When Should the Game Start?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

When Should the Game Start?

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 II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> When Should the Game Start?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

When Should the Game Start? - 5/15/2002 8:31:12 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Okay, I'm bored. Not enough action on the forum. Since these issues haven't been covered for, oh, about two weeks, I thought I'd open the debates again.

Post #: 1

- 5/15/2002 8:35:10 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Wow! What a great poll? Why didn't I think of that?

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 2

- 5/15/2002 10:00:21 AM

sbond

Posts: 926
Joined: 4/4/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

I think 1-1941 is a good time, anything before that though would be to much I think.

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 3

- 5/15/2002 10:34:37 AM

stretch

Posts: 636
Joined: 12/17/2001
Status: offline

I voted for January 1941.

I do think it would be best to provide different campaigns beginning at different times. If the production system is up to the task it should be easy to accommodate those who want to start on Dec 7 1941 as well as those who want to begin WAY earlier.

As far as US entry goes just set a simple set of actions that precipitate US declaring war (attack on any US, UK, or NEI held area) plus perhaps something like a percent chance each month depending on how well Japan is doing in China. It need not be that complicated.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 4

- 5/16/2002 9:18:24 PM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Round two of the poll:

For those of you that want the game to start earlier than 1940, which is almost half, why?

1. Is it because you want to be able to affect production even earlier?

2. Is it because you want to be able alter Japan's strategy on the continent during the '30s, which then has considerable impact on strategy in the '40s?

3. Is it because you want to attack the U.S. earlier than December 1941 while it is still weak and before it has started gearing up production?

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 5

- 5/16/2002 9:48:10 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

I'd add another category: To start on the date when the fleet sailed from Japan for Pearl. I think starting before that date would be interesting, but it would possibly corrupt the historical too much. Afterall, if you start too far before the date, then you'd need a lot more access to political and production decisions that may be available in the game. One thing that would be futile about this, would be that if you were playing the US, you might wish to go to wartime production before the war, of course if the AI is playing such possibilities smartly, it will then do the same sort of thing and make the Japanese super-eager for war etc. In other words, all it looks like you'd achieve is making the '41 conflict bumped up to an earlier start. The only way you could achieve what you were really want, seeing if the US would've done much better with earlier awareness, would be if you MADE the AI play as the Japanese did historically concerning strategic decisions. If you could not have the AI play in separate 'historic' mode or 'best' mode, then doing the game early for strategic decisions doesn't really achieve all that much as far as I can see.

If you really want to get technical about earlier starts, what if Japan attacks 12/40? Would Hitler then declare war on the US? If he didn't wouldn't that change things dramatically in the Pacific? If Hitler waited a year after that to declare, wouldn't that very likely change things in the Pacific very dramatically again? Maybe you just about have to start when the JA fleet sailed for Pearl, or on 12/7/41 to avoid such complications.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 6

- 5/16/2002 10:22:59 PM

thantis

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline

WI? Hitler attempts Sealion - July 1940. Great Britain is on the rocks, hanging by a thread. Would Japan take advantage of the situation, and hit Pearl Harbor, Malaya, Philipines, et. al. late July/early September 1940?

If Britain falls, I can't imagine that things would go any better (and probably a lot worse) in the Burmese Campaign (including Malaya & Singapore). Maybe the Japanese reach India in better shape and make a go for the subcontinent?

Ideas?

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 7

- 5/17/2002 1:00:23 AM

screamer

Posts: 299
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: The Netherlands,
Status: offline

i voted january 1941 gives you a chance to finish off china before declaring war on the US UK and the dutch. but it doesnt last to long for some good naval action. it also gives you the chance to leave the US out of the war by not attacking the phillipines and PH go on a rampage, take th NEI india and australia only then attack the US if you would want to that is

_____________________________

poep

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 8

- 5/18/2002 11:32:04 AM

HOTB

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/7/2002
From: Nowhereville, Illinois
Status: offline

I'd like to start in '37. Japan has Manchuria, but hasn't invaded China yet. That way I could try out different beginnings, everything from all out attempt to knock China out to minimal gains and throwing all resources into building up my industry and fleet. I'd also like to see some different political beginnings such as Japan sending troops to "protect" native Asians from Dutch oppression. I mean, if France and Britain were willing to appease Hitler by letting him have Vienna and Prague, would they have been willing to fight to protect Jakarta and Bali?

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 9

- 5/18/2002 11:49:53 AM

Ranger-75

Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline

Japan had five years to "settle the 'china incident'" without military interference from the US or Great Britain, but the couldn't do it. The Emporer even castigated the imperial general staff for wanting to start a war with the US and Great Britain for that very same reason.

China was a black hole for Japanese military resources. It is best left alone. The game should not even assign victory points for eliminating chinese units or capturing chinese cities / bases.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 10

- 5/19/2002 1:06:37 AM

HOTB

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/7/2002
From: Nowhereville, Illinois
Status: offline

I agree that the China war was a major mistake for Japan, but at least one time I would like to try knocking China out by putting everything into it. No Yamato class battleships, no fleet build-up of any kind, all resources being directed toward China. I also want to try just taking Hainan and maybe Shanghai and then stopping and then putting everything into shipbuilding. Paul Kennedy in "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" had a comment that Japan in the 30's and 40's tried to build up a large army and large army air force, a carrier force, and a battleship force and that they had the resources to one of these, but that by trying to do all three they failed in all of them. Personally, I think the all carrier option is the most interesting, but I'd like to try the army only route at least once.
What I really want is to be able to determine pre-war building. I'd like to have the option of trading in each Yamato for an extra two Shokaku's and skip all the small carriers (Zuiho, Shoho) in favor of fewer large ones. And I think just about everyone who plays as Japan would like to direct more shipbuilding into ASW escorts.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 11

- 5/19/2002 1:33:36 AM

Supervisor

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline

[QUOTE]skip all the small carriers (Zuiho, Shoho)[/QUOTE]
These had already been launched by 1937. They were designed as sub depot ships with an eye to conversion to either fleet oilers or light carriers. Zuiho was converted directly to CVL (commisioned in 1940) whereas the Shoho was commissioned in 1939 as a sub depot and then converted to CVL (Jan '42). I guess you could have the option of whether they become oilers, sub depot or CVL's, but they were too far along to divert resources (in a great way) to fleet carriers (IMO).

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 12

- 5/20/2002 1:12:50 PM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

I look at the artwork done already.

It is quite clear to me that the Big-Campaign-Game must include fighting in China. And perhaps the fighting against the Russians as well.

Some other scenarios would allow the starting date to be Jan 41 or Nov 41 or Dec 41 thereby satisfying all players.

The alternative is to eliminate China, India and Ceylon (major naval engagement here) from the map and to replace them with water hexes � ie a bigger map.

-

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 13

- 5/21/2002 3:52:27 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

I prefer 1937 because i want a better balance... in a what if - scenario.

IF we look only for numbers, latest in Early 44, the japs have NO chance to win, even a draw is impossible.... and the numbers are to great, even if the jap player loose no great ship and the allied every war ship until 1944... they are outnumbered... that is okay and historically, but starting in 1937, you can change japanese production for the time around 1941, so we could have a different situation.

This would be pure sifi, but very interesting.

As an example:

Japs conquer most of china and forget about the yamato class ships, but built 8 shokakuks... (the 6 extra coming in service from Jan 42 until June 42... or maybe june 43), so the jap has some new ships coming into service)

Also, if the japs have the tommy at the balls in india, many things could happen - no troops for africa that means the american must put more ships in the atlantic, troops witch should come to pac goes int oafrica.. and and and...

Also, it is allways possible, that the great war starts in 1938 or 39... maybe because a "burmean border conflict" start a war in 1939 with uk and france, the americans jump in and we have a fully new situaton, many ships are not even keeled, most planes are less effective... sounds funny and verry interesting for me.

On the other side, i always disliked the idea of No-reaction in production...the brits would build (or send) carriers, if the original are all lost , the japs would start their emergency built-programm earlier, if they have earlier losses... the americans also. I think we need more flexibility... if i loose 100 merchants (as an american), i want 50 replaced because my industry is capable of doing so... or would the real war americans stop war because no ap�s for troop transporting ??? or would they produce 1 million c47�s if they only need 1000 in reserve ? Wouldn�t they build the rest for other theatres or wouldn�t they produce let�s say b25�s, if they are short ?? Sure, a delay, let�s say 3 Months or more would happen, but i don�t think that the americans will built 6000 c47�s for the "pool".... also, if the war nations have "pool", they would use it... not park them and wait until the limited program code (no offence) allowed to use it...

So, i think, earlier is better (as a option)...

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 14

one option - 5/23/2002 2:07:32 AM

brisd

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

Even if you start the game Dec 7, 1941 the China question looms large. As long as the IJA is commited there is no chance of a decisive commitment of troops to the Burma/Ceylon theater or South Pacific. I'd like to see an Autovictory/Sue for Peace option for the Chinese, say they lose certain cities by a certain date and have no Burma Road to support them, they sue for peace with Japan. This would be equilvalent to conquering China. The IJA must keep a portion of the army as occupation, maybe a Vichy sort of deal where the Japanese withdrawl from the interior of China and occupy the coastal cities and set up a puppet government like in Manchuria. If the war starts going badly for the Japanese, the chances of China and USSR entering the war increases, after a certain date esp. This might be a better option for a multiplayer version but depends on scope of WITP. Time will tell! ;)

Victory points should definitely be awarded for Chinese conquests, it was after all the reason the war began in the Pacific to be with. It can all be traced back to there.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 15

Another Production Variant - 5/23/2002 9:13:58 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

Even if war doesn't break out until 1941, it would be interesting to see what effect a change in shipbuilding priorities would have.

For example: Cmdr Genda, [SIZE=1]IJN[/SIZE] as early as 1938 proposed moving away from a Battleship-centric Navy and focus on the Fleet Air Arm. To that end, he pushed for more Fleet Carriers and Fleet DD's, less in the way of BB's and CA's.

Now, in hindsight, we know that in the Solomons the heavies played a big part, but how would Battle Line Doctrine hold up in face of a wall of DD's with torpedoes in night action? IJN was a master of torpedo warfare with the Long Lance...

Also, what if a player could not only control which types to build, but also what kind of armaments they could carry?

For example: the USN took torpedoes off of their cruisers. What if you could could have them refitted?

For example: USN converted a couple of Brooklyn Class CL's main guns from 6" to 5/38 DPs and made them CLAA's, what if you could do that with some Pensacola Class CA's? Pensacola class were really CL's with 8/55 main guns anyway.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 16

- 5/25/2002 1:44:01 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

"IJN was a master of torpedo warfare with the Long Lance..."

Well, only the IJN had the Type 93a available to their navy. But if you're saying that the IJN was the undisputed master of night combat or torpedo combat I respectfully disagree. The Type 93a may have been the best surface ship torpedo (until you took a shell hit in the torpedo mount, that is, and all that pure O2 and warheads converted your CA into a CVL by dispersing every structure above the main deck), but the IJN's success was quite limited. A mean hit rate of less than 3%, a mode of zero percent, and a few actions in the 12% range. These are consistent with the mean, mode and range of Allied results using surface torpedoes.

Tassafaronga and 1st Savo are the best examples of IJN success, and less is attributable their to IJN ability as to Allied laxity. I know I'm probably in the minority, but I view the results of the 1942 engagements (including allied successes) as being less indicative of training and doctrine, and more indicative of the effects of local conditions and, in some cases serendipity. (An example of the latter: IJN commander willfully ignoring aerial recons prior to 2nd Naval G'canal that showed that the US had two SD class BBs in position to reinforce the slot.)

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 17

Re: When Should the Game Start? - 5/31/2002 11:49:49 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

-Will WiTP have an editor? If it will, it could
-be wonderful if we could make scenarios
-from 1937 to 1948, even if default
-scenarios used only historical timing.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 18

- 6/7/2002 6:55:53 AM

Basement Command

Posts: 64
Joined: 11/1/2001
From: Boise, ID
Status: offline

The China question is a tough one. The real solution probably lies along the lines of having multiple pre-Dec. 41 start dates. I for one would be content with having at least one scenario starting with enough time before Dec. 41 to opt out of the Pearl harbor raid. Maybe Oct. 41 would do for this. I used to play PTO as IJN and feel that the "decisive battle" in the wetern Pacific against the tactically extended US fleet is the way to go. Grab those south Pacific resources and kick the British et.al. out first. Secure your oil and steel, and your rear and flanks with the large invasion fleets available to you by using some of the ships historically dedicated to the Hawaii task force. I'm not interested in keeping the US out of an early entry into the war by tiptoeing around the Phillipines either. Take 'em. Wreck the American air force there. The Phillipines' position demands that the US presence there be eliminated. An attack on the Phillipnes should be enough to draw the US fleet out. Then, with most of your carriers retained as a strategic reserve along with a well chosen selection of supporting ships, subject those American carriers to a combination of ship and LBA once they come to the aid of or try to recapture lost US/allied territories. Support the operation with subs and a surface force waiting in the rear for the neutralization of the carriers. Once you sink or chase the US carriers off to lick their wounds, the co-prosperity sphere has a real chance to develop early enough to provide Japan with the stregnth needed to withstand the inevitable US build-up. If the outcome of a decisive west Pacific battle is favorable enough to Japan, the outcome will be as devestaing to the USN as was the attack at Pearl Harbor, while the early focus on the resource rich islands of Indonesia etc. will present the strategic strenth needed to maintain a lenghthy war effort.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 19

- 6/14/2002 1:24:34 AM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

I want it to start when I click on the WITP icon on my computer.:p

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 20

- 6/14/2002 1:26:12 AM

stretch

Posts: 636
Joined: 12/17/2001
Status: offline

man thats a great answer. I can only hope and pray that UV sells well enough to insure that this game is finished and delivered. Then my life as I know it will end.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 21

- 6/15/2002 1:06:36 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

I also think a 1937 start would be interesting. But if it's to be combined with great flexibility in production I think there should be a consistent US/UK/Commonwealth/NEI trend towards perceiving increased threat and being better prepared (including the possibility of increased production, increased research, and better defenses) by the time 1941 rolls around.

IMO *any* alternate start scenario should come with varied deployments, OOBs and designs on the Allied side, so that you'd not have problems with the perfect knowledge syndrome. Heck, I think even the historical start date ought to allow both players some variation in their on-map setups.

You're not going to get 8 Shokakus for two Yamatos. Sho and Zui were initially CB hulls. More likely, given the dearth of shipways, the metal saved and all that, you'd get four Hiryus. Where'd you'd find the planes to fit them out is anyone's guess.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 22

- 6/15/2002 6:43:33 AM

Spooky

Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline

The WITP Editor should get at least the same features than the UV editor so we should be able to easily replace in the OOB the 2 x Yamato by 4 x Hiryu Class CV.

The question is if the Editor will let us simulate an accelerated R&D with for instance a quickler introduction for the Tojo ?

Spooky

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 23

- 7/8/2002 3:05:00 AM

showboat1

Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline

I think there should be the possibility of an alternate peace scenario between Japan and China. If Japan and China had agreed to a peace with Japan leaving the occupied zones (except of course those captured from the Brits and Manchuria) then that would free up additional land and air units. This possibility was always a fear of the Allied high command and they went to great lengths to keep Chiag happy and in the war.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 24

- 7/8/2002 4:55:01 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky
[B]The WITP Editor should get at least the same features than the UV editor so we should be able to easily replace in the OOB the 2 x Yamato by 4 x Hiryu Class CV.

-I agree with you

The question is if the Editor will let us simulate an accelerated R&D with for instance a quickler introduction for the Tojo ?

-The old War in Russia has a feature like this. It makes possible
-to allocate factories to research certain specific equipment,
-so it will be able to be built early, but the assigned factories
-won�t build anything while they are assigned to research.
-It wouldn�t be difficult to implement this feature in WiTP.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 25

- 7/8/2002 4:56:29 AM

afenelon

Posts: 498
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Belo Horizonte
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by showboat1
[B]I think there should be the possibility of an alternate peace scenario between Japan and China. If Japan and China had agreed to a peace with Japan leaving the occupied zones (except of course those captured from the Brits and Manchuria) then that would free up additional land and air units. This possibility was always a fear of the Allied high command and they went to great lengths to keep Chiag happy and in the war. [/B][/QUOTE]

-That�s a good idea, all of those possibilities of neutral countries
-should be implemented in the editor, but....to keep the fog of
-war there could be an event editor (like that from TOAW)
-allowing neutral countries to enter the game in certain
-circumstances, so, for instance, China could join the war
-if her leadership thinks Japan is losing and Manchuria could
-be reoccupied (however, I think players should have no
-control over diplomacy, just react to that events)

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 26

- 7/16/2002 11:54:22 PM

SkyVon

Posts: 32
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

While I have yet to get the game (plan to this week), I have been checking out this forum for any tips that might be useful and came across this thread.

One thing...important thing...you are all overlooking is the United States. It seems everyone is focused on Japan. If the start date was to be moved up, wouldn't the US player be able to do things different before 12-7-41 just like the Japaneese player? I'd imagine the U.S. player being much more aggressive in defending it's territory (i.e. more troops/planes etc to Guam, Phil, subs around Japan, entire fleet NOT at Pearl....). How hard would it NOW be for Japan to expand into the Pacific. Sure, China could be taken, but how much more?

Just a thought.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 27

- 7/17/2002 1:34:58 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Yes, I've seen this issue raised on a couple of other threads, namely the optional production threads. Allowing Japan several years to change the course of history in China would bound to have some cause-and-effect type chain reactions. They would be difficult to model since they would involve political decisions subject to public sentiment, elections, etc., and not the relatively pure motivations of winning an all-out war.

Surely, anyone playing the Japanese in 1937 would be wanting to obtain more decisive and earlier results in either China or somewhere else. Earlier and more decisive successes would have drawn more attention from the Western powers, and they would have reacted in ways that would be hard to determine. Embargoes may have been imposed earlier, the European powers would have reinforced their colonies (especially pre-September '39), and the U.S. probably would've have started gearing up for war sooner. At a minimum, and as you point out, the U.S. would have reinforced its possessions. In game terms, the U.S. player would also probably permanently disperse the Pacific Fleet, making it invulnerable to a PH attack (unless the computer forces the player to keep the fleet at PH at all times).

The difficulty in programming all of the possible variations to make a pre-1941 game even remotely realistic may be the main reason a pre-1941 option is not provided. And, rest assured that regardless of how it was handled, there would be whiners that would disagree with Matrix's modeling of completely hypothetical events ("Of course England would have declared war on Japan if Japan invaded the Indies." "Would not." "Would too." "Would not. . ."). So, much as I would like to see it, I don't think we will see a fully interactive pre-war period allowing the various players the same freedom of action that they have after the war starts.

However, I could see a limited pre-war period for the Japanese to reposition its forces for attack while locking the Allied forces in position (or automatically reposition them according to historical timetables). That would at least allow the Japanese to optimize the positioning of his forces for the strategy he has decided to follow.

Since part of the reason for starting early is to influence production earlier (thus allowing the player to enjoy the fruits of his production decisions on long-lead time items like ships earlier in the game), I could also see a pre-war period that would allow players to do nothing more than reallocate pre-war production to what the player wants. It would not boost production, but simply allow the player to shift production points into what he wants. Thus, you could stop production of a battleship in 1939 and shift production into two carriers that would be ready at the beginning of the war or a fleet of airplanes. It still assumes the same geopolitical situation in 1941, which may be a stretch. The historical crowd would scream, but it is an option. Even this is probably beyond the interest of the Matrix design staff unless it is an extension of an optional production system that they would already be designing into the game.

In short, I think the practical realities are that we will not see a fully interactive pre-war period of several years. More likely are (i) a very short pre-war period of perhaps a month to allow one or more players to reposition forces, (ii) what-if scenarios that assume an alternative past (e.g., a scenario starting in June 1941 on the assumption that Japan conquered China or a September 1939 scenario assuming that Japan declared war in conjunction with Germany), or (iii) some kind of ability to change production pre-war but forcing the December 1941 starting positions to be largely historical. I think anything more than that would be too difficult to program, and the game would change to a game of politics, thus detracting from the purpose of the game. This isn't my desire, but I believe it is practical reality.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 28

- 7/18/2002 4:38:18 AM

showboat1

Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline

How about a Pearl Harbor 1942 scenario? Or a Scenario that assumes the war in Europe went bad and the US Navy and RN had to transfer assets to the Atlantic and Med.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 29

- 7/18/2002 10:40:00 AM

Supervisor

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline

How about a scenario where they launched a third (or even fourth) strike against Pearl Harbor and destroyed the oil storage and base infrastructure? Give them the more decisive blow than they actually delivered.

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> When Should the Game Start?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>