. Sure, the hulls could have been completed by 1944, but their guns
I was not aware that the ships were cancelled for lack of guns. But, as you mentioned later, the war would be won or lost by 1946. IMO had there been a need for BBs and insufficient number been available to "win" (unlikely that BBs would make a difference), the Montanas and the other Iowas would have been built. There was no way after 1942 that the Allies were stoppiing short of an unconditional surrender, even if it had to wait until 1947. Most games don't take it that far, however, because the economic imbalance of a prolongued war makes 1946 and 1947 (with the US technological, qualitative, doctrinal, and quantitative superiority) about as much fun as pulling the legs off a mosquito (for the Allied player) or *being* the mosquito (for the Japan player).
Anyhow, I digress. Cancellation of the Montanas or other ships for lack of big guns and turrets is a good example of your point and mine. Building the BBs did not substantially affect other kinds of naval construction. They were cancelled primarily because they cost a buttload of money and had no purpose.
Chiteng says:
First, when I said 'production points' I mean something like this:
The system you describe is used, for example, by the board games "WW2:PTO," and Empire of the Rising Sun." I agree that the choice between a complex model as described by Jeremy and a simple model as you describe is largely a matter of taste and the game designer's development fund. *But* there should be limitations. The pace at which the IJN can crank out, say, CVs is limited, regardless of the number of "production points" or whatever are available. Both of the above mentioned games limit the pace of construction of vessels.
First the (Original)Montana was layed down in 1921 but scrapped in the Naval Limitation
This vessel has nothing to do with the Montana class in design during WW2. Completely different ships. The case does not seem to apply to this thread.
All four of the Iowa class Battleships were layed down before before the war started, they ALL exceeded the treaty tonnage. (so much for USA morality, those naughty Japs and the Yamato)
This really seems to have nothing to do with the thread except to indicate that decisions made before the war were highly deterministic regarding BB production. It would seem to imply that changing *during* the war the BB production priorities is an unreasonable request for a simulation (unless you want the ships you order in 1942 to be available should the war still be in progress in 1947).
The other crack about USA morality is non sequitur. But I will point out that the Iowa class were laid down well after Japan withdrew from the Wash-London Naval Treaty. Moreover, the US and UK faithfully followed the treaty limitations with respect to CAs, whereas Japan clearly did not (ex: Mogami class). The US Baltimores were treaty violations, but again these were built long after Japan withdrew from the Treaty. Not sure what "morality" has to do with it, since it seems to me to be politics and international gunboat diplomacy as usual per pre-Cold War era. "Morality" comes into it when you consider how Japan treated prisoners and occupied nations, but that thread belongs elsewhere.
AM [anyone recall Harlan Ellison?] says:
What *are* you talking about, fellow? No one has suggested that any player must choose the exact same strategic target and use the same force structure to achieve the objective.let ìs say it is the midway trap... but your fraction wants me to attack and loose this carriers... err, why ? .
In the words of Pa Grape, "You just don't get it."so, don ìt talk about "unhistorical game" or "historical accurate game". The truth is, that most players want in a game like witp production and r&d to change the historical events.... only a few didn ìt want to...
