Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Suggest anyone really interested in this discussion search for the last 5 or 6 of these and read them, they go back 10 years easily.

The ability to get Frank a in Q3Y43 and then subsequently Frank -r in mid 44 or even better. Frank -b with the same focus is Q2 '44 at best. Very few players would ever choose the latter over the former.

Frank -a in Q3Y43 is a game changer. Frank -b in Q2Y44 just maintains status quo. Getting Frank -r about the same time eliminates the Frank -b model from discussion. Whether b is better than r is moot, its that you want a in 43 period. to give that up to get the b model only makes sense if that is what the game player wishes to do, but in a competitive game it will be a poorer choice.

I find such an abuse of the industrial engine to be one of the most gamey, if not the most gamey, move in the game. Completely rips apart the balance the gamers tried to achieve, and is more disruptive than any gamey move the Allied could even do, even basing 4E bombers in China to commence strat bomb early.
Or moving restricted units across borders without paying PP. Sure, you can do it, but it’s neither historical nor balanced.

To quote mind_messing in another thread : if you want to play fantasy, play HoI.

Your game, your choice.

The game allows it, so if you wanna play ostrich, again your choice.

If you play waiting for the AC to arrive historical dates, then what is there to discuss? When Frank-b arrives 3/45 build to your hearts content. When Frank -r arrives 9/45, don't build it, or do. whatever. There isn't an either/or to discuss in your scenario. There is rarely a clear cut "this is the better AC" in any case. It is all about, in this scenario, this aircraft would be better, but in this scenario it would be this one. Then it is about which scenario you as a player feels is more commonplace, that's opinion, rarely fact. And in either case, in any game, the frequency of occurrence of either scenario can vary wildly game to game.

You wanna get up on your high horse, saddle up. But, don't bring it here. Keep your "fantasy" thoughts to yourself, and don't denigrate that which you don't know or are not capable of understanding. Oh and stop quoting others out of context.

The game allows basing 4E bombers from China ; allows 4E on naval strikes at 100ft ; on night bombing. All this without limits. How come JFB always insist on restrictions on that, because it’s way more effective than bombing from higher, or would not have been done large-scale IRL ?

quote:

The problem I have is hypocrisy. The game already gives a far better situation to Japan than real life. Between the possibility to tinker with production (abandoning construction of things less useful), the over-abundance of xAK (and TK after conversions) in regards to their actual requirements, the reduction of value of the SigInt, the ease of conquest of China without a big reinforcement by the Allies before the road closes, the ability to deplete Manchukuo of lots of troops and support (from Artillery to Armor, Base forces, Squadrons... as long as you keep that magic number of AV). Performances of the IJN/IJA planes being based on the tests by the US with better fuel. Lack of IJN/IJA cooperation problems. Better air ASW available, and setting up adequate convoys (let alone the infamous Singapore-Fusan magic highway).

quote:

The fact is, on top of all that, the Japanese industry in the game can be tinkered with in an unrealistic way. Could they magically retool the factory producing Ki-27 to produce Ki-84 ? Could they just decide to halt production in half the merchant shipyards to free more HI for aircraft & engine production ? Could they hasten the development of a plane up to a year, or even more ? Nope. Plus, as Alfred points, diverting research from the other models doesn’t push them back.

quote:

Consolidating that advantage, the IJ player may also, and many do, as I read the AARs and advices, resize squadrons to institute large training squadrons on map. Historically, IJNAF/IJAAF lacked a good training process, on the opposite of the US (and the whole Commonwealth in Canada). Elite IJ pilots were not sent back to train the future pilots, it was the veteran US ones who were rotated back.

quote:

In short, hindsight helps the IJ player much more than the Allied player, in that a lot of the historical Japan weaknesses may be covered for. Plus, avoiding mistakes which led to Midway. Yet, anytime someone comes calling that, JFB come to deride the critic and call for a « historical play ».

quote:

So, don’t come calling me on wishes for a « fantasy » when an analysis of the game shows it’s already in favor of Japan. It is a design choice by the devs, in order to still have players for that side, ok. But they balanced everything carefully, and pushing the enveloppe on some things leads to big imbalances.

quote:

And to be clear, I’ve played at least 4-5 campaigns as Japan - against the AI, yes, but I know the production system. That’s why I don’t like it - the results you can get are ahistorical and unbalanced, and there’s very little countermeasures available to the Allied player, as damaging Japan’s industry before deploying B-29 is next to impossible (unless the IJ player is grossly incompetent at managing convoys) and attrition warfare in ‘42-‘43-‘44 may in fact turn in favor of Japan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


You wanna get up on your high horse, saddle up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Suggest anyone really interested in this discussion search for the last 5 or 6 of these and read them, they go back 10 years easily.

The ability to get Frank a in Q3Y43 and then subsequently Frank -r in mid 44 or even better. Frank -b with the same focus is Q2 '44 at best. Very few players would ever choose the latter over the former.

Frank -a in Q3Y43 is a game changer. Frank -b in Q2Y44 just maintains status quo. Getting Frank -r about the same time eliminates the Frank -b model from discussion. Whether b is better than r is moot, its that you want a in 43 period. to give that up to get the b model only makes sense if that is what the game player wishes to do, but in a competitive game it will be a poorer choice.

I find such an abuse of the industrial engine to be one of the most gamey, if not the most gamey, move in the game. Completely rips apart the balance the gamers tried to achieve, and is more disruptive than any gamey move the Allied could even do, even basing 4E bombers in China to commence strat bomb early.
Or moving restricted units across borders without paying PP. Sure, you can do it, but it’s neither historical nor balanced.

To quote mind_messing in another thread : if you want to play fantasy, play HoI.

Your game, your choice.

The game allows it, so if you wanna play ostrich, again your choice.

If you play waiting for the AC to arrive historical dates, then what is there to discuss? When Frank-b arrives 3/45 build to your hearts content. When Frank -r arrives 9/45, don't build it, or do. whatever. There isn't an either/or to discuss in your scenario. There is rarely a clear cut "this is the better AC" in any case. It is all about, in this scenario, this aircraft would be better, but in this scenario it would be this one. Then it is about which scenario you as a player feels is more commonplace, that's opinion, rarely fact. And in either case, in any game, the frequency of occurrence of either scenario can vary wildly game to game.

You wanna get up on your high horse, saddle up. But, don't bring it here. Keep your "fantasy" thoughts to yourself, and don't denigrate that which you don't know or are not capable of understanding. Oh and stop quoting others out of context.

The game allows basing 4E bombers from China ; allows 4E on naval strikes at 100ft ; on night bombing. All this without limits. How come JFB always insist on restrictions on that, because it’s way more effective than bombing from higher, or would not have been done large-scale IRL ?

A holdover from the early days where 4E's were seen as too effective at low naval attack. Since patched out. And yet, a lot of players still ask them...

quote:

The problem I have is hypocrisy. The game already gives a far better situation to Japan than real life. Between the possibility to tinker with production (abandoning construction of things less useful), the over-abundance of xAK (and TK after conversions) in regards to their actual requirements, the reduction of value of the SigInt, the ease of conquest of China without a big reinforcement by the Allies before the road closes, the ability to deplete Manchukuo of lots of troops and support (from Artillery to Armor, Base forces, Squadrons... as long as you keep that magic number of AV). Performances of the IJN/IJA planes being based on the tests by the US with better fuel. Lack of IJN/IJA cooperation problems. Better air ASW available, and setting up adequate convoys (let alone the infamous Singapore-Fusan magic highway).

You do have a problem with hypocrisy. To respond to some of your points:

- IJ production overall is a choice. Resources are finite, and every choice has consequences. Look below to see that not all factors are equal in the industry, and that some choices are more equal than others.
- Human players tend to be far more rational in managing the merchant marine and ASW than IJ was historically. Again, the benefit of hindsight. I’m not saying anything else, but there are many more mistakes that can be corrected with a big difference on the J side than on the A side.
- Garrison requirements cut both ways: there are no issues in India if all the Indian garrison troops are replaced with dross. you’ll have to explain how freeing 20+ unexperienced battalion-sized units, most fielding I.S.F. Militia before you can upgrade to late Indian Inf models and lacking support, can be useful when you already have a swath of Indian divisions...
- Is it reasonable to except the IJA/IJN cooperation issues to be represented, but the complete Allied alliance can co-operate seamlessly? Did tensions occur ? Yes. Did it affect severely the conduct of the war in the same way the IJA/IJN rivalry ? I’ll check, but who said the US sent Infantry divisions to Oz so that AIF divisions would stay in Africa instead of hurrying home ?
But, I would agree to a kind of penalty on interactions and cooperation between Allies if the IJA/IJN « cooperation issues » were implemented. The fact that both sides benefit from improved cooperation doesn’t mean it favors both sides equally.

quote:

The fact is, on top of all that, the Japanese industry in the game can be tinkered with in an unrealistic way. Could they magically retool the factory producing Ki-27 to produce Ki-84 ? Could they just decide to halt production in half the merchant shipyards to free more HI for aircraft & engine production ? Could they hasten the development of a plane up to a year, or even more ? Nope. Plus, as Alfred points, diverting research from the other models doesn’t push them back.

Could they have done all these things? Yes. Oh yeah ? Cutting the production of cargoes, they wouldn’t have had any left mid-44.

Would there have been consequences? Yes.

Are there consequences for doing these things in game? Yes. There are consequences, but they’re very small given the design of the industry. See the bottom of my post.

Do the maths on the supply required to accelerate a given airframe a year forward. It's a surprising number.
240.000.
4*30 RD factories for the Ki-84a, 120.000 supply to repair them.
120 Engine factory for the Ha-45, 120.000 supply to repair them.
Well, add 24.000 for the initial expansion of the factories, so that’s 264.000.
By August or September, at the latest October, the RD factories should be repaired. As soon as they’re repaired, you upgrade them to the Ki-84r. You then get 120 research points per month, advancing the arrival of the model by a double rate.
Around January 44, you also have a pool of Ha-45 over 500, doubling your research rate.
Normal arrival of the -r is 9/45, but with only that, you’ll bring it online before the end of Summer ‘44.
Over a year of acceleration for 264.000 supplies. Hardly two weeks of your initial supply production, 0.1% of the total supply you’ll produce in the full game.

quote:

Consolidating that advantage, the IJ player may also, and many do, as I read the AARs and advices, resize squadrons to institute large training squadrons on map. Historically, IJNAF/IJAAF lacked a good training process, on the opposite of the US (and the whole Commonwealth in Canada). Elite IJ pilots were not sent back to train the future pilots, it was the veteran US ones who were rotated back.

The Allies overall have vastly larger pilot replacement programmes than the IJ do, and arriving at higher base EXP. For Japan to get that increase in base EXP, pilots need to be diverted from the frontline (thus reducing the effectiveness of frontline squadrons). Oh yeah, that’s right, the 45 or 50 XP the US pilots arrive with later make them combat ready.. They need as much on-map training as the Japanese rookies, the difference in starting XP might account to a few weeks, less than a month, of difference. Without the ability to upsize squadrons to train hundreds of pilots.

You're also going to get the benefit of hindsight kicking in, where players know pilot training is important. Both sides, really. Again, much more in favor of the Japanese, given the historical deficiencies.

quote:

In short, hindsight helps the IJ player much more than the Allied player, in that a lot of the historical Japan weaknesses may be covered for. Plus, avoiding mistakes which led to Midway. Yet, anytime someone comes calling that, JFB come to deride the critic and call for a « historical play ».

Strong disagree here.

It's a fairly equal playing field. The Allies have the advantage of hindsight in knowing how untenable the position and purpose of ABDA is (how many Allied players will send the 18th UK Division to Singapore?), along with other forward positions, as well as having an accurate picture of immediate Japanese intentions, dispositions and capabilities.

quote:

So, don’t come calling me on wishes for a « fantasy » when an analysis of the game shows it’s already in favor of Japan. It is a design choice by the devs, in order to still have players for that side, ok. But they balanced everything carefully, and pushing the enveloppe on some things leads to big imbalances.

On the whole, I agree, but you are massively exaggerating the scale of the imbalance. Design decisions and game systems in place provide advantages to Japan, but the same is true for the Allies also, with considerably larger scope.

The Allies can leave ABDA to it's fate, with no consequence. MacArthur is regularly abandoned on day 1 with no political blowback. Australia can be left defended by an army of half-trained militia with no political ramifications while US troops go elsewhere. The Chinese Army is a perfectly obedient organisation, when in reality it was far from it. The loss-aversive nature of the US public is not modelled...etc etc
While it is true that most Allied players will divert the 18th UK Div and a couple of brigades, the scope of that part of foresight is extremely limited compared to the amount of changes the IJ player may introduce. As well, please list the considerable assets that MacArthur received until March ‘42. As an Allied player, I’d be all the most happy to still send them to their doom while picking any one piece of hindsight my opponent should « forget »...

Taking these things into consideration, it's a much more level playing field than you'd have others think. I just said it was a design decision to get a more equal level playing field. But a level playing field is not historical, and the advantages one side gets in order to approach that level are much more unbalanced.

quote:

And to be clear, I’ve played at least 4-5 campaigns as Japan - against the AI, yes, but I know the production system. That’s why I don’t like it - the results you can get are ahistorical and unbalanced, and there’s very little countermeasures available to the Allied player, as damaging Japan’s industry before deploying B-29 is next to impossible (unless the IJ player is grossly incompetent at managing convoys) and attrition warfare in ‘42-‘43-‘44 may in fact turn in favor of Japan.

Strong disagree here. There's plenty of counter-measures, especially when one considers the entire Allied arsenal.

All too often I see these conversations being driven by frustrations when Allied players have a sweep chewed up by IJ CAP. There's a tunnel vision on a single aspect of combat, and complete neglect of everything else.

It's a naval and ground game as well as an air game. While optimization of production may give Japan a competitive edge in one aspect, the other two are clearly well in the Allies favour.

Nice straw man attempt, have a cookie. Counter-measures to industry increases is what I clearly mean to anyone with reading skills. Just tell me how the Allied player limits industrial output of Japan before being in reach of the heavy bombers, given the relative lack of effect of submarine warfare given the abundance of conversions to tankers, and relative lack of need of xAK ?

Besides, have I ever complained about sweeps and CAP ? Don’t confuse me with others, or attribute to me positions I’ve never held.

quote:

Look below to see that not all factors are equal in the industry, and that some choices are more equal than others.

quote:

I’m not saying anything else, but there are many more mistakes that can be corrected with a big difference on the J side than on the A side.

quote:

you’ll have to explain how freeing 20+ unexperienced battalion-sized units, most fielding I.S.F. Militia before you can upgrade to late Indian Inf models and lacking support, can be useful when you already have a swath of Indian divisions...

quote:

Did tensions occur ? Yes. Did it affect severely the conduct of the war in the same way the IJA/IJN rivalry ? I’ll check, but who said the US sent Infantry divisions to Oz so that AIF divisions would stay in Africa instead of hurrying home ?

quote:

But, I would agree to a kind of penalty on interactions and cooperation between Allies if the IJA/IJN « cooperation issues » were implemented. The fact that both sides benefit from improved cooperation doesn’t mean it favors both sides equally.

quote:

Over a year of acceleration for 264.000 supplies. Hardly two weeks of your initial supply production, 0.1% of the total supply you’ll produce in the full game.

quote:

Oh yeah, that’s right, the 45 or 50 XP the US pilots arrive with later make them combat ready.. They need as much on-map training as the Japanese rookies, the difference in starting XP might account to a few weeks, less than a month, of difference. Without the ability to upsize squadrons to train hundreds of pilots.

quote:

Both sides, really. Again, much more in favor of the Japanese, given the historical deficiencies.

quote:

While it is true that most Allied players will divert the 18th UK Div and a couple of brigades, the scope of that part of foresight is extremely limited compared to the amount of changes the IJ player may introduce. As well, please list the considerable assets that MacArthur received until March ‘42. As an Allied player, I’d be all the most happy to still send them to their doom while picking any one piece of hindsight my opponent should « forget »...

quote:

I just said it was a design decision to get a more equal level playing field. But a level playing field is not historical, and the advantages one side gets in order to approach that level are much more unbalanced.

quote:

Nice straw man attempt, have a cookie. Counter-measures to industry increases is what I clearly mean to anyone with reading skills. Just tell me how the Allied player limits industrial output of Japan before being in reach of the heavy bombers, given the relative lack of effect of submarine warfare given the abundance of conversions to tankers, and relative lack of need of xAK ?

quote:

Consequences, schmonsequences, of ship production tinkering.
Basics : given the way shipbuilding works, durability has an exponential effect. The real cost, in HI, of building a ship is (durability)squared * 10 (for the duration) * 3 (for the HI cost of shipyards).
A Type-C3 submarine, with a Durability of 33 (or something close, but there is a sub class with 33 and numerous boats) costs 33*33*10*3 = 32.670 HI. How many aircrafts can you build with that ? Divide by 36 (single-engine) = 907.5. What’s best, one submarine, or 900 more planes ?
With the number of submarines which can be halted, you could build over 90.000 airplanes. Even only halting the low Durability ones (the mass of RO- named and a few other less useful, commonly advised to new players to halt) would still allow at least 40.000 more airplanes. Can you still talk about consequences ?

Look at an Unryu-class CV now. Durability 61, so total cost is 111.630 HI. Only three times as much as a big submarine, or five times as much as an RO-named small sub, is that logical or historical ? By kissing goodbye to five of them, you can theoretically accelerate the building of an Unryu by 610 days. Actually, you need less halting as you’ll arrive to the 610 days mark before launch before you’ve spent an equal number of HI, but for a ship planned for mid-45, it means you can accelerate it by a year.

quote:

Look now at the cargoes. You have xAK with Durability 6 and a capacity around 2000, and xAK with Durability 19 and a capacity around 6000. The Std-A class costs thus around 9 times to build as the Std-D class, but you only need three of the smaller ones to carry as much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Since both players should know a modicum of the history of the war and the economic situation, the game is not historical anyway. The Allies did not do their tanker war from the beginning and did not initially know how big nor effective the enemy hammer was.

Admiral King would not let the US Navy help the UK in the Indian Ocean nor did the US help much in defending India, at least compared to what I have seen in some AARs. What was sent was more to help China.

The Japanese sent empty cargo ships one way which passed empty cargo ships going the other war - sometimes to the same port the other ships came from! How many Japanese players will do that?

Reading about how the Japanese would start building a ship, then stop, then restart, and keep doing that for many ships, it makes me think what they could have done with a coherent strategy which is what the human player in the game gives.

The Battle of Leyte Gulf, the way that it happened, was not Halsey's fault - many factors were involved, especially the leadership at SWPAC!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

****, session timed out, I lost my (rather long) answer to you, mind_messing. I’m coming back after work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

In the 1940s I think it is fair to say the US saw itself as an anti-colonial state, one dedicated to liberty for all peoples. FDR shared that sentiment, although he had a practical side that let him help England regardless of the Colonial history. Churchill seemed to see himself as the saviour of the Empire, intent on keeping it and returning to pre-war colonialism once the Axis was dealt with. I think that played into the US refusal to reinforce the British in India - the Jewel of the Empire. What help America sent (like Merrill's Marauders) tried to work with local tribes in northern Burma, promising them post war self-determination and trying to get them on friendly terms with the US.

In China, the Japanese had already forced out all the other Imperial powers, so the US concentrated on trying to help get the Japanese out so the Chinese could have self-determination (and be friendly to the US). Didn't quite work out that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Randy Stead

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

In the 1940s I think it is fair to say the US saw itself as an anti-colonial state, one dedicated to liberty for all peoples. FDR shared that sentiment, although he had a practical side that let him help England regardless of the Colonial history. Churchill seemed to see himself as the saviour of the Empire, intent on keeping it and returning to pre-war colonialism once the Axis was dealt with. I think that played into the US refusal to reinforce the British in India - the Jewel of the Empire. What help America sent (like Merrill's Marauders) tried to work with local tribes in northern Burma, promising them post war self-determination and trying to get them on friendly terms with the US.

In China, the Japanese had already forced out all the other Imperial powers, so the US concentrated on trying to help get the Japanese out so the Chinese could have self-determination (and be friendly to the US). Didn't quite work out that way.

The U.S. talked a fair game about decolonizing, but I think they rather cynically used that policy as a cover to steal as much business from the Brits as they could. I find it rather ironic that a major power decries colonialism whilst having their own colonies, real or de facto [Philippines, Cuba, etc.]

This is not an anti-American screed, simply an observation based on quite a few books I've read that make that point. I'd still rather live next door to the U.S. than a lot of countries with checkered histories. In the end, they did to the British Empire what that Empire did to other powers during their centuries of ascendancy. And the U.S. is now the target of similar. That's the nature of our world, dogs always contending to be the alpha of the pack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

****, session timed out, I lost my (rather long) answer to you, mind_messing. I’m coming back after work.

That happens fairly frequently - not just timeout from typing but the forum sometimes doesn't accept the input. Any time I compose a lengthy post I try to remember to copy it to my clipboard before hitting the OK button to post it. If the internet eats it, I can redo the post in no time - open a post and paste.

quote:

1. Pilot experience

Edit for brevity.

quote:

2. Industry

I don’t advocate stopping all subs to build 90k planes, only that you could (hey, I even hint at a big acceleration of an Unryu for the cost of only five RO-class subs). You also attribute far more importance to the supply stock late in the game, but supply won’t prevent the auto-victory.

quote:

In fact, I don’t see many games ending due to the IJ player running out of supply in the late-game.

quote:

Supply spent early on is way more important than supply kept in the treasury at the end of the game. That one won’t bring you any VP. What is important is to not run off of supply during the course of the game.

quote:

For example, if you spend one million supply initially to improve 500 aircraft & RD factories, and 500 engine factories (ok, 1.1 million), spread on early- to mid-war planes, and going with the abstraction that they repair across ‘42, you get to produce an average of an extra 250 aircrafts per month in ‘42, and 500/month in ‘43. That production will enable you to pressure the Allied player far more efficiently, and push him further back - and, more importantly, delay the start of his advance across the map.
That million (or 1.1) of supplies converts to 21.000 planes on four years. That many planes would easily slow the progress of the Allies by at least four months, before they get to cut Japan’s access to the DEI Oil & Fuel. You get at least 10.000 Oil and Fuel from the DEI per day, on average, once the Fuel needs for ships are taken care of, so 10.000 supplies after conversion in the HI. Four months at 10.000/day, 1.2 million supplies.

quote:

And what do you say the Allied player should do ? Start an attrition warfare, when in ‘42-‘43 it is in favor of Japan ? And with what troops ? Do you know how long it’ll take for the Allies to have the ability to muster and support a multi-division drive somewhere the Japanese won’t have the choice to simply... take a step back ?

quote:

By the way, with a sound juggling of the industry, Taiho and the first three Unryus will arrive at the end of ‘43 or very early ‘44, with the last Unryus arriving in mid-‘44 (or even early ‘44). In the same time, USN receives 5 CV and a bunch of CVL in ‘43. While it may end up as a bigger aircraft aggregate, it is not enough to be used to make the IJN react all around, burning fuel. IJ has the advantage of the inner lines, and it costs a lot of fuel to go from one area to the next.

quote:

Reading your suggestions, I have the feeling you consider the Allied players just sit idly doing nothing. Very bad understanding of the Allied situation in the game - even doing all you can, the IJ player can still greatly expand his economy. The major risk is expanding too fast and running out of supplies in ‘42-‘43, before the payoff. This is when supply is most precious.

quote:

3. Inter-service rivalry and hindsight

Just because such a rivalry existed, and still exists somehow to this day, doesn’t mean the Allies were hampered in the same measure as Imperial Japan was, and just because the Allied player may also use hindsight does not mean the effects of it are the same.

quote:

First, no decent Allied player does a Sir Robin anymore, but even so, what can be saved ? PoW & Repulse, a couple of cruisers, two dozen B-17 ? Most AARs show a Japanese player much faster on the invasion of the DEI, so there really are not that many opportunities to save anything. But hindsight by the IJ player saves KB, at least until mid-43 if not further.

quote:

As for reinforcements sent somewhere else ? Yes, the 18th UK div and a couple of brigades can be diverted. But the IJ can finish China and allow sending way more than that to shore up the defenses of the perimeter.

quote:

Also, what were exactly the reinforcements sent IRL to MacArthur until March ? He’s not missing much...

quote:

It’s fun you mention the Allied player knowing the US CV are not up to par and not recreating Wake or Doolittle’s stint. First, how would you reproduce Doolittle’s mission exactly ? And second, a Wake operation being high risk ? To start with, most IJ players don’t botch the invasion of Wake, so there is no opportunity for a relief mission, but more importantly - Vice Admiral Pye ordered the TF around because of two IJN carriers being near Wake.

You can add the fact that Nimitz initially sent all four US CV to the Coral Sea, but Hornet and Enterprise were too late for the battle, despite knowing from intercepts that only two IJN carriers would be there.

So, yes, RL commanders (after the initial days) were fully aware of the superiority of the enemy, and only took calculated risks.

Besides, how many IJ players split KB ? Don’t we all know that KB is not to be split, ever, when in reality, after PH they never were all six together ?

quote:

About inter-service rivalry, did the rivalry between USA & USN lead to, for example, one refusing to provide air cover for the other, like IJA/IJN ? Just check there (https://www.quora.com/How-bad-was-the-inter-service-rivalry-between-the-Imperial-Japanese-Army-and-the-Imperial-Japanese-Navy-in-World-War-2) to see many examples of a very detrimental inter-service rivalry (a few errors/approximations too, but I guess you’re learned enough to spot them). The Allies could compete, but never to the point of endangering the conduct of war, and good faith was preeminent.

quote:


So, to finish : no, it doesn’t all balance itself. Just because both sides can benefit from hindsight and better organisation, doesn’t mean they both profit from both on the same scale.

quote:

I find it rather ironic that a major power decries colonialism whilst having their own colonies, real or de facto [Philippines, Cuba, etc.]

quote:

nor is it my intention to start controversial discussions

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The fact that you make such a claim confirms my suspicions that you're just waffling rubbish.



So we've managed to get you to accept that hindsight does impact the Allies, so that's something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The fact that you make such a claim confirms my suspicions that you're just waffling rubbish.



So we've managed to get you to accept that hindsight does impact the Allies, so that's something.

Two things I hate, as much as hypocrisy : insults and straw-man arguments.

I never said the Allies couldn’t use hindsight to some degree. I disagree with your claim that it has the same impact - I have repeatedly said so.

The fact you insults me yet fail to properly read and process what I say means the end of the discussion.