ORIGINAL: Thayne
Culican Mexico:
Actually, my comments about different people with different tastes was made in reference to the quoted disparaging remark "I'm am not sure any 'requirements' will fill the desires of some'...
Against your presenting historic documents and other types of assertions, my answer is this:
Manila and Singapore were the historic locations of the initial conflicts for a reason. If you remove the historical context that pretty much requre that Japan attack these places, then consistency would also demand that the Allies not defend these places.
Historically the Japanese have the initiative and were able to pick their points of attack, and the ability of each country to react to these attacks was very limited. An invasion fleet spotted on 2 December 1941 headed for Malaya, doesn’t give the US and Britain enough time to react with Naval forces, let alone air or ground units. Earlier in the year (1941), Churchill tried to get the US to transfer some P-40s to Singapore under the pretext of ‘training’, but for a number of reasons it fell through. As long a the Japanese retain a significant threat in Formosa… the Americans are pinned; and the same hold true of the British in Malaya if the Japanese maintain a significant threat in French Indo-China.
As I stated, Malaya and the Philippines are still attacked, but a more methodic approach is used in their conquest. Historically, two Divisions are slated for Malaysia, while 1 1/2 Divisions are set to land in the Philippines. The only adjustment I make with these forces is minor and is in regard to landing locations, while I increase the number of air groups directly supporting these attacks: more Sally’s are moved into bases in French Indo-China and Nells and Betty’s in Japan are sent to Formosa.
If the historical ground forces that attached Malaya and the Philippines are still used and they are backed with airpower greater than was used historically... I can not agree with your assertion that it “demand that the Allies not defend these places”. Admiral Hart had long ago abandoned any hope of stopping the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, but the Army Air Corps was not going to make major adjustment in deployment with the threat of invasion hanging over the Island; and any redeployment of the Army itself would have taken weeks for a pre-war United States. The British were not going to transfer Force Z to protect the DEI while the threat of invasion remained, and British air assets were known at the time by the commanders to be woefully inadequate.
In my opinion, if the Japanese player attacks both the Malaya and the Philippines with historical force levels or more… I don’t agree the Allied player doesn’t have to defend them.
PS. Most of the DEI was lightly held by the Dutch as they concentrated there strength in Java, and because of that, the Japanese used mostly small invasion forces to conquer the region… brigade or smaller. Excluding Java where both the 2nd and 48th Division were used either in part or whole. I see little reason to use the Divisions slated for historical invasions in Malaya and the Philippines anywhere else.
ORIGINAL: Thayne
That is to say, if Japan is given the freedom to select its targets based on game-parameters rather than historic parameters, then the Allies should be free to do the same thing. This would imply giving the Allies the liberty to redeploy all Philippine forces to any American base, redeploy all British and Australian units in Manila to any British or Australian base. If one player is allowed to shift focus to an in-game-only relevant attack, then the other player should be allowed to shift focus to an in-game-only relevant defense.
If the British or American had determined that no threat existed to either the Malaya or the Philippines… I would agree, yet both are targeted in the game with larger force than were used historically on turn one. With both locations being target with historical force levels neither country felt they had the flexibility to make the movement you suggested… British troops to Australian. How would that be logical when each is targeted with greater that historical levels?
ORIGINAL: Thayne
Also, if Japan is going to be allowed to make plans and send ships outside of the realm of 'plausible deniability', then the game should actually start on or around December 5th (instead of December 7th), with the Allies given the liberty to react to those moves.
Neither the British nor the Dutch wanted a war with Japan; and for obvious reasons. A Japanese force headed towards the Indian Ocean [;)] is provocative in nature, but is impossible to stop with the forces that would be available: Force Z is not leaving Singapore with an invasion task force headed that way. Admiral Hart has on more than one occasion abandoned bases that were threatened by Japanese air power, so it seem unlikely that he would haveattacked a force with carrier airpower and a stronger surface fleet. But even if he was of the mind to attack, Washington was not, as they wanted the Japanese to initiate any hostilities. Historically, the Dutch had a month to reinforce Kendari, yet when the Japanese did invade there was no Dutch surface fleet to be found…rightfully so. The Dutch strength, what it is, lies at Java.
I don’t see that there is any direct action that would have been taken in the region: the British Naval commander believing the invasion fleet is headed for Malaya doesn’t even get to sea until days later. Allied reactions during peace time were more often than not sluggish both the decision process and implementation… no effective action would have been accomplish historically.
Now having said that, I do believe that such a move by the Japanese would have caused a change in the stance of the Fleet at Pearl Harbor and jeopardized that attack. I think you can have one or the other… a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor or a blatant attack on Kendari, but not both.
ORIGINAL: Thayne
I, too, am interested in 'what if' scenarios. However, there is a difference between 'what if the USS Nimitz were to be teleported back in time and show up at Hawaii on December 7th', and 'what if Japan had protected its merchant fleet'. Some things fit the model. Other things are outside the scope of the model. 'What if we remove the historical reasons for Japan to focus their attacks on Manila and Singapore' should be accompanied by 'What if we remove the historical reasons for the Allies to focus their defense on Manila and Singapore'.
In the game I attack Malaya and the Philippines with forces stronger than used historically, but I ‘know’ that economic locations are vitally more important to me. It is often said that Japan went to war to capture the resources of the DEI, so I don’t agree that by me assigning priorities to economic targets in that region it equate to teleporting the USS Nimitiz.
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
