only Japanese cargo vessels may enter the base or move within 3 hexes of the base.

b. The Allied player may not move any vessels within 3 hexes of the base.

c. No Japanese ground forces may be landed in these bases.

2) Manchurian Army: This force represents the forces of an allied Chinese Warlord. These formations may only operate in Manchuria, China, Korea and the Soviet Union.

3) Soviet Activation: Because the Soviet Activation limit is hard-coded at 500, the Soviets start the game activated. They are not happy with Japan over North Sahkalin Island and the railroad in Manchuria. The following rules govern the Soviet Union. It is highly unlikely that the Soviets will come into the war early in the game but possible

a. The Soviet Union starts the game as a neutral country.

b. The Soviets will become active if at any time there are fewer than 7 Manchurian and/or Japanese divisions or equivalent (3 regiments = 1 division) in Manchuria and Korea. At least 2 of these divisions must be Japanese. The Japanese player should confirm this at the beginning of every month.

c. The Soviets will become active if the Japanese attack the Soviet Union.

d. If the Chinese capture one of the following cities Mukden, Fushan, Harbin, or Port Arthur the Soviets will become active unless Okha has been returned to them.

e. The Soviets will become active as a power in June 1929, unless the Japanese have given Okha back to the Soviet Union. (This is accomplished by allowing Soviet troops to occupy Okha prior to June 1929. There are 3 Soviet APs in Vladivostoc that may only be used to move Soviet troops to Okha.)

f. The US player may freely move Soviet troops between their bases and expand their bases.

4) The British Empire (British, Commonwealth, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) and the Dutch are neutral unless attacked. All ships should remain in port.

5) Sub Minelayers: The Nagasaki ML variant Saesebo has the potential to unbalance the game. Sub Minelayers are not allowed to lay minefields in port hexes that are size 3 or larger. They are able to do it in hexes with ports 0,1,2 and any shallow water or deep water hex.

Optional Rules:

1) Atoll Stacking Limits: These would apply to all Atolls except for Truk and Palau.

a. Defensive stacking limits.

1 regiment of infantry
2 artillery or coastal defense units
1 AA Unit
1 tank unit
2 engineer units
1 HQ unit
10 aircraft per level of airfield. - Excluding float planes supported by a tender
MAX Fortifications = airfield SBS + port SBS. For example Wotje is port 1 (1) and airfield 0 (1). The max fortifications would be 1+1 = 2. Note some Atolls will start with larger fortifications � these should not be expanded.

b. Offensive (Attack) stacking limits

5 Regiments (Division = 3 Regiments, Brigade = 2 Regiments.)
4 artillery units
3 tank units
1 AA unit
4 Engineer units
2 HQ units

If an atoll is attacked and taken then the new owner should attempt to get to the defensive stacking limit within 1 month.

2) Major Fleet Ports: The game allows you to refuel and resupply major fleet units at very small ports using AD Tenders. AD tenders should not be used to refuel or resupply Battleships and Dreadnaughts at ports that are smaller than size 3. A simple way to enact this is not to send AD tenders to ports smaller than size 3, unless you intend to use them solely for cruisers and destroyers.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 2

RE: Proposed Honor Rules - 3/16/2006 9:38:10 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Very nice, Mike... I'd say that about covers it.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 3

RE: Proposed Honor Rules - 3/16/2006 11:53:02 PM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

Well have to see if I can get Spooky to post it. I am sure there are a number of typo's but I lack the energy right now to deal with it.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 4

RE: Proposed Honor Rules - 3/17/2006 3:58:56 AM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

And as always I'm going to note that atoll stacking limits are unnecessary. If it really is a problem, hard code max size of ports on all atolls to 0 and cut down on engineers - limiting players' chance to expand those 0's.

Just a thought ^_^

Can't wait to see the AAR for your scenario.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 5

RE: Proposed Honor Rules - 3/17/2006 5:13:47 PM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

On Atolls maybe I just do not trust the game to appropriately model it. That is why I put in the realm of "Optional" honor rules. If you want to follow it, if not no problems.

Our first start was stopped because I found problem with classes being shifted, but we should be back on track and I will do a limited AAR on the game.

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 6

RE: Proposed Honor Rules - 3/19/2006 12:54:56 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

You mean to say I paid $$$$$$ for a Computer Game and have to MANUALLY follow rules to make it playable!!!

Why didnt Matrix put this in when they made the game (I understand some cant be done, but eg. The Soviet Activation limit should have been changed)

This "Game" seems more and more a "Beta" version which will now be modded to buggery to make ita usable game. Maybe it should be named Son of WITP!!!

(Basically not happy with it)

< Message edited by JeffK -- 3/19/2006 12:55:03 PM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 7

RE: Proposed Honor Rules - 3/19/2006 3:59:31 PM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

For some the game is perfect as it is.

For some it needs more tweaking. Everybody's different.

I think the game is awesome ;) And a stack of Conway's bought exclusively to help me edit WPO's database speaks for that. Talk about $$$$$ =)

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 8

RE: Proposed Honor Rules - 3/20/2006 9:00:12 PM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

I would give it some time. I think they did a good job with the game and it has been pretty cool to design a scenario that matches my vision of things.

I think the honor rules are fairly easy to follow if in a PBEM game and certainly the optional ones are just that optional.

Unfortunately this scenario is not setup for play against the AI, so it is relatively easy to set some limits. These may or may not match other peoples limits so I kind of like the fact that it is open.

Alot of people do not like honor rules because they do not trust their opponent to follow them. Frankly I would rather not play against someone I can not trust. It is a game after all and not fun if you win easily

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 9

Sea-Power by Bywater - 3/21/2006 1:00:08 AM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

Well I just got my copy of Sea-Power by Bywater. We will see what modifications I make to the scenario based on this. Looks like it should be quick read.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 10

Final Revisions - 3/28/2006 12:56:40 AM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

OK based on the game so far with Terminus here is a list of revisions that have been made to the scenario.

1. Removed mines from Nagasaki Sub (still in ML variant)
2. Fixed some shifted class problems so the ships upgrade properly
3. Add Supply and Fuel to Commerce Bases
4. Removed 2 AP that were in the Jap Air TF placed them in port.
5. Fixed bug that had US ships in TF with Jap numbers.
6. French CA placed in Saigon
7. Added AV Marathon and fixed a bug.
8. Garrison Regiments at Midway removed.
9. Reinforced Base Forces at 25% disabled. (Both US and Jap)
10. Jap BC division starts at Pescadores
11. Redeploy Manchurian and Korean Supply/Fuel. Moved more of it to the ports.
12. Takao Fuel increased from 10,000 to 60,000.
13. 2 Blimps Sqdns added to Jap reinforcement schedule (Sea Power in the Pacific)
14. Modified Transports and Tanker Maneuver (in line with the Cautionaries numbers)
15. Increased durability of Jap Commerce Raiders.
16. Added 8 pre-WWI destroyers to the Jap OOB. These ships will not upgrade. Represent a final reserve mobilized about 45 days after the war starts.
17. Adding 4 Amagi class Battlecruisers to the Jap Reinforcement Schedule. Basically one per year. (Based on Sea Power in the Pacific)
18. Added 20 new construction Destroyers to the US Reinforcement Schedule. These will be Clemson 5"/51 Destroyers and will be setup for late 27 and early 28. Again there should probably be hundreds of these but I am only going to add 20 along with activating all the rest of the destroyers in the reserve.

Well this should about do it for the final release version. I will foward to Spooky's Site in the next couple of days for those who are interested.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 11

RE: Final Revisions - 3/28/2006 1:46:07 AM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

> 14. Modified Transports and Tanker Maneuver (in line with the Cautionaries numbers)

^_^

> 16. Added 8 pre-WWI destroyers to the Jap OOB. These ships will not upgrade. Represent a final reserve mobilized about 45 days after the war starts.

Which ones? I can imagine 7 of those are Harusames. And the 8th? Satsuki?

> 18. Added 20 new construction Destroyers to the US Reinforcement Schedule. These will be Clemson 5"/51 Destroyers and will be setup for late 27 and early 28. Again there should probably be hundreds of these but I am only going to add 20 along with activating all the rest of the destroyers in the reserve.

Hm... how about simply sending all Carribean ones to West Coast in 4-5 months? I can imagine Pauliding and other junk is going to be sent to Texas to take their place.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 12

RE: Final Revisions - 3/28/2006 4:35:28 PM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

On the pre-WWI Destroyers I was going to rename them TB 1 through 8. And make them Asakaze class (slot 54 or 55). I wanted them to be surface combatants only, no ASW capability.

I have a list of names of 42 pre-WWI destroyers, but many of them have been changed to minesweepers and other auxilliaries - so I thought it would be good to change the name and make it easier for the Jap player to know what they were.

On the US destroyers there is a good chance that there would be hundreds of new construction destroyers. I have brought all existing destroyers in the database back as reinforcements (except for the 6 that sank in the early 20's). So there are some 290 destroyers available to the US - but with the new construction added to the Japanese I felt it necessary to add some new construction for the US as well. I want to make sure there is a roughly 2 to 1 margin between the US and Japan.

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 13

RE: Final Revisions - 3/29/2006 7:34:09 AM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Carroll

On the pre-WWI Destroyers I was going to rename them TB 1 through 8. And make them Asakaze class (slot 54 or 55). I wanted them to be surface combatants only, no ASW capability.

I have a list of names of 42 pre-WWI destroyers, but many of them have been changed to minesweepers and other auxilliaries - so I thought it would be good to change the name and make it easier for the Jap player to know what they were.

On the US destroyers there is a good chance that there would be hundreds of new construction destroyers. I have brought all existing destroyers in the database back as reinforcements (except for the 6 that sank in the early 20's). So there are some 290 destroyers available to the US - but with the new construction added to the Japanese I felt it necessary to add some new construction for the US as well. I want to make sure there is a roughly 2 to 1 margin between the US and Japan.

Well, you could just make them TB-class and keep the original names...

P.S. You do remember that on April 1, 1922 IJN switched to numbering destroyers?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 14

RE: Final Revisions - 4/7/2006 8:26:18 PM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

Did not know about the naming conventions of the Japanese Fleet. I am just starting to get into the Japanese, especially as I am playing them for the first time.

I did just go ahead and name them TB 1-8.

A couple of other changes that were made - not if the version I am playing but will be in the release.

1. Moved some Kwantung Army units located in Japan to Port Arthur.
2. Created a longer range Felixstowe (fictional aircraft). Bywater mentions a long-range aircraft. Japan I think would quickly recognize the need and develop something like this.
3. Added some CD regiments and some heavy CD regiments which I hope will deploy in the Philippines in 27. (Otherwise the harbor defense of Tokyo will be really strong).
4. Changed the name Burma Area Army to Expeditionary Army.
5. Added the "Sasebo" a Nagasaki class sub with 2 float planes to the reinforcement schedule.

I have sent the scenario to Spooky a couple of times then found bugs so I am waiting a bit longer to make sure it is basically done.

< Message edited by Mike Carroll -- 4/7/2006 8:44:52 PM >

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 15

RE: Final Revisions - 4/8/2006 12:54:04 AM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

> Did not know about the naming conventions of the Japanese Fleet.

=)

Actually I decided to drop those. They are a modder's nightmare... That and Kiyokaze-class DDs have such cool names ;)

> 2. Created a longer range Felixstowe (fictional aircraft). Bywater mentions a long-range aircraft. Japan I think would quickly recognize the need and develop something like this.

True but then again - IJN aviation is a result of British know-how. What if Brits never came over to help? This would be fun - powerful IJN dreadnoughts yet no aviation vs early USN carriers...

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 16

RE: Final Revisions - 4/8/2006 1:21:13 AM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rysyonok

IJN aviation is a result of British know-how. What if Brits never came over to help? This would be fun - powerful IJN dreadnoughts yet no aviation vs early USN carriers...

Almost the same could be told about IJN dreadnoughts. So this is already WAR PLAN ORANGE with RED background...

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 17

RE: Final Revisions - 4/10/2006 7:13:23 PM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rysyonok

> Did not know about the naming conventions of the Japanese Fleet.

=)

Actually I decided to drop those. They are a modder's nightmare... That and Kiyokaze-class DDs have such cool names ;)

> 2. Created a longer range Felixstowe (fictional aircraft). Bywater mentions a long-range aircraft. Japan I think would quickly recognize the need and develop something like this.

True but then again - IJN aviation is a result of British know-how. What if Brits never came over to help? This would be fun - powerful IJN dreadnoughts yet no aviation vs early USN carriers...

I agree that would be interesting, in my scenario the Japs have a decent relationship with the British. May be that will be for a future scenario. I was kind of thinking of doing a version based on the 1922 scenario. But I am going to hold off until the production system is turned on.

Well I am sending my scenario to Spooky's hopefully he will carry it. I think all the revisions have been made for version 1.0

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 18

RE: Final Revisions - 4/10/2006 10:51:59 PM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

OK Release Version 1.0 is up on Spooky's site. Thanks to Terminus, Helpless and Rysyonok for the suggestions, debugging, playtest and support.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 19

RE: The Great Pacific War - Final Version 1UPDATE - 6/23/2006 9:22:15 PM

OliverHazard

Posts: 4
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline

Can this be played against AI or is it only PBEM?

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 20

RE: The Great Pacific War - Final Version 1UPDATE - 6/26/2006 1:03:22 AM

JagdFlanker

Posts: 689
Joined: 7/26/2003
From: Halifax, Canada
Status: offline

only PBEM - unfortunatly you may not program AI for user made scens!

(in reply to OliverHazard)

Post #: 21

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> Scenario Design >> The Great Pacific War - Final Version 1UPDATE

Page: [1]