RE: When people play a game as a game (Full Version)

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



Message

Mike Scholl -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 6:20:37 PM)

To J CAMPBELL and PAUK The Historic argument ends on August 15th, 1945..., after
theat the game goes into "what if". And I'm perfectly willing to admit that if the shock
effect of the first two bombs didn't finally trigger Japan's Surrender in the situation she
was in, then a third or fifth wasn't likely to either, and shouldn't have any additional
effect beyond the destruction caused.

But the destruction caused would still be real. And what I can't understand is how having
an additional city/industry hex obliterated 'HELPS" Japan. Historically, the damage levels
and casualties produced could be (and were) equaled and exceeded by the massive "fire storms" that several hundred B-29's with incindieries produced. In real terms, the Bomb
cut operational losses by enabling 3 bombers to do what 600 might me needed to do
otherwise.

For the Japanese to gain victory points for "hanging in there" past the 15th of August is
certainly reasonable in game terms.., and is what I've argued in favor of all along. But
if they stick around until more A-Bombs are available to the US a few months later they
will already have those points. Why a bonus for being on the recieving end of another
one? And please don't resort to a bunch of PS BS as a justification.



Mr.Frag -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 6:52:59 PM)

quote:

Why a bonus for being on the recieving end of another one?


Mike, it's really quite simple when you think about it. It simply means that the USA has not done their job in prepping Japan to fall prior to using the 2 bombs. This is a failure on the part of the USA that basically says clearly "You didn't get it done".

You should be able to win with resorting to a-bombs. Should you not, we allow you a pair because they *were* used historically. Should even that not spell the end, you have obviously failed and the VP level can never become a decisive Allied victory.

The basic problem is that use of the bombs will gain you a large chuck of strategic points due to industry destruction. This has to be counter-balanced with a negative as to their use or we would have the very real situation where you could do absolutely nothing except drop a-bombs on Japan and still get a decisive victory which is bogus.

You can gain exactly the same points without using the a-bomb, it just takes more time and costs more aircraft. Proving you had the time and getting the points proves it is "decisive". Not having the time and having to resort to the a-bomb proves you are behind on the time curve hence the victory level shifts down out of "decisive" reach. You will still gain an Allied victory, it will just not be "decisive" level. That is reserved for the player who did it without depending on the bomb.



pauk -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 7:28:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

To J CAMPBELL and PAUK The Historic argument ends on August 15th, 1945..., after
theat the game goes into "what if". And I'm perfectly willing to admit that if the shock
effect of the first two bombs didn't finally trigger Japan's Surrender in the situation she
was in, then a third or fifth wasn't likely to either, and shouldn't have any additional
effect beyond the destruction caused.


Ok, at least you are following your attitude. I was little bit a sarcastic about "historic argument", however, you are right at this point. Do not want to open discussion again in this matter...

quote:


But the destruction caused would still be real. And what I can't understand is how having
an additional city/industry hex obliterated 'HELPS" Japan. Historically, the damage levels
and casualties produced could be (and were) equaled and exceeded by the massive "fire storms" that several hundred B-29's with incindieries produced. In real terms, the Bomb
cut operational losses by enabling 3 bombers to do what 600 might me needed to do
otherwise.

Exactly! I'm sure that others can also see what i saw... You want to play game where Alies have no loses, or maybe 2-3 bombers. But you have to ask your self one question[:)], how many opponents you would find if the game is "based on Mike Scholl". Dont get me wrong, im not trying to offend you, but this argumentation i simply cannot accept. Because, there is nothing can stop B-29 raids, and game is for Japan already lost . Allied player must ensure to force Japan to surrender prior August 15th. There is no need for "Nuke them! nuke them all" tactic....



Mike Scholl -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 7:40:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Why a bonus for being on the recieving end of another one?


You can gain exactly the same points without using the a-bomb, it just takes more time and costs more aircraft. Proving you had the time and getting the points proves it is "decisive". Not having the time and having to resort to the a-bomb proves you are behind on the time curve hence the victory level shifts down out of "decisive" reach. You will still gain an Allied victory, it will just not be "decisive" level. That is reserved for the player who did it without depending on the bomb.


You are making exactly my point. The Japanese SHOULD gain for holding out past the
historical end date. And other forms of attack also destroy cities and industries and
people effectively. Once it's "shock value" is gone, an A-Bomb is basically a Fire Srorm
that can be delivered by one plane. It's a weapon that the US researched, designed,
and built during the war for this very use. To penalize it's use this way is like saying
after you drop 100,000 conventional bombs, the 100,001 will "build" a factory or in some
other way improve the situation of the recipiant. If the War drags on to November, which
is about the time a further supply of A-Bombs would be ready, the Japanese should be
racking up some points for "extending the war". But I don't see how the game can call
being "blown away" a positive effect. Being around long enough to get "blown away" is
another matter entirely.



Mr.Frag -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 10:22:17 PM)

Mike, I think you are somewhat missing the point.

More resources were devoted to the Manhattan Project then were devoted to the entire Pacific Theater.

Japan needs to get some kind of "points" value for forcing the USA to spend those resources. This is the way it has been worked out to "cost" them.

Since use of these implies a massive commitment of USA resources to produce more instead of the low cost of standard bombs, Japan gets a kick back.

They act like time compressers. Using them to get your VP conclusively proves the Allies could not have gotten the VP so Japan gets a shift in the victory levels to adjust for the time compression effect.



Mike Scholl -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/5/2004 11:24:08 PM)

FRAG The resources were already spent to build the first three "devices". Hanford and
Oak Ridge are there and paid for, the production lines are ready to roll. Turning out
more bombs is not a problem. The bombs were going to be built anyway.

Giving Japan a "kick back" because the US "expend's ordinance" still sounds silly. Give
them the points for what they accomplish..., staying a viable opponant for longer than
they managed historically. Don't "penalize" the US for their own accomplishments.

And I'm sorry, but your last sentence makes no sense to me at all. Does the game give
the US an unlimited supply of A-Bombs in August of 1945 or something? How does wait-
ing until November to the arrival of the next pair of bombs "compress time"?



CynicAl -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/6/2004 6:26:47 PM)

I hate to say it, Mike, but you appear to be committing the "Fanboy Fallacy" - you're confusing winning the war with winning the game. In winning the war terms, destroying big chunks of industry, plus whatever else is in the target city, is an unalloyed good for the side that's dishing it out. Of course, absent some truly spectacular incompetence on the part of the Allied player, there is no way the Allies will not win the war.

In winning the game terms, though, the goal of the players is to use the historically available forces to achieve better-than-historical results for their side. If it takes the Allied player more than the two A-Bombs historically used to force a Japanese surrender, then the Japanese player has done significantly better than IRL, and the player should therefore be rewarded in game terms for an excellent performance.



Mr.Frag -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/6/2004 7:20:26 PM)

quote:

In winning the game terms, though, the goal of the players is to use the historically available forces to achieve better-than-historical results for their side. If it takes the Allied player more than the two A-Bombs historically used to force a Japanese surrender, then the Japanese player has done significantly better than IRL, and the player should therefore be rewarded in game terms for an excellent performance.


Exactly Al! [;)]

Not winning in time means you have lost the *game*, not the war. There really is no way to loose the *war*.



Mike Scholl -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/6/2004 8:21:22 PM)

The point is a simple one. IF the Japanese are recieving "Victory Points" for each
day past August 15th that they manage to "stay afloat", then they should not be
getting additional "victory points" for "staying afloat" long enough for more A-Bombs
(or any other weapon) to be assembled, brought to the theatre, and dropped on them.
That's "double jeopardy" as it damns the Allies for not "finishing them off" in time, and
damns them again for using available weaponts to "finish them off".

Now IF the designers have just made an unlimited number of A-Bombs available to
the Allies in August, that's wrong. There weren't any more available, and wouldn't
be until the pipeline started flowing for real. The US had used their "showroom sam-
ples" in the attempt to finish the war in August. But when those bombs did start flow-
ing, they were going to be used if the war was still going. Period. It's not "fan-boy",
it's fact.



Mr.Frag -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/6/2004 8:55:10 PM)

quote:

The point is a simple one. IF the Japanese are recieving "Victory Points" for each
day past August 15th that they manage to "stay afloat", then they should not be
getting additional "victory points" for "staying afloat" long enough for more A-Bombs
(or any other weapon) to be assembled, brought to the theatre, and dropped on them.
That's "double jeopardy" as it damns the Allies for not "finishing them off" in time, and
damns them again for using available weaponts to "finish them off".


Who said Japan is receiving VP past Aug 15th? There is no magic +xxx vp per day Mike. You want VP, go out an kill stuff. VP is scored through losses or possession of bases (which is only tallied when the game is over) or Strategic bombing (hurting industry).



freeboy -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/6/2004 8:58:13 PM)

I see it as the use of these weapons are allowed, but the scoring models a penalty to inhibit their use... why? If you allow them to be used without a penalty it skews the vp totals.. it is a matter of end game vp dynamix and is related to the game system, not reality. Purhaps having the bomb is not a good idea anyway, but the game seemingly is striving for authentic "feel". What is a vp? It is a numerical construct, an attempt to gauge war victory or defeat... so the use of modifiers is included to represent the best as we can get it approach to a "one sided war".



byron13 -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/6/2004 9:56:39 PM)

I think the math works for this reason:

byron13 thinks to himself as he prepares his 7/25/45 turn, "Man, Japan has really been kicking my a$$!! I can't believe I forgot to set my CAP on that last run by Tokyo; losing those 4 Essex class carriers really hurt. I've now lost 13 carriers in the game. Having the entire 2nd Marine Division sunk by kamikazes, which resulted in the 1st Marine Divsion being bloodily repulsed at Iwo Jima also hurt. I'm so far behind in victory points, I'll never catch up. Oh, wait! I have the atomic bombs coming soon. I'll just nuke Japan until I catch up on victory points and win that way. I may not be able to play this game worth a hoot, but I'm good enough to nuke Japan until it glows."

I think of the victory point level modifications for using more than two A-bombs as compensation for the additional time it would have required to achieve the same results without the bombs. That is the time compression Frag was referring to. If you're going to need more than two bombs, then you would have lost the *game* without those extra bombs, and I think you should likewise lose the *game* if you use the extra bombs.



Mr.Frag -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/6/2004 10:16:19 PM)

quote:

If you're going to need more than two bombs, then you would have lost the *game* without those extra bombs, and I think you should likewise lose the *game* if you use the extra bombs.


Just a little clairification. You don't *loose* the game, you just shift the victory conditions one catagory. Using more then 2 means Decisive now becomes "Marginal". If you use *more* then two *and* do not win until after Aug '45, it shifts a second notch to "Draw".

So if you think it through, if you have not won as the Allies by Aug '45, you *do not* want to use more A-Bombs because you are already at the "Marginal" level and had better get your 2:1 some other way.

In 1943 a 4:1 VP level causes game to end. (auto victory)
In 1944 a 3:1 VP level causes game to end. (auto victory)
In 1945 a 2:1 VP level causes game to end. (auto victory)

Allied Decisive Victory: Allied VP Score is 1.75 times (or greater) higher than the Japanese VP Score
Allied Marginal Victory: Allied VP Score is 1.25 to 1.74 times higher than the Japanese VP Score
Draw: The Allied VP Score or Japanese VP Score is 1 to 1.24 times higher than their opponent’s score
Japanese Marginal Victory: Japanese VP Score is 1.25 to 1.74 times higher than the Allied VP Score
Japanese Decisive Victory: Japanese VP Score is 1.75 times (or greater) higher than the Allied VP Score



hithere -> RE: When people play a game as a game (6/6/2004 10:18:52 PM)

on the other hand, what if you were doing really well or at least a little better. Does the game have enough troops to do a conventional invasion of Japan? If i recall, (i'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong [:)] ) but didn't the invasion call for 2 or 3 div. from Europe? are they available after victory in Germany?

thanks



Becket -> RE: Allied Strategy- One or Two Pronged????? (6/9/2004 5:12:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Becket

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

The Midway plan developed out of the initial idea to invade Hawaii. I think it was Yamamoto who scaled the op back (I'll have to check tonight).

Midway was Yammamoto's plan from the first page. He insisted on it, threatening to resign if Nagano and Toyoda didn't let him have his way. He wanted to lure the US fleet into decisive battle. Well, that much of it worked....


He did indeed threaten to resign. However, the initial concept of the plan that became Midway was design on Hawaii. It's covered by Fuchida & Okamiya in "Midway: The Battle That Doomed Japan (the Japanese Navy's Story)". I'll find the citation tonight.


Though it's way late, just wanted to follow up and do what I said I'd do.

Here's the citation information:

In January 1942, Combined Fleet Chief of Staff Rear Admiral Ugaki conceives of plan to seize Hawaii. (Mitsuo Fuchida and Masatake Okumiya, "Midway: the Battle that Doomed Japan, the Japanese Navy's Story", page 75).

The plan is deemed unreasonable and Ugaki proceeds to develop the plan for Midway in February/March 42 (M & F, page 76, 78-79).

The final battle plan as sent to the commanders still (amazingly!!!) envisioned a later invasion of Hawaii -- the invasion was even simulated in a preparatory wargame of may 1-4, where Ugaki manipulated certain results to ensure that the IJN was victorious (M & F, page 123-24).

I don't think this changes the substance of what was discussed. I just didn't want to say I'd do something, then not do it. [:D]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375