CM in the Pacific

[Louie the Toad]

Hey Pacific supporters, wait your turn!

Each Theater of WWII has something different to offer the gamer, and isn't that what we are really talking about here -- A GAME.

In terms of gaming I think the original schedule set for CM is pretty good: CMBO CMBB CM(Desert) and CM(Early Years) as I recall. Each has its own unique challenges for the gamer/tactician.

I would venture a guess that after seeing the results of CMBB that CM(desert) might be rethought

(because of many similarites). I see this as a possiblity, but one that would be terribly disappointing personally.

On the other hand CM(Early Years) '36 to 42' or so

would be a GAMER's delight just due to the equipment alone. Then add to that the different nations' organization of troops and the experiments with tactics and combinations of forces. What a great amount of FUN this will be.

Anticipating Toad

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

Hey Pacific supporters, wait your turn!

Each Theater of WWII has something different to offer the gamer, and isn't that what we are really talking about here -- A GAME.

In terms of gaming I think the original schedule set for CM is pretty good: CMBO CMBB CM(Desert) and CM(Early Years) as I recall. Each has its own unique challenges for the gamer/tactician.

I would venture a guess that after seeing the results of CMBB that CM(desert) might be rethought

(because of many similarites). I see this as a possiblity, but one that would be terribly disappointing personally.

On the other hand CM(Early Years) '36 to 42' or so

would be a GAMER's delight just due to the equipment alone. Then add to that the different nations' organization of troops and the experiments with tactics and combinations of forces. What a great amount of FUN this will be.

Anticipating Toad<hr></blockquote>

That is the schedule which was publically posted, and I too am really interested in the early war Europe game. French Char-B 2BIS lumbering to attack as German 37mm bounce off its thick hull until it finally breaks down (or runs out of gas, most did) after 15 minutes of attack. Great fun.

[PiggDogg]

I have practically no interest in CM in the Pacific. It would be little fun. Why?

Japanese (by the way, incredibly brave but underarmed [bolt action rifles] soldiers) dug into hillsides and jungles in bunkers & pillboxes with machineguns. Alternatively, they are crawling stealthfully or making suicidal frontal assaults (aka banzai charges).

Opposing these Japanese are US troops (fine, brave troops also) with a massive firepower superiority over their Japanese opponents.

US tanks, flamethrowers (inf & tank), heavy assault infantry with demo charges; oh yes, did I remember to mention arty (105 mm, 4.2 inchers, 155 mm, destroyers [5 inch], cruisers [6 inch, 8 inch], a few battleships [14 inch]), close air support, rockets, blah, blah versus the Japanese infantry (yeah, the Japanese do have arty but not much compared to the US).

Ouch, I'm getting a headache, or maybe the poor Japanese computer soldiers are getting a serious headache.

The US in the Pacific defeated Japan with a firepower preponderance far beyond what had occurred in Europe.

In short and in my opinion, CM in the Pacific would be, in general, not a lot of fun as a game. Of course, one can find a number of even battles. Indeed and in general in the Pacific, the even battles were fewer & farther between than what occurred in Europe.

Just an opinion and a choice of my tastes.

Cheers, Richard

[Gyrene]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The US in the Pacific defeated Japan with a firepower preponderance far beyond what had occurred in Europe. <hr></blockquote>

The battles in the island hopping campaign in the Pacific were some of the most intense fights per square yard in the history of mankind, most of them make the war in Europe seem quite leisurely. Perhaps only the American Civil War exceeds the body count per yard per minute.

It really surprises me to read how so many people would think that attacking prepared positions in the Pacific with superior forces would be boring, but at the same time they think fondly of scenarios like "Valley of Trouble" or "Sherbrooke Fusiliers"

Here's a quote by Steve from

this thread on this veru same subject:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> As for the Med. Theater being boring , I would counter that the PTO is far more boring Just saw another show last night that only reinforced my opinion of the warfare in the PTO from about 1942 on. The bulk was static, suicidal combat with the Japanese being totally overmatched. One of the battles they mentioned the US killed 107,000 Japanese for a total of 7,000 friendly losses. And the US were on the offensive!!! The battle included flamethrowing galore, 100ft deep bunkers (which weren't entered, just blown up), bonsai charges, starving out the enemy, etc. Oh boy, sounds really interesting I can hardly keep my eyes open

Steve

<hr></blockquote>

Begging for PTO CM is nothing new, this thread is from Dec of '99 and was started by none other than Wild Bill himself, and he didn't even get a (public) answer from BTS.

I'm resigned to the fact that we will not see a PTO version of CM, the battles are "too one sided" and the main protagonists are not photogenic enough.

One quick note on the one sidedness deal: How many battles did the Germans win in the time period of CMBO? An even amount?

Gyrene

[PiggDogg]

Gyrene,

I agree with you that "the battles in the island hopping campaign in the Pacific were some of the most intense fights per square yard in the history of mankind, most of them make the war in Europe seem quite leisurely." (Actually, the 'leisurely' part might be overstated, but I understand.)

However, these battles had to be corkscrew & blowtorch affairs where massive amounts of firepower (US very heavy firepower) were applied to dig out, smash, and destroy deeply dug in, most tenacious & fanatic (& I do not use 'fanatic' in a bad way) generally static Japanese defenders. Only the application of the most heavy firepower could overcome the tenacious, dug in Japanese defenders. :eek:

Personally (& I say only for myself personally), I would not enjoy such tactics in CM terms as much as I enjoy the somewhat more open, more maneuverable, and more freewheeling combat of northwest Europe, north Africa, or the Russian front.

But you know what, if there are some mods for CM in the Pacific, I would play them. However, my guess is that I would not much time in playing CM Pacific as compared to CMBO or CMBB.

Cheers, Richard :cool:

[Tanaka]

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

...The battles in the island hopping campaign in the Pacific were some of the most intense fights per square yard in the history of mankind, most of them make the war in Europe seem quite leisurely. Perhaps only the American Civil War exceeds the body count per yard per minute...

<hr></blockquote>

..hmm, like 1:100 KIA in favor of the Americans ?

[Ron]

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

This

I'm resigned to the fact that we will not see a PTO version of CM, the battles are "too one sided" and the main protagonists are not photogenic enough.

One quick note on the one sidedness deal: How many battles did the Germans win in the time period of CMBO? An even amount?

Gyrene<hr></blockquote>

Thanks for posting that link, a few knowledgeable people explain why the PTO could be a suitable topic for CM. However, after reading it and reading your comments I am wondering if you actually read all of it? You know, the messages from Steve detailing why the PTO wasn't in their schedule and if it came it would be after their true passion, the ETO. Seems reasonable to me. Wherever your or my or other's interest lay, a quality game starts with the designer's interests, not the cries from the peanut gallery. There's too much of that in gaming already. Personally, I had zero interest in the period covered by CMBO initially, speaks something of that 'quality' no? The beating of the chest and lamentations of "battles are too one-sided", "the main protagonists are not photogenic enough" or "not enough tanks" smacks of a spoiled child who has been told 'No'.

Ron

[offtaskagain]

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

..hmm, like 1:100 KIA in favor of the Americans ? <hr></blockquote>

Please read up on history before you post. Iwo Jima saw 30,000 U.S. casualties (7,000 killed) and around 21,000 Japanese Casualties. The Japanese save for 1,000 POWs are all deaths, because the Japanese did not evacuate their wounded who continued fighting until death. Okinawa had over 12,000 U.S. battle deaths and 130,000 Japanese (non-civilian) killed. The U.S. had 36,000 battle wounded and 26,000 non battle (shell shock) casualties. All on a little lump less than 400 sq miles with the battle occuring on area less than half that size.

[Gyrene]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> The beating of the chest and lamentations of "battles are too one-sided", "the main protagonists are not photogenic enough" or "not enough tanks" smacks of a spoiled child who has been told 'No'. <hr></blockquote>

Ron, you have obviously not read my earlier post, and has decided to just jump in and berate away anyway.

If you go back a couple of posts you will see that I understand why BTS does not want to do a PTO game. There's no personal or financial interest in it for them. It is their company, it is their time and effort, I nor no one else is to dictate what they do.

No one, yourself included, can dispute the fact that WWII wargames are dominated by the war in Europe genre, and why is that? I think that "Not enough tanks", "Battles are too one sided" and "Protagonists not photogenic enough" would be some good reasons why the ETO is more popular.

If there is to be no PTO CM I won't cry or wail in anguish from the "Peanut Gallery" as you put it. I don't play any other war games other than CM and I play it because it is enjoyable as a game and it happens to be available for the Mac.

Matter of fact this is the first computer wargame I have owned and if I were to buy another one it would be from BTS as I really appreciate the great job they have done with CM, and on the same token I also lament the fact that the PTO is not in the foreseeable future for CM as I am sure they would also do an excellent job with it.

Gyrene

[Gyrene]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> By Tanaka :..hmm, like 1:100 KIA in favor of the Americans ? <hr></blockquote>

I suppose that 100:1 in favor of the Germans in the Eastern Front is different right?

Gyrene

[PiggDogg]

Tanaka,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>.hmm, like 1:100 KIA in favor of the Americans ? <hr></blockquote>

In the Pacific battles, the casualties were nowhere near 1:100 in the US's favor. In most Pacific battles (except Iwo Jima), the casualties were between 1:1 and 1:2 in the US's favor.

Panzerwerfer,

Iwo Jima was the only major Pacific battle where the Japanese inflicted more casualties than they suffered.

In my opinion, in all of WWII, it would be difficult to find more consistently vicious fighting than what occured in the Pacific island hopping campaigns.

In all cases (Europe, Pacific, Asia, North Africa, north, south, east, west, etc.), the carnage, destruction, and death were such a waste and so, so sad.

However, the Axis 'was' bad/evil & we were forced to defend ourselves.

Cheers, Richard

[Vanir Ausf B]

Well, in an attempt to mollify the disheartened, I will mention that BTS has expressed an interest in doing a Korean War CM at some point, probably for CM 5 or 6 if they do it. No Japanese, but it's the closest you're likely to get to the PTO with BTS.

[The Commissar]

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

I suppose that 100:1 in favor of the Germans in the Eastern Front is different right?

Gyrene<hr></blockquote>

Oh I do hope you are joking, for your sake...

[Michael Emrys]

I don't know about the suitability of CM as a vehicle for simulating the Pacific/East Asia war. It might work, it might not. And I certainly wouldn't urge BTS to develop any game against their wishes. In order to succeed, wargame design must be a labor of love and if Charles and Steve do not love this campaign they are quite right to give it a wide berth.

That said, I think it necessary to correct some distorted views on the subject that have been expressed here. By no means was the campaign simply a matter of blasting bunkered Japs until the victorious Allied forces dropped anchor in Tokyo Bay.

There was lots of mobile fighting of more or less the sort familiar to CM players. The decade-long war against China, though there were also long periods when the front was stagnant, saw enough movement to provide interest, though admittedly documentation is highly problematical.

Then there was the already mentioned campaign in Burma. This alone deserves its own game. It had everything: both sides carried out offensives and had to conduct desperate fighting withdrawals. There were paratroops and Chindits (wow! who could pass them up?!?), airstrikes and air resupply, even some tanks.

There was Malaya, held in little regard I suppose due to what is considered an ignominious defeat, but here is your chance to show 'em how it should have been done. Or alternatively once more lead your victorious Nipponese against the decadent forces of a faltering British Empire! Banzai!

In New Guinea, there was the gallant defense of Port Moresby that flung the Japs back over the Owen Stanley Range and back down the Kokoda Trail in a grueling six month campaign followed by other fighting along the northern coast of the island.

In the Solomons, in addition to the battle for Guadalcanal, there was New Georgia and Bougainville. In the Admiralties, New Britain.

I would submit that in all of these campaigns, some of which went on for years and the shortest lasting for weeks, there was ample movement and room for tactical ingenuity and innovation. Not much of the streotyped "boring" bunker-busting going on here.

Michael

[Tanaka]

panzerwerfer42.

I knew people like you would pike up on Okinawa or "Philippine people has I promised, I'm back..." :eek:

The "official " number of death in Okinawa is !!! (play some music... tan tan taran tan .... tara)

KIA

+70000 Japanese; +-80000 civilians (I don't know who were those); 7613 Americans in land + 4907 on the navy

Special telegram for you from Mr Ushijiima and Mr. Sho (may god have their soul): "I left without sorry, shame, nor duties to fulfill"

...ok its "only" 1:10 in this one, you were right

Now lets take a deeper look into less known PTO battle grounds (taking out the Asian front)...

Miri, Sarawak... 1234 Japanese KIA; 114 Australians; 4 Americans

Ok again, you are kind of right, it was 1:10 in favor of Australia... but +-1:300 for the Americans. This one has to go midle...

Luzon, Mindanao... Does anybody know realy how many japonese died in there !?!

This one has to go to my side...

There were many, many islands taken out, where the ALL Japones gerrison was KIA...and there were about 100, 20 or so US KIA. We are told they didn't surrender...

PTO is not only Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal and then Okinawa, you know... Now you go and read your books, its your turn you have to admit

Just remember, in the all war, "only" 250000 Americans died in both battlefields (Europe and Pacific), so leave at lest a few thousand for ETO...

[Gyrene]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Bt Commissar:Oh I do hope you are joking, for your sake.. <hr></blockquote>

Mr. Tanaka is including civilian casualties in his calculations, so you if you consider Russian civilian casualties you get a pretty high ratio in favor of the Germans.

But no, of course it was not 100:1 as it was not 100:1 in favor of the Allies in the Pacific as Tanaka thinks it was.

Gyrene

[Andreas]

Oh boy, another time this topic has gone to the dogs. What a surprise that is.

Now, if you want someone to do something they have stated they are not inclined to do for want of interest, is it going to help you if you call them 'glib' and 'dismissive' or ridicule their choice? Discuss.

Now, if you do that, what (apart from looking stupid) does that make you? Out to Troll? Steve and Charles have feelings too, you know. The verdict on Matt is still out

Maybe Brian should talk to that game company he knows in Australia (I think it was you, apologies if not) that could develop a great simulation on a shoe-string, and ask them to put their heads together to do a CM style Pacific game. Since both of you seem so convinced that BTS is not doing it 'because it does not have hordes of tanks' or because they are glib and dismissive, it appears you believe there is a market. Maybe your mates can just do the engineering version of CMBO while they are at it? Some Crocs would come in handy on Okinawa.

Onagai - 'a potential market that exists' is exactly the problem, isn't it? At least for the ETO and the GPW they know that an actual market exists.

Economist joke: Two economists walk down the lawn at King's College, Oxford. One says 'Look, a 20 Pound note lying there.' The other one goes, without bothering to look down: 'Impossible, someone would have picked it up'. If either of you believe that BTS is that stupid, find some partners and programme away. I buy it if it has Fascines, optional Bren tripods, and I can avenge the Rape of Nanjing.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Just remember, in the all war, "only" 250000 Americans died in both battlefields (Europe and Pacific), so leave at lest a few thousand for ETO...<hr></blockquote>

The US lost about 407,000 killed (from all causes) and 670,000 WIA during WW2. Combat KIA was about 292,000.

US Casualties

[Andreas]

As for counting casualties, I mean really... Could you please get a grip? There are really only two things that govern whether a game may ever see daylight:

1) Designer interest, to get started and persevere.

2) Market interest, to get the funding.

Both of these obviously depend to some degree on whether there are interesting fights to be had (for the genre we are talking about).

Now for the war against Japan, BTS and squad-level combat, I think we can rest assured that:

1) is a no-no

and

2) is a definitive 'maybe' (for whatever reason)

Apart from that - whether interesting fights can be had is obviously a matter of taste to quite some degree. But as I said above - nobody stops you from doing it yourself.

[Tanaka]

Andreas is right,

In my last post I contributed for the topic to go into the direction I said earlier I didn't want...

...any way, again I say, if the number of death is so important for a game, CM is being played in the wrong place. :eek:

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:

I have practically no interest in CM in the Pacific. It would be little fun. Why?

Japanese (by the way, incredibly brave but underarmed [bolt action rifles] soldiers) dug into hillsides and jungles in bunkers & pillboxes with machineguns. Alternatively, they are crawling stealthfully or making suicidal frontal assaults (aka banzai charges).

<hr></blockquote>

Stereotypes. The Japanese were quite skilful at exploiting their opponents' weaknesses. They tend not, until later in the war, to engage in "suicidal frontal assaults (aka Banzai charges)". I'd suggest you read about how a grossly inferior force defeated the British in Malaya and how skilfully they outmaneaouvred the British in Burma, while they certain gave the Chinese and the Americans a good run for money in China and the Philippines and into Guadacanal.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Opposing these Japanese are US troops (fine, brave troops also) with a massive firepower superiority over their Japanese opponents.

<hr></blockquote>

Stereotypes, again. Opposing the Japanese you have the Chinese, Russians, British, Indian, Australian, Canadian, American armies. The Pacific war was not solely the purvey, as much as some might like to believe of the USA.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

US tanks, flamethrowers (inf & tank), heavy assault infantry with demo charges; oh yes, did I remember to mention arty (105 mm, 4.2 inchers, 155 mm, destroyers [5 inch], cruisers [6 inch, 8 inch], a few battleships [14 inch]), close air support, rockets, blah, blah versus the Japanese infantry (yeah, the Japanese do have arty but not much compared to the US).

<hr></blockquote>

Or you have the opposite, where the Japanese had artillery superiority over most of their opponents, such as Hong Kong or where the fate of an engagement hung on the use of a single 3in mortar, with defective shells which were nearly as dangerous to the Australian infantry employing it, as to the enemy. Or the single 25 Pdr gun, which was dragged labouriously forwards, through swamps to engage a single Japanese 70mm infantry gun in a duel down an airstrip. Then you have the Japanese riding on the rims of their bicycles through the driving downpour of the monsoon to surprise Indian Army conscripts in Malaya. Alternatively you might like the Russian general Zhukov cutting his teeth on defeating the Japanese at Kalinnen Gol.

You seem to assume that the Hollywood version of history is what really happened.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Ouch, I'm getting a headache, or maybe the poor Japanese computer soldiers are getting a serious headache.

The US in the Pacific defeated Japan with a firepower preponderance far beyond what had occurred in Europe.

<hr></blockquote>

Immaterial. The Pacific war last 3.5 years but the anti-Japanese one last over 10. It covered an area much greater than that of the European war and much more geographically diverse.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

In short and in my opinion, CM in the Pacific would be, in general, not a lot of fun as a game. Of course, one can find a number of even battles. Indeed and in general in the Pacific, the even battles were fewer & farther between than what occurred in Europe.

Just an opinion and a choice of my tastes.

Cheers, Richard <hr></blockquote>

I'd suggest you opinion is sorely mistaken. Like many, who have only a superficial understanding of the theatre(s) and period, you appear to ascribe more to the propaganda that a certain nation's entertainment industry puts out, than the reality of what it was like.

[Brian]

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

Oh boy, another time this topic has gone to the dogs. What a surprise that is.

<hr></blockquote>

It appears to be a problem when someone attempts to make suggestions which shake the status quo.

And if anybody would care to argue there isn't such a status quo, which is primarily US centric, European war viewpoint, then I think I have a bridge they might be interested in purchasing at a very cheap cut rate.

What I find interesting is that here we have a game which we all acknowledge is excellent (within certain given limitations). It has the potential to provide a system which can cover the entire war, all theatres and all periods. However, when someone suggests there should be one which covers a major period/theatre, they are shouted down - "too boring", etc., etc.

I'll tell you what. I ABSOLUTELY would love a verion of CM to cover Italian East Africa.

What, I hear? No one would be interested in it? fair enough, its a minor theatre and a minor engagement. Although, I'd argue it was strategically quite important for the British.

The Pacific on the otherhand, isn't minor. It was one of the four primary theatres/periods of the war IMO.

Yet, we have it being declared off limits 'cause its percieved as "boring".

Many years ago, when I was a very young lad, and first got involved in wargaming, NW Europe was all the go. I too thought the Pacific was boring. However, as I read more and more about it, I found in the end it was quite a bit different from the way Hollywood and US histories tend to portray it and interesting in its own right. Maturity might eventually come to those who still believe the Pacific is "borining".

BTS is entitled to say they won't do it. I personally think their reasoning, as given both in this and previous threads are wrong but they are entitled to it.

I still think its a shame that they have decided to turn their back on the Pacific and yes, abandon the potential of making a fully integrated system for the whole war.

Slappy's idea might have some merit. I'll be talking to Lewis about it, in the near future. Might there be any other takers who'd be willing to put their time and effort into helping on such a project?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I buy it if it has Fascines, optional Bren tripods, and I can avenge the Rape of Nanjing.<hr></blockquote>

OK, I'll put you down for one copy. Would you care to preorder now and pay your money?

[Andreas]

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

OK, I'll put you down for one copy. Would you care to preorder now and pay your money? <hr></blockquote>

We talk about that after the beta demo.

BTW - I might also be interested in a version covering Italian east africa, and if you really do your Pacific version, I expect it to start at least with the Mandshukuo railway incident in 1929 or whenever that was (boy is my memory ever going, to think I studied all this crap), so that it covers all the operations in China, and also the Khalkin-Gol battle.

[Michael Emrys]

And don't forget, as I did in my earlier post, the Soviet romp over the elite Kwantung Army in the last days of the war. Plenty of CM type combat there! Even if a trifle one-sided...

Michael

[Victor Semensi]

I'll repeat what I say every time this thread comes up: "What about adding Korea to a proposed Pacific CM?". Not a one sided campiagn by any means and you get T34's, upgunned Shermans, Pershings, etc. This is more interesting to me than following up the Russian front with a desert theater game. Will desert strategy be much different from that used on the Russian steppes?