Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 5091
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

I will be crucified here for the remark, but I find it strange to call a war in which the total of ordnance dropped was three times higher than the totals of World War 2 and where every weapon and military hardware short of WMDs has been used, a "limited" or "restrained" war.

User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I will be crucified here for the remark, but I find it strange to call a war in which the total of ordnance dropped was three times higher than the totals of World War 2 and where every weapon and military hardware short of WMDs has been used, a "limited" or "restrained" war.


I think the point was that prior to that, wars had a tendency to fall under the "total war" category - in which the bulk of a society's production is diverted to military purposes. That didn't really happen post-WW2, at least for the US.
Big B
Posts: 4642
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Big B »

War is VERY limited today - compared to our arsenals.
We may have dropped more bombs on Vietnam for example than we did in WW2 - but the critical difference is the choice of targets.

I merely point out that we no longer fight Total War, if we fought as we did then - Afghanistan (or fill in name of any target) would be attacked city by city with Atomic bombs - until they were all dead or came to their sense and surrendered. In days gone by - their were no qualms about doing so.

Today we fight "surgical wars" ...granted it may be surgery with a sledgehammer and dynamite - but the concept of total war is not what we do anymore..... So Far

The original point was the topic of fighting unwinnable wars fought by people who will never surrender.
My counter point is that there is no such thing as unwinnable wars fought by people who will never surrender- if the level of commitment to victory the way we used to fight.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I will be crucified here for the remark, but I find it strange to call a war in which the total of ordnance dropped was three times higher than the totals of World War 2 and where every weapon and military hardware short of WMDs has been used, a "limited" or "restrained" war.

Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”