I would like to see the game have the option to start on the 9th
The 7th or say Nov 1 that way If you want to start historically or alt reality. Its your choice not hardwired to historical.
9th December 1941
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
I want it all
Support the Boy Scouts buy Popcorn!
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/scouts ... id=3133025
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/scouts ... id=3133025
Quote: Jeremy Pritchard
"Exactly.
Getting into alternate history does not mean that you do only one thing that is plausible, but possibly a series of things, that can help or hurt either team."
Maybe its just semantics, but I believe there is a distintion between *plausible* alternate history and *possible* alternate history. Websters defines "plausible" as; seemingly probable. Where as I think its "seemingly probable" that the Enterprise would be at PH on Dec. 7th and like wise its "seemingly probable" that PH strike force is discovered becuase the laws of probabilities dictate so. The same can not be said , of fundementally changing something that was never going to be. ie: Having the Lex,Sara,Yorktown magically deployed at PH on Dec 7th. Sure its *possible*. Its also possible to have the whole Atlantic Fleet at PH also, but is it historically plausible? I think not.
Just to reiterate, I have nothing against the many possible aternate history scenerios that one can be dreamed up. I personally think there fun and thats the ultimate goal of playing any game. The fact is even playing a so-called historic scenerio becomes by neccessity un-historical as soon as you play the first turn.
I personally feel that since weather and recon are variables in the game, even a historical Dec.7th WitP scenerio should have at least a chance that the PH strike will not be a surprise or that the Enterprise would be in port.
How about at the start of turn one. The program does a die roll to determine if that the attack is discovered (recon, radar, Ward). If it is determined not discovered, then there would be another dye roll to determine (weather) if the B-E is in port.
"Exactly.
Getting into alternate history does not mean that you do only one thing that is plausible, but possibly a series of things, that can help or hurt either team."
Maybe its just semantics, but I believe there is a distintion between *plausible* alternate history and *possible* alternate history. Websters defines "plausible" as; seemingly probable. Where as I think its "seemingly probable" that the Enterprise would be at PH on Dec. 7th and like wise its "seemingly probable" that PH strike force is discovered becuase the laws of probabilities dictate so. The same can not be said , of fundementally changing something that was never going to be. ie: Having the Lex,Sara,Yorktown magically deployed at PH on Dec 7th. Sure its *possible*. Its also possible to have the whole Atlantic Fleet at PH also, but is it historically plausible? I think not.
Just to reiterate, I have nothing against the many possible aternate history scenerios that one can be dreamed up. I personally think there fun and thats the ultimate goal of playing any game. The fact is even playing a so-called historic scenerio becomes by neccessity un-historical as soon as you play the first turn.
I personally feel that since weather and recon are variables in the game, even a historical Dec.7th WitP scenerio should have at least a chance that the PH strike will not be a surprise or that the Enterprise would be in port.
How about at the start of turn one. The program does a die roll to determine if that the attack is discovered (recon, radar, Ward). If it is determined not discovered, then there would be another dye roll to determine (weather) if the B-E is in port.
Well, since it is alt-history I have no problem imagining either that the radar detection leads to a general alert and a signficant CAP taht the IJN has to fight through, nor do I have any toruble imagining the US BBs at alert status, buckled up and ready to shoot, nor the CVs in a position to hit the Pearl Harbor Strike Force when they least expect it. All of them.
*My* copy of Websters (which is *old* 1977, and *abridged* it's the "collegiate" model) defines "plausible" as follows:
"3: appearing worthy of belief, <His argument was both powerful and ~>"
Which is, of course, consistent with mine/Jeremy's use of the term and the proper adjective to characterize mine/his opinions regarding this matter.
*My* copy of Websters (which is *old* 1977, and *abridged* it's the "collegiate" model) defines "plausible" as follows:
"3: appearing worthy of belief, <His argument was both powerful and ~>"
Which is, of course, consistent with mine/Jeremy's use of the term and the proper adjective to characterize mine/his opinions regarding this matter.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Originally posted by mdiehl
Well, since it is alt-history I have no problem imagining either that the radar detection leads to a general alert and a signficant CAP taht the IJN has to fight through, nor do I have any toruble imagining the US BBs at alert status, buckled up and ready to shoot, nor the CVs in a position to hit the Pearl Harbor Strike Force when they least expect it. All of them.
*My* copy of Websters (which is *old* 1977, and *abridged* it's the "collegiate" model) defines "plausible" as follows:
"3: appearing worthy of belief, <His argument was both powerful and ~>"
Which is, of course, consistent with mine/Jeremy's use of the term and the proper adjective to characterize mine/his opinions regarding this matter.
Mdiehl
My Websters is the 1991 "New Revised and Expanded Addition", but I have not problem with your versions def.
I guess I speaking more "atering" history not changeing it. The classic all things but arguement. Ie: What if US warned of PH attack. What if Tones scout #4 doesnt malfunction at Midway? What if Hiter doesnt turn south in Aug 41? All very pluasible without changing fundementally the overall fabric of history.
What do you think should a "historical" Dec 7 41 PH scenero include a chance the strike is discovered? If so should it also include a weather variable that the Enterprise is in port?
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Alternate history means something relatively small is changed, that affects history to a great extent.
It is not something quite as large, as say having the Iowa's in 1941 at Pearl Harbour, or Japan having a good ASW and training system.
What alternate history is, is some factor that is very realistic, and had an extremely good chance in happening.
Such alternate history things that I think would make for cool scenarios are indiviual or possibly all encompassing of the following.
#1 Pearl Harbour US counterattack. Many small things could have gone differently. Kimmel could have launched better patrols, the US intelligence service could have informed CENTPAC (like they did afterward), the knowledge that the IJN carrier TF leaving the Home Islands should have rang some alarm bells.
#2 Pearl Harbour US CV caught at port. This was just as likely as the above scenario (should it be assumed that no CV's were in port by accident).
#3 No Washington Treaty. What if the Washington treaty was not accepted by some nations?
These above and more are all possible alternate histories. They were primarily caused by individual circumstances, that had very plausible outcomes either way. Alternate history does not mean that entire modes of thought, developed over years and years of continuity are changed, but rather instances. I believe that the possibility of both situation #1 and situation #2 (when you look at all of the possibilities) occurring are about equal. I perfer the chance that I set above for things to happen (25%, 25%, 50%). Otherwize it becomes too unbalanced by giving one side more power over the other through odds. Since I can justify an equal chance of the above circumstances happening, why handicapp one side unless there is an adjenda to?
It is not something quite as large, as say having the Iowa's in 1941 at Pearl Harbour, or Japan having a good ASW and training system.
What alternate history is, is some factor that is very realistic, and had an extremely good chance in happening.
Such alternate history things that I think would make for cool scenarios are indiviual or possibly all encompassing of the following.
#1 Pearl Harbour US counterattack. Many small things could have gone differently. Kimmel could have launched better patrols, the US intelligence service could have informed CENTPAC (like they did afterward), the knowledge that the IJN carrier TF leaving the Home Islands should have rang some alarm bells.
#2 Pearl Harbour US CV caught at port. This was just as likely as the above scenario (should it be assumed that no CV's were in port by accident).
#3 No Washington Treaty. What if the Washington treaty was not accepted by some nations?
These above and more are all possible alternate histories. They were primarily caused by individual circumstances, that had very plausible outcomes either way. Alternate history does not mean that entire modes of thought, developed over years and years of continuity are changed, but rather instances. I believe that the possibility of both situation #1 and situation #2 (when you look at all of the possibilities) occurring are about equal. I perfer the chance that I set above for things to happen (25%, 25%, 50%). Otherwize it becomes too unbalanced by giving one side more power over the other through odds. Since I can justify an equal chance of the above circumstances happening, why handicapp one side unless there is an adjenda to?
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I don't think that he said the situation should never happen, I think he is refuting the concept that it should happen more then the US carriers should intercept the IJN carriers. However, the realistic chances of either happening are, I feel, fairly equal. There were many realistic ways that the US could have forseen the Japanese attack on Pearl, just as the Japanese had to catch a US carrier at Pearl.Originally posted by TIMJOT
Mdiehl
My Websters is the 1991 "New Revised and Expanded Addition", but I have not problem with your versions def.
I guess I speaking more "atering" history not changeing it. The classic all things but arguement. Ie: What if US warned of PH attack. What if Tones scout #4 doesnt malfunction at Midway? What if Hiter doesnt turn south in Aug 41? All very pluasible without changing fundementally the overall fabric of history.
What do you think should a "historical" Dec 7 41 PH scenero include a chance the strike is discovered? If so should it also include a weather variable that the Enterprise is in port?
I'll even qualify plausible to mean things that were not necessarily "likely" but could reasonably be imagined to occur without invoking supernatural forces and the like. Generally speaking alternate deployments of men and equipment available at start strikes me as plausible. *Implausible* as Jeremy noted would be radically altered Japanese ASW doctrine and training, or, for that matter, USS Houston sporting some US equivalent of the Type 93.
I could not rank the chances of Enterprise being at PH on 7 December sans inclement weather. I don't know diddly about Hawaiian Islands area meteorology. It might be just as plausible that Enterprise is on PH on 7 December, but a violent storm keeps Kido Butai from launching on 7 December, and Enterprise is alerted to leave port after a pack of mini-subs are sunk trying to creep into PH and a Japanese combatant is captured on a beach.
I could not rank the chances of Enterprise being at PH on 7 December sans inclement weather. I don't know diddly about Hawaiian Islands area meteorology. It might be just as plausible that Enterprise is on PH on 7 December, but a violent storm keeps Kido Butai from launching on 7 December, and Enterprise is alerted to leave port after a pack of mini-subs are sunk trying to creep into PH and a Japanese combatant is captured on a beach.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
I don't think that he said the situation should never happen, I think he is refuting the concept that it should happen more then the US carriers should intercept the IJN carriers. However, the realistic chances of either happening are, I feel, fairly equal. There were many realistic ways that the US could have forseen the Japanese attack on Pearl, just as the Japanese had to catch a US carrier at Pearl.
Again, maybe splitting hairs, but although I would agree that the chance that the Enterprise would be at PH would be no greater than it intercepting the IJN carriers. I do not agree that the chance that *all * the USN carriers Lex (Midway), Sara(SanFran)Yorktown(Atlantic) would intercept on Dec 7th. should be the same. Sure you can make up all sorts of reasons but the more reasons you have to interject the less likely it would happen.
ie) Lex; somewhat likely if she leaves earlier or later or Midway mission is cancelled alltogether.
Sara; unlikely, being she was never based out of PH and she was in drydock previous to Dec 7th.
Yorktwn; most unlikely, being she was part of Atlantic Fleet and the USN spent most of 40/41 building up the Atlantic Fleet not decreasing it. You would have to change the overall US grand strategy to get the Yorktown in the Pacific pre PH. Thats not a small change.
I would submit that plausible alternate history should entail keeping the overal historic context intact prior to the point that the "Alternative" is interjected into history.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Well alternate history opens up a bunch of possible outcomes due to minute changes. Possibly a bunch of factors came into being to either...
A) Have the USN mount a suprise attack on the IJN.
(Japanese suffer CV losses)
B) The USN is caught really flat footed with a CV at Pearl
(Allies suffer CV losses)
C) A USN CV is caught at Pearl, but the rest happen to be within striking distance of the IJN TF.
(Both suffer CV losses)
D) Historical, the USN CV's are far enough away to remain safe, but so too are the IJN CV's.
(Neither suffer CV losses)
Alternate history allows for the possibility for all of the above scenarios. Just because historically the Yorktown was on patrol in the Carribean does not mean that it might have had it in the Pacific (possibly switched with the Saratoga which was under refit, so there would be 3 active USN CV's).
Another possible alternate history is the location and composition of the Royal Navy Force Z.
Here are some possibilities for it...
A) Historical deployment (1 BB, 1 BC, 4 DD at singapore).
B) Planned USN reinforcements from Asiatic fleet (+4 DD) to Force Z at Singapore.
C) Planned relocation of Force Z to Manila (Force Z + Asiatic Fleet).
D) In combination with all of the above scenarios the addition of a CV (either the Indomitable [or was it Illustrious?] didn't ground itself, or another CV was freed up).
All of these were possible, not only that, but probable. There was a lot of communication between Vice Admiral Philips and Admiral Hart (through Ghormley I believe) about the deployment of naval forces in the Far East with options B and C being plans of implementation, and it was because of a lot of bad luck that there was no carrier support (which could probably have beaten off the unescorted G4M and G3M's).
Alternate history basically changes one or a few small things that give one side a heads up over the other. Really good situations of alternate history have options that vary to benefit and harm particular sides, not just to add benefit to one.
A) Have the USN mount a suprise attack on the IJN.
(Japanese suffer CV losses)
B) The USN is caught really flat footed with a CV at Pearl
(Allies suffer CV losses)
C) A USN CV is caught at Pearl, but the rest happen to be within striking distance of the IJN TF.
(Both suffer CV losses)
D) Historical, the USN CV's are far enough away to remain safe, but so too are the IJN CV's.
(Neither suffer CV losses)
Alternate history allows for the possibility for all of the above scenarios. Just because historically the Yorktown was on patrol in the Carribean does not mean that it might have had it in the Pacific (possibly switched with the Saratoga which was under refit, so there would be 3 active USN CV's).
Another possible alternate history is the location and composition of the Royal Navy Force Z.
Here are some possibilities for it...
A) Historical deployment (1 BB, 1 BC, 4 DD at singapore).
B) Planned USN reinforcements from Asiatic fleet (+4 DD) to Force Z at Singapore.
C) Planned relocation of Force Z to Manila (Force Z + Asiatic Fleet).
D) In combination with all of the above scenarios the addition of a CV (either the Indomitable [or was it Illustrious?] didn't ground itself, or another CV was freed up).
All of these were possible, not only that, but probable. There was a lot of communication between Vice Admiral Philips and Admiral Hart (through Ghormley I believe) about the deployment of naval forces in the Far East with options B and C being plans of implementation, and it was because of a lot of bad luck that there was no carrier support (which could probably have beaten off the unescorted G4M and G3M's).
Alternate history basically changes one or a few small things that give one side a heads up over the other. Really good situations of alternate history have options that vary to benefit and harm particular sides, not just to add benefit to one.
Turn length
Greetings, Combat resolution will be the time consumer. It will likely have differing levels of reporting results while processing.
Even granting the size and scope of the game it will sheldom be the case where any significant action is occuring every day.
(the opening months of course the Japanese player will be very busy)
Two persons on line together playing PBEM will be able to do several turns on week days and many turns on week ends. (I can not imagine a person booting up this game and only planning to play a single turn once a week)
I finished many Pac War PBEM games and figure to do the same here. Of course you also have to consider the war can be won or lost before using all the turns. (Ever play those folks who resign-or worse yet disappear?)
From Dec 7th 41 to July 1st 42 will be the critical period. Both players will know by then who holds the advantage. Once (if) the US/Allies are able to immobilize the Japanese by sinking the transport/merchant fleet (beginning in earnest in late 43) the Japanese player will have less and less to preform each turn. (look longingly at his replacment/reinforcment schedule and count the days till new green pilots cycle through training etc)
The allies will most likely mount massive operations in a few locations at a time (requiring some time to set up but once underway not consuming much tme per turn)
(By contrast early in the war the Japanese will have many easy to set up operations running concurrently)
While it remains to be seen I do not believe this game will require all that much time per turn. (every play an online SPWAW battle with 5-10k points per side? I'm quessing WITP turns will be shorter)
Even granting the size and scope of the game it will sheldom be the case where any significant action is occuring every day.
(the opening months of course the Japanese player will be very busy)
Two persons on line together playing PBEM will be able to do several turns on week days and many turns on week ends. (I can not imagine a person booting up this game and only planning to play a single turn once a week)
I finished many Pac War PBEM games and figure to do the same here. Of course you also have to consider the war can be won or lost before using all the turns. (Ever play those folks who resign-or worse yet disappear?)
From Dec 7th 41 to July 1st 42 will be the critical period. Both players will know by then who holds the advantage. Once (if) the US/Allies are able to immobilize the Japanese by sinking the transport/merchant fleet (beginning in earnest in late 43) the Japanese player will have less and less to preform each turn. (look longingly at his replacment/reinforcment schedule and count the days till new green pilots cycle through training etc)
The allies will most likely mount massive operations in a few locations at a time (requiring some time to set up but once underway not consuming much tme per turn)
(By contrast early in the war the Japanese will have many easy to set up operations running concurrently)
While it remains to be seen I do not believe this game will require all that much time per turn. (every play an online SPWAW battle with 5-10k points per side? I'm quessing WITP turns will be shorter)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
Well alternate history opens up a bunch of possible outcomes due to minute changes. Possibly a bunch of factors came into being to either...
A) Have the USN mount a suprise attack on the IJN.
(Japanese suffer CV losses)
B) The USN is caught really flat footed with a CV at Pearl
(Allies suffer CV losses)
C) A USN CV is caught at Pearl, but the rest happen to be within striking distance of the IJN TF.
(Both suffer CV losses)
D) Historical, the USN CV's are far enough away to remain safe, but so too are the IJN CV's.
(Neither suffer CV losses)
Alternate history allows for the possibility for all of the above scenarios. Just because historically the Yorktown was on patrol in the Carribean does not mean that it might have had it in the Pacific (possibly switched with the Saratoga which was under refit, so there would be 3 active USN CV's).
Another possible alternate history is the location and composition of the Royal Navy Force Z.
Here are some possibilities for it...
A) Historical deployment (1 BB, 1 BC, 4 DD at singapore).
B) Planned USN reinforcements from Asiatic fleet (+4 DD) to Force Z at Singapore.
C) Planned relocation of Force Z to Manila (Force Z + Asiatic Fleet).
D) In combination with all of the above scenarios the addition of a CV (either the Indomitable [or was it Illustrious?] didn't ground itself, or another CV was freed up).
All of these were possible, not only that, but probable. There was a lot of communication between Vice Admiral Philips and Admiral Hart (through Ghormley I believe) about the deployment of naval forces in the Far East with options B and C being plans of implementation, and it was because of a lot of bad luck that there was no carrier support (which could probably have beaten off the unescorted G4M and G3M's).
Alternate history basically changes one or a few small things that give one side a heads up over the other. Really good situations of alternate history have options that vary to benefit and harm particular sides, not just to add benefit to one.
Exactly............. I agree all your scenerios are plausible (some more than others) just a few questions though
Wasnt the 4 DDs to Singapore agreement contingent on the start of hostilities? If so the only way you going to hook them up with Force Z is to also cancel historical sorte that got them sunk.
Regarding C) Are you sure there was a plane for force Z to go to Manila? Im pretty sure all those prewar conferences called for the Asiatic Fleet to retire to the Malaya Barrier, because it was taken for granted that Manila could not be maintained as a fleet base because it was within range of the Formosa airbases. Not saying you couldnt have it as an alternate history but it sounds to me like it would just make it easier for the Japanese player.
I think the Indomitable(I think it was the Indomitable) scenerio is a extemelly plausible and interesting one. I agree that even the those terrible Fairly Farmers (I dont think they had Martlets yet) could have kept the bettys and nells at bay.
I would just like to ad that a good aternate history is one that leaves in doubt which side benefits.
ie: One might think the Indomitalbe being with force Z would be a benefit to the Allies, but it might just mean the allies lose another carrier.
Like wise the PH strike not being a surprise might just mean that the Pacific fleet including the CVs is sunk at sea. Nimitz actually made this assertion after the war.
Well alternate history opens up a bunch of possible outcomes due to minute changes. Possibly a bunch of factors came into being to either...
A) Have the USN mount a suprise attack on the IJN.
(Japanese suffer CV losses)
B) The USN is caught really flat footed with a CV at Pearl
(Allies suffer CV losses)
C) A USN CV is caught at Pearl, but the rest happen to be within striking distance of the IJN TF.
(Both suffer CV losses)
D) Historical, the USN CV's are far enough away to remain safe, but so too are the IJN CV's.
(Neither suffer CV losses)
Alternate history allows for the possibility for all of the above scenarios. Just because historically the Yorktown was on patrol in the Carribean does not mean that it might have had it in the Pacific (possibly switched with the Saratoga which was under refit, so there would be 3 active USN CV's).
Another possible alternate history is the location and composition of the Royal Navy Force Z.
Here are some possibilities for it...
A) Historical deployment (1 BB, 1 BC, 4 DD at singapore).
B) Planned USN reinforcements from Asiatic fleet (+4 DD) to Force Z at Singapore.
C) Planned relocation of Force Z to Manila (Force Z + Asiatic Fleet).
D) In combination with all of the above scenarios the addition of a CV (either the Indomitable [or was it Illustrious?] didn't ground itself, or another CV was freed up).
All of these were possible, not only that, but probable. There was a lot of communication between Vice Admiral Philips and Admiral Hart (through Ghormley I believe) about the deployment of naval forces in the Far East with options B and C being plans of implementation, and it was because of a lot of bad luck that there was no carrier support (which could probably have beaten off the unescorted G4M and G3M's).
Alternate history basically changes one or a few small things that give one side a heads up over the other. Really good situations of alternate history have options that vary to benefit and harm particular sides, not just to add benefit to one.
Exactly............. I agree all your scenerios are plausible (some more than others) just a few questions though
Wasnt the 4 DDs to Singapore agreement contingent on the start of hostilities? If so the only way you going to hook them up with Force Z is to also cancel historical sorte that got them sunk.
Regarding C) Are you sure there was a plane for force Z to go to Manila? Im pretty sure all those prewar conferences called for the Asiatic Fleet to retire to the Malaya Barrier, because it was taken for granted that Manila could not be maintained as a fleet base because it was within range of the Formosa airbases. Not saying you couldnt have it as an alternate history but it sounds to me like it would just make it easier for the Japanese player.
I think the Indomitable(I think it was the Indomitable) scenerio is a extemelly plausible and interesting one. I agree that even the those terrible Fairly Farmers (I dont think they had Martlets yet) could have kept the bettys and nells at bay.
I would just like to ad that a good aternate history is one that leaves in doubt which side benefits.
ie: One might think the Indomitalbe being with force Z would be a benefit to the Allies, but it might just mean the allies lose another carrier.
Like wise the PH strike not being a surprise might just mean that the Pacific fleet including the CVs is sunk at sea. Nimitz actually made this assertion after the war.