Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Are there any plans to develop a Combat Mission game covering the Pacific theater? It has not been covered much by the gaming community but it was a true war of annihilation. On a tactical level, WWII produced the two finest combined-arms shock troops ever, the Waffen SS and the United States Marine Corps. A Pacific theater edition would add a different dimension to the game and also cover the US Army, the Australian Army, the British, as well as the Japanese.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the word. That is too bad. The Pacific theater always was a second priorty to the European theater despite the very tough fight. It would be a more infantry oriented game but it would provide a different taste of tactical combat, especially with the terrain, Japanese tactics such as banzia charges, and the savagery of the fighting. I think it would be a great game, and it would add a higher level of intensity as you watch your men advance down a jungle road..to literally bump into a camoflagued bunker..or try to defend an airfield at night..with the Japanese ready to charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

given that CMBO has one squad type for the U.S. army (not counting airborne) but 5 types of shermans, I think it is pretty clear that the devs are more interested in the vehicles then the infantry. And the Pacific war was almost entirely infantry.

but with mods for uniforms, and the appropriate fanatic level you could make something like the Japanese.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by dugfromthearth:

given that CMBO has one squad type for the U.S. army (not counting airborne) but 5 types of shermans, I think it is pretty clear that the devs are more interested in the vehicles then the infantry.

Err...how many squad types did the US Army actually have in 1944-45 NW Europe, incidentally?

The Canadians and British had...err...exactly one type, the rifle section, with 1 Sten, 1 Bren and 8 Enfields. That is what came in CMBO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the discussion. Maybe there is some interest after all. But simply putting US Marine uniforms on US Army squads wont be the same. The Marine Corps was experimenting with the fireteam concept at the beginning of the war and by around 1944 had adopted a rifle squad structure of three, four-man fireteams, each fireteam with a BAR. This 13 (3 fireteams and a squad leader)man squad still exits today and eventually the US Army officially (I think after Korea) adopted the fireteam concept as well (the Army's current 9 man squad has two four-man fireteams).

Additionally the Japanese Imperial Army was very different from the Germans. I guess alot of work would have to go into the game mechanics. Still the thought of landing a battalion under the supporting fire of point blank 16"naval gun bombardment and close air support(how 'bout some F4U Corsairs), to immediately going into assaulting expertly camoflagued, interlocking, mutual supporting positions with flamthrowers, bangalore torpedoes, and satchel charges would be a practically shocking game, especially by Western Front standards. Add the light infantry fighting in Burma and other places and you have an entirely new Combat Mission game like no other.

Vehicles were also used in the Pacific, especially landing craft and light tanks. The US Army even conducted a BN sized tank attack during the battle of Okinawa, unsupported by infantry, only to see the BN defeated by Japanese suicide teams with explosive charges who charged the tanks from concealed positions. Flame tanks provided crucial fire support. There are plenty of vehicles to game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Maj West; I wasn't a huge fan of the CMBO and CMBB "conversions" though it was neat to see Japanese uniforms and voice files - MikeT did a lot of work on Frontovik, the Forgotten Bastards and the early war French conversions - but in the end, the argument all along has been that graphics don't make CM, the meat of the game is in the modelling of the men and weapons.

The Japanese required special morale considerations in ASL, I have to believe that in CM they would also. I also have to believe that the work involved would probably not yield much fun.

Those clamouring for the Pacific strike me as being in the same category as those crying out for Omaha Beach scenarios. Err...what, exactly, is the point? Watch Sands of Iwo Jima (or alternately Saving Private Ryan in the latter example) - you ought to have about as much control over events watching those movies as you would playing a tactical simulation of those same events. ;)

[ November 25, 2003, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure that when the new squad structure was officially adopted in 44 that the assistant squad leader position went away. I know that there is not an official assistant squad leader in the current T/O, which has not changed since WWII. The senior fireteam leader acts as an assistant squad leader when required.

The Marine Corps experimented with an 11 man squad in the 80's, with a squad leader and two 5-man fireteam's, but the WWII era T/O proved to offer the best in firepower and flexibility. Giving corporals (and senior lance corporals) the authority and responsiblity of leading a fireteam also makes them produce results far beyond them simply being a senior member of a squad or section. It is also more efficient for a sergeant to supervise the actions of three fireteam leaders than to try and keep tabs on 10 or more individuals. With fireteams, a squad can conduct not only fire and movement (assaulting forward toward on objective, providing its own suppression as it moves) but allows fire and maneuver on the squad level. A squad leader can direct one fireteam to establish a base of fire while the other two maneuver to a more advantageous position or to the objective. It works well. I guess this level of initiative by squads would be hard to model, but it could be simulated by the squads being a little more efficient, in addition to the added firepower of 3 BAR's per squad.

At any rate, the battles in the Pacific not only entailed amphib assaults, but alot of ground fighting. A Pacific game would not just be storming beaches. Guadalcanal alone was a tremendous campaign (could you imagine being landed on an island..then seeing the Navy just take off to fight the Japanese fleet) and involved ground maneuver. The unique aspects of a Pacific game would make it very interesting, challenging, and entertaining to play. The Pacific would be a great addition to CM and it needs to be made!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Err...how many squad types did the US Army actually have in 1944-45 NW Europe, incidentally?

The Canadians and British had...err...exactly one type, the rifle section, with 1 Sten, 1 Bren and 8 Enfields. That is what came in CMBO."

Really? Absolutely?

Every infantry squad in those two years was equipped exactly like that, no exceptions?

Rangers, recon, etc?

It is possible I suppose but would be shocking to me to discover that there wasn't a squad somewhere that was different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"those clamouring for the Pacific strike me as being in the same category as those crying out for Omaha Beach scenarios. Err...what, exactly, is the point? Watch Sands of Iwo Jima (or alternately Saving Private Ryan in the latter example) - you ought to have about as much control over events watching those movies as you would playing a tactical simulation of those same events. "

Michael I'm sure your well-versed enough in WW2 history to understand that this is an ignorant statement. It's like somebody saying after all what's the big deal about playing CMBB since won't it get boring fighting the same t34 vs Tiger tank battle over and over again? Just tanks hammering each other on an open steppe, where's the skill and control in that?

Fighting in the Pacific theater (to include CBI)spanned many different terrains and climates and covered many different engagement types. Surely you understand that beach assaults were just one type of battle seen there?

But I suppose bloody massacres on the streets of Stalingrad require somewhat greater understanding and skill than wiping out pillboxes on D-day in Tarawa?

There are tactical challenges and opportunities to make a difference good or bad in any engagement. Beach assault or winter ski attack or roiling desert tank battle included.

Los

p.s. sorry in advance if I come off antagonistic...

[ November 26, 2003, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Los ]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Los:

"those clamouring for the Pacific strike me as being in the same category as those crying out for Omaha Beach scenarios. Err...what, exactly, is the point? Watch Sands of Iwo Jima (or alternately Saving Private Ryan in the latter example) - you ought to have about as much control over events watching those movies as you would playing a tactical simulation of those same events. "

Michael I'm sure your well-versed enough in WW2 history to understand that this is an ignorant statement. It's like somebody saying after all what's the big deal about playing CMBB since won't it get boring fighting the same t34 vs Tiger tank battle over and over again? Just tanks hammering each other on an open steppe, where's the skill and control in that?

Fighting in the Pacific theater (to include CBI)spanned many different terrains and climates and covered many different engagement types. Surely you understand that beach assaults were just one type of battle seen there?

But I suppose bloody massacres on the streets of Stalingrad require somewhat greater understanding and skill than wiping out pillboxes on D-day in Tarawa?

There are tactical challenges and opportunities to make a difference good or bad in any engagement. Beach assault or winter ski attack or roiling desert tank battle included.

Los

p.s. sorry in advance if I come off antagonistic...

I'm dying to read some of those accounts of the Japanese employing tactical acumen vs the Marines after 1942; can you post a couple? ;)

Your comment seems kind of racist; there were plenty of things for the Americans to do vis a vis tactics. Would a player opting to take the Japanese side really have much to do in 9 situations out of 10?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dugfromthearth:

given that CMBO has one squad type for the U.S. army (not counting airborne) but 5 types of shermans, I think it is pretty clear that the devs are more interested in the vehicles then the infantry.

Err...how many squad types did the US Army actually have in 1944-45 NW Europe, incidentally?

The Canadians and British had...err...exactly one type, the rifle section, with 1 Sten, 1 Bren and 8 Enfields. That is what came in CMBO. </font>

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JonS:

[QB]

The sections in UK/Can motor battalions had quite a different organisation.

Do tell....

The Americans had similar variation between their armd and inf divs. Further, there were the various HQ defence platoons, engineers, commandos, rangers, etc etc.

While I agree that the US and UK had more homogenous organisations than the Germans, they had far more than one organisation each, which was all we got in CMBO. I hope that this situation is much improved in CMAK.

Regards

JonS

Having fired up cMBO agian, I was amazed at how few vehicle types there were also, compared to CMBB.

I think my original point - that the lack of infantry unit types indicates that BFC's focus is primarily on armour - was incorrect. If the infantry types in CMBO were very few, so were the types of vehicles; not very good evidence of an "armour bias".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JonS:

Canadian Motor Bn, October 1944

Canadian Inf Bn, August 1944

UK Motor Bn, January 1944

UK Inf Bn, November 1944

You knew about the Motor Bns, though - right :confused:

Regards

JonS

Lovely stuff, but I don't see in there, anywhere, where it indicates any sections that are not organized with 1 Sten, 1 Bren and 8 Enfields, which I believe was Dorosh's original point
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JonS:

Canadian Motor Bn, October 1944

Canadian Inf Bn, August 1944

UK Motor Bn, January 1944

UK Inf Bn, November 1944

You knew about the Motor Bns, though - right :confused:

Regards

JonS

I'm still on my laptop, no pdf reader - I'll try and look at this at work.

I've never looked at this down to section level; never had much interest in the motor battalions - I know that Bouchery had a breakdown of the motor battalion and i've seen some other bn oobs, but never the section breakdown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Having fired up cMBO agian, I was amazed at how few vehicle types there were also, compared to CMBB."

Yes, the armor list is long and the other lists are short. Which would seem to indicate an armor bias.

I do not have CMBB. I have heard that infantry changes dramatically between CMBO and CMBB, I have not heard that armor changes so dramatically.

I think that is also because CMBO is armor-centric and so infantry was not handled as well as it might have been.

This is not to say that they ignored infantry. Like they included a very nice map/scenario designer but do not let you choose particular building skins to use, they are random. Likewise the maps in CMBO lack decorative elements such as graveyards, fountains, haystacks, shallow streams, etc. This is no doubt because they wanted a nice map editor to make functional maps, but they were not interested in highly detailed "artistic" maps that some players (including myself) are.

I suspect that they were really just interested in a functional game and hadn't realized that the audience would be so interested in having a battle where the town hall of some town looked just so, and the armor had just the right camouflage for the army, time of year, unit, etc, and the the exact troop mix, etc.

In a large part it comes down to "the more you give the players the more they want". I've played games with just generic armor, infantry, and artillery and been reasonably happy with it. But CM does so many things so well, you naturally want to see even more things done just as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Dorosh:

I've never looked at this down to section level

Fair enough - but it might pay not to make blanket pronouncements about it then, eh? ;)

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Lovely stuff, but I don't see in there, anywhere, where it indicates any sections that are not organized with 1 Sten, 1 Bren and 8 Enfields, ...

Right. Look again. From the UK Motor Platoon ...

Three sections (each)

Corporal rifleman

6 riflemen

Driver I.C.

... giving a total of 8 men, and a fighting strength of 7. Weapons include at least a Bren in each section. The Canadian sheet gives different information, in particular it has more details on weapons. A reasonable org for the Can Motor Section includes 1 x Bren, 2 x SMG, and 5 x SMLE in each section, again for a total of 8, and a fighting strength of 7. In both cases, total platoon strength is 1 + 30.

The Scout Platoon is even more different.

Moving up from the section/platoon level, the differences become even greater from the BFC "THIS is the only battalion org the British ever had" standard.

Regards

JonS

[ November 27, 2003, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm dying to read some of those accounts of the Japanese employing tactical acumen vs the Marines after 1942; can you post a couple?"

Not that it's my job to school you on the Pacific war, but surely you recall that the war against Japan spanned from 1941 to 45 and included other antagonists than just the Marines. For Japanese tactical acumen try pretty much everything they did on land in Phillipines, Malaysia, and CBI as they were busy ejecting US/UK from all those places. (Hey you can even try out a few Japanese airborne assaults ifrom Borneo up to the Phillipines in 1944.) And the Marines will be the first to tell you of skilled

skilled defenses of Pelielu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa. The Marianas campaign had many desperate battles with Japanese attacks and defense.

Your preception of the war against Japan seems to be formed from a few 1950s war movies. I assume the whole tone and premise of your post is fecicous, since anyone as fine grasp of the war against Germany which you have can not possibly have such a black hole of historical reasoning as it pertains to the war on the other side of the world. But if you really are serious let me know and I'll actually post a number of great reads to help you.

"Your comment seems kind of racist; there were plenty of things for the Americans to do vis a vis tactics. Would a player opting to take the Japanese side really have much to do in 9 situations out of 10?"

Racist? umm whatever now your fishing. If you don't want to play US Marines, play Brits, Aussies or New Zealanders. Play US Army? Play Japanese assaults between in the years when they were on the offensive in the Pacific, 1941-42, or when they were on the offensive in CBI up to 1944? Play Japanese counter-attacks on Saipan, Tank attacks on Pelielu? Or against the whole war on the Chinese mainland. Do you only play the offense in Combat Mission, do you never play defensive scenmarios? If not guess what, other people occasionally do. The Japanese conducted skilled defenses in most of their campiagns to include counterattacks, armor and other stuff. the same stuff anyone else does on defense. The fact that they lost these campiagns is irrlevant, after all the Germans end up losing the war in CMBO, but that doesn't detract from many good scenario opportunities. CBI was give and take up through 1944. Guadalcanal was a sea saw campaign on the round (and air and sea) for six months with both sides attacking and defending.

If you don't like the Pacific war for whatever reason as it relates to Combat Mission, that's great, we all have opinions. Cheers.

Los

Link to post
Share on other sites

Los is right. The game should be made. It would also open possibilities like what if the Marine Corp had a division in Europe, similiar to the 4th Marine Brigade in WWI. Or if the Japenese sent troops to the Eastern Front.

The bottom line is that the Pacific should not be ignored and it would be another top-notch war game. Someone with some clout with Battlefront needs to sound revielle and get them working on it.

Semper Fi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...