Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Geopolitical Rules

 
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 >> Geopolitical Rules Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Geopolitical Rules - 8/30/2001 5:55:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Since Madman was kind enough to start the debate on Japanese strategies, which has run into a glorious fourth page of drivel, I though I'd start a new thread to keep us occupied at work. The Japanese strategy thread has brushed the issue of geopolitical rules. Depending on when WiP:SAJ begins, these could be important. The global games like War in Flames makes for fascinating play when the Axis are trying to keep America (or USSR or some other Allied power) out of the game while conquering territory. Likewise, the Allies do everything they can to get in. It can really alter the first years of the war as the Axis tip-toe around geopolitical minefields. So I pose the following questions: Can Japan attack the Indies without drawing the U.S. into war? How about the Commonwealth forces? If so (which would seem likely - at least with regard to the Indies), what factors would dictate when America can declare war? Could Japan attack the U.S. without drawing the Commonwealth forces in? What kind of rules or parameters should dictate when the USSR enter the war against Japan? Should there be a chance that England or the USSR is defeated by Germany? Would this be an optional rule? What effect would it have in the Pacific? Would British units disappear or become "Free British?" Can we assume Australia would fight on? Might we see the occasional German surface ship show up in the Pacific? Could the Philippines, not having been attacked and with its massive industrial base and oil reserves, carry on the fight alone, develop the Bomb, and become a super power? What ARE the answers to these pressing questions? Inquiring minds want to know!

_____________________________

Post #: 1
- 8/30/2001 5:59:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Okay, bad thread. So I'll end it now with a definitive answer to all the questions:
Yes
Yes
Who knows?
Yes
Who knows?
Yes
Yes
Lots
Free British
Yes
Maybe, and
probably not.
There. Settled.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 2
- 8/30/2001 6:28:00 AM   
Ringbolt

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 6/15/2001
From: Pensacola, Fl
Status: offline
Actually, I think this is a good idea for a thread. I dont know about definitive answers but here are some thoughts: The game could easily start as early as '37 and possibly '35 on the Japanese side. FDR wanted war but the vast majority did not, so I think it would have taken a lot, but not necessarily a Pearl attack to get us in. It would probably have to be something we thought "we" owned. Stomping the Dutch is probably not enough. Winston wanted us in bad, so if Japan attacks us, the commonwealth joins eagerly. I believe some German U-boats operated in the Indian Ocean for a time, so I dont see why they could not be included on some level. If India falls SEAC would take over in Austrailia. As with Italy in WIR, I think a possibility Russia falls is not a bad idea for an option. Finally, the industrial powerhouse of the Phillipenes would have to be toned down for playbalance purposes. ;-)
Ringbolt

_____________________________

LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy Cross I see you wearing?" Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 3
- 8/30/2001 8:59:00 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
"The game could easily start as early as '37 and possibly '35 on the Japanese side." That's probably a little early. You'd get a lot of screaming from the "we want a game based on what really happened" crowd. Though it could be an option for the Japanese player. You'd also have to do a lot of pre-war research, which is probably harder to find. But yes, it would be interesting if Japan could defeat the Chinese in the matinee before the main feature starts. "FDR wanted war but the vast majority did not, so I think it would have taken a lot, but not necessarily a Pearl attack to get us in. It would probably have to be something we thought "we" owned. Stomping the Dutch is probably not enough." Right. Except he'd be abandoning the powerful Dutch vote in the next election. "Winston wanted us in bad, so if Japan attacks us, the commonwealth joins eagerly." You're probably right, but: once we're in, why would he need to come in? He's got his hands full already. But then again, he probably wouldn't have gotten too many more airplanes or tanks from us if he didn't.
"Finally, the industrial powerhouse of the Phillipenes would have to be toned down for playbalance purposes." They always do that. Doesn't it bug you that none of the games gets it right?

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 4
- 8/30/2001 9:01:00 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline
I think the Brits join in no matter what if the US is attacked. Then they can say "See how we're helping you in the Pacific? Well we've got this short guy with a funny mustache we could use some help with..."
Japan cannot attack anywhere in the Pacific without the Commonwealth going to war. I believe there were treaties in Europe between England and the continental countries. Those would still be valid, even though the continent was occupied.
I agree the US would only join if her possessions were threatened or attacked directly. Unless FDR does something like base US ships in Singapore and Hong Kong, hoping they get attacked so he can declare war on those grounds.. I wouldn't put it past him.
The Germans can definitely enter the theater. They had U-Boats and raiders in the Indian ocean several times, and thats just a hop-skip-and a jump from the Pacific.
I don't think Russia can enter the war, that might make it too hard for the Japanese to do anything. Maybe the Japanese can attack into Siberia, but it should only be allowed if there's a lot of resources. That would make for a relatively secure supply base for the Japs (assuming they took over the place).
Um, I don't know what else to add. Its early still, so I'm going to go figure out how best to utilize the Filipino Carrier forces...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 5
- 8/31/2001 1:55:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Should there be a chance that England surrenders to Germany? And, if so, do the forces in India become free British?

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 6
- 8/31/2001 4:30:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by byron:
Should there be a chance that England surrenders to Germany? And, if so, do the forces in India become free British?
If Germany defeats Britain, then India revolts and becomes " Free India" not Free British. That being said I am sure there would be Free British forces in Canada and Austrailia.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 7
- 8/31/2001 4:37:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
1.Yes Japan can attack Indies without drawing in US 2.No Japan can not attack Indies without drawing in UK. 3.None of this above matters because Japan doesnt stand a chance against the Philipine Superpower.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 8
- 8/31/2001 4:42:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

The game could easily start as early as '37 and possibly '35 on the Japanese side.
Seriously though, I think the game would have to start a least as early as 1937 to make any of the production decisions relavent in the game.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 9
- 9/1/2001 1:36:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Wait a minute. The production thread is boring, but you want to take advantage of our efforts? Never! It would be interesting to alter production that early, but it would be an odd system. For the American, I guess there wouldn't be any detail, but just some kind of general guidance to the computer. When the war starts, you have whatever the computer decided could/would be produced in that four years. I can't imagine anyone sitting down and playing four years of nothing but detailed production. It would seem, though, that if you're the Japanese in 1937, you should be required to actually play the game since Japanese forces are committed in battle in China. That would turn the game into an 8 year marathon for the Japanese. The first four years would be a dull, dull slugfest through China with no navy action. It doesn't seem right that you would alter production for four years (completely ahistorical) and then assume Japan had the same front line as it did historically. I don't know. I'd like to see some altered pre-war production, at least for the Japanese, but I would know how to implement it. For the American, I see a lot of potential for abuse, e.g., starting the war with fifteen carriers. I kind of like the "come as you are" problem the American has in the beginning. Of course, American production was so low until 1941, if you allowed the American to build whatever he wanted (based on a very low number of production points) EXCEPT FOR historical carriers, then it wouldn't make that much difference.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 10
- 9/1/2001 1:45:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
Timjot: Your comment on Free India is profound. I hadn't considered that. I imagine the Commonwealth forces would have left India with all equipment intact. Or, considering the large military presence, would they have resisted letting India go? It was, after all, the star of the empire. The king and free parliament, now exiled in Canada, may have resisted. I think there were also somewhat substantial production facilities in India. So what do you have? A large British army in Australia with virtually no source of equipment. It would become an army outfitted almost entirely by the U.S. Japan, as Moore states, is now free to focus on other things with no enemy in the rear. Interesting scenario

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 11
- 9/1/2001 1:31:00 PM   
Ringbolt

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 6/15/2001
From: Pensacola, Fl
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by byron:
That's probably a little early. You'd get a lot of screaming from the "we want a game based on what really happened" crowd.
I am solidly in that camp, but the Japanese were there at that time. I only see that as a Japanese option though, as you said, too much possibility for abuse on the US side. I too like the "come as you are" aspect of the US.
Ringbolt

_____________________________

LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy Cross I see you wearing?" Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 12
- 9/1/2001 10:08:00 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by byron:
Wait a minute. The production thread is boring, but you want to take advantage of our efforts? Never! It would be interesting to alter production that early, but it would be an odd system. For the American, I guess there wouldn't be any detail, but just some kind of general guidance to the computer. When the war starts, you have whatever the computer decided could/would be produced in that four years. I can't imagine anyone sitting down and playing four years of nothing but detailed production. It would seem, though, that if you're the Japanese in 1937, you should be required to actually play the game since Japanese forces are committed in battle in China. That would turn the game into an 8 year marathon for the Japanese. The first four years would be a dull, dull slugfest through China with no navy action. It doesn't seem right that you would alter production for four years (completely ahistorical) and then assume Japan had the same front line as it did historically. I don't know. I'd like to see some altered pre-war production, at least for the Japanese, but I would know how to implement it. For the American, I see a lot of potential for abuse, e.g., starting the war with fifteen carriers. I kind of like the "come as you are" problem the American has in the beginning. Of course, American production was so low until 1941, if you allowed the American to build whatever he wanted (based on a very low number of production points) EXCEPT FOR historical carriers, then it wouldn't make that much difference.
At second thought, I have to agree with you Byron. It would be too difficult to implement. too liable for abuse on the US side, too boreing for the US player. I guess though as the allied player you would be controlling the chinese so a least you would have something to do. The main problem though like you said. The US player with the vantage of hindsite could make the game basically unplayable before it really started. The best option is to go with the historical.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 13
- 9/1/2001 10:36:00 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
As for the Japanese the only production decision that I think they could have made that would have had a major impact. Would have been if Adm.Yamamoto had been able to persuade the IJN staff not to build the super Battleships and instead build more fleet carriers, which historically is what he argued for. This could have given the IJN at least 4 more CV's in 1942. Imagine the Coral Sea with 6 Fleet carriers instead of 2 and Midway with 8 Carriers instead of 4. I dought even Adm.Nagumo could have lost 8 CV'S at Midway. You could model this possiblity with a die roll at the begining of each game. This along with a die roll of weather the US carriers are at PH on the first turn would greatly increase the replayablity of the game, in that neither player would be sure exactly what forces the other would start with.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 14
- 9/2/2001 1:32:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by byron:
Timjot: Your comment on Free India is profound. I hadn't considered that. I imagine the Commonwealth forces would have left India with all equipment intact. Or, considering the large military presence, would they have resisted letting India go? It was, after all, the star of the empire. The king and free parliament, now exiled in Canada, may have resisted. I think there were also somewhat substantial production facilities in India. So what do you have? A large British army in Australia with virtually no source of equipment. It would become an army outfitted almost entirely by the U.S. Japan, as Moore states, is now free to focus on other things with no enemy in the rear. Interesting scenario
The large militarly presence was made up of units that were almost totally Indian, albiet with British officers. Its doughtful they would stay loyal to a defeated crown. There was no industrial base whatsoever in India in the 1940's. It was standard procedure in the Birtish empire to make there colonial possesions industrially dependent on the mother country. Thats why the simple spining wheel was outlawed in a country that provided the empire with over 90% of its cotton. To force the inhabitants to buy finish cloth from the mother country and thereby provide a market for its manufactured goods. Yes a British army in Austrailia supplied by the US, but I dont know how large it would be. Probably not very.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 15
- 9/2/2001 5:33:00 AM   
Ringbolt

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 6/15/2001
From: Pensacola, Fl
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by TIMJOT:
Imagine the Coral Sea with 6 Fleet carriers instead of 2 and Midway with 8 Carriers instead of 4.

They could have sent 6 to both Coral sea and just chose not to use them. IMO the worst mistake the Japanese was not using all it's remaining CV's at Midway like they did in the PH attack instead of the Alaska feint. Remember, all the damage done to US CV's at Midway was from a partial strike from ONLY Hiryu. One more CV or even CVL could have tipped the balance.
Ringbolt

_____________________________

LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy Cross I see you wearing?" Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 16
- 9/2/2001 10:55:00 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Ringbolt:

They could have sent 6 to both Coral sea and just chose not to use them. IMO the worst mistake the Japanese was not using all it's remaining CV's at Midway like they did in the PH attack instead of the Alaska feint. Remember, all the damage done to US CV's at Midway was from a partial strike from ONLY Hiryu. One more CV or even CVL could have tipped the balance.
Ringbolt

I think, at the time of Coral sea, the other 4 Fleet carriers were just returning from the Indian ocean Raid and needed refitting and replenishing after 6 long months of non-stop campaigning at sea. The Shokaku and Zuikaku were not available for Midway becuase the Shokaku was too badly damaged at Coral sea and Zuikaku had sustained heavy aircraft and pilot losses. The Two carriers used in the Aluetions were CVL's not CV's. I agree though, had they combined those CVL's and the one with the BB's then Midway might have turned out differently. Hell they should just kept the combined fleet "COMBINED". There was no good reason to seperate and disperse the fleet as they did. If they had kept the Fleet together, the compined AA would have made it more difficult to concentrate on the carriers. Even if the CVL's just provided additional CAP would have made a world of difference.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 17
- 9/2/2001 11:21:00 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by TIMJOT:

The large militarly presence was made up of units that were almost totally Indian, albiet with British officers. Its doughtful they would stay loyal to a defeated crown. .

I disagree with the presumption of a "Free India" if England has to surrender. The Netherlands had been overrun in May, 1940, but a year-and-a-half later the exiled government still ruled Indonesia. And unlike the British, the Dutch had very few resources after the home country was overrun. The English, on the other hand, could rely on Canada, Australia, and South Africa -- hardly industrial powers capable of fighting a world war, but industrial enough to supply and equip a colonial army in India. Most importantly, in order to be "Free" of the British, the Indians (who included Pakistanis at this time) would have to agree on who would replace them. The British were masters of the colonial political practice of ruling through local Princes and Potentates. Many of them stood to lose as much or more than the British if a Gandhi or some other "nationalist" Indian came to power. I'm *not* arguing that a defeated England could maintain its position in India indefinitely. But an England defeated in 1940 might well still control India for 4 or 5 more years.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 18
- 9/2/2001 11:36:00 PM   
Ringbolt

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 6/15/2001
From: Pensacola, Fl
Status: offline
What about if the Germans had wanted bases in South America and raided US shipping on the way to Austrailia from the east or even between the west coast and Pearl? It just occured to me that this is something allies in fact and not just in name might have done. Werent Argentina and Chile both cozy with the Reich before the war too?

_____________________________

LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy Cross I see you wearing?" Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 19
- 9/4/2001 8:30:00 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
I would definitely like to have the chance to catch some carriers at Pearl. What great fortune that they were out and about at the time.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 20
- 9/4/2001 9:07:00 PM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline
Ringbolt,
You are absolutely correct about Germany having a significant influence in South America. Argentina had a large Germanic population from a 1920's-1930's immigration after WWI. There were several diplomatic "incidents" that occurred during WWII and I found W.E.B. Griffins fictionalized series on this to be fascinating reading.
Byron,
I agree with your synopsis of "what if" India is overrun by the Japanese, I can only offer one "rule" that would keep the US player honest... The US was suffering badly from the depression in 1930's, every dollar spent on War Department should have a penalty on morale/production values, ergo you can build up for war early and still not actually make anything because of the penalty factor (remove penalty factor 1939 or so)
Just a suggestion
Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 21
- 9/5/2001 1:39:00 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
Byron, It wasnt luck that the CV's were not there.
In fact in retrospect it was predictable.
But it wasnt a conspiracy either. The BB were too slow for the missions needed.
The CV's left w/o them.
I would assert that 'if' the BB's had been
as fast as the CV's , The Japanese would have shown up at an empty
harbor and clobbered the sub pens.
(also the oil storage tanks)

_____________________________

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 22
- 9/5/2001 7:16:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
I think it was luck that the carriers weren't there. Or, rather, there was chance that they would be off on a mission or training and, in fact, they were. I'm sure someone will provide more information, but I know one just happened to be delivering planes to Wake (or was it Midway), and the others were training to the south. I'm guessing all three were based in Pearl (I'll be corrected if I'm wrong) and, if they didn't have something better to do on a Sunday morning, would have been there. Didn't one steam in on the 8th? Pick a different day, and they might all have been there. Skippy: You're right. I suggested earlier that U.S. production was so low until 1940 or 1941 that, if you kept overall production (using production points) at a historic level, the U.S. probably couldn't do much damage by sinking it into carriers. If he did, he would have no air force or army. Despite any cries to the contrary, I would not under any circumstances allow the American to ramp up production beyond historical levels before the war started. I'm thinking with the limited production at hand, he might have been able to poop out one more carrier by sometime around the beginning of the war. I'd be curious when the Hornet and the Wasp hulls were laid down since they were commissioned right around PH. Actually, I'm not so sure I'm right. I guess the Washington, North Carolina, and the other BB's in those classes were already being constructed. Never build those, and you could build a couple of carriers with little increase in production cost - or maybe even a reduction. Why not let him build whatever he wants within historical production levels except for more carriers than was historical? Then he could start the war with more B-17s and fewer tanks or P-40s. Everyone is convinced that the carrier is the decisive weapon and that the Japanese were only competitive when there was relative carrier parity. Just don't let the American build ahistorically more until the war starts. If you're going to let the American change production from '37 or '39 or '40, it should be a five second computer calculation based on five minutes worth of input by the American player. Rather than having the American pick his nose for three years of game time, the computer would just say, "Okay, this is what you told me to concentrate on building and, based on that, here's what you start the war with." It would be the slider method at warp speed.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 23
- 9/5/2001 7:18:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Chiteng:
Byron, It wasnt luck that the CV's were not there.
In fact in retrospect it was predictable.
But it wasnt a conspiracy either. The BB were too slow for the missions needed.
The CV's left w/o them.
I would assert that 'if' the BB's had been
as fast as the CV's , The Japanese would have shown up at an empty
harbor and clobbered the sub pens.
(also the oil storage tanks)


Ah... the CV's missions were to ferry aircraft to Midway and Wake. Hardly a mission suited for BB's

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 24
- 9/5/2001 7:33:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Chiteng:
Byron, It wasnt luck that the CV's were not there.
In fact in retrospect it was predictable.
But it wasnt a conspiracy either. The BB were too slow for the missions needed.
The CV's left w/o them.
I would assert that 'if' the BB's had been
as fast as the CV's , The Japanese would have shown up at an empty
harbor and clobbered the sub pens.
(also the oil storage tanks)

Furthermore, what was predictable? Japanese spies had been monitoring the fleets commings and goings for months and the one thing that never changed was that the Fleet would return to Pearl for the weekend. Thats why the planned the attack to occure on a Sunday. Besides the Enterprise was scheduled to return to pearl on Dec.6, but bad weather delayed refueling at sea. If that isnt lucky I dont know what is. [ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: TIMJOT ]



_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 25
- 9/5/2001 7:57:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by byron:
I think it was luck that the carriers weren't there. Or, rather, there was chance that they would be off on a mission or training and, in fact, they were. I'm sure someone will provide more information, but I know one just happened to be delivering planes to Wake (or was it Midway), and the others were training to the south. I'm guessing all three were based in Pearl (I'll be corrected if I'm wrong) and, if they didn't have something better to do on a Sunday morning, would have been there. Didn't one steam in on the 8th? Pick a different day, and they might all have been there. Skippy: You're right. I suggested earlier that U.S. production was so low until 1940 or 1941 that, if you kept overall production (using production points) at a historic level, the U.S. probably couldn't do much damage by sinking it into carriers. If he did, he would have no air force or army. Despite any cries to the contrary, I would not under any circumstances allow the American to ramp up production beyond historical levels before the war started. I'm thinking with the limited production at hand, he might have been able to poop out one more carrier by sometime around the beginning of the war. I'd be curious when the Hornet and the Wasp hulls were laid down since they were commissioned right around PH. Actually, I'm not so sure I'm right. I guess the Washington, North Carolina, and the other BB's in those classes were already being constructed. Never build those, and you could build a couple of carriers with little increase in production cost - or maybe even a reduction. Why not let him build whatever he wants within historical production levels except for more carriers than was historical? Then he could start the war with more B-17s and fewer tanks or P-40s. Everyone is convinced that the carrier is the decisive weapon and that the Japanese were only competitive when there was relative carrier parity. Just don't let the American build ahistorically more until the war starts. If you're going to let the American change production from '37 or '39 or '40, it should be a five second computer calculation based on five minutes worth of input by the American player. Rather than having the American pick his nose for three years of game time, the computer would just say, "Okay, this is what you told me to concentrate on building and, based on that, here's what you start the war with." It would be the slider method at warp speed.

I agree with you Byron it was Luck. FYI the Enterprise was delivering fighters to Wake and was due back on the Dec.6 was delayed and returned on the evening of the 7th. The Lexington left Pearl on the 6th to deliver fighters to Midway. Hows that for cutting it close. The Saratoga was in San Fran to pick up a shipment of Fighters. Both the Hornet and Wasp were already commisioned at the time of PH. The Hornet already operating with the Atlantic Fleet and I believe the Wasp was finishing up its Shake down cruise. As far as the new BB's are concerned, both of them were also already commisisioned. The North Carolina was Battle Traing in the Caribean and the Washington was finishing up its shake down Cruise.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 26
- 9/5/2001 8:10:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
The fact of the matter is, that the USN position in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor, was never as dire as historically its been made out to be. In fact within one month of PH the USN could have and probably should have deployed deployed 6 Fleet carriers two Fast Modern BB's and 3 older but somewhat modernized BB's. Add this to the fact that no CA's were lost or even damaged at PH and you have essentally an intact Fleet. All your missing are 7 of the oldest slowest and essentially most useless ships of the Fleet.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 27
- 9/5/2001 8:32:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Blackhorse:
I disagree with the presumption of a "Free India" if England has to surrender. The Netherlands had been overrun in May, 1940, but a year-and-a-half later the exiled government still ruled Indonesia. And unlike the British, the Dutch had very few resources after the home country was overrun. The English, on the other hand, could rely on Canada, Australia, and South Africa -- hardly industrial powers capable of fighting a world war, but industrial enough to supply and equip a colonial army in India. Most importantly, in order to be "Free" of the British, the Indians (who included Pakistanis at this time) would have to agree on who would replace them. The British were masters of the colonial political practice of ruling through local Princes and Potentates. Many of them stood to lose as much or more than the British if a Gandhi or some other "nationalist" Indian came to power. I'm *not* arguing that a defeated England could maintain its position in India indefinitely. But an England defeated in 1940 might well still control India for 4 or 5 more years.

Possible....but not likely. First regarding the Dutch East Indies. The Dutch were considably more brutal in there subjugation of their colonies. They were even better than the Brits in playing ethnic and tribal rivalries against each other in order to maintain control. Second in the NIE there was no national political organization combarable the Congress Party in India. More importantly there was no national leader that transcended ethnic and religious boundaries as Ghandi did in India. The point being that India was basically in a continual state of revolt since WWI. The fact that India didnt revolt during WWII was mainly due to Ghandi's wishes.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 28
- 9/5/2001 8:34:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

And unlike the British, the Dutch had very few resources after the home country was overrun. The English, on the other hand, could rely on Canada, Australia, and South Africa -- hardly industrial powers capable of fighting a world war, but industrial enough to supply and equip a colonial army in India.
Again the colonial Army in India was almost entirely made up of INDIANS!

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 29
- 9/5/2001 8:45:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Most importantly, in order to be "Free" of the British, the Indians (who included Pakistanis at this time) would have to agree on who would replace them. The British were masters of the colonial political practice of ruling through local Princes and Potentates. Many of them stood to lose as much or more than the British if a Gandhi or some other "nationalist" Indian came to power.
The one thing that united Hindus and Muslims alike was they wanted independence from Britain. Certainly after they kicked the Brits out things problably would have degenerated into a bloody civil war. I said there would be a "FREE" India not a "UNITED" India. I know there were so called independent kingdoms and a few ethnic minorities that owed there priveleges and hence there loyalty to the Brits. The Sihks and Ghurkas come to mind. I dought however they could withstand a popular uprising of millions.

_____________________________


(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Geopolitical Rules Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

2.012