quote:

Originally posted by byron:
Should there be a chance that England surrenders to Germany? And, if so, do the forces in India become free British?

---

quote:

The game could easily start as early as '37 and possibly '35 on the Japanese side.

---

quote:

Originally posted by byron:
That's probably a little early. You'd get a lot of screaming from the "we want a game based on what really happened" crowd.

---

quote:

Originally posted by byron:
Wait a minute. The production thread is boring, but you want to take advantage of our efforts? Never! It would be interesting to alter production that early, but it would be an odd system. For the American, I guess there wouldn't be any detail, but just some kind of general guidance to the computer. When the war starts, you have whatever the computer decided could/would be produced in that four years. I can't imagine anyone sitting down and playing four years of nothing but detailed production. It would seem, though, that if you're the Japanese in 1937, you should be required to actually play the game since Japanese forces are committed in battle in China. That would turn the game into an 8 year marathon for the Japanese. The first four years would be a dull, dull slugfest through China with no navy action. It doesn't seem right that you would alter production for four years (completely ahistorical) and then assume Japan had the same front line as it did historically. I don't know. I'd like to see some altered pre-war production, at least for the Japanese, but I would know how to implement it. For the American, I see a lot of potential for abuse, e.g., starting the war with fifteen carriers. I kind of like the "come as you are" problem the American has in the beginning. Of course, American production was so low until 1941, if you allowed the American to build whatever he wanted (based on a very low number of production points) EXCEPT FOR historical carriers, then it wouldn't make that much difference.

---

quote:

Originally posted by byron:
Timjot: Your comment on Free India is profound. I hadn't considered that. I imagine the Commonwealth forces would have left India with all equipment intact. Or, considering the large military presence, would they have resisted letting India go? It was, after all, the star of the empire. The king and free parliament, now exiled in Canada, may have resisted. I think there were also somewhat substantial production facilities in India. So what do you have? A large British army in Australia with virtually no source of equipment. It would become an army outfitted almost entirely by the U.S. Japan, as Moore states, is now free to focus on other things with no enemy in the rear. Interesting scenario

---

quote:

Originally posted by TIMJOT:
Imagine the Coral Sea with 6 Fleet carriers instead of 2 and Midway with 8 Carriers instead of 4.

---

quote:

Originally posted by Ringbolt:

They could have sent 6 to both Coral sea and just chose not to use them. IMO the worst mistake the Japanese was not using all it's remaining CV's at Midway like they did in the PH attack instead of the Alaska feint. Remember, all the damage done to US CV's at Midway was from a partial strike from ONLY Hiryu. One more CV or even CVL could have tipped the balance.
Ringbolt

---

quote:

Originally posted by TIMJOT:

The large militarly presence was made up of units that were almost totally Indian, albiet with British officers. Its doughtful they would stay loyal to a defeated crown. .

---

quote:

Originally posted by Chiteng:
Byron, It wasnt luck that the CV's were not there.
In fact in retrospect it was predictable.
But it wasnt a conspiracy either. The BB were too slow for the missions needed.
The CV's left w/o them.
I would assert that 'if' the BB's had been
as fast as the CV's , The Japanese would have shown up at an empty
harbor and clobbered the sub pens.
(also the oil storage tanks)

---

quote:

Originally posted by Chiteng:
Byron, It wasnt luck that the CV's were not there.
In fact in retrospect it was predictable.
But it wasnt a conspiracy either. The BB were too slow for the missions needed.
The CV's left w/o them.
I would assert that 'if' the BB's had been
as fast as the CV's , The Japanese would have shown up at an empty
harbor and clobbered the sub pens.
(also the oil storage tanks)

---

quote:

Originally posted by byron:
I think it was luck that the carriers weren't there. Or, rather, there was chance that they would be off on a mission or training and, in fact, they were. I'm sure someone will provide more information, but I know one just happened to be delivering planes to Wake (or was it Midway), and the others were training to the south. I'm guessing all three were based in Pearl (I'll be corrected if I'm wrong) and, if they didn't have something better to do on a Sunday morning, would have been there. Didn't one steam in on the 8th? Pick a different day, and they might all have been there. Skippy: You're right. I suggested earlier that U.S. production was so low until 1940 or 1941 that, if you kept overall production (using production points) at a historic level, the U.S. probably couldn't do much damage by sinking it into carriers. If he did, he would have no air force or army. Despite any cries to the contrary, I would not under any circumstances allow the American to ramp up production beyond historical levels before the war started. I'm thinking with the limited production at hand, he might have been able to poop out one more carrier by sometime around the beginning of the war. I'd be curious when the Hornet and the Wasp hulls were laid down since they were commissioned right around PH. Actually, I'm not so sure I'm right. I guess the Washington, North Carolina, and the other BB's in those classes were already being constructed. Never build those, and you could build a couple of carriers with little increase in production cost - or maybe even a reduction. Why not let him build whatever he wants within historical production levels except for more carriers than was historical? Then he could start the war with more B-17s and fewer tanks or P-40s. Everyone is convinced that the carrier is the decisive weapon and that the Japanese were only competitive when there was relative carrier parity. Just don't let the American build ahistorically more until the war starts. If you're going to let the American change production from '37 or '39 or '40, it should be a five second computer calculation based on five minutes worth of input by the American player. Rather than having the American pick his nose for three years of game time, the computer would just say, "Okay, this is what you told me to concentrate on building and, based on that, here's what you start the war with." It would be the slider method at warp speed.

---

quote:

Originally posted by Blackhorse:
I disagree with the presumption of a "Free India" if England has to surrender. The Netherlands had been overrun in May, 1940, but a year-and-a-half later the exiled government still ruled Indonesia. And unlike the British, the Dutch had very few resources after the home country was overrun. The English, on the other hand, could rely on Canada, Australia, and South Africa -- hardly industrial powers capable of fighting a world war, but industrial enough to supply and equip a colonial army in India. Most importantly, in order to be "Free" of the British, the Indians (who included Pakistanis at this time) would have to agree on who would replace them. The British were masters of the colonial political practice of ruling through local Princes and Potentates. Many of them stood to lose as much or more than the British if a Gandhi or some other "nationalist" Indian came to power. I'm *not* arguing that a defeated England could maintain its position in India indefinitely. But an England defeated in 1940 might well still control India for 4 or 5 more years.

---

quote:

And unlike the British, the Dutch had very few resources after the home country was overrun. The English, on the other hand, could rely on Canada, Australia, and South Africa -- hardly industrial powers capable of fighting a world war, but industrial enough to supply and equip a colonial army in India.

---

quote:

Most importantly, in order to be "Free" of the British, the Indians (who included Pakistanis at this time) would have to agree on who would replace them. The British were masters of the colonial political practice of ruling through local Princes and Potentates. Many of them stood to lose as much or more than the British if a Gandhi or some other "nationalist" Indian came to power.

---