RT02 Midway Island

[Rex Tyrannus]

Fox, the British were involved insofar as the Japanese took all their holdings in Southeast Asia on the first day of the war, including Singapore (you should have known that). I'm not sure they every made much of an impact after that.

The Russians were chronically at war with Japan during the early twentieth century, but I think their alliance with Hitler prevented a hot war until Hitler invaded Russia. After that, both Japan and Russia had their hands full. I don't know about that one, though, I'm going on sketchy memory.

China was at war with Japan from about 1930 until the end of WWII, I think, but I also think they were rather an occupied territory for much of it. Korea was in much the same boat as Japan.

Perhaps it's simply that I'm American, but I really think the Pacific theater was really about 95% US versus Japan.

That said, an extra opponent and maybe an ally could spice up this game a little. I like the idea of creating a map with California at the far east and China's east coast at the far west, with some more or less accurate islands placed throughout the pacific. Somewhere around here is a bitmap to worldbuilder save converter.

If I find it, I'll see if I can't convert it. I could then hand it off to Imhotep to add some development for us. I think it should be epic, though. Each side should have a very large combined-force navy. We could still emphasize carriers as I think we've proven them to very effective against battleships.

What say the group?

 

[Strauss]

The British did play a part in the war against Japan, but this was in India and Burma, and for most of the war it was mainly guerilla-fighting in the jungle. In the area we would want to re-enact, their presence was practically naught. The largest part of their navy there was sunk in the first weeks of the war.

Russia didn't fight Japan until the end of 1945, when they rolled over Manchuria.

Calling China mainly occupied territory is going a bit too far. If that would've been the case, the war could've turned out much differently. However, China's role was on land, and we're going to fight at sea. That battle was between Japan and the US, with a few Australian and New Zealand ships alongside. All in all, I don't think you're far off by saying 95% was between Japan and the US. Although I don't have a problem with putting England in alongside America, since we're starting in 1941 when the British were still there.

You're lucky you didn't decide to portray the European Theatre in WW2, or my posts would be much, much longer

 

[GreyFox]

I know my history, Rex. You are correct in the Pacific naval battles were mostly America vs Japan ... after Pearl Habor. Before that, there were, a few Bristish and Bristish colonies' ships (i.e. Aust, NZ) lying around in the Pacifics. Of-course towards the end of WWII, once the European theatre is over, its pretty much the whole world against Japan, so the Russians, British each had a handful of ships then as well.

But these are not important ... they are the actual history. We want an alternate history ..

I think a hand-made map would be what we want.

--

 

[Rex Tyrannus]

Well, someone's gone and done a lot of work for us already. Take a look at Viper235's Pacific Map. Does anyone have any objection to using it? Also, should we continue in this thread or start a new one?

 

[LuvToBuild]

I like the looks of the map from the screenshot. I'd say using this same map is fine unless you just want to start another to generate more interest.

 

[NewlessCluebie]

Fox, the British were involved insofar as the Japanese took all their holdings in Southeast Asia on the first day of the war, including Singapore (you should have known that). I'm not sure they every made much of an impact after that.

Not compared to the US maybe, but they definitely fought the Japanese in the Indian Ocean and in Burma.

China was at war with Japan from about 1930 until the end of WWII, I think, but I also think they were rather an occupied territory for much of it. Korea was in much the same boat as Japan.

Perhaps it's simply that I'm American, but I really think the Pacific theater was really about 95% US versus Japan.

Japan had millions of troops tied down trying to occupy & invade China. Most of the Japanese army was engaged against China; the US ended up mostly fighting the Japanese navy. Maybe the US did 90% of the naval fighting but China bore the overwhelming brunt of the casualties and tied down the majority of the Japanese armed forces.

I checked some names out and it appears the "Enterprise" was an aircraft carrier back then and also "Hornet". I think the "Yorktown" was an American Battleship. Of course these were all American ships but the Japanese names were quite cryptic in a sense.

Yorktown was a carrier as well, all 20th century American battleships (with only one exception) were named after states of the Union.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battleships_of_the_United_States_Navy
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy
for starters.

You might have more fun if you added in the British campaign against the Germans giving them lots of subs and the British battleships such as "The Hood" (sunk by the Bismarck) and the "Prince of Wales" (the battleship that eventually sunk the Bismarck). Of course it was accompanied by an aircraft carrier but an old style one (don't recall the class type)

You are thinking of the Ark Royal I believe.

The problem is that Civ IV models naval combat extremely badly. Historical WWI & WWII naval warfare had an element of rock-paper-scissors to it... submarines > battleships > destroyers > submarines. Instead CIV naval combat seems to amount to building as many battleships as you can and ambushing smaller stacks of enemy battleships (when the broken AI bothers to sail them out of harbour). In reality very few battleships were ever sunk by enemy battleships, particularly not after carrier-launched airplanes proved devastatingly effective at Taranto and at Pearl Harbour.

If I were trying to fix CIV naval warfare I would first establish a rock-paper-scissors effect by making battleships unable to attack submarines even if they stumbled across them accidentally. I would also not have naval units always fight to the death, but have a high chance of withdrawing (the first time, anyway) if being beaten up by an enemy surface unit. Helping the AI use its naval units would also be nice (they should blockade enemy ports, thereby preventing enemy ships from leaving port & helping starve them and reduce their trade). I would make aircraft more effective against naval units to encourage the use of carriers to escort one's stacks of battleships.

However the broader problem is that there is seldom much reason to build a big navy, at least not against the AI. I don't know how to make navy units more useful/necessary (slower transport speeds? much broader LOS across water to let you see an invasion force coming? more powerful blockade & bombardment effects against enemy cities, possibly allowing the destruction of improvements?) but right now the system typically reduces one's navy to an afterthought.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound so negative on my first post here -- I love CIV (it is way too easy for me to waste an entire evening playing), but I really wish it modeled history a bit better, particularly where naval warfare is involved.

 

[Strauss]

(story)

Oh my God there's two of us.

The Pacific map looks good, so I have no objection to it. But since China is in there we will have to fight on land as well. No problem with me, but this game was originally about naval battles.
I would suggest starting a 2nd thread, that's more friendly for new lurkers coming in.

 

[Rex Tyrannus]

So, Newless, does that mean you'll join if we make it more accurate? Regrading the Pacific map, I've just started putting cities on it, which is a total pain because the map isn't perfect and trying to decide where exactly to put cities is tough. I might just forgo technical accuracy and put "London" somewhere on the Indian subcontinent.

On that account, I've made us Japan again and added Roosevelt, Victoria, and Mao against us. England's capital will either be in India or Singapore. America's capital will be Los Angeles. Japan and China will have their actual capitals.

Regarding starting territory, I'm trying to use this map as my guide. Though this page is where it came from and an index of all sorts of good Pacific theater maps. I'll probably end up with some sort of hybrid of several of these.

So far I've got Japan proper laid out as Tokyo, Saporro, and Nagasaki. Japanese held China is Shanghai and Manchuria. I'll add Thailand, Vietnam, and the islands between Thailand and the Philapeans to Japan as well.

China will have Beijing and that big blue area of China from the map in the above link. (Not sure which cities I'll use.)

The US will have Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco as their production powerhouses, plus Hawaii as a strategic base.

England will be India, Singapore, and Australia.

I'm leaving a big hole of open territory that is Russia, Mongolia and the Gobi Desert. This will be land to settle. Same with the Australian outback and a ton of pacific islands.

Japan and the US will have large navies. China will have the biggest land army. The US will fair well in that department, too, but all their land troops will be back in the mainland. British land army will be small, as with their navy.

Anyone care to alter these plans?

 

[Strauss]

So Rex, any news on this?

 

[Rex Tyrannus]

Sorry, RL is tight, ATM. I'm not sure when I'll be able to start this back up.

 

[Liquidated]

ok hmm the entire first post just confuses me, allow me to just strike what I wrote lol.


hehe need sleep

Cheers!
-Liq'd