Who Won

[Nemo121]

Amoral, quite.

[steamboateng]

Perhaps I'm a bit 'off-tpoic' here, but history and pride compel me to take issue with Nemo 121's understanding of American history and America's view of itself. I site specifically the American War of Independence (1775 - 1783).
Simply put, at no time did the American political and military leadership ever beleive it could gain independence from Great Britain by feilding an army of farmers and shopkeepers. At no time did they, amongst themselves, ever beleive military force of arms, in itself, could acheive their stated goals. The aim of feilding an American army, untrained, undisciplined, and poorly armed, in fact as well as perception, was strategic, when viewed upon the world stage. On the local level it was quite spontaneous; a gaggle of 'rabble', if you will, united only in their own sense of worth and dogged opposition to occupation by British troops and German mercenaries.
Evenntualy united under the common goals, set forth in its Declaration of Idependence, in the summer of 1776, (a document, which in itself, has no standing in American law, but is intrinsically tied, by common practice, with the American Constitution) the army feilded under the overall command of Geaorge Washington, was tasked with forcing the armies of Great Britain to quit the shores of America, or at the least, retreat into Canada.
In reality, Washington's army never achieved that goal.
It was a practical 'body politic', defined in a representitive 'Continental Congress', which sent agents abroad, to gain support of wesrern European powers (notably France and Holland), which finally accomplished that task.
Washington, whose military acumen speaks for itself, ultimately saw his primary task as simply keeping a viable army in the feild; a manifestation of American will.
Washington, Gates, Greene, Lincoln, and Wayne, all suffered major defeats, and all won great victories. Yet no victory, and more importantly, no defeat, was decisive for either the Americans or the British. Even the great victory at Yorktown (where French muskets outnumbered American) bagged a mere 5000 Redcoats. In New York, General Clinton could still feild a force in excess of 20,000 trained soldeirs. And Washington, right to the end, could never feild more than a force 20,000, including militia.
American victory was acheived on the world stage.
A small, gifted band of American politicians (philosophers and buisnessmen), with great insight (and foresight), saw that Great Britain had much more to lose politically and financially, in an expanding, protracted war (Sound familiar?) than she could gain.
I can see that perhaps this post is relevant. Clearly, 'winning' and 'losing', in the case cited, is a complicated issue.
Regards

[Ketza]

For me it isnt about the end result being a win or not. It is about all of the battles and campaigns that occur along the way. Each action in the game is a small game all of its own.

In my game against Hartwig its a constant cat and mouse. Every turn can hold a surprise. Every turn turn can have a win or a loss.

Its about the journey.

[PresterJohn001]

its not about which side won the historical war, nor about which side gained military victory in the game. Its about which player outperformed what was expected of them in game and thus was the better (more skillful, imaginative or simply lucky) player. The war/game is asymetrical, Japan will lose, the queston is when and is my when better or worse than average. That is all Vicory Conditions are about. How much value one places in this victory is a personal matter and i'd rather a good game than an easy win, but its an interesting diversion and aim!!

[Nemo121]

Umm, steamboateng, I don't see where I ever referenced the American War of Independence at all so I'm a bit lost at your reference to my understanding of American history and your prideful need to correct said understanding.

With that said I don't see anything too questionable in the interpretation you put on the fielding of the Army and its commander's intent.

I would say though that the Americans in the War of Independence always sought to "win" their strategic goals and remain alive if possible through creating such a cost to Britain in maintaining the war that Britain would prefer to negotiatie. I think that's quite a different thing than going to war KNOWING you will be crushed and explicitly viewing your coming death as, in a sense, watering the ground to encourage the growth of the next generation of leaders of rebellion, which is what the 1916 leaders were doing.

America actually had a plan to win. That plan just didn't involve defeating every British Army sent against it in the field and dominating the ground battles via a massive well-trained army which could beat the redcoats. With that said their plan showed an understanding that Britain's economy was more fragile than its armed forces and so targetted that.

I would suggest that that is a VERY different thing than what happened in 1916 where no effort was made to target the British economy ( that had to wait until the late 1980s/early 1990s when the IRA bombing campaign targetted electricity, gas and financial locations in order to increase the cost of continuing to occupy Northern Ireland to such an extent that peace would be preferable... One could argue that this campaign, while militarily foiled was, to a great extent, an impetus to political discussion which eventually ended the conflict on fairly favourable terms to those who originated the campaign. ) or logistics and even militarily they were hugely outmatched.

I would also state that I'm puzzled by your reference to pride. Even if America never had a similar experience that in no way detracts from America in my mind. America, despite all its flaws, is still a pretty amazing experiment and rather successful too. It isn't perfect but neither is any country. Anyways I'm just a bit puzzled at what you think I said or implied as I don't quite follow why pride etc would play into your reply. I don't see that anything prideful was threatened by what I said.

[steamboateng]

I beleive I have stated my view, both explicit and implicit, within the context of my last post.
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm in the midst of a great New England Pats/Pittsburh Steelers football game, with 3 beers to go.
Regards

[Nemo121]

Miaow. Ok, enjoy your American football game.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
It's not a matter of over- or under-powered, it's a matter of foreknowledge and hindsight.

No, this is a matter of certain game realities, such as easy logistics, that give constant advantage to the attacker, and synergise with areas, where mechanics give Allies ahistorical advantages better than with those that benefit Japanese. Hindsight benefits both sides.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
It's not a matter of over- or under-powered, it's a matter of foreknowledge and hindsight.

No, this is a matter of certain game realities, such as easy logistics, that give constant advantage to the attacker, and synergise with areas, where mechanics give Allies ahistorical advantages better than with those that benefit Japanese. Hindsight benefits both sides.

So the Japanese are never "the attacker" in WITP-AE? And there is nothing "a-historical" about the massive American superiority in logistics and delivery means. The US pioneered the concept of a "Fleet Train"..., AND had the industrial and shipbuilding muscle to create a massive one.

And while "Hindsight benefits both sides" is true enough, it benefits most the one in the best position to take advantage of it. And that is the USA in the last 18 months of the war. Early in the war, Japan can go almost anywhere..., but they can't go everywhere. By 1944, the Americans can do both.

[Feltan]

Oh, I guess I have to offer a contrarian point-of-view.

For me, it is all about victory points.

Shock! Horror!

Why so? The VP system is one way of doing it, and it is a bit more satisfying and definitive than listening to a bunch of blowhards wax philosophical about how well they played even though they got their ass kicked.

Sink ships, shoot down aircraft, destroy LCU's, strategic bomb, capture bases -- the VPs will show, and it ain't that bad a measure of how each side is doing.

And for those that dislike the VP system, just remember that you don't get the luxury of creating your own victory conditions in real life; they usually get imposed on you by very unfair circumstances. In contrast to real life, the VP system is both elegant and fair.

Regards,
Feltan

[Nemo121]

So a Ki-27 took as much effort to produce as a B-17 and 300 Ki-27s took as much effort as a BB?

Hmm!!!!

[bradfordkay]

Remember, the US player has no chance to alter the amount of aircraft or ships he produces. He gets what the designers feel that he should and no more. IMO, this means, yes, the Japanese player has an advantage when it comes to the production system.

[brian800000]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

One thought that occurs to me is whether Aug 15, 1945 is really the best date to use. In scenario 1, what is the average date of Allied victory? What is the average date in scenario 2 games? To me that is a better benchmark, but YMMV.

Also, there is something to what Nemo says. Even before the war, the Japanese high command was well aware of the likelihood of defeat, but thought 1941 was the best balance of forces they would get and believed utter defeat preferable to backing down in China. In the end, their inability to resolve the China Incident doomed them. They had a plan for negotiated peace and intended to win in the Western sense, but they were willing to accept the risk of national annihilation in a way that can baffle our minds.

To me the closest analogue is the US Civil War, with the South determined to fight rather than accept what they perceived to be the destruction of their way of life.

Not to nitpick, and I'll leave the assessment of the WWII mindset to those here that know much more than me, but I don't think that is a fair characterization of the South's mindset going into the US Civil War. I think the South fully expected to win. And perhaps not unreasonably. Certainly we can look back and say they had no chance--badly outnumbered and without a strong industrial base or navy. But they had no idea the war would become a total war, and they did not anticipate that the North would press the fight. If Southern leaders had a historical analogue they looked to, it was the US Revolution.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Oh, I guess I have to offer a contrarian point-of-view.

For me, it is all about victory points.

Shock! Horror!

No shock, no horror. VP's are what the game provides as a measuring stick..., so if that's the way you and your opponents want to play, good for you. But to call those who disagree "a bunch of blowhards" just proves you to be a childish and immature fellow incapable of appreciating another point of view. Grow up. Your name calling attitude is something you should have left behind in grade school.

[Cribtop]

Brian, we may agree more than you think. The South did think they would win (or at least that they had an even chance, thought we know with hindsight the odds were stacked against them). My comparison in that respect had to do not with the evaluation of the odds of success (the Japanese did seriously question their ability to win), but rather that in both cases the initiators of the war were resolved to do so because continuing the peace would, in their opinion, result in destruction of their way of life and thus was seen as unacceptable regardless of the outcome of the war. These two combatants, rightly or wrongly, believed they had "no choice" but to resort to force.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

No shock, no horror. VP's are what the game provides as a measuring stick..., so if that's the way you and your opponents want to play, good for you. But to call those who disagree "a bunch of blowhards" just proves you to be a childish and immature fellow incapable of appreciating another point of view. Grow up. Your name calling attitude is something you should have left behind in grade school.

Mr. Scholl,

Perhaps you should stop channelling your inner-Terminus and realize that another point-of-view, mine in this case, deserves the same treatment that you encourage me to exercise. I am quite grown up. And for the record, the term "blowhards" accurately describes two of my previous PBEM opponents who quit midgame in a flurry of self praising emails and mindbending rationalizations despite game results to the contrary -- that was the intent of the term. However, if you considered yourself included under that umbrella I appologize for the miscommunication; clarity of communication is the responsibility of the writer, and I could have phrased things differently to avoid confusion.

Regards,
Feltan

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

No shock, no horror. VP's are what the game provides as a measuring stick..., so if that's the way you and your opponents want to play, good for you. But to call those who disagree "a bunch of blowhards" just proves you to be a childish and immature fellow incapable of appreciating another point of view. Grow up. Your name calling attitude is something you should have left behind in grade school.

Mr. Scholl,

Perhaps you should stop channelling your inner-Terminus and realize that another point-of-view, mine in this case, deserves the same treatment that you encourage me to exercise. I am quite grown up. And for the record, the term "blowhards" accurately describes two of my previous PBEM opponents who quit midgame in a flurry of self praising emails and mindbending rationalizations despite game results to the contrary -- that was the intent of the term. However, if you considered yourself included under that umbrella I appologize for the miscommunication; clarity of communication is the responsibility of the writer, and I could have phrased things differently to avoid confusion.

Regards,
Feltan

Mr. Feltan,

"Termi" has plenty of fun at my expense when I am in error. I recognize and respect your point-of-view. Said as much in the comment I made, "VP's are what the game provides as a measuring stick..., so if that's the way you and your opponents want to play, good for you." You were the one who introduced derogatory name calling (blowhards) into the conversation to describe all those who don't subscribe to your opinion.

I'm sorry you had a poor experience with a couple of opponents..., but two is not a quorum on this forum and does not entitle you to slap a "label" on EVERYONE who holds another opinion. That's still "childish".

It's rather a shame this has gotten out-of-hand, as you are one of the few WITP-AE players close enough to Kansas City to meet in person if you live in Kansas. Might have been a much better discussion over a couple of cold ones.

Sincerely Yours,
Mike Scholl

[brian800000]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Brian, we may agree more than you think. The South did think they would win (or at least that they had an even chance, thought we know with hindsight the odds were stacked against them). My comparison in that respect had to do not with the evaluation of the odds of success (the Japanese did seriously question their ability to win), but rather that in both cases the initiators of the war were resolved to do so because continuing the peace would, in their opinion, result in destruction of their way of life and thus was seen as unacceptable regardless of the outcome of the war. These two combatants, rightly or wrongly, believed they had "no choice" but to resort to force.

I don't want to be argumentative for the sake of argument, but I do still disagree somewhat. I'll first grant that it is difficult ot assign a motive to a country, especially to states that in some cases made decisions through plebicites. Certainly there were those in the south that would agree with the sentiments you wrote, and there were those that did not. So in a sense this is a discussion of degrees, not of absolutes.

But I'd say the predominant cause of secession pre fort sumpter was not a feeling of direct threat to a way of life but of disenfranchisement within the union. Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in the South, and yet he was elected president. I don't think the response of secession was so much that he was going to end slavery, or even that that would be done longer term (though some obviously felt that way and voiced those views). I think there was already anger that the Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution and previous legislative comprimises such as the fugative slave act were not being enforced, and the election of Lincoln was simply the straw that broke the camel's back in causing people to say, "what's the point?"

For the states that seceded post fort sumpter, there were elements of being forced to pick sides in a fight. And since Washington was forcing the picking through troop requests, that some chose the south shouldn't be too surprising.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Mr. Feltan,

"Termi" has plenty of fun at my expense when I am in error. I recognize and respect your point-of-view. Said as much in the comment I made, "VP's are what the game provides as a measuring stick..., so if that's the way you and your opponents want to play, good for you." You were the one who introduced derogatory name calling (blowhards) into the conversation to describe all those who don't subscribe to your opinion.

I'm sorry you had a poor experience with a couple of opponents..., but two is not a quorum on this forum and does not entitle you to slap a "label" on EVERYONE who holds another opinion. That's still "childish".

It's rather a shame this has gotten out-of-hand, as you are one of the few WITP-AE players close enough to Kansas City to meet in person if you live in Kansas. Might have been a much better discussion over a couple of cold ones.

Sincerely Yours,
Mike Scholl

Indeed. I shall chalk this up to lack of accuracy on my part; there was no intent to label everyone, in fact just the oppenents I mentioned above. However, I can see how other might have viewed my post. Bad on me.

While I am still a resident of Kansas, real life and work has temporarily (perhaps permanently) relocated me to Northern Iowa. A rather nice place, but a bit out of the way for a get together at Gates Barbaque!

Regards,
Feltan

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Indeed. I shall chalk this up to lack of accuracy on my part; there was no intent to label everyone, in fact just the oppenents I mentioned above. However, I can see how other might have viewed my post. Bad on me.

While I am still a resident of Kansas, real life and work has temporarily (perhaps permanently) relocated me to Northern Iowa. A rather nice place, but a bit out of the way for a get together at Gates Barbaque!

Regards,
Feltan

Accepted and forgiven. Too bad about Gates, but when the job calls... (especially in this economy.)