Need for a political solution

[niceguy2005]

I don't know if this is the right forum, but I have an idea that would really improve the game and add incredible depth to the game - as if it didn't already have a lot. I want to say kudos to the game designers and staff for creating something really unique.

However, what this game needs is a possible political solution for the Japanese. The Japanese strategy from the outset was to force the allies into a conditional surender, possibly by forcing Enland or Australia out of the war, or by threatening the USA strongly enough that they would negotiate. Of course, it is unlikely that the US would have negotiated or that Australia would have given up, but what is they had. What would the war have been like if Japan had forced Australia into neutrality? Would it have been possible for them to win? What would it take for Australia to surrender? Total isolation and facing the possibility of invasion? What about England? Would they have negotiated a truce if a large Japanese force were occupying part of India? Would they have given up Burma to save India?

Of course, the victory conditions for the game take into account the political situation indirectly. If the Allies lost enough resources early on in the war, they may have given in, so the use of points to reflect loses is useful to a point. But it treats the the various Allied governments as having one political mind. Since England was fighting for it's survival half a world away, it is far more likely that they would negotiate than the Americans. Just a thought, but imagine the possibilities for different historical outcomes.

[Widell]

So, what you´re really saying is that you want the possibility to edit the:

1) Victory Conditions and
2) adding Neutral Countries (with activation conditions?)

to the editors shipped with the game?

/Robert

[Bombur]

-The idea is good, but would need a massive overhaul of WiTP engine. I always wanted to have WiTP with an editor event like that of TOAW/ACOW. I would also like to make countries change sides too....but of course, this would be a completely new game.

[saj42]

how about this -

Japan has to keep 8000+ assualt points in Manchuko to prevent Russian activation. Go below this figure and there is a chance the Russians declare war. What if similar was done with India and Australia. If Japan puts enough superiority in Assualt Points into those two countries there is a chance they will surrender (or negotiated sattlement). Then there would be a garrison limit imposed. However i've no idea how one would then handle the on map units from a surrendered power.

Just a thought[8|]

[John III]

I LIKE that idea. Goes along with what is already present in the game.

We know the Australians were furious with Churchill over how he was trying to control their troops. In my campaign game with Moses, I have taken all four of the NW Australian cities. What would the Aussies have done then? You can darn well bet NONE of their troops would have been ANYWHERE but Australia! Surrender...I don't know... Negotiated peace...maybe.

[moses]

Try getting people to agree on the surrender rules. Fat Chance.

Had the result at Midway been reversed (our last three carriers destroyed) it is quite likely IMO that a negotiated settlement would have eventually come. Everyone will protest that of course the USA would never have accepted anything but total unconditional surrender of Japan. But most of our wars have ended in negotiations of some kind. Wars of total annihilation are really quite rare in history.

Pesonnally I think the auto-victory rules represent the political solution. If you get the 4-1 ratio in 43 I think Japan will have done enough damage to force some kind of eventuale political settlement. So the game ends.

[John III]

My esteemed opponent makes good sense. The game is SO complicated anyway. To add the political layer of Burma, Australia, New Zealand, and India to it would REALLY make it complicated!

[Widell]

I saw a reference to the (also) great game Operational Art of War/Century of Warfare in another thread, and what we are close to wish for is combination of the WitP game in terms of air and naval simulation and TOAW/CoW in terms of ground warfare as well as the possibility to freely edit not only the victory conditions and the status of different sides, but also make complex events with triggers and probabilities etc etc, not to mention the making of maps and scalability of scenarios

This would for me most likely be the mother of all wargames, and regardless of the cost to buy it (as was discussed in another rather amusing thread) I´d spend the money as I would likely not need to buy another computer game ever again

The bad news is that this is not an option for WitP, nor for TOAW/CoW, but hopefully someone that has the possibility will one day create a monster like that..... [&o]

/Robert

[DuckofTindalos]

Damn! You'd sit down in front of the computer and NEVER, EVER leave again... I think we've all dreamed about a game like that.

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Damn! You'd sit down in front of the computer and NEVER, EVER leave again... I think we've all dreamed about a game like that.

We´d all just quitely slip away from our families and jobs and disappear into a wonderful virtual world made up of gazillions of counters moving randomly (to the untrained eye that is!). A whole generation of men in their prime age simply gone from the face of the Earth. Familes shattered, children crying, divorcees demonstrating outside Matrix Corporation Global Headquarters - And we would know nothing of it, we´d just be waiting for the next turn to arrive in the mailbox, planning complex operations (game)months ahead, carefully plotting the movement of our beloved counters on pieces of paper and printed maps, looking for that perfect move that catch your opponent off guard and sinks a few of his CV's or encircle his favourite army just like that. Mmmmmmmm

/Robert

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Tallyho!

how about this -

Japan has to keep 8000+ assualt points in Manchuko to prevent Russian activation. Go below this figure and there is a chance the Russians declare war. What if similar was done with India and Australia. If Japan puts enough superiority in Assualt Points into those two countries there is a chance they will surrender (or negotiated sattlement). Then there would be a garrison limit imposed. However i've no idea how one would then handle the on map units from a surrendered power.

Just a thought[8|]

This at least has some validity for areas like India where there was an internal political struggle already extent. The big problem the Japanese had (for all their "Co-Prosperity Sphere" propaganda) was that other Asians had already seen Japanese "liberation" in action in China---and it wasn't winning many "hearts and minds". Ghandi reccognize Japanese Goals for what they were, and he and most of the Congress Party "stuck with the Devil they knew" and didn't work against the British. Only a small number of hotheads bought into the Japanese promises (much like the "Quislings" of Europe).

For the Japanese to "win" in India would take a truely large presence, both to give those Indians who might believe the bullshit the Japs were spewing enough of a feeling of security to step forward and cooperate, and to hold down those who would be working against them (from either Pro-Indian, Pro-British, or anti Japanese motives). Maybe on the order of 50,000+ assult points to trigger a surrender.
Remember that they had had most of their army in China since 1937 without triggering any surrender.

As for forcing the Aussies to seek a seperate peace, grabbing Darwin and associated areas just ain't going to do it. They are going to have to get a large number of supplied troops into the South-East section of the nation, where almost all the people and industry were located. This was the area the Australians themselves felt was vital to their survival. And the "Outback" was for them what "General Winter" was for the Russians---and ally in their struggle and defense. Upsetting a few Aborigonies and crocodiles in the Northern Territories wasn't going to accomplish anything (except to provide the crocodiles with some fresh meat while the Japanese acclimated to their surroundings).

The basic idea you have is sound, but it was still going to take a hell of an effort on the Japanese side to pull it off. One of the main reasons the IJA kept vetoing the more expansive plans of the IJN.

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Widell

I saw a reference to the (also) great game Operational Art of War/Century of Warfare in another thread, and what we are close to wish for is combination of the WitP game in terms of air and naval simulation and TOAW/CoW in terms of ground warfare as well as the possibility to freely edit not only the victory conditions and the status of different sides, but also make complex events with triggers and probabilities etc etc, not to mention the making of maps and scalability of scenarios

This would for me most likely be the mother of all wargames, and regardless of the cost to buy it (as was discussed in another rather amusing thread) I´d spend the money as I would likely not need to buy another computer game ever again

The bad news is that this is not an option for WitP, nor for TOAW/CoW, but hopefully someone that has the possibility will one day create a monster like that..... [&o]

-I personally think that Matrix has an excellent game engine in their hands and a reasonable number of fanatics willing to pay the U$70 or more for a game like this. How much effort would be expended to improve this engine in order to allow (1) for a better land combat engine and (2) to introduce a political event engine? It would be unwise not to develop the WiTP engine.
-Btw: A game that attempts to achieve these goals, althought it lacks in military simulation realism is Supreme ruler 2010. It has both politics, economy and a quite complex military system with more than 2000 military units, and a very interesting tech tree. It would be worth to take a look at what those guys achieved, this game engine, if improved, could simulate WWII pretty well, to make things even better, the game seems to run well even on below average system (like my Athlon XP 2600 with 256MB RAM and 32MB GeForce 2 3D card)

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: Bombur
-I personally think that Matrix has an excellent game engine in their hands and a reasonable number of fanatics willing to pay the U$70 or more for a game like this. How much effort would be expended to improve this engine in order to allow (1) for a better land combat engine and (2) to introduce a political event engine? It would be unwise not to develop the WiTP engine.

I agree. Matrix has a great engine, but if I get the discussions here correctly, the chance of any major development is slim to none. But, getting (1) and (2) would make it the even more than it already is, and would likely cure my tendency to always slip back to my favourite TOAW/CoW

ORIGINAL: Bombur
-Btw: A game that attempts to achieve these goals, althought it lacks in military simulation realism is Supreme ruler 2010. It has both politics, economy and a quite complex military system with more than 2000 military units, and a very interesting tech tree. It would be worth to take a look at what those guys achieved, this game engine, if improved, could simulate WWII pretty well, to make things even better, the game seems to run well even on below average system (like my Athlon XP 2600 with 256MB RAM and 32MB GeForce 2 3D card)

Naah, I installed the demo and tested it for a couple of hours, and since I followed the development of the game by looking at their site periodically for more than a year, I had great expectations. I must say I was disappointed, but then again, I am rather conservative in these matters, so it just be me sounding like a grumpy old fart [;)]

/Robert

[DuckofTindalos]

The problem with continuing to develop the WitP engine is that it's very old and full of code stretching back all the way to Bombing the Reich. It really balances on a knife edge, and any attempt to develop new features will almost certainly result in loss of existing aspects of the game. We've seen it happen...[:)]

[Bombur]

I agree. Matrix has a great engine, but if I get the discussions here correctly, the chance of any major development is slim to none. But, getting (1) and (2) would make it the even more than it already is, and would likely cure my tendency to always slip back to my favourite TOAW/CoW

-Me too....btw, where is Norm Koeger?

Naah, I installed the demo and tested it for a couple of hours, and since I followed the development of the game by looking at their site periodically for more than a year, I had great expectations. I must say I was disappointed, but then again, I am rather conservative in these matters, so it just be me sounding like a grumpy old fart [;)]

-The demo don´t give you a good idea of this game. Except for a poor AI (particularlu as diplomacy is of concern) and some strange military results (like Frigate bombardment decimating entire battalions, thinks that probably could be fixed in the editor) the game is wonderful. Economic model is particulalrly interesting, much better than CivIII or Europa Universalis. The tech tree is wonderful, as is the mechanism of unit research. Currently, I´m playing as South Africa in the African campaign. My country is a pariah state which restored apartheid and is hated by all other countries. Already occupied Namibian Federation and I´m improving my economy in order to allow the annexation of Angola, my next target.

/Robert
[/quote]

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

-Me too....btw, where is Norm Koeger?

Looking at Koger's homepage he´s working on a Russo-Japanese War
1904-1905 game with a real soon now release date. The bad news is the page was updated in November 2004

ORIGINAL: Bombur

-The demo don´t give you a good idea of this game. Except for a poor AI (particularlu as diplomacy is of concern) and some strange military results (like Frigate bombardment decimating entire battalions, thinks that probably could be fixed in the editor) the game is wonderful. Economic model is particulalrly interesting, much better than CivIII or Europa Universalis. The tech tree is wonderful, as is the mechanism of unit research. Currently, I´m playing as South Africa in the African campaign. My country is a pariah state which restored apartheid and is hated by all other countries. Already occupied Namibian Federation and I´m improving my economy in order to allow the annexation of Angola, my next target.

That´s good to hear. I had high hopes on this game while following the development on their site. Maybe something to buy when winter comes and there´s more dark hours.....

/Robert