Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

[J Bennett]

16 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Can you name two battalion sized tank engagements from the Pacific campaign? 

So a Pacific CM is undesirable because of a lack of armored combat?  I'm not sure I see your point.

[J Bennett]

9 hours ago, Ts4EVER said:

I think the engine is not necessarily well suited for jungle and bunker / tunnel combat. Not to mention the naval aspect.

   Yeah, you may have a point there.

[J Bennett]

3 hours ago, sburke said:

Well until you try it......   I have and it wasn’t nearly as interesting as I thought it might be.  You are limited to engagements that happen with some reasonably clear terrain. That pretty much eliminates a good portion of the pacific theater.  Throw in that extreme rarity of tanks, inability to properly simulate defenses, no close quarters combat etc and the financial piece starts really sounding questionable.  Unless you can convince BF that they should create it at a loss I don’t see getting any traction. 

  Yeah I guess so . Imagine a scenario based on the battle for Tarawa for example. What a torturous grind that would be.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Try 'Blue & Grey' for CM:BN.....The engine can mostly, sort of do it, but would anyone want to play it? 

BTW - I'm actually one of the advocates 'for' the idea but we have to be realistic about what we can create.

[Thewood1]

49 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Can you name two battalion sized tank engagements from the Pacific campaign? 

Why would I need to?  Can you only play combat mission if you have two battalions with of armor?  I didn't see that as a requirements.  I was talking about the ignorance of the terrain that battles were fought on.

But just in case...Here are great example of tank combat in the Pacific...

• The battles around Clark Airfield in 1945.  One I can think of is 6-7 Japanese medium tanks with infantry counterattacking a US Army infantry units in a town that had 2 M7s and 2 M18s.  There were dozens of the type of encounters all throughout 1944 and 1945.
• How about the US Army 192nd Tank Battlion that fought with Stuarts from Dec. 1941 through until Bataan fell?  Both larger Company-sized battles and small battles against Japanese infantry and armor units.
• The battles entering Manila with US M4s fighting Japanese AT guns and tanks.

How's that?  I even managed to include one near battalion-sized encounter.  And I haven't even touched on Burma and Marine battles, let alone US Army and the China theater.

Again, I completely understand BFC's position on a Pacific game.  This thread alone shows how little even WW2 wargamers know about the incredible variety of land combat situations in the Pacific.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Thewood1 said:

Not really an advocate for a Pacific version of CM...but why does everyone think the Pacific only had jungle warfare.  Battles were fought over a huge expanse of the Pacific and Asian regions.  Battles were fought in terrain not very different from parts of Europe.  Even on some "jungle" islands, large battles were fought over open spaces, towns, and airfields.   One of the largest urban battles of the war was fought in Manila.  The US forces would be almost the same as whats in CMFI.

Again, not advocating a Pacific version because of commercial concerns.  But for a bunch of people thinking they are students of World War 2, you seem to not know a lot about a huge part of the war.  Just look up some of the battles in the Philippines in 1942 and in 1944/45.  At CM's scale, there are some battles that would be great for CM to simulate, especially in 1942.  

No we aren’t ignoring it, but the reality is there are limits.  

Manila was one of the few if not only large urban engagements. 

Players like tanks... there were exceedingly few armor engagements especially if you don’t include the early Russia engagements.  

Over the course of 1940 to 1945 the vast majority of US and commonwealth engagements were jungle fighting or island assaults.  Yeah I am sure you can find some examples of other type battles, but if you apply the same logic to CMBN how well would it sell if you could only portray maybe 25% of combat?  Seriously a pacific game where even Guadalcanal is difficult to game? Forget Tarawa or Iwo.  Even the Burma campaign would be difficult. 

I have long advocated a CM Vietnam game but have since come to a similar conclusion. CM just wouldn’t be able to do it justice so why invest effort and time when there are other areas that could be done..... Fulda Gap!

 

[sburke]

6 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

Why would I need to?  Can you only play combat mission if you have two battalions with of armor?  I didn't see that as a requirements.  I was talking about the ignorance of the terrain that battles were fought on.

But just in case...Here are great example of tank combat in the Pacific...

• The battles around Clark Airfield in 1945.  One I can think of is 6-7 Japanese medium tanks with infantry counterattacking a US Army infantry units in a town that had 2 M7s and 2 M18s.  There were dozens of the type of encounters all throughout 1944 and 1945.
• How about the US Army 192nd Tank Battlion that fought with Stuarts from Dec. 1941 through until Bataan fell?  Both larger Company-sized battles and small battles against Japanese infantry and armor units.
• The battles entering Manila with US M4s fighting Japanese AT guns and tanks.

How's that?  I even managed to include one near battalion-sized encounter.  And I haven't even touched on Burma and Marine battles, let alone US Army and the China theater.

Again, I completely understand BFC's position on a Pacific game.  This thread alone shows how little even WW2 wargamers know about the incredible variety of land combat situations in the Pacific.

Think about it, that was all you could come up with in 4 years of combat, you are making the opposite point of what you intend.  That there are examples is not what anyone is denying, what they are saying is there are very very few in the scheme of things.  

[Glubokii Boy]

I guess if the entire pacific war could be included in ONE release (base game) it could be a good Selling Product...but...

that would most likely not be the case. The Pacific war would need to be divided into atleast one base game and a number of modules i guess...perhaps even more then one base game...

to cover the entire conflict...The early war, The late war, The US army, the US marines, The commonwealth forces...etc...The chinese...

Would each part of this conflict be intresting enough to sell enough copies ? Not so sure...

 

[J Bennett]

21 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

I guess if the entire pacific war could be included in ONE release (base game) it could be a good Selling Product...but...

that would most likely not be the case. The Pacific war would need to be divided into atleast one base game and a number of modules i guess...perhaps even more then one base game...

to cover the entire conflict...The early war, The late war, The US army, the US marines, The commonwealth forces...etc...The chinese...

Would each part of this conflict be intresting enough to sell enough copies ? Not so sure...

 

 Well since we are speculating I reckon it (Pacific CM) would start pretty late in the war. After all CMBN, CMRT and CMFB all start in 44 and CMFI starts in 43.  THe most appealing Pacific base game would also start in 44, probably late and might feature Phillippines, China Burma and maybe Okinawa. There might be enough   tanks to play with in these campaigns, but like you I am not so sure.

 

Edited January 8, 2018 by J Bennett

[Thewood1]

22 minutes ago, sburke said:

Think about it, that was all you could come up with in 4 years of combat, you are making the opposite point of what you intend.  That there are examples is not what anyone is denying, what they are saying is there are very very few in the scheme of things.  

Hold on...I came up with three examples in a span of five minutes.  How many examples would satisfy you?   So think about this...regardless of tank combat, my issue was with the perception that the Pacific war was all jungle or even majority jungle warfare.  I was answering Sgt Square because he asked a complete non-sequitur. 

Pacific can't be done because of jungle warfare...Isn't that what you said?  Are now trying to twist my original comments around to saying its all about armor?  Do I have to go through every battle.  As a student of WW2, I would think you be very interested to see how much non-jungle warfare happened. 

Just like the good fight was fought in early CM days about the uber-dominant Panthers and Tigers, some people just need to open their minds to the possibility that they never looked beyond some of the perpetuated myths about half of WW2.

[BornGinger]

Isn't it possible to reskin some German units and put Japanese uniforms on them? That would of course be German speaking Japanese soldiers, but probably also better than nothing. Someone who knows how to reskin units could maybe comment on that issue.

[JoMac]

Well, I for one would purchase a CMx2/3 Pacific Theater Game/Modules...Just, because it's WWII :-)

Edited January 8, 2018 by JoMc67

[ASL Veteran]

The jungle combat angle really is overdone by those who aren't interested in the theater.  As pointed out the terrain was varied and not at all restricted to jungle fighting.  There was also urban combat and there was some tank combat as well - especially in the retaking of Manila although tanks were used extensively in Burma too (mostly by the Japanese early on because the British didn't think tanks would be useful in that terrain.  I am particularly interested in the fighting leading up to the capture of Singapore.  There was plenty of fighting in China and of course there were the pre war battles with the Soviets.  However, there are a lot of limitations with the fortifications as they currently exist in CM that makes the theater less appealing.  No cave complexes for certain so that makes something like Iwo Jima difficult.  There are also a lot of limitations with night fighting and that was the preferred time the Japanese liked to attack.  Without a completely revamped game for night fighting (flares?  Non reciprocal LOS, muzzle flashes, HMGs firing on fixed lines, etc.)  a lot of the appeal is lost.

I was reading about Khalkin Gol and the Japanese conducted a night tank attack against the Soviet defenses during a lightning storm in heavy rain in what was virtually a desert.  Imagine driving your tanks around at night in a driving rain waiting for the next big lightning strike to light up the battlefield for a split second to spot the enemy.

Edited January 8, 2018 by ASL Veteran

[J Bennett]

22 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

Isn't it possible to reskin some German units and put Japanese uniforms on them? That would of course be German speaking Japanese soldiers, but probably also better than nothing. Someone who knows how to reskin units could maybe comment on that issue.

  I think that would kind of take away a lot of the "flavor" of having the Japanese in the game. e.g.  fanatical, Banzai, Code of Bushido, and all that. The Japanese have to look and act like Japanese with the very unique characteristics of the Japanese soldier in WW2.

[J Bennett]

5 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

The jungle combat angle really is overdone by those who aren't interested in the theater.  As pointed out the terrain was varied and not at all restricted to jungle fighting.  There was also urban combat and there was some tank combat as well - especially in the retaking of Manila although tanks were used extensively in Burma too (mostly by the Japanese early on because the British didn't think tanks would be useful in that terrain.  I am particularly interested in the fighting leading up to the capture of Singapore.  There was plenty of fighting in China and of course there were the pre war battles with the Soviets.  However, there are a lot of limitations with the fortifications as they currently exist in CM that makes the theater less appealing.  No cave complexes for certain so that makes something like Iwo Jima difficult.  There are also a lot of limitations with night fighting and that was the preferred time the Japanese liked to attack.  Without a completely revamped game for night fighting (flares?  Non reciprocal LOS, muzzle flashes, HMGs firing on fixed lines, etc.)  a lot of the appeal is lost.

Those are good points but this makes me wonder now about the next module for CMRT, As the Soviets closed in on Berlin there was considerable night fighting, Tanks had big search lights mounted on them in addition to the other night fighting elements you mentioned. Could we see in a Battle for Berlin module? On the other hand there was plenty of daylight fighting and I dont think a "revamped" game is coming until CM3 anyways. But I digress.

[sburke]

39 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

Hold on...I came up with three examples in a span of five minutes.  How many examples would satisfy you?   So think about this...regardless of tank combat, my issue was with the perception that the Pacific war was all jungle or even majority jungle warfare.  I was answering Sgt Square because he asked a complete non-sequitur. 

Pacific can't be done because of jungle warfare...Isn't that what you said?  Are now trying to twist my original comments around to saying its all about armor?  Do I have to go through every battle.  As a student of WW2, I would think you be very interested to see how much non-jungle warfare happened. 

Just like the good fight was fought in early CM days about the uber-dominant Panthers and Tigers, some people just need to open their minds to the possibility that they never looked beyond some of the perpetuated myths about half of WW2.

I think we are kind of talking past one another here.   I agree that Pacific fighting was not all about Jungle warfare.  I did not say it couldn't be done JUST because of Jungle warfare.  What I don't agree with is considering the scale of the theater it is remotely comparable to the types of non Jungle like combat you see in EU (maybe an obvious point as there aren't any jungle in Europe...  durh).  I realize maybe the jungle angle is a bit overdone, however the fact is the primary areas of combat for US and Commonwealth forces were New Guinea, the Philippines, Burma and the island hopping.  There is some basis of truth to characterizations of the pacific theater as jungle warfare.

The point is for the average CM purchaser, the types of combat and inability to duplicate certain content and combat techniques are going to limit the appeal.  Yes you can do Manila, maybe Singapore, Hong Kong even for urban combat.  China is a whole other aspect that while I might find interesting, the Japan/China conflict is not going to be a big seller.  For Marine units the non island hopping combat is going to be pretty negligible.  Not non existent, just what the average purchaser is going to expect.  Japanese tanks while cool looking sucked for most of the war.  The number of issues that CM does not handle well is daunting for the theater and that is problematic.

So I think bottom line is you and I agree that the theater is not likely a financial winner for BF.  Yes there is some variety of combat, but not to the extent needed for your average wargame purchase.  That financial hole is BF's problem.  It just isn't going to generate the return.

Still I'd love to see WW2 Marine units in CM..... somehow.....  I can still fondly remember opening up my ASL box and comparing the firepower of the Marines to standard US squads... if only the Marines had done the Normandy landing..... I have to admit to doing just that with ASL.

 

on a total tangent, does anyone remember the old Microsoft game Task Force 1942?  Nice combo of naval warfare, troop supply and resource management (basically struggling to keep your ships functional and able to support the 1st Marines).  Cool game for it's time.  Still available despite being 20+ years old.

[Thewood1]

Not much fighting actually happened in the jungle in the pacific.  Just like in Europe, armies didn't fight much where they couldn't move or survive.  There are exceptions to that, but the majority of the actual fighting took place in open areas, around junctions, in towns, and in cities.  All places that CM can represent well.  Exceptions were a few islands in the Solomon Is., parts of New Guinea, etc.  Even where the Japanese got their fame for "jungle" fight was more about moving through the jungle to flank than actually fighting in the jungle.  The fighting mostly happened for clearings, roads, and towns.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

My question wasn't a complete non-sequitur, it was simply a way of asking how much appeal would this title hold for the armour fanatics that make up a big part of CM's fanbase.....The answer is probably very little unless they are happy to fight at the platoon (& occasionally company) level and then usually not against other tanks.  As I said before I'm 'for' the concept but I'm not convinced it would be viable for BFC, certainly not at the expense of something like Kursk. 

There's also this:

18 hours ago, Combatintman said:

And Steve has repeatedly said that Battlefront ain't doing it.

He really has and as far as I can tell.....He means it. 

So we're looking at mods at best.....Until @LongLeftFlank (who has actually already made such a mod) has had a say here, I reckon we should all maybe just chill a bit?

Edited January 9, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Vergeltungswaffe]

13 hours ago, sburke said:

Actually I don’t think the issue is their interest level but more a question of the financial viability.

I don't think it would be a big seller, but I just remember Steve making the statement that they create games based on what they like, so I feel like the Pacific just never made it up the list.

[Ales Dvorak]

17 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

Was there not at least a „Pacific Theatre“ mod? I vaguely remember something the like.

http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=2307

[Glubokii Boy]

10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 I reckon we should all maybe just chill a bit?

Maybe this is the best option when it comes to 'wish-listings' with regards to new theatres...

Maybe BFC already have to many game-famelies going at the same time right now. The waiting time to get new content for a specific family is quite long right now.

Perhaps the best thing would be...No new Theatres for a while...Let BFC finish of some of the older famelies first...

CMBN is pretty much finished as far as basegames/modules goes (i guess). CMFI have only one module left to go...and that to will be finished...Hopefully CMFB will only need one module (to VE-day, commonwealth) to be pretty finished...Mayby two modules (hopefully one !).

That only leaves future battlepacks for those titles...leaving BFC to concentrate on CMRT (several basegames and modules) and also perhap additional content to CMSFII andf CMBS...

With a few of the old famelies ticked off...Maybe then it would be a good idea to wish for additional ones...

 

[Thewood1]

12 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

Perhaps the best thing would be...No new Theatres for a while...Let BFC finish of some of the older famelies first...

 

This I wholeheartedly agree with.  I have always been concerned that with the number of games out right now, combined with the pace of development, some would end up being orphaned.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

A moderns game in the area might have more traction than WW2 though. Korea. India v China and/or Pakistan (not strictly Pacific ). Taiwan

[grunt_GI]

15 hours ago, sburke said:

I have long advocated a CM Vietnam game but have since come to a similar conclusion. CM just wouldn’t be able to do it justice so why invest effort and time when there are other areas that could be done..... Fulda Gap!

 

Yea, I saw that pitch for CM:Fulda Gap...damn, I'd buy that...you could make a whole campaign based off of Team Yankee... 

[A Canadian Cat]

Just stopping by to say: If BFC were to make a pacific game I would buy it.