Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: History or Balance

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: History or Balance Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
[Poll]

History or Balance


A scenario that is as unbalanced as necessary to be as historically ac
  72% (132)
A scenario that still has the flavor of the historical participants (s
  27% (51)


Total Votes : 183
(last vote on : 5/25/2006 10:49:53 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 11:16:08 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
I don't know what game you've been playing, but clearly as Japan I am able to take over quite a bit of the economy (if you can call changing factories that).
Part of the point I was making, even outside the confines of changing factories, no matter what I command, it still isn't Japan, or the allies for that matter, if any of us are controlling them. People can't recreate history in this thing if they tried. That would require controlling both sides by the same person and hoping that their interpretation is correct.

Well, it's true, the game allows you to take over "control" of aircraft factories (my point in this regard was that the game itself went wrong in many ways from the outset, and this was one of them). A bad decision, in my estimation, and one that doesn't work, but to each his own. Now, we have a wild-eyed, footloose and fancy free pilot system that allows you to grab Charlie Wunnut out of his PBY and turn him into Ace Destroyer the Zero Killer all in one fell swoop. *sigh* People are giggling and ga-ga over it, so I guess I'm not going to persuade anyone of anything here anymore (as though I ever did).

Yes, I agree with you completely, Charles, the point is not to "recreate history." The point is to play within the confines of "historical reality." Of course, we're not going to get anywhere hashing that over, as it's been hash reheated a hundred times already.

I have tried to make clear, apparently with little or no success, that I see wargaming as a hobby in which the game presents you with a situation, and you deal with it, "winning" or "losing" in consonance with victory conditions imposed by the game. I just see too many people on these forums who want to stand that on its head and present the game with the situation and demand that the game deal with it, with "winning" and "losing" determined as in "Capture the Flag."

That's not what I want, but I'm a dinosaur, and I know it. The legions of your new brave world will enjoy their pastimes long after I am fossil fuel.


Hey, make this real-time and the youngsters are set.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 241
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 2:52:27 PM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline 		It is probably my bad english, but something like two pages ago I mentioned a possible workaround, which went unnoticed. What if there was an ordinary declaration of war? I mean as the japanese have originally planned. DOW and after an hour, attack. Or I go further after handing over an ultimatum wait for a day or two to and then attack. I seriously doubt, that in such a situation and after suffering serious losses, the US public would have wanted to fight on for DEI, or Hong Kong (the british Empire), and yes even PI.

BTW everyone (not only IJ FBs) wouild like to try their mettle against their historical counterparts.

Edited for grammar.

< Message edited by Ursa MAior -- 5/23/2006 5:34:02 PM >

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 242
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 4:58:14 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

.......................................

because I don't like kicking two legged puppies.

.......................



You miss out on a lot of fun in life don't you.

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 243
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 5:45:57 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

It is probably my bad english, but something like two pages ago I mentioned a possible workaround, which went unnoticed. What if there was an ordinary declaration of war? I mean as the japanese have originally planned. DOW and after an hour, attack. Or I go further after handing over an ultimatum wait for a day or two to and then attack. I seriously doubt, that in such a situation and after suffering serious losses, the US public would not have wanted to fight on for DEI, or Hong Kong (the british Empire), and yes even PI.


Yet the US public was more than willing to go the long road versus Hitler, and he DOW'd the US after PH in a fit of unclarity. (The USN had been on a "shoot on sight" footing with Uboats for several months by this time.)

The (U.S.) John Q. Citizen has been portrayed throughout the last century as lacking a backbone. Yet, the only time that has proven to be true was 'Nam (and maybe Somalia). All the other conflicts, the US stuck it out, as far as I know. I know that the dictatorships of Germany and USSR have both viewed the Democracies, and the USA in particular, as weak. Despite the fall of those regimes, the concept lingers on...

Anyway, I do not understand how this is a "workaround" for this game.

The diplomatic negotiations are not modeled in this game. Are you asking the Allied player to "retire" all US forces after a certain set of conditions are met by the Japanese player?

< Message edited by mlees -- 5/23/2006 5:59:08 PM >

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 244
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 6:20:15 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

What if there was an ordinary declaration of war? I mean as the japanese have originally planned. DOW and after an hour, attack


IRL no American would have been mollified by this technicality. Even assuming that the Japanese delivered their DoW a couple hours before the attack it would be apparent, should any attack fall on the heels of the DoW, that the Japanese had been all along negotiating in bad faith in order to conceal their imminent war plans until the last moment. American resolve would probably have been even more determined than ever, since the outright lies and duplicity involved in the previous three months of negotiation would have been compounded by the insulting assumption that "Americans are so dumb that this absurd technicality will matter to them."

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 5/23/2006 6:21:18 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 245
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 6:33:17 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

they want parity or advantage during the clear advantage years for IJ


The problem is evident right there. Japan had no "clear advantage years" they had no clear advantage on any day after 7 December, apart from the vast amount of time they spent planning and setting up their opening moves. These advantages had nothing at all to do with equipment, tactics, or training (with the sole exception of the Type 93 torpedo), and everything to do with good preparation, poor allied logistical status at war's start, and Japanese advantage of interior lines.

It *ought* to be up to the Japanese player to ensure these successes by good operational planning, logistics, and concentration of forces. Instead, from what I've seen, Axis Fanboys want to hardcode Japanese superiority as a substitute for operational talent on the part of Japanese players. And moreover they want to rationalize Japan's economic system in ways the real Japanese could not have, even had they wanted to.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 5/23/2006 6:35:01 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 246
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 9:27:21 PM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline 		Aren't we a bit oversensitive, heh?

There is no way I wanted to say or even suggest, that US citizens were lacking a backbone. While definitely critical towards fanatics, I dont despise any nation. BUT you have to be aware that there are such things as national characteristics. Which is basically how the people from a given country think and behave, although in a wide range, but more or less the same, the way they are taught to (by parents, school, church etc.).

What I meant is that the Day of Infamy was the main, and IMHO only, reason why the society wanted to carry on till the end, no matter the cost. France and Italy surrendered, although they still had some chance to resist, because their will was broken.
Of course after a normal DOW a war follows, but say a decisive battle (aka warplan orange) with a major IJN victory would have been enough to call it a day, at least for the time being. Without the sneak attack on PH there is no way I can imagine that such people like the americans at that time (who despised all sorts of aggressive wars) would have wanted to fight it out the way they did after the Day of Infamy.

You are all too willing to forget about the fact, which J.P. Taylor pinted out first, that without the german DOW, even FDR would have not been enough to DOW the nazis. At least in 1941 (and probably for a couple of years). According to him (J.P. Taylor) this DOW was Hitler's greatest mistake even bigger than attacking Russia. Not to mention FDR's continous pressure on Japan. No Tojo and his predecessors were not Grail knights but neither were their US counterparts. I am not saying that they are comparable, but a war was coming handy for FDR and his staff (just as the second Gulf war in 1991). Check the building start dates of most WWII USN ships. Even Iowa was laid down in 40!

You know if you start to wave a piece of beefsteak in the front of a lion dont be surprised
if he swallows your arm with it!

What I meant with workaround is that, IMHO that if Dec. 7 sneak atack is off, Japan could achieve a sort of 'victory' by causing enough losses, and occupying enough territory to force a peace talks, at least in the covered period. Obviously you two see it another way.

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 247
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 9:44:57 PM   
IS2m

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 5/2/2005
Status: offline 		Who is J.P. Taylor, and is he related to A.J.P. Taylor?

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 248
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 9:49:03 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Aren't we a bit oversensitive, heh?


Nope. Just correcting an obviously poorly reasoned and widely shared myth... that somehow pretending to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules by finessing the timing of the Pearl Harbor attack would somehow have convinced the mass of Americans that it was "Allowable because of a technicality." The claim is wrong, and no one making the claim has ever given even the scantiest of critical examination to the claim.

quote:

There is no way I wanted to say or even suggest, that US citizens were lacking a backbone.


You didn't, and no one took it that way.

quote:

BUT you have to be aware that there are such things as national characteristics.


A concept ("national characteristics") raised to a high level of general appreciation by Margaret Mead and substantially discredited by subsequent researchers in the field. Nevertheless, I digress..

quote:

Which is basically how the people from a given country think and behave, although in a wide range, but more or less the same, the way they are taught to (by parents, school, church etc.).


Which is basically an artificial construct used to gloss over a very very complex phenomenon. Culture, that is.

quote:

What I meant is that the Day of Infamy was the main, and IMHO only, reason why the society wanted to carry on till the end, no matter the cost. France and Italy surrendered, although they still had some chance to resist, because their will was broken.


Your meaning was perfectly clear, it's just that your assessment was wrong. The "day of infamy" was not the sort of thing about which Americans' feelings would have changed if by dint of better timing a declaration of war had been delivered minutes, or even hours, prior to an attack on the US. Your claim *might* hold some water if the attack had been delivered TWO WEEKS after a declaration of war on the US, because under such circumstances it would not have made the preceeding (November) negotiations such a transparent act of "negotiating in bad faith."

The PR problem (in part) for the Japanese in the US wasn't just that the Pearl Harbor attack was sudden and unexpected. It was that in order for said attack to have been launched they had to have committed themselves to war at minimum a month prior to the attack, during which month they made efforts to keep up the appearance of negotiation in order to lull the US into believing that negotiations were still potentially productive.

If you really want to get a glimmer of understanding of Americans' reaction to the "Day of Infamy" you should begin with actually reading the entirety of Roosevelt's speech before the US Congress.

Nor would it necessarily be the case that Americans in general would have reacted differently even if Japan had broken off negotiations in, say, October because:

1. Japan had TONS of negative PR in the US by dint of its China policies.

2. The US has ALWAYS reacted to territorial incursions into its own land or colonies as causus belli ad terminum. So Japan would have to have attacked Pearl Harbor but not invaded Wake, the Philippines, etc.

3. By dint of US wars prior to WW2 the Japanese had every reason to believe that it was going to be a long fight. Any scholar of the American Civil War would note that "War Weariness" was much more endemic among both the Federal and Rebel populaces in the United States, and yet both side fought that bloodiest-in-US-history war for five years until the "CSA" rebel forces in the field were utterly shattered and incapable of resistence.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 5/23/2006 9:51:18 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 249
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 9:57:59 PM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IS2m

Who is J.P. Taylor, and is he related to A.J.P. Taylor?



Yes sorry left the A out.

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to IS2m)
Post #: 250
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 10:16:15 PM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline 		I dont really have the time, unfortunately, to go through your arguments one by one, not to mention that there are some of mine you SIMPLY LEFT OUT. But since I know you and I dont want to get into flaming so all I say is that

1. I will read that speech

2. Still dont believe that the isolationist wing that was so strong, that somewhere in the begining of the twenties got a declaration (or something) through the congress that entering WWI was not in the interest of the american people, but of some bankers and ammunition manufacturers, simply ceased to exist by that time.

3. Civil wars are not comparable to any other war.

4. FDR and Churchill agreed on a Germany first. IF -and only in that case- the japanese have DOW-ed and attacked a few days/hours later, BTW it is not stupid technicalicity it is an infringement of international law, this priority would have not changed, because there was no need doing it. Yamamoto was right that he only can guarantee a peace good for Japan if it is signed in Washington, of course he did not mean to conquest it but to force the US beside the table. It is NOT a US speciality IMHO it is democracy speciality that they try to avoid wars as long as possible. Well at least that was the case until Bush Jr.

But you may be right that attacking Wake and the Phillipines was not something to be left out of sight when deciding the possible reactions to an unwanted war.


< Message edited by Ursa MAior -- 5/23/2006 10:19:02 PM >

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 251
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 10:23:06 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Well at least that was the case until Bush Jr.


Good one. But then Pres Bush has a sort of dogmatic commitment to the idea that Pure Ideology can triumph over any obstacle, regardless of facts on the ground. Something he, appropriate for this conversation, shares with the IJA planners of WW2.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 252
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 10:53:39 PM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline 		Well in their case it was the fighting prowess that they held superior not ideology, but basically you are right.

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 253
RE: History or Balance - 5/23/2006 11:16:38 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		If you wish to listen...

Wav file of "Infamy" speech



Or read...

Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Day of Infamy" Speech
To the Congress of the United States:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the Secretary of State of form reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government had deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.

As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounded determination of our people -- we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December seventh, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

The White House, December 8, 1941



< Message edited by Feinder -- 5/23/2006 11:30:34 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 254
RE: History or Balance - 5/24/2006 1:49:58 AM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline 		Both. I think it is possible to have a balanced game that mirrors historical reality without simply replaying history (and that should be the goal as far as I am concerned.) The game should support "What if?" approaches to the game that allow the players to rectify historical blunders as well as create new ones.

There is only the smallest chance that Japan could ever have won WW2. In the end, Allied industry would bury Japan. The question for me is, could they have lasted longer? What if they had not lost Midway? What if the Reppu was developed earlier? What if they had began training pilots in quantity in early 41 instead of late 42? What if they had developed better ASW/mine warfare capabilities? What if the Allies had invaded Iwo before Japan fortified it? What if the bomb was developed earlier? Later? etc.

Within the context of those what if's, the job of the game system is to produce plausible results. The job of the game system is to determine the winner of the game seperate from winning the war. At least as far as the campaign game is concerned, the ultimate measure of victory should be the VJ date compared to history. Given the way the game system accelerates the war, that isn't a suitable answer. Just as Japanese operations early war can be accelerated, so can Allied Operations in 43, 44 and 45.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 255
RE: History or Balance - 5/24/2006 2:01:45 AM   
DD696

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline 		Agreed 100%. You have hit the nail on the head here dead center of where and what the game should be doing. Let the extremists on either side battle it out to their little heart's content, but what you have stated is exactly the way it should be.

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 256
RE: History or Balance - 5/24/2006 6:15:25 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

they want parity or advantage during the clear advantage years for IJ


The problem is evident right there. Japan had no "clear advantage years" they had no clear advantage on any day after 7 December, apart from the vast amount of time they spent planning and setting up their opening moves. These advantages had nothing at all to do with equipment, tactics, or training (with the sole exception of the Type 93 torpedo), and everything to do with good preparation, poor allied logistical status at war's start, and Japanese advantage of interior lines.

It *ought* to be up to the Japanese player to ensure these successes by good operational planning, logistics, and concentration of forces. Instead, from what I've seen, Axis Fanboys want to hardcode Japanese superiority as a substitute for operational talent on the part of Japanese players. And moreover they want to rationalize Japan's economic system in ways the real Japanese could not have, even had they wanted to.


You say there wa sno clear advantage and then go pointing out several. I was speaking most basically in the immediate PTO, but that was assuming, as happened, that the USA would be at war with Germany. With such conditions we can say that at least militarily she had the advantage (I said years, but it technically was closer to 'year'). Without the PH attack that advantage was shorter still.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 257
RE: History or Balance - 5/24/2006 6:26:16 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

Given the way the game system accelerates the war, that isn't a suitable answer. Just as Japanese operations early war can be accelerated, so can Allied Operations in 43, 44 and 45.


THIS is a problem. Some of it can be delt with by improving the logistical accuracy of the game program, but a portion is inevitable given the overall "hindsight" of both players. IRL neither side had a really accurate idea of what could be done, or what capabilities the other side had at any particular time. We who play the game have usually spent a lot of time studying the historiy of the events---that's an advantage no one at the time COULD have. Given many players desire to push towards whatever "Victory Conditions" the designers have established, some acceloration of play is virtually inevitable. We KNOW what the historical "players" couldn't know..., how it would come out and why. That's always been a problem with "historical simulation games". Ever seen a German Player in a "Bulge" game who wasn't preparing his defenses on the Southern Flank well BEFORE Patton showed up? It's the price we pay for wanting to "replay" historical events.

(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 258
RE: History or Balance - 5/24/2006 6:26:54 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Aren't we a bit oversensitive, heh?

There is no way I wanted to say or even suggest, that US citizens were lacking a backbone. While definitely critical towards fanatics, I dont despise any nation. BUT you have to be aware that there are such things as national characteristics. Which is basically how the people from a given country think and behave, although in a wide range, but more or less the same, the way they are taught to (by parents, school, church etc.).

What I meant is that the Day of Infamy was the main, and IMHO only, reason why the society wanted to carry on till the end, no matter the cost. France and Italy surrendered, although they still had some chance to resist, because their will was broken.
Of course after a normal DOW a war follows, but say a decisive battle (aka warplan orange) with a major IJN victory would have been enough to call it a day, at least for the time being. Without the sneak attack on PH there is no way I can imagine that such people like the americans at that time (who despised all sorts of aggressive wars) would have wanted to fight it out the way they did after the Day of Infamy.

You are all too willing to forget about the fact, which J.P. Taylor pinted out first, that without the german DOW, even FDR would have not been enough to DOW the nazis. At least in 1941 (and probably for a couple of years). According to him (J.P. Taylor) this DOW was Hitler's greatest mistake even bigger than attacking Russia. Not to mention FDR's continous pressure on Japan. No Tojo and his predecessors were not Grail knights but neither were their US counterparts. I am not saying that they are comparable, but a war was coming handy for FDR and his staff (just as the second Gulf war in 1991). Check the building start dates of most WWII USN ships. Even Iowa was laid down in 40!

You know if you start to wave a piece of beefsteak in the front of a lion dont be surprised
if he swallows your arm with it!

What I meant with workaround is that, IMHO that if Dec. 7 sneak atack is off, Japan could achieve a sort of 'victory' by causing enough losses, and occupying enough territory to force a peace talks, at least in the covered period. Obviously you two see it another way.


I basically agree with you, and that the terms of surrender for Japan would have even been less restricting had they not sneak attacked PH. I also do think it was possible to break the US will for war, if enough things went poorly (like invading mainland Japan with the inevitable HUGE losses) it's just that the European theatre, by the time of D-Day, had little chance to change US attitude, and though severe losses could have changed attitudes toward dealing with Japan, the PH attack just made it not as possible as otherwise. The damage the attack did to the equipment of war, was probably not as large a gain for the IJN as the increase in desire to substain fighting her to the US morale. Japan didn't help matters either by doing the same things a number of the Germams were doing in some of the killing/torture of prisoners and so forth.

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 259
RE: History or Balance - 5/24/2006 6:49:10 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

You say there wa sno clear advantage and then go pointing out several.


The "advantage" that Axis Fanboys want is hardcoded advantage and ahistorical orders of battle. The hardcoded advantages include superior EXP ratings in a number of categories and the "zero bonus" as well. The ahistorical advantages include sealift capacity greatly exceeding anything the Japanese could *hope* to muster, much less *actually* deploy.

This differs from the Japanese advantages gained by good operational planning for the first three months of the war, and interior lines (which are there by virtue of having an accurate map). If the Japanese player wants the advantage of good operational plans and interior lines the Japanese player should MAKE good operational plans and not overstretch their logistical system. In WitP because the Japanese player has access to far better than historical logistics, there is no penalty for overstretching the logistical system. In WitP, Japanese "interior lines" basically encompass the entire map. A flaw that it shares with most board game attempts to model this as well.

quote:

I was speaking most basically in the immediate PTO, but that was assuming, as happened, that the USA would be at war with Germany. With such conditions we can say that at least militarily she had the advantage (I said years, but it technically was closer to 'year'). Without the PH attack that advantage was shorter still.


No. The advantage that they had lasted about 3 months. And that advantage was not at any time in superior training or equipment, nor even overall numbers. What the Japanese had was, by virtue of good plans and interior lines, a capability to concentrate superior numbers on parts of the allied "line" that were weak or easily isolated. That's all.

Had the US Armed Forces Far East command fought the same Japanese in, say, New Guniea, the Japanese would have been soundly defeated. They were only and solely capable of taking the PI because they were able to isolate the USAFFE by controlling the seas (with aircraft) around the PI, which in turn was solely doable because they had bases in close proximity to support that effort at the start of the war.

The advantage was a consequence of interior lines and short distances to the home islands. Once Indonesia, the PI, and Malaya had been captured (but never really assimilated) the Japanese advantage ceased to exist. The practical effect was that Japanese further efforts at expansion failed because the Japanese could not for the most part concentrate superior force under an umbrella of land-based air, and because they were flatly incapable of meeting the logistical demands of armies far in the field. That is why NONE of the Japanese offensives after March 1942, save the late war China offensive, succeeded strategically.

Operation MO: Defeated.

Operation MI: Defeated.

Tulagi/Guadalcanal logistical plan: Seized prior to completion.

Tulagi recapture effort: Defeated. There's a reason why one of the alternate Japanese names in Kanji for Guadalcanal translate as "Starvation Island."

Kokuda Trail Port Moresby campaign: Defeated.

Buna Reinforcement Effort: Crushed in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.

Upper Burma campaign: Defeated, followed by UK/Cwealth reconquest aided in part because Japanese logistics were so nonexistant the soldiers had to eat their dead.

The Japanese were incapable of fighting a sustained campaign beyond a circle roughly encompassed by eastern China, Borneo, Malaya, the Philippines, and a line connecting Truk to Wake Island. When they attempted operations outside of this line they failed. That's in part owing to good (and getting better) opposition but it's also heavily a coonsequence of geography, distance, and nonexistent logistical capability. Even in 1941-1942. It merely went from intolerably bad to much much worse once the subs and the mines started wolfing down their merchant marine.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 5/24/2006 6:53:29 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 260
RE: History or Balance - 5/25/2006 1:50:38 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

I have tried to make clear, apparently with little or no success, that I see wargaming as a hobby in which the game presents you with a situation, and you deal with it, "winning" or "losing" in consonance with victory conditions imposed by the game. I just see too many people on these forums who want to stand that on its head and present the game with the situation and demand that the game deal with it, with "winning" and "losing" determined as in "Capture the Flag."

That's not what I want, but I'm a dinosaur, and I know it. The legions of your new brave world will enjoy their pastimes long after I am fossil fuel.


I must be one too, as trying to talk historical reality with some of these folks is like trying to pin down mercury or herd cats. Make a point, and they grab a piece out of context and tear off in another direction. Maybe if they get enough "fantasyland" in this game, they'll let us have reality in WITP II. I wonder how many years more we'll have to wait.....


"It's deju vu..all over again!"
Casey Stengal or Yogi Berra, can't remember which).

_____________________________




(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 261
RE: History or Balance - 5/25/2006 1:59:00 AM   
aletoledo


Posts: 827
Joined: 2/4/2005
Status: offline 		wow, what a long thread! I read everything, but skimmed through the midway analysis posts a few pages back. I think I have to agree with Charles_22 and mogami most, but I like to play japan and therefore...

thread summary:
---------------
75% of the WitP community plays allies
25% of the WitP community plays japan

the allies want japan restricted more, so they can be "historic"
the japanese want less restrictions, so they can actually "win"
---------------

Rob is a terrific opponent (Andy Mac was great too). we complete literaly 7-8 turns a day in our PBEM game. Rob and I play with no restrictions and I think half the people on the boards would have a heart attack seeing our game play out as it has.

having reached mid'43, its obvious to me that the game really plays out historically despite "fantasyland" rules. the "flow" of the game is always favoring the allies and the allies will always eventually win, no matter what the japanese do to stop them. therefore the big picture is historic IMO, the operation level of this game is historic.

it appears that everyone is argueing about the 'tactical' aspects of the game being out of balance, but wasn't this game supposed to be 'operational'? no matter what fantasy I throw at Rob, he loses horribly in the tactical aspect, yet always wins the operations he's after.

so I think I understand now what the allied players are after, tactical AND operational success to be modeled after history.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 262
RE: History or Balance - 5/25/2006 4:49:34 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

I have tried to make clear, apparently with little or no success, that I see wargaming as a hobby in which the game presents you with a situation, and you deal with it, "winning" or "losing" in consonance with victory conditions imposed by the game. I just see too many people on these forums who want to stand that on its head and present the game with the situation and demand that the game deal with it, with "winning" and "losing" determined as in "Capture the Flag."

That's not what I want, but I'm a dinosaur, and I know it. The legions of your new brave world will enjoy their pastimes long after I am fossil fuel.


I must be one too, as trying to talk historical reality with some of these folks is like trying to pin down mercury or herd cats. Make a point, and they grab a piece out of context and tear off in another direction. Maybe if they get enough "fantasyland" in this game, they'll let us have reality in WITP II. I wonder how many years more we'll have to wait.....


"It's deju vu..all over again!"
Casey Stengal or Yogi Berra, can't remember which).

It was the Yog.

My fave Casey quote is what he said about the clean-cut new Yankee second baseman, Bobby Richardson. "Look at 'im. He don't stay out late, he don't drink, and he don't chew. But he still can't hit .250."

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 263
RE: History or Balance - 5/25/2006 5:11:21 AM   
1275psi

 

Posts: 7979
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline 		I haven't read all the posts yet (time is short) so bear with me.

I would like to one day be able to buy a war game where the map is like a mirror image
Both sides same resources ect
same production
You decide what a/c you build -out of a choice of say 10 different fighters -each one costing different amounts ect
same with ships and LCUs

pretty straight forward -the winner is purely going to be the best player, best tactics, best management ect ect

A pure war game, only the units are familiar -probably WW2 ones

Just a game I would buy ( probably something like this available in some form or another already?)

(in reply to Brausepaul)
Post #: 264
RE: History or Balance - 5/25/2006 5:13:16 AM   
ADavidB


Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

I haven't read all the posts yet (time is short) so bear with me.

I would like to one day be able to buy a war game where the map is like a mirror image
Both sides same resources ect
same production
You decide what a/c you build -out of a choice of say 10 different fighters -each one costing different amounts ect
same with ships and LCUs

pretty straight forward -the winner is purely going to be the best player, best tactics, best management ect ect

A pure war game, only the units are familiar -probably WW2 ones

Just a game I would buy ( probably something like this available in some form or another already?)



Sounds like "Tactics II", from the mid-to-late 60s...

Good luck -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to 1275psi)
Post #: 265
RE: History or Balance - 5/25/2006 5:16:01 AM   
1275psi

 

Posts: 7979
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

wow, what a long thread! I read everything, but skimmed through the midway analysis posts a few pages back. I think I have to agree with Charles_22 and mogami most, but I like to play japan and therefore...

thread summary:
---------------
75% of the WitP community plays allies
25% of the WitP community plays japan

the allies want japan restricted more, so they can be "historic"
the japanese want less restrictions, so they can actually "win"
---------------

Rob is a terrific opponent (Andy Mac was great too). we complete literaly 7-8 turns a day in our PBEM game. Rob and I play with no restrictions and I think half the people on the boards would have a heart attack seeing our game play out as it has.

having reached mid'43, its obvious to me that the game really plays out historically despite "fantasyland" rules. the "flow" of the game is always favoring the allies and the allies will always eventually win, no matter what the japanese do to stop them. therefore the big picture is historic IMO, the operation level of this game is historic.

it appears that everyone is argueing about the 'tactical' aspects of the game being out of balance, but wasn't this game supposed to be 'operational'? no matter what fantasy I throw at Rob, he loses horribly in the tactical aspect, yet always wins the operations he's after.

so I think I understand now what the allied players are after, tactical AND operational success to be modeled after history.



Good post, very true
I too have reached mid 43 -and boy, its starting to pan out historical in the big theme of things -and surprise, surprise -especially in the oil/resources/industry area.
No matter how well I play tactically -I cannot make up the losses!

(in reply to aletoledo)
Post #: 266
RE: History or Balance - 5/25/2006 5:28:06 AM   
1275psi

 

Posts: 7979
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline 		Tactics 2

Ahhh crumbs -that was the 1st war game I ever owned.

So no advance in 30yrs

(in reply to ADavidB)
Post #: 267
RE: History or Balance - 5/25/2006 11:57:43 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

wow, what a long thread! I read everything, but skimmed through the midway analysis posts a few pages back. I think I have to agree with Charles_22 and mogami most, but I like to play japan and therefore...

thread summary:
---------------
75% of the WitP community plays allies
25% of the WitP community plays japan

the allies want japan restricted more, so they can be "historic"
the japanese want less restrictions, so they can actually "win"
---------------
*****************************************************************
DEAD WRONG ASSUMPTION that to vote for historical correctness, the over 70% MUST be "Allied fanboy".
This has been the trumpcard of most of the so-called "Jap fanboys", (who also give the real pro-history Japanese players a black eye.)
The poll AND preferances for the game are not about what side you want to play/win, but about whether you want history or fiction to dictate the parameters of the game.........
*****************************************************************

< Message edited by m10bob -- 5/25/2006 11:59:16 AM >

_____________________________




(in reply to aletoledo)
Post #: 268
RE: History or Balance - 5/25/2006 1:55:45 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

What I meant is that the Day of Infamy was the main, and IMHO only, reason why the society wanted to carry on till the end, no matter the cost. France and Italy surrendered, although they still had some chance to resist, because their will was broken.



This presumes that US policy towards Japan was directly a desire for vengeance rather than longterm, geopolitical interests.

Rather, the US viewed the Pacific as their sphere of influence. Japan was the only nation contest this in a serious way - potentially or otherwise - and once the war was a reality, logic would dictate that the US administration should want to totally remove the competition. Half defeating Japan only meant that the war might have to be refought later. Anyway, it's not straightforward for governments operating within the constraints of democracy to get into wars, so strike while the iron is hot. The total disproportion in relative strength made the outcome a given, which is in turn made continued war a given -ie there was no risk involved in continuing it.

Of course the US had a breaking point, but it was beyond Japan to bring the US to this breaking point. This, in a nutshell, was Japan's problem - Japan had no way of making war less desirable than peace to the US.



_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 269
RE: History or Balance - 5/25/2006 2:02:37 PM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

wow, what a long thread! I read everything, but skimmed through the midway analysis posts a few pages back. I think I have to agree with Charles_22 and mogami most, but I like to play japan and therefore...

thread summary:
---------------
75% of the WitP community plays allies
25% of the WitP community plays japan

the allies want japan restricted more, so they can be "historic"
the japanese want less restrictions, so they can actually "win"
---------------
*****************************************************************
DEAD WRONG ASSUMPTION that to vote for historical correctness, the over 70% MUST be "Allied fanboy".
This has been the trumpcard of most of the so-called "Jap fanboys", (who also give the real pro-history Japanese players a black eye.)
The poll AND preferances for the game are not about what side you want to play/win, but about whether you want history or fiction to dictate the parameters of the game.........
*****************************************************************


m10bob: He doesn't need a poll to figure that out. I have no idea of the poll results, as it doesn't interest me, and I would've told those playing the allies are closer to 80-90%.


< Message edited by Charles_22 -- 5/25/2006 2:29:42 PM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: History or Balance Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.078