Slitherine

(A Translation)
OPNAV P32-1002
Office of Naval Intelligence, United States Navy
June 1947

...

There is nothing to indicate that the Japanese were not perfectly frank in this report. It was intended only for the highest echelons in the Japanese Navy and Government, and was guarded very closely throughout the war. There have been no alterations or corrections, omissions or additions to this report, beyond the supplying of a few clarifying footnotes.

full report: http://www.history.navy.mil/library/special/midway.htm

I know this isn't in the theater covered by CEaW, but I ran across this after I saw a special about the Battle of Midway on the History Channel last weekend. I through some here might find it interesting.

Funny tho, the pacific nation flags are in the game folder, so Pacific war was at some time being discussed by the C:EaW peeps.

A Commander Pacific at War would have been great as a sequel, lets hope its going to be for the next time.

One of the reasons for avoiding it was the naval system is not as interesting as the land combat. Unless we can think of a good way to ramp this area up I'm not sure it's a good target setting.

I understand, however in my opinion the naval aspect of CEAW is not bad at all, in a Pacific game it would need only a few tweaks, like to have Commanders (admirals) for ships.

syagrius wrote:I understand, however in my opinion the naval aspect of CEAW is not bad at all, in a Pacific game it would need only a few tweaks, like to have Commanders (admirals) for ships.

Personally I think a Pacific CEaW (which I'd love) would require a major revamp of the naval system to do it justice. For example, you'd have to model individual ships from aircraft carriers down to heavy/light cruisers. You'd also need amphibious units, task force rules, fighter, bomber, torpedo air wings on the same carrier, land based aircraft. You'd need to model units down to at the least the division level. You'd need rules for by passing island bases and cutting off supplies to garrisons there. Also you'd need a way to represent the advantage the allies had by having broken, to some extent, the Japanese naval code. I'd really love to see a game of this nature ... a mixture of Avalon Hill's Victory in the Pacific (VITP) and Midway. I would pay $100 for such a game.

The war in Malaysia and Burma is too much overlooked also, Singapore was the worst defeat in British military history and Imphal was the worst defeat in Japanese military history. In 1944 the 14th Army was the most numerous army unit in the world with more than half a million men.

iainmcneil wrote:One of the reasons for avoiding it was the naval system is not as interesting as the land combat. Unless we can think of a good way to ramp this area up I'm not sure it's a good target setting.

Iain, I'm surprised to hear you say this. Even in its unmodified form, the naval system in CEAW is not bad. Stauffenberg and I have made some minor changes to surface combat values, and somewhat more significant ones to submarine values. After several months of tweaking, we now have it to the point where naval combat is even more interesting, and the u-boat warfare has become a critical element in the early game play. Essentially, the submarines now inflict a bit more damage on convoys, and the early model DD's have a hard time controlling them (lowered the ASW by one, but researching naval tech/asw is the cure for this of course).

In the game I am currently involved in with Stauffenberg, my u-boats were giving him conniptions for quite a while. Not only was I starving the UK for pp's, but I also sank a British CV and damaged some other surface ships. Now he has the upper hand because his ASW tech has finally kicked in.

So don't ignore the Pacific. The naval warfare is not the problem, btw---the problem is that in the Pacific you would have one-hex islands, and if they are occupied, it would be a nightmare getting the defender out of there. Solution, you ask? Marine units, with capability of attacking a coastal hex (as discussed earlier in other threads).

Don't get me wrong - the naval warfare is a great part of teh game and very enjoyable. I'm just not sure it holds up to the land combat as the unit variety is less interesting and there is no terrain to defend. Maybe we'll look at it at some point but I'm not sure it's the best place to focus.

iainmcneil wrote:Don't get me wrong - the naval warfare is a great part of teh game and very enjoyable. I'm just not sure it holds up to the land combat as the unit variety is less interesting and there is no terrain to defend. Maybe we'll look at it at some point but I'm not sure it's the best place to focus.

It may not be, from a corporate perspective. But nevertheless, the CEAW engine would certainly adapt nicely to this theatre, imo. Someday, perhaps

iainmcneil wrote:Don't get me wrong - the naval warfare is a great part of teh game and very enjoyable. I'm just not sure it holds up to the land combat as the unit variety is less interesting and there is no terrain to defend. Maybe we'll look at it at some point but I'm not sure it's the best place to focus.

It may not be, from a corporate perspective. But nevertheless, the CEAW engine would certainly adapt nicely to this theatre, imo. Someday, perhaps

I am playing Pacific General these days, great game! If it worked for PG, I am sure it would work for Commander

Battlefront annouced SC 2 Pacific theater. I dont own SC 2 as I prefered to go with CEAW, however I may give a try on this one, playable and good looking Pacific theater games are not very common.

I own both and the naval systems are basically the same for SC2 and CEAW.

As for pacific theatre.......

If you all would like assistance on development of a naval system I can help. I read a lot on WW2, have been a wargamer for 25 years. Naval systems are one of the hardest to implement in a game without over complicating it and making it fun.

A couple things to point out...

Almost all naval combat was done near a coast. Hunting the Bismark is the only encounter that was done over open ocean and it took 1/2 the british navy to find her and sink her.

To train and fly over ocean, attack a moving target, survive AA fire took very special training. Of 200 land based air perhaps a handful were trained in this fashion. CV carrier pilots were highly trained and took 2 years to train someone well.

The Japanese actually fought most of their naval battles foolishly creating these complex operations when all that was required was a big taskforce to get the job done.

So if you all are interested in help making a naval system email me. winky3x17 (at) hotmail