Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:21 am**

pad152 wrote:Sorry mdiehl

Go read history, Japan over ran every major power in the region with little lost in the early part of the war. Real or not people (including the leaders) were in real fear of being invaded (US West coast, Oz, New Zeeland). Just one successful Japanese landing in Australia or Hawaiian would have had major effects and may have changed the how the pacific war played out. If just one of the major powers Britain, or Oz sued for peace with Japan the other major players may have done the same. I don't think even the US would have gone it alone in the Pacific without shifting it's war effort to the pacific.

If Japan had destroyed the British Eastern Fleet, they may have completely eliminated Britain as a major player in the pacific that would have affected India, China and the rest of the region.

I'm not pro Japanese or against, but in a wargame, I want to try to change history not repeat it. Without modeling political events to some extent, what we are left with is a war of attrition?

Let's say you and I are playing a PBM game, and I as the Japanese player invade and take one of the northern cities of Oz. You know I can't completely take over the land of Oz, so you completely ignore this invasion that would be completely non historical!!!!!!!!!!!!.

While it is true that a Japanese Landing on ANY of the Hawaiian Islands or
anyware in Australia would have stirred up some people, unless it was at a
place they actually knew and reccognized as a threat it wasn't going to be
anything more than a nuisance. Even Darwin is more or less the "left end
of nowhere" to most Australians; and some unknown island up the Hawaiian
Chain isn't going to trigger a revolution either. The Japanese DID land on a
couple of "you never heard of 'em" islands in the Aluetians, and while Americans
were "outraged" they were hardly in a "panic". The Japanese had thought that
Pearl Harbor would create panic and deppression in the US---and the truth was
that the effect couldn't have been more opposite.

You want the game to represent the Japanese idea of Western Democracies
being easily diss-heartened by reverses---and the truth was that in this as in
so much else, they were completely WRONG. Now if they managed to sieze
Oahu, or Sydney, or Calcutta, you might have an argument. But raising the
"Rising Sun" on some obscure peice of real estate even the Newspapers have
to resort to an atlas to find isn't going to do more than "**** folks off", and
make 'em work harder than ever to see Japan get her "comupance".

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:30 am**

pad152 wrote:Go read history, Japan over ran every major power in the region with little lost in the early part of the war.

What nonsense. Japan never overran a single major power in World War II. Most of the region consisted of colonies and dependencies of the major powers. The only countries in the Pacific theater that could be considered "major powers" were Japan, the United States, China, the Soviet Union, and (maybe) Australia.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:55 am**

Hi, I here I am, I'm always afraid to mention my wild and crazy ideas for Japan.

Like

Capture of Canton Island to be used as barrier against Allied movement into South Pacific during the opening of my operations there.

I have contemplated invading Darwin to prevent it from being used as a submarine base and airfield for long range bombers.

My 3 division commitment to Burma. (one at Bangkok, Moulemein, Rangoon)

Thats about as crazy as I get.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:39 am**

[QUOTE=Mike Scholl]While it is true that a Japanese Landing on ANY of the Hawaiian Islands or
anyware in Australia would have stirred up some people, unless it was at a
place they actually knew and reccognized as a threat it wasn't going to be
anything more than a nuisance. Even Darwin is more or less the "left end
of nowhere" to most Australians...

Correction - Darwin was the 'left end of nowhere' (back in 1942).

Australians would not have considered a Japanese invasion of their soil as a mere nuisance just because it wasn't within 50km of Sydney. After the 19 Feb 1942 carrier strike on Darwin, we took the defence of the northern regions quite seriously.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 5:23 am**

Aussie wrote:
Mike Scholl wrote:While it is true that a Japanese Landing on ANY of the Hawaiian Islands or
anyware in Australia would have stirred up some people, unless it was at a
place they actually knew and reccognized as a threat it wasn't going to be
anything more than a nuisance. Even Darwin is more or less the "left end
of nowhere" to most Australians...

Correction - Darwin was the 'left end of nowhere' (back in 1942). Australians would not have considered a Japanese invasion of their soil as a mere nuisance just because it wasn't within 50km of Sydney. After the 19 Feb 1942 carrier strike on Darwin, we took the defence of the northern regions quite seriously.
As you are an Aussie, let's ask the question. Had you been around in 1942,
would you have gone into a panic of defeatism and screamed for your Gov't
to get out of the war if the Japanese had landed somewhere on the North
Coast? Even if it were Darwin?

Or would the effect be just the opposite?

Maybe I was a bit harsh calling Darwin the "left end of nowhere"---I'm not an
Aussie. As an American I was describing the feeling I'd have had if someone
told me the Japs had landed at Juneu Alaska. Not panic, but outrage.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:51 am**

This is a joke to aggrivate NICKADEMOUS, right? You weren't REALLY able to even forcefully manipulate such an occurance out of a "test" version of the game..., were you? Please say it was. The real chances of such an event
should be right down there with "the earth stopped spinning on it's axis this
morning". If it's even possible to manipulate such an event, the whole design
is open to serious question.

Mike, relax

Me and the editor had a score to settle with a Yank who thinks he has better beer on the wrong side of the border.

I put the 25th Army in Seattle for some fun. Note I say ARMY! This is the entire group that holds the Brits out. You will have noticed the extreme numbers of troops. (135571 troops, 1260 guns, 418 vehicles), you also might have noticed that the size 9 fortification was gone in 2 turns

To land the 25th Army would require about 200 transports to get through the CD's in Seattle. I should post one of my Singapore runs where roughly 250 troops out of 6 divisions actually make it to shore. Trust me, no one will be taking on a Coastal Fort. Anyone wanting to will have to travel overland.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:08 am**

"Consider it more like a game where you have 1 rook but the other guy has 4 pawns and you can only manage to dance around them as they protect each other. Sooner or later, he will have at least 1 queen to deal with your rook but it is going to be a long time. The question is how many queens will he have?"

Hi, In this example the rook only has to get behind the pawns.
The example assumes each side also has a King. With both the rook and King behind the pawns the rook and King should be able to pick off the pawns if not deleiver mate before any pawn can be promoted. Even allowing 1 pawn to promote is not bad provided the new Queen does not place the enemy King in Check. As a last resort the Rook-King combination can always draw by repetition.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:27 am**

Mike Scholl wrote:As you are an Aussie, let's ask the question. Had you been around in 1942,
would you have gone into a panic of defeatism and screamed for your Gov't
to get out of the war if the Japanese had landed somewhere on the North
Coast? Even if it were Darwin?

Or would the effect be just the opposite?

Maybe I was a bit harsh calling Darwin the "left end of nowhere"---I'm not an
Aussie. As an American I was describing the feeling I'd have had if someone
told me the Japs had landed at Juneu Alaska. Not panic, but outrage.

Nope, I think that the general feeling would have been to fight.......it would not have been politically viable to surrender......having said that there was some panic in the southern states, more so QLD and NSW than Vic SA and TAS. There WAS a lot of local panic in Darwin after the first air raid IIRC.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:17 am**

A Japanese landing in Australia would have caused political issues (thats why the fact that the Japs bombed Darwin was played down for MANY years, only being recognised in the 1980's as a major event).

Australia had 3 defence lines planned in 1942:

The Brisbane line. Abandon evrything north of there.

The Sydney line.

The Murray line (along the Murray river between New South Wales and Victoria) basically defending the southern state of Victoria along the river barrier.

The latter was the important one because most of Australia's war industries were in Victoria (Melbourne and Wodonga- the big army stores depot, very little in Sydney). And these defences were actually built. Airfields were constructed in the Wimmera, bridges over the Murray were prepared for demolition etc etc.

My understanding was the Sydney line was not seriously considered as it was too easy to outflank, But Brisbane and more importantly the Murray were under construction.

The key here is that Australia would not have surrenderd, but planned to swap space for time. The invasions would have been a big shock (as was the attack on PNG) but I don't see us surrendering unless the US were decisvely defeated at sea.

I would like to see VP's gained for every month a side holds an area. That encourages the Japanese to go fast, and the Allies to rush it forward and not wait for overwhelming numbers. This will keep the game exciting, and still realistic.

Cheers

Rob

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:32 am**

Mike Scholl wrote:As you are an Aussie, let's ask the question. Had you been around in 1942,
would you have gone into a panic of defeatism and screamed for your Gov't
to get out of the war if the Japanese had landed somewhere on the North
Coast? Even if it were Darwin?

Or would the effect be just the opposite?

Maybe I was a bit harsh calling Darwin the "left end of nowhere"---I'm not an
Aussie. As an American I was describing the feeling I'd have had if someone
told me the Japs had landed at Juneu Alaska. Not panic, but outrage.

No smiley faces on this post I'm afraid folks.

Let's put things into context here: I think a nation's reaction to news of the enemy landing on some tin pot territorial island, compared with that of an actual invasion of the mainland would be quite different.

In answer to your question (as best I can since I wasn't around pre 1974): No. Neither I nor the vast majority of Australians would have gone into a panic of defeatism. However, there would have been widespread concern and anxiety amongst Australians to a mainland landing – as well as outrage.

Lastly, I don't think people during wartime would be outraged over a simple 'nuisance' either.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 12:42 pm**

Hi,

There is another 'game' way of the allied player losing which is both more realistic and might urge the US/Allied player on. Perhaps it should only be an option though.

While the US, Britain and Australia were highly unlikely to drop out of the fight that does not mean that you as the overall Pacific Commander would not be given your marching orders. Lost Calcutta, Noumea, Fiji and all the Pre War CVs for little return? That ought to get you extended gardening leave.

But I am not really a fan of the auto victory hexes of UV so an alternative could be the 1944 Election 'victory'. (I have been reading American Civil War books and replaying some of my Civil War games if you must know

). I don't mean by this that the Rooservelt gets replaced by someone who sues for peace - so keep your hair on Mr Deihl and Mr Scholl

But you could see him being slung out and replaced by someone who would run the war competently if the allies have made no/little progress by late '44 and/or have taken far larger material and men casualties than historically was the case.

Perhaps a little caption could pop up: "You have managed to lose Rooservelt the election you incompetent plonker.... No more points will be awarded to either side, do you wish to continue or start a new game?"

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:58 pm**

I think the presumption that anyone can assess the degree to which an event or a series of events would affect US national politics is highly suspect. It'd be like speculating that Japan, if handed a serious defeat mid-war, would suddenly experience a pro-democracy coup led by liberal samurai and sue for peace.

It's a war game and a war simulation. Step into the realm of "I know that these things will give me a 'political win'" and you step into the realm of unbridled speculation, stranding yourself once again on Planet Xenon.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:05 pm**

jrcar wrote:

I would like to see VP's gained for every month a side holds an area. That encourages the Japanese to go fast, and the Allies to rush it forward and not wait for overwhelming numbers. This will keep the game exciting, and still realistic.

Actually it's probably more likely to encourage a lot of silliness with players
snatching for victory points instead of developing a strategy. A game of
this scope and magnitude will always have "action" somewhere on the map.
If you want lot's of "excitement", stick to the tactical level where you don't
have to worry about logistics. If this is done anything close to "right", a lot
of the action will be moving merchant ships and supplies and building the
bases needed to support your "excitement". At this level, VP's just get in
the way. If you smash Japan, you win---if you don't, you lose. Who cares
how many islands you did or didn't take in the process?

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:11 pm**

I have to agree with the permanent VP gained for "control" model. If the victory is Japan gets crushed vs not, IMO that's going to make for a pretty lousy game for the Japanese. I can see how any set of victory conditions of any kind can be made "gamey" but I see no way around the problem unless you declare that the game really has no winner or loser and no basis for evaluating success.

I thought the old GGPW victory condition model was pretty good. But I'd like to see "control VP" accrued permanently. Each of the old GGPW bases would be worth much less per month.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:28 pm**

Hi, I don't think we need to award points for bases.
The Japanese need to capture bases for the oil and resource. They need to capture other bases for the ports and airfields to protect the oil and resource bases.

What needs to be considered are surrender conditions.

When will Japan surrender (game ends)
When will China surrender (If China surrenders Japanese garrision commitments less then war needs)
When will Australia surrender (When they run out of beer)
When will USA surrender (It does not matter how impossible this condition is-Capture USA base (requires landing on West Coast and Marching accross USA))

It's my opinion both players will know who "won or lost" If you surrender you lose. (So allies have 4 possible surrenders to avoid) This gives the Japanese several grand strategy choices.

Japans surrender will be when her production falls below a certain value and an event triggers surrender. (A-bomb or capture of city (or cities) in Home Islands
Preventing or attaining these conditions will decide what bases need to be defended or taken without their having any point value.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:40 pm**

I think those are bad ideas. I do not think there should be any conditions under which the US will surrender. Even those as absurd as a landing on the west coast. If the model gives the Japanese enough merchant and transport ships to attempt a landing on the west coast and sustain operations there for any length of time, it's broken. Same for China. No surrender possible there because regardless of conquests there will be a high degree of insurgency, and because there's no one with the authority to offer a surrender. Will Chiang's surrender have any impact on Mao? Nope. Just means that the Communist insurgency spread faster and that the US and Russia coordinate lend-lease to the communists. Henry Wallace would be pleased. Will Chiang's surrender affect the US? Nope. Stillwell stays and the US simply declares that the Allied controlled region is an Allied protectorate, and that China has no legitimate governing body. Australia surrender? This most plausible of the three because the Japanese can at least GET to Australia. Highly unlikely, however, given the nature of Japanese occupation policies in conquered areas. After the first week of any Japanese invasion of Australia or for that matter the US it would be highly apparent what the Japanese are about. After that, surrender won't be on anyone's mind.

I think it a far more likely event that should Japan attempt any of these invasions, the IJN and IJA would engage in a violent turf war. I think it's so likely that the model should simply declare that on landing any IJN forces on the US west coast a civil war erupts in the Home Islands and all military forces are recalled.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:42 pm**

The whole problem with 'Victory Points' is that they are assigned by the game
designer. It might be necessary for small scenarios, but if I am going to invest
the time and effort to play the big ones, I don't want my strategic choices
dictated by what someone at 2by3 thought was important. I'm "in command",
and if I am the Japanese, I want to decide both what I think I need to sieze
to supply my war effort, and what and where I want to base my defense to
achieve my ends. As the Allies, I want to decide my strategy and routes of
attack. If I'm in position to bomb Japan back to the stone age in 1945, I'll
have done just fine---regardless of whether or not I chose to sieze this island
of some other one. Victory points are designed to force a course of action on
the players. This is fine if you are playing a "Burma Scenario" and both sides
are struggling to sieze or hold the important points in that limited area. But in
a War in the Pacific Scenario, Japan is trying to keep her economy functioning
well enough to maintain a defense, and the Allies are trying to trash that economy to destroy that defense. Who holds what and for how long is
a meaningless concept except for the Home Islands. Holding Truk, Rabaul,
Hong Kong and Jakarta didn't keep the "Enola Gay" from emolating Hiroshima.
So how many "Victory Points" were they REALLY worth?

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:48 pm**

I guess, Mike, that I'd agree with that POV alot more if there was one particular feature or small set of subfeatures that dominates the strategic choices. If every ownable hex has some kind of small, incrementally valued VP value, then there will be some hexes that are never conquered/reconquered. But the strategic decisions will allow you to decide which of these are the most important. I suppose, if it were a real concern, one could tie it to a combination of conquest VPs and "time" ... where time is a function of the amount of time that elapses before the Japanese surrender.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:37 pm**

The Japanese player takes one of the northern cities of Oz. You know the Japanese can't completely take over the land of Oz, so you completely ignore this invasion!

Don't you think the Japanese player should be rewarded and the allied player penalized in some way for this?

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:49 pm**

No, I do not. Talk about wholly gamey situations. The Japanese player embarks on an invasion that has no long-term prospect of success. He is allowed to do so because the game puts him in the driver's seat enough to ignore wiser heads like the Army and Navy Chiefs of staff that point out that the effort severely hampers the war effort elsewhere, has no tangible objective, and is based on the highly suspect and risky supposition that the opposition will get all weepy and weak-kneed because a few sheep herders have been imprisoned. Yet you would deny the Allied player the right to respond to this absolutely nutty (from a historical pov) and gamey ploy in whatever way he chooses. In short, complete freedom of strategic choice for the Japanese player. Arbitrary limits on strategic choices for the Allies.

No thanks. I already own two versions of that game.

AFAIC the options should remain open. I rather like the adage to hold the opponent by the nose while you kick him in the @ss. An invasion of Australia would probably allow me a lock-tight grip on the Japanese player's nose, and I would like the freedom to kick him in the @ss where he is weak. Decisions of that kind are what "strategy" is all about.

Matrix Games Forums

Possible Japanese Victories?

SPEAKING OF READING HISTORY...

Japanese Victory

LET'S ASK ONE.

Chess

Problem

VP

MY STRATEGY..., NOT 2BY3'S