|
DHRedge -> Hawaian innacurate starting garrison (9/20/2019 8:43:19 PM)
|
I been looking around a bit, and it seems that the Hawaiian garrison is overpopulated with USA troops.
I figure there are three reasons for this.
Convenience, it is easier for a player to have units at Pearl Harbor then to write specially code to simulate rapid USA mobilization during first 3 months of involvement in ww2.
Something to do, having some allied troops at pearl harbor and Hawaii gives some decisions that the allied player can make in the first 30 or so turns, and gives allied AI easier decisions earlier in scenario.
And the real reason.
Because all the designers came up with the same conclusion.
If there really are only a few thousand ground troops, and skeleton crews on moored Pacific fleet, then why wouldn't Japan's opening move be an amphibious landing?
Historical records show the Hawaiian defense force was only 2 months operational, and was a few battalions, and if there were more personnel on the navy ships there would have been more causalities. Added to that was the unwillingness to spend much on defenses during pre war isolation, and during that time most troops were on USA mainland. Also doctrine was only to protect one island, showing other troops in this sim also inaccurate.
So why does WITP-AE sim have more troops then historically accurate at Pearl Harbor, because if they did have accurate levels, everyone would say why doesn't Japan do an amphibious landing and naval bombardment and complete annialation of fleet by cutting off any attempt to sally out of port. And why would someone do a carrier attack against battleships, why not use coastal spotters to attack when CVs were at port?
It is my contention that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a British attack (legalized by the treaty where Britain got 50 war ships in exchange for some territories in the gulf of Mexico as the cover where the 50 ships were license to destroy USA navy vessels at Pearl Harbor, they were allowed to say they were attacking there own ships and silence anyone that might argue since congress signed that treaty).
It was to force Roosevelt and USA into war.
It is ridiculous to think that Japan that would not even attack Hong Kong or dutch east indies would want to start a war with the West, especially considering the vast amount of resources it was using to modernize its industry from Manchuria.
And if they did attack, it is absurd to say they would not have wanted a decisive victory in the form of complete victory where they invade Hawaii and put nationalist island political factions in control as a island liberation campaign. It is also absurd that they would not have naval bombarded Pearl Harbor, considering the entire coastal gun batteries could be blinded by a few fires in front of them on the beach by insurgents or early artillery considering they were unusually further away from shore then normal.
The entire premise that Japan attacked pearl harbor is so ridiculous, this game had to increase above historical numbers the Garrison levels in Hawaii to stop the obvious conclusion, although they don't even know they did that. If Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor they would have followed with an amphibious assault like they did everywhere else.
The obvious conclusion, the British attacked Pearl Harbor to force USA into war on there side.
The interesting part, the overpopulation of Hawaii of garrison forces supports my argument while it was done without knowing anything about this claim, making it credible support of this argument.
Anyways, I thinking of making up a scenario with much lower more accurate Hawaiian garrison numbers, and 10,000 IJN troops following up Air and Naval attacks on Pearl Harbor, it would have radically changed the outcome, since any fleets not at Pearl Harbor would have had to sail (if they had enough fuel to even get there) to west coast USA simply to refuel. It also would have made cutting off Australia far easier, and made the campaigns in those areas much different.
|
|
|
|
