Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 2/2/2003 12:25:08 PM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline 		So, if the Japanese had attacked everywhere except Pearl Harbor, including the Phillipines which would bring the US into the war...would the US BBs have sailed for the Phillipines under plan Orange or not? They wouldnt have the lesson of air power which PH taught them. I think they would have most likely sailed, because the American Admirals needed to learn the lesson that air power had replaced Battleships and if it didnt happen at PH they would have kept on thinking the BB was the Queen of the Ocean until proven otherwise.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 61
- 2/3/2003 3:16:08 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mjk428
[B]Hi Timjot,

I didn't mean to say that the planners didn't consider air power important, just that they did not fully appreciate HOW important it would be. Certainly there were a few that did but they were in the minority prior to WWII.

When I said that Pearl Harbor threw the plan out the window it was not simply because of the display of air power. There were political effects that couldn't be ignored that influenced every decision made up until Midway.

Rainbow-5 became the new war plan based on the situation immediately after Pearl Harbor and certainly was influenced by what was learned after the attack. If the planners had believed they could win a quick victory against Japan, I don't think the "Europe First" plan would have been adopted. The US public wanted "Japan First", that's for sure.

Maybe the planners were wrong and you are correct. I can certainly understand why they weren't willing to take the risk. I prefer to think they made the right choice. [/B][/QUOTE]



Actually I think it was quite the opposite. Although certainly there were a few BB Admirals that thougth their ships were impervious to airpower while under way. The majority of Navy planners were under no such delusions. The whole purpose of the Mandate campaign would be to capture airbases to support the advance. Otherwise why not just send the fleet straight to Manila? Certainly the Army for its part believed airpower would be decisive against seapower. For instance the B-17 was initially concieved as a ship killer, capable of destroying ememy fleets approaching our shores not a strategic bomber.

Regarding political effects. Yes I agree there were many. Thats precisely my point. The campaign in the SOPAC was undertaken essentially for non military reasons.

Re: Rainbow-5; It was actually initiated months before Pearl Harbor. Like it or not. It was going to Europe first with or without Pearl Harbor. The only thing that might have changed it, would have been if Hitler did the smart thing and not declare war. FDR might then have been hard-pressed after PH, not to focus on the Pacific. Then again FDR did assure Churchill that Rainbow-5 would be followed even before Hitler declared war.

My only point is just because a particular stategy worked doesnt mean it was the correct one. IMO there were several other stategies ( the centpac line of attack being one of them) that could have been more effective and less costly.

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 62
- 2/3/2003 3:35:02 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]So, if the Japanese had attacked everywhere except Pearl Harbor, including the Phillipines which would bring the US into the war...would the US BBs have sailed for the Phillipines under plan Orange or not? They wouldnt have the lesson of air power which PH taught them. I think they would have most likely sailed, because the American Admirals needed to learn the lesson that air power had replaced Battleships and if it didnt happen at PH they would have kept on thinking the BB was the Queen of the Ocean until proven otherwise. [/B][/QUOTE]

Snigbert.

That version of War Plan Orange was thrown out back in the early thirties. Replaced by the methodical advance through the central pac mandates. The attack on Pearl Harbor taught nothing that wasnt already learned at Taranto. It was the sinking of the Prince of Whales and the Repulse that was the real eye opener:eek: . Up to that time no Capital ship had ever been sunk while at sea, and it was widely thought that given open sea to manuever under full steam, capital ships would survive any aireal assualt.

If Pearl Harbor wasnt attacked the plan was to secure Wake and attack the outer Mandates (mainly the Marshalls) at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps though the plight of the Philipines may have caused enough public outcry "to save our boys" that a rash decision to send the Fleet might have been forced upon them. Setting up the long anticipated "Decisive Fleet Action". More than likely with disasterous results by the way.

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 63
TIMJOT - 2/7/2003 10:10:48 AM   
2Stepper


Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline 		My step-father was a soldier in Europe in WW2 and the recounting you read of the grievences of GI's headed to the PTO was exactly correct. They were thanking GOD for the ABomb dropping on Japan because it meant they didn't have to go...

He's probably certain because he also has a relative that lived through the war as I do.

_____________________________


"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 64
A Real "WHAT IF?" - 2/7/2003 1:16:31 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Actually, THE most interesting "what if" for the War in the Pacific
is one which we will never see in the game. WHAT IF THE JAPS
HAD ATTACKED THE BRITISH AND DUTCH WHILE SCRUPULOUSLY
AVOIDING ANY US TERRITORY? After all, US territory contained
virtually none of the resources the Japanese were seeking to
control.

Roosevelt would have had to drag America in without the benefit
of "Remember Pearl Harbor!" if the Allies were going to keep the
War going. And while US possession of the Phillippines would
have been a real threat to the Japanese Southern Advance when
the US DID enter the war---it might have been well compensated
by the fact that the US would be divided and much of the population unenthusiastic. The OHIO ("over the hill in October")
movement among US draftees would certainly have been more
serious---and it's hard to imagine "Rosie the Riveter" turning out
in any great numbers. And while the "Two Ocean Navy" would
still be there (it was approved before the War), the "Fleet Train"
and all the other auxilleries needed to support it would have
been much reduced.

It probably cannot be put into the game as an option because
it requires far to many political "what ifs" that would be difficult
to estimate and apply to the scenario. But it would certainly
make for a totally different scenario. Another intriguing possibility would be if the Japanese had had their acts together and submitted a "Declaration of War" that had taken effect at
Midnight in Washington on December 6th. Given the stellar
performance of the Phillippines even with 8 hours warning on
the 7th, and the fact that neither Kimmel or Short seem to have
regarded Hawaii as a potential target for Japanese action except
by sabatuers and submarines, it's not hard to envision the Japs
getting virtually the same results (though probably at a higher
cost) as they did historically. Nor to envision the political uproar
in the US against Roosevelt and the Military for getting "caught
with their pants down" after War had been declared. The
Republicans and the "anti-Roosevelt" crowd in general would
have had a field day raising Hell at the Administration's incompetence and the Military's stupidity. Again with lots of interesting effects on the effort the US could put into fighting a
War in the Pacific.

Neither of these is likely to be in a WAR in the PACIFIC game---
just as the possibility of the Nazi's developing some common
sense and treating Russian Civilians well during the Invasion of the Soviet Union is not a scenario you are likely to find in any game on the subject. The results, while truely significant, would
be difficult to quantify and open to interpretation. Probably keep
a forum running for years. But if you really want to talk about
"what ifs", these would be the real significant ones.

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 65
Old story - 2/7/2003 8:19:45 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, We already had the Japan ignores USA debate. (read the old threads)

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9079&highlight=ignore+Philippines


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26268&highlight=ignore+Philippines

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 66
Re: Old story - 2/7/2003 10:36:46 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, We already had the Japan ignores USA debate. (read the old threads)

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9079&highlight=ignore+Philippines


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26268&highlight=ignore+Philippines [/B][/QUOTE]

THANKS MOGAMI. I hadn't seen those threads---hadn't
looked back far enough. Sorry I missed the chance to participate in them though---there are some real howlers in many of the
suggestions. I get the impression that about half the partici-
pants have never studied the history except by playing some
games and reading a few popular books. The one's proposing
to invade the US across the Aluetians are a real hoot! Were they
planning to wait until June (and better weather) to start the war,
or do they honestly think winter operations in that theatre were
possible for either side?

And almost none af the participants seems to have the slightest
notion just how short of shipping the Japanese Empire was. I'd
love to know where they thought the extra million or two tons
was going to come from to support major efforts to go farther
east than historically. Unless they gave up going south---which
was where all the resources they went to war to get were.

A true dissappointment in not having been able to toss some
reality into those discussions. But thanks for pointing them out.

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 67
The undead - 2/7/2003 11:03:04 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, You can always bring them back to life.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 68
Re: The undead - 2/8/2003 12:33:43 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, You can always bring them back to life. [/B][/QUOTE]

Maybe you can tell me if another subject I haven't seen mentioned has been ground over in a previous post? Will
War in the Pacific in any way reflect the Allied breaking of the
Japanese Codes? Even putting aside Midway, the Allies gained
a great deal of useful information they were able to use to
torture the Japanese with from Code Breaking. The "Bismarck
Sea" victory was a direct result, as was the sinking of a large
percentage of reinforcements headed for Iwo Jima. Shipping
Losses were dramatically increased because US subs were
directed by the Code Breakers right to Japanese "Convoys".
MacArthur based much of his advance from Mid-1943 on knowing
exactly where the Japanese had massed to stop him---and avoiding those areas. It was a significant part of the Allied war
effort and effectiveness---will it be reflected in the game?

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 69
Intell - 2/8/2003 12:37:26 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, At present (remember game is still alpha version) Both sides have a generated .txt file for Intell. (lists things like radio transmissions intercepted, and troop/ship movements)
My guess is the allied one will be more accurate (which is not to say Japanese will not benifit from theirs as well)
These reports do not display during the turn, so players will have to go and read the reports (found in same area as ships sunk and arrival dates)

These reports often list units/ships by name (and other times just report radio traffic at a hex location)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 70
Re: Intell - 2/8/2003 1:34:38 AM   
mbatch729


Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, At present (remember game is still alpha version) Both sides have a generated .txt file for Intell. (lists things like radio transmissions intercepted, and troop/ship movements)
My guess is the allied one will be more accurate (which is not to say Japanese will not benifit from theirs as well)
These reports do not display during the turn, so players will have to go and read the reports (found in same area as ships sunk and arrival dates)

These reports often list units/ships by name (and other times just report radio traffic at a hex location) [/B][/QUOTE]

This sounds great. No longer will I have to hit the "Z" key and speed read them to get to the real action of the turn. And, there will be a "record" of those sighting I can save off and compare to the previous turn's. Good work guys!

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 71
Sighting reports - 2/8/2003 2:29:08 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, The intell txt file is radio traffic and reports from your units.
The ship sighting reports (via naval search AC) still occur during the turn.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 72
- 2/8/2003 10:52:53 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		We do expect to have sighting messages put into a report that can be read during your turn. Don't know the specifics yet so don't bother asking.

Joel

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 73
GOOD. - 2/8/2003 12:19:01 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]We do expect to have sighting messages put into a report that can be read during your turn. Don't know the specifics yet so don't bother asking.

Joel [/B][/QUOTE]

You haven't "locked down" on this area yet. Hopefully you will
be able to arrange two options for the intel. One (Historical)
where the Allied side recieves about 500% more and better
information than the Japanese; and a Second where both get
equally poor information (as a "handicap" option to give the
Japs a stronger chance at survival). Would seem to be an
area where the demands of the "history" crowd and the "gaming"
crowd could both be met.

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 74
Re: The undead RISE AGAIN - 2/8/2003 9:21:42 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, You can always bring them back to life. [/B][/QUOTE]

Another (possibly silly) question. In that old debate, what game
were the players referring to when they were describing their
"favorite strategies" as being things like invading the USA or
conquering India? Is there some "fantasy game" of the War in
the Pacific that allows players to totally ignore geographic reality and logistics?

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 75
Pacific War - 2/8/2003 9:32:00 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, It's the old (1992 or there abouts) SSI game designed by Gary Grigsby. Pacific War (know as Pac War) Matrix has redone the game (DOS to windows) and you can download it here for free. (Version 3.2 just released) Because of the scale the Japanese often were able to conquer China, India and invade US/Australia
One of the things I did not like. WITP will end most of these ideas.
(West Coast has lots of forts with emplaced coast defense guns)
Pac War was (is till WITP comes out) the best game on the Pacific War. But like all games had it's share of problems. Read the PAC War Matrix Project (Changed now to Matrix Edition) forums to learn more.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 76
THANKS AGAIN - 2/8/2003 10:22:21 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, It's the old (1992 or there abouts) SSI game designed by Gary Grigsby. Pacific War (know as Pac War) Matrix has redone the game (DOS to windows) and you can download it here for free. (Version 3.2 just released) Because of the scale the Japanese often were able to conquer China, India and invade US/Australia
One of the things I did not like. WITP will end most of these ideas.
(West Coast has lots of forts with emplaced coast defense guns)
Pac War was (is till WITP comes out) the best game on the Pacific War. But like all games had it's share of problems. Read the PAC War Matrix Project (Changed now to Matrix Edition) forums to learn more. [/B][/QUOTE]

FAIR ENOUGH.., AND THANKS AGAIN. If the scale and basic
assumptions of the design were such as to allow "improbable"
occurrances---then I shouldn't take players to task for pursuing
them. I remember the game now---after one aquaintance got
it and discovered some of the "more unusual" results possible,
the rest of us ignored it.

Sounds as if you and I come from the same background preference in gaming---if a game doesn't deliver both the
opportunities and the constraints of historical reality (as well
as it can be modeled), then it just isn't as much fun to play.
What I'd call the "I want to be Napoleon, the General----NOT
"Napoleon the all-powerful Wizard" school of players.

I sure hope "Gary's Gang" will give us a much more historical
model this time around. I'm not opposed to any "what if" that
reflects an actual real-life possibility, but the trade-offs should
be present or reasonable. Some "fiddling" with pre-war production choices (especially for the Japanese) would certainly seem to fall in this category. But the possibility that they gave
up on naval construction during the late 1930's to build another
2 1/2 to 3 million deadweight tons of merchant shipping so they
could support a drive to India or the USA is, to say the least, unlikely.

Some of the possible "scenario fiddles" I would like to see in the
War in the Pacific game include things like:

Allied Code-breaking---on or off. Assuming the Japanese used
better codes, and changed them more frequently.

Japanese ASW---on or off. Assumes that ASW was not the "poor
relation" of the Japanese Navy and that it recieved the kind of
resources and research that other maritime powers gave it. It would probably mean fewer "Fleet Destroyers" and things like
not converting the Kitikami's to torpedo cruisers in return for recieving better (equal to US-British) ASW ability and a steady
supply of "Escorts".

Japanese Sub Doctrine---on or off. Assumes the Japanese took
a closer look at the "German Model" and built more, but smaller
submarines with the goal of interdicting Allied Merchant Traffic.
Wouldn't get the range of the I-Boats, But would certainly present a bigger over-all problem for the US. Just think of the
amount of resources the Americans saved historically when they found out it wasn't necessary to escort 90% of their merchant traffic.

No "Super Battleships"---on or off. Assumes the much less likely(but far more interesting) possibility that the Conservative Wing
of the IJN gave way and instead of trying to secretly build the
Yamato Class the effort and resources went into more CV's and
AA Escorts; and increasing the supply of Naval aircraft and pilots.

WHAT ABOUT YOU? Got any favorite "what ifs" your hoping for?
Most of mine would generally favor the "underdog" Japanese---
but as inreality they are "doomed" to lose, why not make them
more fun to play?

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 77
Details - 2/9/2003 12:09:15 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Most of the changes I would like do not involve prewar builds or doctrine changes. I would like a turn one where everything except the China/Manchuria/Japanese Home Army units could be deployed where I wanted. It usally requires a few weeks to get everything placed the way I would like them on Dec 7. Mean while
Operations are that much behind schedule. (I still go with most of the plans while rearranging but the effect is less then if I set up all the operations prior to starting the war. It's very time consuming (but a 1 shot deal) to send all the shipping I intend for
supply/resource movement back to Japan. Move the transports from their starting locations to where the units I would have had loaded and moving on turn 1 are, load and begin operations.
(And this process must be repeated every turn 1 of every game-but I've learned to save before ending turn and then loading new slot to end turn with so I don't have to do this more then 1 per type game. (H2H/Versus AI/PBEM)
The Japanese turn 1 in Pacwar required around 2 hours to issue all the orders. So far WITP turn 1 (and OOB/setup incomplete)
Takes 4-6 hours (will get faster as I learn what/where needs orders. I always cycle through every base looking at assets, setting airgroups. Then I go through them again loading and assigning TF's. Ordering LCU's to move.
After turn 1 the orders phase shortens to less then an hour. (Just cycle through bases and TF's)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 78
GOOD POINT, MOGAMI - 2/9/2003 4:04:42 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		You're absolutely right. If you a playing the Japanese, and you
are going to have to live for the rest of the game with the results
of your "Start the War" offensive, you ought to have SOME input
into how your forces are deployed to start it. That said, there
would be some restrictions, I assume. Like you couldn't start
a wholesale re-deployment of your "China Army" and expect to
still recieve any "suprise bonus". Or sail your "Home Fleet" BB's
South to IndoChina to deal with the P-O-W/Repulse and still
suprise Malaya.

But the rest of the forces (the ones that were actually used in
the opening offensives) should be available for re-deployment
within the territories you already control. If the logistics and
supply rules ARE accurate in the game, then you ought to have
the opportunity to make your own choices/mistakes hampered
onlu by the constraints of reality. Yamashita turned down an
additional Division for his Malaya Campaign because he couldn't
supply it. But if you want to put a 4th into the effort (and the
game accurately forces you to deal with all kinds of additional
problems supplying it---not enough port capacity, need for more
shipping, difficulties getting it forward to the troops, etc) then
you should be able to do so! YOU are supposed to be commanding the Japanese effort, and NO NATION in history has
changed all it's key commanders the day the war started! So you
should also have had a lot to say about where your forces started! This is a request which should be a "no brainer"---but
which designers love to avoid because it makes theri lives more
difficult. I'll be happy to be a loud supporter of any campaign you want to wage to get this option included.

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 79
How do you do it? - 2/9/2003 4:26:28 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Of course the program would need a whole routine just for pre game deployments (in later scenarios/campaign starts both players might want to use this)

You would need to place all the starting eligible units into 3 pools (Ships, land, Air)

Then using a routine similar to build TF you would deploy the units from pool
(click on hex, select "add ship" and click on ships from list in pool,
add land unit, add air unit)

(Every base in WITP has a baseforce so these units would not need to go into pool as they would not be eligible for redeployment)

The starting supply/fuel amounts could be totaled and when setting up you place supply/fuel where you want it subtracting from available amount,

Then you would go through and load transports (for this phase the entire unit would be loaded instantly)

issue orders and end turn.

This system would come in very handy for persons wanting to design their own scenarios. (first you edit forces available, then you deploy)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 80
SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN - 2/9/2003 7:10:31 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		You seem to have covered most of the bases for a working
model. I would suggest you might want to include some means
of adjusting the base forces. I don't know if they are going to
vary in composition the way they do in UV. or be more "fixed"
in nature. My suggestion was that they should be a fixed "base'
onto which players could graft additional "specialized companies"
of Air Service Troops or Engineer Troops or Stevadore Companies
to make them fit the mission for which the base is intended. But
whatever way they choose to go, if you change the air or ground
strength at a base you will probably need to change the capacity
of the Base Force supplying and servicing them.

You might also want to vary the compositions of the Merchant
Ship "pipelines" so that they will "feed" whatever redistribution
of forces you come up with. You might want to place virtually all
your "on map" supply in the forward bases that will support the
initial attacks while setting up "pipellines" to begin "stockpiling"
other bases that will supply later efforts (like the Marshals---for
an eventual advance on the Gilberts; or Truk---for the advance
into the Bismarcks and Solomans)

I'd call your request something like:

Japanese Redeployment---on or off. Go with the absolute historical pre-war deployment of forces, or allow a "redeployment"
that would allow the player to deploy his assets to meet the
requirements of his own offensive strategy (within the constraints
and limits of reality)

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 81
Base forces - 2/9/2003 7:24:53 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Presently base forces are some what fixed. But you can add other units to a base. (More support/AA/CD/Etc) But a hexes baseforce is label as such (Osaka Baseforce, Tokyo Baseforce)
I think they can be moved but for prewar deployment I would leave them where they are.

(WITP BF are not quite the same as UV Baseforces)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 82
Re: Base forces - 2/9/2003 7:30:38 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Presently base forces are some what fixed. But you can add other units to a base. (More support/AA/CD/Etc) But a hexes baseforce is label as such (Osaka Baseforce, Tokyo Baseforce)
I think they can be moved but for prewar deployment I would leave them where they are. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's great! It's more or less what I'd been hoping in the
sense that you can "adjust" the base to meet the support needs.
So it's really just the "support Companies" which would have to
be somewhat re-deployable. Sounds like we've got this all figured out---now if we can just get "Gary's Kids" to program it
we'll have the game we want to buy and play.

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 83
Japan's Coastal Defense - 2/9/2003 12:51:32 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, As always everything I place here is simply what exists at present stage. Everything is subject to revision.

Concerning landing on Japanese Home Islands
I just did a quick count of 240mm Coastal Defense Howitzers deployed in forts around main Islands of Japan. (there are also 150mm CD guns and other sizes) I counted 82 of these 240mm weapons. They cover the likely approaches and landing areas.
Of course the USN/USAAF would target them prior to any serious landings (I know I would not send landing craft in with them still operating) I don't think we will see any quick dashes to land troops in an attempt to knock out Japan early. (The main Home Islands have 30 bases)

The most promising looking area for a landing is in the North east
two connecting hexes Aomori and Ominato. (Aomori has 8x240mm
Ominato has 56 smaller CD guns)(This is on Dec 7th 1941)
Since every possible hex will have at least one infantry division deployed there will be no hex you can land on unopposed.
If Japan is still producing supply, these units will be supplied since most of these hexes are on railroads. I am assuming the allies would also want a base with road connections. (It would be a hard fight to push the Japanese off the few coastal/mountain hexes just to have a hex that did not connect)

I realize no one thinks invading Japan will be easy. Personally I never had to (or considered it an option) in Pacific War.
I can only offer my opinion at a very early stage in play testing that invading Japan is not something players should look forward to. What ever plan you devise will need to force the Japanese to surrender (or have an over whelming points ratio advantage)

I think the allies may be forced into several prongs for the following reasons.

The Southern Resource Area
Supply....I would not have a condition for Japans surrender that did not start with.."If Japan is out of supply...." (Out of supply would be defined as producing less then a certain amount of supply per turn)
While submarines can reduce traffic to and from this area I doubt
they can close it alone. The torpedo problems will allow the careful Japanese player to be more successful in both protecting
convoys and managing them (The Japanese sent many ships to the SRA empty and many supply laden ships that left Japan for base supply returned empty. One of the features of the new supply routine is TF's that are part of the auto routine will go pick up oil or resouce rather then return empty)
Long range bombers will need new/closer bases to assist the submarines. Your going to have to capture them. I think you need to at least go as far as Kendari.

Base support. There is a large open area between CENPAC and SWPAC. But each have a series of target bases that as they are acquired allow support for the capture of the next. These net works proceed in the direction of the home Islands. SWPAC's network also crosses the Japanese supply routes, While CENPAC's do not.
So the 2 prongs have different but supporting goals. CENPAC will aim for bases to target Japans industry by destroying the factories. SWPAC will adversely effect the Japanese economy by preventing shipment of oil/resources. Both prongs provide the benefit of capturing bases. (Japan loses the points per base the allies gain them)

(I'll count the large guns on US West Coast next.)

Singapore has 5 15in CD (only 3 were working when I checked)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 84
JAPAN'S VULNERABILITY - 2/9/2003 6:34:26 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		As Mogami seems to be making a good case for the difficulties
of invading Japan "on the fly" I thought I'd mention a few other
reasons for a more prepared approach. (All of this is dependent
on the game accurately reflecting the physical realities of the situation---if supply and resources grow on trees then all bets
are off).

Number One, and most important. Japan cannot feed itself! And
do to the shortage of shipping, the entire Japanese Population
had been under ever more restrictive rationing since the war
began. By 1945, under the relentless assult of US submarines,
minefields, and aircraft, starvation was stepping on stage. The
US didn't know that for certain at the time---but as gamers we
do.

Number Two. Japan cannot feed it's Industrial Base. It's self-
sufficient in Coal, and little else. The entire reason for Japanese
Expansionism since the 1890's was to try to achieve a position
and empire such as Britian's which would allow access to the
raw materials needed to become a Great Power. Again, by 1945
her Merchant Marine was almost non-existant, being either sunk
or mothballed with unrepairable damage. Even without bombing
the Industrial Base was at a virtual production standstill. The
sooner the Allied assult on Merchant Shipping begins to "pinch",
the sooner Japan's "bite" starts losing teeth.

Number Three Bombing. Japan proved horribly vulnerable to
it even without the A-Bomb. Her AAA and Fighter defenses were
far below German or Allied standards, and her highly inflamable
cities much more vulnerable. Even without the shortage of raw
materials her industry was shutting down by 1945 as it's labor
fled to the countryside to escape the bombers.

While suspected, none of this was known for certain in 1945, and
so the Allies went ahead with invasion plans. They might have
anyway, for political reasons. But whether they did or not, Japan
WAS going to collapse by the end of 1945 or revert to canniblism.
The Military was hoping for an Invasion as a last ditch chance to
fight while they still could lift a rifle. As much for "honor" as in
the forlorn hope that this time they could defeat it and maybe
gain a peace. The A-Bombs could actually be said to have been
the best thing that could happen to Japan because they "broke
the stalemate" politically and finally brought surrender.

But all of the above means NOTHING if a player tries a "quickest
possible line-of-approach" to Japan and invades it. The Allies
spent all of 1943 in siezing the "jump-off" positions for their
advance and building and training the forces to make it. In 1944,
they WON the War in the Pacific by any rational standards only
to find out the Japanese weren't behaving rationally. 1945 was
basically "kicking the Hell out of a defeated opponant" because
the Damned Fool wouldn't admit he'd been beaten! But if you
"skip over" the gains of 1943-44 in an attempt to "shorten the
war" by direct invasion the situation changes into one that will
allow the Japanese a decent chance at defeating you. They'll
still have the tools to fight, and plenty of manpower. As the
Allies, you MIGHT be able to win anyway---but you also risk
recieving the kind of Massive Defeat that might have cooled US
passions enough to allow a negotiated peace.

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 85
- 2/10/2003 1:24:11 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Mike-
Just a quick note. I don't have figures, but I recall reading that Japan was just barely self-suficient in coal. IIRC, she had mines that went miles underground and under the ocean in search of small seams. I believe many of the POWs had to work in these dangerous mines as well. I don't think Japan even had the coal resources to sustain a war-time economy (thus the China invasion, among other reasons). Does anyone know for sure, or am I just imagining this?

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 86
Agrees with what I've seen - 2/10/2003 2:54:25 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Mike-
Just a quick note. I don't have figures, but I recall reading that Japan was just barely self-suficient in coal. IIRC, she had mines that went miles underground and under the ocean in search of small seams. I believe many of the POWs had to work in these dangerous mines as well. I don't think Japan even had the coal resources to sustain a war-time economy (thus the China invasion, among other reasons). Does anyone know for sure, or am I just imagining this? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yea..., I know the feeling. You can never find the right reference
when you want it. By "self-suffecient", I meant to indicate that
coal was the ONLY "strategic mineral" Japan had in any significant
quantity. But you are right---even coal supplies were hardly
adequate without imports. The real point of my submission was
that Japan STARTED the war needing to import huge amounts
just to maintain a "bare minimum" economy---and without sufficient Merchant Tonnage to do even that while supporting
a military expansion around the Pacific. If the Allied Player wages
a sensible campaign and is able to "chew up" what Merchant
Marine Japan does have, then an invasion of Japan itself is
hardly going to be needed. If he looks for "short-cuts", he will
run the risk of meeting the Japanese Military on their "home turf"
while they are still capable of a real fight. Might "win" more quickly---but it's about the only way you could actually "lose".
Just pointing out that "rushing it" seemed a less-than-optimal
strategy---but one I'm sure some players will follow (and might
work against the computer)

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 87
Japan was going to fall? - 2/20/2003 3:14:08 AM   
dtx

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/13/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		An excellent book that looks at this issue is called "The Fall of Japan" - it gives both the US and Japanese sides to the issue. While many Americans look back at what we know now and assume Japan was about to collapse - this simply wasn't the case. Even after the 2-A bombs were dropped, and when news leaked out that the Emperor was going to surrender, a group of Japanese officers attempted to launch a coup detat to overthrow the Emperor and continue the war.

At Okinawa, huge numbers of civilians killed themselves to avoid capture. The Japanese saw foreigners as vicious sub-human animals. Starvation and death were seen as preferable to surrender.

Also - the A-bomb attacks were NOT the most destructive air raids against Japan. As posted by others previously, the firebombing of Japan had taken a tremendous toll in both lives and property and the Japanese just kept fighting. To confirm a previous post, the 2-A bombs were all that the US had in its inventory and new ones would not be available for quite a while. The US used the 2 it had in rapid succession to give the appearance that it had many A bombs. The A bombs gave the Emperor a reason to call for surrender.

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 88
- 2/20/2003 11:15:35 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline 		I think the A bombs were more a psychological weapon, letting the Japanese know that they were going to keep dying until they surrendered and there was nothing they could do to stop it. When one plane can kill 100k people, they know there is no conceivable way to prevent a single American plane from making a bombing run.

Incidently, I was just watching the 'WWII in Color' documentaries on PBS and they showed some guys painting one of the Atom bombs, not sure if it was Fat Man or Little Boy but it was round with fins. Anyway, it was painted yellow and it looked like they were painting a smiley face on it. But I thought the 'smiley face' icon was from the seventies. Am I losing my mind or was it around back then?

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 89
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.968