Pacific Theater

[pad152]

Battlefront always said that CM did not lend itself to the Pacific war. I hope that CMX2 will be able to cover war in this theater.

[mrpwase]

I'm pretty sure I read Steve saying that the PTO wasn't a very priority for CMx2. A bit of a shame, but oh well. >_>

[Migo441]

I never understood the 'discrimination' (for lack of a better word) against the PTO for infantry combat games. It was one of the later major modules for ASL. It didn't make an appearence in the Close Combat series. It seems like an afterthought for the CM series.

Is it because there aren't enough Canadians involved and Dorosh is pulling all the strings? (Ooops... Now I'll provoke him into a lengthy post on Canadians in the PTO.)

More seriously, is a marketing issue? Or is it because there's something about the combat that makes it less interesting as a simulation/game? One of the main things that always drew me to WWII as a subject of interest was the sweep of it all. Blitzkrieg in Western Europe, massive tank engagements on the steppes, British commando raids in the desert, Leathernecks storming ashore on some atoll, etc... From that perspective, I don't understand the marketing angle. The Commonwealth contingent certainly has a historical stake as well: Singapore, Burma, etc... Granted, naval and air forces took precedence in the grand scheme of things, but I think there's still plenty of room for simulating infantry combat in the Pacific Theater.

What gives?

[Sixxkiller]

Personally I would love to see it from Battlefront. The tactics employed in island fighting would make this an exciting change of pace. But the heart of CM wasnt infantry, but armored warfare. I have no clue as to what the changes will be to CMX2 but I know someone will make a mod to atleast touch on this.

-Ray

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Migo441:

Or is it because there's something about the combat that makes it less interesting as a simulation/game?

BFC has said this is the main reason for them.

[przy]

Pacific would be cool. But probably not likely, then again, you never know. :cool:

[Frenchy]

I have always wanted a Pacific Theater for the CM series. I am hoping a module can be made for the next series.

Time will tell.

[lucero1148]

PTO would be cool but BFC thought it would be boring overall as there wasn't any armored combat involved. Certainly not even on a armored company sized level or even platoon level for that matter. In the long run they would be right from a marketing POV as how many disks would they be able to sell.

All best

Patrick

[stoat]

I think that the Pacific does not lend itself to company level based games. There were relatively few clear company vs. company battles compared to the other theaters. Sure, you could have scenarios from Guadalcanal, Okinawa, Malaysia, the Philippines, and parts of China. But the majority of the battles fought were actions carried out by spread out units where command and control was almost nonexistent. For all of those beach landings, and small unit ambushes, officers played a small role. Battles were won by groups of two or three men taking the initiative and assaulting the enemy and freeing up the advance for a few dozen meters. Fighting also took place at much closer range. Many battles devolved into hand to hand fighting. Bayonet charges would have to be modelled as well. Hard to do with the current system. Maybe with a squad based game, but for CMx2 I will be happy with Europe.

Plus, no armor vs armor worthy of comment.

[Tagwyn]

PTO would not interest me or my friends, both of them LOL. I hope they don't waste their precious time on that. Tag

[Private Bluebottle]

If anything, the Pacific is far better as a theatre if CM is to be considered only suitable for company sized actions. Afterall, it was primarily an infantry war but there was in most theatres significant use of armour, albeit in smaller numbers than in Europe. In Burma, Malaya, Borneo, New Guinea, Java, the Pacific islands, tanks were utilised.

I suspect the real reason why we won't see a game about the Pacific War because battlefront aren't interested in it, rather than because its necessarily a theatre where CM scaled actions didn't occur.

[Peter Cairns]

I tend to think that they will do a PTO, if not initially.

A lot of what I have read about the new graphics, map design, morale/suppression split, relative spotting and 1:1 representation, makes me think that the coordination of armour will be more difficult and the infantry v infantry experience, especially close in more intense.

This could lead on Infantry v infantry combat in heavy terrain being a more rewarding and challenging experience, which could make PTO more appealing.

I have a feeling that the smaller grid texture and 1:1 rep, especially could well make a CMx2 Company feel like a CM1 battalion, where you will fight as intensely over a small farm as you used too over a town.

Having said that the same changes might make Vietnam a more attractive option for them.

Peter

[pad152]

CMx1 games were mainly about armoured combat (tanks), it's true tanks played a lesser role in combat in the pacific, and most Japanese tanks were little more than rolling beer cans (early war armoured cars). It sounds like infantry will play a more important role in CMx2 so the pacific war should be possible.

[tools4fools]

Not enough armor battles?

In game the US would have "übertanks" with Shermans or even with Stuarts. Japanese would have to use tons of "prototypes" to fight those. Not getting anywhere historically...

Would it be fun having big US arty and Shermans blasting away at Japanese infantry with little AT capability? Doesn't sound like intersting battles to me...

Would it be fun having your troops staggering around the jungle, fatigue kicking in real fast due to terrain, then suddenly close combat kicks in from some hidden defenders, unable to get reinforcements within time due to terrain...

Not very intersting either, smale scale infantry battle isn't CM kind of battle.

The moving combined arms battle would just not happen if they do it correctly, so much less interesting game play.

*****

[jrcar]

Almost all the Australian actions were "company" fights.

For example at Finschhafen (in New Guniea) you have the Aust 20 Brigade attacking, but the brigadede is broken down to the company level, even the battalion actions are really just separete companies. The Japanese were also mainly in company strongpoints.

Incedentaly the climax is the attack on Sattleberg, with Matilda tanks in support.

Waiting to see the new engine to see how suitable it may be for the Pacific.

Cheers

Rob

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by tools4fools:

Not enough armor battles?

In game the US would have "übertanks" with Shermans or even with Stuarts. Japanese would have to use tons of "prototypes" to fight those. Not getting anywhere historically...

Would it be fun having big US arty and Shermans blasting away at Japanese infantry with little AT capability? Doesn't sound like intersting battles to me...

Would it be fun having your troops staggering around the jungle, fatigue kicking in real fast due to terrain, then suddenly close combat kicks in from some hidden defenders, unable to get reinforcements within time due to terrain...

Not very intersting either, smale scale infantry battle isn't CM kind of battle.

The moving combined arms battle would just not happen if they do it correctly, so much less interesting game play.

*****

That may be the case for the American side of the Pacific War but in New Guinea and Burma, combined arms was the norm, even if the actual actions were mainly short, little, vicious firefights at close range. Artillery, Armour, Infantry and other supporting arms, all played their part, even if Infantry was the queen of the battlefield.

[Panzeh]

Hell, you could probably have some Shanghai and other Chinese scenarios for more interesting battles.

[Peter Cairns]

Tool4Fools,

So if the US had the massive armour advantage you are suggesting, why didn't they use it an roll the japs up by 1943....

Maybe the opposite is the case, that in close terrain, like vietnam, they couldn't use their mobility and were as restricted and vulnerable without infantry as in urban warfare.

I agree with Jrcar, lets see the engine first. I've a real feeling that relative spotting will have a big impact on how we all use armour.

I think the ability to see the whole battlefield means that in CM1 we tend to manouver unrealistically because we have to much knowledge of the battlefield.

If whats been said so far bares fruit, tanks will be far more dependant on the eyes and ears of the infantry around them and much more vulnerable on there own, particularly with an 8x8 grid with 1 mtr overlays that allows for walls in gardens and ditches by road.

It is the inability to get infantry with satchel charges close enough to tanks in CM1 that makes them look impotent against armour and that might well change.

Peter.

[Wisbech_lad]

The final British sweep through Burma was very much combined arms - check out the battle of Meitikla (sp?)

Maybe that is the problem - dry season Burma fighting, island assaults, and NG jungle fighting are much more varied than ETO?

And the Chinese. By far the bulk of the land combat was in China, and there is not exactly a huge amount of interest in that...

Me, I want to see Indo-Pak wars. M48s and Shermans against AMX13's, Centurions & Shermans. My oh my.

[Snow Leopard]

May end up attack Japanese bunkers over and over. How can we model Japanese squad leader wield a sword? rolling head down? Allied use off-board fire support from battleships that may too much. I don't think anyone want play as Japanese online.

[Aacooper]

I think the main strike against the PTO is that many of its battles wouldn't lend themselves to 2-player play. If the terrain is constricted, then the defender most likely would only be able to setup, then sit in place until the attacker comes. If the terrain is open, then one side will have overwhelming firepower to bring down on the other. So, a lot of the scenarios would be more akin to one-player puzzles.

There are exceptions to this, but I think there are easier settings to make fun gameplay.

[Dave H]

I'm always interested to read about the campaigns forum members want to play. Apparently there are exactly zero people here who want to command Japanese soldiers in the early days while they were conquering Manchukuo, major pieces of China, the Philippines, Singapore, Java, etc. Evidently nobody wants to try defending against them, either. Nope, it appears the primary interest in the PTO is obliterating isolated Japanese garrisons long after the US Navy had siezed the strategic offensive. Good times, eh? Under the circumstances, I hope BFC continues to pass on the PTO.

[junk2drive]

Not exactly zero. I played and playtested a few of Hans' CMAK PTO scenarios as the Japanese. I continue to look at ideas for Soviet-Japan early and late war for CMBB and China-Japan for CMAK.

[zakarpatska]

"Not exactly zero. I played and playtested a few of Hans' CMAK PTO scenarios as the Japanese. I continue to look at ideas for Soviet-Japan early and late war for CMBB and China-Japan for CMAK."

Hi junk2drive,

I'd also be interested in these scenarios. Since your looking at ideas how about Nomonhan or Ichi-go? New Guinea scenarios might be fun too...

Thanks,

zak

[Snow Leopard]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

Not exactly zero. I played and playtested a few of Hans' CMAK PTO scenarios as the Japanese. I continue to look at ideas for Soviet-Japan early and late war for CMBB and China-Japan for CMAK.

It should be interesting to see if Japanese can win even lack of suitable armors against Soviet as I want to play it but may hard to market it if stand only then if add to Pacific war then still hard to market it due to many may not want play on Japanese side. Maybe we should have a poll with 2,000 to 5,000 members' vote to see if they will play as Japanese. We may need some best candies to attachment buyers to play it. Plenty of people enjoy play as Japanese on PC game "Heart of Iron 2" however will they play as Japanese down to ground on battle field instead of look at colorful regionals?