Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Amoral -> Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/14/2010 4:48:22 AM)

Hypothetically, the Japanese player could not launch any attacks on December 7th. They could then also not declare war. Is this an unfair situation to put the allied player in?



witpqs -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/14/2010 5:12:08 AM)

As far as the game mechanics go, the war is on regardless of what orders the IJ player gives on turn 1.



Amoral -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/14/2010 5:13:31 AM)

Good answer. Thanks.



Terminus -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/14/2010 8:03:53 AM)

In fact, it's pretty stupid of the Jap player NOT to attack, because the Allies can then attack places like Formosa and Thailand from the air, as was planned.



Amoral -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/14/2010 10:54:04 PM)

How could the Americans justify attacking Formosa if Japan was still neutral?



rtrapasso -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/14/2010 10:58:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

How could the Americans justify attacking Formosa if Japan was still neutral?

If Japan is still neutral, then the game has not begun... the game starts when the war is started.



Sredni -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/14/2010 11:10:36 PM)

It would be interesting to see a mod where america stays neutral and the fight is on between the european colonies in the pacific + OZ and NZ and China (and mebbe russia) vs Japan. The PI could just be one big neutral island heh.

I imagine with current force levels japan would roll over everything and own the pacific + asia, but they could mod in reinforcements from europe and perhaps have russia active from the start. The DEI with dutch reinforcements wouldn't be such a walkover [:D]



Xxzard -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/15/2010 1:32:47 AM)

IMO, it is easier and makes more sense to play such a scenario in War Plan Orange, where a nation or nations remaining neutral makes more sense.

-Japan is not fighting China
-Post WW1 conditions could reasonably dissuade Britain from fighting Japan if Japan only attacked the US. Or it could potentially be the other way around.
-Japan has not already initiated operations in the Indochina area, so Britain might not have felt directly threatened in Malaya.

On the downside, old WPO lacks some of the best features introduced in WITP AE, most notably an expanded map and waypoints/patrol zones for naval operations.

Is anyone up for a 'modernize WPO' fanclub? [:D]



Coulsdon Eagle -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/15/2010 11:27:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

IMO, it is easier and makes more sense to play such a scenario in War Plan Orange, where a nation or nations remaining neutral makes more sense.

-Japan is not fighting China
-Post WW1 conditions could reasonably dissuade Britain from fighting Japan if Japan only attacked the US. Or it could potentially be the other way around.
-Japan has not already initiated operations in the Indochina area, so Britain might not have felt directly threatened in Malaya.

On the downside, old WPO lacks some of the best features introduced in WITP AE, most notably an expanded map and waypoints/patrol zones for naval operations.

Is anyone up for a 'modernize WPO' fanclub? [:D]


Oh yes! I'll be down the old recruiting office.



RUDOLF -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/15/2010 1:43:37 PM)

Well, if Japan do not attack ANY location then how can the Allies justifie an attack on Japan in December 1941?
One could probably fix this with HR's saying that the war starts when Japan attack the Allies.



Alfred -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/15/2010 2:19:57 PM)

This is a game. It really is quite simple. If Japan does not attack, Japan loses on points. Quite quickly because the Allies have all those bases plus all those engineers which they can put to increasing their ports and airfields.

Alfred



janh -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/15/2010 2:42:29 PM)

Funny.  Why would there be a war in the pacific without Japan attacking?  What would be the purpose of playing this game then?



jwilkerson -> RE: Is it unfair to not attack as Japan. (8/15/2010 3:16:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

How could the Americans justify attacking Formosa if Japan was still neutral?

If Japan is still neutral, then the game has not begun... the game starts when the war is started.


Right, I think Bob's answer makes the most sense. To simulate Japan not attacking in AE - just don't start playing yet.

AE is a two sided game. The only "neutral" nation is Russia and this neutrality is hard-coded - so the only way a mod can change this is to try to redefine which countries are which - and that type of mod is not recommended. Hence within AE (or WITP) we are pretty much stuck with the idea that the game starts when the war starts.

With HR you could do a MOD where Japan only attacks Britain and Dutch - and have USA not join for a period of weeks to be determined by HR. Such a MOD could include a reduction of USA production. Back in the days of the original WITP (SPI board game) my group tossed around the idea of such a MOD ... we called it the "anti-rosie-the riveter" scenario. It would be quite a fantasy scenario - a total "what if" - but some semblance of that could probably be done in AE.

I'd probably start by thinking of maybe a delay of about 1-8 weeks where neither side knows at the start how long the delay would actually be - a trust-able random number generator would have to be used each turn to determine whether USA joined the war. Prior to that time - little to no activities by USA would be possible (else combat might occur - HR for exceptions could get rather complex). Production (reinforcements) would have to be reduced for the anti-rosie effect - how much would be up to the scenario designers as this is a total "what if". I would recommend something like 10% to 50% for the first 18 months and then historical therafter. Eventually - if USA was going to fight - they would probably figure out they needed to get serious.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125