Can an Allied Player Win the Game?

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Sure is alot of whining going on.[:-]

Empty your PM box Tankerace. Somebody might try and PM you.

Why? Because I spoke what I felt? Or because there were 75 saved PMs in there, because I never delete anything LOL.

I reiterate what I said. I don't think WitP is a bad game. I just feel that pulling support from it this early would be a mistake.

[2ndACR]

Face it, we are not going to get the changes we want to see. There is too much resistance to it. Both from the Devs and from "certain" others who matter.

I have resigned myself to this fact. 2-3 patches is all any game company or dev company make anymore. I hate it, but nothing I say or do will change that fact. I have a list of changes that need to be made, that they might as well start re-coding from scratch, but they are not going to do it, so it is a moot point.

All I can hope for is that GG and company will do the same with WITP as they did with BTR and give access to the source code to someone they trust to make improvements.
Some of the problems in WITP are so damning to a game, that I have resorted to playing Fallout 2 to relieve my frustrations. I have not even attempted a WITP game or turn in over a week.

Notice how Joel has not responded, yet he has been here the last few days.

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Sure is alot of whining going on.[:-]

Empty your PM box Tankerace. Somebody might try and PM you.

Why? Because I spoke what I felt? Or because there were 75 saved PMs in there, because I never delete anything LOL.

I reiterate what I said. I don't think WitP is a bad game. I just feel that pulling support from it this early would be a mistake.

I was being a smart ass. Yep, I just tryed to Pm you with a question.

[Tankerace]

LOL. I cleared it out, so try again.

[Tankerace]

I know what you mean. I was just getting back in to WitP when the leader bug hit. So in what little freetime I have left, I have been playing COD, IL2 FB, and CFS 2.

On the CFS 2 note, has anybody that downloaded the Langley and O2U pack for it every been able to land on the damned thing? The one time I actually caught the arrestor wire my plane nosed over and exploded. I can land it well enough on the Enterprise, but I die if I try from the Langley.

[2ndACR]

Never got into flight sims.

If I could ever get Battles of Napoleon to work on WinME, I would be playing that.

I even thought about loading up Steel Panthers 3 Brigade Command to play, but that would mean finding the box it is packed in.

[Tankerace]

I haven't played my copy of SP3 in a long time. A good game, but (aside from the modern aspects) I find myself going to TOAWCW or the Campaign Series.

[2ndACR]

I love decimating the Russians in the modern era in SP3.

3 companies of M1A1 and a mech infantry BN is a killer on the defensive backed up by 3 MLRS batteries.

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: worr

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

Of course without Midway Guadalcanal would probably not have been attempted. But at no time did the allies order their CVs to abandon the Pacific in the way some people seem to advocate.

At best you are putting words in the mouths of others. I've never heard any advsie moving your CVs out of the Pacific entirely.

I don't mean to do this. But IMHO one is either prepared to fight KB or you stay out of the Pacific. KB can move quickly and you do not know where it is at all times. So if you use your CVs to prevent invasions you risk a CV to CV battle. If you don't do this you are not really fighting in the Pacific. Hence my charicature that the allied player is being advised to hide in San Fransisco. You either risk your CVs or don't use them. There is no 'use them defensively' without a grave risk of fighting KB. Which I maintain is just too good and easy to use compared to it's historic performance.

ORIGINAL: worr
Coral Sea was a defensive battle. The IJN was on the attack. So too much of the Guadalcanal campaign was defensive in nature after the intial invasion. Even with Midway, we bearly hung onto Guadalcannal in the war. And this was late 1942.

In real life the allies felt able to commit their CVs in mid '42. They were actually looking for fights with the IJN and actively interfering with their expansion plans. In WitP this appears to be a very foolish strategy. Hence the exciting battles and campaigns of '42 are unlikely to occur. They are what most of us bought the game for.

ORIGINAL: worr
As the US player my CVs are always in play. But not against other Jap CV units in strength. I'll fight the battle of Coral Sea in early 1942. But not Midway.

Worr, out

Worr, out

Like I said above to my mind you either use them and risk them or don't. I don't see how this cannot be the case.

As an example if your Japanese opponent sends surface and invasion transports to Noumea or Fiji or New Zealand do you send your CVs to interfere? Even if you spot KB off Midway a day or two before unless your CVs are already in position you just don't know that KB will not be there by the time yours arrive. Hence interference means risking a CV /CV clash. None interference means you are not really defending anything in the Pacific (bar Pearl).

I would be very interested to hear how you can use your CVs yet avoid KB or interfere with any major IJN operations. Historically the USN did interfere in IJN operations. It looks like suicide in WitP and thats my problem. If you have found a way of doing this please let me know.

[Ron Saueracker]

One USN CV per TF. Splits KB strikes, many become uncoordinated and CAP gets a crack at each wave. If USN lucky, the Zero escort will not be escorting the first wave. Works most of the time but is very costly in terms of escort requirements.

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

LOL. You really can't be serious here [:D] Those lame brained Japs [;)] Thank god they didn't have a few WitP players on hand to advise them or it would have all worked out differently [8|] Is this really your argument [X(]

Maybe the Japanese land, sea and air units were not quite so deadly compared to their allied opponents as WitP suggests. Nor perhaps did they have quite enough supply, men and materials to pull off all that they can in WitP (easily if any allied player keeps his head down till mid '43).

I'm not sure where the joke is. The Japanese could have done a lot more; the only reason they didn't was for political reasons. Just because the Japanese did moves X, Y, and Z doesn't mean they were the best things they could have done. With the hindsight of history the WiTP Japanese player can vastly improve upon the historical performance achieved.

[guke]

I agree with WiTP_Dude.

I think it is somewhat pointless to discuss if WitP is historically accurate or not.
Too many things influenced the outcome of that war that cannot be modeled correctly
in a game. Among these are:

1. Wrong assumptions on the japanese side how the war would be decided. They were 100% certain that
a "grand decisive battle" a la Jutland as a result of a warplan orange style US attack would decide the
war within months. This conviction lead to the PH attack as well as to the crazy Midway campaign which
was another attempt to force the decisive battle.
2. Japanese failure to realize that the US would keep fighting despite horrible losses at the start of the war.
3. The Japanese never really wanted to conquer China. Most Japanese politicians and even some military
men were most unhappy about the whole "incident" and were looking for an honorable way out of the
war in China.
4. All Japan really wanted to achieve is access to the ressources in the south and a lift of the US embargo.
5. An idiotic conviction by the Japanese that "divine intervention" and the "superior quality" of the Japanese
soldier would lead them to victory eventually even in places like Guadalcanal were the numerically infe-
rior japanese troops had been eating grassroots and insects for weeks and months. What WitP player
would keep wasting assets in a campaign that obviously has no chance of success?
6. The japanese were so afraid of the USSR that they never would have attacked the USSR even when it
looked like the USSR would succumb to the Germans.

These assumption and goals lead to strategic and tactical mistakes on part of the Japanese (most notably Midway
and the attack on PH) and halfassed warfare in China that only tied up japanese troops.
A WitP player would never make these mistakes. He will, for example, either try to conquer China at all cost
or withdraw to defensive positions and thus free troops for other theaters.

Another factor that can not easily be represented in the game is the unwillingness to risk large numbers
of troops by the allies. Where, for example, Wainwright surrendered all troops in the Phillipines after the
fall of Corregidor (even though McArthur was most unhappy about it) a WitP player would never do this even
if he had the option.

Last but not least, the Japanese IMO had really bad luck at Midway. It is very unlikely that a WitP player
will loose KB almost completely in such a battle early in the war.

Setting aside Midway, Combined Fleet was mostly intact until the battle of Leyte except for the lack of fuel,
which would not have been so bad if the japanese had bothered to set up a convoy system between the
SRA and the home islands (it appears the General staffs simply did not realize there was a problem until
it was too late).
More fuel would also have allowed the japanese to train more pilots.

Overall I think that the Japanese could have done a lot better early in the war if they had set their objectives
differently. Maybe the Automatic Victory levels should be adjusted.

[moses]

I think its wrong to assume that Japan could have done so much more just because it sems so in the game. IRL things take way longer. Good lord we've been in Faluga for 3 weeks now?? This against a thousand or so insurgents with 10000 very modern well-trained troops? Things just take way longer to accomplish.

[Hoplosternum]

Guke and WitP_Dude

I don't doubt that the Japanese could have played things differently and perhaps done better. But the allies could have done so too. The initial defence of the Philippines was very poor although they then held out well later on. Malaya should not have been lost at all. At least until the Japanese brought in more land units and ringed Singapore with air bases to cut it off. Yet in WitP these two bastions fall and fall fast. They are not much of an obstacle.

As for China I suspect the IJA could have taken more territory. But they would have had to commit a lot more troops and air units costing them in other areas. Not in WitP where they appear to be able to have the numbers on hand already.

Likewise in the Pacific. With KB and some extra LCUs and air groups they probably could have gone for Noumea and Fiji. But only at the cost of slowing their advance some where else. Either Burma would have to be delayed or put off. Or the mopping up in the DEI being delayed. Not in WitP though.

The problem with this is two fold. One is historic. The other is from a game point of view.

The historic one is that the Japanese - even with moderate play - can far exceed their historic advances without really trying. The historic counter moves by the US are simply foolish in this game. This means the Pacific Campaign is likely to be conceded totally by one side until with the new Essex's and Hellcats allow him to reverse this.

The game one revolves around game choices. Apart from extreme strategies like taking Russia (although it's apparently one sided and easy) the choices are all idiot ones.

Do you take China or not? If it costs practically nothing and your going to kill vastly more than you lose it's a no brainer. There is little or no division of men and material from other theatres. Who wouldn't?

Taking Singapore easily and early? Who wouldn't. You don't even need to use your valuable Betties and Nells to cut it off. Sallys and Lillys routinely hit transports and destroyers. They largely ignore the pitiful Buffalo CAP (should any remain after a few Zero and Oscar fighter sweeps and bombing raids on the airfields). Then of course you are ahead in the game and able to go for Java/Palembang or Burma even sooner than in history.

Take Noumea and/or Fiji practically unopposed? Who wouldn't? You disrupt the supply lines to Australia and the allies cannot interfere or they risk losing their CVs to KB. They cannot be made secure. There are just not enough allied planes (nor any Betty type LR anti shipping planes) nor are the few available skilled enough to be worth risking. Again it's just a win - win strategy for the Japanese. Fairly easy to do and gains a lot. With a potential even bigger plus of attracting out the allied naval forces to their doom. If you think this long term over extends the Japanese you can always abandon them in early '43 before the Hellcats arrive.

These are not hard strategic choices with trade offs. Nor really do they require great skill. Most WitP players advocate not even trying to stop the Japanese getting them [X(] So Japan can do them all and more. If you have counters to these please let me know. Or areas that the allies can hold out for longer than they did historically.

Fortunately the editor can be used to address many of these things.

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

I don't mean to do this. But IMHO one is either prepared to fight KB or you stay out of the Pacific.

The Pacific is a huge ocean.

If you are not prepared to fight KB, and the US wasn't in 1941-42, then you fight where it isn't. Look at all the major CV actions before Midway. They all were counter offensives taken because KB was either split or missing. Iwould do the same.

The best advice is to wait for KB to commit and then attack. If he refuses to commit for fear of opening up your counter offensive, then your CVs have served their task in neutralizing his force.

The real KB when direct from Pearl Harbor to the India Ocean....thus opening up our CV skirmishes in the Marshal Island.

Worr, out

[guke]

Dealing with insurgents is an entirely different matter IMO. In Falluja the main problem
(at least it looks that way to me) seems to be that the insurgents are supported by
large parts of the population and play a hide and seek game with US forces. I don't
think it is possible to "win" such a battle (except if you were willing to annihilate the
whole population of the town).
The actual war against Iraq was won pretty quickly.

In the pacific war in most countries the population was not willing to rise against
the japanese occupators with the exception of the Phillipines. In China, people had been
used to have some kind of war going on in their neighbourhood for centuries and had learnt
the lesson that it was usually best to keep a low profile. The Nationalists and and Communists
were more occupied with planning to attack each other after the war than fighting the Japanese
and were afraid to risk heavy losses lest the real enemy gain superiority over them. Basically,
Chiang Kai Chek and Mao tried to just wait until the American took care of the japanese problem.
At times, Washington threatened to cut support for Chiang Kai Chek because he obviously was
not willing to fight against the japanese with more than token actions.
And the Chinese forces were no match for the Japanese due to insufficient training and inferior equipment.
As late as '44 a Japanese offensive threatened to overrun the Chinese forces in spite of american support
for the chinese.

It appears that in some places (Burma and parts of DEI) people even believed in the pan-asiatic
propaganda of the japanese and actually preferred japanese occupation to occupation by western
colonialists, since the japanese promised them independence after the war. Sukarno, who later lead
Indonesia to independence, initially supported the Japanese. The offensive against Imphal and
Kohima was a joint operation by japanese and renegade Indian troops trying to "liberate India" from the
British.

Large scale partisan warfware like the Germans faced in Eastern Europe was rather the exception in the
pacific war, from what I've read.

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

I don't doubt that the Japanese could have played things differently and perhaps done better. But the allies could have done so too. The initial defense of the Philippines was very poor although they then held out well later on. Malaya should not have been lost at all. At least until the Japanese brought in more land units and ringed Singapore with air bases to cut it off. Yet in WitP these two bastions fall and fall fast. They are not much of an obstacle.

I wouldn't try bypassing them. They are a serious obstacle. And you have to commit everything to these two obstacles. Some have tried going into Burma at the same time, or into Palembang, and without the reserves you wont take either bastion ahead of schedule....barring some foolish mistake on the part of a human player.

Historically both the PIs and Singapore did "fall and fall fast." The allied world was stunned at the speed of the IJA victories. The greatest surprise was the ability of the IJN to gain air superiority in just a few days. The historical time line for these two bastions is hard to beat without changing the historical battle plan.

I must say that knowing the historical time line and the exact forces used on that day, I've been able to advance the time line easily by changing the historical make up of the forces and the invasion points. This is the advantage of hind sight. That same advantage doesn't lend itself to the allies in quite the same way. That is because you have few resources to tinker with the historical time line. At best you can do two things: 1) scramble supplies out of the SRA with the foreknowledge that all is lost there. (Try putting that into your house rules!) 2) Get the British BBs out of Singapore to avoid their known fate. Otherwise, the foreknowledge of landing points and size of force do very little to aid your defense. The game on December 7th 1941 presents you with the clearest historical snap shot in time, and that means the allies are presented only with an inevitable defensive posture in 1941-42.

As for your portral of the USN in 1942 and its "eagerness" to commit their CV forces. I think you should read up on the individual CV commanders on that score. While aggressive strategically they were very cautious tactically....with the obvious exception of Midway. They most often hid themselves in storms, and did feints instead of hard charges into battle.

I think many of us were raised on WWII films that made the English speaking world the winners. And they were...eventually. But when you boot up the game as the allies and play your first year you get a hard dose of reality staring you in the monitor. The allies were in a tight spot in 1942.

I recommend John Costello's "The Pacific War"? I read it again after purchasing this game and was fascinated by the parallels. If you want to talk about historical double takes in the game, I wouldn't look to Singapore, nor the PIs. I'd rather look to China. There is the biggest surprise I found and there is where the land combat limitations ain the game re more easily exposed. I understand the political realities that were present in WWII, and the division of resources, but I am still curious if the goal of China was that obtainable in the real war.

I haven't played as much as others. And I do hope those commenting on one side or the other have actually played the game through to 1943. Have you played the IJN through to 43, Hoplosternum? I'm guessing your point of view is more toward the allied side of the experience. I found China doable in one of my games, though I must say my opponent has made some errors that put me in a good supply situation. The other game I'm playing I'm getting a stout defense in depth of China from a good player. It is April 42. And supplies are slipping.

Overall, I find this game very gratifying, especially as someone who reads a great deal about WWII history. I find the parallels fascinating, as well as the departures once you decided to take a different course. If support is being pulled from WitP then that would be bad. But I haven't had that confirmed to me, other than some silence from the moderators of late. It is a holiday weekend here in the states.

Oh, I might add that the one thing that makes a true war game very historical in flavor, and makes you feel like you were really there, is the human interaction with PBEM and these boards on the internet. That way you get the real feel for all the grumbling and moaning that went on among the grunts and generals in the real war.

Worr, out

[guke]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

I don't doubt that the Japanese could have played things differently and perhaps done better. But the allies could have done so too. The initial defence of the Philippines was very poor although they then held out well later on. Malaya should not have been lost at all. At least until the Japanese brought in more land units and ringed Singapore with air bases to cut it off. Yet in WitP these two bastions fall and fall fast. They are not much of an obstacle.

The inital defense of the Phillipines was very poor because of MacArthur's faulty planning before the war. If I recall
correctly his predecessor had planned for a fighting retreat to Bataan which would have been fortified and well stocked
with supplies. MacArthur believed he would be able to stop the japanese invasion at the beaches, which didn't work so
well mostly because the japanese failed to show up on the particular beaches where they were supposed to land.

As to Malaya I also think the main errors had been done before the war (like not sufficiently fortifying Singapore even
though it was supposed to be the cornerstone of the Anglo-American defense of SE-Asia and also not stationing enough
troops and planes in Malaya). I don't think that given the circumstances (japanese control over the sea and air) Malaya
and S'pore could have been defended for much longer than historically happened.
If I remember Toland correctly the British had even pleaded for American forces to be stationed in Singapore in the thirties
which Washington denied (Apparently neither the British nor the American were certain that Malaya could be held even
though they claimed publicly that Singapore could never be conquered)

The most important reasons for these japanese successes were there before the time covered by the game.

As for China I suspect the IJA could have taken more territory. But they would have had to commit a lot more troops and air units costing them in other areas. Not in WitP where they appear to be able to have the numbers on hand already.

As has been said before the japanese did not really try to win in China. It had no strategic perspective for them because
they never could have held control over the country after the war and they did not want to either. The whole war in
China had been a no-win situation from the start and most japanese realized that. If there had been a face-saving
way to get out of the war all but the most idiotic japanese Army General Staff officers would have been glad to leave
China to the Chinese even before the start of the pacific war.

If the Japanese could have succeeded in taking China if they had been willing to pay the price in casualties, who can
tell?

Likewise in the Pacific. With KB and some extra LCUs and air groups they probably could have gone for Noumea and Fiji. But only at the cost of slowing their advance some where else. Either Burma would have to be delayed or put off. Or the mopping up in the DEI being delayed. Not in WitP though.

The problem with this is two fold. One is historic. The other is from a game point of view.

The historic one is that the Japanese - even with moderate play - can far exceed their historic advances without really trying. The historic counter moves by the US are simply foolish in this game. This means the Pacific Campaign is likely to be conceded totally by one side until with the new Essex's and Hellcats allow him to reverse this.

The game one revolves around game choices. Apart from extreme strategies like taking Russia (although it's apparently one sided and easy) the choices are all idiot ones.

Do you take China or not? If it costs practically nothing and your going to kill vastly more than you lose it's a no brainer. There is little or no division of men and material from other theatres. Who wouldn't?

Taking Singapore easily and early? Who wouldn't. You don't even need to use your valuable Betties and Nells to cut it off. Sallys and Lillys routinely hit transports and destroyers. They largely ignore the pitiful Buffalo CAP (should any remain after a few Zero and Oscar fighter sweeps and bombing raids on the airfields). Then of course you are ahead in the game and able to go for Java/Palembang or Burma even sooner than in history.

Take Noumea and/or Fiji practically unopposed? Who wouldn't? You disrupt the supply lines to Australia and the allies cannot interfere or they risk losing their CVs to KB. They cannot be made secure. There are just not enough allied planes (nor any Betty type LR anti shipping planes) nor are the few available skilled enough to be worth risking. Again it's just a win - win strategy for the Japanese. Fairly easy to do and gains a lot. With a potential even bigger plus of attracting out the allied naval forces to their doom. If you think this long term over extends the Japanese you can always abandon them in early '43 before the Hellcats arrive.

These are not hard strategic choices with trade offs. Nor really do they require great skill. Most WitP players advocate not even trying to stop the Japanese getting them [X(] So Japan can do them all and more. If you have counters to these please let me know. Or areas that the allies can hold out for longer than they did historically.

Fortunately the editor can be used to address many of these things.

Again I think if Midway hadn't happened the Japanese could have gone much further if they had wanted (which they didn't
because they had overextended themselves already and many Japanese Admirals knew it)
With the full KB around the Solomons Campaign would have looked much different and I doubt if the US Navy would have
forced the issue at that point in time. Instead, the Navy would have avoided offensive operations apart from quick raids
and waited for their shipbuild programs to bear fruit (which appears to be the prudent strategy in WitP).

[Feinder]

I think many of you greatly over-estimate the Japanese goals, and even their potentional in WW2. You also greatly under-value the ability and the committment of the Allied sailors, soldiers, and airmen that were fighting in the Pacific. Have much to say, but need coffee.

Two words.

"Europe First".

Then ask yourself why.
-F-

[worr]

"Europe First" were words on a piece of paper.

Right next to it you can write in "Guadalcannal."

Worr, out