In WITP, Japan is to the US, as...

[DDLAfan]

The Zulus are to the British. Is that a good analogy? It seems after 42 it's pretty much one-sided. What do other people here think.

[Przemcio231]

nope its not one sided check out my AAR

[niceguy2005]

Nope, not that close of an anology. How about Carthage is to Rome. The Japanese gave the Allies hell for a while (as did Carthage), but eventually were crushed by the larger more robust empire. Upon it's defeat (and in part because of the totality of it) the old civilization was wiped away and a new one was reborn.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

nope its not one sided check out my AAR

It most definately Will Become one-sided as the war goes on...
But hey, that's reality...Hello!!

[AmiralLaurent]

I don't think the British Empire commited more than some percent of his forces to crush the Zulu, while the Pacific was a major battlefield for the Allied (even if it was secondary to Europe).

As for the game, the period 1941 to the summer of 1942 is usually fully in Japanese favor, but there are/were several cases of successful Allied defenses stopping Japan before the latter date.
Summer of 1942 to summer of 1943 is the more equilibrate period of the game. Both sides may attack the other, and both sides have a good chance to repulse an enemy attack.
After summer of 1943 Allied both technical and numerical superiority will reduce Japan to a pure defensive position.
So after mid-43 (not 1942) war will in most of the cases be very one-sided.

But in the game, the Allied have to score twice more points than Japan to win, and it is still possible to keep the score below this ratio.

I think a Japanese player should be declared winner if he lasts after August 1945 (Japan defeat being the day where Allied score is twice higher than Japanese score). AFAIK nobody did that in a PBEM.

I would rather compare Japan after mid-43 to Vietcong... No hope to win the war on the battlefield but you can win "politicaly" (ie with points), and you can do some successfull ambushes.

[AnGeliCo]

ORIGINAL: DDLAfan

The Zulus are to the British. Is that a good analogy? It seems after 42 it's pretty much one-sided. What do other people here think.

It's probably reasonable, but not fully accurate,
both for WitP and historical reality.


The Zulu Nation is put in what it sees as an
impossible position by an ultimatum issued by a
neighbouring state. (reasonable)
(Zululand being an independant kingdom on the borders
of Natal, not part of the British Empire.)

It inflicts a surprise defeat on an enemy who had no
real idea about the strength and expertise of the army
it faced. (reasonable)

It then patrols its borders taking no offensive action
against the enemy. (Japan however was attacking not defending)

The enemy sit back and build up the logistic support to
take the battle to the heart of Zululand, whilst holding
the line along the border. (reasonable)

After many long months of inactivity the enemy launch
their attack and with overwealming technological
advantage and completely re-vamped logistics arrangments
take the Zulu heartlands and impose their rule over the
nation. (reasonable)

Political aftermath is totally different however except
that Japan retained the Emperor, and Cetshwayo remained
"King of the Zulu".

[Mike Scholl]

...Paraguay was to Argentina and Brazil.