Pearl Harbor Poll

Pacific War is a free update of the old classic, available in our Downloads section.
Yogi Yohan
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Yogi Yohan »

Originally posted by Charles22:
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.
I'm listening, but you seem to forget your own statements, and mine. I've said before that i understand that the Rising Sun was out of place among national flags ("admittedly out of place", were my exact words) but your outrage was not because of that, but because you did not want to "give that flag honor" because of the Pearl Harbor attack. That is what is an entierly different matter. Try to be more stringent, please.

To answer your question again then, if the Russian Naval banner would have been planted among national flags in my country, my reaction would have been "how silly, that one isn't a national flag", not one of moral outrage over a tainted flag being given honour.
Major Tom
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Canada

Post by Major Tom »

Regarding the NON-HISTORICAL first turn.

The IJN Task Force set out from JAPAN to attack Pearl Harbor, and returned to JAPAN after the strike. Only the Soryu and Hiryu were detached to assist on the attack on Wake Island.

Setting the Pearl Harbor Task Force as a home base on Marcus Island would be unhistorical. It took them a LONG time to traverse the northern passages to strike Pearl. And Marcus did not have a port large enough to facilitate as a base of operations for a massive Carrier group anyway.

Also, the point of the NON-HISTORICAL turn is to do things that were not-historical. You could recreate the Pearl Harbor strike from Japan, but, it would take 2 weeks to get there.

In regards to the flag debate. The anger against the Rising Sun flag is a one sided opinion. Westerners look on that flag and see only one thing. Japanese look on that flag and see another. The Japanese might have been brainwashed to ignore their evil past, but SO HAVE WE! If you calculate all of the deaths and enslavements in the name of Western society Japan's atrocities seem tiny. We have also done a better job than them in ignoring our past. We cannot hold Japan to higher standards that we will not hold to ourselves.

Jeremy
User avatar
Blackhorse
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Eastern US

Post by Blackhorse »

Originally posted by Major Tom:
Regarding the NON-HISTORICAL first turn.
. . . the point of the NON-HISTORICAL turn is to do things that were not-historical. You could recreate the Pearl Harbor strike from Japan, but, it would take 2 weeks to get there.
Jeremy
Jeremy,
The problem with the first turn is that it doesn't really give you a true historical/ non-historical option.

If you want to start the war with an attack on Pearl Harbor, you must do *all* the other HISTORICAL attacks, as well.

If you want to change any of the initial Japanese invasions in Malaysia, the Philippines, South Pacific, etc. you can only do so by sacrificing the opportunity to strike PH on the first week.

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!
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by Rich Dionne »

If you really feel that the ability to strike at PH is paramount either historically or non-historically, then Marcus is probably best. It gives you the opportunity to strike while the first turn surprise is still in effect. But as Jeremy points out, that is a non-historical starting point.

If you really want all the possibilities of a non-historical start, then you can always edit the OBC41 and put TF1 where you want; make Ceylon your first thrust, etc...

Regards,

Rich Dionne

[This message has been edited by Rich Dionne (edited September 30, 2000).]
babyseal7
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am

Post by babyseal7 »

(slaps forehead)


User avatar
showboat1
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Atoka, TN

Post by showboat1 »

Japan had an authoritarian and brutal regime, and it commited many atrocities, but it was nothing like the Nazis.

Also, bear in mind that the Pearl Harbour attack might have been dishounourable from a western point of wiev, but according to the Japanese bushido code, you do not need to give your enemies any warning. The Japanese did not issue a formal declaration of war in the 1904/1905 war with Russia either, and it begun with a surprise attack on the naval base of Port Arthur.

Moral codes differ, and holding grudges against the defeated for not sharing yours seems a bit pointless. The war is long over, and the Rising Sun now represents the Navy of the most respectable and democratic country in Asia. For that, it does deserve to be honoured


Keep in mind old Commodore Dewey at the Phillipines. Not alot of warning given there. The best attack is the one where the enemy is taken completely by surprise. In the same position I would do the same. After all, we don't give warning when we pop off some Tomahawks at some unsuspecting 3rd World country.
SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)
User avatar
showboat1
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Atoka, TN

Post by showboat1 »

Originally posted by Charles22:
Yogi: If you don't want to understand, you're not going to.

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).
By the way, anyone remember this set of orders?
1) The Enterprise is operating under war conditions.
2) At any time, day or night, we must be ready for instant action.
3) Hostile submarines may be encountered.

Approved: November 28, 1941
W. F. Halsey
Vice Admiral, U. S. Navy
Commander Aircraft, Battle Force

Not everyone was neutral on December 7. Shame he wasn't CinCPAC.


SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)
Nii Jima
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Clarita, CA, USA

Post by Nii Jima »

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
If this is indeed the truth, then it is frightening how self-centered and ignorant those americans are. Fortunately, i do not belive it to be the thruth. You got to have more sense of proportions than that?
Let me get this straight. Americans, sitting peacefully by, watching as a well-armed band of murderous thugs wreak havoc (and I mean bloody havoc; torture, rape, pillage, the whole nine yards) across Manchuria and Northern China, find themselves attacked without provocation, and you call them "self-centered and ignorant" for being upset about it?
I mean, what's the industrial slaughter of 10 million innocent people, the devastation of a continent, the attempted extincton of a whole race, compared against the breaking international protocol and serving an embarrasing defeat to the high and mighty US of A? Nothing, apparently, nothing at all...
You are a thoroughly and frighteningly propagandized young man. First of all, the "industrial slaughter" you refer to was the norm at the time. A terrible norm, but the norm nonetheless. What, in fact, does Pearl Harbor represent but the "industrial slaughter" of innocents, I ask you that? Second, few if any knew about the mass exterminations going on in the European detention camps at the time they were occurring. Third, the fact that the exterminations were directed against one group, one "race" as you call it, is neither very surprising nor very significant. Either the killing was horrible or it was not; I fail to see how the victims' membership in some group somehow magnifies the crime. Fourth, the "high and mighty USA" was neither high nor particularly mighty at the time--which is one reason the Japs disregarded warnings and attacked anyway. The USA's descent into narcissism has occurred in the decades following WWII. They were at the time in fact very isolationist and peaceful and were well thought of throughout the world.
Sorry if i sound hostile, but when a legitmate naval banner of a democratic nation, even admittedly out of place, is considered more offensive than the Swastika, then i get hostile.
Well, how correct of you. I hereby award you the applause of all the other uneducated little lemmings you are trying to please with your remarks. As far as the substance goes, however, please screw yourself. Any American mother whose son was tortured and/or killed by the Japanese (a far crueler foe than the Nazis) earned her dislike of them the hard way...

...unlike you, who sit as judge of these mothers in the comfort of your own little high chair. Jesus, you're so blinded by your idiotic ideology you evidently can't even see or understand the most basic of human motivations...
The Marines of WWII. No Rambos they, only true heroes.
Rich Dionne
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by Rich Dionne »

Enough with the Flag already guys!

We're trying to improve the game here. What I want to hear about is what you think of the new flags on the map! Image

Firing e-mails or Forum responses back and forth like this is just inflammatory and non-productive, and often the result of misunderstandings. Let's just cool it down and get back on topic.

What I'm getting out of the on-topic stuff here is that the attack on PH can differ from start to start (something I love about the gamea!), but does not appear to be too far out of line with reality. It would be nice to up the 800 kg bombs vs. torpedoes, but that's in the coding, and not easy to change. I vote for leaving it as is.

The starting location of the strike force (Marcus Island vs. Tokyo) is an interesting issue regarding the ability to reach PH in a non-historic start. What do you Pacwarriors think about that?

Regards,

Rich Dionne
Yogi Yohan
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Yogi Yohan »

Originally posted by Nii Jima:
Let me get this straight. Americans, sitting peacefully by, watching as a well-armed band of murderous thugs wreak havoc (and I mean bloody havoc; torture, rape, pillage, the whole nine yards) across Manchuria and Northern China, find themselves attacked without provocation, and you call them "self-centered and ignorant" for being upset about it?
If you had bothered to read the entire post, you'd know that it answered a claim that TODAYS Americans would be more upset by the Rising Sun being raised on their ground than the Swastika, on account of Pearl Harbor. You obviously kind of know how to read, so keep it up and don't be discouraged by the long posts, you'll make it in the end.
Originally posted by Nii Jima:
You are a thoroughly and frighteningly propagandized young man. First of all, the "industrial slaughter" you refer to was the norm at the time. A terrible norm, but the norm nonetheless.
The Holocaust, a norm? You are a thoroughly ignorant young man if you belive that. Ah, and let me guess on your definition of propaganda: any view not shared by American conservatives?
Originally posted by Nii Jima:
What, in fact, does Pearl Harbor represent but the "industrial slaughter" of innocents, I ask you that?
I'd say it was an attack on a legitimate military target. Part of an unjust war, to be sure, but not in itself a war crime or anything like it.
Originally posted by Nii Jima:
Second, few if any knew about the mass exterminations going on in the European detention camps at the time they were occurring.
What has this to do with anything? We're discussing the attitudes of TODAYS americans towards the Swastika and the Rising Sun. Again, keep reading the posts through.
Originally posted by Nii Jima:
the "high and mighty USA" was neither high nor particularly mighty at the time--which is one reason the Japs disregarded warnings and attacked anyway. The USA's descent into narcissism has occurred in the decades following WWII. They were at the time in fact very isolationist and peaceful and were well thought of throughout the world..
See the above.
Originally posted by Nii Jima:
Well, how correct of you. I hereby award you the applause of all the other uneducated little lemmings you are trying to please with your remarks. As far as the substance goes, however, please screw yourself. Any American mother whose son was tortured and/or killed by the Japanese (a far crueler foe than the Nazis) earned her dislike of them the hard way...
I kind of doubt many of those mothers are alive today, and as to the relative cruelty of Nazis and Japs I bet there were some Polish, Russian and Jewish mothers who would like to discuss that point with you, so yep, i was dead right: At least one of you has no sense of proportion, and the manners of a street punk to match.
Originally posted by Nii Jima:
...unlike you, who sit as judge of these mothers in the comfort of your own little high chair. Jesus, you're so blinded by your idiotic ideology you evidently can't even see or understand the most basic of human motivations...
And what ideology would that be? I suspect you are going to throw the in America so dispised accolade of "liberal" at me. Funny, since most of those who know me consider me to be politically slightly to the right of Djingis Khan. Image But ideology does not blind me to the facts of history, as it does with you.
After you finish your reading excersises, i'd recommend studying some more of it, especially European history.

With this, i consider this topic closed and will not be participating in this debate any further, no matter what invectives are thrown at me.

[This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited September 30, 2000).]
Yogi Yohan
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Yogi Yohan »

Originally posted by Rich Dionne:
The starting location of the strike force (Marcus Island vs. Tokyo) is an interesting issue regarding the ability to reach PH in a non-historic start. What do you Pacwarriors think about that?
Well, obviously the starting location must allow the Japanese to be able to strike Pearl even in a non-historic first turn, So i'd go for Marcus Island, rather than Tokyo.
sulup
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne,Victoria,Australia

Post by sulup »

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
Well, obviously the starting location must allow the Japanese to be able to strike Pearl even in a non-historic first turn, So i'd go for Marcus Island, rather than Tokyo.
What I don't understand is why doesn't a TF at Tokyo not reach PH on Dec 7 in a non-historical turn, where a historical one does?

Can anyone explain this to me?
Major Tom
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Canada

Post by Major Tom »

Here's the point about the historical first turn, again...

You can strike Pearl Harbor from bases in Japan. I have sent TF's to strike California from bases in Japan. However, you can't do it in one turn (it takes two to travel that distance). So, if you choose the un-historical turn, then, when you send out the Pearl Harbor TF it will reach its target the next turn after you send it.

The point of the historical first turn is to gain the bonus of having the IJN Carrier strike, but, the penalty of not choosing the other targets (ie landings in Malaya, Philippines, etc...). If you choose an unhistorical first turn it is assumed that the Japanese did not send out their fleet from Japan to strike at Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. So why not just use the historical first turn if you want the Pearl Harbor strike, and if you don't, then choose the unhistorical first turn. The option is still open for you to attack Pearl Harbor in the unhistoric, just not on the first turn.

The Pearl Harbor strike required A LOT of prewar planning and preparation. What you don't see is that the IJN TF actually left port the turn before you start playing the historical first turn. (this is a special bonus for the IJN on the Historical turn)

I just see sticking the IJN Carrier TF at Marcus Island is giving the Japanese player extra leeway. It would be just like having the USN Carrier TF's start off at Midway so the USN could initiate their own Pearl Harbor on Tokyo on the first turn.

Jeremy

PS. The reason that the IJN TF attacks Pearl on Dec 7 41 in the Historical turn, is that it actually starts the game around 6 spaces away from Pearl Harbor,to symbolize that it had actually been at sea for turn before the game actually started. So it technically doesn't start in Tokyo, nor did the old OBC41 have the TF starting at Marcus I.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited September 30, 2000).]
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Post by mogami »

Put everything in Tokyo and let me start 1 November 41 with allies froze till Japan attacks HAHAHAHAH I am going to edit and place all my units in my territory but where I want it.

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Major Tom
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Canada

Post by Major Tom »

The perfect un-historical first turn would allow both the Japanese and Allies to position every ship, plane, and LCU on the map wherever their bases would allow it.

This might be interesting to do some PBEM games, where each side gets to edit the position of all of their forces (reinforcements can't be touched). You have to rely on faith of character not to have people peaking on their enemies positions. This would make it a much more interesting game.

Jeremy
sulup
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne,Victoria,Australia

Post by sulup »

Originally posted by Major Tom:


PS. The reason that the IJN TF attacks Pearl on Dec 7 41 in the Historical turn, is that it actually starts the game around 6 spaces away from Pearl Harbor,to symbolize that it had actually been at sea for turn before the game actually started. So it technically doesn't start in Tokyo, nor did the old OBC41 have the TF starting at Marcus I.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited September 30, 2000).]
So the TF is pre-created and placed somewhere near Pearl but we don't see that. Ahh, that's all I needed to know thanks.

Historically, I think the Pearl harbor TF actually took off from Northern Japan somewhere? Am I wrong?
Major Tom
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Canada

Post by Major Tom »

Yeah, they did start in Northern Japan, but, they ended up near the capital when they returned. I also think that the IJN player would rather like the fact that the Carrier TF starts off in a base with many other types of vessels (like Tokyo has) so they could equip the Cariier TF with more/different vessels right on the first turn instead of having to send it back to Tokyo, then add new ships, then send it on its mission.

Jeremy
User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

Post by Mike Wood »

Hello...

This is an empty posting to reset the date for this thread.

Bye...

Michael Wood
User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

Post by Mike Wood »

Hello...

This is an empty posting to reset the date for this thread.

Bye...

Michael Wood
User avatar
Cmdrcain
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
Contact:

Post by Cmdrcain »

Originally posted by Major Tom:
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.

Jeremy
For those who dont want alot Sunk, after my own tests, I'd recommend they:

Start game with HELP USA setting (NOT MAX Help, just Help)

1-2 BB's a few times 3 get sunk, rest have
60-90 damage stats.

Starting with Help US can be considered historical start with a Japanese commander not pressing it hard.

Even start can be for the more aggresive jpn start.

Once start help US, after first turn, save game, and restart with game set to EVEN
and those who want to play it even but not having most the BB's really sunk can play on.


Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!
Image
Battlestar Pegasus
Post Reply

Return to “Pacific War: The Matrix Edition”