RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

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: Ships too Fragile in AE???

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 10:54:40 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
What's the point of all that extra production, when they couldn't put it into the Pacific until they beat Germany? Well, they could had, but they wanted Germany first, as we all know. Those multiple front wars hurt more than just the germans.

I don't think anybody is saying that Britain alone could beat Japan easily in AE - are they?

Merely that Japan is the gross underdog, and it was.

_____________________________

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 91

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 12:06:46 PM

HMS Resolution

Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
What's the point of all that extra production, when they couldn't put it into the Pacific until they beat Germany? Well, they could had, but they wanted Germany first, as we all know. Those multiple front wars hurt more than just the germans.

I don't think anybody is saying that Britain alone could beat Japan easily in AE - are they?

Merely that Japan is the gross underdog, and it was.

Correct.

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 92

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 1:21:13 PM

Japan

Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline

well..

< Message edited by Japan -- 6/4/2009 2:19:06 PM >

_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 93

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 1:58:10 PM

Charles2222

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
What's the point of all that extra production, when they couldn't put it into the Pacific until they beat Germany? Well, they could had, but they wanted Germany first, as we all know. Those multiple front wars hurt more than just the germans.

I don't think anybody is saying that Britain alone could beat Japan easily in AE - are they?

Merely that Japan is the gross underdog, and it was.

No, he presented a scenario that puts the entirity of the English, or the entirity of the USA against them, when it just wasn't possible for so long. IJ was a gross underdog still, against what it ended up facing, but not even approaching the underdog status of the numbers he presented. If it didn't get to the front, it's worthless for the purposes of this game. Now if you want to make a fictitious game where somehow IJ beats all the odds and is attacking where those allied extra forces are, okay, but not if we're talking IJ being on the historic defensive as she so often was during WITP, which means those forces had to move to IJ territories or they were worthless in fighting IJ.

To regale Japan's assumption that IJ would need 3x to 4x the good results to exceed the historic record, I think for what IJ faced he is correct, but if IJ had that level of success, then it would had more likely prompted the allies to throw more things that were used against the germans, against IJ instead.

The allies could have had 100X the production it had, but if it didn't get to the front where they were fighting, it didn't matter. I'm not saying they had difficulty with transport, but only that they were facing a very big foe in the germans, and couldn't afford to throw their entire production against either IJ or germany. Why if Britain and the USA were all so strong against them, then why did the USA throw the USSR into the scene when things were very bad for IJ? I mean it's not like they couldn't throw their entire weight into that theatre then, and yet they're still worried about IJ Chinese forces? If you can get everything you have, into that theatre, and expect multiplied success, then why have need of the USSR? They just didn't want to throw their full weight into the Pacific, that's why, so if you can't or won't throw your full weight there, all that extra strength isn't being used and therefore is irrelevant and just makes more security for guarding against german partisans in europe, at least for the purposes of this game.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 94

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 2:29:22 PM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Japan

...ANY country can manage huge improvmants if enugth resourses is put into it over a period of 2 years. This also applays for stonage nations like Japan...

Japan did not have the ability to radically change in such a short period of time. For one, they lacked the resources and industry to support such a dramatic change, but more importantly... the were 'culturally' unable to do it.

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to Japan)

Post #: 95

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 2:44:10 PM

HMS Resolution

Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
No, he presented a scenario that puts the entirity of the English, or the entirity of the USA against them, when it just wasn't possible for so long. IJ was a gross underdog still, against what it ended up facing, but not even approaching the underdog status of the numbers he presented.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression; I was just trying to show how totally inadequate Japan's production was in comparison even to Great Britain, the weakest and most overstretched of the "Big Three" allied powers.

My point wasn't that the British alone could crush the Japanese by sheer weight of numbers (certainly in terms of carriers and carrier aircraft quality, the British were inferior to the Japanese until 1944, and I rather suspect that the 1942 KB could have taken the 1945 BPF), but that the Japanese could literally never hope to build enough to be competitive with the allies. They lacked the resources, the heavy industry, and probably no other high command in WWII was as rife with internecine feuding. That last one isn't even really modelled in the game, which is probably the biggest advantage the Japanese player has over his historical counterpart. His navy's never going to lie to his LCUs about what ships they've lost.

_____________________________

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 96

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 2:56:24 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
No, he presented a scenario that puts the entirity of the English, or the entirity of the USA against them, when it just wasn't possible for so long. IJ was a gross underdog still, against what it ended up facing, but not even approaching the underdog status of the numbers he presented. If it didn't get to the front, it's worthless for the purposes of this game. Now if you want to make a fictitious game where somehow IJ beats all the odds and is attacking where those allied extra forces are, okay, but not if we're talking IJ being on the historic defensive as she so often was during WITP, which means those forces had to move to IJ territories or they were worthless in fighting IJ.

I think the numbers presented were to prove a point, that Japan was outclassed. Japan had an initially advantageous strategic position and benefited from the diversion of resources by the US and the UK to Europe. The outcome however couldn't really be in question, especially once the focus on Europe was no longer necessary. This doesn't change the fact that while Japan had to end up on the defensive, it was extremely fanatical about playing defense and exacted a very significant toll that called into question whether defeating her would be something the US could afford casualty-wise.

quote:

either IJ or germany. Why if Britain and the USA were all so strong against them, then why did the USA throw the USSR into the scene when things were very bad for IJ? I mean it's not like they couldn't throw their entire weight into that theatre then, and yet they're still worried about IJ Chinese forces? If you can get everything you have, into that theatre, and expect multiplied success, then why have need of the USSR? They just didn't want to throw their full weight into the Pacific, that's why, so if you can't or won't throw your full weight there, all that extra strength isn't being used and therefore is irrelevant and just makes more security for guarding against german partisans in europe, at least for the purposes of this game.

I think the USSR's involvement had more to do with politics and the attempt to make Japan's position so hopeless that she would surrender. The USSR also had its own interests against Japan and at that point in the war, Stalin could not be denied. The US was prepared to throw its full weight against Japan, but it was hoping for a surrender that would avoid the terrible cost of actually invading the Japanese home islands. US and Allied troops and ships were already moving to the Pacific and some had already moved when the surrender brought on by the atomic bombs made the final invasion unnecessary.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 97

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 4:05:28 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
There is absolutely no way that a "historical accurate" game can be made of the Pacific War....at least not with the WITP engine. To make a complete "historical accurate" game, you would have to include:

I would just simply say there is no way that a completely accurate simulation (or game - no difference except for purpose) can be made of anything. This is a simple yet true statement.

So make something "completely accurate" - i.e. 100% accurate - it has to be an exact copy of the thing - and for historical events - this would mean replaying the war 100% - planes flying - men dying etc. We certainly do not know how to do that. So we build simulators. This word means that some things are abstracted more - and some things are abstracted less - but regardless of the priorities of what is abstracted more and what is abstracted less - we are abstracting - we are simulating - we are not regenerating reality - we do not know how to do that (not yet anyway).

WITP and AE are abstractions - they are simulations - they are games - all these words - in our context mean the same thing.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Charbroiled)

Post #: 98

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 7:09:34 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

It already happened so we know more things from start that no combatant knowed in late 41. Japan is the country that probably made more mistakes production wise in Pacific War so they can improve some of that at least.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 99

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 11:34:52 PM

Charles2222

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
No, he presented a scenario that puts the entirity of the English, or the entirity of the USA against them, when it just wasn't possible for so long. IJ was a gross underdog still, against what it ended up facing, but not even approaching the underdog status of the numbers he presented.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression; I was just trying to show how totally inadequate Japan's production was in comparison even to Great Britain, the weakest and most overstretched of the "Big Three" allied powers.

My point wasn't that the British alone could crush the Japanese by sheer weight of numbers (certainly in terms of carriers and carrier aircraft quality, the British were inferior to the Japanese until 1944, and I rather suspect that the 1942 KB could have taken the 1945 BPF), but that the Japanese could literally never hope to build enough to be competitive with the allies. They lacked the resources, the heavy industry, and probably no other high command in WWII was as rife with internecine feuding. That last one isn't even really modelled in the game, which is probably the biggest advantage the Japanese player has over his historical counterpart. His navy's never going to lie to his LCUs about what ships they've lost.

Everybody always pounces on axis lack of cooperation between the branches of the military, as though the other nations didn't have that problem; rather amusing. Perhaps IJ was the worst, but still. Another thing too, even when you're fighting a war on multiple fronts, such as GB and USA, the higher production can affect more background sort of functions, like the ability, if wanted, to more steadily replace losses on even the lesser front, so even if more than 75% of their production is to europe it does have an effect, just not the entire level of production for the whole nation however.

Yes, I do realize you mentioned more than just GB, but each nation you listed was very seriously divided between multiple fronts and naturally they couldn't have everything everywhere. To some extent, that is true of IJ, as they couldn't have everything everywhere either but at least their's "seems" to be one continuous front even though quite vast (not the serious split of europe and asia that the allies faced however). So if you could say that IJ, for the most part, faced only 25% of the US forces, the USA may had faced no more than 65% of the IJ forces (probably much less). Actually the Brits, especially if the USSR didn't take China, may had seen a lot more IJ forces than the USA had (if you would assume for some reason that China would had been a Brit area, though we always hear how the USA had got the USSR involved to save the USA from having to do that dirty work), but then Olympic would had upped IJ forces against the USA considerably. Given how things did go though, where neither GB nor the uSA was involved with China or Olympic, who faced the greater brunt of IJ? In my mind the Brits faced the greater number of soldiers, while the USA faced the greater number of ships and aircraft.

(in reply to HMS Resolution)

Post #: 100

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/4/2009 11:46:11 PM

Charles2222

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
No, he presented a scenario that puts the entirity of the English, or the entirity of the USA against them, when it just wasn't possible for so long. IJ was a gross underdog still, against what it ended up facing, but not even approaching the underdog status of the numbers he presented. If it didn't get to the front, it's worthless for the purposes of this game. Now if you want to make a fictitious game where somehow IJ beats all the odds and is attacking where those allied extra forces are, okay, but not if we're talking IJ being on the historic defensive as she so often was during WITP, which means those forces had to move to IJ territories or they were worthless in fighting IJ.

I think the numbers presented were to prove a point, that Japan was outclassed. Japan had an initially advantageous strategic position and benefited from the diversion of resources by the US and the UK to Europe. The outcome however couldn't really be in question, especially once the focus on Europe was no longer necessary. This doesn't change the fact that while Japan had to end up on the defensive, it was extremely fanatical about playing defense and exacted a very significant toll that called into question whether defeating her would be something the US could afford casualty-wise.

quote:

either IJ or germany. Why if Britain and the USA were all so strong against them, then why did the USA throw the USSR into the scene when things were very bad for IJ? I mean it's not like they couldn't throw their entire weight into that theatre then, and yet they're still worried about IJ Chinese forces? If you can get everything you have, into that theatre, and expect multiplied success, then why have need of the USSR? They just didn't want to throw their full weight into the Pacific, that's why, so if you can't or won't throw your full weight there, all that extra strength isn't being used and therefore is irrelevant and just makes more security for guarding against german partisans in europe, at least for the purposes of this game.

I think the USSR's involvement had more to do with politics and the attempt to make Japan's position so hopeless that she would surrender. The USSR also had its own interests against Japan and at that point in the war, Stalin could not be denied. The US was prepared to throw its full weight against Japan, but it was hoping for a surrender that would avoid the terrible cost of actually invading the Japanese home islands. US and Allied troops and ships were already moving to the Pacific and some had already moved when the surrender brought on by the atomic bombs made the final invasion unnecessary.

Regards,

- Erik

Good points. Even if the USA and GB made peace with IJ, IJ knew she was in trouble when she was going against a nation that a possible high rate of casualties would affect that enemy very little. I wonder how much of IJ's strategy played into the fact that the real war was in europe? They couldn't count too much on the USA concentrating over there though. I got the feeling, that even if Hitler didn't declare war on the USA, that the USA would had done it within 3 months on Germany. As badly as revenge was wanted against IJ, I think we knew better than to put everything against them and that they weren't too much of a threat to mainland europe or mainland USA.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 101

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 6/5/2009 10:25:35 PM

Hornblower

Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline

The wiser folks in Japan should have, or perhaps did, realize they where in trouble when they weren�t approached with peace feelers by the time of mid-42. Those requiring more of obvious sign would have looked to the SouthPac when in late �43 the IJNAF and IJAAF in that region we�re pounded to dust by 2nd generation US planes and very good US pilots.

For those in Japan who were basically brain dead, the loss of the Gilbert and Marshall Islands in 4 Months and the appearance of a vast 5th fleet should have been the final �Ah, I think we�ve overestimated ourselves and bit off considerably more then we can chew.�

I think the greatest mistake was the unwillingness of Japan to back out of China and Indo-China. That as we know caused the Oil embargo- and that need for the oil caused the dive into the DEI. That and the assumption � which I must say seemed very good at the time � that Germany would knock out Russia then turn back on Britain.

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 102