NEXT GAME: PTO (a pacific version)

[meerkatt]

Fantastic game! ASL obsolete now!

The CM project is a must, its the Pacific Theater!

It include some China battles 1937 to 1945 and possible the French pre-battles in Vietnam!

Hey BATTLEFRONT! HINT! HINT!

[MikeyD]

I believe Matt once said he'd rather scoop out his eyeballs with a mellon-baller than spend the next year of his life doing a Pacific theater CM. Go figure.

[Pzman]

BFC has in the past hinted that they aren't really interested, nor have the knowledge of it, to cover the Pacific Theater.

[meerkatt]

Maybe if the crew at Battlefront can leave dollars all over the office. Maybe this could intice him.

Or, try for another game of the year award!

Please, Pleasepleaseplease, build it and they will come!

[Boris Balaban]

Originally posted by Panzerman:

BFC has in the past hinted that they aren't really interested, nor have the knowledge of it, to cover the Pacific Theater.

They also said (if I remember) that the battles were too few and not so much amour.

Lots of jungle fighting.

[Sirocco]

If it's a choice between spending time researching the PTO, and developing a new game engine, I know which one I'd vote for.

[Becket]

Really, the defining elements of the PTO were the conflicts at Coral Sea, Midway, etc. between carrier groups. The ground fighting was a sideshow...Midway decided the PTO.

[MikeyD]

My dad had a couple anecdotes about transporting Australian commandos up the coast aboard an LST and dropping them off in the middle of nowhere to 'go about their business'. Said he'd never seen such tough buggers in all his life. Considering CM infantry combat scale BFC could probably put together a reasonable Pacific theater package, within expectations. Don't hold your breath, though.

[Maj. Battaglia]

While I would not suggest that BFdotC spend any time in the near future on the topic (certainly not at the expense of the next engine and its application to fighting in Europe), I do think covering it would be worthwhile. I think the notion that "it was all jungle fighting" or "all artillery smashing the Japanese" is a misconception based on watching movies and not reading about what happened there.

And Becket, while Midway was certainly the turning point, and sea/air battles more decisive strategically than land, that does not mitigate the fact that fighting had to be done on land. You could say "Stalingrad and El Alamein were the turning point of the fight against the Germans" but then not discount the importance of land fighting that came after.

Believe me, Southeast Asia, China, and the Pacific Islands are not all impenetrable jungle any more than the Ardennes is impenetrable pine forest. While it is true that armor fighting was much more limited than in the West, I would suggest this is due more to the Japanese failure to field a tank that had any value as a 1940s AFV than the terrain being prohibitive.

If you read about the larger campaigns in particular (The Philippines (both times), Burma, China, Okinawa, New Guinea) you find that the relevance to CM-style battalion or company-level infantry fighting is very high. The Japanese hardly fought the entire war with lone snipers tied to the top of a palm tree.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Panzerman:

BFC has in the past hinted that they aren't really interested, nor have the knowledge of it, to cover the Pacific Theater.

They didn't hint. That was a straight statement

[Becket]

Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

While I would not suggest that BFdotC spend any time in the near future on the topic (certainly not at the expense of the next engine and its application to fighting in Europe), I do think covering it would be worthwhile. I think the notion that "it was all jungle fighting" or "all artillery smashing the Japanese" is a misconception based on watching movies and not reading about what happened there.

And Becket, while Midway was certainly the turning point, and sea/air battles more decisive strategically than land, that does not mitigate the fact that fighting had to be done on land. You could say "Stalingrad and El Alamein were the turning point of the fight against the Germans" but then not discount the importance of land fighting that came after.

Believe me, Southeast Asia, China, and the Pacific Islands are not all impenetrable jungle any more than the Ardennes is impenetrable pine forest. While it is true that armor fighting was much more limited than in the West, I would suggest this is due more to the Japanese failure to field a tank that had any value as a 1940s AFV than the terrain being prohibitive.

If you read about the larger campaigns in particular (The Philippines (both times), Burma, China, Okinawa, New Guinea) you find that the relevance to CM-style battalion or company-level infantry fighting is very high. The Japanese hardly fought the entire war with lone snipers tied to the top of a palm tree.

I hope my statement didn't offend. The PTO land fighting was perhaps the most vicious in the war, and I have very strong feelings about it. That being said, in my opinion, a PTO game that just focused on land combat would be somewhat pointless, much like an east front game that ... well ... heck, didn't include anything.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Becket:

The PTO land fighting was perhaps the most vicious in the war,

Oh please, enough of this tired old line already. All the fighting was vicious, cause, like, they were all killing people and stuff. I wouldn't have wanted to have been at the Baugnez Crossroads any more or any less than I would have wanted to be on Edson's Ridge, at the Commissar's House, Shuri Castle, Ortona, Arnhem Bridge or Suribachi.

The Pacific idea has been touted at least a dozen times in the last few months; yeah, anyone who has watched A and E for more than 10 minutes realizes it wasn't fun or pretty there. Neither was Omaha, Bastogne, the Scheldt, Bagration, or Alamein...

I don't mind people having an interest in the Pacific, but suggesting it was more worthy of attention than other theatres, for whatever reason, is just ignorant. Yes, it's worthy of study. There are plenty of other places to do that.

[Becket]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

The PTO land fighting was perhaps the most vicious in the war,

Oh please, enough of this tired old line already. All the fighting was vicious, cause, like, they were all killing people and stuff. I wouldn't have wanted to have been at the Baugnez Crossroads any more or any less than I would have wanted to be on Edson's Ridge, at the Commissar's House, Shuri Castle, Ortona, Arnhem Bridge or Suribachi.

The Pacific idea has been touted at least a dozen times in the last few months; yeah, anyone who has watched A and E for more than 10 minutes realizes it wasn't fun or pretty there. Neither was Omaha, Bastogne, the Scheldt, Bagration, or Alamein...

I don't mind people having an interest in the Pacific, but suggesting it was more worthy of attention than other theatres, for whatever reason, is just ignorant. Yes, it's worthy of study. There are plenty of other places to do that. </font>

[Shep]

Regarding the original post: BFC has given every appearance of being intractable on the issue. In fact I think they said something along the lines of, "it would take a million men a thousand years" to make them change their minds and do the Pacific.

Sounds like a job for the Marines.

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

BFC has in the past hinted that they aren't really interested, nor have the knowledge of it, to cover the Pacific Theater.

They didn't hint. That was a straight statement </font>

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Becket:

However, US POW deaths in Japanese camps were about 75% higher than US deaths in German camps (see: Hampton Sides, Ghost Soldiers and the sources cited therein). That alone makes it more "vicious" in my estimation. You may disagree, and may choose to think me "ignorant" for that reason. I'll live.

And POW deaths relate to combat how?

[Becket]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

However, US POW deaths in Japanese camps were about 75% higher than US deaths in German camps (see: Hampton Sides, Ghost Soldiers and the sources cited therein). That alone makes it more "vicious" in my estimation. You may disagree, and may choose to think me "ignorant" for that reason. I'll live.

And POW deaths relate to combat how? </font>

[ozi_digger]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

However, US POW deaths in Japanese camps were about 75% higher than US deaths in German camps (see: Hampton Sides, Ghost Soldiers and the sources cited therein). That alone makes it more "vicious" in my estimation. You may disagree, and may choose to think me "ignorant" for that reason. I'll live.

And POW deaths relate to combat how? </font>

[Los]

"I don't mind people having an interest in the Pacific, but suggesting it was more worthy of attention than other theatres, for whatever reason, is just ignorant."

Yes, almost as ignorant as those that think it's somehow less worthy of attention. But anyways, I do agree that more than one debate per quarter about the Pacific/CBI's worthiness for modelling in Combat Mission is a bit much. Hell it's almost becoming chum for trollers...

:eek:

Los

[Speedy]

Damn the pacific I want my blitzkrieg!

[Victor Semensi]

Ah the inevitable PTO thread that comes around about twice a year. And again I say 'why not Korea???'. You want tanks, Korea had T34/85's, Shermans and Pershings. The terrain in Korea has quite a bit in common with that in in Italy. Seems to me that CMBB and CMAK have all the elements needed to reproduce this theater.

[EZPickens]

As I've said before, this a tanker's game.

CM personnel units larger than a PAK-crew annoy the hell out of me.

Please, No PTO (CC can handle infantry action better, IMO).

How about the Arab/Israeli Wars if we want some armoured combat?

EZ

[CBase]

I am not sure about creating an entire CM game on the Pacific theater. It would seem to me that it would be too “infantry” and attrition oriented. My impression is that even the use of armor was mostly in support of infantry.

[junk2drive]

a. i like the pto

b. i like infantry battles with armor support.

c. i didnt care for the east front but bought the game anyway and found out i enjoy it!

d. i hope someone does a mod for pto like the one for cmbo. i dont care if its accurate, in cmbb there are fanatic troops and crummy tanks for the japs and tough germans for the marines. it could be done.

[Maj. Battaglia]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I don't mind people having an interest in the Pacific, but suggesting it was more worthy of attention than other theatres, for whatever reason, is just ignorant. Yes, it's worthy of study. There are plenty of other places to do that.

Michael, I don't think anyone, in particular Becket, was saying that. Don't you think you were being a bit harsh? Perhaps carrying something over from previous discussions on the matter?

I've seen BFdotC say in the past that they would never do PTO. It is fine with me if they decide not to for whatever reason, such as the amount of time and expense to model it to their level of quality would outweigh the expected return. It's their business, and I'll still buy their products. And it is not disrespectful or anything else to those who fought in PTO for CM not to cover it. Obviously that is not how business decisions are made, and BFdotC is not the bellweather of honoring veterans (if designing combat simulations can even do that).

All that being said, I would like to see them change their minds some day. But given the choice, I'd prefer to have them cover what they have already covered: Europe/North Africa.

The reason I made my post is because I find it ignorant (not stupid or malicious, just ignorant of the facts) to say that the ground effort against Japan was all jungle fighting or the number of troops engaged in battles too small or something along those lines.