Can an Allied Player Win the Game?

[BlackVoid]

Just to clarify:
Preparation points:
I dont like this feature at all in WITP. It is just too much micromanagement and does not make the game more realistic. For your average grunt it does not matter which island he lands on, or for which city does he fight.

Political points:
It is too restictive already. What if Japan wins in China? Given the very high PP costs Japan would be able to move out only a few divisions because of the restriction.

I think both these things should be optional by a switch.
If I want to abandon China and conquer Australia instead or the US, I should be able to. Allies would also benefit by free movement of units.

Of course in the current system, without political points Japan could overrun anything just by abandoning China.

[rtrapasso]

China was the reason Japan attacked the US. If FDR hadn't retaliated with economic sanctions against them they more than likely wouldn't have attacked the US. We backed them into a corner, and they came out swinging!

Maybe they wouldn't have attacked us - or maybe not. From what I read about Japan, war was pretty much inevitable. They agreed they wanted peace, but their definition of peace and ours were entirely different. Their definition of peace at the time (and I am NOT making this up) was Japan ruling Asia. Everything would then be peaceful (again, by their definition). Hey, after all, they were the chosen people, ruled by a living god!

Everything would be peaceful until, I guess they decided maybe Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand needed to be annexed to the Greater Eastern Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Our backing them into a corner (after they attacked China) is saying like we backed Iraq into a corner after they attacked Kuwait. There was a way to get out of the corner (stop the war with China/Kuwait) - they just deemed it cost them too much face to do so, so they elected to fight a war that anyone who studied the problem knew they couldn't win. Hell of a face saving maneuver! Interestingly, Hussein decided on a similar strategy. Maybe it shows us something of the underlying mentality of the Japanese regime of 1937+.

[Dereck]

I don't mind having to pay political points to transfer units from a restricted command or from the originally assigned command to another but after that you should not have to pay political points to do anything else with the units.

IF Japan did conquer China she would still have to maintain a substantial garrison to keep the Chinese from revolting so that part is realistic in my opinion.

As far as preparation points I say leave it to the individual player to decide whether they want to have units who have been briefed on their mission or not. I personally have my South Pacific campaign planned 4 invasions ahead and have units prepping for them since it will take me a while to build up the supplies and transport shipping as well as the previously invaded base before I start my next one. While my troops are sitting around I don't mind keeping them busy.

But I DO have a large quantity of reserve troops I'm not prepping and are using as a reserve I can send anywhere I need to in case of either an emergency or any target of opportunity that should arise. If I commit them, so what if they haven't spent time being briefed on their objective? If I'm not worried about the added benefits being prepped would bring then I shouldn't have to be forced to be.

[BlackVoid]

If someone does not like to manage prep points and his opponent does, then he is at a disadvantage....

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

China was the reason Japan attacked the US. If FDR hadn't retaliated with economic sanctions against them they more than likely wouldn't have attacked the US. We backed them into a corner, and they came out swinging!

Maybe they wouldn't have attacked us - or maybe not. From what I read about Japan, war was pretty much inevitable. They agreed they wanted peace, but their definition of peace and ours were entirely different. Their definition of peace at the time (and I am NOT making this up) was Japan ruling Asia. Everything would then be peaceful (again, by their definition). Hey, after all, they were the chosen people, ruled by a living god!

Everything would be peaceful until, I guess they decided maybe Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand needed to be annexed to the Greater Eastern Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Our backing them into a corner (after they attacked China) is saying like we backed Iraq into a corner after they attacked Kuwait. There was a way to get out of the corner (stop the war with China/Kuwait) - they just deemed it cost them too much face to do so, so they elected to fight a war that anyone who studied the problem knew they couldn't win. Hell of a face saving maneuver! Interestingly, Hussein decided on a similar strategy. Maybe it shows us something of the underlying mentality of the Japanese regime of 1937+.

Both sides during the pre-war negotiations were basically bigotted against the other. Neither was willing to take what the other said in either a good light or face value. If the US had specifically made a distinction between China and Manchuria a basis for further talks would have existed. This is not to mean that war still would not have happened but it may have been averted or postponed.

Also, Rtrapasso does bring up a good point. To the U.S., diplomacy was diplomacy. You made a proposal and then received a counterpropsal and reached a compromise. With Japan at the time it wasn't that simple. If they made a proposal and it wasn't accepted 100% they would lose face and be insulted.

Also in the US you had a definite distinction between civilian diplomats and military. In fact the heads of the two services (Marshall and Stark) were pleading with the diplomats to make peace so they would have time to build up forces. However in Japan by law (or tradition?) the political leaders were ACTIVE duty military. With the diplomatic pressure the US was putting on Japan it was really only a matter of time before the Japanese leadership would have stopped acting like politicians and start acting like the Generals and Admirals they really were.

Also something which I don't know if people here really realize is that Yamamoto KNEW that he could not militarily defeat the U.S. and never intended to. He intended to 1) cripple the US fleet and 2) conquere territory and then dig in making it too costly for the U.S. militarily and force America to negotiate on terms favorable to Japan. As it turned out the attack on Pearl Harbor though tactically a 1000% success was strategically a 1000% failure since it happened BEFORE the Japanese diplomatcs in Washington delivered the ultimatum/declaration of war and the U.S. used that fact to create a hatred of the Japanese which made peace negotiations with Japan all but out of the question.

The question remains -- and which can be tested out with this game -- is had the Japanese never ventured outside of their initially planned defensive perimeter and met with what amounted to catastrophic losses (Coral Sea and Midway) and just dug in how hard they could have made it for the Americans to recapture territory. The Japanese may have been their own worst enemy in venturing beyong their original plans and also fighting so tenaciously that the Americans eventually just started to go around heavily held Japanese locations and isolating troops that way instead of fighting for every island/base the Japanese had.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

If someone does not like to manage prep points and his opponent does, then he is at a disadvantage....

Yes. Also, if I find out through recon that some Jap base has no troops there and I have available troops I'd sure think hard about jumping at taking it - prep points or no.

[rtrapasso]

IF Japan did conquer China she would still have to maintain a substantial garrison to keep the Chinese from revolting so that part is realistic in my opinion.

Couldn't we slow this whole thing down in China by increasing the garrison requirements for the Chinese cities, as well as adding garrison requirements for ANY enemy city taken? After all, it is unlikely that the Soviets would have just sat around and stayed meek after the Japanese took over - they didn't with the Germans. Certainly there was an active Philippine guerilla movement. I suspect there might have been one in India had the Japanese made substantial gains there. This (having to drop off a division or so each time a city falls) would slow up the onslaught, and not allow the juggernaut to move onto the next obstacle ignoring the hinterlands. This probably could be implemented into the game engine, since garrison requirements are already in place. Garrison requirements could be based on population, victory points of the city, distance from Japanese homeland or specific HQs, etc. Damage to a base/city due to not meeting garrison requirements could result in decrease in VPs or maybe spontaneous reversion to enemy control. Hey, the last is a reported bug that maybe we could use to our advantage!![:D]

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

IF Japan did conquer China she would still have to maintain a substantial garrison to keep the Chinese from revolting so that part is realistic in my opinion.

Couldn't we slow this whole thing down in China by increasing the garrison requirements for the Chinese cities, as well as adding garrison requirements for ANY enemy city taken? After all, it is unlikely that the Soviets would have just sat around and stayed meek after the Japanese took over - they didn't with the Germans. Certainly there was an active Philippine guerilla movement. I suspect there might have been one in India had the Japanese made substantial gains there. This (having to drop off a division or so each time a city falls) would slow up the onslaught, and not allow the juggernaut to move onto the next obstacle ignoring the hinterlands. This probably could be implemented into the game engine, since garrison requirements are already in place. Garrison requirements could be based on population, victory points of the city, distance from Japanese homeland or specific HQs, etc. Damage to a base/city due to not meeting garrison requirements could result in decrease in VPs or maybe spontaneous reversion to enemy control. Hey, the last is a reported bug that maybe we could use to our advantage!![:D]

The problem I see here is trying to have a game reflect history accurately and, since this is a game of what-if or what-could be, it's going to be hard if not impossible.

Historically, for about 2 years there really was no fighting in China between Japanese and Chinese forces. There was a defacto truce because it suited both sides. The Chinese forces were willing to not fire on Japanese and face having the Japanese do a reprisal attack and the Japanese were using garrison troops in China as replacements for units lost or cut off in the Pacific area. The truth is, however, that whenever the Japanese did launch an offensive in China the end result was more often than not a Japanese victory. The Japanese goals for their 1944 China offensive was NOT to conquer all of China but simply to capture the airbases from which the B-29's had been used to bomb the Japanese homeland.

SHOULD a Japanese player be able to launch an offensive to capture all of China if he/she wishes? Since this is a game and strategy decided by the player themselves then the answer has to be YES. SHOULD the China theatre be set up so that the Japanese can easily conquer it? NO. The same can also be said about the Soviet Union. Some people want to have things both ways: historical AND a game and that just isn't possible. The game designers have done a remarkable job in turning the Pacific War into a game we can play and in our GAMES change history. In doing so they may have sacrificed "historical accuracy" for playability but that is what you need to do. Otherwise you have an exact copy of World War II and it would be simpler (and quicker) to just go buy a book on the Pacific War and spend your time reading that than playing this game. Players need to have the freedom of chosing their own strategies but the game cannot allow a player to chose to attack the Soviet Union and/or China simply because the current game mechanics make it so easy. Just because it wasn't done historically doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option available to a Japanese player who wants to try something atypical (sort of like forcing the American player to invade the Philippines instead of maybe ignoring the PI for Formosa or Borneo). It just shouldn't be a near automatic victory because something like this wasn't factored into the game when it was designed.

The game designers have, in my opinion, done pretty damn good in walking the thin line representing the Pacific War while making it possible for players to design their own strategies however conservative or not as they can think up (Hirohito is a good example of one player who has come up with a number of unorthodox strategies). But just remember this is NOT World War II in the Pacific. THAT ended in September 1945 and how it ended and what led up to it will never change. Only with this GAME can we alter the ending of the Pacific War and we should have the freedom to choose our own strategies. The fine line the developers have to walk (and have been doing pretty well at so far) has been to allow that while keeping within the basic framework of the Pacific Theatre of Operations.

[timtom]

With the passing of the Two-Ocean Navy Act in 1940, the Japanese faced the prospect of an USN expanded by 1,5 million tons of newbuilds before the middle of the decade, totally upsetting the balance of power between the US and Japan. If Japan had to fight a war, it had to do it sooner than later, and with the European and eventually also the USSR effectively out of the equation, an unprecedented window of opportunity presented itself. Not fighting, from a Japanese view-point, would lead to certain defeat, that is to say accepting Japan sliding into the status of second- or third rate power, which is were the Americans wanted the Japanese, or so it must have seemed to them in view of the embargoes. Fighting at least offered the possibility of "not defeat".

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: timtom

With the passing of the Two-Ocean Navy Act in 1940, the Japanese faced the prospect of an USN expanded by 1,5 million tons of newbuilds before the middle of the decade, totally upsetting the balance of power between the US and Japan. If Japan had to fight a war, it had to do it sooner than later, and with the European and eventually also the USSR effectively out of the equation, an unprecedented window of opportunity presented itself. Not fighting, from a Japanese view-point, would lead to certain defeat, that is to say accepting Japan sliding into the status of second- or third rate power, which is were the Americans wanted the Japanese, or so it must have seemed to them in view of the embargoes. Fighting at least offered the possibility of "not defeat".

But wasn't this only the view of the Japanese army? Their attitude (from what I have read) is that Asia belonged to them. Japanese attitudes from at least medieval times have reflected this opinion. Anything else was not "peace" - and thus defeat.

If Japan had to fight a war, it had to do it sooner than later, ...

Your statement reveals the underlying notion that Japan had already decided she needed to fight.

From my readings, the Navy realized they would have no chance to win. Anyone opposing the Army's wishes was liable to be killed by them. Yamamoto had to go on board his flagship to avoid this fate when he was promoted and opposed Army policies.

As it was, the Japanese were fighting just for the right to maintain the conquered cities mainly on the coast (in the short term). They had already conquered Machuria and had Korea as a possesion without much reaction from the US (or anyone else). I don't quite understand how this would make them a 2nd or 3rd rate power. Maybe they resented the industrial power of the USA. But one nation's resenting or being jealous of another nation's good fortune does not give them the right to attack - unless you believe might makes right. I think the firebrands in the Japanese Army did believe this, as well as believing they are chosen by Heaven with their Divine ruler.

I think more than anything, the Japanese resented the treatment of immigrants to the US. This, of course, ignores Japanese treatment of foreigners living in Japan which was by most accounts, far worse for most of them than it was for the Japanese in the USA (i.e. -treatment of Chinese, Koreans.) Racism is endemic - humans just don't like it much when it happens to them. Too often they ignore what they do to others. Present parallels are only too obvious.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

IF Japan did conquer China she would still have to maintain a substantial garrison to keep the Chinese from revolting so that part is realistic in my opinion.

Couldn't we slow this whole thing down in China by increasing the garrison requirements for the Chinese cities, as well as adding garrison requirements for ANY enemy city taken? After all, it is unlikely that the Soviets would have just sat around and stayed meek after the Japanese took over - they didn't with the Germans. Certainly there was an active Philippine guerilla movement. I suspect there might have been one in India had the Japanese made substantial gains there. This (having to drop off a division or so each time a city falls) would slow up the onslaught, and not allow the juggernaut to move onto the next obstacle ignoring the hinterlands. This probably could be implemented into the game engine, since garrison requirements are already in place. Garrison requirements could be based on population, victory points of the city, distance from Japanese homeland or specific HQs, etc. Damage to a base/city due to not meeting garrison requirements could result in decrease in VPs or maybe spontaneous reversion to enemy control. Hey, the last is a reported bug that maybe we could use to our advantage!![:D]

The problem I see here is trying to have a game reflect history accurately and, since this is a game of what-if or what-could be, it's going to be hard if not impossible.

Historically, for about 2 years there really was no fighting in China between Japanese and Chinese forces. There was a defacto truce because it suited both sides. The Chinese forces were willing to not fire on Japanese and face having the Japanese do a reprisal attack and the Japanese were using garrison troops in China as replacements for units lost or cut off in the Pacific area. The truth is, however, that whenever the Japanese did launch an offensive in China the end result was more often than not a Japanese victory. The Japanese goals for their 1944 China offensive was NOT to conquer all of China but simply to capture the airbases from which the B-29's had been used to bomb the Japanese homeland.

SHOULD a Japanese player be able to launch an offensive to capture all of China if he/she wishes? Since this is a game and strategy decided by the player themselves then the answer has to be YES. SHOULD the China theatre be set up so that the Japanese can easily conquer it? NO. The same can also be said about the Soviet Union. Some people want to have things both ways: historical AND a game and that just isn't possible. The game designers have done a remarkable job in turning the Pacific War into a game we can play and in our GAMES change history. In doing so they may have sacrificed "historical accuracy" for playability but that is what you need to do. Otherwise you have an exact copy of World War II and it would be simpler (and quicker) to just go buy a book on the Pacific War and spend your time reading that than playing this game. Players need to have the freedom of chosing their own strategies but the game cannot allow a player to chose to attack the Soviet Union and/or China simply because the current game mechanics make it so easy. Just because it wasn't done historically doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option available to a Japanese player who wants to try something atypical (sort of like forcing the American player to invade the Philippines instead of maybe ignoring the PI for Formosa or Borneo). It just shouldn't be a near automatic victory because something like this wasn't factored into the game when it was designed.

The game designers have, in my opinion, done pretty damn good in walking the thin line representing the Pacific War while making it possible for players to design their own strategies however conservative or not as they can think up (Hirohito is a good example of one player who has come up with a number of unorthodox strategies). But just remember this is NOT World War II in the Pacific. THAT ended in September 1945 and how it ended and what led up to it will never change. Only with this GAME can we alter the ending of the Pacific War and we should have the freedom to choose our own strategies. The fine line the developers have to walk (and have been doing pretty well at so far) has been to allow that while keeping within the basic framework of the Pacific Theatre of Operations.

The game designers have, in my opinion, done pretty damn good in walking the thin line representing the Pacific War while making it possible for players to design their own strategies however conservative or not as they can think up (Hirohito is a good example of one player who has come up with a number of unorthodox strategies). But just remember this is NOT World War II in the Pacific. THAT ended in September 1945 and how it ended and what led up to it will never change. Only with this GAME can we alter the ending of the Pacific War and we should have the freedom to choose our own strategies. The fine line the developers have to walk (and have been doing pretty well at so far) has been to allow that while keeping within the basic framework of the Pacific Theatre of Operations.

I agree that they have done some things VERY well. However, the land campaign in Asia is broke, at least in the opinion of many players. Yes, the Japanese could try to attack and defeat China and Russia. She tried taking on Russia in the late 1930's, and got her head handed to her without too much shifting of resources by Russia (I think it was over before they really had a chance to react much). Yet the game obviously does not reflect this. It allows Japan to conquer Russia in the dead of winter, in a few weeks, without signficant casualties. This is broke. I also don't think the game reflects the necessity of garrisons in conquered hostile areas, and I merely suggested this as a way to fix things.

By fixing this, I think it would make WITP a better game, more playable game, AND more historically accurate game. If the last is not important, what the heck are people arguing over the number of machine guns and there caliber on such-and-such model of airplane, etc.[:D]

[timtom]

The points I've offered are not exclusive of any other explanations. No one has yet mentioned the the navy act, and I'm trying to offer a mid- to long-term strategic angel on the issue. Obviously we need a polycausal explanation for the Pacific war.

My point is that, on the one hand, the Japanese could hardly ignore the oil- and scrap iron embargo. In the short term it in the very least demonstrated that the US had Japan by the balls in terms of strategic raw materials. No power wants to in that kind of dependency to another, non-client power. In political-strategic terms, it limited Japans field of maneouvre vis-avis-vis the US. The long-term perspective was a severe downgrading of Japan's military capability in general, and that of navy in particular. If Japan wanted to be a player, it simply had to react. Given that compliance with American demands wasn't political feasible and that alternative sources of import weren't forthcoming what with the war in Europe, the only real possibility was somehow to get direct control of the needed resources.

Looking back over 65 years, it is also easy to forget the body shock caused by the collapse of the global balance of power with Germany's victories. It totally changed the layout of the playing field. Come Pearl Harbour, the US was the only serious challenge to Japan, a situation that had been completely unimaginable just a few years before.

That in itself didn't mean war was inevitable, (as the takeover of Indochina suggests), but considering the onset of American mobilisation and its aggresive stance towards the Axis, perhaps Japan can be forgiven for concluding that war with the US was inevitable (as did Germany), and in any case, a move on Dutch East India without neutralising the Phillippines would leave the US in a position to cut off the hot water at will.

[rtrapasso]

Given that compliance with American demands wasn't political feasible and that alternative sources of import weren't forthcoming what with the war in Europe, the only real possibility was somehow to get direct control of the needed resources.

Right!

It wasn't politically feasible to comply with US demands, as anyone politically opposing the Army's plans were, well, killed outright (in many cases) or resigned/fled to avoid this. Given this situation, how could anything but war have resulted?

Given the premises of the radicals in the Army, their actions were very rational. But isn't it the duty of the leaders to examine their premises? This was the ultimate failure of the Japanese government before the war.

[Onime No Kyo]

[

Given the premises of the radicals in the Army, their actions were very rational. But isn't it the duty of the leaders to examine their premises? This was the ultimate failure of the Japanese government before the war.

I'm sorry, guys, I have not ben following this thread. But I would like to bring up a little bit of irony in resonce to this comment. Namely, I beleive Osama said something to this effect about the US government in the pre-9/11 interview.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

[

Given the premises of the radicals in the Army, their actions were very rational. But isn't it the duty of the leaders to examine their premises? This was the ultimate failure of the Japanese government before the war.

I'm sorry, guys, I have not ben following this thread. But I would like to bring up a little bit of irony in resonce to this comment. Namely, I beleive Osama said something to this effect about the US government in the pre-9/11 interview.

Hey, I did say parallels to current events are numerous! [:D]

That's why i like to study history. This gives me some insight of what's really going on.

[anarchyintheuk]

Sorry to bring up a dead thread, but I was away this weekend and just caught up.

Valid points, but I've always found the arguments about the oil-scrap iron embargo kind of humorous. How realistic was it for Japan to believe that it was the US's duty to supply it with the material for it to obtain "first-rate" power status? How was that in the interest of the US? Didn't Japan see how well appeasement had "worked" in Europe? Paraphrasing Vincent in Pulp Fiction, "Japan may not have expected that particular reaction, but they had to expect some sort of reaction" (I know that works both ways). It's the inability to see anything beyond it's own desires that made diplomacy with Japan pointless in the first place.

[Mike Scholl]

SHOULD a Japanese player be able to launch an offensive to capture all of China if he/she wishes? Since this is a game and strategy decided by the player themselves then the answer has to be YES. SHOULD the China theatre be set up so that the Japanese can easily conquer it? NO. The same can also be said about the Soviet Union. Some people want to have things both ways: historical AND a game and that just isn't possible. The game designers have done a remarkable job in turning the Pacific War into a game we can play and in our GAMES change history. In doing so they may have sacrificed "historical accuracy" for playability but that is what you need to do. Otherwise you have an exact copy of World War II and it would be simpler (and quicker) to just go buy a book on the Pacific War and spend your time reading that than playing this game. Players need to have the freedom of chosing their own strategies but the game cannot allow a player to chose to attack the Soviet Union and/or China simply because the current game mechanics make it so easy. Just because it wasn't done historically doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option available to a Japanese player who wants to try something atypical (sort of like forcing the American player to invade the Philippines instead of maybe ignoring the PI for Formosa or Borneo). It just shouldn't be a near automatic victory because something like this wasn't factored into the game when it was designed.


SHOULD he be able to launch a campaign to conquer all of China? NO. It had already
been launched in 1937 and was on-going. SHOULD a campaign that had been going
on for 4 years (and pretty much stalemated for the last 15 months) be suddenly turned
into a situation that the Japanese can win in 15 weeks? TOTALLY ABSURD! The Japs
had just pulled assets out of China to go to war with the rest of the world. Why would
a weakened China Army be capable of such a quick and decisive victory now when they
hadn't in the previous 4 years?

There is no doubt that the Japanese Army was a superior force to almost anything the
Chinese could field. But it was facing EVERYTHING the Chinese could field..., and the
sheer size of Chinese numbers and space was just too big a bite for Japan to swallow.
Any game of the Pacific War needs to include China. But a China where the situation
is mired in cold mollassas. Neither side should be able to do much quickly.

As for the USSR, the Japanese had tried conclusions with them on a limited scale a
couple of times..., and both had ended in disaster for the Japanese. They couldn't
compete with Russian Mechanization and Firepower any more than they could com-
pete with the Americans later. And while they were able to face the Americans on
terrain that gave the defenders a considerable advantage, the Manchurian Plains
offerred no such advantages to an infantry army such as the Japanese fielded. One
for one, the Russian Units should beat an equal Japanese unit..., and Russian Armor
should kick the snot out of them.

[Ron Saueracker]

Yupp![8D]

[Dereck]

SHOULD the China theatre be set up so that the Japanese can easily conquer it? NO.

Nowhere in my post did I imply that it should be as EASY as it currently is. But since this is a GAME and not a REPLAY of WWII that option SHOULD and MUST be available to a Japanese player if he/she decides to pursue it and commit the forces necessary. It definitely should not be something that is as easy as it currently is but that option cannot be taken away from them.

This is a GAME set within the framework of the Second World War in the Pacific. As I was told to lighten up in a previous post, I will say the same thing to you: lighten up. This is NOT reality but a GAME. The game is good but does need some tweaking some of which is when a player tries a strategy not originally pursued.

So as I said before SHOULD they be allowed the option to pursue those strategies (China and the Soviet Union) then YES. But should it be as easy as it is right now? NO. This is the same thing I mentioned before so please go back and read it again and you'll see I NEVER said it should be a cakewalk.

The REALISTS who play this game want everything 100% realistic in which case no conquest of China nor invasion of the Soviet Union would even be allowed AND each game should start off with the historical attack on Pearl Harbor. But this is a GAME so there will be some player who will attempt such a strategy either as part of some grand strategy or just to see if it can be done. As this is a game some separation from historical accuracy must be accomodated to ensure that if they do decide to do something which wasn't done in the real war is a challenge instead of just easy pickings.

The truth is that in China had the Japanese started winning and being close to conquering it Britain or the United States (or both) would probably have intervened more than they did since it was to their best interests to keep the Japanese tied down in China. Also, if the Japanese invaded the Soviet Union the Soviets would have FOUND troops to commit against the Japanese and they didn't necessarily have had to have been trained troops since the massed frontal attack was something the Soviets did quite a lot against the Germans to a good degree of success.

So I will state again that the options to attempt to conquer all of China and/or invade the Soviet Union has to be available to a Japanese player but along with that changes need to be made which would come close to making it where it will not be such an easy victory. As it is it appears the game designers may have ignored the possibility of a Japanese player attacking the Soviet Union and didn't put thought into that strategy.

There should be nothing in this game preventing an Allied or Japanese from pursuing a strategy -- however unhistorical -- they want other than considerations of the consequences and costs involved. However, the game designers seem to have overlooked the possibility of a Japanese player being determined to conquer the Soviet Union and by doing so neglected to code in the previously mentioned "consequences and costs".

[Ron Saueracker]

Players should be allowed to make different decisions. No dispute there. Players should however be hampered by the same limitations that their historical counterparts were. Or at least a decent facsimile. Otherwise, this game should be sold as a fantasy genre game.