Hey guys...
I'm still swamped with my project at work (doing a PhD sometimes leaves you with little time to spare for C.O.R.E. HOI), so please forgive my general absence.
I just happened to catch the whole "Pearl Harbour" discussion, and I think I may see a possible compromise between the full scripted events/unit removal/patrol and AI package, and the "it won't work we tried" response.
I am actually just piecing together things that others have said earlier in this thread.
Firstly, I want to say that I don't think we should give up on Pearl Harbour, if we could get a reasonable model, why not at least try?
Issue #1: The road to war in the Pacific
I agree with Jkkelley and JRaup that a chain of events which would most likely follow the historical path to war, but allows for some divergence, would be a good idea to kick off the war both punctually and consistantly. This badly needs to be developed. Event chains with divergent option will both keep the AI on track with a realistic model of the U.S./Japan war, and yet still allow for human player/occasional AI divergence from history.
Issue #2: Japan's campaign
I agree that scripted turnovers of the islands & territories that Japan took does not give enough room for player choice, and is too predictable. Instead, after war is declared (around the traditional date), why not give Japan (AI or player) a transport unit and an infantry unit(s) (or whatever) for each takeover listed by Halibutt (or just a set number of units in one event). The AI, given proper improvements in Japanese ability to take islands, could surely use the help. The human player would keep the freedom of using those units wherever they wanted, and in attacking islands in whatever order. If the amount is kept to a realistic, but not overpowered 'bonus gift' of units, it would help model the initial Japanese surge in the campaign. As long as it is kept small (transports aren't that valuable, they can't fight, and Japanese infantry is pretty cheap too), there shouldn't be a change in balance.
Issue #3: Pearl Harbour
As Halibutt said, war comes with surprise, and the Japanese who planned the sneak attack on the U.S. would have prepared to strike the fleet wherever it was based. Having said that, I know this cannot be modeled by his suggestions of randomly deleting units. That could cause too much imbalance elsewhere around the world. Patrols where the Japanese/Americans were 'supposed' to be is also too exploitable. As said by Halibutt, no human U.S. player is going to base their fleet at Pearl Harbour if they know a "sneak attack" is coming there, and an AI controlled U.S. will be too unpredictable and unlikely to ever have anything stationed at Hawaii either. So, my suggestion is to have just a plain 'flavor' event here, with MAYBE some limited effects thrown in... no U.S. unit deletions, but some minor manpower/resource loss might be ok. As well, maybe a corresponding event for Japan increasing the coastal forts of their campaing conquests as preparation for 'American retribution'. Additionally, there could be some alteration to the Admiral settings (I don't know too much about this) to make Japan more likely to engage in naval battles with the U.S. and the U.S. more likely to concentrate its navy in the Pacific.
Realistically, the U.S. did not lose enough naval power at Pearl to crush their chances of owning the Pacific. If we were to delete U.S. units by event, we'd have to do the same to Japan for the battle of Midway, and 100 other Pacific battles at sea... but C.O.R.E. can't work that way. My solution is flavor events with small bonuses, plus the following........
Issue #4: The Pacific War
Modelling the war in the Pacific is not anything like modelling the war in Europe. "Countries" are not supposed to follow a historical annexation/liberation story here. Basically, the Pacific war should be a melange of island hopping plus lots of naval battles.
This is where everything I have suggested comes together.
a). Hopefully someone can come up with Japanese and U.S. AI files that are trained to island hop... not in any particular order, but at least to consistantly invade the islands that were historically fought over.
b). As well, we need to increase the intensity, frequency, and amount of losses for naval battles in the Pacific by the AI. It doesn't need to be in a scripted event, nor in a predictable AI-patrol zone. After all, what difference did it really make that Pearl Harbour or Midway happened at Pearl Harbour and Midway... we just as well could be saying the Philipines and Guam, given slightly alternate history.
If we can achieve these two things (island hopping and increased Pacific naval battles), along with tweaking Admiral AI to increase both naval encounters and weightings (both size of fleets, and number of ships committed to the Pacific vs. the Atlantic for the U.S. naval AI), we should see Japan and the U.S. duking it out in the Pacific sea zones as well as fighting to take/re-take islands.
This solution includes both flavor, historical correctness, and player/AI choice, while not introducing any predictablility, exploits, or random, game altering changes. It may be abstracting the Parcific war in some places, but that's the only solution given the current game engine. Let's face it, guys, no one has been able to come up with a better solution that works in practice YET!
I would LOVE to see something like this come about, but I haven't got the time or the technical skill to make it myself. I would, however, be willing to help in whatever way I can.
Any takers on making these ideas real? Let me know what you guys think about the above essay!
JesseJames