Potential Problem with British Withdrawal

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal

Post by bradfordkay »

"This might be fun to model. (Maybe it is modelled, and that's why officers keep disappearing - it's not the "Leader Bug(s)", it a feature!!"


On the allied side, I pass off the leader bug as plane crashes. Now, if only I could get my mechanics to do a better job! [:(]
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal

Post by rtrapasso »

On the allied side, I pass off the leader bug as plane crashes.

So when a Japanese LT shows up as commander of the Essex, that's a suicide plane crash where the pilot survived, and manage to convince everyone he is the C.O.?[:'(]
bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal

Post by bradfordkay »

Nissei. [:'(]
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
Dereck
Posts: 3309
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: Romulus, MI

RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal

Post by Dereck »

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Actually anybody who argues about japanese politics missing should be happy that there no real restrictions concerning allied politics. Yes there were Army/Navy squabbels but they were at least all japanese. If allied politics would be introduced you have between 7 and 9 nations with their different goals and aims who try to work together. So be careful what you wish for.

Non-Americans may not like this but the real truth was that in the Pacific on the allied side (I'm not talking about SEAC) there was only one country that called the shots and that was America.
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
Rainerle
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:52 am
Location: Burghausen/Bavaria
Contact:

RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal

Post by Rainerle »

Well then model that chinese units fraternize with japanese and go after each other. Or that australian units refuse to leave for different theaters because australia is threatened or that the US refuse a british dutch drive into SRA because they don't want them to stay after the war or that the chinese request 10.000 supply points before they allow any US bomber be stationed there, or .... the list could go on here much longer. I'm not saying that the japanese rivalry did not produce problems and such, just that that the allied were hampered even more. The reason it didn't matter much is, like dereck stated, the allied side relied to (fill in your own high percentage number) on the american side allone. If the allied forces would have been more evenly distributed those different views would have really hampered the allied war effort.
Image
Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal

Post by rtrapasso »

Or that australian units refuse to leave for different theaters because australia is threatened

This IS modelled - trying moving Australian units out of Australia without expending political capitol. Of you don't have the PP, you can't do it. Australian units DID move out of Australia during the war.

As far Japanese having an easier time with this - this is nonsense! When commanders would literally be killed by their own side (IJA killing IJN officers) for opposing a battle plan thought up by the wrong faction, the Japanese effort was hampered enormously. None of this is touched in the game.

EDIT - thinking on it, the Chinese fraternization is also modelled. The Chinese produce for the Japanese (supplies, heavy industry, etc.) once the Japanese move in.
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”