Who is going to play the game after 43???

[mdiehl]

actually, just about every army in europe was equipped according to WW1 standards

True. Unlike the Allies, however, the EuroAxis never saw a need to change or even make things a little easier on themselves by standardizing on a few generic kinds of transport or AFV.

[ColFrost]

ORIGINAL: madflava13

I can certainly vouch for Col. Frost's consistency in getting turns out... I'm working on one right now, actually.

I cannot vouch for him being a "patsie" - our game is quiet as we both stock up our bases and forces, but his sub deployments are playing he11 with my transports... If you play him, make him play with IJN sub doctrine ON... hehe.

I am sorry, but that's not going to happen. It's the only thing that's working for me. Of course, apparently, I'm camping on your ports.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: ColFrost
I am sorry, but that's not going to happen. It's the only thing that's working for me. Of course, apparently, I'm camping on your ports.

One morning at the mess hall on Midway Island.

<knock, knock>
The cook opens the door to find a wet oriental man outside the door holding a large water tight bag.
"Beg forgiveness for intrusion. Me from... uh... Chinese boy scout troop! Been... um... camped near here, wong time. We getting most tired of rice, and wonder you wike to trade bag rice for something else? Not too spicy prease."

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: j campbell

Personally i cannot see the satisfaction in dropping A-bombs or firebombs which is why if i ever play the allied side i would stick to military targets.

Then I will play the Japanese against you and beat you against the victory conditions. I revel in the idea that you would refrain from using atomic weapons or firebombs against us. I will throw hara-kiri into your cursed Yankee ships until you no longer dare to let them sail. Come invade Honshu. We will annihilate you.

Banzai! Honaa!

Err.... are nukes and firebombs even in the game? And if so, why?

[madflava13]

ORIGINAL: ColFrost

I am sorry, but that's not going to happen. It's the only thing that's working for me. Of course, apparently, I'm camping on your ports.

I don't mind the "camping". 30 mile hexes are big enough to justify that. What I do mind is my damn DDs and SCs sitting on top of your subs while they casually torpedo APs loaded with troops and supplies. It's too bad I can't fire some of those ship drivers...

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer
Err.... are nukes and firebombs even in the game? And if so, why?

Err.... because they were in the real war?

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I understand, the question is would they have actually done it or simple rattled around and accepted it had Japan presented it as "you left us no choice".

Considering US public opinion was to stay out of even the European War, I doubt the US would have gotten involved over the Japs doing anything to the Dutch. The Brits probably, but so what? They already had their hands full with the Germans.

Without PH as an opening act, it becomes a lot tougher to justify what happened.

And Pearl Harbour was not supposed to happen that way. Bushido alone demands that you face a warrior in honourable battle. This was an attack upon an enemyu that didn't even know there was a war on.

If the War declaration had gone through when it was supposed to. Thus Pearl had been notified that there was a war on, and thus was at alert. And thus Pearl had been a bit more of a fight (although with only an hour or so notice, it wouldn't have been much different), would it still have been "a day that will live in infamy"?

I doubt it. It would have just been "we got caught with our pants down".

The irony is that PH is hit with a sneak attack, and her commanders are on the chopping block. Macarthur sits on his hands until after the Japs bomb him, and that is... just the fortunes of war?

The Allies used this as an excuse to justify their actions when in reality they caused it themselves.

But Mr. Frag, we're the good guys! We don't drive other nations into wars!

<cough>Treaty of Versais<cough> (sp)

We're Holy! And wonderful! And our wars are about Good vs. Evil! White vs. Black!

We don't go to war because of greed, or ambition, or any other bad reason. We go to war to defend justice! And to bring peace!

[:D]


Anyone want to buy a bridge?
Its cheap!



Oh and, by the way. If you don't like the idea of hypothetical scenarios, then why play the game? This is all about hypotheticals. "What if the Japs went to Midway with all 6 CVs instead of four?"
But they didn't. If you don't like "woulda, coulda, shoulda", then these games must be tripe to you.

And quite frankly, as 'simulations' go, WitP will be piss poor. And I can say that without ever seeing it. Why? Because it cannot be a decent simulation.

It is a game. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. It is based on a historical period, but beyond that, it is nothing. To claim you are 'studying history' while playing it is simply pretentious bull. No different than when I was a kid and told my parents that if I had a computer, it could help me with my homework (yeah, right - it was for games).

You want to study history? Go read books on the subject. Find people who were there and talk to them. But don't play a game that cannot even recreate the 'Doolittle Raid' - that literally did little, and yet did so much.

To be a proper simulation, the game would have to deal with so many factors that it simply cannot. Many of them human.

The Doolittle Raid - despite doing little actual damage - caused the Japanese to waste resources to prevent it happening again.

Hitler wasted time and resources on preventing attacks on (I think it was) Norway after a commando raid, because Churchill knew how to pull Hitler's chain.

The really important targets at Pearl were not the battleships. They weren't even the planes. They were the fuel storage and the port facilities. If those had been significantly damaged (particularly the fuel), that would have put a real dent into the US war plan for a while. Fortunately the commander was timid, and ran off before he hit the really important targets.

And what if the commander of the carrier group at Midway - the same one as at Pearl - hadn't been a wishy washy twit? Either equipping to go against the suspected US carriers, or finishing the job on Midway so the landing could commence, thus putting the US carriers in the bad spot of worrying about an invasion force AND a large carrier group. Midway was an amazing victory due to an indecisive IJN admiral, and some good old fashioned luck. Could have gone the other way real easy.
But it didn't. End of story.


As for WW2 being certain...

We may like to think that WW2 was a foregone conclusion (usually on the belief that the good guys who would always win) but it wasn't that simple. Sure, Hitler was a nut, but that was why his own people tried to take him out. If Hitler had not declared war on the US, would they have gone to Europe, or just focused all their attention on Japan?

England was on the ropes during the Battle of Britain, but they managed to give the impression that they weren't. If the Germans had kept after the airfields just a little longer, they would have had ownership of the skies, and then Sealion would have been possible. And if Britain fell, then the US couldn't have even thought about invading Europe.

Normandy wasn't even a forgone conclusion. Which was the decoy 'army' under Patton was so important. Hitler managed to keep focused there. If he had released forces against the Normandy landing in a timely manner, it might have been pushed back into the sea. Although that would have just meant the Soviets would have ended up owning all of mainland Europe, instead of just the East.

Hitler was a fool in the Soviet Union, over extending his armies and supply lines. Again, it is unlikely to believe that the Germans could have conquered all of the huge expanse of the Soviet Union, but bloodying them enough to agree to 'a bitter peace' was not unrealistic.

Many military historians agree that it is rather interesting how near a thing WW2 was. In Europe from 1939 and up until the winter really laid into the Germans in the Soviet Union, it was not a certainty at all. After that, German victory was probably impossible, but the fall of the Reich probably wasn't guaranteed until the landing in Sicily in '43. If they had assassinated Hitler, a negotiated peace with the Western Allies might have been possible (depends upon how sick of war the Brits and Americans were).

As for the Pacific War, really, it was a forgone conclusion from just after Pearl Harbour went wrong. The time line could vary, but the righteous indignation of the US was not going to relax until those nukes fell on Japan. But if Pearl hadn't been the way it was...?

Things could have gone a lot differently, they just didn't, and we can be glad of it. But to say that they went the only way they could have? No, that is simple arrogance.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: neuromancer
Err.... are nukes and firebombs even in the game? And if so, why?

Err.... because they were in the real war?

So what? What actual effect will they have in the game?

'Hey! I killed 100,000 civilians today! Take that Japan! Oh, and reduced their industrial output by maybe 1%."

The point is, once the nukes are in play, it is over.

And the firebombs, they were just there to kill lots of people, but didn't actually have that much impact on the war. Proably more in the tighter confines of Japan, but still, the impact was a lot less than the allies thought it was. But in the game we will know that (or at least should) so why bother? Its a waste of air power.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer
And quite frankly, as 'simulations' go, WitP will be piss poor. And I can say that without ever seeing it. Why? Because it cannot be a decent simulation.

This is what makes it so impossible to discuss anything with you. All you do is trot out conclusory statement after conclusory statement as though your opinion is the only one that can be considered and your judgments are the only ones that can possibly be correct.

By the way, the thread asks who will be playing the game after 1943. I will be. Either side. Because WitP will be such a tremendous simulation that it will engage my curiosity and attention as a game player.

I don't have to badmouth it or its design and test team in order to enjoy it.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
This is what makes it so impossible to discuss anything with you. All you do is trot out conclusory statement after conclusory statement as though your opinion is the only one that can be considered and your judgments are the only ones that can possibly be correct.

When of course we should all know that everything you say must be correct, right?

Give me a break.

By the way, the thread asks who will be playing the game after 1943. I will be. Either side. Because WitP will be such a tremendous simulation that it will engage my curiosity and attention as a game player.

That is fine. Except of course you used 'simulation' instead of 'game' again. But that is fine. At least now you aren't claiming to be researching military history while playing a game.

I don't have to badmouth it or its design and test team in order to enjoy it.

Good. Neither do I, and I never did any such thing.

Right, I challenge you. Pull your head out of your butt, get off your high horse, and tell me where I bad mouthed any of these people.

NOW DAMN IT!

You gonna start throwing around accusations like that, you had better be ready to back them up. Or you will eat them words!

I absolute hate it when people try to say I said things that I did not!

How would you like it if I claimed you were a racist because of some of your comments? I bet you would be pretty mad, because you never said any such thing. Then you better watch your mouth boy!

[byron13]

Might the two of you agree that:

(i) The scope of the game makes a true simulation of this half of the war very difficult to impossible (based on one's definition of the term "simulation"), and

(ii) WitP will be the best simulation available to the general public on a PC?


I think this will be an excellent game. It certainly does not (and no game or even "simulation" ever will) contain all the factors, inputs, etc., that would be a true simulation of the war, but this is the closest and best thing available. Can we agree on that?

[pasternakski]

"WitP will be piss poor."

[mogami]

You want to study history? Go read books on the subject. Find people who were there and talk to them. But don't play a game that cannot even recreate the 'Doolittle Raid' - that literally did little, and yet did so much.

To be a proper simulation, the game would have to deal with so many factors that it simply cannot. Many of them human.

The Doolittle Raid - despite doing little actual damage - caused the Japanese to waste resources to prevent it happening again

Hi, The Doolittle raid worked in history because it was unexpected. Do you really think a single Japanese player would not expect a Doolittle attack if it were included? What would be the result of Japanese players stocking up the air defense of the Home Islands to meet the attack? The players will have to invent their own methods of surprising the Japanese.
Very early on as a play tester I was lobbying getting a Doolittle capability into the game but I talked myself out it because there is no element of surprise. The Japanese know it can be done and if it is allowed it will be done. Worse it will be done more then once. The Japanese have twin engine bombers smaller then B-25's should they be allowed to make Doolittle type raids? Suicide raids? (2xUSN CV launched 16xB-25 how many Ki-48 could 6 IJN CV launch at Seattle (I'd bomb the Boeing plant if I was allowed) 48 seems resonable. I could pretend the pilots/crew would be picked up by submarines after the attack. (but I'd prefer them to drop bombs and then crash their aircraft into the plant as well)

What the Doolittle Raid did was convince the Japanese they needed to bring on a final battle with the USN. The Allied player does not need to do this in WITP. There will be two types of Japanese.

Type One is looking for a fight and does not need a Doolittle excuse.
Type Two is a hedgehog and no amount of poking is going to get him out of his hole.

[Rendova]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: neuromancer
Err.... are nukes and firebombs even in the game? And if so, why?

Err.... because they were in the real war?

So what? What actual effect will they have in the game?

'Hey! I killed 100,000 civilians today! Take that Japan! Oh, and reduced their industrial output by maybe 1%."

The point is, once the nukes are in play, it is over.

And the firebombs, they were just there to kill lots of people, but didn't actually have that much impact on the war. Proably more in the tighter confines of Japan, but still, the impact was a lot less than the allies thought it was. But in the game we will know that (or at least should) so why bother? Its a waste of air power.

Actually Firebombing and the Atmoic Bombs did alot in convicning the Japanese to give up. Hirohito saw the carnage and knew a stop had to put to it. I have always disliked the agurment that the bombs were unnessicay, if they were then why did they have to drop 2? Also they fought for 14 years (including China) and then you surrender with in a week of the bombs being droped, hmmm think that could be related?

Look I think the fire bombing and the use of atomic weapons was a horrible event, but I also believe they were an absolute nessicity, It brought an end to the greatest madness this world has ever seen and as odd as it sounds save HUNDREDS of thousands of lives. I hope nothing like that ever has to occur again.

[neuromancer]

I used to beleive that too.

Until I found out that Japan had offered to surrender before Hiroshima. The only condition they had was that they be allowed to keep the Emperor (I don't remember how it was worded). Then the two bombs were dropped, and Japan offered an unconditional surrender, and the US allowed them to keep the Emperor.

Those bombs had nothing to do with Japan, and everything to do with the Soviet Union. Japan just happened to be the unlucky live fire test range. And they had to prove they could repeat the trick.

On the other hand, it can be argued that if the world hadn't saw what nukes could do in Japan, they might have been used elsewhere (like Vietnam). And once everyone had them, God alone knows where that might have led.



The firebombs... I'm still mixed on them. It seems that all they were good for was burning down cities and killing civilians, industry - at least in Europe - quickly became decentralized and thus the impact of strategic bombing was significantly lessened. But the impact wasn't nil, and reducing manpower is also legitimate in destroying the enemy's ability to wage war.

So like I say, I'm of mixed opinion on firebombing.

[Mike Scholl]

Not going to get into the "bomb" dispute, but the use of incendiaries was VERY effective.
One of the little ironies of the war was that after spending years and billions putting the
ultimate WWII High Altitude Strategic Bomber into service, it turned out that the most
effective way of attacking Japanese industrial capacity was to use them as "dump trucks"
in low altitude night raids.

Much of the Japanese Industry remaining in the late war was dispersed all over cities
in every small business that could be pressed into service. Burning down the entire
city meant you could strike these "cottage industries" as well as the plants assembling
the finished products. An additional side effect was that fear of bombing drove much
of Japan's labor force into the countryside, making "absenteeism" a major frustration
for Japan's war planners in 1945. "Fire Bombing" turned out to be the most effective
usage of US bombardment assets---to say it shouldn't be in the game is like saying the
Japanese shouldn't be able to use torpedoes.

On the nuclear front, I would just paraphrase a Toyota ad. "You asked for it..., You got
it----Hiroshima." You can't base a national defense poicy on making it so costly for the
other side to force you to surrender that they will offer terms...., and then start whining
when they try to avoid your trap by vaporizing you with a nuke.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

"WitP will be piss poor."

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

[:D][:D]


Oh you are rich! Man, I don't know why anyone allows you out, because your interpretation of reality is so creative to be dangerous!

That is the creme of flaming 101! Take the other guys comments out of context. Come on, I expected better of you! Really, I did! You generally seem like a smart guy, but this is the best you got?

Here is the entire sentence you snipped, maybe you missed it the first time.

"And quite frankly, as 'simulations' go, WitP will be piss poor."

Notice what I said there? I could have also said as a Word Processor it will be piss poor, and as a mail program it will be piss poor. Why could I say that? Because it is neither.

But no one claimed it was those. You claimed it was a simulation though. Which it is not - except if you take a pretty liberal view of 'simulation'. It is a GAME. A wargame certainly, but a GAME none the less.

The only way you can call WitP a 'simulation' is to say that ALL computer games are 'simulations'. Which hey, you want to do that, knock yourself out.

But could you sit down with any serious military historians, and use as your evidence of some theory of the real war in the pacific, something you picked up in the game WitP? Not unless your goal was to be laughed at you couldn't!

And the final point - from the WitP website:
"“War in the Pacific: The Struggle Against Japan” is a completely new strategy game"

I never said it would be a bad game, so I bever insulated anyone. It is a computer game, not a sinulation. End of story.

They never claimed to be making anything other than a game. The only person who was insulted by me saying it will be a piss poor simulation was YOU. Not them.

So, you lose. Thanks for playing.
Get lost.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: byron13
I think this will be an excellent game. It certainly does not (and no game or even "simulation" ever will) contain all the factors, inputs, etc., that would be a true simulation of the war, but this is the closest and best thing available. Can we agree on that?

I agree completely. 100%

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Mogami
Very early on as a play tester I was lobbying getting a Doolittle capability into the game but I talked myself out it because there is no element of surprise. The Japanese know it can be done and if it is allowed it will be done. Worse it will be done more then once. <snip>

I think you misunderstand my point. I really don't care if the Doolittle Raid is in the game or not, and for the reasons you state, it probably should not be.

My point - which byron13 already stated - is that no computer game can ever completely reflect all the zillions of little things that made the war go the way it did. And by so many of them being left out - because it is not feasable to put them all in - the game distills down to a relatively simple (note, I said relatively, as compared to the real thing) game of mostly straight forward combat.

Yes, that is a gross simplification of WitP, but as I said, compared to the real thing, it is accurate.

That doesn't make it bad by any means. It can still be great fun, maybe even playing through all the way to the end of '45. But it does mean that it is just a game.

As is stated at the beginning of the NSDM games, we could go into that kind of detail, but that would mean that it would take more time and manpower to actually fight WW2 than it actually took!

And actually, we couldn't do it if we even wanted to. It would be simpler just to fught the war again. Although obviously more bloody. [:(]


A quick thought on the original topic of playing through once the ebeginning oif the end starts. Totalier Krieg talked about that. In TK it was possible (as the Axis) to win the war and the game (if unlikely, except against me [;)]), but it was also possible to lose the war, but still win the game.

And that is the issue here, the Japanese victory conditions are not the same as the Allied ones. Although as I haven't seen the game, I have no idea what those would be!



As for firebombing, granted (in the Pacific Theatre). I had forgotten about the cottage industry thing (they still do that actually). Although it is worthwhile to note that in Vietnam the bombing of the N.V. cities was largely ineffective for the same reasons, the people simply left the cities, and probably a moderate amount of the industry went with them. But they still couldn't do like the Germans did, and spread it all over the countryside, because they just simply didn't have that much countryside.

And of course; ships, and the final assembly of planes and tanks requires actual facilities which rather limits their migratory ability.



As for the nukes... I'm leaving that topic alone now.

[jrcar]

The definition of a simulation is :

a model exercised over time.

Authority, Australian Defence Simulation Policy (I helpd write it ), British MOD sim policy http://www.mod.uk/issues/simulation/definition.htm, US Simulation Policy https://www.dmso.mil/public/library/projects/vva/glossary.pdf.

It is the validation, verification and final accreditation that judges the worth of any given simulation for its usefulness for the task at hand.

No simulation is ever perfect, all contain abstractions and assumptions, let alone data inaccuracies. They allow you to gain insights and predict POSSIBLE outcomes.

UV certainly provided me insights into the issues in that area of the war that my professional military training never covered. I expect WITP to do the same.

The term "game" and "simulation" are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are almost synonymous (some simulations are not games, ie closed loop simulations).

Cheers

Rob