Who is going to play the game after 43???

[Mr.Frag]

Most of you seem to be looking at this wrong.

It is not about winning the war, it is about stalling the loss of the war until after the historical date. To do this, you must play as good a land grab as possible. You must cause as much loss as possible while keeping your forces as intact as possible so when the tide is reversed, it will take *time* to come back in.

Any Japanese player who can hold back the Allies until the B-29's show up overhead in 860 days has done well. Once they show up, the context of the game changes completely. It is no longer about holding off the Allies, it is about weathering the storm well.

Denial of basing for the B-29 (with it's 20,000 lb payload) is the goal of the game from this point onwards until the game ends.

Denial of basing for the B-24 (with it's 8,000 lb payload) is the goal of the game prior to that point.

Due to rule changes that some of you will love and others will hate, LBA air base sizes are now based on bomb load. The size 4 airfield is a thing of the past. If you don't need it as Japan which you probably will not, don't build it up for the Allies.

[madflava13]

Airfield basing rules have changed? Pray tell kind sir...

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Carthage, Egypt, Mongols, Parthians, Ottomans, Persians, Moors, just to name a few. (there is a lot of history in the east before Europe comes out of stone age.)

Yes, I was talking about from the colonial period on. I'm aware there were many great civilizations back when most of Eurpoeans lived in huts.

[Mr.Frag]

Airfield basing rules have changed? Pray tell kind sir...

Air base size is related to bomb load now. This means the big boys need a bigger base.

Unless you love operational losses, you'll be picking your bases well for the heavies.

[tsimmonds]

Original: Damien Thorn

A game is a game and history is history.

A well-made game simulating an historical situation is certainly capable of being more than just a game. It is another way to study history.

Germany was close to winning and, if not for some dumb mistakes at the top, they could haev won.

The dumbest of their dumb mistakes was going to war simultaneously against the three most powerful nations on earth. The only possible way I can see they could have won would have been to take them on one at a time. I don't think in the event the Germans were ever actually close to winning. They certainly were making their opponents suffer and struggle, but would any of them ever have surrendered? I doubt it. This was total war; only total victory would suffice, and Germany could never achieve total victory over any of those countries while they were allied together....

Japan may not have been able to invade the US but they could have reached a negotiated peace if things had gone differently.

Only if it had never undertaken the attack on Pearl Harbor could Japan ever have hoped to negotiate a settlement of the Pacific War.

[pasternakski]

Thanks, Zippy! Good analysis.

It's really not sufficient to string together conclusory statement after conclusory statement about "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

As far as Germany winning WWII in Europe, the Soviets had absorbed the entire offensive punch of the Wehrmacht by late 1943. On the Western Front, no one I know of has demonstrated that Sealion was ever destined for a decent chance of success under any circumstances, and the Germans had gone over to the strategic defensive by mid-1942. Italy's days were numbered from the very outset. Then, there is the problem presented by the emergence of the economic juggernaut on the other side of the Atlantic.

I just don't see how "the Japanese could have gotten a negotiated settlement" makes any sense. The anti-Japanese sentiment among the American public was absolutely virulent after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and other sad disasters born of lack of preparedness.

Both of these powers might have done better than historically, but the eventual outcome is not in doubt. It would have taken an invasion and conquest of the United States in order for the Japanese to have prevailed - something that just wasn't in the cards. Germany might have managed some sort of stalemate, but their leadership would likely have prevented any settlement, and the tide had turned before such a possibility even presented itself for consideration by the Axis side.

So let's play these simulations as presented and leave the fantasy to designers who want to dabble in the "what ifs" of alternate reality. We engage in this to a degree, of course, when we play wargames, but the game itself, if it intends to be a "historical simulation," presents circumstances that were actually faced (or that could reasonably have been faced) by the combatants involved.

[Mr.Frag]

I'm curious.

If Japan had completely left the Brits and Americans alone and simply sent a single group to Palembang to grab the largest batch of oil fields then simply stopped and did nothing else ...

Do you think the USA & Brits would have done anything about it? We all know there is little the Dutch could do by themselves. Japan could have handed the Dutch a rather large cheque for damages done, and simply placed the entire blame for their actions against the big boys who were boycotting her into starvation, forcing her into a war she did not want.

[mogami]

Hi, Japan had been told straight out that any further adventures and they would be at war. Included in the "protected" status were the Dutch. Their response was Pearl Harbor.

[Mr.Frag]

I understand, the question is would they have actually done it or simple rattled around and accepted it had Japan presented it as "you left us no choice".

It is a lot tougher to convince the general public when the Allies are portrayed as the "bad guys" forcing the war. I am sure that a good 80+ percent of the people reading this think Japan started the war. They did not, they were forced into a desparate war that they could never win by grandstanding plays of the Allies, cutting off their country from the rest of the world.

Without PH as an opening act, it becomes a lot tougher to justify what happened. The Allies used this as an excuse to justify their actions when in reality they caused it themselves.

[mogami]

Hi, Japan was not forced into the war by the western powers. Japan was lead to war by her military. The Japanese Army started the war in 1931. There followed 10 years of the west trying to get Japan to halt aggression. Finally Japan lost it's collective mind and went to war because they would not mend their ways. Japan had bombed US ships without the US going to war but the US laid it on the line "Stop or else" Japan decided on "Or else" but they were not forced into it. There existed no Western threat to Japanese security.

[madflava13]

Mogami,
I concur in your analysis. I will say this though: Those in charge of Japan's military, and therefore in charge of her, most likely did perceive a threat from the West. I agree with you that there was no actual threat, but I bet you a case of Pilsner Urquell those in charge of the military felt differently...

And yes, I have been channeling Tojo all weekend. Just call me Eleanor Roosevelt!

[PzB74]

The most experienced player should play Japan if there's any interest in having a balanced game.
As I've stated before, it will be very difficult to motivate oneself to play a game for several real time years if there's no hope. (Posted something about drowning rats in jars with lids on earlier...)

Playing the Allied side you KNOW that you only have to survive the initial storm, then all kinds of goodies will flow into your armory and enable you to kick some serious a$$ - no matter how well your esteemed opponent has played. From the other side of the fence, the situation will be the exact opposite one. I bet a lot of usually very determined ppl will find it hard to get through the last few years of the game.

So choose your opponent with care...
I will only play WitP against persons I know from the forums and previous UV games.

Damien, I can't agree with you, the Axis powers could not have won the war. It would take a long and exhausting paragraph to explain that in detail, so I'll go for the short version.

After studying the war in Europe for many years, this is very much what I've concluded with;
The war would not have started unless Hitler 'happened', but Germany could in reality never hope to win a war started by Hitler and led by Hitler.

If you say that 'dumb mistakes from the top' prevented Germany from winning, you should also be aware exactly who made up 'the top'. I'm pretty sure most of you can guess just that; Adolf, Adolf, Hitler, Adolf Hitler, Hitler Adolf & Adolf.
Grøfaz (Grøsster Feltherre zu alle Zeiten) was the puppet master and controlled virtually everything of importance in Germany during the war.

No single person, no matter how skilled, could fill all the roles Hitler held. If you add that Hitler didn't have anywhere near the necessary skills required to be even CinC of the Whermacht, and was more or less psychotic at times, it would be possible to conclude that Germany could never have won the war as long as he held all the positions he did.

The war in the Pacific was a disaster for Japan, only the Army really wanted a war, the Emperor and the Navy opposed it as best they could. Officers that were not blinded by national feelings and divine meaning KNEW that Japan could not win a war against America - Yamamoto included. Here is a quote by Rear Admiral Ugaki Matome, CoS of the Combined Fleet on November 3rd 1941.

"Do they come to gaze up / At the fleet in full dress - / This shoal of horse mackerel?" "Am informed that the date for the signing of an agreement with the army has been fixed for somewhere between the eight and the tenth (here refering to the coming attack on Pearl). Everything is OK. Die, die all of you! I will die too, for my country!"

Joining ranks with Germany in reality sealed Japans faith. Only 13 months after the attack on Pear, the Allies drafted the 'unconditional surrender' term at Casablanca. Although not a very wise one, it meant that Japan could never hope to successfully negotiate a separate peace with its foes. I can hardly see how any other possible successes achieved by Japan in 1942 would have changed this. If Japan had fought a perfect war, it would still have been hammered into submission by no later than the end of 1946.

These are only my personal conclusions, but I can assure you that I've put a lot of thought and consideration into them.

Mike, can't you put a lid on those fanboy remarks of yours? They're in the process of being etched into your fingerprints, and soon you'll not be able to type anything without starting a sentence with them [;)] ....and yees, I'm tired of them. [>:]

[mogami]

Hi, The Navy did not oppose the war. They had opposed going into China and fighting the Soviets up north because the Navy had switched from Coal to oil. The drive South was mostly for and by the Navy. One of the popular post war myths is that the Japanese Army started the war with the Western powers. The IJA was against this because the Army had what it wanted (except for getting the Chinese to agree to peace) The IJN wanted a slice of the pie as well and they saw Britian at war, Holland and France occupied by Germany and thought "Now is a good time" Only the USA posed a problem and that was easy to fix (just bomb Pearl Harbor) The IJN has to assume a large portion of the blame for the war. Had they been opposed all they had to do was say "We better not, we'll get our butt kicked" The Army could not have complained (having just had it's butt kicked by Soviets)

[Mr.Frag]

Playing the Allied side you KNOW that you only have to survive the initial storm, then all kinds of goodies will flow into your armory and enable you to kick some serious a$$ - no matter how well your esteemed opponent has played.

That is completely false! The Allies do not get into that position until late in 1943. Should you choose to let Japan go unchecked until late 1943, you will loose the game.

All the material in the world makes no difference if you have not the skills to use it. Should you allow Japan to gain enough footholds to push you all the way back to PH (which can be done should you do something stupid like loose your early CV's), you will have a very difficult road ahead of you trying to counter them.

The Pacific is a vast place with little dots here and there to unload planes and troops on to. Because of the very nature of this, advances follow a very set pattern.

1) Take a base within range of air support. (whether support is Land based or Naval based does not matter)
2) Build the base up until it can support it's own air power and project control.
3) Stock and supply the base with air power.

Rinse and repeat steps 1 through 3 in your new area of air power.

Areas that do not allow air power to provide mutual support and protection act as stumbling blocks. You can take as many of these that you want, but the other guy can come right back and take them back. Should you get pushed far enough out that the only thing left are these isolated unprotectable islands, you will be forced into mounting multiple large scale operations all at the same time.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: PzB
Germany could in reality never hope to win a war started by Hitler and led by Hitler.

Agreed. It was his order to slow up the forcdes when they were forcing the British expeditionary force back to Dunkirk. If he hadn't slowed up the army the British would have been crushed right there. That would have made Sealion much easier. Switching the bombing from the airfields to London was his second big mistake. It allowed the air force of Britian to regroup at a time when they were on their last legs.
Germany couldn't take on the three biggest countries in the world all at once but if the above two things hadn't happened Britian would have been knocked out before the invasion of the USSR. Declaring war on America was another mistake. He should have waited until after the collapse of the Soviets first. Another thing is that he should have treated the people of the Ukrane better. At first they welcomed the Germans because they hated the communists. Instead of partisans he could have had allies.

The war in the Pacific was a disaster for Japan

Yeah, but the peace afterwards turned out pretty good.

Only 13 months after the attack on Pear, the Allies drafted the 'unconditional surrender' term at Casablanca. Although not a very wise one, it meant that Japan could never hope to successfully negotiate a separate peace with its foes.

In order to have any chance of a negotiated war Japan would have to either not attack without declaring war (which was their plan) or inflict even more casualties and losses on the US before they sign that deal 13 months after the start of hostilities. I notice that the US waited until they were on the offensive to sign the unconditional surrender agreement. Actually, I believe that was more to keep the soviets from negotiating a seperate peace with the Germans.

[Mike Scholl]

I was using the phrase "Japanese fan-boy" to describe a particular group/mind-set
of posters who keep insisting that it should be possible for Japan to "win" pro-actively
by doing something or another. Usually involving accomplishing this or that "feat" by
early 1943. The ones who've made it plain that they have no interest in playing the
portion of the war in which Japan "reaps the whirlwind" she has sown. But I can cer-
tainly find another term if that one causes you discomfort. It was simply a comment
on the tyope of thinking that could produce the title of this thread.

[emorbius44]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

When I used to play PacWar, my opponents all wanted to play Japanese. They would smack me around for 9 or 10 months of game time and when I started getting P-38 Lightnings and B-24 Liberators, they would quit.

I Never Liked That...

Michael Wood

I always played to the bitter end with the intent of making my opponent storm the imperial palace. There is a challenge to see how well you can do against hopeless odds and the "what if" of a land war on Japan proper. Problem is Pacwar, WIR, etc always had an automatic victory if it got too one sided and you were not given the opportunity for a "to the last man" defense.

Bob

[joliverlay]

--In reply to Mogomi who wrote (or copied) the text below--------------------------------------------------


They still remain the only non-white country every to rise to be a world power

Carthage, Egypt, Mongols, Parthians, Ottomans, Persians, Moors, just to name a few. (there is a lot of history in the east before Europe comes out of stone age.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Correctness Run Wild???? Non White? Euopean Stone Age? Anybody ever heard of the Hellenistic Culture? Are you asserting that these groups (except the Mongols and some from lower Egypt/Sudan) were not Caucasian? Polybious noted it was believed by the folks living at the time of the Punic Wars that Carhage was founded as a Greek Colony (Semites/ea Peoples) and Persia and Germany were settled by related tribes. Modern geopolitical thinking aside North Africans are mostly Caucasian, and many of the rulers of Egypt and the Eastern Med (after Alexander) were Greek! Indeed by the time the Romans moved east the Syrians and Egyptians were Hellanistic in nature. Finally, much of the greatness of the Turks was from the assimilation of the Greeks (later Byzantines) who settled from the Crimea to Egypt and as far West as Italy many 1000s of years before. I belive I read some where that the Thracians were smelting bronze by about 6000 years ago (4,000 BC). Finally I think most of the peoples in the Eastern Med and North Africa were from the same groups as the Jews, all from the so called sea-peoples. European Stone Age....what about the Greeks and Greek settlements all over the area?

[mogami]

Hi, Sorry to burst your bubble but Hannibal was not caucasian

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Sorry to burst your bubble but Hannibal was not caucasian

And he won't be playing WitP after 1943, either, along with the other groups mentioned.

But I will.