Pacific World Campaign

[Nupremal]

I study a lot of history so tried to create reasonable scenarios. You can feel free to ask about any of them. I was planning on limiting all carriers to 1 strike but this makes the naval battles too surface fleet oriented again. Another option would be 0 attack for carriers vs land (they can still do damage with a 0 base as we see from artillery). However, as I said, I want the ability to smash the overly-strong land units on or near islands. Is there a way to change this? Yes, but not using the current game mechanics, so for now I will stand by the decision and see what happens.

It would be great if we could limit the land attacks to the coast only for carriers, or something along those lines - 1 strike vs land would also be good - there are many ways it could be done. I will think about other options after testing this - but try it I don't think it will be bad.

[jon_j_rambo]

There are always two sides to every story. Even though I sent the entire Pacific fleet to France, it did obviously hurt me in the Pacific. Vypuero took nearly the Asia front over.....captured India (I didn't build one unit there with UK), he was fighting in Austrialia, I barely held that, and he was collect a nice Jap income.

I'll let Vypuero speak for himself on this gamey move. He wasn't ready for the air show over France, his Western Nazis had to be in shock in 1943 to have all that firepower working his shores.

One thing to do is make loops that really screw this up. I favor a more open game....if the Jap fleet was able to easily leave the India Ocean, imagine about 5+ Jap carriers trashing juicy targets in the Middle East Seriously, it's like playing chess......If American Navy is MIA in the Pacific, get those Japs sniffy new areas.

Far as "carrier power", they aren't "that great" on soft targets IF those targets are in cities, entrenchments & have AA-guns. You take alot of damage with the carriers.

Figuring out balance is what it's all about. Just takes experience in the game. We've played a bunch of games, and seems like every game introduces something new. For example: In several games "subs" were kicking ass. Chasing those bastards all over the game board gets really expensive & time consuming. Both Axis & Allies can play the sub strategy.....but last game as Axis, Vypuero was prepared for my U-Boats. Even with good Nazi sub tech, the Allies covered the sealanes with tech-Destoryers.....I sent 3 waves of sub builds at him.....he stopped them all! Bottom line: For every strategy, there is a counter.

The reason I did this American Carrier Pacific move (sent all surface ships), is Vypuero is a good Russian front player. The dude has been smashing my Russians with his Germans game after game. I had to get some firepower on him quick.

[jon_j_rambo]

Also, in that particular game "Moving Pacific Fleet", I had other positive factors working for me. I built UK subs early in the game, and was able to fight off the Kriegsmarine early in the game around Norway. As the Allies, I was able to rescue Norway.

Vypuero was king of the Pacific. Adjusting Victory Conditions is the quickest way to motivate the Americans in the Pacific. The "Outer Islands" need a reason for the season. They just aren't important in my opinion.

Vypuero & myself have thought about a new value called "Political MMPs". If the "Outer Islands" gave you victory points for each turn held, there would be some value. We don't want to give "MMPs" for the islands, loses total historical feel, but there has to be some value to the worthless islands. I have no reason to care about Tarawa, Guadacanal, Midway, etc.

The other thought......what if the Americans did ignore the Japs in real life? What harm would there to concentrate all firepower on the Germans (or even vice versa)? The game is typically won/loss in Russia anyways

[Nupremal]

All good points - can always change it back in the next version. I also added a few new victory conditions, like taking over the middle east and india (win for axis), taking all of the naval bases of US in the pacific (win for Japan) taking both India and Australia (win for Japan) and taking all of Russia (win for Axis)

[SeaMonkey]

See JJR took advantage of Vypuero's pattern of play, no need to change anything, that's why I'm saying, you have to be careful. Rambo is an excellent beta tester because he's willing to play "out of the box", doesn't matter if you win or lose.

Testing is about how you play the game.

Vypuero, you have no doubt created an excellent campaign, best I've ever played, shows real imagination and of course your historical perspective is very good. Because it is such an "in depth" scenario its going to require a lot of testing and people have to be willing to play it out to the end, don't be presumptuous, this is a work of art, it takes awhile to complete.

As far as the islands and CV vs land units interaction, I've posted on this before about the need to make Land based air particularly effective against naval vessels. This makes a player invest heavily in LR, AT, and NW, and makes island basing desirable, but as Sombra always brings up you have the problem of land units being decimated by LB air.

One thing I can suggest is leave CVs with one strike and their current effectiveness vs land units. Reduce the initial CTV(SA,TA) of land based air to 0 against land units, but give them double strikes. This way you have to research them to get their effectiveness up vs land units and they aren't so overpowering early, just like it was historically in WW2. With only two levels of AT, the best they can get to is 2 SA / TA. make the AT research cost 200, like you did the IW, its effectively the same thing. Cut the numbers of them available to players making them have to operate them around, there are lots of ways to do this as Hubert has so graciously provided.

In my perspective, mobile units like Tanks give you the ability to bring a lot of combat power to the battle and in the time periods encompassed by SC turns its appropriate for them to have 2 strikes. Why should air units not have the same feature, they are after all more mobile than tanks, only their numbers lag and that's why CVs, who's aircraft loads are low vs LB air should only get one strike.

Just suggestions, I know more people will provide better ideas, this is a start.

[jon_j_rambo]

We really need more data, IMHO. Vypuero & Myself aren't the only two players. Maybe a few of you other guys can post your opinions after playing some games. There's enough ways to tweak the game.......We're all looking for a game that's 50/50 of who will win within some historic boundaries that's fun to play.

[Nupremal]

If someone wants to play some more games with me that would help to see a new perspective. If so you can look for me on windows live messenger.

[SeaMonkey]

Even better, Vypuero, when we're playing, if there are certain areas you'd like us to focus on, perhaps the players will tend to look at those arenas.

We just need a little instruction.

[Nupremal]

What do you guys think of a victory condition like this - which I got from Avalon Hill (3R) based on dates:

Axis Victory Level Surrender Date Japanese Victory Level

-6 earlier -5

-5 March 1, 1944 -5

-4 June 1, 1944 -5

-3 September 1, 1944 -4

-2 December 1, 1944 -3

-1 March 1, 1945 -2

0 June 1, 1945 -1

1 September 1, 1945 0

2 December 1, 1945 1

3 March 1, 1946 2

4 June 1, 1946 3

5 September 1, 1946 4

6 later 5

[Nupremal]

crap didnt format - anyway - idea is +/- based on when surrenders happen and end/game, and combine the two.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Nupremal --- Thing is, this works for Berlin.....how do you account for Italy & Japan for victory conditions?

[Happycat]

Ah, actually dude, I did do that as Allies. I moved the Pacific Fleet to Northern France & opened up the Nazis Yeah, the Japs were given the Pacific as their private pond, but I was dancing in Berline in September 1944.

I don't know if I see that as a problem. It's taking historically available resources and utilizing them in an ahistorical way. Isn't that part of the fun in wargaming?

What I would like to know, in the game where you did this, what was the consequence for the Allies in the Pacific? Your Japanese opponent must have had some fun with the lack of American carriers?

Incidentally, a German collapse prior to the end of 1944 is not unreasonable. If Montgomery had been able to convince Eisenhower to abandon his "broad front" strategy, and focus primarily upon the northern front (i.e. cross the Rhine, capture the Ruhr, drive on Berlin) there is some support among historians for the idea that the war could have ended before winter of 1944.

Not being very good at tinkering under the hood with the game editor, I would prefer to see the Panama loop left operable both directions. If players, who like me don't know how to edit the loops, want to keep USN CV's in the Pacific, they could agree upon that as a "house rule" before hand.

Thoughts?

[Happycat]

Also you will be able to move Ranger if you want to the Pacific (via Indian Ocean) but not via versa.

The extra firepower of the carriers is too much for the European theatre - it is meant to reflect their power at sea and for the island battles.

Fair enough, it's your mod, and also I tend to agree with your interpretation of the historical forces at work here. But I think it is always a bit of a risk for a designer when the game takes away choices and forces play in a certain direction.

On the other hand, since I would not want to remove the carriers from the Pacific anyway (unless I destroyed the Kido Butai in 1942), I don't suppose it's a deal breaker for me.

[Happycat]

I study a lot of history so tried to create reasonable scenarios. You can feel free to ask about any of them. I was planning on limiting all carriers to 1 strike but this makes the naval battles too surface fleet oriented again. Another option would be 0 attack for carriers vs land (they can still do damage with a 0 base as we see from artillery). However, as I said, I want the ability to smash the overly-strong land units on or near islands. Is there a way to change this? Yes, but not using the current game mechanics, so for now I will stand by the decision and see what happens.

It would be great if we could limit the land attacks to the coast only for carriers, or something along those lines - 1 strike vs land would also be good - there are many ways it could be done. I will think about other options after testing this - but try it I don't think it will be bad.

Like you, I have studied history (going on 50 years now). It is worth noting that prior to 1940, the Japanese carrier based air had a great deal of experience in China. Some of this was gained by aircraft flown from carriers near the Chinese coast, while in other instances carrier planes were temporarily based ashore.

For reference, you might enjoy this book:

Peattie, Mark R. "Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power", 1909-1941. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2002.

This website is also of some utility in the same regard:

http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/sino-japanese.htm

But your point is well-taken. Carrier based air flying from the sea of China and striking targets hundreds of miles inland is not reasonable. It would be nice if there was a way to fly the air component from the CV to a land base, thus avoiding the anomaly of carriers performing groundstrikes on targets in China's interior, and then moving in the same turn to a location hundreds of miles away.

Overall, I think your mod in its previous iteration accomplished the goal of maintaining its historical feel. While I have not yet tried your newest version (I'm not patched to 1.02 yet), I am sure you have kept it "real".

[Nupremal]

As I said I will most likely add the loop back in the next version. I am experimenting on the changes with the ranges and spotting. I did not realize that the "intercept" range of fighters was linked to spotting, though that explains why they would never intercept at range 5 even though they could strike that far. I reduced their non-tech spotting to 2, except for the Japs who start with 3, and it may be too limiting I may have to increase it again.

[JakubK]

In this scenario allied AI is doing invasion in France in 1944 ?

[Nupremal]

I that a question? Yes I set up invasions of France for the Allied AI. The Pacific AI is not complete however nor is the USSR AI.

[SeaMonkey]

Vypuero, if you're concerned about naval actions being too surface oriented, you could drop the air defense CTV of the 3, DD,Ca,BB and elevate the naval attack value of CVs to a point where even with one strike they will take out a surface unit.

If the land based air also has a very strong NA and a similar capability of harming surface units and double strikes, then you see them as an asset for island basing.

Next, the amount of attrition that CV's CAGs take has to be diminished, and will be with the one strike feature, so that they can remain on station for multiple turns, say no more than three to four at the most. Now they represent a dangerous unit, especially in groupings and inconjunction with inrange land based air when faced with enemy naval assets, but still needing protection from the land and CV based air opposition.

[sandy]

Hi

I cannot find this file on the (now closed) CM mods site; is it available anywhere else?

If not, could somebidy email it to me please?

Assuming that I can find it, would anybody like to try a game?

Sandy (in London)

email sandy.eisen@tevaeu.com

[SeaMonkey]

Sandy, third thread down in this forum, "Nupremal World Campaign", its in the repository.

I'd like to get another game going but currently I've got Rambo with version 3 and don't want to get the newest(5) since its not backward compatible, already did that w/1.03 and sacrificed my game with Happycat.

[SeaMonkey]

In light of the reference of Yolo911 in the IT thread, I wanted to bring Vypuero's attention to the inadequacies of trying to duplicate the PH attack. I counted the tiles from the departure port in the Japanese Kuriles to the striking distance for the Kido Butai NW of Oahu and found it to be around 122 tiles.

Divide that by the AP cruising range for CVs which is 14 and it will take approximately 9 turns to get there and your opponent has 9 turns, that's 18 turns total at a week per turn.

Hmmmm, the KB departed like Nov.26 and of course the strike date Dec.7, that's 11 days, 1.5 turns. No problem with the surprise as Japan can DoW USA, but the road back will be a long one with the KB taking 3.5 months to return.

Perhaps a Japanese loop is necessary?

[Nupremal]

Oh you may be happy that I added a Pearl Harbor event in.

85% activation Japan has decision yes/no pearl?

Yes = Strength event 1-4 ground and 1-8 naval + war

No = more negotiations -3-7% activation

It is up to you if you want to invade or kill units to have carriers there - but you dont have to to strike a blow

[SeaMonkey]

Good decision! Now that brings up another set of possibilities. Suppose Japan decides to engage in conquest of the SRA, avoiding the Philippines and any confrontation with America, solely targeting UK, Dutch, and Australian interests.

Maybe a limited pull back in China for USA appeasement?

Without PH event do you think that USA would be enticed into war just to secure the UK Commonwealth members, the Dutch colonies? I believe Roosevelt and company would have a hard sale to Congress and the American people to risk her young men on such an endeavor.

At best, I could see some acceleration for entry, but not a DoW from the USA, giving the Japanese substantial breathing room. Eventually, yes, Japanese and USA interests in the Pacific are surely going to collide and war will be the result, but perhaps without PH there may be a conditional end to hostilities which lends credence to an Axis victory, at least in this theater.

Other possibilities?

[Nupremal]

Granted it would be harder - but given that any player of the Axis would want to avoid war with the USA having hindsight - we have to force things to make the game work. As it is I gave a small benefit - I can always increase it if I think it would be better.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Am I reading this right-to sink anything you also need the IJN CVs there to kill the damaged ships? I also assume there's a recurring event upping Japanese readiness if the US moves all Pearl ships to the West Coast?

I'll likely, finally, spring for PT this week.