If you guys really want an SC:pacific theatre, read this.

[Panzer Cmdr]

It was necessary to Island Hop as stated to get closer to the mainland of Japan. My dad served in the Navy on bombers based out of the Aleutions in Alaska. These were the closest bases we had that could reach Japan and the flights were very very long. It was more effective and safe to get closer to begin a hard bombing campaing of Japan. It was known that many bombing missions would be required to begin to soften up any proposed landing.

[husky65]

Originally posted by iolo:

Midly off topic, but how come the US didn't just do that? Forget those silly little islands and go straight for Japan?

I know, I really have some reading to do, but indulge me plz.

Basically - supply, air cover and training.

The first real amphib invasion the US conducted in the pac area (WW2) was a fiasco, the later landings allowed them to get their doctrine in order, build and equip specialist forces, specify improvements and at the same time build supply centers, workshops and very importantly airbases.

The question to really ask is - why did they run 2 seperate wars (army v navy/marines) in the Pacific? the answer is 'the leaders were too dumb to insist that one branch of the service should subordinate itself to the other in the national interest'.

[iolo]

Interesting, tks. Yeah I guess the distances involved would cause some logistic problems...

[husky65]

Originally posted by iolo:

Interesting, tks. Yeah I guess the distances involved would cause some logistic problems...

Very much so, if you stage an ivasion of Japan from the USA/Hawaii you need to have every piece of kit that was available for Normandy (more was planned IRL) - all available on ships, that means a vast mass of amphib/merchant vessels wasted as floating warehouses.

Drive the Merchant to a convenient island, offload and return for more kit - sort and load that kit as required onto amphibs for the short trip to the beach head is a far more efficient way of doing it.

[Hundminen]

My 2 cents:

I have to agree most with Mavraam.

The pacific by itself would be a little dull and generic. Yet if SC2 were to include the entire world including the pacific, this indeed would be very cool. I think some "shrinking" of some countries and oceans and merging of small countries and islands, would still be required to keep the number of hexes to a minimum, and the game manageable. However, I would not change the unit or map scale at all.

Hundminen

[DSEDS]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

Ok, some of us want sc 2 to be the pacific. !

I would prefer to make SC Europe near perfekt (Rules, AI!) and based on that make an outstanding SC Pacific.

[aku_djinn]

Originally posted by TrionDelta:

thats not true in the pacific Corps where used alot, Leyte, iwo jima, owkinowa, and a couple others.

not to mention main land china by the japanese... there where many a instance of corps on small islands and atolls.

Yes this is true but in terms of scale these units would be broken up into smaller units (in most cases) and in terms of game scale my point is that they need larger maps. Many of the early battle (such as in New Guinea) were fought by small scale units. Iwo Jima, Okinawa were exceptions where really large numbers of enemy divisions were fielded. There were others of course... but the island hopping was essentially fought by small scale units compareed to the ETO.

[aku_djinn]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

Well, you know how the russians were forced to attack the germans against overwhelming odds? The japanese did this willingly. And thought it an Honor to die for their emporer. That in itself, along with the samurai traditions, make for the bloodiest conflict in history.

CVM

Also if you include the Chinese war from 1933 in Manchuria (and of course also the full invasion of China in 1937) the numbers put it on footing with the European losses. The Chinese lost more people than the Russians if one looks at the big picture. I think many people would be very interested in a Pacific War game in the SC vein if it were as well done as the original. Perhaps it's a mistake to consider making it compatible with SC1 as it conflicts with the goals of the original and places the designer in some very difficult confines. Maybe it's more realistic to expect either an SC2 with the design goal for a future Pac War expansion or a seperate SC Pacific War altogether. Making it a seperate game might alleviate some of the issues discussed here.

[ September 11, 2002, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: aku_djinn30 ]

[husky65]

Originally posted by aku_djinn30:

Maybe it's more realistic to expect either an SC2 with the design goal for a future Pac War expansion or a seperate SC Pacific War altogether. Making it a seperate game might alleviate some of the issues discussed here.

The problem is that the Pac war requires a lot more detail to work, that takes it out of the SC genre.

If you really want Pac war have a look at Matrix games upcoming war in the Pacific or the existing uncommomn valour.

[ September 11, 2002, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: husky65 ]

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by husky65:

(snip)

The question to really ask is - why did they run 2 seperate wars (army v navy/marines) in the Pacific? the answer is 'the leaders were too dumb to insist that one branch of the service should subordinate itself to the other in the national interest'.

Valid question, but it was a bit more complex than that, going into the politics of generalship, congressional cronyism and lots more arcane stuff that would curl our hair for sure if we knew the details.

The short answer: MacArthur had quite a following in Congress, including some who really wanted him to eventually press for the US presidency. The Navy (and hence, the Marines) had the ear of a President who was a fan of the Navy and things maritime.

Rather than get bogged down in seeing who would be top dog in the strategic arena in the Pacific, FDR (I think wisely) just let each have enough leash and resources to do the job that they wanted to do. It worked out well in that the Japanese had to deal with dual offensives against them. It was wasteful, to some degree. Both Nimitz and MacArthur ended up making some less-than-great decisions, but overall both contributed to the eventual US victory. Had the war gone on the the Japanese mainland, MacArthur would probably have overshadowed Nimitz as the ground war took up the headlines.

Interservice rivalries are nothing new, and "dumb" is just a tad too strong a word in my mind to describe FDR's handling of a very sticky situation. Certainly he did a lot better than his rivals!

[Narayan Sengupta]

Unit scale is just a word. It doesn't really matter what we call the scale.

The islands could consist of two harbors outside of two hexes and would represent island groups as someone else just mentioned...

There weren't too many battles over one mile islands other than Iwo Jima. But the island doesn't have to look graphically correct. The island can be a pinprick for all I care - it's the terrain type that counts. Also some terrain types may have to be combinations of port/airfield, etc.

The rest of the map scale could stay the same.

Narayan