Will there be A-Bombs?

Will there be A-Bombs? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Odin -> Will there be A-Bombs? (1/15/2003 5:08:34 PM)
Will they be available? If so i like to see the following effects when a base or city is hit: -production damage -full effects on troops located at the base -damage to airports and Aircraft -Base/Supply damage -longtime effects of radioactive enviroment and so on. Would be nice to render bases completely inhabitable, if they can be a threat.

Yamamoto -> Re: Will there be A-Bombs? (1/15/2003 10:14:54 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Odin [B]Will they be available? If so i like to see the following effects when a base or city is hit: -production damage -full effects on troops located at the base -damage to airports and Aircraft -Base/Supply damage -longtime effects of radioactive enviroment and so on. Would be nice to render bases completely inhabitable, if they can be a threat. [/B][/QUOTE] ...and a small chance to awaken Godzilla. :) Yamamoto

Odin -> .. (1/16/2003 1:34:05 PM)
Hehehe!!!:D

Pawlock -> Re: Will there be A-Bombs? (1/16/2003 7:55:47 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Odin [B]Will they be available? If so i like to see the following effects when a base or city is hit: -production damage -full effects on troops located at the base -damage to airports and Aircraft -Base/Supply damage -longtime effects of radioactive enviroment and so on. Would be nice to render bases completely inhabitable, if they can be a threat. [/B][/QUOTE] Well it's interesting. Simple answer I would think, for history/realism yes, but for gameplay no. As soon as A bomb comes into play, games over full stop.

Slick91 -> Re: Re: Will there be A-Bombs? (1/16/2003 8:39:48 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pawlock [B]Well it's interesting. Simple answer I would think, for history/realism yes, but for gameplay no. As soon as A bomb comes into play, games over full stop. [/B][/QUOTE] That's the way the old board game ended. If the Allies could hold out until August 1945, and the Japanese didn't control x amount of resources, then the game ended in a Allied victory due to the introduction of the A-Bomb.

derwho -> (1/18/2003 12:06:07 AM)
I'd like to be able to fight to the death and force my worthy USN opponent to commence operation Olympic. The US didn't have many A-bombs, I beleive the two dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ware the only ones available and more ware coming up only in 1946? Anyways, I feel that if the IJN player could repel any landing on mainland Japan (aka Olympic) he should be credited with a draw or even a minor victory as historically US would have sued for peace after such a defeat. Also - when the war ended in Europe 1945, the allied public opinion would have been against a protracted war in the pacific, thus the longer Japan can hold against the US after the fall of Germany, the more VP's Japan should get. Feel free to comment. ;)

mdiehl -> (1/18/2003 5:30:34 AM)
[QUOTE]and a small chance to awaken Godzilla. [/QUOTE] Hardly fair to both nuke Japan then unleash a 400 foot tall Imperviosaurus on Tokyo. Maybe instead it could be a random monster selection. If the Jpns are lucky, the nukes awaken the Rodan, and they become such a nuisance in Japanese airspace that no further strategic bombing is allowed. Or maybe they get the Monster Island twins and Mothera. So the US is forced to the negotiating table or finds Saipan and Guam webbed-in. [QUOTE]The US didn't have many A-bombs, I beleive the two dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ware the only ones available and more ware coming up only in 1946?[/QUOTE] There was one other nuke ready. Four altogether (the Los Alamos device, the two used, and a fourth in assembly). I think the reference is in either "Downfall" or "Tenno-zan." It would not have been particularly difficult to make more, however. Just expensive.

mdiehl -> (1/18/2003 5:36:48 AM)
[QUOTE]Anyways, I feel that if the IJN player could repel any landing on mainland Japan (aka Olympic) he should be credited with a draw or even a minor victory as historically US would have sued for peace after such a defeat. [/QUOTE] No, the US would simply have declared a protracted siege or mfd more nukes. From what I've read, the prevailing US public sentiment after Germany surrendered was "Two Down, One to Go."

U2 -> (1/18/2003 8:36:24 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B]"Downfall" [/B][/QUOTE] Hi A very good book BTW. Please read it for info about the last months of the Japanese empire. It was one of my christmas gifts:D Oh the opening chapter of the book is the most brutal accounts of the US fire bombing of Tokyo I've ever read. Dan

CapAndGown -> (1/18/2003 9:58:23 AM)
Yeah, a Godzilla cheat code wode be great!! Just image the combat animation for that. And the combat report: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/08/45 Weather: Overcast Monster attack on Tokyo at 29,34 Monsters Godzilla x 1 Japanese aircraft A6M2-N Rufe x 3 A6M2 Zero x 20 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2-N Rufe x 3 destroyed A6M2-N Rufe x 15 damaged A6M2 Zero x 5 damaged Monster losses none Japanese Ships AV Kamikawa Maru, hit by fire breathing monster, is sunk CL Agano, stepped on by monster, is sunk AV Sanyo Maru, monster tail swipes ship, is sunk CL Naka, hit by fire breathing monster, is sunk DD Isokaze, tossed by monster onto Mount Fuji, is permanently beached DD Kiyonami, eaten by monster, is digested Japanese ground losses: Men lost 6,393,555 Guns lost 12,560 Vehicles lost 23,659 Buildings flattened 87 Trains sent tumbling down embankments 5 Billboards knocked over 34 Port hits 549 Port fuel hits 234 Port supply hits 29 Airbase hits hard to tell since they are all gone ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why should RTS people have all the fun

Segrat -> (1/18/2003 10:55:07 PM)
:eek: Another thought on the topic of weapons of mass distruction. The japanese were studying chemical and bio weapons. At some point they could have decided to try these out.

Yamamoto -> (1/19/2003 12:52:58 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B] From what I've read, the prevailing US public sentiment after Germany surrendered was "Two Down, One to Go." [/B][/QUOTE] When American GIs from the European theater heard they were going to be shipped to the Pacif there was a near revolt. The feeling they had was, "We did our job. They (soldiers assigned to the Pacific) should do their's" Yamamoto

CynicAl -> (1/19/2003 2:51:44 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Segrat [B]:eek: Another thought on the topic of weapons of mass distruction. The japanese were studying chemical and bio weapons. At some point they could have decided to try these out. [/B][/QUOTE] Not "could have." [URL=http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~dyue/wiihist/germwar/731rev.htm]Did.[/URL]

mdiehl -> (1/21/2003 2:07:24 AM)
[QUOTE]When American GIs from the European theater heard they were going to be shipped to the Pacif there was a near revolt. The feeling they had was, "We did our job. They (soldiers assigned to the Pacific) should do their's"[/QUOTE] The chief complaint was not that they were being sent to the PTO. The complaints were: 1. That many would be redeployed to the PTO without a rotation home for leave. 2. That there was a seniority system for rotation/mustering out, in which some personnel would be allowed to go home where others would not. Since the system was applied at the individual rather than unit level, lots of people knew folks who were mysteriously "privileged." The mere existence of such a system degraded morale, because such things will always be the subject of speculation re favoritism, ways to game the rules and so forth. Since it was applied at the individual level, the result was that crack, experienced divisions would have lost their most veteran personnel, leaving you with a division full of pissed off rookies. Had it come to the need to deploy to the PTO, the rotation system would have been eliminated. Most of the ETO combat personnel would have been granted a leave. Most of the logistical and command personnel would have gone straight to the Pacific. The problem would have been solved by November 1945.

TIMJOT -> (1/22/2003 2:34:23 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B] Had it come to the need to deploy to the PTO, the rotation system would have been eliminated. Most of the ETO combat personnel would have been granted a leave. Most of the logistical and command personnel would have gone straight to the Pacific. The problem would have been solved by November 1945. [/B][/QUOTE] How do know this with such certainty?:confused:

herbieh -> Godzilla (1/22/2003 3:14:29 AM)
Cap and gown, that combat report was the funniest thing Ive read in years.:D

mdiehl -> (1/22/2003 5:04:30 AM)
[QUOTE]How do know this with such certainty?[/QUOTE] Because the point system for mustering out was suspended (IIRC) in July '45, and only started up again in late August. I'll see if I can find a web reference.

Feinder -> (1/23/2003 2:28:50 AM)
Fighting beyond the A-bomb... Sure you could put an option that says you could fight to last regiment, it doesn't hurt anything, it's just a game. But saying that historically, the American people would have sued for peace because of losses in Operation Olympic is ludicrous (and more than a little insulting to generation of Americans in the 40s). If anything losses in Olympic, would have just made them that much more angry and determined. If the Japanese still continued to fight, I can tell you the US would likely have excersized the option of isolating the parts fo Japan still held by Imperial troops, and simply bombed/nuked them until they surrendered or were all dead. I understand the whole point of the game is "what would you do" under certain historical constraints. However the, "But I want to fight on, even if the US nukes every last one of my cities! I'll fight to the last regiment!" mentality is completely beyond the possability of any historical outcome. The wasteland thad Japan had already become from the B-29s was WHY they surrendered in the first place. The damage of the nukes of Hiroshima a Nagasaki paled to the collective damage that Japan had already sustained by the firebombing raids. The use of nuclear weapons was merely to demonstrate that things were just going to get exponentially worse. The Japanese didn't know that there was "only" one bomb remaining (which I didn't know either, and find very interesting). The nukes demonstrated that we could flatten ANY city we wanted to, when we wanted to. The point of the A-bombs was force Japan into realizing that continued resistance was simply a waste of life. (It was also to "encourage" the Japanese to surrender before the Russians got into the war because we didn't want to have "share" Asian spoils, and to demonstrate to the Russians that what we were capable of. But I won't get into that.) Despite that whole Samuri mentality, even the Emporer, his advisors, and the Japanese military could see that they would simply be throwing away the lives of their FAMILIES if they continued to fight. And for what? Honor? What honor is there if everyone who would say you died honorably, is DEAD? It's no good be the Emporer of a country where there's no one to worship you. This post is kind of disorganized, but I guess I got my nose out joint when I read that "Americans would sue for peace over losses in Olympic." -F-

mdiehl -> (1/23/2003 4:35:22 AM)
Pretty much any Japanese option after August 1945 other than surrender leads to something like the "Black Knight" scene in the Monthy Pythin and the Holy Grail. The US would have continued the war. I also suspect that Olympic would never have happened at all, so this business of "fight to the last regiment" is probably a pipe dream. The US could have besieged Japan for 6 months, a year, two years... it would have made little difference with respect to American casualties. If, after a prolonged siege and bombing campaign (concomitaant starvation, lack of industry to produce medicines or even clothing, and subsequent catastrophic population decline), the Japanese Army could find a person healthy enough to shoulder a rifle, that person could deliver the surrender documents. But it would not have gotten that far. As soon as the militarists realized that (1) the war was lost, and (2) there was not even going to be (much of ) an opportunity to take one enemy with you for glory, the emperor and all that chicken___t, the only option remaining was surrender.

Jeremy Pritchard -> (1/23/2003 6:09:55 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Feinder [B]Fighting beyond the A-bomb... Sure you could put an option that says you could fight to last regiment, it doesn't hurt anything, it's just a game. But saying that historically, the American people would have sued for peace because of losses in Operation Olympic is ludicrous (and more than a little insulting to generation of Americans in the 40s).[/B][/QUOTE] This is why I think a game based solely over victory/defeat will be quickly shelved by players since Japan has no real chance in winning. Japan does have a chance in doing better then historic Japan. It is a very good possibility that Japan can delay the American attack by up to one year. The main reason that the US started their attack in late 1942 was the loss of the IJN Carrier force at Midway. The chance of a Midway-like battle (such a one sided action early in the war) is very improbable (as USN strategins discovered in tests post-war). Japan could very possibly delay the US advances on Japan long enough that the war could go into 1946 (due to the fact that the USAAC does not manage to capture bases within range of Japan until 1945). Wether or not this would result in an invasion of Japan would be up to the player(s). However, the end result would be the same, Japan gets defeated. However, I would consider the game lasting until 1946 to be a Total Victory for the Japanese Player.

mogami -> Victory Conditions (1/23/2003 7:00:11 AM)
Hi. Personally I think there should be a way for Japan to win the game. (Not the war) I don't think there is any set of circumstance where the US would have ended the war without the surrender of Japan. I like the "shorten the war" type conditions. I like "Auto victory" (I would have auto victories for both Japanese and Allied players) There would/will be much debate over what such conditions would actually be. One would simply be the Japanese must secure the SRA by a certain date or lose. One Japanese auto victory condition could be to assign "outer defensive ring" bases a certain point value and if Japan has a certain total past a certain date "Auto victory" I don't want the game to come down to the US getting the bomb to win (I feel they had already met my victory conditions)

mdiehl -> (1/23/2003 10:12:36 PM)
[QUOTE]However, the end result would be the same, Japan gets defeated. However, I would consider the game lasting until 1946 to be a Total Victory for the Japanese Player.[/QUOTE] I completely disagree. As you have just pointed out, the odds of getting the Japanese to commit to a classic blunder in 1942 are not all that great. More likely is a battle of more balanced carrier attritions through mid 1943. IMO, if the victory is determined solely by when the game ends, the Japanese must be required to hold out until 1947. A better solution however is to award control VP that accumulate each turn into a permanent score. Japan gets very very few control VP for taking "the usual conquests" in 1941 and 1942. Japan gets more VP for holding these easy conquests in 1944 and 1945. The Allies get lots of VP for holding Malaya, the PI, Indonesia, and much of the South Pacific in 1942, but the value of these things decreases as the game progresses.

Hoplosternum -> (1/23/2003 10:59:39 PM)
Hi Mdeihl, While I agree that the IJN player is unlikely to lose his carriers so early as occurred IRL, I think that any human played Allied power will get to Japan much sooner once he can brush aside the IJN (or has done so). For that reason I agree with Mogami that the Japanese player who can hold on even as long as they historically did will have done very well. Historically the US / allies pulled the IJN's strike teeth at Coral Sea & Midway very early considering they at that point were still out numbered. However they then slowly ploughed through most of the Solomons and New Guinea once they had halted the Japanese advance at Guadalcanal. It took them well into '44 to complete this. They also used a hugely wasteful twin prong approach after this. One prong through the Marshalls / Marianas and one across NG. A much better strategy would have been a single thrust that threatens multiple objectives. The defender who is now weaker than you in total now has to spread his forces amongst different and not necessarily mutually supporting areas while you destroy them in detail. The allies also spent a lot of time, effort and lives reconquering the Philippines. Not just some of it, all of it. I doubt people will do this in the game unless the victory conditions force them to (i.e. to win you have to recapture X, Y, Z rather than either invade Japan or do a certain number of bombing raids on its cities by a particular date). They will just go for Japan once they have sea supremacy and the transports to do so. After all that is probably the best way to get the remains of the IJN and the IJA and airforce to commit itself. Of course the Victory Conditions would really decide this. If you have to clear the Japanese out of all post - Pearl Harbour conquests then that would be a very tough ask.

mogami -> Blunders (1/23/2003 11:10:24 PM)
Hi, I think there will be an endless supply of Japanese Blunders. Many games will see the Japanese carriers being lost prior to June 42. Also there will be many times where the USN has it's carriers lost piecemeal allowing the Japanese to expand further then historical. I might even suggest there will be really unlucky Japanese players who lose their first carrier in Dec 41. (There will be untold numbers of mines laid, and human players will work their submarine forces to death.)

mdiehl -> (1/24/2003 12:19:25 AM)
I do not view the Japanese' historical performance as optimal. I do not view the USN "brushing aside" the IJN as inevitable. At Midway, most of the damage was done by Yorktown's a/c. A relative handful of planes sank 3 IJN CVs. The reverse could easily happen. The two pronged approach was neither wasteful nor unnecessary. A campaign of land engagements that ties up the bulk of land based Japanese a/c in attrition warfare is an absolute necessary. Any American player that simply "charges" at Japan without the two prongued campaign, even if he fields 12 CVs, should get his clock knocked by a marginally competant human player. More so if the game allows the Japanese to skip over their many idiotic production blunders, hasten pilot training or alter ship a/c type production. 1947 should be the target date for anything like a "decisive" Japanese win. If they still have half of their 1944 industry in production then, call it a Japanese win. IMO, the September 1945 surrender constitutes an Allied Decisive Victory. Somewhere between then and January 1947 come the fuzzy boundaries between an Allied marginal victory, a draw, and a Japanese marginal victory. All this is predicated on the assumption that victory is determined by when the game ends, not by some victory point score.

mogami -> 1947???????? (1/24/2003 1:25:26 AM)
Hi, 1947 :eek: :eek: :eek: Hey I think if the Japanese are above water in Sept 45 they score at least a draw. (In the game not in the war) I'd have checks every Jan 1st (or even every 6 months) The game could end on any of these checks if the score ratio (whatever conditions) are met/not met. There is no way the game should go to 46 (never mind 47)

TIMJOT -> (1/24/2003 3:50:09 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoplosternum [B]Hi Mdeihl, The allies also spent a lot of time, effort and lives reconquering the Philippines. Not just some of it, all of it. I doubt people will do this in the game unless the victory conditions force them to. [/B][/QUOTE] I have to disagree. Taking the A-bomb out of the equation, it was and should be necessary to either retake the Philipines or Formosa. If we assume minus the A-bomb that operation Olympic was to be carried out. It was absolutely essential, as it should be for a player in WitP, to capture a forward, deepwater, high capacity port, as a stageing base. The US high command identified the only ports that fit that criteria were Manila bay and Taipei. If UV is a indication. It should be very difficult, if not impossible to sustain a large scale invasion without prepositioning large stockpiles of supplies at either of these two nearby bases. IMO if a player wants to successfully invade Japan he must secure either one of those ports or both, simply because it will be logistically necessary to do so, regardless of the victory points points at stake. Although a player should be allowed to implement any strategy he wishes. A well designed game should force the player to work within many of the same paremeters that their historical counterparts had to.

Feinder -> (1/24/2003 4:48:59 AM)
I sorta think we're "over-analyzing" the whole thing here. Why wouldn't the victory system in WitP be any different than it is in UV? There are VPs for bases. The more bases you control at the end, the more VPs you end with. The determination isn't who wins the WAR. Victory conditions (in any game) are more of a yardstick of how well you did in-game, compared to your historical counterpart. Frankly, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the US is going to "win the war" against Japan. The only way for Japan to win the WAR is to invade San Franscisco and march all the way to Washington. THAT is what would have been necessary for Japan to win the WAR (ok, not really, but it makes my point). And that's certainly not going to happen. But as far as victory conditions IN GAME, the yard-stick is can you duplicate the brilliant success of your predecessor? or snatch success from the jaws of defeat? Surely folks have noticed that the VPs for bases (in UV) vary greatly. The Australian bases are worth very little to a US player (because he's likely going to hold them the entire game), but if IJN is actually in posetion of one at the end of the game, their mulitplier is like 50 or something. The same is true for Rabaul and Wewak for IJN. For IJN to control these bases at the end of the game, is no big deal, it's expected and therefore they're not worth much to the IJN. However, if the USN can "change history" and actually capture these bases by December '43, they're worht ALOT of VPs (again, the multiplier is like 50 for each of these). Capturing the bases that were beyond the reach of either historical counterparts is what pushes a player from a marginal to a decisive vicotry. Did you do a "little" better (or worse) than your historical counterpart? Or did you do ALOT better (or worse)than your historical counterpart? Look at the victory conditons in UV. Pretty much, it's guarenteed that the USN is eventually going to spank IJN as far as how much of the map is going to be controlled at the end. But the measure of how BADLY IJN gets spanked or not spanked (or rather, how well you can hold onto your gains to put a nice spin on it) is what determines victory. Why wouldn't the same be true for WitP? Scenario #1 (Conventional) : VPs will be similarly assigned as they are in UV. The US is -still- going to get an A-bomb and end the war in August of 1945 (and the game will be over). A "draw" would be for Japan to essentially end the game in a similar historical situation based on the VP of bases held at the end of the game. An IJN "victory" would be where you're in better shape than IJN ended the war historically. Say you still own the Phillapines (since somebody brought the up). But if the US still has a base within B-29 range of Japan, they're still going to drop the bomb, and the war will be over. But again, it doesn't matter who "wins" the war, it's the VPs at the end that says who is the winner of the GAME. Scenario #2 (Grudgematch) : If you take out the abomb, your only solution is to set either "Kill everything, fight to the last regiment" (bah, Japan losing is still a foregone conclusion), or "Checks for VPs periodically throught the game, if the net difference reaches a certain extreme, one side wins." Still a very viable scenario, and the latter option is obviously the better yard-stick. Yardstick #3 (historical, but tinkered for balance) : More VPs for bases. The only difference betwen this and #1 is that after play-testers have had many goes at the game, the find that players are able to generally do better or worse than than their historical counterparts. Essentially, the playtesters provide input back to Matrix that might say, "Wow. We've "been playing smart", and as an IJN player, my perimeter at the end of the war is actually to about Guam instead of the home-islands". Here you adjust the victory conditions to reflect that (for whatever reasons), the IJN player tends to do better than historically (in this example). So by VPs in Scen #1, the IJN player will always win. In this case, you adjust the VPs so that the IJN will actually need to hold a farther perimeter by 1945, so that IJN doesn't win all the time. Basically, it's grading on a curve. -F-

Jeremy Pritchard -> (1/24/2003 5:08:26 AM)
The PROBLEM about VP's calculated just at the end of the game will result in a lot of gamey things. The WORST thing that will ocurr is VP grabbing in the last few turns of a game. What does it matter that the Japanese managed to secure the East Indies if they are only to lose it by the end of the game? Would it not be best for the allies to withdraw everything from Malaya, Philippines, East Indies if they get NOTHING for trying to hold these bases? Would it not be better to save these units from destruction, so you can use them for the only time that it counts for VP's, at the end of the game? With just end of game VP's there will be nothing driving the players to follow anything even remotely close to the Historic Pacific War. Since this is a wargame, it is trying to put the player in the same positions, under the same conditions, that the historic commanders faced from 1941-45. We are benefitted by hindsight. Something in this game must make up for that hindsight, and that is conditional and turn based VP calculations. Otherwize, the Allies will take virtually no risks, and wait until they have overwhelming superiority before they attack, as it does not matter when they secure a base, but rather that they secure a base by the end of the game. VP's should be conditional (i.e., worth more for different nationalities), and they should also add up over time. This will give the player a bit of urgency, as even the United States was getting a bit war weary by 1945, and if their military showed no sign of progress I could see demands for a change in command, or possibly a change in international policy. The US Civil War comes to mind. The Union made no significant gains against the South until 1863, and even the 1864 election was determined a lot by Grant's success in Virginia. Had the US expended significant resources (manpower and equipment) for little gain (like the US Civil War and Vietnam) then I am sure that some dissident may arise. This is what I feel that turn based VP's could represent. Without this, all that matters are kill points (realistically will be one sided) and what you end up with at the end of the game (which will also be one sided).

Feinder -> (1/24/2003 7:55:25 AM)
Good ideas. VPs over time creates urgency. And VPs scaled for each country that recaptures are another potentially good idea. If using the UK to liberate Burma will net you more VPs than if you use the US, that will "encourage" certain actions in play. At the same time, this is a two-edged sword. While I personally like the idea, it bends the game more towards a historical flow of battle. -F-

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703125