War in the North Option???

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
el cid again
Posts: 16980
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

War in the North Option???

Post by el cid again »

What if the US planning for an offensive in the North was able to gain Stalin's support? One assumes this would mean a major commitment of assets into undeveloped areas of Eastern Siberia - and the Komandorskie islands.

It could be done with the RHS system because we permit changing pwhex during a game. In this case - start with no ALCAN - then get one as a road - then finally as a rail road. Further - it could go all the way to Nome.

Otherwise it could use the RAO file system - with any appropriate changes in where things appear for the Allies. It would take only a day to produce the pwhex - and a couple of days to produce the revised file set.

RAO = CVO with active Russians = a strictly historical order of battle.

This is a trial baloon to see if there is any interest. It would not be nice for Japan - although the beginning would be the same - by late 1942 the Allies would be able to contemplate moves in the North - and a year later - they would be overwhelming on that vector.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: War in the North Option???

Post by Shark7 »

The only problem with a northern route is not so much Japanese resistance as the horrible and unpredictable weather in the north pacific.  In all honestly, the weather would cause as many (if not more) casualties than the Japanese would.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
Ginella1946
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:25 am
Location: france
Contact:

RE: War in the North Option???

Post by Ginella1946 »

i did it !
in my first game ,i've decided to take the north route as it was planned by US at a moment of the war.
First landing on paramashiro jima and islands around.
i'd some tough days during the landing on SAKKHALIN beaches but this island is really the best platform to put fire over japan .
once bases on SAKKHALIN are renforced and expanded at their max capacities ,it's time to move your Level bombers and B29s to bomb strategic targets.
unfortunately i tried to land on HOKKAIDO but operations were baddly prepared due to my lack of experience in the game and my divisions are stucked since monthes .
nevertheless the north route is one of the best tokill japan .
do you think you are Lucky punk?
el cid again
Posts: 16980
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: War in the North Option???

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The only problem with a northern route is not so much Japanese resistance as the horrible and unpredictable weather in the north pacific.  In all honestly, the weather would cause as many (if not more) casualties than the Japanese would.

Point one: we lost more troops to jungle diseases than we did to the enemy. Also - we lost more ships in a single storm than we did in any battle. Weather was a problem IRL - and is a potential problem wherever you go.

Point two: I live in Alaska. It is 99 per cent uninhabited today (which is not to say uninhabitable - it isn't legal to go most places and live there). We have 3/4 of all US coastline and 1/5 of all US land area - and almost all of the active volcanos. Fires, floods, earthquakes and other events are SOP - and our state defense force is the only one called to active duty multiple times every year (due to insufficient police, fire and medical people to deal with them). I know a tiny bit about conditions in Alaska - which is why I wrote that the 'weather objection' is mainly nonsense. I also went to the US Army Jungle Warfare School (should be jungle survival school - it isn't about warfare) - and I can tell you for certain - Alaska is nothing like a jungle for casualties. We have no malaria or dengue fever - or the thousands of other diseases there are no names for in the real jungle.

Point three: We did fight "the thousand mile war" in the Aleutians. We did lose some planes to fog. But it was just unpleasant - not horrible. It does not usually snow in the Aleutians - it never gets cold enough. Adak is a very nice place - if you can get used to a lack of trees (there are four - in front of the sign Adak National Forest - which is not a joke).
We built a 2 million dollar high school there - just in time to close the base (clever).
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: War in the North Option???

Post by Shark7 »

True, but living in Alaska you are properly equipped for cold weather and the storms you get. It is not impossible, you just need to make sure to prepare better, properly equip the troops and be ready to deal with the ocean storms that pop up from time to time.

One thing I can't say for sure is in 1940 how hard would the cold weather be on equipment like tanks, trucks, airplanes, even your infantry weapons and artillery? We have to keep the time reference in context

I'm sure the planners took everything in consideration when decided to use a southern route to Tokyo. The Northern route is certainly shorter, but is it advisable?
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
el cid again
Posts: 16980
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: War in the North Option???

Post by el cid again »

The planners DECIDED to go North - but POLITICS prevented it. So they went other ways. The choice to try to substitute China as a bomber base for Russia didn't work out well in the event. Ultimately they converted islets to giant bomber bases - but this had its own problems. Still classified - tiny numbers of Japanese Ki-67s wrought terrible damage on our assembled bombers - and it is the reason we had to take Iwo Jima (their forward refueling point). We never did know how they figured out when we assembled for a raid. [It was bad practice on our part - we sent weather planes the same number of days ahead of the raid. We should have sent weather planes every day - or every two days - or something like that - so it would not be a sign of a raid.] Anyway - the densly packed armed and fueled bombers did most of the damage - only one bomb had to hit one bomber - and there was bound to be a mess. No way to do what we would do with proper bases - the islands were too small.

WWII era gear is generally better than modern gear in cold weather. Note - however - the Aleutians are not cold (except on tops of mountains - where people never go). The rail line would have to cope with cold in Yukon and the interior of Alaska - but see the US Army ran Whitehorse and Yukon RR for evidence we were up to that chore. The bases for planes were also built - to ferry them to Russia - and indeed they could have ferried planes for use at the front - if there only were a front to ferry them to. More planes went that way than all other ways combined. More or less the critical things were done - just the job was not finished - because Stalin wanted to avoid a war with Japan - and did not trust Allied troops on Russian soil. No doubt he remembered the Allied interventions in Russia in 1920.

This proposal involves letting the Allies have a RR to Nome - not just a decision to go that way. It might involve some other infrastructures as well - to insure we have enough air base potential. Unlike non RHS games - the RR can appear DURING the game - since obviously it does not start the game. It would appear in stages - as a pioneer road - a road - and then a rail road. It is on the map now - except for the link from Fairbanks to Nome - as the ALCAN highway. This is wrong - the ALCAN was not built until 1942 - so it should not start the game - but it does in CHS and RHS. Stock is different - it has completely fictional rail and roads in Alaska - unrelated to anything I can figure out - running along mountainous coast where none ever will exist.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”