ww2 games

[bassplayer192837]

how come most mainstream ww2 games (CMx1, COD1-3, almost all of the medal of honor games) focus on the european theatre only a handfull of games focusses on the main reason we enterted the war was to get back at Japan for attacking us. Can anyone tell me why this is?

[Yair Iny]

Because compared to the ETO, PTO was a boring slog with little manoeuvre warfare and a lot more hand to hand, heavy casualty fighting. This does not belittle the efforts of the men involved, indeed it highlights their perseverence and bravery. But in wargaming terms, it is less interesting.

That being said, I would love to see it anyway

[SlapHappy]

how come most mainstream ww2 games (CMx1, COD1-3, almost all of the medal of honor games) focus on the european theatre only a handfull of games focuses on the main reason we entered the war was to get back at Japan for attacking us. Can anyone tell me why this is?

Commercial reasons....potential perceived interested is lower than ETO games. I don't think game developers believe a European audience would buy a title that didn't have relevance to the war as it was fought in Europe. Although, of course, quite a few British and Commonwealth troops were involved in fighting with the Japanese Army. Still, they may have a valid point when it comes to the potential marketing of a PTO game.

[akd]

...but of course COD5 was PTO and East Front (Berlin).

[bassplayer192837]

yes i know there are a handful of pto games out there some are quite excelent in my opinion but compared to the numerous eto games there are it seems like no one really cares about the pacific theatre

[Michael Emrys]

Also, consider that the Pacific war was primarily a air/naval war. Except for the combat on the mainland in China and Burma, any ground fighting was to capture bases for air and naval forces to operate from. Most of the really dramatic battles involved ships, either exclusively or in combination with aircraft.

Tabletop naval miniature gamers fight out lots of battles that took place in the Pacific.

Michael

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Can anyone tell me why this is?

The toys and tactics that go with them. Most enjoy high-intensity warfare between mechanised opponents. They enjoy the Panzers, Shermans and all that goes with them. Tactically such wars are more interesting than jungle warfare. For most.

Of courser the Eastern Front… no Yanks at all there… is where the real war was decided.

76% of Germans military casualties were suffered in the East… D-Day to the end of the war in the West accounted for just 14% of German military casualties. Including those accounted for by fighting the Brits from D-Day onwards.

All interesting stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

[Combatintman]

Although, of course, quite a few British and Commonwealth troops were involved in fighting with the Japanese Army. Still, they may have a valid point when it comes to the potential marketing of a PTO game.

Quite a few is a slight understatement - taking the 14th Army in Burma alone, that was flipping huge. Wikipedia (not the greatest source I admit) describes it as the largest Army in the World in 1945.

[bodkin]

Yeah what Kip said, the Pacific Theatre was mostly infantry fighting in grueling slogs of attritional combat. Playing a game that basically involves relatively low tech infantry fighting in jungles or small islands without armour engagements is personally not without it's attraction but for the greater gaming community it's never been a big draw card.

I'm sure BFC would do a good job and they could even revive the 'human wave' function of CMBB as 'banzai charge' although I never really understood or got the hang of that feature.

[Holman]

There's also the big ideological picture to consider--the main reason why the theaters get people emotionally involved.

For all its ferocity, the war in the Pacific was essentially a contest between two nations (I'll lump in the other Allies with the US here) for supremacy in the region. It was an old-fashioned political contest of will in pursuit of influence. At its root was economics.

The war in Europe, however, pitted three distinct ideologies driven by powerful ideas about the political life of humankind, then and forever. Liberal Democracy vs. Fascism vs. Communism was a battle over how we should understand and live with human nature. Of course it was ALSO a battle between nations and national interests, but in retrospect the European War feels like something of greater import than that. The issues at stake still grip our imagination. In some ways we are still fighting it.

In a hundred years, people will think of the Pacific war the way we now think of all the other colonial wars of the twentieth century. Not so the war in Europe.

[SlapHappy]

I'd pretty much play and enjoy any game that took the serious (ie, Battlefront) approach to it's design. People talk about the glut of WWII titles out there and forget to mention that about 90% of them suck and have little to do with truly exploring the tactical permutations of the actual event.

Most of these games are FPS and ignore even the realities of squad combat that made up the ideology of WWII combat. There are a few exceptions which give the squad a quasi-role like Brothers in Arms. This lack of squad simulation is enough to disqualify it as a serious WWII simulation in my book.

A well-made PTO tactical ground warfare game, which highlighted the differences between the Pacific and European theatres would be worth exploring, in my opinion. Would it sell well? Probably not.

[Apocal]

Can anyone tell me why this is?

I $trongly $u$pect certain rea$oning, but can't be $ure.

[-Pv-]

The contrasts in the fundamental nature of combat between the two theaters mentioned so far can be further illustrated by remembering the largest tank battles in history were fought in Europe and the desert oceans of N Africa. The largest ship battles in history were fought in the Pacific.

I have games representing both theaters. As significant as the mainland Asia fighting was, the rifle to rifle encounters over yards of jungle (as far as foot soldier combat goes) has not captured a large portion of those fascinated with the history of warfare. The US contribution to the Pacific war was largely island hopping logistics, air combat, ship and sub.

I have read many accounts of the land battles (especially the Solomons where a disproportionate number of medals were awarded) but I think it would be difficult to make a game based on island jungle combat where most of the fighting was hand to hand with people shooting point blank at each other to gain hold on an island barely large enough for the few thousand people sent to capture them. More people died of disease than wounds. The Chinese and Japanese were hacking at each other with the most primitive weapons available including swords.

I would not purchase such a game.

If a land combat game representing the Pacific could be made, it would be Burma and Solomons, but again, I would not buy it even though I have interest in those areas. I could mention Okinawa, Iwo Jima etc. as I'm sure others will, but again as significant and bloody and history making, they were largely jungle hand to hand as well as being short and nasty. You've seen how difficult it is for BF to make a game based on individual combat that's not FPS.

-Pv-

[Vinnart]

What appeals to me is that the Germans and Russians have more interesting units compared to the Japanese units in terms of vehicles, and the terrain has more variation to play on.

[panzermartin]

PTO loses hands down in every single aspect except that of not being done to death. Terrain, weapons, atmopshere, the vast numbers of the european front and the drama of whole nations cannot compare to the remote island fighting of the pacific. Also, the german factor is a major boost of popularity of ETO wargames, having that absolute evil image that one can only find in books or movies and probably the most cool looking army/equipment the planet will (fortunately) ever see.

[silverstars]

While the idea that the Pacific Theatre would be a boring slogfest of close-in jungle fighting and therefore pointless to make, I wonder how such fighting is any different then fighting Uncon forces in a dense urban area like I do all the time in CMSF.

As for the whole ETO over PTO idea, I think its the basic fantasy idea that with the ETO (at least on the West Front) it was a very White Hat vs. Black Hat war, compared to the bloody, morally ambigous, Pacific theatre. I believe the concept isn't fair, nor historically accurate, but it is there just the same.

[Michael Emrys]

As for the whole ETO over PTO idea, I think its the basic fantasy idea that with the ETO (at least on the West Front) it was a very White Hat vs. Black Hat war, compared to the bloody, morally ambigous, Pacific theatre.

Just out of curiosity, how do you figure the Pacific theater is perceived as morally ambiguous? I have to admit I haven't noticed that perception is at all widespread, but maybe you travel in different circles than I do.

Michael

[silverstars]

Just out of curiosity, how do you figure the Pacific theater is perceived as morally ambiguous? I have to admit I haven't noticed that perception is at all widespread, but maybe you travel in different circles than I do.

Michael

Well, I don't want to get too far into the subject; not because I don't want to explain myself, but to keep the thread from veering off into political la-la land and getting it locked/moved.

By "Morally Ambiguous" I mean a brutally waged war that where no quarter or mercy is the norm. I do NOT mean a war where America was unjustified for entering in any way.

[-Pv-]

Using "Morally Ambiguous" to refer to combat with a country which forced the US into WWII against an opponent which had no limits to the atrocities they would commit opens a can of worms. All the Axis opponents were rotten to the core, to the extreme. When I commented why land combat in the pacific would not make a popular game, I purposely avoided the political issues. Now follows the predictable nuc arguments and the closing of the thread.

-Pv-

[handihoc]

Personally, I think the Pacific Theatre has a lot to offer. I remember playing Steel Panthers Pacific War (not sure if that was the title), and it was a great addition to the series.

Medal of Honour and Call of Duty have done Pacific Theatre, to tremendous effect.

Some SF scenario designers (The Phantom and Cabal23, to name but two) have produced very challenging battles with maps that give an authentic Pacific jungle feel.

As a wargamer, I've always lamented the lack of Pacific Theatre games. I'm sure the CMx2 engine could produced an excellent game or modules, featuring Pacific-style war in both the modern and WW2 eras. It's simply different to Europe, and the tactics required for play are likewise somewhat different.

But it appears the main issue is, as has been mentioned, that the Pacific Theatre - at least in terms of land warfare - is not generally popular among western wargamers (dunno why), and hence not an attractive business proposition for games companies.

Is BF any different? Well, if you'd asked me two years ago if I was interested in a modern war game/sim set in Syria, pitching US armies against Syrian, I'd have said a quite emphatic no. And here I am, and Shock Force is the ONLY game I've played for many months.

I'm greatly looking forward to CMxWW2, and would love to see a Pacific add-on at some point. Sadly though, I'm pretty sure Steve has ruled that out somewhere else on this forum. All I can say to that is, Steve, think again!

[dan/california]

It should be pointed out that the amount of work involved in a PTO game would certainly require a new title as opposed to a new module. In no particular order you have at least two new TO&Es to translate into game terms, radically different terrain, which requires heavy AI programming, true amphibious assaults, and many more I haven't thought of. A good landing craft simulation would be a programming nightmare all by itself.

That is a ton of work that BFC is just not sure is gong to provide a return on investment compared to other things they could be doing instead.

[Michael Emrys]

But it appears the main issue is, as has been mentioned, that the Pacific Theatre - at least in terms of land warfare - is not generally popular among western wargamers (dunno why)...

Possibly because a majority of the game buying public—mostly American—is largely ignorant of the nature and scope of the combat that took place on the Asian continent? There were huge armies in battle at times. All the major weapons systems were present, air, armor, artillery, as well as infantry. Even airborne operations.

Warfare there was not precisely the same as in eastern and western Europe, but it nevertheless offers interesting material for a good wargame. Burma alone is a rich field to examine with about every kind of operation that occurred in the war except large scale strategic bombing or major naval battles.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

That is a ton of work that BFC is just not sure is gong to provide a return on investment compared to other things they could be doing instead.

Sure. And those are the reasons why it almost certainly is not going to happen; plus you could add a pronounced lack of interest on the part of the designers, which in a business like this, which is more art than science, is no small thing.

Michael

[Patrocles]

Hi,

Can anyone tell me why this is?

The toys and tactics that go with them. Most enjoy high-intensity warfare between mechanised opponents. They enjoy the Panzers, Shermans and all that goes with them. Tactically such wars are more interesting than jungle warfare. For most.

Of courser the Eastern Front… no Yanks at all there… is where the real war was decided.

76% of Germans military casualties were suffered in the East… D-Day to the end of the war in the West accounted for just 14% of German military casualties. Including those accounted for by fighting the Brits from D-Day onwards.

All interesting stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

wow! interesting stat!

[Dietrich]

a majority of the game buying public—mostly American—is largely ignorant of the nature and scope of the combat that took place on the Asian continent

Many Americans know and marvel at the Doolittle raid, at what a remarkable technical feat it was, and at the daring of pilots who pulled it off. But how many Americans know that 15 of the 16 B-25 crews involved crash-landed in or bailed out over eastern China (in accord with the raid's plan) and that the Japanese, in the course of searching for the crews (most of whom escaped to safety thanks to the Chinese), killed as many as 250,000 Chinese civilians? Compared with the little material damage the raid itself inflicted (on military and industrial targets in Tokyo, Yokohama, Yokosuka, Nagoya, Kobe, and Osaka), seems to me that the Chinese suffered rather more.

the Eastern Front...is where the real war was decided. 76% of Germans military casualties were suffered in the East… D-Day to the end of the war in the West accounted for just 14% of German military casualties. Including those accounted for by fighting the Brits from D-Day onwards.

My research has indicated that only 1/8 of the German armed forces was ever deployed against the Allies in the West post D-Day. How many troops and tanks did the Americans and British and Commonwealth and such have in the West, and it still took them how many months to bust into Germany? Not to denigrate the courage and tactical achievements of Allied troops in the West, but whenever I read some battle during Normandy or the Battle of the Bulge described as "the toughest fighting of the war" or "the bloodiest battle of the war", I think to myself, "Try telling that to the defenders of Brest-Litovsk or the troops in the Velikiye Luki pocket."

(Not that it's in any way comparable, but on the forum for a mod of a different WW2 game, a couple of the forum members -- both punks, admittedly -- were batting about heinously ignorant statements like "the Spitfire was a piece of junk" and "the only thing good about it was how cheap and easy to make it was". I pointed out to them -- to no avail, of course -- that saying such things to a British person would likely earn them a chewing out, if not worse. I also clarified that the Spitfire was quite a piece of genius engineering -- witness the leafspring-like construction of its shapely wing. )