WW II in the Pacific and Wargaming

[Toonces]

^ Sure, I get that.  The thing is, I don't know that you're getting a better simulation using WitP's approach.  At the end of the day, you're accomplishing pretty much the same thing with both methods, but one takes far longer.

Granted, if you're grooving on the micromanagement then that's the thing, but I think an argument could be made that players are deluding themselves if they think the micromanagement accomplishes anything different that some useful abstractions could equally accomplish. 

Anyway, that's my idea- something that focuses on operations.  I actually started with this idea for a medieval-type game, where players would focus on operations and the logistics of campaigns.  I only have an idea, though, nothing on paper. 

Back to our Pacific example, imagine that there is an interface that allows you to set up an operation, allocate resources, etc., and then you still get the WitP shooty-shooty but only on, say, a week to month timescale.  That's kind of my idea.  You can micromanage to some extent, but only at the operational level; the rest is highly streamlined and abstracted.

[Bison]

What you are describing is that tact paradox attempts to take on the HOI series.

[besilarius]

The only way to game the PTO would do it as seperate operational battles.
The problem with any game of the whole oceanic campaign, including WiTPAE, is that the real situation has to be ignored.

For example, in the last three months of 1942, the Japanese produced 1,194,000 tons (almost totally from the Dutch Indies).  In that same time frame, only 643,000 tons made it to Japan to be refined.  So they had approx 215,000 tons of fuel oil per month.
At that time, the IJN's operations were consuming about 302,000 tons.  In effect, Japan was operating at an 85,000 ton loss from the fuel reserves per month.  And this is just considering the navy's usage.
To let the IJN do all it would like to do (in say, the AAR right now between UCG and Kybp), the historical reality has to be manipulated.

Paul Kennedy's, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers gives a very good breakdown of the differences the two sides faced.  But ultimately, oil, and moving oil, was the decisive factor in the naval war in the Pacific.

[airboy]

Couple of points.

I've seen some very good naval sims that capture WW2 Pacific combat.  Carriers at War is a good example among many.
There are several good land based WW2 Pacific sims. 

I would like to see a medium complexity game of land combat in Asia (China, Korea, Indo-China, Burma, etc.....) and suggestions would be welcome.  That would seem to be a conflict which could be done.

But if you look at the map, the distances are massive.  Logistics, air warfare, and naval warfare over massive areas of the planet are more difficult to simulate.

The old Pacific General tried to combine naval, air and land combat in a low-medium complexity game - and did it poorly. 

[acctingman]

Couple of points.

I've seen some very good naval sims that capture WW2 Pacific combat.  Carriers at War is a good example among many.
There are several good land based WW2 Pacific sims. 

I would like to see a medium complexity game of land combat in Asia (China, Korea, Indo-China, Burma, etc.....) and suggestions would be welcome.  That would seem to be a conflict which could be done.

But if you look at the map, the distances are massive.  Logistics, air warfare, and naval warfare over massive areas of the planet are more difficult to simulate.

The old Pacific General tried to combine naval, air and land combat in a low-medium complexity game - and did it poorly.

Mind sharing what those good land based sims are? (for the Pacific Theater)

Thanks

[jomni]

Couple of points.

I've seen some very good naval sims that capture WW2 Pacific combat.  Carriers at War is a good example among many.
There are several good land based WW2 Pacific sims. 

I would like to see a medium complexity game of land combat in Asia (China, Korea, Indo-China, Burma, etc.....) and suggestions would be welcome.  That would seem to be a conflict which could be done.

But if you look at the map, the distances are massive.  Logistics, air warfare, and naval warfare over massive areas of the planet are more difficult to simulate.

The old Pacific General tried to combine naval, air and land combat in a low-medium complexity game - and did it poorly.

Mind sharing what those good land based sims are? (for the Pacific Theater)

Thanks

Operational Art of War
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/browse_scenario.php

[airboy]

Operational Art of War for land based.

Strategic Command - Pacific Theater was a pretty good intermediate simulation.

[FarAway Sooner]

Hmmm...  Lots of ideas thrown out here and most of them good!  But it's also worth qualifying that there are more Pacific Theater games than folks readily give credit to.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major commercial successes, even by wargaming standards...

If I had to sum up what I'm hearing in a few points, they might be:

• There's a real disconnect between the strategic elements of the game (macro-industrial resource allocation and supply management with supply lines thousands of miles long) and tactical elements of the game (infantry fighting each other in jungles and fixed positions where the line-of-sight was often 30 yards or less).  Trying to reconcile these two elements into a single game seems awfully difficult.
• Wargamers like tankses!  Yes we do...
• Limited opportunities for tactical cleverness in land battles or air battles.  Sea battles get better treatment, and seem to have produced better wargames for the Pacific theater, than their land- or air-based counterparts.

The Japanese certainly underestimated the importance of logistics, just as they underestimated the American's willingness to fight AND their ability to deliver logistical superiority.

It's interesting, because the Germans--although much more cognizant of these things than their Japanese counterparts (who still largely held beliefs that others abandoned after WW I)--were equally shocked and overwhelmed at the sheer volume of stuff that the Americans brought to bear.  Shells, bombs, airplanes, gasoline, trucks, food, the list went on and on and on. 

After looting American supply depots overrun in the wake of Kasserine Pass, Rommel is reported to have confided that he knew America would win the war when he learned that they had the resources to ship fresh butter to troops fighting 4,000 miles from home.  Writing in his somewhat revisionist history, Invasion: They're Coming, former SS Lt. Colonel Paul Carell uses the term materialschlacht to refer to the way Americans conducted the Normandy campaign.

Are there any wargames out there actually invoke logistics management as a fun part of the game?  Unity of Command does a nice job of modeling supply in a way that's easy to manage but a vital part of the game.  However, it's very abstracted and uses the same "supply lines" concept that's been in hex-based wargames for 40 years or more now...

[Nefaro]

maybe game developers love tank only games....very very little armor vs armor going on there in the Pacific

That... and specifically the Reich Fanboys.  Lotsa wargamers & simmers who prefer playing ze Nazis.  Some even complain about games in which they cannot, and start asking for such a version.   ::)

[jomni]

Germans have the coolest toys and Hugo Boss uniforms.

[sandman2575]

Germans have the coolest toys and Hugo Boss uniforms.

It is hard to beat the Panther and Tiger where WW2 Tank Sexy is concerned, let's be honest. 

Still, from a totally little boy viewpoint that all these years later I still haven't outgrown -- one of the things I love about WW2 is that all the major 'factions' have a couple uniquely cool toys!

USA:  hard to beat the P-51 or the P-38 in the awesome category. Also the B-29, the most awe-inspiring bomber of the war.
USSR:  the IS tank destroyers are completely bad ass
Japan:  the Zero, still in my mind the most aesthetically pleasing fighter of WW2
UK:  more of a stretch for me -- the Spitfire, obviously. It's like the Aston-Martin of WW2 fighters. If Bond had fought in the Big One, Q would've rigged up a super-special Spitfire for him.  And I've always had a soft spot for the completely ridiculous but somehow cool Churchill tank...

[mirth]

Germans have the coolest toys and Hugo Boss uniforms.

QFT

[acctingman]

Germans have the coolest toys and Hugo Boss uniforms.

It is hard to beat the Panther and Tiger where WW2 Tank Sexy is concerned, let's be honest. 

Still, from a totally little boy viewpoint that all these years later I still haven't outgrown -- one of the things I love about WW2 is that all the major 'factions' have a couple uniquely cool toys!

USA:  hard to beat the P-51 or the P-38 in the awesome category. Also the B-29, the most awe-inspiring bomber of the war.
USSR:  the IS tank destroyers are completely bad ass
Japan:  the Zero, still in my mind the most aesthetically pleasing fighter of WW2
UK:  more of a stretch for me -- the Spitfire, obviously. It's like the Aston-Martin of WW2 fighters. If Bond had fought in the Big One, Q would've rigged up a super-special Spitfire for him.  And I've always had a soft spot for the completely ridiculous but somehow cool Churchill tank...

Don't forget Italy....they had......uhm....they had the....er, they had.....uhm.....??

Some of the Macchi planes were pretty sexy though  :D

[MengJiao]

Germans have the coolest toys and Hugo Boss uniforms.

  But the Allies had fully functioning economies and agricultural sectors that were not nearly as labor-intensive and all Axis countries (including Finland, Italy, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Japan) except Germany managed to surrender on some kind of terms.  I suppose you could count the surrender of the German armies in Northern Italy as surrendering on terms, but when armies have to work out their own terms, it seems the central design agency with its cool toys has not done a very good job.

[undercovergeek]

But still..... Me 109 - if the Germans had won we'd have at-ats by now