xwormwood

Thank you, Bill101. Maybe bombers should get the option "supply", using one or better all of their strike points to grant one unit in range a temporary "5" supply? If this supplied unit would move right after the supply run of the bomber it could be enabled to move again (or to do whatever a supply strength of "5" enables to). Maybe in a patch one day in the far far future?

Hi. I stumbled into a trap In the Plan Z scenario when i moved my Pearl Harbor plane one island north. Here it ended with supply:0 and 0 chance of return. I can't even disband this unit. I do of course understand the concept of supply or supplylines, but still: i think this should be solved somehow. First idea: a warning, that the selected tile has no supply ("do you really want to lose this unit permanently?"). Second idea: invent an option to supply a stranded unit (pay for it, send some ships, use bombers) Third idea: alllow disbanding Forth idea: change map, so that no unit may be placed here Any ideas what i could do to get the planes back to Pearl Harbor? :confused:

I got my game today, which i won thanks to the StratCom Design Challenge. Thank you all at battlefront.com for this beautiful, excellent price! I played my first 20 minutes, and it is just great! It looks beautiful, it has a very nice soundtrack, it is fun, it is sooooo unbelievable fresh: THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! Hubert, this is a unique masterpiece!I can't await the weekend, or better the christmas holidays. Oh joy! If anyone still doubting to get this game: stop doubting, start purchasing: you won't be dissapointed. I would have bought it if i hadn't had the luck to win a free copy. Which brings me right back to: OH JOY! THANKS! And WOW, what a game!!!

Excellent!

8125, anf thanks for the contest!

So bring this beauty to the waiting audience, pleace!

But we all do agree with John DiFool the 2nd that it would be a VERY NICE option to let naval units get something out of AA research, don't we? Naval Tech is nice, but it is a somewhat whishy-washy tech as well, isn't it? We do have an AA tech, but ships don't use it? Even though there were AA-CLs and the described advances in Naval AA equipment and installations. In my opinion we need more or other techs in a PTO game than in an ETO game. The whole game plays much more at sea, so we should get more naval techs to research. Just my thoughts, of course.

... of outproducing the Allies, yes. But they did of course have a chance for a different outcome of this war. And that is why we play Games like SC.

I think that "the US surrendering to Japan" shouldn't be possible in the game. In my eyes this result of the conflict would be absolutly unthinkable, and quite right impossible. Let us AI-players conquer every free tile (sigh) of the US, yes of course, but please have mercy, spare us a "the USA surenders" message. PLEASE! "The US agree to start peace talks", "the US accept Japan domination in South East Asia", i don't care, let these messages come, but please not "the the USA surrenders" message. It is highly unlikly that Germany with all its european vassals would have ever been able to force the US to its knees (maybe in 1750), but how much more unlikely would it have been for Japan? And maybe you COULD surrender to an european country, but to an asiatic country in 1945? I can imagine a world where people with german, french or english roots might surrender to the land of their forefathers, but not to a country which has such a complete differnt culture. These invaders would always stay "the barbarians" or the "the monsters". Come on, give us something better. i know you can do it, you have the brain power to create something more advanced than this old and absurd "the USA surrenders". Go wild, go creative. We will love you for this, i promise!

Total victory like invading the USA shouldn't be a victory condition for Japan. Much more it should be "achieve some major victories in Asia while doing an certain amount of damage to the US (while kicking the **** out of ANZAC, the UK, France and China). This much success should enable Japan (after all) to achive some kind of peace talks with the US where the USA would / could grant Japan certain teritorial gains and trade rights in exchange for peace in which the US boys to could stay at home or return home. Maybe there should be a score table for the Japanese player (?). Every great victory adds some points. After X points had been reached while the USA lost Y amount of troops and ships than Japan should be able to initate peace talks (we retreat from Hawaii, Midway, wake and Australie while we keep Chinese coastlines and lead an asiatic union (trade and defence) with members Burma, Philippines, Indonesia etc. Japan would have never been able to force an unconditinal surrender from the US. It would always be only the question how much blood the US would be willing to sacrifice; as much blood as needed for a peace or even more blood for an unconditinal surrender. I am talking about a what if scenario, not history as it happend.

When it comes to invading the US you should consider that invading alone would create the chance for the invader to do maximum damage. What i mean is the following: think of 9/11. Let our japanese invaders bomb skyscrapers for two weeks instead of crashing two (large) planes into one building. I think you get the picture. Than let them destroy or blockade some of the largest US ports while holding Hawaii. This should gain the japs some time to do havoc on the british in burma / india or against the ANZAC. Maybe even to give them enough breath to do china. Of course Japan would have always lost an invasion against the US. I think the A-Bomb argument is a point against Japan, but on the other hand the US needed until summer of 1945 to get 3 bombs, so Nippon and Germany had some time to settle the one or the other thing until than. Maybe it would have been possible to drive the UK out of the war (even though i don't think that food shortage alone would have brought the UK to its knees in 1942. Even Imperial germany was able to fight 4 years of WW1 with little and even less food).

Absolutly correct. And you should be able to install anti-air and garrisson in evey hex as well, plant minefields on land and sea hexes .

Sorry, i couldn't resist. If we can believe the dozens of pictures we will get tiles (again), which on the other hand make sense considering the fact that Pacific Theater is a part of the SC2-family, running with the modified SC2-tile-engine. Sorry for my snippy remark, but when the pictures, which you can see IF you want to, show only tiles and not a single sign of a hex, and if you have monitored the partly harsh fights between the hexes (yeah!) and tiles (booh!) fractions here, you would probably presume just like me that your thread was started by some kind of a troll (which you are obviously not).

If you are curious, than just take a look at the pictures, Mr. Brain. http://www.battlefront.com/images/stories/SC2/Pacific/iwojima.jpg :cool: It sounds more as if you want to start a new war between the hex-alliance and the tile-axis.

Absolutly correct! I hope that Hubert is on exactly this road toward a great PTO game. And i would rather wait one more year than to see and play a well ment game suffering from the wrong game mechanisms. Now would be the right time to leave the old ways and to rework, invent, surprise, overhaul.

Maybe the Pacific Theater is the right point to say good bye to bomber, fighter and TacAir units and get used to airfleets. Give every airfleet unit 3, or better 4 different combat points. One for fighterS, one for strat. bombing, one for ground support and one for naval warfare. In russia i wouldn't build up naval warfare ability, and in the pacific i would in 4 from 5 cases ignore strategic bombing abilities. Give Carriers high naval and medium ground support ability (= combat strength points), and very low strat.bombing and low fighter points. If carriers fight against cariiers, those low fighter strenght points would be equaly low on both sides, but when carriers attack a well guarded land zone (guarded from a stong air fleet) they should pay heavily. To give carriers a chance against air fleets i suggest that we introduce joined attacks into the game system (let on, two, three or even more carriers or unsits attack one target together, everyone who played Clash of Steels knows the concept). So: just open the system so that each air fleet can be build just the way it is needed. Strenght points could be limited, or at least adjusted through naval tech (research). Carriers would of course have to be limited in their abilities, because it is a difference if i have 90 planes (carrier) or 1000 planes (air fleeght). Or at least it should be a difference when both start to fight against each other. Just my 2 cent.

Does anyone know if this movie has already been released on DVD? :confused: And one more addition: In Harm's Way: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059309/

Some additional flicks: To End All Wars: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243609/ Away All Boats!: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048971/ Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050490/ Hell In The Pacific: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063056/ The Last U-Boat: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100012/ The Caine Mutinity: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046816/

Those music clips get in no time very annoying, at least this is my experience with this kind of feature. Better would be a solution as in PACIFIC GENERAL, where they played continously pretty cool songs (even though they were to few). If there should be played songs or clips the way you suggest it, than there should be at least 5 or better 10 different ones per unit / occasion.

Thank you, and i obviously agree. Glad that someone at last picked up the point i tried to make.

In my opinion everything stands and falls with the way amphib warfare is simulated. Considering this, i would guess that the game mechanics from PDE wouldn't be the best solution to simulate the PTO warfare. On the other hand: what do I know, and i think that Hubert did worked on the game mechanics, at least carriers got quite an improvement. Maybe land units should get the same two different strenght point systems. One for traditional land war, and a second for amphib operations. Amphib tech could lower the cost for amphib transport and strengthen the amphib combat points of a unit. After landing on the beach, the land unit could than fight as long with the second strength point system as it can't draw a line of supply towards a friendly harbor with strength X. To change back to the regular strength point system the player could be forced to pay an upgrade, which could represent the time for refitting and resupply.

Great Hubert, thank you! And all thanks to Matthew. Keep up the good work! :)

Just wanted to say "thank you" to the scenario creators, thanks for this surprising fresh scenario. It was much fun to discover so much new and unexpected in this "old" game. I hadn't played this senario until last week, and now i got completly sucked into this interesting map and all those excellent ideas! Again, thanks, folks! :) A little suggestion: maybe the german capital should be renamed Germania instead of Berlin. I wish that there were more scenarrios like this gem. New borders, new historical background, new neutrals, new pacts, new everything. WELL DONE!!!

I like this new carrier concept, and i hope that we will see something similar in WaW and PDE somewhere in the future. And after ths a way to paste all games together, yes, that would be nice... But right now i am happy that Hubert dared a PTO-game.

Seems to be a cheesy strategy.