Any hope for a Japanese/Pacific Campaign?

[LandMarine47]

While I know the game is called Panzer Corps, implying that the main theatre should be based in Europe, is there any hope of a Pacific campaign? Knowing the rework of Naval Combat, I would imagine this could be an idea for a dlc later down the road

[proline]

While I know the game is called Panzer Corps, implying that the main theatre should be based in Europe, is there any hope of a Pacific campaign? Knowing the rework of Naval Combat, I would imagine this could be an idea for a dlc later down the road

PzC 2 will have Pacific campaigns. This has not been announced but they'd be fools not to take your money for that.

[robertahyuk]

I would love to see a Pacific campaign on PC2. It's about time here for a Pacific naval and submarine DLC. Been crossing my fingers for a few years now!

[PanzerCro]

Apart from Japanese one's I would like to see Finland campaign. In-depth one, where you start in Soviet - Finalnd war, then on Axis side and later switching sides.

[Retributarr]

A 'Japanese/Pacific Campaign'...is a very "Iffy" prospect....a likely highly improbable project indeed!:

But!!!...if it ever were to become more than just a frivolous 'Fantasizing-Concept'...then there are a few interesting twists that I would like to mention for 'Alternate-History' consideration in this 'Other Outer Dimensional Reality Pacific Campaign Game'.

1. When 'Pearl Harbor' was attacked...I believe that 3-American Carriers were not accounted for. If the Japanese had made sure to locate and sink these Carriers during the attack on Pearl Harbor...that alone...would/could have made a considerable difference in how effective that future Japanese Operations would have been for them!.

2. When the 'Pearl Harbor' moored Naval Fleet had just taken a crippling blow in damaged or sunk Naval Vessels from the Japanese 'Air-Assault'...the Japanese could have then considered an option to occupy Hawaii and make it into a major harbor location and fortification against future U.S. Naval and Amphibious assaults. The United States then would have no-longer have had a solid launching point such as they had in utilizing England during the war in Europe for future offensive operations against their adversary. If this had actually happened, then the Americans and British would have had both of their hands tied behind their backs until the situation was somehow re-adjusted into their favor.

3. The 'Battle of Midway Island'. If similar action was taken here as proposed for 'Pearl Harbor', then an amphibious assault on Midway-Island could also have put into action. Once the island was occupied,...the Japanese then could have fortified it _ dozens of heavy concrete coastal artillery guns such as in Normandy/France, mining the surrounding area, submarine nets, etc...etc... and also have made it into a land-based Aircraft Carrier.

4. The Japanese needed industrial metals and oil. the Pacific region could provide that in various measured quantities...how much exactly...I don't know. as far as Metals? go...im not well versed on how much was available for their use (China and other nearby regions had much more of those resources), however as far as Oil goes...in/on/or near the Phillipines was a place named 'Davo' or some-such-named place and at this location as well as others...substantial quantities of Oil was to be had. I don't know how efficiently that the Japanese managed the acquisition of these resources?. But!...if they had done just so with them...that effort would have paid off handsomely for them...as they originally went to war with Britain and the United States over the lack of these resources.

At the moment that is all I have. Other than that the Japanese according to Rumor...were also in the process of developing their own 'Jets', likely based on specifications from the Germans brought to them by means of the use of 'Submarines'. As well it is Rumored that they were also digging huge long tunnels in the nearby mountains of Tokyo (Mt. Fuji...for example) to accommodate 2000 jet aircraft.

Someone else could do some more in-depth research into some of these radical ideas...and then present it to the Forum Audience.

[Retributarr]

Japanese Jet Development In WWII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Kikka

Nakajima Kikka - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Kikka
Nakajima Kikka


Role
Ground Attack
Anti-ship, including Kamikaze
Manufacturer
Nakajima
Designer
IJA-AS
First flight
7 August 1945
Retired
15 August 1945
Status
Prototype
Primary user
Imperial Japanese Navy
Number built
10

Design and development
After the Japanese military attaché in Germany witnessed trials of the Messerschmitt Me 262 in 1944, the Imperial Japanese Navy issued a request to Nakajima to develop a similar aircraft to be used as a fast attack bomber. Among the specifications for the design were the requirements that it should be able to be built largely by unskilled labor, and that the wings should be foldable. This latter feature was to enable the aircraft to be hidden in caves and tunnels around Japan as the navy began to prepare for the defense of the home islands. Nakajima designers Kazuo Ohno and Kenichi Matsumura laid out an aircraft that bore a strong but superficial resemblance to the Me 262.[1]

Kawanishi Baika
Kamikaze/Suicide Attack Aircraft:


History
Nazi Germany supplied the Japanese with a great deal of technical data, including details of the Argus As 014 pulse jet engine. It remains debatable whether that technical data included examples of the V1, let alone the Fieseler Fi 103R (Reichenberg). It is noted that wartime U.S. intelligence reports stated that the Japanese knew of the V-1 by October 1943, and one report stated that Japan received one example in November 1944. The reports also suggested that the Japanese were very interested in the V-1 air-launching techniques as used by the Germans.

One U.S. Army Air Force document from 1946 shows the Baika as being a copy of the Reichenberg. The cargo manifest of the Japanese submarine I-29 lists a single V-1 fuselage as being included in a shipment of equipment. Some contemporary Japanese historians debate on what, if any, V-1 and Fi 103R data the Japanese actually received and whether the Baika may simply have been an independent design.

The only tangible outcome of the Axis cooperation, however, was the construction of prototypes of the Maru Ka10 pulse-jet engine which was to power the Baika.[1]

WW2 Japanese Aircraft (1939-1945)
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... rcraft.asp

[proline]

Apart from Japanese one's I would like to see Finland campaign. In-depth one, where you start in Soviet - Finalnd war, then on Axis side and later switching sides.

Finland's historical path is mostly a series of border wars. A more interesting campaign idea might be if the went all-in and took St. Petersburg and Murmansk.

[proline]

1. When 'Pearl Harbor' was attacked...I believe that 3-American Carriers were not accounted for. If the Japanese had made sure to locate and sink these Carriers during the attack on Pearl Harbor...that alone...would/could have made a considerable difference in how effective that future Japanese Operations would have been for them!.

The Americans eventually built an obscene 151 aircraft carriers vs the Japanese dozen or so. They would still have won, but it would have taken years longer and could indeed make for a fun speculative campaign.

[Retributarr]

1. When 'Pearl Harbor' was attacked...I believe that 3-American Carriers were not accounted for. If the Japanese had made sure to locate and sink these Carriers during the attack on Pearl Harbor...that alone...would/could have made a considerable difference in how effective that future Japanese Operations would have been for them!.

The Americans eventually built an obscene 151 aircraft carriers vs the Japanese dozen or so. They would still have won, but it would have taken years longer and could indeed make for a fun speculative campaign.

Without absolutely knowing all the details off-hand, here we go again with these frivolous beliefs!.
Without doing any research, but just according to what I do know...is that yes!...the Americans did build lots of Carriers, but!!!...the vast majority of them were 'Supply Carriers' _ Carrying replacement aircraft for losses on the main Battle-Carriers, as well a lot of these Carriers...were small Escort-Carriers used for the purpose of providing air-cover (Hunting Submarines...Etc.) for convoys. Most of these Carriers were-Not "Main Front-Line Battle-Carriers". So that just could account for more than 80% or 90% of that number you quoted if in-fact there is any truth to it.

[Rhaeg]

Hello all, this is my first post on these forums. I've been reading them for a year or so after I discovered Panzer Corps as the successor of Panzer General, a game I played as a very young Rhaeg Don't ask me why I took so long to find out about PC, I guess it's just what happens when you're not aware of game releases and only play 1 or 2 new games every year

I see people here asking for Japanese and Pacific campaigns, but maybe you could check out Order of Battle. I discovered this game 1 or 2 weeks ago, I think it has the same publisher as Panzer Corps (but different developers) and I am really having an awesome time with it. It has this construction of the base game being free, but that is a bit deceptive: you basically need to buy all of the campaigns as dlc... I made the mistake of buying all of the pacific dlc's right away after loving the tutorial missions, only to see them all at a huge discount today. I didn't see any mention of Order of Battle here, but it's very much like Panzer Corps but it has several campaigns for the pacific with much better navy and especially combined navy/air/land mechanics and scenarios. From what I've seen PC2 is taking over some things for Order of Battle.

I still hope PC2 will have Pacific campaigns, but Panzer Corps and Order of Battle should just merge, dammit

[proline]

1. When 'Pearl Harbor' was attacked...I believe that 3-American Carriers were not accounted for. If the Japanese had made sure to locate and sink these Carriers during the attack on Pearl Harbor...that alone...would/could have made a considerable difference in how effective that future Japanese Operations would have been for them!.

The Americans eventually built an obscene 151 aircraft carriers vs the Japanese dozen or so. They would still have won, but it would have taken years longer and could indeed make for a fun speculative campaign.

Without absolutely knowing all the details off-hand, here we go again with these frivolous beliefs!.
Without doing any research, but just according to what I do know...is that yes!...the Americans did build lots of Carriers, but!!!...the vast majority of them were 'Supply Carriers' _ Carrying replacement aircraft for losses on the main Battle-Carriers, as well a lot of these Carriers...were small Escort-Carriers used for the purpose of providing air-cover (Hunting Submarines...Etc.) for convoys. Most of these Carriers were-Not "Main Front-Line Battle-Carriers". So that just could account for more than 80% or 90% of that number you quoted if in-fact there is any truth to it.

Here's the thing- it doesn't matter that most of those were cheap escort carriers. By 1944 carriers were infinitely more powerful than battleships to the extent that at the Battle off Samar a few escort carriers were able to turn back a force of 12 capital ships. Yes, escort carriers were weak and slow. But it doesn't matter. Thanks to the superiority of aircraft over surface vessels, they were still an existential threat to any kind of Japanese ship.

You are of course right that many escort carriers were not used in battle (other than vs. subs) and some were just used as transports. That's because Japan was on the ropes and there was no need to engage the escort carriers when the main fleet carriers had the situation easily under control. But in the alternate history where the Japanese destroy four fleet carriers around the Pearl Harbour timeframe, the escort carriers would have easily taken up the slack within a couple years. The main difference is that instead of losing their fleet at Midway in 1942, they would have lost it sometime in 1943-44 and rather than exchanging four fleet carriers for one American one at Midway it would have been more like four fleet carriers for 10 escort carriers. Doesn't matter, the Americans had a hundred more.

[WarHomer]

It´s an old discussion, but there should be room for the viewpoint that it doesn´t matter hos much more you produce when you loose all the battles.

[Retributarr]

Japanese 'Full-Throttle-Pacific-Expansion'!:

I would very much like to see some 'Hypothetical-Venue's ' included to make such a "War In The PACIFIC" an interesting, perhaps...even a fascinating exploratory indulgence!.

Taking off from my previous post of the hypothetical successful sinking of the 3-American Carriers at 'Pearl-Harbor'...why-not now...we possibly consider an actual invasion of 'Australia', since now the U.S. Navy is presently without a Carrier Force, Macarthur... would now have little to no chance of success at the Guadalcanal campaign to thwart future Japanese expansion efforts, the Japanese would now have little resistance to invading Australia!.

Not only that, but depending on how the situation work's out, an...Invasion of the U.S.A. would also become a realistic possibility???...depending largely on the passage of time and other associated factors?.

Further ahead, in this 'Hypothetical-Reality', if 'Moscau' were to fall to the German Wehrmact', then the Japanese just may be emboldened enough to also invade particular areas/sections of Russia?.

Anyone else care to throw in their "whimsical fantasies" into this maelstrom???.

[RVallant]

Pacific Theatre would be nice.

I would genuinely enjoy a Japan campaign that deals with China in '37 and then the subsequent attacking and defending vs the South-East Asian nations and islands and of course, the USA.

The increase in naval scope should also enable some more interesting British missions if the British get their own campaign, both in Europe and the Pacific. I'd like to see more from the British, or if they must, a fully integrated 'Allied' campaign, again in both theatres, that would allow for a mixed core of various Allied nationals. But, I might be expecting too much here.

[Retributarr]

Pacific Theatre would be nice.

I would genuinely enjoy a Japan campaign that deals with China in '37 and then the subsequent attacking and defending vs the South-East Asian nations and islands and of course, the USA.

The increase in naval scope should also enable some more interesting British missions if the British get their own campaign, both in Europe and the Pacific. I'd like to see more from the British, or if they must, a fully integrated 'Allied' campaign, again in both theatres, that would allow for a mixed core of various Allied nationals. But, I might be expecting too much here.

I fully agree!!!. I for one am very-much for a "Rigorous Historical Japanese Campaign"...with...of course the opportunity for those who wish it...or... desire it...to be able to vector off somewhat...from the 'Historical-Event-Timeline' and delve into the...'Theoretical Hypothetical'...as I have already suggested in my previous post's...for a "Full-Thorough-investigation" of the matter!. I believe that there is a 'Strong-Market' for just such a Game Construction Development!.

[PanzerCro]

Grand Japanese campaign would be nice. With "what if" scenarios where Japan invade Australia or even California.

[robman]

+1. Or turn north in 1941 to join the attack against the Soviet Union.