Allied Strategy- One or Two Pronged?????

[mdiehl]

What game mechanic forces the US player to attack before he has the attomic bomb

Possibly the same game mechanic that forces the Japanese player to attempt operation MO and operation AF with inadequate force projection to achieve either objective.

[kaleun]

When I play the game as the Allies, I plan to take political factors into account. I may make ahistorical moves, but I will abide by political constraints. i.e. The Brits tried desperately to reinforce Singapore, it was politically unacceptable for them to lose it, thus I would not pull troops out of Singapore, until it became obvious that it was unsustainable, but by then, you would not be able to evacuate anything anyway. The Aussie gov, demanded that the Aussies in the Middle East return to OZ for defense, despite Winston's pleas, and some fancy ship movements, thus I would not reinforce Singapore with Aussies. I can't see the US not trying to help out in the DEI, although I might try to save the ships, rather than attempt a totally outnumbered battle.
I can't see that the US would wait until 43 before attempting some sort of offensive operation, feint or raid, thus, as allies, I would look for chances for such operations.
As Japan, however, I don't think this applies so much.
It would be nice if, as allies, or even as Japan, a significant success (battle, territory) would add some extra PPs though.

[Og]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

This wait til' 43 has nothing to do with reality, it just has to do with the way people play a game.

Umm, I suggest you read up a bit on history.

My point, good Mr Frag, is some player wants to sit around until 43 when he has alot more junk. Why doen't he sit around until 45 when he has the atomic bomb. History should not be relevent to this discussion--I just want to know why you can't just bore the japanese player into surrender (gamewise--since we are playing a game).

Or (as you might put it) why is the US player "handicapped" into attacking before 45 when he can win for sure? Do you think the designers have failed by making the US player play at all before 1945 or not?

yours
interested in the game
Og

[Mr.Frag]

Should you not fight as the Allies until '45, you will loose the game in '43.

Based on the VP for bases, Oz landings will probably be happening towards the end of '42 forcing the unprepared Allied player to fight whether he wants to or not.

Japan gets VP Strategic points for bombing factory/production stuff in Oz. PM is in range of enough of these to eventually cause Japan to win.

The USA *must* rescue Oz or loose the game. It is self balancing. While you may be able to not fully commit in '43, you must keep Oz from being pushed under. As long as the USA does this, they can sit back and stall, but they *must* do this.

[Og]

Thanks Mr.Frag;

I assume Oz and Pm are near australia or india?

[kaleun]

If Oz falls, then allies lose.
That it?

[Mr.Frag]

I assume Oz and Pm are near australia or india?

Oz = Australia

PM = Port Moresby

After typing them a million odd times, you'll learn to use shortcuts (as you are new to the forum, I understand why you ask)

[freeboy]

Does Os have an official wizard?

[Mr.Frag]

Does Os have an official wizard?

Thats "Oz" and no, those criminals "down under" absconded with him! [:'(]

[freeboy]

OZ.. I went to the Brady typiong school for the gifted.. "read special" I that maybe Luskan wan the Wizard No????[:D]

[Mr.Frag]

Luskan

Speaking of the criminals [:D]

The lightning strike that blew up his jail cell err "house" was the Wiz trying to break out!

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Og

Good Sirs;

I just have to laugh when I read this serious debate about the allies waiting til' 43 and their essex class carriers to counter-attack.

The reason seems to be that then they can beat the ijn without as much risk as the early coral sea battle in may.

This wait til' 43 has nothing to do with reality, it just has to do with the way people play a game.

If FDR was really on the ball he would have waited til' at least july of 45 for both the german and japanese offensives (by this reasoning). But he didn't have the game.

So why not just wait til' august of 45 since at that point you have a sure win?

This discussion shouldn't be about historic fact, but rather game mechanics. What game mechanic forces the US player to attack before he has the attomic bomb (cuz its just dumb to attack too soon right?).

Do the japanese get any chance of developing an atomic bomb in this game?

yours
very unimpressed
Og

[:D] A lot of sarcasm here… don’t you think?

American initial planning (Rainbow #5) did call for strategic defense in the Pacific until Germany was defeated… say the late 1944/45 time frame. While historically that didn’t happen, it was neither impossible nor that improbable if some variables had been different.

1. Admiral King and General Macarthur were strong willed individuals with considerable power and influence; and they used it to advance the cause of major operation in the Pacific. If both these men are not on hand, this would alter the dynamics.

2. The British believed in a peripheral strategy, which was at odds with the US militaries. A British determination to conduct a cross channel invasion in 1943 would have fit in well with the US view, and drained the Pacific of vast amounts of air and ground resources.

3. The American plan of strategic defense in the Pacific was predicated on the safety of Australia. So when the Japanese moved south in an attempt to threaten Australia it lend credence to the argument that the US could not set ideally by and not respond.

Change these factors and a delay of US offensive operation till 1944 is not unreasonable. Agree or Disagree?

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Should you not fight as the Allies until '45, you will loose the game in '43.

Based on the VP for bases, Oz landings will probably be happening towards the end of '42 forcing the unprepared Allied player to fight whether he wants to or not.

Japan gets VP Strategic points for bombing factory/production stuff in Oz. PM is in range of enough of these to eventually cause Japan to win.

The USA *must* rescue Oz or loose the game. It is self balancing. While you may be able to not fully commit in '43, you must keep Oz from being pushed under. As long as the USA does this, they can sit back and stall, but they *must* do this.

Not to mention the fact that:
1. Having the bomb doesn't win the game. You have to drop it on Japan, which can't be done from Pearl Harbor or New Delhi (though the B-52 will be deployed in the 50s if you want to wait). It will take considerable time to retake enough ground to deliver the bomb to Japan.
2. According to other posts, dropping the bomb is not an auto-kill. It is more of a large VP modifier. If you haven't properly prepped Japan, dropping the bomb will result in a loss to the Allies.

As it was, the U.S. almost waited to '43 to take the offensive. Guadalcanal was a strike of opportunity/defense that was borderline premature. Nothing unrealistic about waiting for '43. But waiting for '45 won't get it done even without artificial incentives in the game.

[Blackhorse]

1. Having the bomb doesn't win the game. You have to drop it on Japan, which can't be done from Pearl Harbor or New Delhi (though the B-52 will be deployed in the 50s if you want to wait).

Wouldn't a B-36 (available in '48 IIRC) have done the trick? [:)]

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Wouldn't a B-36 (available in '48 IIRC) have done the trick? [:)]

Actually I was thinking of that, but couldn't remember the designation. [8|] Didn't want to search for the thread that discussed it, either.

But you're right: you could probably wait until '48 to drop the bomb that *won't* win the war.

[Mr.Frag]

The *bomb* damages a single hex. Period. You would need about 15-20 of them to deal with Japan without non-stop raids of a normal type. Since each extra past 2 reduced the victory level by 1, using that many = Japanese Decisive Victory [:D]

[Jonny_B]

[:'(][font="Times New Roman"][/font]

What allied strategy, oh ya:

Build more of everything, move forward, attack at will and obliterate the weaker enemy.
-Unable to do anything to stop the American War machine, Germany and Japan would eventually face destruction.
Ever wonder what might have happen, if Germany and/or Japan manufacturing, resources and production were just a mere half of the American juggernaut.

Ten or twenty years of WWII, maybe.

Could America have won the war so easily, no?

No, still we would have won, eventually.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

The *bomb* damages a single hex. Period. You would need about 15-20 of them to deal with Japan without non-stop raids of a normal type. Since each extra past 2 reduced the victory level by 1, using that many = Japanese Decisive Victory [:D]

I still don't understand this rule. The US benifits from destroying the first two Japanese
Cities hit with A-Bombs---but the Japanese benefit from being obliterated the third time
and thereafter? By this line of reasoning the Japanese could have "won" the war by
demolishing all their cities and marching 10,000,000 of their people into the ocean like
lemmings. The "logic" is "illogical" at best.

[j campbell]

Mike,

According to most people's logic on this forum -yourself excluded- Japan should surrender after the 2nd A-bomb becuas e that what was the deciding point of the war (thanks heavily to post was cold war propoganda i suppose). Truth being that it was just another weapon in a long littany of reasons the japanese should have/could havce given up by this point and did not.

Actually, I like the rule -I don't find it politically acceptable neither then nor now to annhilihate a civilian population because of the atrocities its government and military performed. The A-bomb becomes available in 1945 though i would have to assume Japan is on the ropes and is near surrender by this point anyway.

One assumes the designers realize that since the A-bomb has not been used since that the US govenment realizes not only its terrible destructiveness but also its political and moral ramifications as well-otherwise why not use it in similar situations from say Korean war until now??

Unlike a ETO game where germany surrenders with the fall of berlin - Pacific conflict games a more difficult to find a endpoint.

Personally i think it is all trivial in a game anyway-you know and your opponent knows who played the better game or perhaps you both think you did therefore you both come away winner (this is not some lets all be happy together liberal speel). I have played many games where i was the "loser" but accomplished more than i had hoped to with the side i was playing and therefore had a good time.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I still don't understand this rule. The US benifits from destroying the first two Japanese
Cities hit with A-Bombs---but the Japanese benefit from being obliterated the third time
and thereafter? By this line of reasoning the Japanese could have "won" the war by
demolishing all their cities and marching 10,000,000 of their people into the ocean like
lemmings. The "logic" is "illogical" at best.

Common, Mike, you and some other guys on this forum were actually loudest with "historic argumentation" (when it served for your/allied purpose)[8|]...

so, the third A-Bomb is not historical, and the rule is good, trying to keep balance between history and the game...

Personally, from what i read on this forum, (AAR's, beta testers opinions), i fell sorrow for any allied player who is going to need A-bombs to win the game...

If you just like droping nukes, try with Schorched Tanks or Civilization III.