Slitherine

Has the Pacific General or Pacific Corps issue been discussed already?
Is it going to be born?

In that regard, everything is still open.

Can you imagine not only the Japanese attacting the USSR at the right time but also hypothetical scenarios where the Japanese and Germans meet on the same map?

spartan18a wrote:Can you imagine not only the Japanese attacting the USSR at the right time but also hypothetical scenarios where the Japanese and Germans meet on the same map?

I actually played that hypothetical scenario in a Steel Panthers game. A lot less fun than I was hoping.

Kerensky wrote:

spartan18a wrote:Can you imagine not only the Japanese attacting the USSR at the right time but also hypothetical scenarios where the Japanese and Germans meet on the same map?

I actually played that hypothetical scenario in a Steel Panthers game. A lot less fun than I was hoping.

Well you have to throw in China for the fun to start, silly.

An official pacific part/addon/dlc would be great, but IMO esp. the naval part would need a serious overhaul for this.

Kerensky wrote: I actually played that hypothetical scenario in a Steel Panthers game. A lot less fun than I was hoping.

Wasn`t there such a scenario in Pacific General depending on what route you took? I think the battle took place in Persia and the german units were pretty much the old PG graphics. Iirc.

bebro wrote:An official pacific part/addon/dlc would be great, but IMO esp. the naval part would need a serious overhaul for this.

Like what? Much as I remember Pacific general was different when it came to storing the aircraft in the carriers, but that aside I don`t remember something radically different from PG in terms of how things functioned.

IIRC subs could actually dive (not just to evade), being harder to detect but also slower that way.

Carriers could not only store multiple air units/squadrons but also repair them.

There was a CAP function for carriers. Also some more sophisticated stuff with ship damage and repair IIRC.

Also dedicated torpedo bombers attacking from hexes adjacent to ships (unlike bombers which need to be on top). In general the existance of sea-borne and land-borne aircraft, though this goes beyond "naval", like a couple of other changes in PacGen.

Other features of PacGen not existing in PG:

- mass attack (as in PzC)
- night turns
- critical hits on ships
- different core slots for ground and naval units, capital ships take more than one slots (for example a BB takes three core slots while a DD only one)
- special feats for units (banzai, guide, fearless etc)
- HQ units
- victory points more based on losses than captured objectives (some maps do not have any Victory Location, you must destroy as much units as possible)
- two kinds of airfields: paved and dirt (dirt only ressuply planes directly above it)
- pack howitzers (moves two hexes by leg)

bebro wrote:IIRC subs could actually dive (not just to evade), being harder to detect but also slower that way.

This I had forgotten tbh and it`s probably an important feature.

Also dedicated torpedo bombers attacking from hexes adjacent to ships (unlike bombers which need to be on top).

Well, yes, but I suppose this could be easily implemented when such a new unit is created. Iirc the torpedo bombers were still inside the tactical bombers class in Pacific General. Overall, what Pacific General had over Panzer General in terms of naval warfare doesn`t seem to me to require quite a complete revamp of what exists in PzC, but just a few additions/alterations.

- critical hits on ships

I don`t remember what this consisted of.

Other features of PacGen not existing in PG:

Yes, but some of those are not necessarily critical to a Pacific General type game imo and certainly other features can be added. You`ve missed the bicycle infantry btw.

dragos wrote:Other features of PacGen not existing in PG:

- mass attack (as in PzC)
- night turns
- critical hits on ships
- different core slots for ground and naval units, capital ships take more than one slots (for example a BB takes three core slots while a DD only one)
- special feats for units (banzai, guide, fearless etc)
- HQ units
- victory points more based on losses than captured objectives (some maps do not have any Victory Location, you must destroy as much units as possible)
- two kinds of airfields: paved and dirt (dirt only ressuply planes directly above it)
- pack howitzers (moves two hexes by leg)

Interesting. But this begs the question, do we really need a Pacific Corps or an Allied Corps?

If you put all of the Allied and Pacific features into PzC there really isn't room for a lot of that content in Europe.

So put what you can into PzC, cut your production and development costs for completely new game releases of Allied and Pacific Corps and simply make Allied and Pacific DLC's with the rest of that content.

DLC's wouldn't work for Star Corps or Fantasy Corps though. Those would still have to be new game releases. However with no historical accuracy restrictions, DLC's would be easier to design for Star Corps and Fantasy Corps. And they could be more numerous.

Personally I'd like to see both Allied campaigns as well as Pacific content, ideally from both the Japanese and the US/Allied perspective.

Not sure if all those PacGen features are needed for this, but IMO the implementation of such things should be seriously considered. Some of those are already possible to in a way in PzC now (like victory conditions based on unit losses), others aren't.

I just think that "Pacific Campaign" screams actually for an expanded naval part, and then people will surely compare it to PacGen, regardless if this is always fair or not.

Apart from the features of course it's also a question how the AI will do with air-naval and amphibious warfare Pacific style.

Mark50 wrote:

- critical hits on ships

I don`t remember what this consisted of.

From PacGen manual:

Chance of Critical Hit
--------------------------
Battleship 5%
Aircraft Carrier, Light or Heavy Cruiser 10%
Sub 20%

Results of a Critical Hit (d100)
=====================
Carrier
--------
01-05 Magazine Explosion — Ship destroyed.
06-20 Engine Room — Move allowance -2. Duration = 2 turns.
21-40 Magazine Damaged — Ship cannot attack, ammunition supply is -20.
Duration = 3 turns. Unable to rearm aircraft.
41-50 Flooding — Move allowance -2 — 10% chance that the ship capsizes and
sinks, else 1-2 kills. Duration =3.
51-60 Steering Damaged — Move allowance is 1, torpedo defense is reduced.
Duration = 3.
61-65 Fuel Bunker — Fuel -20, 4 wounds. Duration = 1.
66-75 Power Plant — Number of AA shots at 75%, number of additional
shots 50%. Duration = 4.
76-81 Airplane Fuel Bunker — No air operations, 1 kill. Duration = 3.
81-85 Hanger Fire — 1-4 air units damaged to half, 1 kill per air unit damaged.
86-100 Elevator/OOA — Carriers cannot store more than 1 unit in hangar, ship is
still able to launch. Duration = 3.

Submarines
---------------
01-10 Hull Crushed — Ship destroyed.
11-20 Flooding — Must surface, 1-2 kills. Duration = 3-6.
21-25 Conning Tower — Spotting -1. Duration = 3.
26-45 Torpedo Tubes — Submarine cannot attack. Duration = 4.
46-65 Diving Planes — May not surface or submerge. Duration = 3.
66-75 Sea water In Battery Compartment — Must surface. Duration = 2.
76-80 Leaking Oil — No hidden movement, no evasion, 1 wound. Duration = 6.
81-85 Leaks in Hull — Defense is 50%, 5 wounds. Duration = 5.
86-90 Prop Damaged — Movement is at 50%, 1 wound. Duration = 2.
91-100 No Extra Damage.

Heavy Cruiser or Battleships
----------------------------------
01-05 Magazine Explosion — Ship destroyed.
06-20 Engine Room — Move allowance -2. Duration = 2 turns.
21-40 Magazine Damaged — Ship cannot attack, ammunition -20.
Duration = 3 turns.
41-50 Flooding — Move allowance -2 — 10% ship capsizes, else 1-2 kills.
Duration =3.
51-65 Steering Damaged — Move allowance is 1, torpedo defense is reduced.
Duration = 3.
66-70 Fuel Bunker — Fuel -20, 4 wounds. Duration = 1.
71-80 Power Plant — Number of AA shots at 75%, number of additional
shots 50%. Duration = 4.
81-85 4 wounds.
86-90 6 wounds.
91-100 Turret Knocked Out — 1 kill, 3 wounds.

I think it should be all done in just one game and Super mega Panzer Corps.
Probably that's why I did not like Pacific General at all, besides other things ...

Super Mega Panzer Corps now with added dragons and space ships?

CrimsonStorm wrote:Super Mega Panzer Corps now with added dragons and space ships?

You can't joke about these things in front of Kerensky.

We could end up with spaceships unloading dragons by Easter.

i think someone meant a game called iron storm from sega saturn where germans fight the japanese after the usa campaign that was a fun game in its time back then.

The Pacific General game right out of the box was quite horrible. However the complete overhaul named East Wind Rain was damn great, i still play it once in awhile, i like the Pacific war

Loki1942 wrote:The Pacific General game right out of the box was quite horrible. However the complete overhaul named East Wind Rain was damn great, i still play it once in awhile, i like the Pacific war

I even liked the out of the box game - the biggest disappointment for me was the limitation that each campaign could only have up to ten scenarios.
Can East Wind Rain still be downloaded someplace? I didn't have much luck googling...
_____
rezaf

Yes

http://web.archive.org/web/200812180127 ... rmory.html