Happycat

Yes, like SSI's Pacific War, which allowed (albeit slowly) upgrades of port and airbases by engineers.

Yes! Of course, the trick is for the Allies to survive until that happy day.

Nice to meet a fellow historical reality fan NOTE TO BILL101---a further thought, which I should have tied in with the ahistorical concentration of air power in China. The Japanese simply did not have the ability (logistically) to do this. Plus, the IJN would have only grudgingly, and for the briefest of times, allowed their tactical air units to support the actions of their Army rivals. Inter-service cooperation was not a hallmark of Imperial Japan. As well, the Japanese did not have the oil and other resources to allow the Kido Butai to bounce around the Pacific the way it does in the game. I'm guessing here, but this is probably one of the things AZGungHo is talking about too. You probably really have two markets here---one which is looking for a good game, winnable by either player, with little in the way of historical restrictions imposed from above. The other, looking for a good game, winnable by either player, with a historical "feel" to it, that imposes the real world restrictions faced by each side, but with enough scope to allow players to explore alternate strategies (alternate, that is, but nevertheless still subject to the real constraints faced by the sides, such as a lack of oil for the IJN).

Apparently a lot, and it's easy. Turn one, sink the Prince of Wales, damage the DD in port if you can, then send an amphib into the fort hex south of Singapore. Move that unit one hex west to the other fort hex, and then let it attack. Follow up with another amphib onto the now open fort hex south of Singapore, and attack again. Odds are this will destroy the defender in Singapore. Then, land an army unit in the hex north of Singapore, advance it into Singapore, bye bye Malaya. Gotta tell you, this may be effective, but it's unrealistic as can be. It's worse than that, because on subsequent turns, my opponent followed up with heavy attacks in China, and it is clear to me that almost all of his land based air (including naval tac) is in China. He killed the Chinese HQ near Changsha with airpower alone, again something which is very unrealistic imo. I am now adjusting my play style to meet this threat, but I don't really think there is much I can do. My opponent is also able to do things like run BB's up to the shoreline of Midway. My guess is that he was hoping to find my aircraft there and pound them to pieces. But, I had moved the air in anticipation of such a move. I am going to play the game out with him, because I am really curious to see where this goes. As things unfold, I will post some of my observations and then you and Hubert can decide whether this is the game that you intended to create. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great game, and it will be on my hard drive for a very long time. But I will probably have to either mod it to a more "historical" feel, or consider house rules. That will work for me, and one or two of my old friends from the "cardboard days" who I play games like SCPT with. But, unless I'm missing something, I would guess that implementing a mod or house rules will really cut down on my pool of potential opponents.

Until encountering this strategy recently, it never occurred to me to land troops on the fortress hexes, as I thought the hexes had an intrinsic defense. Apparently not. When I play as Japan, I can take Malay out in three turns, which is not too shabby, and close to the historical reality. I do it by utilizing the historical strategy of cutting the peninsula off at Khota Bharu, and then moving south. Plastering the Singapore garrison with air is essential. Plus, it is important to not let the unit in Kuala Lumpur escape, if it winds up south of the river next to Singapore, then the conquest becomes more time consuming. As to your second point, I don't believe my opponent restarted. Certainly the file said "zero reloads". In any event, when I tested it myself, I got decent results on the first try. I lost a step to defensive fire from the DD in Singapore, and 2 steps on the fortress hex. That is quite bearable. But, this comes down to what people like in a war game. My sense is that most people don't mind whether it deviates from historical reality, so long as it provides a balanced contest that is fun. I, being an old fart, and a veteran of the old cardboad counter games like AH's Third Reich, World in Flames, Fire in the East, etc etc like my historical reality. Of course, the cardboard games imposed the reality with rules. With a computer game, while you can do that, I don't really like having to do that. It says to me that the game needs tweaking instead.

Two things have come up in a pbem I'm involved in: 1. Fortress hexes at Singapore. They're very pretty, but highly ineffective. I gather that they have no intrinsic defense value, unless a unit is parked on top of one? My opponent landed SNLF's on the fortress hexes, and of course you can predict what happened to Singapore. Since I hate playing games with house rules, if it can be avoided, I would be interested to hear people's opinions about whether the game should start with a couple of garrisons sitting on those hexes. 2. Amphibious landings are very bloody. I wonder if it's TOO bloody? 50% losses for an SNLF landing on Makin Island, for example, seems harsh. Comments? (Interestingly, the only losses the SNLF's took landing on the Singapore fort hexes was due to the DD parked in harbour, otherwise it would have been a cakewalk.)

As a lukewarm Jays fan, I shall abstain from comment. Which is probably wise.

Thank you.

Interesting comments, thanks everyone for sharing your opinions.

Does your comment pertain more to pbem or games vs AI? Or perhaps both? What specifically do you see as the major benefits for either side of playing with historical limits? I can speculate as to a couple, but nothin' better than hearing it from the horse's mouth, right?

Well said!

While I don't find myself in agreement with much else said in xwormwood's argument in support of the two missing members, I do think that I agree with his comment about the severity of the ban. Some forums go for a short ban the first time, a longer ban for a second offense, and if it's three strikes? Why, then you're out, of course. Some simple rules of conduct perhaps need to be posted. Or, if they are posted, then posted somewhere that they can be found, 'cuz I haven't seen any. Now I am banning myself for the rest of the day, because I'm off-topic. LOL

I'm sorry, you kind of make the entire point right here---I, and no doubt many others, do not come to forums like this to be abused and ridiculed by people who take some sort of pathological delight in doing so. While I couldn't care less whether or not they are banned, I certainly welcome a respite, however it comes, from that sort of nonsense. As a new member to this forum, I should point out that I am an OLD member of several other forums, and members manage to debate and argue endlessly, without being disrespectful or rude. It's easy to sit behind the anonymity of a forum handle, and spew out insults and inanities. I try to conduct myself on forums as if I was sitting across a table from my "listeners". To do otherwise is not respectful, productive, or brave.

Maybe I'm losing something because of the semantics of "outer islands". I agree that Tarawa and Makin, to name a couple, were meaningless. But some of the other islands allowed the projection of land based air over areas that were hitherto the domain of Japanese land-based air only. Although the carrier task forces certainly did not need a land-based air umbrella, and in fact coordinating such a thing was exceedingly difficult, it certainly still had military value. Air bases in the Solomon chain allowed land based bombing of New Britain (Rabaul) and this tactic was repeated from time-to-time as the Americans moved closer to Japan. Land-based bombers in that era carried a better ordinance load than the carrier planes could, and thus achieved better results (when they actually hit the target, of course). Everything I have ever read on the Pacific theatre suggests to me that the island hopping strategy was a sound one, although not without flaws (the Philippines, for example, could have been bypassed, and it was only to fulfil MacArthur's bombastic promise that it was not). In "Shattered Sword" (an amazingly good analysis of the Battle of Midway), the authors make the point, early in their book, that in the earlier stages of the war, it was not feasible for any carrier force to stand off of an objective, and pound it into submission. Only land based air could pack the punch, and this, in some measure, explains why Japan wanted Midway. Also, no carrier force, least of all the Kido Butai, could operate in the face of land-based air. The authors state that it was not until later in the war that the American carrier task forces, with their huge numbers and impressive logistical support, showed how it could be done. While I agree that this game does not make taking the outer islands very important, that does not reflect history, imo. It reflects a flaw in an otherwise very good game.

Being a member of other forums besides this one, I wonder at the usage of the term "Jap". I have never encountered another player who is Japanese, but that is not to say that they don't exist. Would such a person enjoy being called a "Jap", I wonder. A couple of the forums I belong to have heavy participation by Europeans, and I don't think I can recall ever seeing a reference to "Krauts". Having some German friends, I know that they are not overjoyed if someone uses such a term. Sixty plus years after the end of WW2, former enemies are now friends, and the world is a far different place. I was born in 1949, and during my childhood, remember hearing my father and his friends speak (not often) of their war experiences. Interestingly, they showed more respect for their former enemies back in the 1950's than some of us here, on this forum, do today. I also wonder if our tolerance for a simple little thing like "Jap" is what leads to the other disrespectful things that can occur on forums such as this. Anyway, I am just putting this out there, so to speak. It would be interesting to know what other members think about this.

Interestingly, one of the people who was banned (JJR) made a couple of very good points earlier in this thread. Had they not been wrapped up in a couple of layers of insults and condescension, I would have enjoyed carrying on the discussion with him. I doubt that any of us expect to have all of our opinions agreed with, and I am quite capable of expressing an opinion that can turn out to be, well...not fully thought out. But I also doubt that any of us enjoy being called stupid or dumb by others, especially some faceless person named after one of the most dubious movie "heroes" in cinematic history. To get back to the points that he made: it is indeed true that SCPT does not encourage an "outer island" strategy, either for the Japanese, or the Americans. This can be countered by employing house rules, but that tends to be a turn-off for many. So I still think that a way to make the islands "attractive" needs to be found within the game mechanism. That was my original reason for joining into this discussion, and I hope that people keep coming forward with their ideas.

I also agree with Blashy, and scottsmm. Delayed production is the hallmark of any great wargame, weather cardboard or electronic. Instant gratification is nice, but not realistic imo.

The last six posts are off-topic. There is this thing we have now; it's called email. Why don't you guys try that to communicate about re-starting your game, rather than boosting your post count with stuff that I am sure the rest of us don't need or want to read. (and no, JJR, I am not the "voice of the people" as you earlier accused me of being---I am just tired of reading your pointless posts. Of the 6831 posts you have made, I wager that perhaps 31 of them might contain a point that anyone cares about. It would be really nice if the Battlefront people would moderate these forums in some truly meaningful way.

I am curious about what the consensus is among players of SCPT regarding "soft build limits". On or off? My own opinion tends towards having it enabled, because the additional units can make it more interesting, without disturbing the game balance. The reason I think that the game balance is unaffected is because the stronger economies of the Allies will ensure that they can always outbuild Japan, regardless. What do you think, however?

I'm looking for an opponent who would like to try a mod. It's not very radical; it adds two more SNLF's at the start of Operation Z. They are stationed in Japan, and the idea behind them is to give the Japanese a little more amphibious muscle in the first few months of the campaign. I find that in the vanilla game, it's hard to stick to the historical timetable as Japan. The only other alteration to the game is the addition of twelve corps in the force pool. They have been downgraded severely, and cannot be repaired. So they are in effect divisions, perhaps even only brigades, and suitable only as garrisons. I don't have any preference as to which side I play. If you want to download the mod and take a look, the links to the files on Rapidshare appear below. If interested in a game, email me at happycats@rogers.com http://rapidshare.com/files/190951640/_Modified_Japanese_1941_Operation_Z.zip http://rapidshare.com/files/190951642/Modified_Japanese_1941_Operation_Z.cgn

I think they have a 25% chance of escape, which increases as research leads to upgrades. Until you get better capabilities, interdiction of convoy routes is not necessarily something that will work to the American advantage. For 1942, the subs best role is perhaps something like picket duty, to give you early warning of advances by the Kido Butai into areas where you'd rather not see them. I also like using them in the first half of 1942 to block straits such as the one between Java and Sumatra, and Java and Borneo. Nothing worse, for a Japanese carrier-driver in a hurry, than running into an American pig boat. I'm sure there are other uses for unimproved subs early in the war besides my suggestion. In any event, I don't think I would agree that they are a waste of resources.

Yes you are right, and I ask once again, does Battlefront use a moderator for its forums? This thread is definitely begging to be flushed away.

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz

I don't really have a problem with the air relocation system. It's abstract as hell, but for a game of this scale it works, imo. But I do agree with bowenw that the supply and upgrade issues. If I understand Timskorn's advice, lowering ports and towns to "zero" would render the port incapable of repairing or upgrading. Could we just lower the port only, I wonder? Then the town still has some value, and it can support an air unit and/or land units nearby. Looking at this from the other angle, if it's left as is, that's ok too. I can certainly see both points of view, and while it might be nice to force the US Navy to send its damaged CV's all the way back to San Francisco for full repair, perhaps the time scale in the game would make that approach non-workable. So as an alternative approach, for pbem games, perhaps players could adopt a house rule for victory conditions, making each island with a port worth a certain number of victory points, and when one is captured, the points pertaining to the island become a "plus" for the new occupying power, and a "minus" for the previous owner. This then ensures that some attention will be paid to the outer islands. For my own part, I like capturing the islands as the Japanese player anyway, and sticking air units into key locations. The recon is very valuable. I like to find American CV's by reconnaissance, not by having bushels of bombs and torpedoes dropping on my head

I can't say that I have done the math, as such. But, I have played a hotseat game solo up to 1943 so far, and I simply don't have the money to invest in industrial technology, so that in itself may be your answer. It is all the Japanese can do just to replace/repair losses, upgrade units and build a few new ones. Add to this the exorbitant cost of launching amphibious attacks in the early game, and I think this all renders the question of investing somewhat moot. Probably Japan's best investment is to upgrade its air and army tech, when and as possible, and grab more Chinese production centers.