Carriers/dynamic campaign

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

TORO?

http://www.toro.com/index.html

I think you meant Tora, Tora, Tora!

Oh heck TORO is my lawn mower I go fix now

[Powerthighs]

This is one of the things I dont understand about the entire Pacific conflict how Japan could even consider going up against America and think they could get any kind of successful resolution.

I believe several of Japan's top Admirals knew this, but they were overruled by politicians.

Not that that would ever happen today...

[Schultzy]

Apologies in advance for not having read the whole thread, so I hope i'm not repeating what others have said, but didn't I read that in this campaign they (devs) were going to address the whole sinking more than were built thing.

I swear I read that this time around if we sunk a ship, then there was going to be one less of that class available in future patrols.

I know i'm getting older with each passing day, but i'm hoping I don't have to worry about my RAM failing just yet. Someone tell me i'm not just plain wrong on this...

[Bilge_Rat]

With hindsight, its clear that Japan could not win the war, although when you analyse the balance of forces in december 1941, it would have been that clear to the participants. The Soviet Union looked like it was on its last legs which would leave Germany free to turn against UK/USA and no one foresaw the overwhelming economic superiority of the USA.

In Japan, the IJN officers like Yamamoto were more cultured, many spoke english and had traveled and studied in the USA, so they had an idea of the potential of the USA. The IJA officers were more insular, rarely traveled abroad and had preconceived notions of western inferiority, unfortunately they were the ones in political power.

[tater]

Combined Fleet Decoded goes into the japanese rationale in some detail. The IGHQ only thought they had maybe a 10% chance of victory (meaning a negotiated peace as suggested by Banquet) on the eve of PH. Even the 10% was based upon things like a grossly underestimated requirement for bunker oil for the fleet, etc.

[tater]

True, Bilge-rat, but the IJN forced the issue on the "southern resource area" and attackign the US by their circular logic. The IJA wanted to fight in China, not the PTO.

[OddjobXL]

Originally Posted by Nats

You cant actually havew a dynamic campaign in a game like SH4 because its very nature means that events will wuickly start to unfold differently from history so making the game not a true reflection of WW2 events.

Actually every historical strategy game ever made has an AI that functions similiar to the AI would in a dynamic campaign on a historical model. History does diverge though, you're right, but as long as it happens in plausible ways that's fine. When the "what ifs" start happening as long as a player can see rational cause and effect behind the mechanics then it's still a historical simulation or strategy game.

F4 it can work because its not a historical war. If it allowed you to blow up ships like the Yamato and rule them out of the campaign that would also change history. Its about as good as you can get in a historical campaign, the only alternative in my view would be campaign with the same historical forces but then events unfolding as they happen. That would be interesting to see what would happen if the Japanese had managed to get all the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbour etc. They would of course still have lost eventually.

Not sure I followed that precisely.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by tater

Combined Fleet Decoded goes into the japanese rationale in some detail. The IGHQ only thought they had maybe a 10% chance of victory (meaning a negotiated peace as suggested by Banquet) on the eve of PH. Even the 10% was based upon things like a grossly underestimated requirement for bunker oil for the fleet, etc.

Interesting. Do you have a reference for that? I thought they were confident of victory.

[clayton]

I sure wish they would make the aircraft dynamic!!!

[Harry Buttle]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Interesting. Do you have a reference for that? I thought they were confident of victory.

The frequently expressed opinion was that they could run amok for 6 months and hold their own for up to 18 more months, after that things would not go well.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Interesting. Do you have a reference for that? I thought they were confident of victory.

The reference is in the bit you quoted, Combined Fleet Decoded. It's an excellent book by John Prados. It's almost 800 pages long.

Yamamoto's prewar rhetoric was far far more direct than the "sleeping giant" quote. He said flat out that unless the japanese were prepared to march into washington and present their demands for an American surrender, the war would be a total disaster.

Anyway, the former Director of Operations of the Naval General Staff, Fukudome Shigeru (japanese style, last name first), said in a post-war interview that the Navy felt that the war held a 90% probability of "national death."

[tater]

The problem is their grand strategy (to the pathetic extent they even had one) required a short war. They were utterly unprepared and incapable of waging a long war, and they knew it. The shock of the PH attack was guaranteed to make the US fight to the bitter end, at least it was guaranteed to do so in the 1940s.

[nimitstexan]

Originally Posted by Seeadler

Yes, f.e. Falcon 3.0 introduced a real dynamic campaign where the success of each individual employment affected the situation for the following employment.

The Falcon campaign is the completely wrong model for any WWII, simply for the fact that no single WWII sub (or plane) would be able to affect the outcome of campaigns to the extent possible in the Falcon series. Falcon is great for simulating a short, high intensity modern war, but it has little bearing on how a WWII career should play out.

That said, it would be nice if the game tracked specific ships, though the fact that we are missing several class of IJN CVs and CVLs (Hosho, Akagi, Kaga, Shoho, Junyo, Ryujo, Ryuho, Unryu, and Shinano) means that the Hiryu and Shokaku are going to have to stand in for other ships as well.

However, it is true that the stock campaign, for gameplay purposes, generates a much more target-rich environment than would have been found in rea life. Seeing an enemy carrier was for most sub commanders a once-in-a-lifetime shot. If the campaign files are modded to present a realistic number of task forces (a project that I am sure will be soon undertaken, if it has not been already), the chances of running into inordinate numbers of Hiryus would be greatly reduced, simply because you would not be seeing that many carriers at all.

[-Pv-]

"...Its sad.

I see here, i have sunk TWISE the amount of total Carriers Japan had intill March 1941.

Thay just semes to have some form for UNLIMITED Storage of Carriers.

Not to mantion, that a singel sub isnt supose to be able to faind ALL the Japanese Carriers...
Way to many and way to easy to faind them..."

You want targets, you got targets. Take away sunk ships and you'll be wandering around empty seas for months. Think of the complaints that would produce. the game is designed to reward you for the time and sffort you put into it by giving you unlimited play, and by sticking with it- GIGANTIC SCORES!!

I recall another player posting here ships were too hard to find. He had only seen two or three *so far.* Can't satisfy everyone.

What if everyone sank every ship, then you couldn't play the game anymore?
Since each carrier appearance is slightly different, you get to play a lot of what-if scenarios on the same ship type. It's all good.
As far as being easy to find them, they weren't exactly hidden in the real war. The Japanese hinged their whole success on making them a part of nearly every attacking force. They had a lot of them and the Allies got to sink them all.
The difference now is we have history to tell us where and when the great battles are. In WWII it was all guess work. So if the devs mixed things up even more than they have and rewrote history so there was no predictability, then people would be complaining it's not and historically accurate sim. You can't have 100% (or even close) historical accuracy and have the game playable by more than a few people for a few days.

I really think you are asking the impossible and still have it be a playable game more than a few weeks down the road. Here we are only two weeks into distribution and you have sunk the whole Japanese navy so far. Would you have done so well on 100% realism?

I have been playing the game for the same time period and I have only sunk 4 ships and starting to attack my 1st convoy. At this rate, I'll still be experiencing new things months from now.

Do you realize how huge the battle of Layte Gulf was? Lotsa ships in the WWII Pacific and lotsa ships in the game.

-Pv-

[TheSatyr]

Originally Posted by tater

Yamamoto's prewar rhetoric was far far more direct than the "sleeping giant" quote. He said flat out that unless the japanese were prepared to march into washington and present their demands for an American surrender, the war would be a total disaster

Actually,according to Officers that knew Yamamoto it was even more direct than that. He was saying flat out that Japan would lose any extended war with the USA,and that Japan would be the ones signing the surrender document in Washington. (Keep in mind,Washington was where the peace treaty between Japan and Russia was signed in 1905-1906 I believe).

It was taken out of context by US propagandists to make it sound like he meant that Japan would be dictating the peace terms to the USA in the White House.