Brave Sir Robin

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Didnt the Allies resupply Malta in the face of tremendous losses?

Seems plausible that in WITP I should be able to make the same call if I choose to do so.

On the subject of Sir robin I found that when I fought tooth and nail for the SRA in 4 different PBEMs I typically stopped the Japanese player in his tracks. All 4 of them surrendered before the end of March. These were stock games so I dont know how much different a mod game would be.

I am just looking forward to Admirals edition to get a few more PBEMs going!

Been to Malta. It was a very near run thing and extremely costly in shipping. Italy and Germany sank most of the ships that tried to reach Malta.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: treespider
[...]in the game the Japanese have a huge surplus of shipping available for all of these fantasy invasion scenarios[...]

The US used about a hundred ships (under Russian flag) to ship lend-lease goods to Russia via Vladivostok (about half of lend-lease for Russia went via the Pacific Route!). Does not happen in WitP, so Allies gain a lot of shipping in the game...


EDIT: Ok, skimmed through the rest of the thread. My 2 cents: I'm a player of 'the second type' who does not want a balanced but a historical game. Playing Japan, I accept from the beginning that winning the war as Japan should be impossible. The challenge would be to do better than history by holding out longer and/or inflicting heavier losses. So I want a game that gives historical units, capabilities and restrictions.
So IMO, a true "Sir Robin" should be impossible due to political reasons (some of them noble, some of them foolish). Abandoning the PIs or not defending Singapore simply wasn't an option. Even HongKong, although obviously doomed before war started, received reinforcements because prestige and honor demanded not to lose it without a fight. So the game should imposse heavy pp penalties to make a true Sir Robin of the PI and DEI next to impossible, and the CW units in Malaya should be under a restricted command as well! OTOH, regrouping troops e.g. a concentration of PI units to defend only Manila or withdrawal of all units in Malaya to Singapore should be possible - even if it may be bad strategy.
In this context - I am infuriated that the game does not allow air transport of 'restricted' units within the area of resticted commands. My plans for southern China went awy when I discovered that I cannot airlift CEA units from Shanghai to Canton...

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: treespider
[...]in the game the Japanese have a huge surplus of shipping available for all of these fantasy invasion scenarios[...]

The US used about a hundred ships (under Russian flag) to ship lend-lease goods to Russia via Vladivostok (about half of lend-lease for Russia went via the Pacific Route!). Does not happen in WitP, so Allies gain a lot of shipping in the game...

No way - many, many Allied ships are missing - many more than the 100 ships...

[LargeSlowTarget]

Well, how about the problem that apart from a few blockade runners no Axis vessels left or entered the PTO, while on the Allied side ships frequently switched between war theaters, leaving the PTO to come back weeks, months, years later - or never? There is no withdrawal for Allied merchant ships in WitP to model this, so in a way the missing ships compensate for that. 

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Over in Opponents Wanted a few months ago, I posted what I thought would be required for a technical victory. You've seen this, but others may not have.

Victory:

If the Allied player has a sea line of communications (a continuous path with air superiority) between North America and a fleet base in the Philippines or Taiwan and from there to a forward base in the Ryukyus, Korea, or Japan by 31 January 1944, he wins a decisive victory. If this requirement is met by 30 April 1944, it is a regular Allied victory. By 31 July 1944, a marginal victory, by 31 October 1944, a draw, by 31 January 1945, a Japanese marginal victory, by 30 April 1945, a Japanese regular victory, and by 31 July 1945 or later, a decisive Japanese victory.

If at any time, the Japanese player attacks forces present in a hex in Alaska, the Hawaiian Islands (excluding Midway), or continental North America, the Allied player has an additional two years (just so) to meet his requirements for a victory. Note that raiding the American sea lines of communication is OK, but during the first turn, the oiler task force supporting the KB should be assumed to be half empty.

Armistices can be offered by either side at any time. The side offering the armistice must abide by it once accepted. The other side can withdraw from the agreement with 90 days notice. If Japan takes Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay, or Karachi, the Indian Congress Party forces the British in India to offer an armistice on the current lines of contact. If accepted, this means no offensive operations by either side in India, Burma, or Ceylon. If the Chinese capital is taken or Japan accepts this forced armistice with the British, the Chinese offer a similar armistice.

What's the point of the armistice other than 'game over'? Are you providing a mechanism for both sides to take a break and marshal their forces before continuing?

Also, when you say 'attack' do mean any (air/land/sea) attack or just landing troops in Alaska, etc.?

These victory conditions look pretty good.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Well, how about the problem that apart from a few blockade runners no Axis vessels left or entered the PTO, while on the Allied side ships frequently switched between war theaters, leaving the PTO to come back weeks, months, years later - or never? There is no withdrawal for Allied merchant ships in WitP to model this, so in a way the missing ships compensate for that.

Perhaps so - but on the other hand, British withdrawals are predicated on historical fact that the British withdrew to Africa after the KB Indian Ocean raid... if the raid doesn't occur, withdrawals still occur (but spaced out over the game)...

Many of the movements/withdrawals of AKs/APs were also done because of this.

AE might model this better (i am hoping). There are "paths" that lead to and from East Coast, Britain, etc. so that cargo ships can move to and from the theater (and warships can as well).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: herwin

Over in Opponents Wanted a few months ago, I posted what I thought would be required for a technical victory. You've seen this, but others may not have.

Victory:

If the Allied player has a sea line of communications (a continuous path with air superiority) between North America and a fleet base in the Philippines or Taiwan and from there to a forward base in the Ryukyus, Korea, or Japan by 31 January 1944, he wins a decisive victory. If this requirement is met by 30 April 1944, it is a regular Allied victory. By 31 July 1944, a marginal victory, by 31 October 1944, a draw, by 31 January 1945, a Japanese marginal victory, by 30 April 1945, a Japanese regular victory, and by 31 July 1945 or later, a decisive Japanese victory.

If at any time, the Japanese player attacks forces present in a hex in Alaska, the Hawaiian Islands (excluding Midway), or continental North America, the Allied player has an additional two years (just so) to meet his requirements for a victory. Note that raiding the American sea lines of communication is OK, but during the first turn, the oiler task force supporting the KB should be assumed to be half empty.

Armistices can be offered by either side at any time. The side offering the armistice must abide by it once accepted. The other side can withdraw from the agreement with 90 days notice. If Japan takes Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay, or Karachi, the Indian Congress Party forces the British in India to offer an armistice on the current lines of contact. If accepted, this means no offensive operations by either side in India, Burma, or Ceylon. If the Chinese capital is taken or Japan accepts this forced armistice with the British, the Chinese offer a similar armistice.

What's the point of the armistice other than 'game over'? Are you providing a mechanism for both sides to take a break and marshal their forces before continuing?

Also, when you say 'attack' do mean any (air/land/sea) attack or just landing troops in Alaska, etc.?

These victory conditions look pretty good.

An armistice is where the two sides agree to stop fighting, usually on the current lines. An armistice in India would allow the side accepting the armistice to withdrawn and redeploy the troops currently fighting in the Indian area. Similarly for an armistice in China. Japan might accept an armistice in either area to be able to redeploy to face the USA. Attack is any air/land/sea attack.

[panda124c]

Still it would make for an intersting game trying to get back on track after winning a historical lose. [:D]

[panda124c]

herwin
The question then become at what point does the Allies declare war on Japan?????????[:-]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin
An armistice is where the two sides agree to stop fighting, usually on the current lines. An armistice in India would allow the side accepting the armistice to withdrawn and redeploy the troops currently fighting in the Indian area. Similarly for an armistice in China. Japan might accept an armistice in either area to be able to redeploy to face the USA. Attack is any air/land/sea attack.

Sorry Herwin..., usually I'm with you---but this is a silly notion. On 1/1/43 the US alone had a larger fleet than Japan would ever produce in various states of production, not to mention a huge Air Force and significant land forces---plus enough supply to keep all of it going and help it's Allies as well. Does the phrase "We have not yet begun to fight!" ring a bell?

You might discuss "war weariness" by 1945---but in 1943 the Allies were just getting ready to start dealing with Japan, so why would they "throw in the towel" before they'd even brought their forces to bear? It's a "gamey cop-out" 2by3 came up with to make JFB's happy...

[bradfordkay]

Mike, I hve no problem withthe way 2by3 instituted the autovictory rules. It is a game, after all, and setting up the autovictory the way they did is a good way to give the weaker side a chance for winning the game. Don't forget that the players can choose to ignore the autovictory and  continue to play until the bitter end if  they want.
 
Personally, I don't wish to let my opponent earn an autovictory...

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: pbear

herwin
The question then become at what point does the Allies declare war on Japan?????????[:-]

Japan expected America to insist on joining the party if Japan only attacked GB and the DEI. (Japan actually didn't attack the DEI until later in December 1941.) So assume the same countries are on each side, but a civilised DoW on America and a deliberate limitation of Japanese operations against the Eastern Pacific would shorten the time.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: herwin
An armistice is where the two sides agree to stop fighting, usually on the current lines. An armistice in India would allow the side accepting the armistice to withdrawn and redeploy the troops currently fighting in the Indian area. Similarly for an armistice in China. Japan might accept an armistice in either area to be able to redeploy to face the USA. Attack is any air/land/sea attack.

Sorry Herwin..., usually I'm with you---but this is a silly notion. On 1/1/43 the US alone had a larger fleet than Japan would ever produce in various states of production, not to mention a huge Air Force and significant land forces---plus enough supply to keep all of it going and help it's Allies as well. Does the phrase "We have not yet begun to fight!" ring a bell?

You might discuss "war weariness" by 1945---but in 1943 the Allies were just getting ready to start dealing with Japan, so why would they "throw in the towel" before they'd even brought their forces to bear? It's a "gamey cop-out" 2by3 came up with to make JFB's happy...

America had bigger fish to fry in Europe.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: herwin
An armistice is where the two sides agree to stop fighting, usually on the current lines. An armistice in India would allow the side accepting the armistice to withdrawn and redeploy the troops currently fighting in the Indian area. Similarly for an armistice in China. Japan might accept an armistice in either area to be able to redeploy to face the USA. Attack is any air/land/sea attack.

Sorry Herwin..., usually I'm with you---but this is a silly notion. On 1/1/43 the US alone had a larger fleet than Japan would ever produce in various states of production, not to mention a huge Air Force and significant land forces---plus enough supply to keep all of it going and help it's Allies as well. Does the phrase "We have not yet begun to fight!" ring a bell?

You might discuss "war weariness" by 1945---but in 1943 the Allies were just getting ready to start dealing with Japan, so why would they "throw in the towel" before they'd even brought their forces to bear? It's a "gamey cop-out" 2by3 came up with to make JFB's happy...

America had bigger fish to fry in Europe.

But the only way the Chiefs of the Government or the Military could SELL "Germany First" to the American Public was with the promise that Japan would "get theirs!" Germany didn't attack us..., Japan did.

[Anthropoid]

My understanding is that there was a significant anti-war sentiment in the U.S., at least prior to WWII, though I'm not sure about during.

Disproportionate losses (represented by the victory point ratios) would arguably be the single biggest 'in theatre' phenomenon which might unleash that somewhat muted anti-war bloc in the U.S. Assuming the magnitude of the skewed suffering, and resulting yellow press was bad enough, it just might have caused a strong 'sue for peace' movement, which at some point Congress might feel it prudent not to ignore, no matter how strategically savvy Roosevelt might have been, nor how materially powerful the U.S. might. In short, if you do not perform well enough, as represented by the ratio of victory points, your society loses the will to fight, no matter how much skew there is in available or potential kilojoules of explosive power.

Wars are fought with people too, not just machines. If the societies that provide those people get cranky about it, the one with the most machines does not necessarily 'win.'

The current situation with incredibly skewed objective field indicators of 3GW outcomes (~4K Coalition casualties vs. 100+K 'Insurgent/Jihadist'??), being almost totally inversely related to the focii of the 4GW contest is a modern day mass-media-amplified version of this same process, but it has been going on for eons.

ADDIT: democratic societies are at a major disadvantage when fighting autocratic ones . . .

[Nomad]

It was not really an anti-war sentiment but isolationist. Many did not want to enter another European war. But, when Japan attacked the fleet at Pearl Harbor without declaring war - it was war until the end.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

It was not really an anti-war sentiment but isolationist. Many did not want to enter another European war. But, when Japan attacked the fleet at Pearl Harbor without declaring war - it was war until the end.

If it is true that U.S. society during 1941 to 1945 was untroubled by flagging war spirit, then why propagate the myth about Captain Colin P. Kelly heroically suicide crashing his damaged B-17 into the Battleship Haruna and sinking it off Lingayen on about Dec 10, 1941? Why the Doolittle raid? Why the huge propaganda effort, including the Flag Raiser Bond Drive, even in the last months of a war whose outcome was a 'foregone conclusion?'

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl




Sorry Herwin..., usually I'm with you---but this is a silly notion. On 1/1/43 the US alone had a larger fleet than Japan would ever produce in various states of production, not to mention a huge Air Force and significant land forces---plus enough supply to keep all of it going and help it's Allies as well. Does the phrase "We have not yet begun to fight!" ring a bell?

You might discuss "war weariness" by 1945---but in 1943 the Allies were just getting ready to start dealing with Japan, so why would they "throw in the towel" before they'd even brought their forces to bear? It's a "gamey cop-out" 2by3 came up with to make JFB's happy...

America had bigger fish to fry in Europe.

But the only way the Chiefs of the Government or the Military could SELL "Germany First" to the American Public was with the promise that Japan would "get theirs!" Germany didn't attack us..., Japan did.

That's the point of the restrictions on Japanese attacks. Attacking Pearl Harbor changed the attitudes of the American public. If Japan had declared war politely and had stayed out of the Eastern Pacific, the American public opinion behind the war would have started at a lower level.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

My understanding is that there was a significant anti-war sentiment in the U.S., at least prior to WWII, though I'm not sure about during.

Disproportionate losses (represented by the victory point ratios) would arguably be the single biggest 'in theatre' phenomenon which might unleash that somewhat muted anti-war bloc in the U.S. Assuming the magnitude of the skewed suffering, and resulting yellow press was bad enough, it just might have caused a strong 'sue for peace' movement, which at some point Congress might feel it prudent not to ignore, no matter how strategically savvy Roosevelt might have been, nor how materially powerful the U.S. might. In short, if you do not perform well enough, as represented by the ratio of victory points, your society loses the will to fight, no matter how much skew there is in available or potential kilojoules of explosive power.

Wars are fought with people too, not just machines. If the societies that provide those people get cranky about it, the one with the most machines does not necessarily 'win.'

The current situation with incredibly skewed objective field indicators of 3GW outcomes (~4K Coalition casualties vs. 100+K 'Insurgent/Jihadist'??), being almost totally inversely related to the focii of the 4GW contest is a modern day mass-media-amplified version of this same process, but it has been going on for eons.

ADDIT: democratic societies are at a major disadvantage when fighting autocratic ones . . .

Autocratic societies have the major disadvantage of having all their ideas and policies coming from a small group. A democratic society that unites behind a policy has a great deal more momentum and creativity to harness.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

In a democratic society all ideas and policies are still coming from small group - just different one. Only gain from democracy is that when groups are changing, they do that without cutting heads of former rulers.