Island hopping?

[Jeff Heidman]

Tom,

You stated that in your opinion the tactical combat seen in the Pacific was not conducive to being portrayed in CM. The reason being that at the tactical level the battles would largely be one-sided, especially as they relate to the island-hopping of the US Forces across the Pacific.

You may have a PhD in the Pacific theatre, but it still doesn't mean that your argument holds any water. I can cite numerous examples of engagements that were tactically challenging for both sides. Indeed, I did so, and you chose to not address those examples, and instead get offended. That is your choice, but it hardly advances the discussion.

CM is an attempt to simulate WW2 warfare at the tactical level. It is eminently suited to do so in ANY theatre of WW2 land combat. An invasion from the sea (whether at Normandy or Guadacanal) is not an example of combat in a theatre, it is an example of a specific type of engagement. perhaps CM cannot simulate that well (it doesn't at the moment), but that is irrelevant.

First of all, the island hopping campaign is only one facet of the Japanese-Allied war. There were plenty of other battles that CM can and would portray.

Secondly, even within the island-hopping campaign there are many examples of where the sides, at the tactical level were evenly matched. Guadacanal would be a gold-mine of potential conflicts. Iwo Jima was a hell-hole of small, high intensity combat, and it was not just a bunch of Marines routinely burning out some Japanese defenders. Okinawa saw very well supplied Japanese defenders, supported by extensive artillery, fighting a fluid battle against the Army and Marine invaders. Sure, in hindsight, the outcome was never in doubt, but then, the outcome of the Normandy campaign was never in doubt either.

What percentage of actual conflicts does the typical CMBO scenario represent? 1%, 3%, 5%? In almost every actual fight in Europe after June 6, 1944, the Germans were totally outclassed. They had no external support. They did not have artillery, or air support, or even armor support. CM gives a false impression of the reality, because those who play the game choose to re-fight the "interesting" battles. Why would it be any different for a Pacific War version?

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

The funny thing about this entire debate is that it is precisely the same debate that occurred on the ASL Mailing List prior to the release of Gung Ho! and the other pacific Theatre modules for Advanced Squad Leader.

A large number of ETO-lovers saying that the Pacific theatre would be uninteresting, no tactical diversity, etc., etc. Of course, once the modules were released they were widely acclaimed as an excellent addition to the ASL game.

If you like tough infantry fights in dense terrain, you cannot beat fighting in the PTO. If you are more inclined to the armor slugfests, then you are going to like ETO. Different drummers and all that...

Jeff Heidman

[Robert Mayer]

Precisely. I'd love to see a Pacific CM, it's just not at the top of my preference list. I agree you could have some crackerjack infantry fights, where the importance of machine guns and mortars and flame throwers and the like, and combat engineers, would come into their own, and where the presence of a single tank might have a dramatic effect on things.

That being said, I still kinda like other theaters. But as Jeff said, different strokes. Hell, I'd like to see a modern CM or at least a Korean War version, though I confess I don't know if a modern version would be all that feasible with the current engine.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Secondly, even within the island-hopping campaign there are many examples of where the sides, at the tactical level were evenly matched. Guadacanal would be a gold-mine of potential conflicts. Iwo Jima was a hell-hole of small, high intensity combat, and it was not just a bunch of Marines routinely burning out some Japanese defenders. Okinawa saw very well supplied Japanese defenders, supported by extensive artillery, fighting a fluid battle against the Army and Marine invaders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I for one am willing to concede this point. in addition to the campaigns you mention there are Burma, China, Saipan/Tinian/Guam, New Guinea (how many people here know how much fighting took place there; from high, rugged mountains to coastal jungle?), New Georgia, Bougainville, the Philippines (twice!), etc. Each of these (especially Burma and China) entailed lots of ground combat.

The fly in the ointment is that BTS has stated that they are not interested. Perhaps they can be persuaded otherwise, but it is going to take 4-5 years minimum to complete the four games already projected, so it is a trifle early to begin lobbying for the PTO just yet.

Michael

[Jumbo]

CM Pacific would be nice. I'd prefer that it came after the planned releases. It is the Russian Front that I'm waiting for.

Jumbo

[Major Tom]

I do concede that not every battle will be just the US attacking Japanese pillboxes, or that they will perpetually have overwhelming odds. Yet, as was noted, it will mostly be an infantry vs. infantry battle, with only one side posessing AFV's if at all. Sure, not every battle in Europe was fought with AFV's, but, combined force battles occurred with a lot more frequency than in the Pacific. Personally, I believe that other theatres of war (Korea, Arab-Isreali, etc.) would be better modeled by CM than the Pacific War. However, that is just my opinion.