Empire of the Rising Sun

[Broken_Erika]

Mabe something that has to do with the fact that near the end of the war, US Submarines devastated japanese convoys that carried much needed material, (i.e. oil and other supplies) kind of like germany's u-boat campaign exept that japan didn't introduce an effective convoy system until late in the war, i guess a wonder for the japanese (i.e. supply lines) and a u.s. researchable tech (i.e. sub warfare) that cancells out the japanese wonder thus crippling their production

[Leonidas]

Patine:

Here are two Japanese sounds. Hope you can use them.

[Leonidas]

Not sure what you can do with convoys, but the US sub service in the Pacific sank more Japanese ships than the U-boats did against the Allies in the Atlantic.

So the US should have a sizable sub fleet in the scenario.

This should force the Japanese player to build DDs to help counter this threat, something the Japanese did not do historically (at least as far as convoys go)...

[Broken_Erika]

U.S. should have exellent production, beacause a the end of ww2 the U.S. Had produced 37 Casablanca Class, 24 essex class, 3 midway class, 19 Commencement Bay Class, 10 Bogue Class, 9 independance class, 89 in total,
it's no wonder they overwhelmed the japanese
not to mention the carriers they still had, of course many of these carriers were crippled by kamikaze attacks,

this is where i found this info:

http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/

[AGRICOLA]

Originally posted by Leonidas
Not sure what you can do with convoys, but the US sub service in the Pacific sank more Japanese ships than the U-boats did against the Allies in the Atlantic.

The numbers suggest otherwise. The Allies lost ~2800 ships to U-boats in WWII. Japanese losses to US submarines in the Pacific totalled ~1400 vessels. However, if ships sunk by aircraft and other causes are included, the number of Japaneses losses numbered ~2700.

I've rounded up all numbers to the nearest 100 to try to take care of discrepancies between various sources.

[Patine]

I think maybe creating US subs with events in areas likely to be major convoy routes (such as links between the Home Islands and, say, the Marianas, the Philipines, New Guinea, Indo-China, or even just mainland China. The problem is making shipping freight on transports all over the map desirable to the player.

BTW, thanks for the sounds, Leonidas!

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by AGRICOLA


The numbers suggest otherwise. The Allies lost ~2800 ships to U-boats in WWII. Japanese losses to US submarines in the Pacific totalled ~1400 vessels. However, if ships sunk by aircraft and other causes are included, the number of Japaneses losses numbered ~2700.

I've rounded up all numbers to the nearest 100 to try to take care of discrepancies between various sources.

Hi

heheh

It's been a while since I read about the WW2 sub actions.

So sorry if I befuddled what I meant.

I should have said that the US submarine service was far more effective and successful than the German U-boats in WW2.

There is some controversy over the numbers.

Clay Blair, in "Hitler's U-boat War" (2 volumes), did an analysis of strict U-boat sinkings of Allied ships and found they sank only about 1,400 ships (all other Allied losses were due to other causes - German planes, mines, ships, etc).

The US subs sank about that same number of Japanese ships (about 1,400 ships).

However, the US lost only 52 subs, while the Germans lost a staggering 821 U-boats, making the US submarines a far more effective submarine service than the German U-boats (per submarine lost vs the number of enemy ships sunk).

The US Submarine Service accounted for about 55% of all Japanese tonnage sunk in the war. This was done by a branch of the Navy that accounted for about 1.6% of the Navy's wartime complement.

Cheers!

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Patine
I think maybe creating US subs with events in areas likely to be major convoy routes (such as links between the Home Islands and, say, the Marianas, the Philipines, New Guinea, Indo-China, or even just mainland China. The problem is making shipping freight on transports all over the map desirable to the player.

BTW, thanks for the sounds, Leonidas!

You're very welcome

I'm looking forward to playing this scenario

Cheers!

[fairline]

Originally posted by Leonidas

However, the US lost only 52 subs, while the Germans lost a staggering 821 U-boats, making the US submarines a far more effective submarine service than the German U-boats (per submarine lost vs the number of enemy ships sunk).

I guess their relative losses had a lot to do with the amount of resourse put into hunting and destroying U-boats by the British and Americans, and also the difference in size of the Pacific and Atlantic.

@ Patine: There is one major question which remains unanswered for your scenario - how on earth are you going to get the AI to use aircraft carriers and amphibious assaults? This scenario is going to fall flat on it's ass unless intended for PBEM I suspect.

[Patine]

Perhaps going with GePap's idea of free freight generating on turn intervals in Southeast Asia will make transporting freight more attractive to the Japanese player.

[Patine]

@fairline: Well, Harry Tuttle had an idea of generating a landing craft loaded with marines, a carrier (with a 0 attack to prevent suicide runs) loaded with planes, and some ships off of each island stronghold, in historical order, with the 'go to' event directing them to attack the island. How does that sound?

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by fairline


I guess their relative losses had a lot to do with the amount of resourse put into hunting and destroying U-boats by the British and Americans, and also the difference in size of the Pacific and Atlantic.

Still, the numbers speak for themselves.

It tells us a lot about the Japanese mentality back then.

Japan's war effort depended on getting oil supplies through via convoys. Yet, the Japanese belief in the warrior code made it "unmanly" to guard merchant ships...

Heck, even the Japanese submarine naval doctrine called for attacking US warships, rather than merchant ships...

And the belief in the fighting spirit of the Japanese soldier led to a failure of using good tanks in the early part of the war...

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Patine
@fairline: Well, Harry Tuttle had an idea of generating a landing craft loaded with marines, a carrier (with a 0 attack to prevent suicide runs) loaded with planes, and some ships off of each island stronghold, in historical order, with the 'go to' event directing them to attack the island. How does that sound?

Yes, exactly right.

The "GO TO" command was used very effectively by Nemo in Red Front.

Use events to generate US forces to attack Jap island strongholds.

Also, maybe use events whereby when the USA loses a ship, another one is generated at certain locations.

One thing about the AI - it will attack and bombard using cruisers and battleships...

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Patine
Perhaps going with GePap's idea of free freight generating on turn intervals in Southeast Asia will make transporting freight more attractive to the Japanese player.

Nice idea.

You could use that idea in conjunction with this suggestion:

Use an event whereby: every Japanese merchant ship sunk by a US sub would mean a loss in a certain amount of gold for the Japanese player. This would force the player to get those DDs out there...

This would help simulate losses in oil supplies for the Japanese player...

[Patine]

Those certainly sound like good ideas, Leonidas. Thanks for your support. Now I only have a few Soviet cities and units to place (they were the last player dealt with in that regard), then I need to acquire good graphics for US and Japanese landing barges (separately), then place initial ones of those, then do the events, and it's ready for playtest! This is the last chance for ideas to make the beta, at least.