Pearl Harbor Poll
Nii: I basically agree with you. I was thinking to myself, I wonder when the wave of not trying to understand members of your own nation putting a war flag on your own soil, faction (as I said, it could be any nation, not just the US), was going to rear it's envious head for what it was. The "high and mighty US of A" quote more than did that. Now I see there's no reasoning with such. The USA may not deserve a lot of things it has reaped, but I thought anyone could look at the problem objectively and say that indeed it is a bad thing to have a former hostile nation's WAR flag in with flags of peace. I've tried to state reasons why there could still some hostility towards that war flag, but apparently when the focus is knocking the US, there is no valid defense. The entire US wasn't on trial, nor even Japan for that matter, as the issue was revolving around what Americans (or possibly Aussies or Brits) were doing on US soil with a foreign WAR flag. Come to think of it, I don't remember ANY foreign WAR flag being put in a place of honor here, and I wouldn't expect it any other nation to do it either, particularly alongside national flags; it just isn't good.
Using the editor to make sunken ships reappear a year or more later is usually the best option. It is in one of the PBEM rule options that the USN player gets to rebuild, around approximately 50% of all lost Battleships from Pearl Harbor.
In fact, I think this should extend to ANY capital ship sunk in a large harbour (possibly a harbor of 8+?). A year or two later and 50% of the ships (if one ship, use some form of coin toss) can be rebuilt to appear in 60 or so turns. Many Japanese ships were sunk in shallow water near the end of the war, and, if the situation were to improve and the war last longer, these ships could have been raised and repaired.
Everyone has opinions on this strong issue, VALID opinions. I agree with most points on why the flag shouldn't be there, but, there are reasons why the flag shouldn't not ever be allowed to be used again.
I just saw the movie 'Sand Pebbles' yesterday, and it ended pretty interestingly. This US Gunboat, during the 1920's (?) was stationed in China during the KMT rise to power. In it there was a missionary who was being 'rescued' from possible hostile KMT troops (as Europeans were a popular target for nationalist troops and propaganda, truthfully or untruthfylly). This missionary blamed nationalism, indeed, FLAGS specifically for causing hatred, death and suffering. The symbol of a flag is powerful, as was seen in the movie. The US flag inspired nationalism for the Americans, but hatred by the Chinese. The KMT flag inspired nationalism for the Chinese, and fear by the Americans. When the US Raised its battle flag (Stars and Stripes) all of the gripes were forgotten by the crew and they dutifully went about breaking through a KMT boom blocking the river they were travelling on. But the same flag inspired Chinese hatred for powers they saw imposing on their lives.
Flags are powerful things. They have different meanings for everyone. My point is, that the nature of the flag is irrelevant (ie. war or peace), but the impression of what the flag stands for is the only thing that matters.
The problem is, is whose impression is the most valid? Those who fly the flag? Or those who feel offended for whatever reason by the flag? Then whose flag can ever be flown?
In fact, I think this should extend to ANY capital ship sunk in a large harbour (possibly a harbor of 8+?). A year or two later and 50% of the ships (if one ship, use some form of coin toss) can be rebuilt to appear in 60 or so turns. Many Japanese ships were sunk in shallow water near the end of the war, and, if the situation were to improve and the war last longer, these ships could have been raised and repaired.
Everyone has opinions on this strong issue, VALID opinions. I agree with most points on why the flag shouldn't be there, but, there are reasons why the flag shouldn't not ever be allowed to be used again.
I just saw the movie 'Sand Pebbles' yesterday, and it ended pretty interestingly. This US Gunboat, during the 1920's (?) was stationed in China during the KMT rise to power. In it there was a missionary who was being 'rescued' from possible hostile KMT troops (as Europeans were a popular target for nationalist troops and propaganda, truthfully or untruthfylly). This missionary blamed nationalism, indeed, FLAGS specifically for causing hatred, death and suffering. The symbol of a flag is powerful, as was seen in the movie. The US flag inspired nationalism for the Americans, but hatred by the Chinese. The KMT flag inspired nationalism for the Chinese, and fear by the Americans. When the US Raised its battle flag (Stars and Stripes) all of the gripes were forgotten by the crew and they dutifully went about breaking through a KMT boom blocking the river they were travelling on. But the same flag inspired Chinese hatred for powers they saw imposing on their lives.
Flags are powerful things. They have different meanings for everyone. My point is, that the nature of the flag is irrelevant (ie. war or peace), but the impression of what the flag stands for is the only thing that matters.
The problem is, is whose impression is the most valid? Those who fly the flag? Or those who feel offended for whatever reason by the flag? Then whose flag can ever be flown?
Major Tom: Well basically I take it that you agree, the flags do mean something. In other words, why would a US (or possibly Australian or British) person put a WAR flag on US soil? Some people, I'm sure, in the US, would be offended by the Japanese Nippon because of the war, but you have to be sensible somewhere. I've seen enough of the Nippon, it doesn't make me think of Pearl hardly at all, but the Rising Sun is another matter entirely. I think people can live with national flags on their soil, particularly since most nations have foreign consulates, but that doesn't mean anyone needs to honor foreign battle flags. If a nation wants to honor it's own battle flags, which should be rare on land anyway, fine and good, for it CAN represent force used in a just manner, but when it goes aticking it in someone else's face that's another matter. Of course to complicate things, my incident likely involvd Americans, British, or Australians. I suppose I'm more angered that I have some idiots for fellow countrymen more than anything else. The last time I looked, Dallas wasn't a port city, something that might also make a Rising Sun flag given honor a little more plausible.
-
Cmdrcain
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
- Contact:
Can have ENOUGH of this?Originally posted by Charles22:
Major Tom: Well basically I take it that you agree, the flags do mean something. In other words, why would a US (or possibly Australian or British) person put a WAR flag on US soil? Some people, I'm sure, in the US, would be offended by the Japanese Nippon because of the war, but you have to be sensible somewhere. I've seen enough of the Nippon, it doesn't make me think of Pearl hardly at all, but the Rising Sun is another matter entirely. I think people can live with national flags on their soil, particularly since most nations have foreign consulates, but that doesn't mean anyone needs to honor foreign battle flags. If a nation wants to honor it's own battle flags, which should be rare on land anyway, fine and good, for it CAN represent force used in a just manner, but when it goes aticking it in someone else's face that's another matter. Of course to complicate things, my incident likely involvd Americans, British, or Australians. I suppose I'm more angered that I have some idiots for fellow countrymen more than anything else. The last time I looked, Dallas wasn't a port city, something that might also make a Rising Sun flag given honor a little more plausible.
I'd like to make a point that in USA, the ONLY problem with having whatever flags wish would be US laws on Flags.
Go Read up on it, go check out also rulings on flags and Free speech, and don't dare
argue over people flying flags if it is LEGAL.
If it's not Illegal,tough, if don't like it, use proper ways to make it illegal.
If it's legal, then thats It.
End of arguement, if wanna argue over it being legal Then...Write your Congressperson!
Bye!
[This message has been edited by Cmdrcain (edited October 02, 2000).]
Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!
Battlestar Pegasus
Battlestar Pegasus
I usually end up with around 4 US Battleships sunk (along with a few DD's, AP's, ALWAYS a CS, and occasionally a CL or CA). It isn't crippling damage (as the big ships are pretty much useless anyway) and your main force (CV's and CA's) remains unscathed.
I seem to understand what the deal is about the Flag thing. In all probablility the placement of the IJN flag was innocent. Some people cannot see the difference between the Rising Sun and the Meatball, and think they are just slight variations on the same theme (ie. the probably didn't know it was a naval ensign). Even still, it didn't fit the situation in which it was called for. The present national flag of Japan is the red sphere, not the Rising Sun. The red sphere should have been used, as it better represents the actual flag of Japan (as it IS the actual flag of Japan). Yet, I still believe that Japan does have the right, if they want to, to make the Rising Sun into their national flag, no matter how much certain foreigners dislike it.
I seem to understand what the deal is about the Flag thing. In all probablility the placement of the IJN flag was innocent. Some people cannot see the difference between the Rising Sun and the Meatball, and think they are just slight variations on the same theme (ie. the probably didn't know it was a naval ensign). Even still, it didn't fit the situation in which it was called for. The present national flag of Japan is the red sphere, not the Rising Sun. The red sphere should have been used, as it better represents the actual flag of Japan (as it IS the actual flag of Japan). Yet, I still believe that Japan does have the right, if they want to, to make the Rising Sun into their national flag, no matter how much certain foreigners dislike it.
At the risk of getting flamed myself there is an entire forum set-up for debates such as the flag furvor being argued, flamed and debated about here. It's called "onwar.com". This site is for the betterment of the game not a forum for flag debates. I admit I tend to get off topic on occasion myself, but this is too much. Maybe the moderator should moderate this - then those of us actually interested in the topic can start a new one hopefully without the flag topic.
Actually, I'm off topic now ain't I?
I'll shut up now...
------------------
(.) (.)
...V...
Actually, I'm off topic now ain't I?
I'll shut up now...
------------------
(.) (.)
...V...
(.) (.)
...V...
...V...
Slap yourself, Owl.
I never thought what I brought up would go the length it has. I never would have started a separate topic on it in the first place. It's just that I was interested in this topic, and did an aside, thinking people might relate to having someone sticking war flags in their face.
Largely, the topic at hand has played itself out anyway, for there seems to be no foundation for the charge that the Pearl ships are getting all sank, practically all the time. The US just starts out with a disadvantage, and the player just has to get used to it.
I never thought what I brought up would go the length it has. I never would have started a separate topic on it in the first place. It's just that I was interested in this topic, and did an aside, thinking people might relate to having someone sticking war flags in their face.
Largely, the topic at hand has played itself out anyway, for there seems to be no foundation for the charge that the Pearl ships are getting all sank, practically all the time. The US just starts out with a disadvantage, and the player just has to get used to it.
Consider me slapped. Funny (in the odd sense, not the ha ha sense) how much emotion still flows at high tide concerning a war 55 years over.
Based on what I've seen the range in BB's sunk seems about right. Luck has a big factor (as it should) and I've gotten less than the historical results a few times. These ships were sitting ducks, and target practice for the Japanese. As damaging as the attack was we were lucky it wasn't worse.
I'd say leave it alone except maybe to add a sunk in port salvage option - which would take a long time and probably only work at major ports.
------------------
(.) (.)
...V...
Based on what I've seen the range in BB's sunk seems about right. Luck has a big factor (as it should) and I've gotten less than the historical results a few times. These ships were sitting ducks, and target practice for the Japanese. As damaging as the attack was we were lucky it wasn't worse.
I'd say leave it alone except maybe to add a sunk in port salvage option - which would take a long time and probably only work at major ports.
------------------
(.) (.)
...V...
(.) (.)
...V...
...V...
-
FirstPappy
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: NY, USA
First results; PH attack, first historical move with the Matrix Patch.
3 battleships permantley lost
5 damged, 3 severe, two moderate. Not too inconsistant from what happened historically.
Have to say i like the reduced armor ratings on the BB's, there were much more frequenct damaging hits via Type 91 torps. They still take ridiculous #'s but its better than it was.
Not so sure on the tweaked (or should i say 'un'tweaked A6M2 ratings
Granted i was never aware of the AI advantage but then again i always used to play PacWar two player against myself (since the AI always played so pathetically)
I found it distressing that the P40's despite the experience gap, and despite the surprise, held up amazingly well against the zero's and caused over half of the A6M force to be destroyed.
Perhaps the P-40 needs to be tweaked a bit, its dogfight rating is rather high for what was essentially a tough but mediocre plane.
another thought on the A6M. perhaps an 'advantage' To the A6M is appropriate, at least for the first 3-4 months of the war, since part of what made the A6M so invincible was the Allies's ignorance of the plane's ability. Initial encounters by Allied pilots tended to attempt to dogfight the nimble plane leading to the inevitable unless the {allied} pilot was either extremely skilled or extremely lucky
It was at around the Battle of Midway (some might say Coral Sea) that the US pilots began to adjust their Wildcat tactics to better match up against them.
3 battleships permantley lost
5 damged, 3 severe, two moderate. Not too inconsistant from what happened historically.
Have to say i like the reduced armor ratings on the BB's, there were much more frequenct damaging hits via Type 91 torps. They still take ridiculous #'s but its better than it was.
Not so sure on the tweaked (or should i say 'un'tweaked A6M2 ratings
Granted i was never aware of the AI advantage but then again i always used to play PacWar two player against myself (since the AI always played so pathetically)
I found it distressing that the P40's despite the experience gap, and despite the surprise, held up amazingly well against the zero's and caused over half of the A6M force to be destroyed.
Perhaps the P-40 needs to be tweaked a bit, its dogfight rating is rather high for what was essentially a tough but mediocre plane.
another thought on the A6M. perhaps an 'advantage' To the A6M is appropriate, at least for the first 3-4 months of the war, since part of what made the A6M so invincible was the Allies's ignorance of the plane's ability. Initial encounters by Allied pilots tended to attempt to dogfight the nimble plane leading to the inevitable unless the {allied} pilot was either extremely skilled or extremely lucky
It was at around the Battle of Midway (some might say Coral Sea) that the US pilots began to adjust their Wildcat tactics to better match up against them.
In PACWAR, the number of planes that involve on the strike at Pearl range from 280+ aircraft taking off. Historical strike was only 188. Also in PACWAR they always make a second strike with another 100 planes, where historically they didn't. I adjusted the number of airplanes on the carriers to historical starting number and the number of ships damaged and sunk in Pearl were closer to realistic (Looked at 1st strike only)
USS UTAH was also painted red and white stripes and the IJN pilots were aware of what she was and still wasted a lot of bombs
(no torpedos) of the 2nd wave on her. What will the US player do with her when the attack is over and she is the only thing still floating?
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited October 03, 2000).]
(no torpedos) of the 2nd wave on her. What will the US player do with her when the attack is over and she is the only thing still floating?
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited October 03, 2000).]
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
In a previous post, someone stated that only 40 aerial torpedoes were used by the Japanese at Pearl, I recall this as being correct. PacWar loads up the Kates with torpedoes on both strikes; so torpedo damage tends to get magnified.
The reduced armor ratings for the old battlewagons are a 'good thing'; helps to distinguish the old vs new as far as overall durability is concerned. Hopefully WitP will have armor ratings for horizontal and vertical protection.
Something that could be modified in the current PacWar is the 'durability' ratings for ships as the war progresses. Durability of a ship is greatly dependent on the damage control procedures used on that ship. It is well known how the U.S. improved it's damage control abilities; especially for CVs, during the course of the war. The Franklin and Bunker Hill absorbed far greater punishment than the Lexington did in the Coral Sea; but the Lexington is given a greater 'durability' rating. I would suggest that at the same times that armament changes are made; that durability ratings are likewise upgraded, to reflect improved damage control techniques.
Concerning the ability of too many P-40's being able to intercept at Pearl, changing the OB to have 80-90% of the A/C 'damaged' would limit the numbers intercepting.
Concerning the 'manuverability' rating of the P-40; I believe the current '19' is a good representation of the A/C. The new manuver ratings are a great improvement over the old. Airspeed capability of various aircraft are now accounted for more accurately in the 'Mvr' ratings. The high speed American tac-bombers are now more difficult for the Japanese to deal with. So IMHO, the 19 vs 22 rating for the P-40 and A6m2 are good ratings for the AIRCRAFT....
The issue of giving an 'advantage' to the A6m2 in the first few months is already accounted for in the simulation, the excellent experience ratings of the IJN PILOTS. The Allies, through combat experience and training, gradually increased their 'experience ratings'; so that by late summer of '42, the A6m2 could be dealt with on more even loss rates. To support my theory, look at the AVG. The AVG flew an aircraft that was less agile than most of the IJA fighters it faced, yet achieved kill ratios of at least 10:1, as far as I can recall. If someone could find the exact numbers, I'd be interested in seeing them. In aerial combat, look at pilot quality first, aircraft capability second, usually a distant second.
The reduced armor ratings for the old battlewagons are a 'good thing'; helps to distinguish the old vs new as far as overall durability is concerned. Hopefully WitP will have armor ratings for horizontal and vertical protection.
Something that could be modified in the current PacWar is the 'durability' ratings for ships as the war progresses. Durability of a ship is greatly dependent on the damage control procedures used on that ship. It is well known how the U.S. improved it's damage control abilities; especially for CVs, during the course of the war. The Franklin and Bunker Hill absorbed far greater punishment than the Lexington did in the Coral Sea; but the Lexington is given a greater 'durability' rating. I would suggest that at the same times that armament changes are made; that durability ratings are likewise upgraded, to reflect improved damage control techniques.
Concerning the ability of too many P-40's being able to intercept at Pearl, changing the OB to have 80-90% of the A/C 'damaged' would limit the numbers intercepting.
Concerning the 'manuverability' rating of the P-40; I believe the current '19' is a good representation of the A/C. The new manuver ratings are a great improvement over the old. Airspeed capability of various aircraft are now accounted for more accurately in the 'Mvr' ratings. The high speed American tac-bombers are now more difficult for the Japanese to deal with. So IMHO, the 19 vs 22 rating for the P-40 and A6m2 are good ratings for the AIRCRAFT....
The issue of giving an 'advantage' to the A6m2 in the first few months is already accounted for in the simulation, the excellent experience ratings of the IJN PILOTS. The Allies, through combat experience and training, gradually increased their 'experience ratings'; so that by late summer of '42, the A6m2 could be dealt with on more even loss rates. To support my theory, look at the AVG. The AVG flew an aircraft that was less agile than most of the IJA fighters it faced, yet achieved kill ratios of at least 10:1, as far as I can recall. If someone could find the exact numbers, I'd be interested in seeing them. In aerial combat, look at pilot quality first, aircraft capability second, usually a distant second.