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 3 4 5 6 [7]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 4/8/2002 11:22:37 PM

mdiehl

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

Rhotljr -

If you care for such things, there is an Abacus PTO add-on to MS Combat Flight Simulator 2:PTO, that gives you a chance to fly a P40 against the in-bound Japanese airstrike.

I think an "alternative start" scenario is a good dream feature for Matrix/2x3 WitP. Were I the game designer, I'd make the Japanese player "bid" for strategic flexibility. For every month of deviation prior to December 1941 the computer would have a chance of randomly generating, in each and all of several categories, an incremental strategic enhancement -- a month off of the design-to-build schedule for advanced US a/c, or a certain percent increment in US torpedo reliability or crew training, &c. This would give balance to the game by compensating the Allies for the enhanced strategic flexibility given to Japan. For every month of delay *after* December 1941, advanced US training in ships, crew, increased US production capacity, increased production of radar, technical specialists, airfields and the like would be *automatically* incremental, and other enhancements (enhanced incremental progress towards nukes, jets, discovering and compleletely fixing the Mark 14 problems, enhanced signals intelligence, for example) would be random.

Any move in continental Asia triggers the oil embargo. Any Japanese move into the oil producing regions of the NEI triggers the US production/training/readiness/technical enhancement response along with a random weekly probaility that the US DOWs, with increasing likelihood proportional to Japanese success.

In these circumstances the Japanese player can pick whatever strategy he likes with something approaching the FOW and strategic problems experienced by the real Japanese.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 181

- 4/9/2002 12:40:58 AM

rhohltjr

Posts: 536
Joined: 4/27/2000
From: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]Rhotljr -

If you care for such things, there is an Abacus PTO add-on to MS Combat Flight Simulator 2:PTO, that gives you a chance to fly a P40 against the in-bound Japanese airstrike.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Don't have that one yet. "MS Combat Flight Simulator 2:PTO" Is it just you and your lonesome self :eek: against the first wave/second wave or do you get any help? I'm not that good a pilot. Well maybe in a X-Wing but not a P40 ;)
Thanks, Robert Hohlt, Jr.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 182

- 4/9/2002 1:21:53 AM

mdiehl

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

Since it's off topic and by a different vendor I've responded in private. I started on X-wings, so the transition to atmospheric flight changes how you fly, but it's doable. ;)

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 183

- 4/9/2002 5:00:01 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]Not even plausible. The moment Japan moves on anything other than a non-US, non-Commonwealth holding in continental SE Asia, the war starts. That's what Wash-London was all about. But you are entitled to entertain whatever. If I were writing an allied AI opponent I would not circumscribe its actions to your view of history. [/B][/QUOTE]

Mdiehl

I am going to drop this becuase I see you are taking this way to personally, but in the interest if defending myself against what I feel is a baseless accusation.

The above quote is *YOUR* direct quote as posted on this forum. In response I asked you what Wash-London alluded to. You replied the Washington/London Naval Treaty. So please tell me how am I reinterpeting or misrepresenting your words. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I am missing something, but I honestly do not know what.

I ask anyone else on this board to please read the above quote and let me know what you interpret it to mean.

Regarding "Fire in the Sky" You said that "pre-war" training doctorine had prepared US pilots to fight a plane like the zero. I quoted a passage in FitS, that flately said that US pilots by July 42 had, thrown away the book on tactical doctorine and develop there own tactical doctorine to deal with the situation.

You also said that US pilots didnt try to initially dogfight the zero. FitS; said that US pilots in the Philipines tried to dogfight the zero with disasterous consequences.

I am willing to admit its possible that I "MAY" have unintentionally misunderstood some of your statements, statements are always open to ones own interpretation, but thats a far cry from the misrepresenting or reinventing of your words that you accuse me of.

Enough said, no hard feelings on my part. I hope you get over yours.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 184

Re: Hmmm...... - 4/9/2002 5:29:21 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rhohltjr
[B]

Timjot, which book or report about PH investigation and or Kimmel Hearings do you believe give the best, most balanced and fair report? There were many PH investigations.

I would like to see in UV/WitP as a dream feature, some sort of short scenario where the US is not surprised at PH. Perhaps Gen Short has all of his radar sets going w/trained staff at each; or Kimmel has his PBYs searching NW - N instead at the Mandates, or has a screen of picket ships out.
Perhaps Washington sends PH the 'Bomb Plot' info or RK Turner sobers up and figures out that PH doesn't have a 'Purple' machine. Plenty of what ifs. [/B][/QUOTE]

I would say to get a fair and balance account you should read a combination of either "Scapegoat; a defense of Kimmel and Short"(Beach) or "Infamy"(Toland) for one side and possiibly "Peal Harbor; a Verdict of History"(Prange) to get a different take. Thats just IMHO though.

The PacWar board game I use to play had a feature that allowed the US player to roll the dice to see if his ships were to be caught at PH. I forget what the odds were, but I think that something like that should and could be a feature in WitP.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 185

- 4/9/2002 5:49:39 AM

mdiehl

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

"The PacWar board game I use to play had a feature that allowed the US player to roll the dice to see if his ships were to be caught at PH. I forget what the odds were, but I think that something like that should and could be a feature in WitP."

I think that board game was "Victory in the Pacific," by AH. I agree that the "CVs at PH" variant ought to be an option, with the caveat that if in a FTF game both players must agree to that at the outset. But if there is the possibility that the carriers are at PH, and the ahistorical setup has been chosen, then in the event that they *aren't* there, I think there should be an equal likelihood that they are launching a surprise airstrike on the Japanese Strike Force, and that the US airstrike arrives while the Main strength of Kido Butai is zipping around Hawaii.

So there is some number x. RND (100) < x means that a given CV is in PH (as it is handled in VitP). If RND>=x, then check RND(100)

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 186

- 4/9/2002 7:31:14 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]"The PacWar board game I use to play had a feature that allowed the US player to roll the dice to see if his ships were to be caught at PH. I forget what the odds were, but I think that something like that should and could be a feature in WitP."

I think that board game was "Victory in the Pacific," by AH. I agree that the "CVs at PH" variant ought to be an option, with the caveat that if in a FTF game both players must agree to that at the outset. But if there is the possibility that the carriers are at PH, and the ahistorical setup has been chosen, then in the event that they *aren't* there, I think there should be an equal likelihood that they are launching a surprise airstrike on the Japanese Strike Force, and that the US airstrike arrives while the Main strength of Kido Butai is zipping around Hawaii.

So there is some number x. RND (100) < x means that a given CV is in PH (as it is handled in VitP). If RND>=x, then check RND(100)

Your right that was the game, Its been a very long time. Now that you mention it. It was the US CVs that had the chance of being at PH. In that case I take it back. I think if the campaign is starting on Dec 7, with the attack on PH. Then the carriers should be away. It wasnt by chance they were away they were on a mission. On second thought, I guess if there is a weather variable in the game. Then possibley there should be a chance that the Enterprise could be at PH if the weather doesnt delay her as it did historically. I think the odds should be pretty high against though. On the otherhand I think there should at least be a slight chance that the Kido Buhtai is sited and correspondingly allows the US player a chance to respond, before the Japanese can attack.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 187

- 4/9/2002 7:56:39 AM

ratster

Posts: 166
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: PA
Status: offline

In AH's VITP the carriers aren't "caught" at Pearl Harbor, ever. They have a random chance to show up in the Hawaiin islands Area, Central Pacific Area, or as turn 2 reinforcements. It is then the Japanese player's decision to retreat or stay, followed by the Allied player's decision to do the same. Only then(if both decide to stay) would the carriers have a chance to attack each other... I used to play this game... a lot! :)

_____________________________

" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 188

- 4/9/2002 8:51:03 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ratster
[B]In AH's VITP the carriers aren't "caught" at Pearl Harbor, ever. They have a random chance to show up in the Hawaiin islands Area, Central Pacific Area, or as turn 2 reinforcements. It is then the Japanese player's decision to retreat or stay, followed by the Allied player's decision to do the same. Only then(if both decide to stay) would the carriers have a chance to attack each other... I used to play this game... a lot! :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks, for the heads up, its been a very long time since I played and I could of sworn you rolled the dice to sea if the carriers would be at PH. Maybe it was an earlier version of it or maybe its just my mind playing tricks on me.

That being said. I have no problem with WITP haveing something similar, except I think only the Big E should have a chance to show up around Hiawaii though.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 189

Re: Re: Hmmm...... - 4/9/2002 9:52:18 AM

rhohltjr

Posts: 536
Joined: 4/27/2000
From: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]

I would say to get a fair and balance account you should read a combination of either "Scapegoat; a defense of Kimmel and Short"(Beach) or "Infamy"(Toland) for one side and possiibly "Peal Harbor; a Verdict of History"(Prange) to get a different take. Thats just IMHO though.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks, I value everyones opinions. I am currently reading
"Verdict of History" now and will look for Scapegoat when
finished with that. :)

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 190

CV(N)-6 - 4/10/2002 10:49:13 PM

mdiehl

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

Apparently when Enterprise steamed for the PTO in December 1944, January 1945 she had been redesignated a "CVN." In this case the N was for "Night Operations Capable" (rather than Nuclear Powered). The redesignation came when she embared Carrier Air Group 20 -- a group intensively trained for night operations.

Think this will make it into the game design?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 191

Japanese Sub Recon - 4/10/2002 10:58:15 PM

Jason629

Posts: 83
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Charlotte NC
Status: offline

Are we going to be able to launch sea plane recon from subs in WITP?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 192

Re: CV(N)-6 - 4/11/2002 1:54:46 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]Apparently when Enterprise steamed for the PTO in December 1944, January 1945 she had been redesignated a "CVN." In this case the N was for "Night Operations Capable" (rather than Nuclear Powered). The redesignation came when she embared Carrier Air Group 20 -- a group intensively trained for night operations.

Think this will make it into the game design? [/B][/QUOTE]

I would think nightfighters and nightfighter groups would be available in the game in the later years. This would mean Black Widows for the army and I believe radar equipted Cosairs for the Navy. I dont think anything significant different about the Enterprise though. Except I would guess enhanced flight control systems radar. Which means the player would have to withdraw the Big E for a refit or designate one of the new Essex CVs being built as a CVN. By the way I believe the Saratoga was also made into a CVN. Those night flying Kamikaze's were getting worrisome and expected to get down right nasty when invadeing Japan.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 193

- 4/11/2002 3:26:23 AM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

During the war it was mostly radar-equipped Hellcats, rather than Corsairs. Though the USN did start operating F4Us from CVs late in the war, the Corsair didn't become one of the Navy's principal types until postwar.

Also, most late-war VF squadrons operated a four-plane section (roughly, allowing for attrition) of radar-equipped fighters - mostly F6F-5Ns, with the occasional -3N or F4U-2N for good measure. This is what I'd like to see modeled in the game, more than CVs embarking specialist night-fighting air groups - one of the irritating things about GGPW was having to devote the entire complement of fighters from one or more CVs to night missions.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 194

- 4/11/2002 7:06:52 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CynicAl
[B]During the war it was mostly radar-equipped Hellcats, rather than Corsairs. Though the USN did start operating F4Us from CVs late in the war, the Corsair didn't become one of the Navy's principal types until postwar.

Also, most late-war VF squadrons operated a four-plane section (roughly, allowing for attrition) of radar-equipped fighters - mostly F6F-5Ns, with the occasional -3N or F4U-2N for good measure. This is what I'd like to see modeled in the game, more than CVs embarking specialist night-fighting air groups - one of the irritating things about GGPW was having to devote the entire complement of fighters from one or more CVs to night missions. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 195

- 4/12/2002 3:41:33 AM

Ranger-75

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

Victory in the Pacific. The only game where over 50% of the US fleet routinely gets sunk. I have it and War at Sea and the optional rules & units to combine the two. The blue and red counters were real nice.

I also like the rule where the IJN sub could be placed anywhere AFTER all the US moves were made. Guess where it always went, right to a US CV.

There were 3 or 4 US CV TFs at the start. Each one rolled to see where it "really was" the options were:
1 Central Pacific (no 'retreat option')
2-3 - the seas around Pearl Harbour,
4-5-6 turn 2 reinforcement at PH.

If a 2-3 was rolled, either side could withdraw.

Some Japanese "strategies" if one could assign such a term to VITP, were to concentrate on the Central Pacific, since any US TF there was NOT ALLOWED to retreat without at least one round of combat. Only enough carriers to wipe out the LBA and CAs would be assigned to the PH raid.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 196