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 >>
- 7/31/2001 2:17:00 AM   
Doug Olenick

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: ny
Status: offline 		I certainly agree with Byron's comments. Particularly in varying production. Not that the US needs much, but say you already have enough destroyers by 1944, you could put those shipyards to building more carriers or CVEs or something. Throwing variables into the game would certainly increase the game's entertainment value. A lot can be done with a game editor, but how about allowing the Japanese to attack at a much earlier date. Say Sept. 1, 1939. How about a world where the carrier did not exist, then we could see Jutland scale battles take place all over the Pacific. But there should be a historically based model that allows the players to use their hindsight to fight the war the way it was.

_____________________________


(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 61
- 7/31/2001 2:28:00 AM   
Doug Olenick

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: ny
Status: offline 		One more thought for the game, although it is not production related. I think the Japanese side should have some SIGINT capability. It should not be as great as the Allies', but something would be nice and historically accurate.

_____________________________


(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 62
- 7/31/2001 5:04:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		Good! Then Skeets and I have determined the design philosphy of the game: provide players with substantial options in production in addition to a historical variant. That was easy. And I guess you could have the option of substantial production alteration with only historical classes of materiel to split the difference. Skeet, I hadn't considered the idea of starting the war earlier, but I like it! I'm not sure what that would do to play balance because I'm not sure what the status of forces were. Most of the battleships would still be there, though it would be longer before either side got the BB's whose keels were laid before the war. I'm not sure when the various carriers were commissioned. It would probably have a big effect on the size of the air forces available - especially in the U.S. And when was the Zero put on line? There may also be an effect on the U.S.'s ability to ramp up production since a lot of the ramping up started before the war started. Hence, with an earlier war scenario, the U.S. may not ramp up quite as fast. A problem with that is deciding what Allied forces would be available and where they would be positioned. You could only assume that the MINIMUM force levels present were those historically present. But for Japan to go to war two years (or one year) early, there would probably have to be some increased tension in the Pacific that wasn't there historically. That increased tension may have led to more forces being present in the Pacific - especially Commonwealth - that weren't there. So I don't know how you go about determining the Commonwealth forces. Still, though, it would be fascinating if it places the U.S. in a substantially disadvantaged position. It might give the Japanese a better chance to win, and it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility because Japan was a member of the Tri-Partite Pact. Japan might have been coerced into declaring war on Britain because of Germany, and Japan may have figured that, because America was so focused on the Pacific, any moves in the Pacific against Britain would be sure to bring the U.S. into the war. Since Pearl Harbor required substantial planning and even product modification, you may have to forego a WiP style Pearl Harbor rule until early 1940. Also, since the idea came in part from the torpedoing of the Italian fleet in Taranto, you may want to prohibit a Pearl Harbor attack until several months after Taranto. Blah, blah, blah. An early war scenario is definitely worth considering. How 'bout it Gary?

_____________________________


(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 63
- 7/31/2001 5:45:00 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		It isnt that I disagree with Byron insofar as an early attack, but I suggest that it would simply mean an earlier defeat for Japan. When I had an intrest, I looked up in Janes? (really cant recall) The marine engines for the Yamato and the the Kongo refit were not domestic. If I recall correctly (and I may be wrong) the Philly shipyards sold them the engines. That implies that there was more for Japan to gain by staying non-beligerant with the West, than to gain by war. Also remember that the planes being flown by the IJN were the Claude at best. Truthfully I am unsure what a 'ship fitter' is but almost all accounts I read about Japanese marine production mentions that this was a critical lack. I guess we can assume that Kaiser had no such lack. However the liberty ship did have a critical flaw in cold water that would break it in half in the right seas. My impression of an early attack by Japan is that the USN was far more prepared for war than the IJN. With the exception of course of torpedoes. It is just that if you take PacWar as an example. Say you have two very good players. The major japanese naval units will be sunk in home waters. Most likely in port. The reason is, the US player can easily flood the sky with cheap american planes that make any attempt to utilize the IJN suicide. Even an attempt to get close enough to launch a strike ends up comming up against 500+ plane strikes from land based airfields. This ignores the probable USN airstrike. So the IJN player is well advised to simply sit in port and pray for a mistake, on the part of the US player. I am not saying this is unrealistic, in fact after watching the 1991 Gulfwar I might agree it is VERY realistic, and quite in keeping with US tactics. BUT, it isnt FUN. I think that some mechanism that encourages the IJN player to be 'daring' would be usefull. I do insist however on more realistic torpedoe results. I have NEVER seen 5 IJN cruisers kick an 8 cruiser allied fleet in a fair fight with torpedoes. (in PacWar)

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 64
- 7/31/2001 9:59:00 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		Chiteng: Did I use "ship fitter"? I don't know what that is, either. Maybe a ship fitter outer. I have no idea what an early war scenario would look like and what effect it would have. As far a war preparedness goes, I've always thought the U.S. was in pretty bad shape, but that isn't based on anything substantial. I would also give the Japanese two or three months immediately before the war to train up. The air and ground forces should be well trained since they had been fighting in China for quite awhile. But it does seem that the U.S. started cranking things out in 1941 - especially aircraft - and I'd be curious what an early war would look like. If it turns out that it retards Japan's chances even more, then probably not worth pursuing.

_____________________________


(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 65
- 7/31/2001 10:36:00 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Byron, I disagree that the U.S. wasn't prepared to go to war early on. Moving the Pacific Fleet to Pearl, reinforcing Midway and Wake (Halsey was on the way w/ more F4Fs when Wake fell), adding B-17s and P-40 squadrons to Hawaii region, etc. are all, in some form, preparations for hostilities. There were plans to reinforce the Phillipine Islands as well (A convoy w/ artillery & troops turned back near Australia), but Japan took over too quickly. The only reason the we (the U.S.) took it in the pants so badly was that no one expected war to come so soon. The assets were in place and training hard. We just dropped the ball on the timing. In that respect I agree with you, but I have to disagree from a strictly material point of view. For instance, if the war warnings or even the inbound bogey warning from the Radar station at Pearl had been taken seriously, the Japanese would have found swarms of P-40s in the air, and the fleet would have been at GQ, firing its boilers and sortying (Sp?). Similar situation at Clark field (IMHO MacArthur dropped the ball big time there). Anyways, thats my opinion, of course, and you may disagree. If you do, let me see if I can track down some old books of mine that I think talked about the U.S. preparations for war w/ Japan. Fell free to comment, of course, I'd love to hear your take. Chris

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 66
- 7/31/2001 10:40:00 PM   
Doug Olenick

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: ny
Status: offline 		Byron, A ship fitter is a skilled person who builds ships. Like a factory worker. In reality the fleet balance would be very similar to what was available on Dec. 7, 1941. With a few major exceptions. The Yamato and Musashi would not be available, but I believe all the IJN CVs were completed by 1939. Possibly the Hiryu and Soryu were still working up. The Zero was in battle by 1940 in China, but the A5M Claude was around for the previous couple of years. I think the Kates and Vals were in fleet service by 1940. As I do not have a reference book at work, I'm not 100% sure, but most of the IJN CAs and CLs were in fleet service. The US Fleet would see little change, except in the CL area. Most of the Brooklyn class CLs were still being built, alhtough a couple were with the fleet. Same with many DDs. All the CV with the exception of the Hornet and Wasp were in service by 1939. Hornet came in 1942, Wasp commissioned in 1940. A historical context could be constructed. The US was peeved at the Japanese incursions into China that started in 1931 and intesified in 1938. Since the fleet itself was based in San Diego until 1941, a Pearl Harbor scenario might not be practical. Fleet composition at the start of the conflict would also be interesting. The US Navy was huge at the time with many more BBs than Japan. Many of these were based in the Atlantic, but if the fleet did not have to worry about a German threat these could be shuffled over to the Pacific. So just like the current game the IJN would have to get in several quick and devastating blows. If succesful the US would be put in a tough position because it could not expect large numbers of new capital ships for several years. The US Army and Army Air Force prior to 1940 was tiny, making it hard to defend most of our Pacific possessions or go on the offensive. Could be a lot of fun....

_____________________________


(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 67
- 7/31/2001 11:55:00 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		Good replies. With respect to war preparedness, I was responding to Chiteng's comment that he thought the USN would be more prepared than the IJN in an early war scenario. While admitting almost total ignorance, I don't believe that was true, and I focus my attention on the human element - not materiel. Well trained combatants will usually overcome a qualitative or quantitative deficiency in the their equipment. I don't believe we were well trained at all. We certainly looked better on paper numbers-wise at the end of '41 than at the beginning, but you see what it got us. I'd forgotten that the Pacific Fleet had only recently moved to Pearl. Logistically, I don't know if the IJN could have reached San Diego - at least in secret. Probably would have had to stage out of the Marshalls, which would have created a security problem. I agree with Skeets that unless a surprise attack of the magnitude of Pearl Harbor is provided for, whether it be in San Diego or elsewhere, there isn't much use in an early war scenario - unless you want to see Rainbow 5 or Plan Orange (or whatever it was by 1939-1941) put into effect. Oh, one last thing I wanted to respond to about Kaiser and the Liberty ships. While I'd like to have some flexibility in production, like being able to convert cruisers to carriers, there has to be a disincentive. A good disincentive would be some kind of production risk that would manifest itself in either delays in production or inferior performance. This would represent the Snafus that usually show up when you convert from doing something you're familiar with to something new. Hey, truly: are we just yacking, or is someone at Matrix listening? Have they already got stuff like production hard coded? Or are they taking suggestions?

_____________________________


(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 68
- 8/1/2001 1:20:00 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Byron, I understand what you're saying now. I still believe the US was more prepared than you think, but I can't argue that Japan would probably have won say a carrier engagement early on or even pre-Pearl Harbor. I strongly believe the Japanese held the edge in Surface Combat (at night especially due to optics) until almost 1943 when Radar became effective for the US (See almost all the Solomons battles). Also, I agree that a West Coast "Pearl Harbor" wasn't feasible for the Japanese. I have to believe the US would pick up their approach before they launched - assuming they could stage that far, which I also don't think they could have... Finally, Matrix definitely monitors these posts. They don't always interject unless they can answer a specific question or problem, but they do listen. Check out the UV posts re: Shore batteries as proof. Chris

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 69
- 8/1/2001 2:00:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		And don't forget the Long Lance torpedoes . . . . If the U.S. had spotted a Japanese fleet approaching the West Coast, it would have been an accidental sighting by a ship. I'll bet an attack on the West Coast was so inconceivable that there would have been little or no formal reconaissance being conducted. Finally, the Paraguayan request for reparations was not so much Paraguayan as it were . . . . . what? What was it if it wasn't Paraguayan? I can't sleep nights thinking about this.

_____________________________


(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 70
- 8/1/2001 2:43:00 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		My little quote is from the opening scenes of the movie "Spies Like Us", where Chevy Chase (my favorite actor/comedian) is a low-level State Dept spokesman who gets in over his head at an unimportant news conference about Paraguayan spraying subsidies... I can't possibly do it justice, but its hilarious. I recommend the entire movie, actually, if you haven't seen it. Hope you can sleep now... ;)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 71
- 8/1/2001 4:53:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		Ah, yes. Is that the "faulty microphone" scene?

_____________________________


(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 72
- 8/1/2001 6:37:00 AM   
Greg Wilmoth

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 2/18/2001
From: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Status: offline 		There's some new stuff by Al Nofi on the Strategy Page on US and Japanese naval building plans and execution thereof. Check it out!http://www.strategypage.com/cic/default.asp?target=&Prev=0&BeginCnt=61

_____________________________


(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 73
- 8/1/2001 10:54:00 AM   
Ringbolt

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 6/15/2001
From: Pensacola, Fl
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by madflava13: Byron, I disagree that the U.S. wasn't prepared to go to war early on. Moving the Pacific Fleet to Pearl, reinforcing Midway and Wake (Halsey was on the way w/ more F4Fs when Wake fell)
Not a big deal, but it was "Frightful" Jack Fletcher, and not Halsey ferrying F4F's to Wake. If it had been Halsey they would have made it as there was plenty of time. Fletcher just turned around when over half way there. That was not the last time Frightful Jack would leave Marines high and dry. Ringbolt

_____________________________

LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy Cross I see you wearing?" Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."

(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 74
- 8/2/2001 1:16:00 AM   
Doug Olenick

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: ny
Status: offline 		An early war start would be interesting because the US was so unprepared, except for the Navy. In a way such a war would have been similar to what was expected in a major Nato/Warsaw Pact conflict. This was expected to be a come as you are affair because each side had a finite amount of equipment to use. In a late 1930s US/Japan war the same would apply.

_____________________________


(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 75
- 4/28/2002 10:24:56 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		Now that everyone is folding their UV tents and tramping over to WitP, I see some issues being raised that have been previously discussed at length. Rather than reinventing the wheel, I've moved some posts on WitP production up to the present so that people will have the benefit of these earlier discussions.

Hope nobody minds!

(in reply to Greg Wilmoth)
Post #: 76
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

2.984