Hawaii's Garrison

[Ludi1867]

At campaign start there is a strength 5 Marine Air Wing (fighter) in the naval base (town), and a strength 5 AA unit in Honolulu (city). Soon after game start a Marine land unit appears, but it is placed in Hilo. The overall result of these campaign design decisions is to leave Hawaii very vulnerable to the concentrated naval forces that start (a historically in the case of the battleships) near the island chain.

It is relatively easy for the Japanese player to move the 1st Maizuru SNLF that starts SSW of Wake Island east and land it into the naval base – which can usually be emptied by concentrated air and naval gunfire – by the fourth Japanese turn. Capturing the remainder of Hawaii is not that easy, but far from all that challenging.

Does this comparative vulnerability of Hawaii reflect historical reality?

There are serious problems with how easily this can be accomplished in the current iteration of Operation Z. First, there was a significant garrison on Oahu. “In 1941 Oahu had a strong garrison of about 25,000 troops. Armed with all the tools of modern warfare, kept rugged and alert by constant field exercises, these soldiers were expertly trained in the defense of the Island.” G. Prange, At Dawn We Slept, page 97. This is a little smaller than the US force size in the Philippines, though not by all that much if you exclude the Filipino troops, and significantly larger than the rather poorly trained and integrated garrison at Hong Kong. So, yes, there was a very good garrison at Oahu.

Second, the SNLF represented by the unit south of Wake was not very large. The original landing on Wake, with only 450 Japanese marines, was repulsed. A second landing with 1500 IJN marines succeeded. Rolling the two units together still only gives you 2000 troops, which is still larger than the average pre-war SNLF (1200). So at the MOST, this represents a small marine force transported a very long distance past an occupied Wake Island and an occupied Midway to land in Hawaii.

The third problem is that there is so little penalty (or advantage) to currently capturing the various isolated islands in the Pacific. They do have some limited utility as sources of supply and repair after naval battles, but in comparison to the historical importance of many of these islands this is very minor. So there is no currently no reason for Japan to capture Wake or Midway Island, and this means that they might as well use that embarked amphib for something. (I was going to put in a suggestion for perhaps adjusting the treatment of the islands, but after wading through the 12 pages of posts on the subject, many quite juvenile and supported by no discernible historical research, that I do not feel it worthwhile now).

My recommended solution. The naval base on Hawaii should be made a fortification in the game, and a strength 8 infantry unit be placed inside the fortification. If considered necessary, perhaps this unit could be made immobile – it was not intended for expeditionary ops but to defend the base. The 2nd Marine Air Wing can be placed in the square to the SW.

Associated minor issues. After the Japanese land in the naval base, certain scripted events continue to occur. Battleships are re floated (and easily re-sunk), the Doolittle raid happens (!), etc. There is very limited American reaction – the Hawaiian National Guard appears on the shore north of Honolulu, but is rather exposed and vulnerable there, especially as by this point the Japanese can resupply from the southernmost port. The patch indicates there are more things that are supposed to happen, but I have not come across these extra events. A major event such as a Japanese landing in Hawaii would have been a significant event in the war, and it is difficult to see Torch going forward – instead major US resources would have shifted to the Pacific. But not in SC2PT, apparently.

Recommended adjustments. Battleships should not be re floated and the Doolittle raid should not happen while the naval base is occupied, but be deferred until the naval base is recaptured by US forces. The California national guard should be raised if Pearl Harbor is captured.

[scottsmm]

Ludi, Decent idea, but what about the naval loop which IMO is much more important than adding a corps, and a fortress to Hawaii. If Hawaii falls why should the Allies be able to use that naval loop?

[Ludi1867]

Hi Scott

The naval loop to Hawaii is something I should have added to the list of inconsistencies - if Hawaii falls the loop should obviously be taken out. In reality the loop is only a convenience. It really doesn't add any value to the game except removing the drudgery of moving units to Hawaii - and if you don't own Hawaii you shouldn't be able to use it. In fact, the loop should default to whoever owns Hawaii, although it should probably take about five turns to get to Hawaii from Japan (3353 Nautical miles from Tokyo to Honolulu vice 2270 NM from San Diego to the same destination).

However, if you add a fortification and a land garrison to the naval port, the chance of Japan taking Hawaii will lower significantly and hopefully make the loop discussion less relevant.

[Bill101]

Battleships should not be re floated...

Hi Ludi

I am a little confused by this as I ran a lot of tests to check that the Nevada wouldn't refloat if the Japanese had taken Honolulu, but I take it that this is still happening in your games with version 1.01?

Or is it happening when the Japanese have landed but not taken anything?

If you could confirm it would be very useful so that I can see whether or not the Nevada reflotation scripts needs tweaking.

Thanks

Bill

[Ludi1867]

Hi Bill

Yes, the Nevada still appears at what I would term a ridiculous moment in version 1.01. I did a quick hot seat game check to verify and check some parameters of the appearance. The quickest a Japanese unit can be landed in the game (using the Wake Island invasion amphib) is four turns after game start (The supporting fleet can usually empty the naval base by turn 3, but the amphib cannot move fast enough to land that turn). If that unit lands on turn 4 and takes the naval base only then the Nevada still appears at the end of the next Allied turn. Now, if the Japanese unit lands later than turn 4 then the Nevada will already have reappeared, and therefore it is not quite so ridiculous (although how that much effort would have gone into salvage if the US was being blockaded by the majority of the IJN is hard to see.)

I am a little surprised that this is your only reaction. In the process of studying the anomaly of how easy it is for Japan to capture the naval base on Hawaii, I have found a few other aspects of the map and the game that are problematic. The game map is clearly an effort to ‘represent’ the Pacific as opposed to be an accurate map, but there are some very large discrepancies. I first started to notice this when I moved the destroyed starting next to Tokyo toward Hawaii. In three turns the IJN Wakaba can be very close to Honolulu – in fact, I think it is only 44 squares or so between Honolulu (the square south of the city, to be consistent with actual geography). (note – it is difficult to get an exact count because of the map size and scrolling requirements, but 44 is either right or pretty close). Then I tried moving the carrrier out of San Francisco to Honolulu, and that turned out to be 40 squares. That is a little bit shorter, but the real difference in distance is massive – it should be well over 60 squares for the trip from Tokyo, while 40 is about right for the trip from San Fran. So, Pearl Harbor appears to be an appropriate distance OUT from the US coast, while it is significantly closer to Japan than the reality.

All these design decisions – not to garrison Hawaii anywhere close to historical reality, to place a major Japanese battleship fleet along with the carriers northwest of Hawaii against historical reality, skew the map so as to make that island closer to Japan than should probably be the case, make the capture of Pacific islands such as Wake etc relatively unimportant, and remove the supply challenge of moving lots of ships long distances – all make the game both simpler to play BUT also skew history so as to make the invasion of Hawaii seem a relative walk in the park. In particular the Japanese would have been very hard pressed to maintain a steady flow of aviation gas and munitions to carriers over 3000 miles from the nearest base, and it is this steady flow of oilers and munitions supply vessels that would have been the achilles heel of any effort to really invade Hawaii. But move Hawaii a thousand miles closer to Japan, remove the supply problem and it is pretty easy to keep pounding against the small US forces available at game outset, especially (in this game!) when US Atlantic fleet assets are not going to be shifted even in the face of a real threat to Pearl Harbor. (The three British carriers available in the Atlantic may still not have been shifted either – they were not historically, despite a USN request for one of them for the central Pacific in early 1942. But the RN lived to rue their mistaken response to Ernie King’s request.)

[Bill101]

Hi Ludi

Thanks for the reply. It certainly wasn't my only reaction on reading your post, and my lack of a response to your other comments shouldn't at all be taken as a negative response to them.

For a variety of reasons, including time constraints and the need to think about suggestions, I won't always reply in detail, but you can rest assured that I will always attentively read any posts like the ones you've made here as constructive criticism is always welcome and that's partly what this forum is for.

Bill

[Ludi1867]

Hi Bill

Appreciate your comment, and you have been invariably polite and responsive so I should not be so irritable.

I think my irritation is a result of frustration. I want this to be a great game, but I am having significant problems with the naval system. I think I have a reasonable understanding of why some of the design decisions have been made, and these decisions have an interrelated quality that makes discussing them one at a time challenging, but overall the naval system is simply not very good. The land system seems to work better. So far I have played the campaign a number of times both versus the AI and PBEM, and I have played the majority of the scenarios against the AI. The land part of the campaign and the land centred scenarios seem to work reasonably well, but any naval aspect of PT is awkward at best.

One example and this is in a way at the heart of many of the design compromises and simplifications of the naval system, is ship speed in the game. As I explained in my review, ship speeds are quite a bit lower in the game than would be expected in most situations. Now this does make planning carefully rather important, but it also changes naval thinking and planning dramatically both obviously and not so obviously. The obvious way is that slow speed means you have to plan where you are going to move units well in advance. This is a good reason, and your quoting me in your reply to one thread reinforces my belief that that is part of the thinking. The not so obvious way that this affects naval thinking and planning is that, because moving at such slow speeds facilitates the decision/assumption that naval supply is “taken care of”, players never have to worry about moving support vessels up to provide re-supply. And this ‘simplification’ of naval supply, which the game has adopted, changes naval attitudes completely. One of the main reasons that naval commanders were reluctant to bypass islands was that transports and oilers moving past garrisoned islands would be vulnerable. As forces and technology improved it became possible to “neutralize” (destroy any anti-shipping air or naval capability resident on) bypassed islands, but this was not really possible at the outset of the war. SC2PT avoids the whole supply shipping problem by making ports the basis of supply, without worrying about the problem of getting transports and oilers to those ports. This results in a whole series of really bizarre possibilities that occur all too often in the game – liberation of isolated islands deep in enemy territory, followed immediately by operating air units to the vicinity of the liberated port, or landings on the mainland of Japan itself without clearing out or neutralizing major islands along the resupply routes.

Another hard to swallow speed decision is the pseudo tactical nature of ship speeds in the game. What do I mean by pseudo tactical? Well, over a ten day period there is really little difference in the speed provided for carriers or destroyers or submarines, but the game somewhat arbitrarily gives them rather different speeds. In fact, in operational/strategic terms, destroyers are probably slower than submarines in most situations. This may sound strange to readers who do not have the experience or historical knowledge, but it is true. Destroyers can be very fast tactically, but that speed comes at a cost in range and operational options. Moving fast in a destroyer from the period ABSOLUTELY requires the ability to resupply frequently – which the game makes easy but in the real history was not so simple at all. (USN mastery of abeam replenishment is sometimes referred to as one of the key USN secret weapons of the war)

Submarines, on the other hand, actually have outstanding operational speed when employed in an anti-shipping role, as they have remarkable independent fuel capacity. Their speed in a Fleet Support role is more constrained, as Fleet Support generally means operating in the vicinity of enemy warships, and operating in the vicinity of enemy warships generally requires caution and frequent submergence on the part of submersibles (which is all the units in SC2PT are). So, PERHAPS, the speed of submarines depicted in the game might be appropriate for submarines in the Fleet Support mode. But of course there is no real differentiation between Fleet Support and Anti-Shipping roles in the game, which means that all submarines toddle along at very slow speeds. The Hide versus Hunt modes now available, which represented a very major improvement to the SC2 naval engine, is really not enough in the Pacific. Why? The IJN almost never used their fairly capable submarines in an anti-shipping role. This stems from doctrinal and/or cultural reasons – there were no real technical issues involved. But the fact remains that few Japanese submarines bothered to waste torpedoes on merchant ships, and the IJN as a whole was loath to send submarines on such missions, endeavouring valiantly to always use them in a fleet support role. The book Kaigun explains this, and many other aspects of Japanese naval thinking, much better than I can here, and you can either check the sources or take my word for it. It is one of those strange but true aspects of the war. US submariners, on the other hand, were employed – immediately from the start of the war - primarily in an anti-shipping role, but switched easily to Fleet Support whenever opportunity or circumstances allowed. The US submarine capability is closer to what is modeled badly in PT, but the fact remains is that even US submarines are hard to use well – they take forever to get to the convoy lines (note speed comments above) and then are comparatively vulnerable to Japanese ASW. In fact, Japanese ASW was generally quite poor, improving only modestly through the war. The US lost 52 submarines to the Japanese during the war. That is a fair number, and was certainly a grim fate for all those US submariners. But the Germans lost over 700 U-boats to Allied action (648 while on war patrol) during the war – more than TWELVE times as many. Just these facts alone highlight the major difference in quality between Japanese and Allied ASW – the Allies were orders of magnitude more capable in this aspect of naval warfare. Some might argue that it was just a matter of brute force – the Allies had so many ships and aircraft. They would be wrong – there was much more involved on the Allied side, and the Japanese really were quite bad at ASW for a host of reasons. Perhaps doing some major changes to the way submarines are handled to reflect different modes for Fleet Support (pretty much what is in the game now) and Anti-Shipping (moves twice as fast but has half the anti-ship strength) might help.

There is a mild effort to reflect this in the current iteration of PT. Japanese ASW R&D costs more than Allied (125 vice 100 MPP), but this really avoids the core issues, which are the inadequacies of Japanese submarine doctrine in both ASW and anti-shipping, as well as the slow speed of submarines at ALL times. Overall Sc2PT does a lousy job modeling the Pacific sub war.

So, excessively simplified naval supply, awkward speeds for naval units, an excessively crude modeling of submarines, among other shortcomings, means that PT really does not do a very good job at all of recreating naval warfare at the operational/strategic level. When incredible errors, such as the excessive vulnerability of Pearl Harbor are added to the mix, it just starts to get very frustrating. (And, since I am on a roll here, why are there four port squares in Hawaii, which is equal to the entire west coast of the US? I know Pearl Harbor is a reasonable port, but it is really not all that big –San Diego, Seattle and San Francisco are all certainly bigger LA probably is too, but I am not as personally familiar with it. If it is to ease upgrade and repair of USN warships, a major and relatively tedious process in the game, given that carriers have to do aircraft and hull one at a time, then that decision is a MAJOR error, because it makes Pearl Harbor both more important to the USN – and, in fact, easier for the Japanese to capture.)

[Bill101]

Hi Ludi

Thanks for the extra thoughts, there's a lot more to think about there!

With regards to some of the issues you mentioned in your first post, I have some ideas for solutions that I will be testing this week.

With regards to your last post, I actually do find a US submarine campaign a useful prospect in this game, and a real pain in the neck when I'm Japanese. The price of ASW research usually puts Japanese players off researching it, thus the allies can strike at Japanese convoy routes secure in the knowledge that even if found and attacked, the cost of sinking them can be rather expensive.

I do fear that if we made US submarines too invunerable to Japanese ASW then players would actually find it more frustrating as Japanese. US submarines at the start of the game will already dive on average 25% of times when attacked. With research, which is relatively cheap for US subs at 75MPPs per level, at their maximum level they will be diving 65% of the time when attacked. This doesn't make them 100% invulnerable, but it does render Japanese attacks pretty futile, and there is in addition the problem that the Japanese have in locating the subs.

Anyway, I'm not knocking your post as it is a valid look at submarine warfare, and I'm sure that we all look forward to further improvements in the game engine.

[bowenw]

Normally I respect everyones opinion, but I am having a problem here with Ludi1867 comments, such as I should not be so irritable because Bill has been polite, baloney! Also comments about juvenile thoughts by some members posts. Outside of supply which I have since surrendered on and a few very minor glitches that Bill and Hubert fix correctly almost right away, this is a very well done game and the map is well done, and if the milage is not exactly perfect so what it does its job in the games constrictions. I do not mean to offend Bill or Hubert but this is a beer and pretzles game, meaning a fast well thought out game, I dont believe for a minute that Fury software wanted this to be a War in the Pacific game that nobody plays much because it takes way to long and its learning curve is way to high. Ludi1867 if you are looking for such an intricate game then you should wait to July 2009 when Matrix will release the board game World at War, it has taken five years to construct since they signed {Matrix} with the owner of the board game. I have read all of the forums and how each componet works and I will tell you this, I believe you and most other players will flee back to this game and never complain again. Not because WAW wont be awsome but is it playable? Meaning it might take a year to play one game spending countless hours of frustration, if players are complaining slightly about the time it takes the computer to move all its assets around the map from 1944 and on in this game wait till they see the time element in AI moves in WAW.

Dont mean to be argumenative in any way just frustrated at some comments.

Willy

[cubby]

Normally I respect everyones opinion, but I am having a problem here with Ludi1867 comments, such as I should not be so irritable because Bill has been polite, baloney! Also comments about juvenile thoughts by some members posts. Outside of supply which I have since surrendered on and a few very minor glitches that Bill and Hubert fix correctly almost right away, this is a very well done game and the map is well done, and if the milage is not exactly perfect so what it does its job in the games constrictions. I do not mean to offend Bill or Hubert but this is a beer and pretzles game, meaning a fast well thought out game, I dont believe for a minute that Fury software wanted this to be a War in the Pacific game that nobody plays much because it takes way to long and its learning curve is way to high. Ludi1867 if you are looking for such an intricate game then you should wait to July 2009 when Matrix will release the board game World at War, it has taken five years to construct since they signed {Matrix} with the owner of the board game. I have read all of the forums and how each componet works and I will tell you this, I believe you and most other players will flee back to this game and never complain again. Not because WAW wont be awsome but is it playable? Meaning it might take a year to play one game spending countless hours of frustration, if players are complaining slightly about the time it takes the computer to move all its assets around the map from 1944 and on in this game wait till they see the time element in AI moves in WAW.

Dont mean to be argumenative in any way just frustrated at some comments.

Willy

Here, Here!!! Well put. A Great Game!! Not an UGLY Child...

[Ludi1867]

Hi Bill

As always, your responses are interesting. I am not really arguing (too hard) to make ASW much harder than it is for the Japanese – the game’s current approximations do sort of work, and it probably is not worthwhile to change the ASW engine too much. But how long does it take a US submarine to get from the west coast of the US to the Sea of Japan? Ten turns? It is far too long, in my view, and I would think that this COULD be addressed by a change in the pro-submarine warfare mode. Hunt and Hide modes really offer comparatively little in this game – the Japanese have little point in using Hide because there are no convoy routes for them to attack (which does also kind of make sense, given Japanese submarine doctrine, but I really think there might be ways to give players the option of adjusting this by providing the Japanese with an Anti-shipping research option, some convoy lines to attack – between the US and Sydney seems a real possibility. And, as you note, the Japanese constraints are such that most players will not bother). But a Fleet Submarine and Anti-Shipping mode, that SIGNIFICANTLY increased the speed of sub’s in anti-shipping mode, might address the real speed shortfall that US submarines (in particular) face at the moment. Or perhaps add one to speed for every advanced submarine tech advance.

Hi Willy

For a post that you claim not to be argumentative, I would say you failed! I well realize that SC2PT is an effort to provide a simplified model of the Pacific war. I think it does a pretty good job on the land portion. I quite like all the previous ETO games based on this model. I am starting to quite enjoy Patton Drives East, which is essentially the PT engine based in the ETO (or is it vice versa?!). Of course, navies are a small part of the ETO, which is probably a major reason why PDE is easier to like than PT.

There are, at the moment, simply too many absurd possibilities in SC2PT with regards to the naval war. Hopefully, some day, a reasonable way of addressing the issues without resort to excessive complication can be achieved. My point, although perhaps elaborated at greater length than you want, is that the day is not here yet in SC2PT.

Your comment on supply is probably more important than you realize. The supply assumptions and simplifications that ‘work’ in continental warfare do not work all that well in the naval model. One great example of this is the ability to operate aircraft groups (fighters, bombers, or tactical bombers) to ANY location that has at least five supply. For those locations with access to continental rail supply systems or clear access to safe shipping and ports, that is probably reasonable. However, it is far less reasonable for isolated Pacific Islands that just happen to have a working port, where friendly merchant ships would be in grave danger to go. In one of my current PBEM games, I have lost Pearl Harbor as the Ally, but I am merrily operating aircraft into Wake Island, Guam, etc (the Japanese player used the amphibs ‘intended’ for those invasions to take Hawaii). The game engine currently allows this – in fact, I would argue, the vulnerability of Hawaii actively seems to invite the Japanese player to take actions like this. I am afraid that operating aircraft like this is probably too weird and unexplainable in terms of physics, let alone history, to hold my interest. That DOES NOT mean that I have to follow your line of thought and wait for WaW or turn to War in the Pacific. (That kind of ‘argumentative leap’, by the way, is a classic way to conduct an argument by extrapolating a point to absurdity. But of course you were not trying to be argumentative). There are a number of other options around, including returning to the ETO (where this engine works reasonably well), trying other models (Supremacy at Sea) or hoping (and I actually do rather hope that this happens) that Hubert and Bill find a better way to deal with the naval aspects of the game.

I would think that finding a simple but effective way to model naval supply is critical to this improvement. That is just my view, and I may be wrong, but I see nothing wrong with my logic. The first effort at naval supply, reduce supply by one a turn after leaving port, proved too problematic. The next effort, in PT, that only consumed supply for combat, is certainly simple – which IS a definite plus – but is also very problematic for other reasons. In particular, removing most concerns about naval supply renders many aspects of naval strategy (as opposed to tactics, which the game is not too bad at modeling) rather pointless. And the Pacific part of the Pacific war, as opposed to China, Burma, India, etc, was very much a naval war.

So you are welcome to continue not arguing all you want Willy. But try to at least be constructive when you are not arguing – Bill does constructive very well, if you need an example of how to go about it.

[SeaMonkey]

Glad to see some effort at this naval feature other than my postings. Overall I think we all agree this is a rather cumbersome task of which Hubert and Bill have both contributed a great effort and have seen some success. No doubt we all can gain some solace in the fact that they will continue to evolve the engine.

Ludi always brings up interesting things to ponder and I agree with the premise of many of his statements, I probably just don't share his preeminence of the sub model as it is decent, currently. The movement features of the air and naval units are probably of more consequence in which we share the need for attention. Operating air units from one side of the globe to the other is just more that i can fathom, unless a series of bases are linked. IIRC, air refueling was not a parameter of WW2!

It seems I constantly reiterate some of the things I've said in the past and i don't wish to be adamant in their adoption as I'm open to other possibilities. Still the need for the supply/communication layer keeps raising its ugly head out of the ocean depths. We have it in the land portion of SC in the form of the railnet.

We need something comparable for the SC oceans.

[Timskorn]

Hide mode works well for the Japanese because it allows them to spot naval movements without being detected. Only DD's that run into them will find a Hidden sub, or (I think) if a unit ends its turn right next to it. They work great in this role and screening your main force.

As far as naval supply, it's certainly not perfect and allows for fairly unbelievable situations like US op-moving their aircraft anywhere they want, despite the island being in "enemy territory". In my opinion something like this really isn't too big of a problem because they are only really good for spotting at that point. And as the IJN you can destroy it fairly easily.

The way I look at it is that every move has a counter-move to it. This doesn't make naval supply and its awkward circumstances any more realistic, but you can make a player pay for some of these situations. If Japan takes Hawaii it's not very detrimental to the US, and if they leave their ground unit(s) there, that just means less for them to use elsewhere (and an easy target for you).

If a US player decides to op-move in aircraft into Rabaul in early 1942 without support, the IJN can easily eliminate it (or ignore that area altogther, rendering the fighters position almost useless anyway). Finally, I would argue the strategic nature of the Pacific war is still there. It may not necessarily involve island-hopping but you still need to be smart about when and where you present your carriers, and for what purpose.

The way the Pacific War proceeds in the game can go very ahistorical, as a Japanese player may decide to ignore the outer islands completely (see the thread on this) which can alter how a US player decides his overall strategy.

In terms of supply constraints (which dictates the way a ground war proceeds), the naval aspect definitely has much more ease of use. Supply is the difference between success and failure on the ground, but at sea it's not something that is considered much.

If ports were required more often for resupply then they would be much more important to have in control, and if ships lost supply over time then you would need to get ports closer to the objectives you were aiming for. The USN couldn't project their power against Japan proper for very long if their nearest resupply port was Wake Island, for example. Japan would definitely have the advantage here as A) The USN would have to island hop, If the USN decided to go deep against Japan early without island hopping, the IJN would have the benefit of time as each turn USN supplies would be dropping and making them more vulnerable and C) Japan would have a greater incentive to garrison important locations like Rabaul, Port Moresby, Truk in order to force the US to fight for them.

Since this is all theory talk on my part (I think only Bill and Hubert tested these different approaches more than anyone else), I have to assume their final design decision was the best one for the game, and for the reasons they outlined it seems reasonable.

[U8led]

Hide mode works well for the Japanese because it allows them to spot naval movements without being detected. Only DD's that run into them will find a Hidden sub, or (I think) if a unit ends its turn right next to it.

I'm pretty sure any naval unit that bumps into a hidden sub will stop and suffer 'surprise encounter'

I have used subs to pretty good effect like this.

A Jap transport left Midway a couple turns ago and bumped into my level3 US sub then evaporated to my delight.

Just wanted to point that out since the question of 'to hide or not to hide?' can be confusing. I'm still not sure if you deliberately attack a navel vessel while in hide mode if there is a negetive impact on combat. I dont think there is.

But I do like the sub game so far.

Interesting thread.

-bill

[bowenw]

Ludi I am not going to argue but Bill 101 has to be nice I dont, but I will, you critizied other members here for posting juvenile thoughts while posting, some of those people are gone if that is what your referring to, I am not knocking your ideas at all in fact they are right on, what I am trying to say they dont seem to fit into a game of this nature, I referred to it as beer and pretzels and that is exactly what it is a fast paced exciting game with a lot going for it as most players here will agree. If anything should be worked on it is supply which has never been one of Fury's great assets, I read either a post or a gamer review how they have never really adressed supply and how in all their SC series it has been very abstact, maybe there is no good way to control supply or implement any better than they have done, I dont know. If all of your ideas were implemented into this game I for one would be very pleased. I own and play Matrix's Witp and it exhausts me and frustrates every time I play it. It has every thing in a war game a player could wan't but everyone I know has stopped playing it do to the length of the game and its complexities.

You are allowed your opinions and I have to respect them, please respect other players opinions.

Willy

[Ludi1867]

Hi Willy

There may be a language barrier here. I never intended my comment to be taken as all posters on this forum are juvenile – of course they aren’t. My comment was very specifically focused on the long 12 page thread on the outer islands. Some of the posts there really are hard to describe as anything but less than mature – the word juvenile is more succinct, though.

The point I was trying to make was that there was so much baggage on that topic that I was reluctant to engage on it. I have since made a couple of the points that I had in mind here, but overall my view is that the whole outer island aspect of SC2PT is, in a word, sub-optimal. Part of addressing that MIGHT include addressing the naval supply issue. But I really did not want to get into that fight.

Admonishing me to “please respect other players opinions” is a puzzling comment. What if their comments do not deserve respect? We clearly have different standards, and I will drop it at that.

[arado234]

I think that upgrading and improving functions of this game is a great idea but imho if we go to far then we start to loose one of the attractive aspects of this and all the other SC series:Simplicity and ETREMELY fun to play WITHOUT getting to complicated.If you start tweeking supply(and im not necessarily against it)what other problem will that create that may also need adjusting?It could go on and on. I think the game as it is(maybe some adjusting will improve it)shows the overall futility of Japans dreams and that to me is the core of the game.The fun of the game is trying to re-write history.Just my 2 cents worth.

[SeaMonkey]

A234, you are most suredly correct with reference to complication and it is a dangerous tightrope we walk. We must examine the aspects from all perspectives, but futility is what we gamers feel after a few PTO campaigns, because there has to be a chance, there needs to be hope.

We need more than just rolling up our defenses to the home islands and holding on for dear life. I realize that it is historical and I submit to the fact that Japan never had a chance, but in the game there's that playing theme of "what if" and as Japan it is necessary to pursue that, however remote, to a victorious conclusion in a pitiful few instances. Somehow the game has to move into the outer sphere of islands and not remain in the inner sea areas in proximity to the home islands. That is also historical and the "what if" factor should encompass at least a temporary attainment of victory in that realm for Japan in conjunction with other hypothetical goals for the Axis participants in ETO.

We need to get SC mechanics solidified in that potential scenario so that the world campaign can have the correct atmosphere to pursue the Axis victorious theories.

SC is first a game, but it is also a tool, an educational tool, an extension of human imagination to replay history. A test bed, a set of hypothetical circumstances, a condensed simulation to see why past events unfolded in the way they did and how it could've been different and we can have fun doing it.

[Blashy]

I agree that the whole operating concept of air power needs work, it has been so since SC1.

We just need to find a very very simple way of doing this.

[Karhu]

I agree that the whole operating concept of air power needs work, it has been so since SC1.

We just need to find a very very simple way of doing this.

I agree. I've just watched my Japanese invasion army in India get blown to smithereens by every American - and Canadian! - aeroplane on the planet, able to zip halfway across the world at will and in the blink of an eye.

How about a maximum operating range, say three times the normal movement range? Otherwise, have the planes be transported by aircraft carriers or dismantled and taken in transports, like they were in the real world.

[SeaMonkey]

Remember everyone the turn length is subject to the designer and can include a number of weeks for this redeployment to take place.

What is important for the feature is there needs to be a link of bases for the planes to fly to/transports to cruise, for pilot change/rest and refueling/maintenance. Now in PTO the planes would be capable of going east across the virtual map using the transport loop arrows assuming the base link is enforced.

Obviously our CVs (refer to USS Wasp transfers to Malta) should have the ability to perform this function also, which would not be link necessitated.

[arado234]

I think the problem with trans.airfleets is a carrier can only carry a fraction of what these airfleets are supposed to represent.I would think you would then need to have it that carriers would have to either work in teams to trans.the whole airfleet,or perhaps a much simpler way would be that the airflleet being trans.would have a delay before it actually becomes fully operational(this would represent the delay in getting all the planes and their support needed to run an airfleet).

[Happycat]

Some interesting ideas and comments here; I would like to just comment on one, for now at any rate.

It is indeed puzzling why Hawaii is left so defenseless at the beginning of the game. There should be a garrison in Pearl, and there should be an HQ as well. I don't have a problem with some of the "gamey" things that can happen such as turn three invasions of Midway, and not even that much of a problem with the air re-deployment system.

But no game dealing with this theatre of operations should leave an opening for an early invasion of Hawaii, without any significant defenders on hand. To me this is a design flaw in an otherwise very well put together game.

[SeaMonkey]

Great point arado, perhaps the CV could, in lieu of its CAG, carry a one point strength airfleet which would have to be strengthened in subsequent turns simulating at least a delay and a capacity defficiency of delivery.

Now you've risked a CV and of course a 1 strength AF is a liability also for your opponent to capitalize on and destroy for that one turn of delivery.

Sound like a decent trade off? Not quite reality.

[arado234]

Thats true SeaMonkey because this would give the atvantage to the Japanese by them basing their airfleets around the home islands.The problem with this game is that you cant mass all your planes at once for an attack.If the Amis have 14 Carriers off of Japan they cant launch all the planes from the 14 Carriers at the same time.This would represent a massive air strike.I do realise by having this option you now have to be able to counter with all your planes at once.It seems this is the only way other than allowing easy operational movement of airfleets.The reason I say this is because the game im playing against KSW(he is Japan)he uses is L.R.bombers at no heavy bomber tech. and unescorted to attack my Carriers(which I had several in proper defence mode and all my Carriers are equiped with jets)and my Carrier planes cause prettywell no damage(they cant mass attack the bomber force).To me this doesnt seem right.The only way it seems I can defend them from land based air is by me having my land based fighters in range also.Being able to quickly operate planes quickly to the supporting land bases then makes sense.