Dream Features

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

TIMJOT
Posts: 1705
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 8:00 am

Post by TIMJOT »

Originally posted by mdiehl:
A decent idea that last one. There should be some teeth in it to mitigate against a Japanese strategy that attempts to overrun everything-but-American-possessions and then entrench. Probably US factory expansions and ship FRAM and new a/c designs should be significantly enhanced, as a protracted peace would have allowed the US to focus on infrastructure rather than mobilization. By 1941 the US plan was to go to war anyhow; it was merely a matter of wanting to mobilize more equipment before the shooting started. Such a change would also see the nominal Phillippine divisions turned into the real thing.

Is it too much of a stretch, though, to think that a Japanese attack against UK or Commonwealth nations would provoke a US DOW anyhow?

Its not too much of a stretch at all. Considering that Churchill was was deathly afraid of just such a thing. He repeatidly tried to convince FDR to base USN ships at Singapore and to give a formal declaration that attack on the UK would constitute war with the US. Politically, FDR would not or more accurately could not make such formal assurances. Add this to the fact there was historically no treaty obligations with the UK or Dutch and you have a very real possiblty the US declaration of war would not be automatic.

I agree that you would need to put some teeth into the varible. I would suggest that every Japanese conquest would increase the percentage chance that the US would Declare war. For example any move expanding toward Austrailia or the south pacific ferry routes would increase the chance greatly. The US player would not have to just stand idly by and watch the Japs conquer the pacific. Like you suggest the US could benefit from some sort of production bonuses. He could be eligible to receive emergency reinforcements from the Atlantic (ie additional carriers). He could have the option of sending aditional supplies to the Brits, Dutch and Aussies. He could even have the option of escorting convoys to Austrailia and secureing Allied bases such as Fiji,Tonga,New Caladonia and even the Solomons. Sort of a pacific Lend/Lease so to speak. All of which would not be a stretch historically. All these variables would prevent a Japanese decision not attack the US from becoming a defacto slam dunk. It would be very risky in that he could never no what move could provoke war and thus risk being unprepared or out of position to meet such a threat. He would have to weigh the risk and rewards of watching the US secure a line of communication to Austrailia , reinforceing its bases on the PI, Guam, Wake and building up its Fleet assets virtually unmolested. It really would make for a lot of interesting "What ifs"
TIMJOT
Posts: 1705
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 8:00 am

Post by TIMJOT »

Originally posted by mdiehl:
A decent idea that last one. There should be some teeth in it to mitigate against a Japanese strategy that attempts to overrun everything-but-American-possessions and then entrench. Probably US factory expansions and ship FRAM and new a/c designs should be significantly enhanced, as a protracted peace would have allowed the US to focus on infrastructure rather than mobilization. By 1941 the US plan was to go to war anyhow; it was merely a matter of wanting to mobilize more equipment before the shooting started. Such a change would also see the nominal Phillippine divisions turned into the real thing.

Is it too much of a stretch, though, to think that a Japanese attack against UK or Commonwealth nations would provoke a US DOW anyhow?

Its not too much of a stretch at all. Considering that Churchill was was deathly afraid of just such a thing. He repeatidly tried to convince FDR to base USN ships at Singapore and to give a formal declaration that attack on the UK would constitute war with the US. Politically, FDR would not or more accurately could not make such formal assurances. Add this to the fact there was historically no treaty obligations with the UK or Dutch and you have a very real possiblty the US declaration of war would not be automatic.

I agree that you would need to put some teeth into the varible. I would suggest that every Japanese conquest would increase the percentage chance that the US would Declare war. For example any move expanding toward Austrailia or the south pacific ferry routes would increase the chance greatly. The US player would not have to just stand idly by and watch the Japs conquer the pacific. Like you suggest the US could benefit from some sort of production bonuses. He could be eligible to receive emergency reinforcements from the Atlantic (ie additional carriers). He could have the option of sending aditional supplies to the Brits, Dutch and Aussies. He could even have the option of escorting convoys to Austrailia and secureing Allied bases such as Fiji,Tonga,New Caladonia and even the Solomons. Sort of a pacific Lend/Lease so to speak. All of which would not be a stretch historically. All these variables would prevent a Japanese decision not attack the US from becoming a defacto slam dunk. It would be very risky in that he could never no what move could provoke war and thus risk being unprepared or out of position to meet such a threat. He would have to weigh the risk and rewards of watching the US secure a line of communication to Austrailia , reinforceing its bases on the PI, Guam, Wake and building up its Fleet assets virtually unmolested. It really would make for a lot of interesting "What ifs"
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Post by Chiteng »

I will beg for one feature PLEASE!!!!!!

Do NOT use that stupid auto-center feature
that you used in BTR and BOB. PLEASE I BEG you.

It is NOT always needed to see the combat in progress. Sometimes it is FAR MORE needed to
see what is going on at a specific point.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by mdiehl »

Re: Rita. Bearing in mind that this a/c never made it past the X-plane (so this is pure speculation)....

Odd that the IJN commissioned this one. Strategic bombing would have been a lousy role for the IJN and this a/c far outranged any conceivable escort. (Note, the 4000 kilo bomb load was the short range payload). It would have been mincemeat in an unescorted attack, and the Japanese ought to have known this by the time this a/c was designed, by virtue of shared information with the Germans (about B17 losses in the Reich) and captured US B17s. Its only conceivable naval role is as a low-altitude high-speed torpedo bomber operating at night. In short, at best a special ops plane. That'd be consistent with what I assume must have been a high price tag (all those high-end radials and that big airframe).

The Japanese army could have used such a beast for preemptive strikes on USAAF airfields in China, where its high approach speed and the generally primitive state of USAAF/Chinese early warning systems in China would have given this bomber half a decent chance of taking a target by surprise. Who'd expect a deep raid launched from Japan. This is the sort of thing that could be pulled off once or twice before they'd get caught and slaughtered. So again, it seems to me to have a possible special ops role, but it would be criminally wasteful of men and material to use this beastie in a regular strategic bomber role.
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?
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Post by mogami »

Hi, A scenario were Japan did not attack the US won't hurt. But it is highly unlikely. The drive south and the attack on the US was a product of the IJ Navy not the army. The Navy was against going to war at all but paradoxly it was the Navies position that if Japan was going to have to war with the US then Dec 41 was the best time.
(1941 ratio was 70/100 IJN USN by 1944 the peace time build programs of the two countries would result in a 30/100 ratio (if Japan had been able to actually afford her 1942 build program which in the event she was not) It would not harm the US to wait till 43 to go to war with Japan. Nothing laid down after Dec 41 would be complete but the US Navy would be much stronger. A real question to attach to this scenario would then be how long does US stay out of European War? US DD's are ready fighting U-boats Do the Germans withdraw them to avoid a 'Lusitania' type inccendent? Does Adolf get angrey and declare war on the US? (there really was no need for him to declare war after the Japanese struck PH and many consider that a stupid blunder) If Japan moves South without attacking the US Pacfic fleet I would expect several thing to occur in side Japan.
A. The Japanese Naval Command resigns and commits protest suicide. or B. Young Naval Officers go and murder the person(s) responsible for not declaring war on US. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

We will just pretend the US does nothing, when Japan attacks in the Southern Resource Area except issue 'stern' warnings and protests.
I think the Japanese players would find their position even more hopeless when at long last the US does enter the war. Things that might have been possible in 41/42 will be impossible in 43 (the US had moblized in 1940, time was an issue-the more time allowed the more prepared the US Pacific bases will be. How many B-17's will Mac have in 43?)
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
ratster
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:00 am
Location: PA
Contact:

Post by ratster »

I think it would be interesting to have the option to start in 36 as the Japanese player, no restrictions, with declarations of war(concerning the allies) being based on logical criteria.

It would also be interesting if the game could be allowed to run into the jet/atomic age, say to 47-48, and have some out-of-theatre what-if options that could be set.

Like no A-bomb, or different European scenarios which would add, or subtract, forces in the Pacific.
" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by mdiehl »

You don't need to run into 1946-48 to get into the jet age. US P80 wings were operationally deployed in Italy in early '45 and UK Gloster Meteors in Britain in 1944. The late 1945 blocks of the P80 were as fast as the ME262 but had more reliable engines, better acceleration and greater range.

I think allowing the Japanese to start in 1936 is a fair idea. I also think that if you give the Japanese that kind of flexibility, then the UK should be allowed to upgrade Singapore's landward defenses, and the Allies should be allowed to invoke the oil embargo whenever they want.

Of course doing all of that complicates the reseach considerably. The US' F2As and and biplane F3s would be hell on those Japanese CV-based biplanes.
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?
ratster
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:00 am
Location: PA
Contact:

Post by ratster »

I really should have said 37, not 36. The Japanese were at war with China by July of that year.

I don't think any concessions or adjustemnts need to be made for the allies however. They were aware of the Sino-Japanese War, and still acted as they did historically.

By allowing the Japanese to start in 37, the Japanese player could prosecute the war in China differently then their historical counterparts, which could be interesting.

Again obvious criteria would need to be observed in regards to early allied intervention.

I really have the single player game in mind here, not multi-player, by the way. The computer controlled allied player would only become "active" if the Japanese met specific threshold criteria. Of course what that would be is highly debatable.

As far as letting it continue into 46 or beyond, for the jet age. My reasoning was to allow time for large numbers of jets to be deployed, as opposed to just a few early operational squadrons.

Another thought is to allow an non-historical start that assumes the Japanese did not start(or restart depending on your point of view) their war with China. So all the resources that would have been expended there are available in Dec of 41. China would be considered neutral, in this case.


Anyway, just daydreaming, I don't expect any of this to be implemented. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by mdiehl »

If you assume that the war is prosecuted ahistorically you can assume that the Allies' response could be ahistorical as well.
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?
Graham Smith
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 8:00 am
Location: australia

Post by Graham Smith »

The war was really about oil, but when I play the Japanese side,I dont see any consequence of not having oil converted into fuel....I should not be able to launch aircraft, train pilots or sail fleets out of a base, when my fuel at that base reaches zero. And I dont see fuel consumed when I create a task force or launch an airstrike.

Shifting aircraft into a freshly captured base is unrealistically quick....to move a squadron with all its support staff was a major undertaking. First couple of weeks in a new base should be very ineffective.

But hey, these a pretty trivial wish list items for a game that is so awesome. When I first started playing the internet version of this, I had one piece of my mind that was permanently occupied with this game all day long.

Grigsby has to be a true genius.
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

Post by elmo3 »

Graham

Did you mean to post your comments in the forum for Pacific War: The Matrix Edition? The game being discussed here has not been released yet, although your observations could still apply to it.

elmo3

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: elmo3 ]</p>
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
User avatar
Ranger-75
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Giant sand box

Post by Ranger-75 »

The Japanese had over 5 years free reign in China (1937-41) and still couldn't bring about a victory. Their navy did not have to fight either the British or US navies (except for the occasional "accidental" sinkings of patrol craft on Chinese rivers and deltas) and they were still not capable of inflicting defeat on China and people still want to be able to "play" japan 1936-41. Why?

I agree with Mogami's statement sabout the high command situation in Japan, however, even if Mac had 200 B-17's at Clark, he would still get caught with his pants down. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Hitler and Mussolini did indeed commit a mistake when the declared war on the US. This is especially intruiging since for 6 months the German high command had been screaming for Japan to attack the Soviets in the far east. The Japanese evaded the issue and the Hitler still did what he did. you must remember though, that at that exact time (8-10 Dec 1941) Hitler & OKW & OKH were so out of touch with reality, that they really did not see what was coming courtesy of the Soviet ability to transfer the siberians to the west. So he screwed up big time, we have the hindsight that they didn't, that's why I think tha start times should remain largely unaltered.

By the way, both the Betty and Nell were flying gas tanks, they were both VERY unpopular with their crews (they lit up very easily). The 4 engined plane would have been even worse. It would only have been effective if there were no enemy fighters around and that was not likely.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
ratster
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:00 am
Location: PA
Contact:

Post by ratster »

....and they were still not capable of inflicting defeat on China and people still want to be able to "play" japan 1936-41. Why?
Tis a silly question, too see if one could do better of course, its sort of the point of all wargaming in general.

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: ratster ]</p>
" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]
TIMJOT
Posts: 1705
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 8:00 am

Post by TIMJOT »

We will just pretend the US does nothing, when Japan attacks in the Southern Resource Area except issue 'stern' warnings and protests.
I think the Japanese players would find their position even more hopeless when at long last the US does enter the war. Things that might have been possible in 41/42 will be impossible in 43 (the US had moblized in 1940, time was an issue-the more time allowed the more prepared the US Pacific bases will be. How many B-17's will Mac have in 43?)

Mogami, thats exactly what they should do. Make the US declare a war that is not fully supported at home. Make the US make the first overt act. Them maybe just maybe their rather foolhearty plan to make the US just give up after some crushing defeats might have had a chance of succeeding. The US was never going to give up after it was attacked directly. It had the full support of the people and rightousness on its side. However the US has a history of getting dishearten and disillusioned with wars it finds itself involved with for less than clear reasons. Korea, Vietnam and Somalia come to mind.
TIMJOT
Posts: 1705
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 8:00 am

Post by TIMJOT »

Mogami,
also regarding the US entry variable. The war wouldnt nessarily start in 43. It could start Jan 42, Feb, March ect.... The Japanese player would never know for sure which move would activate the the US player. Neither would the US player for that matter. I think it would make for an interesting twist and greatly enhance the replayablity of the game. Besides even in 43 a fully intact IJN with its super expirence pilots and crews would be much more dangerous to the inexpirienced US forces than the dregs that they faced in 43 historically.
GET TRANSPT
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: West Hollywood, CA

Post by GET TRANSPT »

I was motivated to answer re any possible "espionage" features, which are probably a "dream":

The Soviets pre-1942 had excellent intelligence on Japanese intentions; they knew of Dec. 7th, enabling Stalin to launch his counterattack on Dec 6th in the European front, thanks to their ring run by German-born Richard Sorge in Tokyo.

Further,Soviet intel since the 1930's had made strong inroads in Britain, where it remained a force well into the 1950s.

If there is to be a role for the Soviets in the Far East in this game, any game/AI Japanese actions should be factored in with this gap in military intellgence. Any "Soviet player" should have privileged access to Japanese and British /Allied info as well.
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by mdiehl »

"Mogami, thats exactly what they should do. Make the US declare a war that is not fully supported at home. ... However the US has a history of getting dishearten and disillusioned with wars it finds itself involved with for less than clear reasons. Korea, Vietnam and Somalia come to mind."

I have to disagree with your forcast or retrocast or whatever, of the US public support for a war with Japan. You have to bear in mind a few salient facts.

1. The "disillusionment" of the American public with protracted wars is rather mythical and largely a consequence of the results of Viet Nam. The only salient examples prior to WW2 is the War of the Rebellion. The Federal forces and the northern public endured 1861-mid-1863 a string of rather humiliating and in some cases obviously un-necessary defeats without significant public opposition. Indeed, public sentiment survived pretty much in favor of the war until mid-1864, when the constant-siege and constant-casualty elements of combat began to weight heavily on the northern public's mind in the final Peninsula Campaign. In the South, where things "began well," the serious state of economic deprivation that occurred from early 1863 onward did not have the desired effect of breaking the Confederacy's will to fight. And s string of increasingly frequent battlefied disasters staring in 1863 did not result in the abndonment of the war. Indeed, the Confederate administration fled Richmoind in 1865 with the intention of carrying on the war, even though Lee's army was shattered. It was only the terms of surrender and the agreement among the combatants that led to a decisive and complete end to the war.

During this war, Americans lost more soldiers as battlefield and disease casualties than all other American wars combined. So it is quite inaccurate to consider the US public as, historically speaking, casualty averse.

2. The US reluctance to enter WWI was a result in part of two phenomena. One of them was the tendency for US arms mfrs to sell to all parties while the US was a neutral state. "War Industry" had a vested interest in neutrality, so there was not a barrage of newspaper opinions and so forth crying out for the US to enter the fray. The other was a widespread (and, IMO, accurate) perception that WWI was all about European colonialists fighting over whom would be allowed to screw the rest of the world.

3. In the 1930's, American public sentiment towards the Chinese was highly favorable, and the Panay Incident darned near started the war very early for Japan. Many American newspapers had an editorial policy that looked away from the Germans but pretty much hammered the Japanese. In short, Japan's reputation in the US public eye was pretty brutal by 1939. A move against "white" people in Singapore, Hong Kong, Australie or the Dutch East Indies would probably have been almost as good at unifying the US populace as the Pearl Harbor attack.

Also, by the mid 1930s there was radio. If Japan is not at war with the US in 1941, radio broadcasts and also newsreels from overrun nations would have provided a more stark picture of Japanese intentions and occupation policies than any newspaper editorial.

4. Viet Nam. That war lasted 15 years and significant public opposition only developed during the last 5 of them.
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?
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by mdiehl »

Another point. The super experienced IJN aviators of 1941-1942 fought the highly trained USN aviators of 1941 and 1942 to a nearly dead-even draw in turns of combat a/c lost. By 1943, Kido Butai would have had several additional problems:

1. The overwhelming superiority of US a/c technical capability.

2. American aviators that would have both outnumbered them and, quite likely, had more training.

3. American aviators whom, it is a documented fact, had superior tactical training. In particular the use of a 4-plane 2-element section that was closely coordinated by radio, rather than a 3-element section (Japanese) that tended to come apart in combat.

So any late start to the war probaly sees the USN being superior in training, tactics, a/c technology, and numbers.
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?
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Post by mogami »

OK assuming the Japanese do not know at what date the US will enter the war but they are fairly certain the US will in fact become a belligerant are they going to just wait and see and then decide to take offensive action or are they in advance going to sieze the US bases (PI GUAM WAKE etc) while the getting is good. I mean are they not given the advance knowledge of a certain war going to do just what they did? Any benifit real or imagined about US morale would not offset the tatical stratigic reasons for the Dec 41 strike war option.


"We should attack now"
"no , it will only make them mad, lets wait for them to start it"

meanwhile in other news Engineers have completed the new airforce complex on Guam Island".............
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Adnan Meshuggi
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am

Post by Adnan Meshuggi »

Originally posted by mdiehl:
You don't need to run into 1946-48 to get into the jet age. US P80 wings were operationally deployed in Italy in early '45 and UK Gloster Meteors in Britain in 1944. The late 1945 blocks of the P80 were as fast as the ME262 but had more reliable engines, better acceleration and greater range.

I think allowing the Japanese to start in 1936 is a fair idea. I also think that if you give the Japanese that kind of flexibility, then the UK should be allowed to upgrade Singapore's landward defenses, and the Allies should be allowed to invoke the oil embargo whenever they want.

Of course doing all of that complicates the reseach considerably. The US' F2As and and biplane F3s would be hell on those Japanese CV-based biplanes.

What ? Well, please show me that facts...
All i know is that the Meteor was a lousy plane wit h limited range and no ggod performance and the p80 (the shooting star, if i remember correctly (i´m at work) was combat ready in 1946-47, i don´t talk about prototypes... but if you have good research informations, i would be very interested... really, because until now, i allways thought, that the only american "war" jet was a trainer because of it bad performance - worser than the piston engine p51. After all i know, the german jets had an advantage of some years in that area (well, maybe my sources are wrong namly everything written about that theme...) and the allies took the technique and rebuilt their own planes.... and then the Shooting star comes in service - after the german knowledge was "consumed" and built in....
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
Post Reply

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