Well I've only played two games since the new version and I've had two wildly different results at PH. (Both as the computer playing Japan at EVEN.) The first time all but one BB was sunk and the one remaining had 96% damage. The second time, NO BBs were sunk...all had hits but damaged ranged from 18% to 90%. All I lost that second time 'round were 3 DDs and a MCS.
If results are that random then I see no point in trying to alter the outcome.
Pearl Harbor Poll
Yogi: If you don't want to understand, you're not going to.
The subject I brought up had to do with "Americans" using a Japanese war flag on "American" turf, something you obviously don't understand. Any relative non-neutrality of the US in WWII has nothing to do with the cowardly attack on Pearl (note - A big difference here Yogi. The US was firing on aggressor subs, if you can call the subs 'victims' while the Japanese fired on a port acting in no aggressive way whatsoever). No American that places a Japanese war flag on our turf, thinks to himself that he's justified in doing it by us firing on aggressive Nazi subs. You may not think that way, but hey, you're not American, so what's it to you that we don't like being attacked? I don't think you're irrational enough to cozy up to the war flags that may had been unfurled on your country, so why do you expect it of mine?
Maybe, just maybe, the reason some of us still cling on to hating that flag (I said flag) on our soil, is because to accept it is to spit in the face of the survivors of Pearl, who unfortunately for America-haters are still around.
The subject I brought up had to do with "Americans" using a Japanese war flag on "American" turf, something you obviously don't understand. Any relative non-neutrality of the US in WWII has nothing to do with the cowardly attack on Pearl (note - A big difference here Yogi. The US was firing on aggressor subs, if you can call the subs 'victims' while the Japanese fired on a port acting in no aggressive way whatsoever). No American that places a Japanese war flag on our turf, thinks to himself that he's justified in doing it by us firing on aggressive Nazi subs. You may not think that way, but hey, you're not American, so what's it to you that we don't like being attacked? I don't think you're irrational enough to cozy up to the war flags that may had been unfurled on your country, so why do you expect it of mine?
Maybe, just maybe, the reason some of us still cling on to hating that flag (I said flag) on our soil, is because to accept it is to spit in the face of the survivors of Pearl, who unfortunately for America-haters are still around.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why not have the game jiggered to start a "historical first turn" war AFTER the first turn, with actual historical results accurately depicted? Ie. the ships that historically were sunk, "sunk", and those salvagable starting with appropriate damage levels, bases changing hands accordingly, air units and troop strength/status/readiness set accordingly?
Babyseal 7 - Good idea I've thought about that myself. I've also gone to the editor(Rich Dione Great Job!!), changed the armor and durability values to the original. Yes, I still have an original rule book! This didn't seem to phase the results got onr game with only three sunk. one with seven and one with all BBs sunk. Then I went back to the editor and damaged one third of the Kates. This was too much! Didn't get more than 2 BBs sunk and light damage on several others. Played with it until 5 damaged on each carrier produces from 1 to 5 BB sunk and moderate to heavy damage on others.
Is it just me or does it seem that Prince of Wales and repulse are getting off to lightly?
I've also noticed that the system won't prompt you to upgrade aircraft if the air unit is in training.
Have yet to see it prompt me to see if I want to upgrade factories, Does it do that?
Charles22 I agree with you hole heartedly, but am trying to keep off that topic lest i write a disertation.
Back to the Front
Mike
Is it just me or does it seem that Prince of Wales and repulse are getting off to lightly?
I've also noticed that the system won't prompt you to upgrade aircraft if the air unit is in training.
Have yet to see it prompt me to see if I want to upgrade factories, Does it do that?
Charles22 I agree with you hole heartedly, but am trying to keep off that topic lest i write a disertation.
Back to the Front
Mike
You can run but you'll die tired!
jblair: Excellent!!! Not only did you list what side you were playing, but you ADDED the advantage level you were playing, which I believe everyone has failed to mention as well (my running through the 1st turn as the Japanese was 'no advantage'). Funny the results, you would've expected the whole port to be wiped out with those settings.
As an aside off my original aside, I found this interesting fact. I just had the feeling that when I saw that Rising Sun flag, that it had been banned, so why would the Japanese Navy be using it today? I found this from a website:
"The naval flag was introduced in 1889 and that has 16 rays extending from the Sun "Mon" to the edge of the flag. The flag was "banned" by the Treaty of San Francisco which prevent Japan from having her own armed forces, but in 1952 she started to build up "self-defence" forces. The naval forces readopted the naval ensign in 1954."
"The naval flag was introduced in 1889 and that has 16 rays extending from the Sun "Mon" to the edge of the flag. The flag was "banned" by the Treaty of San Francisco which prevent Japan from having her own armed forces, but in 1952 she started to build up "self-defence" forces. The naval forces readopted the naval ensign in 1954."
Hopefully, this will be my last entry concerning my original aside, as I think it makes interesting reading (the article following). I have a book called "Pearl Harbor Ghosts", which I don't remember too terribly clearly, but it dealt largely on the tenuous situation in Pearl today, how the Japanese are buying so much of the property, and how the tourists generally have attitude problems and so forth. This article casts an as yet unknown light on why some of that must be going on down there (note how the Australians are commented on, which as I said, my corporation was holding an Australian picnic - Hmmm maybe Americans were trying to offend Australians with that flag, just maybe):
http://www.neswa.org.au/Japan/facepast.htm
Here's another interesting article, but dealing more on Japanese war crimes. Here's a small quote that I've never heard before, "Mizobuchi even detailed Japan's aborted plan to unleash germ warfare against American troops on Saipan in June 1944. He also participated in July 1945, in training kamikaze pilots for Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night. This was to involve five submarines, each carrying two or three small aircraft with wings folded against the fuselage, to the California coast where they would attack San Diego with "plague bombs" full of infected fleas. Planning for this incredible operation only was aborted when Japan abruptly surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
The complete story: http://www.neswa.org.au/Japan/Warcrimesl.htm
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited September 29, 2000).]
http://www.neswa.org.au/Japan/facepast.htm
Here's another interesting article, but dealing more on Japanese war crimes. Here's a small quote that I've never heard before, "Mizobuchi even detailed Japan's aborted plan to unleash germ warfare against American troops on Saipan in June 1944. He also participated in July 1945, in training kamikaze pilots for Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night. This was to involve five submarines, each carrying two or three small aircraft with wings folded against the fuselage, to the California coast where they would attack San Diego with "plague bombs" full of infected fleas. Planning for this incredible operation only was aborted when Japan abruptly surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
The complete story: http://www.neswa.org.au/Japan/Warcrimesl.htm
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited September 29, 2000).]
JBlair what is you computers system speed? There was a post where someone had mentioned that on an older slower system they got historical results but on their faster system were losing most of there BBs. I have a PIII 600. I think the post I read where they were getting historical results they were using a 100 mhz machine. Curious is it possible for system speed to effect gameplay/results?
I've found that by damaging 5 Kates I'm getting historic result 1-4 BBs sunk. In a game I'm running now Ive observered the IJA 26th Infantry division traking Panay. Has the 26th been removed from the CEA?
Mike
I've found that by damaging 5 Kates I'm getting historic result 1-4 BBs sunk. In a game I'm running now Ive observered the IJA 26th Infantry division traking Panay. Has the 26th been removed from the CEA?
Mike
You can run but you'll die tired!
After this debate on the Pearl Harbor TF I have decided to let it be. People are getting pretty average numbers of ships sunk, and decreasing it will just make Pearl Harbor not worth it for the IJN.
Dealing with Task Force Z (Prince of Wales and Repulse) I have played around with it a few times and find that it is pretty historic. It was actually a fluke that the POW and Repulse got sunk (POW got its pumps and 50% of its AA knocked out by a lucky near hit, and the Repulse was nailed after MULTIPLE attempts after a lucky shot). I have played it where ALL the British ships get sunk, only the Capital ships, only a destroyer or two, only one capital ship, or some ships just damaged. I think it is pretty historical.
In regards to the Japan-Rising Sun debate. The British were experimenting with Anthrax if the Germans were to land in England. The Americand DID drop an atomic weapon on a Japanese civilian target. The Japanese planned to use poison gas... Every nation had poision gas reserves, the US was even prepared to use it the moment they saw their enemy using it. Saying that the Japanese were evil because they planned to use poison gas is a mute point.
How come people in the US aren't pissed whenever they see an German Naval flag? The German navy sank the Lusitania in 1917. That was just as sneaky and unprovoked as Pearl Harbor! And just about as many lives were lost in this action as well. What about the loss of the USS Ruben James?
Jeremy
Dealing with Task Force Z (Prince of Wales and Repulse) I have played around with it a few times and find that it is pretty historic. It was actually a fluke that the POW and Repulse got sunk (POW got its pumps and 50% of its AA knocked out by a lucky near hit, and the Repulse was nailed after MULTIPLE attempts after a lucky shot). I have played it where ALL the British ships get sunk, only the Capital ships, only a destroyer or two, only one capital ship, or some ships just damaged. I think it is pretty historical.
In regards to the Japan-Rising Sun debate. The British were experimenting with Anthrax if the Germans were to land in England. The Americand DID drop an atomic weapon on a Japanese civilian target. The Japanese planned to use poison gas... Every nation had poision gas reserves, the US was even prepared to use it the moment they saw their enemy using it. Saying that the Japanese were evil because they planned to use poison gas is a mute point.
How come people in the US aren't pissed whenever they see an German Naval flag? The German navy sank the Lusitania in 1917. That was just as sneaky and unprovoked as Pearl Harbor! And just about as many lives were lost in this action as well. What about the loss of the USS Ruben James?
Jeremy
The "Rising Sun Debate", since you people insist. A few facts; The Japanese are definitely in the running for the coveted title of "Most Prolific Mass Murderers in History"...probably Stalin narrowly edges them out though. Try 20-35 million total body count, mostly Chinese, the Japanese make the Nazis look like pikers. They led the wave with poison gas, bio warfare, genocide, and medical experimentation. How many Allied POW's captured in the South/Central Pacific (mostly by the IJN) do you think were repatriated at wars end? If you said "ZERO" you'd be correct. They had a quaint and amusing habit of picking up aircrews from the sea, questioning them, and dumping them over the side with 5gal cans of water tied to their feet. As far as dropping a nuke on a Jp. city, how about the "Rape of Nanking" with an estimated 250,000 Chinese dead? How do you excuse a nation whose valiant troops made a "game" (literally) out of throwing babies into the air and catching them on bayonets? We're not talking isolated atrocities, we're talking an entire "way of life" and "Code of Conduct" wrapped up in rape, murder, and pillage...all exemplified by the IJN Rising Sun flag. All of which is NOT taught in Jp. schools, has NOT been acknowledged, and most definitely has NOT been apologized or compensated for...and is currently being idealized in Japan's current wave of nationalism.
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4908
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Quote:
How come people in the US aren't pissed whenever they see an German Naval flag? The German navy sank the Lusitania in 1917. That was just as sneaky and unprovoked as Pearl Harbor! And just about as many lives were lost in this action as well. What about the loss of the USS Ruben James?
Jeremy[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, this is far away from the Pearl Habor Poll topic, but nevertheless it's an interesting one. Should consider switching it to the Humanities Net Military History mailing list...
If I'm not mistaken the Lusitania was a British i.e. for Germany an enemy ship (and this happened in 1915) cruising south of Ireland inside the area around GB which was officialy declared a war zone by the german government, so it was hardly an unprovoked attack (sneaky perhaps, but that is the very nature of submarine underwater torpedo attacks, since surface attacks were already too dangerous because many "civilian" MCS were armed with guns [was this legal?]).
Of course it was a passenger ship, but many of those were used as "auxiliary cruisers" or commerce raiders by both sides, so how should the sub commander have known? Just poor judgement perhaps.
Tragically a lot of people lost their lives, amongst them 128 Americans. But the German government had posted warning messages in the major US newspapers that British ships entering the war zone might be attacked, so every person on board should have known the risk. And as far as I know it is still disputed if the Lusitania didn't had a secret (and illegal) load of amunition on board which might have been set off by the single torpedo hit, causing the rapid sinking.
So, enemy ship, war zone, war warning, possibly armed, possibly carrying contraband - an unprovoked and sneaky attack???
Concerning the Reuben James, it has already been pointed out that the USN wasn't neutral towards german subs in WWII. In fact it shadowed german subs and reported their positions to the Royal Navy, leaving only the "dirty work" of actually attacking them to the RN (that's really short of war). There were "incidents" where USN DD's shadowed a submerged german sub and the notified British ASW-planes (in many cases Catalinas "co-piloted" by USN personal) droped depth charges around it, making the german sub commander believe he was attacked by the DD (since he couldn't see the plane) and thus 'answering' with torpedos. And what about the Destroyer-Naval Base-Deal, it's difficult to distinguish an american four-stacker from a recently-transfered-to-the-RN-four-stacker from a submariner's perspective.
It happened that I was born in Germany, so I might be biased in this matter. But to make it clear, I'm glad that the USA cunningly twisted their own principles of neutrality to aid GB against German aggression, since a victorious German Empire or even worse a 'Third Reich' would have been a real nightmare, and I'm even more thankful that so many allied servicemen and -women risked their lives on land, air and sea to liberate Europe and Asia from axis oppression. I just got a bit upset about words like "cowardly", "sneaky" or "unprovoked" in this topic's postings, because these words show a narrow, one-sided perception. If PH was cowardly by the Japanese, then what was Mers-el-Kebir by the British? The Japanese decision-makers went the - from their point of view - honorable warrior's way of taking high risks fighting against the ABCD powers strangleling their home country (if this was true this is another dispute, but many believe their own propaganda)rather than cowardly giving in, and thus losing face. And while Singapur 42 was a tragedy for GB, it was considered a shame by the Japanese that armed, able-bodied men gave up fighting.
There are always at least two angles of view, and it's "a matter of perception on whose lies you believe". I surely have my blind spots, too, but discussion is the best way to get new insights.
Perhaps it's all more simple and people in the US just "aren't pissed" when they see a German Naval flag (if they ever do) because it is less well known than the Swastika? I agree of course, that showing the Japanese Naval Flag in the context of National Flags is odd, but doesn't the US Flag double as "Civilian" as well as "War" Flag and the US Naval Flag was thus present at this Aussie picnic, too? Just nitpicking...
-------------------------------------------
The first casualty of war is innocence.
[This message has been edited by LargeSlowTarget (edited September 30, 2000).]
How come people in the US aren't pissed whenever they see an German Naval flag? The German navy sank the Lusitania in 1917. That was just as sneaky and unprovoked as Pearl Harbor! And just about as many lives were lost in this action as well. What about the loss of the USS Ruben James?
Jeremy[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, this is far away from the Pearl Habor Poll topic, but nevertheless it's an interesting one. Should consider switching it to the Humanities Net Military History mailing list...
If I'm not mistaken the Lusitania was a British i.e. for Germany an enemy ship (and this happened in 1915) cruising south of Ireland inside the area around GB which was officialy declared a war zone by the german government, so it was hardly an unprovoked attack (sneaky perhaps, but that is the very nature of submarine underwater torpedo attacks, since surface attacks were already too dangerous because many "civilian" MCS were armed with guns [was this legal?]).
Of course it was a passenger ship, but many of those were used as "auxiliary cruisers" or commerce raiders by both sides, so how should the sub commander have known? Just poor judgement perhaps.
Tragically a lot of people lost their lives, amongst them 128 Americans. But the German government had posted warning messages in the major US newspapers that British ships entering the war zone might be attacked, so every person on board should have known the risk. And as far as I know it is still disputed if the Lusitania didn't had a secret (and illegal) load of amunition on board which might have been set off by the single torpedo hit, causing the rapid sinking.
So, enemy ship, war zone, war warning, possibly armed, possibly carrying contraband - an unprovoked and sneaky attack???
Concerning the Reuben James, it has already been pointed out that the USN wasn't neutral towards german subs in WWII. In fact it shadowed german subs and reported their positions to the Royal Navy, leaving only the "dirty work" of actually attacking them to the RN (that's really short of war). There were "incidents" where USN DD's shadowed a submerged german sub and the notified British ASW-planes (in many cases Catalinas "co-piloted" by USN personal) droped depth charges around it, making the german sub commander believe he was attacked by the DD (since he couldn't see the plane) and thus 'answering' with torpedos. And what about the Destroyer-Naval Base-Deal, it's difficult to distinguish an american four-stacker from a recently-transfered-to-the-RN-four-stacker from a submariner's perspective.
It happened that I was born in Germany, so I might be biased in this matter. But to make it clear, I'm glad that the USA cunningly twisted their own principles of neutrality to aid GB against German aggression, since a victorious German Empire or even worse a 'Third Reich' would have been a real nightmare, and I'm even more thankful that so many allied servicemen and -women risked their lives on land, air and sea to liberate Europe and Asia from axis oppression. I just got a bit upset about words like "cowardly", "sneaky" or "unprovoked" in this topic's postings, because these words show a narrow, one-sided perception. If PH was cowardly by the Japanese, then what was Mers-el-Kebir by the British? The Japanese decision-makers went the - from their point of view - honorable warrior's way of taking high risks fighting against the ABCD powers strangleling their home country (if this was true this is another dispute, but many believe their own propaganda)rather than cowardly giving in, and thus losing face. And while Singapur 42 was a tragedy for GB, it was considered a shame by the Japanese that armed, able-bodied men gave up fighting.
There are always at least two angles of view, and it's "a matter of perception on whose lies you believe". I surely have my blind spots, too, but discussion is the best way to get new insights.
Perhaps it's all more simple and people in the US just "aren't pissed" when they see a German Naval flag (if they ever do) because it is less well known than the Swastika? I agree of course, that showing the Japanese Naval Flag in the context of National Flags is odd, but doesn't the US Flag double as "Civilian" as well as "War" Flag and the US Naval Flag was thus present at this Aussie picnic, too? Just nitpicking...
-------------------------------------------
The first casualty of war is innocence.
[This message has been edited by LargeSlowTarget (edited September 30, 2000).]
Though I wasn't in Nanking in 1937, I've read many sources of this. The total deaths in Nanking ranged anywhere from 20,000 - 200,000. The Japanese goverment chose the lesser obviously and the West had chosen the higher. Many of the European journalist's at the time and Chinese had known to highly exaggerate the total deaths for propaganda reasons. Though whatever the figure was it doesn't make it any better... Mankind have been savages throughout history and unfortunately we always will be.Originally posted by babyseal7:
The "Rising Sun Debate", since you people insist. A few facts; The Japanese are definitely in the running for the coveted title of "Most Prolific Mass Murderers in History"...probably Stalin narrowly edges them out though. Try 20-35 million total body count, mostly Chinese, the Japanese make the Nazis look like pikers. They led the wave with poison gas, bio warfare, genocide, and medical experimentation. How many Allied POW's captured in the South/Central Pacific (mostly by the IJN) do you think were repatriated at wars end? If you said "ZERO" you'd be correct. They had a quaint and amusing habit of picking up aircrews from the sea, questioning them, and dumping them over the side with 5gal cans of water tied to their feet. As far as dropping a nuke on a Jp. city, how about the "Rape of Nanking" with an estimated 250,000 Chinese dead? How do you excuse a nation whose valiant troops made a "game" (literally) out of throwing babies into the air and catching them on bayonets? We're not talking isolated atrocities, we're talking an entire "way of life" and "Code of Conduct" wrapped up in rape, murder, and pillage...all exemplified by the IJN Rising Sun flag. All of which is NOT taught in Jp. schools, has NOT been acknowledged, and most definitely has NOT been apologized or compensated for...and is currently being idealized in Japan's current wave of nationalism.
Thanks for clarifying that Blackhorse. I wasn't sure what was going on. I had never noticed it before until I was paying close attention as I was testing.Originally posted by Blackhorse:
Grok,
The "Battle Results" page has never been accurate regarding sunk ships. For some reason lost in the mists of time and Gary Grigsby's memory, not all ships with 99% + damage sink immediately. Those ships from Pearl Harbor that "sink" when the computer is calculating other attacks/battles are not posted in the Battle Results page.
------------------
understanding requires patience
Grok
"My teeth have more bite, than your mouth has bark!"
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
I understand just fine, i just do not agree, and you on the other hand are using a double standard.Originally posted by Charles22:
Yogi: If you don't want to understand, you're not going to.
The U-boats were agressive against british Merchant ships, not against US destroyers. The US destroyers had no business protetcting british ships in the first place.Originally posted by Charles22:
Any relative non-neutrality of the US in WWII has nothing to do with the cowardly attack on Pearl (note - A big difference here Yogi. The US was firing on aggressor subs, if you can call the subs 'victims' while the Japanese fired on a port acting in no aggressive way whatsoever).
In fact, just about the only war Hitler was legally justified in starting was the one against the USA, since the Americans had commited numerous acts of war against Germany. Don't get me wrong, i am thankfull the Americans did, i just think you shoud be aware of that the breach of international protocol is not something just the Japanese or the Axis did.
Actually, about the last time my country was at war, in 1809, the Russians took half of our country from us and their fleet laid waste to our coasts, burning cities and generally behaving like barbarians. Russia has recently reinstated the naval flag that that fleet used, and it has been used in naval visits to our country. I would not mind at all that flag being planted along the naval flags of other nations in some kind ceremony or something like that, because unlike you, i AM rational about flags.Originally posted by Charles22:
I don't think you're irrational enough to cozy up to the war flags that may had been unfurled on your country, so why do you expect it of mine?).
Major Tom: You bring up something of a valid point in regards to the Lusitania. Firstly, my guess is that almost all of the WWI vets are dead. Secondly, I'm not old enough to have told you one way or another whether people had offense at seeing a German Naval Ensign, necessarily, but I suspect it wasn't an issue, because for it to have been an issue, some moron from the US (or a Brit or Aussie) would've had to have planted it on US soil with honor. I've never heard any such incident and I do believe the generations before mine were a bit more patriotic. Thirdly, the shock of an entire port being attacked on US soil, and some lonely ship attacked in the middle of the sea, shoul be a large difference. I doubt the Lusitania sinking gave people the fear of being invaded, such as the Pearl attack.
Also, it sure would seem as though Japan's relative non-acceptance of their having done any wrong, and indeed, I recall reading to the effect that many of them are considering WWII as just a setback, that they are focused on destroying America economically and so forth. If a good number of the Japanese haven't accepted or been lied to about WWII, and still have the destruction of America on their minds, in some shape or form, and if they regard Americans as inferiors (my Japanese relatives are all American citizens now), I'm sure some of that has rubbed off onto the veterans and their families who have been to Pearl.
My opinion is that if I saw the German Naval Ensign OR the one I did, the shock would've been the same. I don't know about WWI, but at least in Russia during WWII, I've seen films of the Russians making the Germans burn their ceremonial banners.
In any case, placing a naval ensign that was banned at one time, in with national flags (this leaving Japan as the only nation with two flags), when vets from that war are still around is just plain disrespectful and doesn't even fit in, even if it weren't disrespectful.
Also, A LOT more lives were lost in Pearl (equipment losses even greater still), than with the Lusitania. I do know that the Lusitania sinking was a shock because it was a civilian liner, but the Gerrys were hardly going to invade America from submarines. What's more the two fronts as a whole (the attack on Pearl was part of attacking an entire front, while the German WWI submarine attacks were solitary boats picking off individual boats [hardly invasion stuff]) was very different. Pearl and the west coast could've been invaded, and nooone was crazy about the idea of the Japanese running over Australia and all those other islands. Though people warred for less in WWI and prior, comparitively, Pearl and the Lusitania aren't very good.
If what that Japanese fellow quoted in that article had his facts correct about the plague bombs, I'm sure a lot of people, be that bad or good, would've have been a lot more supportive or dropping the bombs had they known. Needless, to say, the Japanese were warned about the bombs, and it took two to make them take a little notice. Also, if they were going to do something as awful as plague bombs and had made the civilians, entire islands of fanatical resistance to any invasion attempts, the A-bombs were very merciful indeed. Imagine how many hundreds of thousands of Japanese ( both civilian and military) and American lives would have been lost. Also, a bunch of ordinary strategic bombers could've done the same thing (though non-nuclear) in taking lives and property as the A-bombs did, which of course would've been going on if the A-bombs weren't dropped.
Also, it sure would seem as though Japan's relative non-acceptance of their having done any wrong, and indeed, I recall reading to the effect that many of them are considering WWII as just a setback, that they are focused on destroying America economically and so forth. If a good number of the Japanese haven't accepted or been lied to about WWII, and still have the destruction of America on their minds, in some shape or form, and if they regard Americans as inferiors (my Japanese relatives are all American citizens now), I'm sure some of that has rubbed off onto the veterans and their families who have been to Pearl.
My opinion is that if I saw the German Naval Ensign OR the one I did, the shock would've been the same. I don't know about WWI, but at least in Russia during WWII, I've seen films of the Russians making the Germans burn their ceremonial banners.
In any case, placing a naval ensign that was banned at one time, in with national flags (this leaving Japan as the only nation with two flags), when vets from that war are still around is just plain disrespectful and doesn't even fit in, even if it weren't disrespectful.
Also, A LOT more lives were lost in Pearl (equipment losses even greater still), than with the Lusitania. I do know that the Lusitania sinking was a shock because it was a civilian liner, but the Gerrys were hardly going to invade America from submarines. What's more the two fronts as a whole (the attack on Pearl was part of attacking an entire front, while the German WWI submarine attacks were solitary boats picking off individual boats [hardly invasion stuff]) was very different. Pearl and the west coast could've been invaded, and nooone was crazy about the idea of the Japanese running over Australia and all those other islands. Though people warred for less in WWI and prior, comparitively, Pearl and the Lusitania aren't very good.
If what that Japanese fellow quoted in that article had his facts correct about the plague bombs, I'm sure a lot of people, be that bad or good, would've have been a lot more supportive or dropping the bombs had they known. Needless, to say, the Japanese were warned about the bombs, and it took two to make them take a little notice. Also, if they were going to do something as awful as plague bombs and had made the civilians, entire islands of fanatical resistance to any invasion attempts, the A-bombs were very merciful indeed. Imagine how many hundreds of thousands of Japanese ( both civilian and military) and American lives would have been lost. Also, a bunch of ordinary strategic bombers could've done the same thing (though non-nuclear) in taking lives and property as the A-bombs did, which of course would've been going on if the A-bombs weren't dropped.
Yogi: Are you listening? You said you wouldn't mind naval ensigns of different nations being together. I've said the very precise thing, or at least it would be more understandable. What I'm talking about is 15 "national" flags, or so, including the Japanese one, WITH "ONE" Japanese naval ensign, a wholly different matter.
LargeSlowTarget: I do believe that the US naval ensign is the national flag as well, but then, when I see the flag amongst all the other flags, I'm not thinking, "There is our naval ensign". Basically noone thinks of it that way and my guess is that veryf ew could tell you the naval ensign if you asked them.
Again, this thing is being taken out of context. I wasn't talking about the US flag not being an insult somewhere else, as indeed current affairs in this country make the flag quite deplorable abroad, but it has nothing to do with conventional war as to the reasons (since we are talking about war flags here). It's very simple. If your company (in any country, anywhere) had 15 national flags posted, with one war flag that had been banned at one time and you'd never seen placed in honor where national flags should be, wouldn't you think someone had a screw loose somewhere? Wouldn't that be terribly insulting to the veterans? Again, if they're showing nothing but naval ensigns, that's a little more understandable, but that's not the case. If the US flag serves both as national and naval ensign, that can hardly be helped when someone wants to use the US national flag.
LargeSlowTarget: I do believe that the US naval ensign is the national flag as well, but then, when I see the flag amongst all the other flags, I'm not thinking, "There is our naval ensign". Basically noone thinks of it that way and my guess is that veryf ew could tell you the naval ensign if you asked them.
Again, this thing is being taken out of context. I wasn't talking about the US flag not being an insult somewhere else, as indeed current affairs in this country make the flag quite deplorable abroad, but it has nothing to do with conventional war as to the reasons (since we are talking about war flags here). It's very simple. If your company (in any country, anywhere) had 15 national flags posted, with one war flag that had been banned at one time and you'd never seen placed in honor where national flags should be, wouldn't you think someone had a screw loose somewhere? Wouldn't that be terribly insulting to the veterans? Again, if they're showing nothing but naval ensigns, that's a little more understandable, but that's not the case. If the US flag serves both as national and naval ensign, that can hardly be helped when someone wants to use the US national flag.
PH results are fine the way they are. I want to use non historical first turn as Japan but don't because my strike force never hits PH so I am stuck with first turn but "OH well" Current game it is March 42 and I have captured all of Malaya, Borneo, Sumatra, Solomons , New Georgia, In New Guenia everything east of Owen Stanly except Buna and Lae, Have Port Blair, and am to Kiska and am preparing to attack Midway and Johnson
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!