Since Madman was kind enough to start the debate on Japanese strategies, which has run into a glorious fourth page of drivel, I though I'd start a new thread to keep us occupied at work.
The Japanese strategy thread has brushed the issue of geopolitical rules. Depending on when WiP:SAJ begins, these could be important. The global games like War in Flames makes for fascinating play when the Axis are trying to keep America (or USSR or some other Allied power) out of the game while conquering territory. Likewise, the Allies do everything they can to get in. It can really alter the first years of the war as the Axis tip-toe around geopolitical minefields.
So I pose the following questions:
Can Japan attack the Indies without drawing the U.S. into war? How about the Commonwealth forces? If so (which would seem likely - at least with regard to the Indies), what factors would dictate when America can declare war? Could Japan attack the U.S. without drawing the Commonwealth forces in?
What kind of rules or parameters should dictate when the USSR enter the war against Japan?
Should there be a chance that England or the USSR is defeated by Germany? Would this be an optional rule? What effect would it have in the Pacific? Would British units disappear or become "Free British?" Can we assume Australia would fight on? Might we see the occasional German surface ship show up in the Pacific?
Could the Philippines, not having been attacked and with its massive industrial base and oil reserves, carry on the fight alone, develop the Bomb, and become a super power?
What ARE the answers to these pressing questions? Inquiring minds want to know!
Geopolitical Rules
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Actually, I think this is a good idea for a thread. I dont know about definitive answers but here are some thoughts:
The game could easily start as early as '37 and possibly '35 on the Japanese side.
FDR wanted war but the vast majority did not, so I think it would have taken a lot, but not necessarily a Pearl attack to get us in. It would probably have to be something we thought "we" owned. Stomping the Dutch is probably not enough.
Winston wanted us in bad, so if Japan attacks us, the commonwealth joins eagerly.
I believe some German U-boats operated in the Indian Ocean for a time, so I dont see why they could not be included on some level.
If India falls SEAC would take over in Austrailia.
As with Italy in WIR, I think a possibility Russia falls is not a bad idea for an option.
Finally, the industrial powerhouse of the Phillipenes would have to be toned down for playbalance purposes.
Ringbolt
The game could easily start as early as '37 and possibly '35 on the Japanese side.
FDR wanted war but the vast majority did not, so I think it would have taken a lot, but not necessarily a Pearl attack to get us in. It would probably have to be something we thought "we" owned. Stomping the Dutch is probably not enough.
Winston wanted us in bad, so if Japan attacks us, the commonwealth joins eagerly.
I believe some German U-boats operated in the Indian Ocean for a time, so I dont see why they could not be included on some level.
If India falls SEAC would take over in Austrailia.
As with Italy in WIR, I think a possibility Russia falls is not a bad idea for an option.
Finally, the industrial powerhouse of the Phillipenes would have to be toned down for playbalance purposes.
Ringbolt
LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
"The game could easily start as early as '37 and possibly '35 on the Japanese side."
That's probably a little early. You'd get a lot of screaming from the "we want a game based on what really happened" crowd. Though it could be an option for the Japanese player. You'd also have to do a lot of pre-war research, which is probably harder to find. But yes, it would be interesting if Japan could defeat the Chinese in the matinee before the main feature starts.
"FDR wanted war but the vast majority did not, so I think it would have taken a lot, but not necessarily a Pearl attack to get us in. It would probably have to be something we thought "we" owned. Stomping the Dutch is probably not enough."
Right. Except he'd be abandoning the powerful Dutch vote in the next election. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
"Winston wanted us in bad, so if Japan attacks us, the commonwealth joins eagerly."
You're probably right, but: once we're in, why would he need to come in? He's got his hands full already. But then again, he probably wouldn't have gotten too many more airplanes or tanks from us if he didn't.
"Finally, the industrial powerhouse of the Phillipenes would have to be toned down for playbalance purposes."
They always do that. Doesn't it bug you that none of the games gets it right?
That's probably a little early. You'd get a lot of screaming from the "we want a game based on what really happened" crowd. Though it could be an option for the Japanese player. You'd also have to do a lot of pre-war research, which is probably harder to find. But yes, it would be interesting if Japan could defeat the Chinese in the matinee before the main feature starts.
"FDR wanted war but the vast majority did not, so I think it would have taken a lot, but not necessarily a Pearl attack to get us in. It would probably have to be something we thought "we" owned. Stomping the Dutch is probably not enough."
Right. Except he'd be abandoning the powerful Dutch vote in the next election. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
"Winston wanted us in bad, so if Japan attacks us, the commonwealth joins eagerly."
You're probably right, but: once we're in, why would he need to come in? He's got his hands full already. But then again, he probably wouldn't have gotten too many more airplanes or tanks from us if he didn't.
"Finally, the industrial powerhouse of the Phillipenes would have to be toned down for playbalance purposes."
They always do that. Doesn't it bug you that none of the games gets it right?
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
I think the Brits join in no matter what if the US is attacked. Then they can say "See how we're helping you in the Pacific? Well we've got this short guy with a funny mustache we could use some help with..."
Japan cannot attack anywhere in the Pacific without the Commonwealth going to war. I believe there were treaties in Europe between England and the continental countries. Those would still be valid, even though the continent was occupied.
I agree the US would only join if her possessions were threatened or attacked directly. Unless FDR does something like base US ships in Singapore and Hong Kong, hoping they get attacked so he can declare war on those grounds.. I wouldn't put it past him.
The Germans can definitely enter the theater. They had U-Boats and raiders in the Indian ocean several times, and thats just a hop-skip-and a jump from the Pacific.
I don't think Russia can enter the war, that might make it too hard for the Japanese to do anything. Maybe the Japanese can attack into Siberia, but it should only be allowed if there's a lot of resources. That would make for a relatively secure supply base for the Japs (assuming they took over the place).
Um, I don't know what else to add. Its early still, so I'm going to go figure out how best to utilize the Filipino Carrier forces...
Japan cannot attack anywhere in the Pacific without the Commonwealth going to war. I believe there were treaties in Europe between England and the continental countries. Those would still be valid, even though the continent was occupied.
I agree the US would only join if her possessions were threatened or attacked directly. Unless FDR does something like base US ships in Singapore and Hong Kong, hoping they get attacked so he can declare war on those grounds.. I wouldn't put it past him.
The Germans can definitely enter the theater. They had U-Boats and raiders in the Indian ocean several times, and thats just a hop-skip-and a jump from the Pacific.
I don't think Russia can enter the war, that might make it too hard for the Japanese to do anything. Maybe the Japanese can attack into Siberia, but it should only be allowed if there's a lot of resources. That would make for a relatively secure supply base for the Japs (assuming they took over the place).
Um, I don't know what else to add. Its early still, so I'm going to go figure out how best to utilize the Filipino Carrier forces...
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
If Germany defeats Britain, then India revolts and becomes " Free India" not Free British. That being said I am sure there would be Free British forces in Canada and Austrailia.Originally posted by byron:
Should there be a chance that England surrenders to Germany? And, if so, do the forces in India become free British?
Wait a minute. The production thread is boring, but you want to take advantage of our efforts? Never!
It would be interesting to alter production that early, but it would be an odd system. For the American, I guess there wouldn't be any detail, but just some kind of general guidance to the computer. When the war starts, you have whatever the computer decided could/would be produced in that four years. I can't imagine anyone sitting down and playing four years of nothing but detailed production.
It would seem, though, that if you're the Japanese in 1937, you should be required to actually play the game since Japanese forces are committed in battle in China. That would turn the game into an 8 year marathon for the Japanese. The first four years would be a dull, dull slugfest through China with no navy action. It doesn't seem right that you would alter production for four years (completely ahistorical) and then assume Japan had the same front line as it did historically.
I don't know. I'd like to see some altered pre-war production, at least for the Japanese, but I would know how to implement it. For the American, I see a lot of potential for abuse, e.g., starting the war with fifteen carriers. I kind of like the "come as you are" problem the American has in the beginning. Of course, American production was so low until 1941, if you allowed the American to build whatever he wanted (based on a very low number of production points) EXCEPT FOR historical carriers, then it wouldn't make that much difference.
It would be interesting to alter production that early, but it would be an odd system. For the American, I guess there wouldn't be any detail, but just some kind of general guidance to the computer. When the war starts, you have whatever the computer decided could/would be produced in that four years. I can't imagine anyone sitting down and playing four years of nothing but detailed production.
It would seem, though, that if you're the Japanese in 1937, you should be required to actually play the game since Japanese forces are committed in battle in China. That would turn the game into an 8 year marathon for the Japanese. The first four years would be a dull, dull slugfest through China with no navy action. It doesn't seem right that you would alter production for four years (completely ahistorical) and then assume Japan had the same front line as it did historically.
I don't know. I'd like to see some altered pre-war production, at least for the Japanese, but I would know how to implement it. For the American, I see a lot of potential for abuse, e.g., starting the war with fifteen carriers. I kind of like the "come as you are" problem the American has in the beginning. Of course, American production was so low until 1941, if you allowed the American to build whatever he wanted (based on a very low number of production points) EXCEPT FOR historical carriers, then it wouldn't make that much difference.
Timjot: Your comment on Free India is profound. I hadn't considered that. I imagine the Commonwealth forces would have left India with all equipment intact. Or, considering the large military presence, would they have resisted letting India go? It was, after all, the star of the empire. The king and free parliament, now exiled in Canada, may have resisted. I think there were also somewhat substantial production facilities in India. So what do you have? A large British army in Australia with virtually no source of equipment. It would become an army outfitted almost entirely by the U.S. Japan, as Moore states, is now free to focus on other things with no enemy in the rear. Interesting scenario
I am solidly in that camp, but the Japanese were there at that time. I only see that as a Japanese option though, as you said, too much possibility for abuse on the US side. I too like the "come as you are" aspect of the US.Originally posted by byron:
That's probably a little early. You'd get a lot of screaming from the "we want a game based on what really happened" crowd.
Ringbolt
LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
At second thought, I have to agree with you Byron. It would be too difficult to implement. too liable for abuse on the US side, too boreing for the US player. I guess though as the allied player you would be controlling the chinese so a least you would have something to do. The main problem though like you said. The US player with the vantage of hindsite could make the game basically unplayable before it really started. The best option is to go with the historical.Originally posted by byron:
Wait a minute. The production thread is boring, but you want to take advantage of our efforts? Never!
It would be interesting to alter production that early, but it would be an odd system. For the American, I guess there wouldn't be any detail, but just some kind of general guidance to the computer. When the war starts, you have whatever the computer decided could/would be produced in that four years. I can't imagine anyone sitting down and playing four years of nothing but detailed production.
It would seem, though, that if you're the Japanese in 1937, you should be required to actually play the game since Japanese forces are committed in battle in China. That would turn the game into an 8 year marathon for the Japanese. The first four years would be a dull, dull slugfest through China with no navy action. It doesn't seem right that you would alter production for four years (completely ahistorical) and then assume Japan had the same front line as it did historically.
I don't know. I'd like to see some altered pre-war production, at least for the Japanese, but I would know how to implement it. For the American, I see a lot of potential for abuse, e.g., starting the war with fifteen carriers. I kind of like the "come as you are" problem the American has in the beginning. Of course, American production was so low until 1941, if you allowed the American to build whatever he wanted (based on a very low number of production points) EXCEPT FOR historical carriers, then it wouldn't make that much difference.
As for the Japanese the only production decision that I think they could have made that would have had a major impact. Would have been if Adm.Yamamoto had been able to persuade the IJN staff not to build the super Battleships and instead build more fleet carriers, which historically is what he argued for. This could have given the IJN at least 4 more CV's in 1942. Imagine the Coral Sea with 6 Fleet carriers instead of 2 and Midway with 8 Carriers instead of 4. I dought even Adm.Nagumo could have lost 8 CV'S at Midway. You could model this possiblity with a die roll at the begining of each game. This along with a die roll of weather the US carriers are at PH on the first turn would greatly increase the replayablity of the game, in that neither player would be sure exactly what forces the other would start with.
The large militarly presence was made up of units that were almost totally Indian, albiet with British officers. Its doughtful they would stay loyal to a defeated crown.Originally posted by byron:
Timjot: Your comment on Free India is profound. I hadn't considered that. I imagine the Commonwealth forces would have left India with all equipment intact. Or, considering the large military presence, would they have resisted letting India go? It was, after all, the star of the empire. The king and free parliament, now exiled in Canada, may have resisted. I think there were also somewhat substantial production facilities in India. So what do you have? A large British army in Australia with virtually no source of equipment. It would become an army outfitted almost entirely by the U.S. Japan, as Moore states, is now free to focus on other things with no enemy in the rear. Interesting scenario
There was no industrial base whatsoever in India in the 1940's. It was standard procedure in the Birtish empire to make there colonial possesions industrially dependent on the mother country. Thats why the simple spining wheel was outlawed in a country that provided the empire with over 90% of its cotton. To force the inhabitants to buy finish cloth from the mother country and thereby provide a market for its manufactured goods.
Yes a British army in Austrailia supplied by the US, but I dont know how large it would be. Probably not very.
Originally posted by TIMJOT:
Imagine the Coral Sea with 6 Fleet carriers instead of 2 and Midway with 8 Carriers instead of 4.
They could have sent 6 to both Coral sea and just chose not to use them. IMO the worst mistake the Japanese was not using all it's remaining CV's at Midway like they did in the PH attack instead of the Alaska feint. Remember, all the damage done to US CV's at Midway was from a partial strike from ONLY Hiryu. One more CV or even CVL could have tipped the balance.
Ringbolt
LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
I think, at the time of Coral sea, the other 4 Fleet carriers were just returning from the Indian ocean Raid and needed refitting and replenishing after 6 long months of non-stop campaigning at sea. The Shokaku and Zuikaku were not available for Midway becuase the Shokaku was too badly damaged at Coral sea and Zuikaku had sustained heavy aircraft and pilot losses. The Two carriers used in the Aluetions were CVL's not CV's. I agree though, had they combined those CVL's and the one with the BB's then Midway might have turned out differently. Hell they should just kept the combined fleet "COMBINED". There was no good reason to seperate and disperse the fleet as they did. If they had kept the Fleet together, the compined AA would have made it more difficult to concentrate on the carriers. Even if the CVL's just provided additional CAP would have made a world of difference.Originally posted by Ringbolt:
They could have sent 6 to both Coral sea and just chose not to use them. IMO the worst mistake the Japanese was not using all it's remaining CV's at Midway like they did in the PH attack instead of the Alaska feint. Remember, all the damage done to US CV's at Midway was from a partial strike from ONLY Hiryu. One more CV or even CVL could have tipped the balance.
Ringbolt
-
Blackhorse
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Eastern US
I disagree with the presumption of a "Free India" if England has to surrender. The Netherlands had been overrun in May, 1940, but a year-and-a-half later the exiled government still ruled Indonesia.Originally posted by TIMJOT:
The large militarly presence was made up of units that were almost totally Indian, albiet with British officers. Its doughtful they would stay loyal to a defeated crown. .
And unlike the British, the Dutch had very few resources after the home country was overrun. The English, on the other hand, could rely on Canada, Australia, and South Africa -- hardly industrial powers capable of fighting a world war, but industrial enough to supply and equip a colonial army in India.
Most importantly, in order to be "Free" of the British, the Indians (who included Pakistanis at this time) would have to agree on who would replace them. The British were masters of the colonial political practice of ruling through local Princes and Potentates. Many of them stood to lose as much or more than the British if a Gandhi or some other "nationalist" Indian came to power.
I'm *not* arguing that a defeated England could maintain its position in India indefinitely. But an England defeated in 1940 might well still control India for 4 or 5 more years.
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
What about if the Germans had wanted bases in South America and raided US shipping on the way to Austrailia from the east or even between the west coast and Pearl? It just occured to me that this is something allies in fact and not just in name might have done. Werent Argentina and Chile both cozy with the Reich before the war too?
LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."