RE: Germany First - Never happened. (Full Version)

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



Message

dwesolick -> RE: Germany First - Never happened. (6/2/2004 6:56:04 AM)

Interesting quote about King by one of his daughters (from Van der Vat's The Pacific Campaign: "[King] is the most even-tempered man in the Navy, he is always in a rage."[:)]



Luskan -> RE: Allied Strategy- One or Two Pronged????? (6/2/2004 8:41:52 AM)

Well here is my tip = the allies need to create and maintain a defence perimiter until the start of 1943. That perimiter will start weak but it MUST be continuous. Leave just one base/patch of front line under defended and the japs will take that base off you and cost you many troops and much time to root them out again.

EG - Bay of Bengal, every base here needs a big INF unit or two to dissuade invasion - same with any pacific islands within a few days sailing of the edge of the Jap sra - e.g. Suva ;) also the entire australian coast is going to need garrisoning as well.

This way, although your perimeter is weak, you just keep adding and adding to it - most jap players will give up trying to break through it (especially fi you manage to murder any units that come near it and CONTINUE to pile in the INF) and go over to the defensive. This is where most jap players loose the iniative.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Germany First - Never happened. (6/2/2004 9:25:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick
Interesting quote about King by one of his daughters (from Van der Vat's The Pacific Campaign: "[King] is the most even-tempered man in the Navy, he is always in a rage."[:)]
Admiral King was... interesting. He always claimed (correctly I believe) he earned his promotions based on merit not because people liked him. Even his detractors of the day admitted he was a very smart and capable leader, and he seems to have gotten results, which might explain the wide support he received.


“Admiral King, commander in chief of United States fleet, and directly subordinate to the president, is an arbitrary, stubborn type, with not too much brains and a tendency toward bullying his juniors. But I think he wants to fight, which is vastly encouraging.”

Dwight D Eisenhower 23rd February, 1942

“One thing that might help win this war is to get someone to shoot King. He's the antithesis of cooperation, a deliberately rude person, which means he's a mental bully.”

Dwight D Eisenhower 10th March, 1942:


“Admiral King claimed the Pacific as the rightful domain of the Navy; he seemed to regard the operations there as almost his own private war; he apparently felt that the only way to remove the blot on the Navy disaster at Pearl Harbor was to have the Navy command a great victory over Japan; he was adamant in his refusal to allow any major fleet to be under other command than that of naval officers although maintaining that naval officers were competent to command ground or air forces; he resented the prominent part I had in the Pacific War; he was vehement in his personal criticism of me and encouraged Navy propaganda to that end; he had the complete support of the Secretary of the Navy, Knox, the support in general principle of President Roosevelt and his Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, and in many cases of General Arnold, the head of the Air Force.”

Letter from General George Marshall to Douglas MacArther (Post Teheran Conference)



Mike Scholl -> RE: Germany First - Never happened. (6/2/2004 5:44:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Ernie King the "greatest naval commander of the twentieth century"? You have to be kidding. King placed himself in command of the defenses of the US Eastern Seaboard during the first several months of the war..., and steadfastly refused British aid or advice on how to cope with the U-Boats. The result was what the U-Boat arm refered to as the "Second Happy Time".

He was opinionated, Anglo-phobic, and a self-admitted S-O-B. He was also dynamic, forceful, and a firm defender of his Navy against all comers..., right or wrong. But realistically, only his Mom would call him the greatest Naval Commander of the Twentieth Century.
Well actually, it was a military historian who called him that.

Sounds more like the statement of a Biographer than a Military Historian. Anyone who
wasn't trying to peddle a "kiss-up biography" wouldn't have made such a silly statement.



barbarrossa -> RE: Germany First - Never happened. (6/2/2004 7:49:16 PM)

Well then Mike, which naval officer of King's equivalent rank and position during WW2 would you consider superior to King in the performance of the forces under thier respective commands, regardless of nation or side?

Just curious...



Mike Scholl -> RE: Germany First - Never happened. (6/2/2004 9:33:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

Well then Mike, which naval officer of King's equivalent rank and position during WW2 would you consider superior to King in the performance of the forces under thier respective commands, regardless of nation or side?

Just curious...

The quote was "the greatest naval COMMANDER of the 20th Century" ..., not "Who
happened to be the overall leader of the greatest collection of naval power in the
20th Century." So how about Admiral Togo? He commanded the Japanese Fleet
throughout a successful war with an enemy of superior overall strength and won
one of the most decisive victorys in Naval history. And he was actually on the
bridge sharing the risks with the rest of his men. As I pointed out before, King's only effort at "direct command" of ships was a resounding failure. King successfully
pushed the Naval View within the Joint Chiefs of Staff (with some help from FDR's
"warm spot for the Navy), but he really didn't COMMAND in the combat sense...,
that was left to Nimitz, Halsey, Spruance, Lockwood, and the like.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Germany First - Never happened. (6/3/2004 7:11:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Sounds more like the statement of a Biographer than a Military Historian. Anyone who
wasn't trying to peddle a "kiss-up biography" wouldn't have made such a silly statement.
[:D] Perhaps... of course he may actually have believed it, because different people have different views. While I may not completely agree with Mr. Buell's assessment of Admiral King's abilities, it is hard to argue that Admiral King didn't play an important role in implementing a more aggressive operations policy in the Pacific.

There are reasons why the US didn't just sit back till 1943/44... and Admiral King was one of those.



Thomas B. Buell, a retired naval officer and a former warship commander, is author of The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War (1997). His publications Master of Sea Power: A Biography of Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King (1980); and The Quiet Warrior: A Biography of Admiral Raymond A. Spruance (1974) both received the Alfred Thayer Mahan Award for Literary Achievement and the Samuel Eliot Morison Award for Naval Literature. He also published Naval Leadership in Korea : The First Six Months in 2002. A 1958 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Buell also attended the Naval Postgraduate School and the Naval War College. Following his command at sea, he taught military history at the Naval War College and the U.S. Military Academy. Buell was also a writer-in-residence in the history department at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a guest lecturer in history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University. Retired Naval Commander Thomas B. Buell died on 26 June 2002.



ShakyJake -> RE: Allied Strategy- One or Two Pronged????? (6/3/2004 9:59:58 AM)

[edit]- Whoops!



Og -> When people play a game as a game (6/3/2004 7:01:26 PM)

Good Sirs;

I just have to laugh when I read this serious debate about the allies waiting til' 43 and their essex class carriers to counter-attack.

The reason seems to be that then they can beat the ijn without as much risk as the early coral sea battle in may.

This wait til' 43 has nothing to do with reality, it just has to do with the way people play a game.

If FDR was really on the ball he would have waited til' at least july of 45 for both the german and japanese offensives (by this reasoning). But he didn't have the game.

So why not just wait til' august of 45 since at that point you have a sure win?

This discussion shouldn't be about historic fact, but rather game mechanics. What game mechanic forces the US player to attack before he has the attomic bomb (cuz its just dumb to attack too soon right?).

Do the japanese get any chance of developing an atomic bomb in this game?

yours
very unimpressed
Og



Mr.Frag -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/3/2004 7:04:57 PM)

quote:

This wait til' 43 has nothing to do with reality, it just has to do with the way people play a game.


Umm, I suggest you read up a bit on history.

The wait until 43 has *nothing* at all to do with the way people play the game. It has to do with the fact that the USA was completely unprepared for the war and it took them a year and a half to get up to speed where they actually had enough trained troops to start doing something apart from back pedalling.

Had Coral Sea or Midway's outcome not completely destroyed Japan's ability to make war in mid '42, it would have been more likely '44 before the Allies could have done anything.



mdiehl -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/3/2004 7:10:00 PM)

quote:

What game mechanic forces the US player to attack before he has the attomic bomb


Possibly the same game mechanic that forces the Japanese player to attempt operation MO and operation AF with inadequate force projection to achieve either objective.



kaleun -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/3/2004 7:11:24 PM)

When I play the game as the Allies, I plan to take political factors into account. I may make ahistorical moves, but I will abide by political constraints. i.e. The Brits tried desperately to reinforce Singapore, it was politically unacceptable for them to lose it, thus I would not pull troops out of Singapore, until it became obvious that it was unsustainable, but by then, you would not be able to evacuate anything anyway. The Aussie gov, demanded that the Aussies in the Middle East return to OZ for defense, despite Winston's pleas, and some fancy ship movements, thus I would not reinforce Singapore with Aussies. I can't see the US not trying to help out in the DEI, although I might try to save the ships, rather than attempt a totally outnumbered battle.
I can't see that the US would wait until 43 before attempting some sort of offensive operation, feint or raid, thus, as allies, I would look for chances for such operations.
As Japan, however, I don't think this applies so much.
It would be nice if, as allies, or even as Japan, a significant success (battle, territory) would add some extra PPs though.



Og -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/3/2004 7:16:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

This wait til' 43 has nothing to do with reality, it just has to do with the way people play a game.


Umm, I suggest you read up a bit on history.



My point, good Mr Frag, is some player wants to sit around until 43 when he has alot more junk. Why doen't he sit around until 45 when he has the atomic bomb. History should not be relevent to this discussion--I just want to know why you can't just bore the japanese player into surrender (gamewise--since we are playing a game).

Or (as you might put it) why is the US player "handicapped" into attacking before 45 when he can win for sure? Do you think the designers have failed by making the US player play at all before 1945 or not?

yours
interested in the game
Og



Mr.Frag -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/3/2004 7:24:50 PM)

Should you not fight as the Allies until '45, you will loose the game in '43.

Based on the VP for bases, Oz landings will probably be happening towards the end of '42 forcing the unprepared Allied player to fight whether he wants to or not.

Japan gets VP Strategic points for bombing factory/production stuff in Oz. PM is in range of enough of these to eventually cause Japan to win.

The USA *must* rescue Oz or loose the game. It is self balancing. While you may be able to not fully commit in '43, you must keep Oz from being pushed under. As long as the USA does this, they can sit back and stall, but they *must* do this.



Og -> Thanks lots (6/3/2004 7:28:38 PM)

Thanks Mr.Frag;

I assume Oz and Pm are near australia or india?



kaleun -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/3/2004 7:30:29 PM)

If Oz falls, then allies lose.
That it?



Mr.Frag -> RE: Thanks lots (6/3/2004 7:31:11 PM)

quote:

I assume Oz and Pm are near australia or india?


Oz = Australia

PM = Port Moresby

After typing them a million odd times, you'll learn to use shortcuts (as you are new to the forum, I understand why you ask)



freeboy -> RE: Thanks lots (6/3/2004 8:44:43 PM)

Does Os have an official wizard?



Mr.Frag -> RE: Thanks lots (6/3/2004 8:46:29 PM)

quote:

Does Os have an official wizard?


Thats "Oz" and no, those criminals "down under" absconded with him! [:'(]



freeboy -> RE: Thanks lots (6/3/2004 8:48:18 PM)

OZ.. I went to the Brady typiong school for the gifted.. "read special" I that maybe Luskan wan the Wizard No????[:D]



Mr.Frag -> RE: Thanks lots (6/3/2004 8:50:39 PM)

quote:

Luskan


Speaking of the criminals [:D]

The lightning strike that blew up his jail cell err "house" was the Wiz trying to break out!



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/4/2004 9:27:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Og

Good Sirs;

I just have to laugh when I read this serious debate about the allies waiting til' 43 and their essex class carriers to counter-attack.

The reason seems to be that then they can beat the ijn without as much risk as the early coral sea battle in may.

This wait til' 43 has nothing to do with reality, it just has to do with the way people play a game.

If FDR was really on the ball he would have waited til' at least july of 45 for both the german and japanese offensives (by this reasoning). But he didn't have the game.

So why not just wait til' august of 45 since at that point you have a sure win?

This discussion shouldn't be about historic fact, but rather game mechanics. What game mechanic forces the US player to attack before he has the attomic bomb (cuz its just dumb to attack too soon right?).

Do the japanese get any chance of developing an atomic bomb in this game?

yours
very unimpressed
Og

[:D] A lot of sarcasm here… don’t you think?

American initial planning (Rainbow #5) did call for strategic defense in the Pacific until Germany was defeated… say the late 1944/45 time frame. While historically that didn’t happen, it was neither impossible nor that improbable if some variables had been different.

1. Admiral King and General Macarthur were strong willed individuals with considerable power and influence; and they used it to advance the cause of major operation in the Pacific. If both these men are not on hand, this would alter the dynamics.

2. The British believed in a peripheral strategy, which was at odds with the US militaries. A British determination to conduct a cross channel invasion in 1943 would have fit in well with the US view, and drained the Pacific of vast amounts of air and ground resources.

3. The American plan of strategic defense in the Pacific was predicated on the safety of Australia. So when the Japanese moved south in an attempt to threaten Australia it lend credence to the argument that the US could not set ideally by and not respond.

Change these factors and a delay of US offensive operation till 1944 is not unreasonable. Agree or Disagree?



byron13 -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 3:00:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Should you not fight as the Allies until '45, you will loose the game in '43.

Based on the VP for bases, Oz landings will probably be happening towards the end of '42 forcing the unprepared Allied player to fight whether he wants to or not.

Japan gets VP Strategic points for bombing factory/production stuff in Oz. PM is in range of enough of these to eventually cause Japan to win.

The USA *must* rescue Oz or loose the game. It is self balancing. While you may be able to not fully commit in '43, you must keep Oz from being pushed under. As long as the USA does this, they can sit back and stall, but they *must* do this.


Not to mention the fact that:
1. Having the bomb doesn't win the game. You have to drop it on Japan, which can't be done from Pearl Harbor or New Delhi (though the B-52 will be deployed in the 50s if you want to wait). It will take considerable time to retake enough ground to deliver the bomb to Japan.
2. According to other posts, dropping the bomb is not an auto-kill. It is more of a large VP modifier. If you haven't properly prepped Japan, dropping the bomb will result in a loss to the Allies.

As it was, the U.S. almost waited to '43 to take the offensive. Guadalcanal was a strike of opportunity/defense that was borderline premature. Nothing unrealistic about waiting for '43. But waiting for '45 won't get it done even without artificial incentives in the game.



Blackhorse -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 3:17:42 AM)

quote:

1. Having the bomb doesn't win the game. You have to drop it on Japan, which can't be done from Pearl Harbor or New Delhi (though the B-52 will be deployed in the 50s if you want to wait).


Wouldn't a B-36 (available in '48 IIRC) have done the trick? [:)]



byron13 -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 3:23:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Wouldn't a B-36 (available in '48 IIRC) have done the trick? [:)]


Actually I was thinking of that, but couldn't remember the designation. [8|] Didn't want to search for the thread that discussed it, either.

But you're right: you could probably wait until '48 to drop the bomb that *won't* win the war.



Mr.Frag -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 3:25:55 AM)

The *bomb* damages a single hex. Period. You would need about 15-20 of them to deal with Japan without non-stop raids of a normal type. Since each extra past 2 reduced the victory level by 1, using that many = Japanese Decisive Victory [:D]



Jonny_B -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 5:50:30 AM)

[:'(]

What allied strategy, oh ya:

Build more of everything, move forward, attack at will and obliterate the weaker enemy.
-Unable to do anything to stop the American War machine, Germany and Japan would eventually face destruction.
Ever wonder what might have happen, if Germany and/or Japan manufacturing, resources and production were just a mere half of the American juggernaut.

Ten or twenty years of WWII, maybe.

Could America have won the war so easily, no?

No, still we would have won, eventually.



Mike Scholl -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 10:58:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

The *bomb* damages a single hex. Period. You would need about 15-20 of them to deal with Japan without non-stop raids of a normal type. Since each extra past 2 reduced the victory level by 1, using that many = Japanese Decisive Victory [:D]


I still don't understand this rule. The US benifits from destroying the first two Japanese
Cities hit with A-Bombs---but the Japanese benefit from being obliterated the third time
and thereafter? By this line of reasoning the Japanese could have "won" the war by
demolishing all their cities and marching 10,000,000 of their people into the ocean like
lemmings. The "logic" is "illogical" at best.



j campbell -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 3:51:04 PM)

Mike,

According to most people's logic on this forum -yourself excluded- Japan should surrender after the 2nd A-bomb becuas e that what was the deciding point of the war (thanks heavily to post was cold war propoganda i suppose). Truth being that it was just another weapon in a long littany of reasons the japanese should have/could havce given up by this point and did not.

Actually, I like the rule -I don't find it politically acceptable neither then nor now to annhilihate a civilian population because of the atrocities its government and military performed. The A-bomb becomes available in 1945 though i would have to assume Japan is on the ropes and is near surrender by this point anyway.

One assumes the designers realize that since the A-bomb has not been used since that the US govenment realizes not only its terrible destructiveness but also its political and moral ramifications as well-otherwise why not use it in similar situations from say Korean war until now??

Unlike a ETO game where germany surrenders with the fall of berlin - Pacific conflict games a more difficult to find a endpoint.

Personally i think it is all trivial in a game anyway-you know and your opponent knows who played the better game or perhaps you both think you did therefore you both come away winner (this is not some lets all be happy together liberal speel). I have played many games where i was the "loser" but accomplished more than i had hoped to with the side i was playing and therefore had a good time.



pauk -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 4:49:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I still don't understand this rule. The US benifits from destroying the first two Japanese
Cities hit with A-Bombs---but the Japanese benefit from being obliterated the third time
and thereafter? By this line of reasoning the Japanese could have "won" the war by
demolishing all their cities and marching 10,000,000 of their people into the ocean like
lemmings. The "logic" is "illogical" at best.


Common, Mike, you and some other guys on this forum were actually loudest with "historic argumentation" (when it served for your/allied purpose)[8|]...

so, the third A-Bomb is not historical, and the rule is good, trying to keep balance between history and the game...

Personally, from what i read on this forum, (AAR's, beta testers opinions), i fell sorrow for any allied player who is going to need A-bombs to win the game...

If you just like droping nukes, try with Schorched Tanks or Civilization III.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.311523