Matrix Games Forums

WITP:AE is a great game, but I'm wondering about the "historicity" of excessive Allied losses in the first couple years. How would it affect morale, strategy, and public opinion?

For example, in one of my PBEM games, it is Jan '43 and the Allies have lost (FOW understood):
6x CV
1x CVL
1x CVE
18x BB
17x CA
21x CL/CLAA
92x DD/DE/APD
381x AK/AP
43x TK/AO
131x others
Basically, their carrier & battleship fleets are gutted.

My courageous opponent doesn't care because in 12 months it'll all be replaced! But what how do you think the Allies woud've responded in WW2?

BTW, IJN cap.ship losses are
2x CV
2x CVL
4x BB
3x CA

Curious,
Bob

There is no morale and public opinion in AE. Neither side is bound by such things, so neither side needs to factor those in. Historicity is out the door on December 7 for both sides.

Excessive losses in the war for one side or the other could have had a profound effect, of course, but in the case of the Allies they probably would have simply shifted more emphasis to the Pacifc and the war would have ended not much later than it did.

It is all speculation but I suspect that the Allies would have focused on Europe and just defended a drawn in perimiter based on the Hawaiian Islands until Germany was well in hand. This is a game and the Japanese player can do a lot more than was historically possible. In real life, Japan probably just could not support any operations beyond Midway regardless of sucess elsewhere. Times would have been hard but even Australia would have survived and India probably would not have bailed on the Allies either. No matter the Allied losses, Japanese industry could not produce much more than they did so operations beyond a certain limit were probably off the table and the Allies eventually would have smacked them down.

I am not quit sure, if you are right in total. These looses would have had an enormous influence on public opinion. Not that much on the AXIS-side (it took the Wehrmacht a long way untill they tried and failed to get ride of HIM) and the Japs were still following their emporer, after the first bomb !
But for the western !!! Allies, I am not sure, if all the democraties would have stand all these looses and go on fighting or prefer a head of state offering a cease fire ???
 
Just me .2 Cents (as a non anglo-saxxon)

ORIGINAL: rev rico

WITP:AE is a great game, but I'm wondering about the "historicity" of excessive Allied losses in the first couple years. How would it affect morale, strategy, and public opinion?

For example, in one of my PBEM games, it is Jan '43 and the Allies have lost (FOW understood):
6x CV
1x CVL
1x CVE
18x BB
17x CA
21x CL/CLAA
92x DD/DE/APD
381x AK/AP
43x TK/AO
131x others
Basically, their carrier & battleship fleets are gutted.

My courageous opponent doesn't care because in 12 months it'll all be replaced! But what how do you think the Allies woud've responded in WW2?

BTW, IJN cap.ship losses are
2x CV
2x CVL
4x BB
3x CA

Curious,
Bob

AE factors in losses and morale as part of auto-victory calculations. If losses (in lives, equipment, territory) are too much, civilian morale plummets, and the Allies agree to a negotiated peace. I think that's what auto-victory represents.

ORIGINAL: rev rico

WITP:AE is a great game, but I'm wondering about the "historicity" of excessive Allied losses in the first couple years. How would it affect morale, strategy, and public opinion?

For example, in one of my PBEM games, it is Jan '43 and the Allies have lost (FOW understood):
6x CV
1x CVL
1x CVE
18x BB
17x CA
21x CL/CLAA
92x DD/DE/APD
381x AK/AP
43x TK/AO
131x others
Basically, their carrier & battleship fleets are gutted.

My courageous opponent doesn't care because in 12 months it'll all be replaced! But what how do you think the Allies woud've responded in WW2?

BTW, IJN cap.ship losses are
2x CV
2x CVL
4x BB
3x CA

Curious,
Bob

What the hell did your opponent do with his capital ships? Clear mines? [X(]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

What the hell did your opponent do with his capital ships? Clear mines? [X(]

You can water-ski behind a DD doing a flank bell, in Tokyo Bay, for, umm, a minute.

92 times apparently. [:'(]

I agree with the other posters that have opined that the political implications of such one-sided losses would have been staggering. If hundreds of thousands of American men were drowning (or burning, etc.) at sea and every major combatant afloat had been butchered by the Japanese in the first year of the war, the American will to fight WOULD have been sapped.

I think we saw some shock and revulsion from the (order of magnitude less than the provided example) casualties from Pelileu and Betio/Tarawa. I can only imagine the numb shock from such naval losses as you've posted.

A quiet settlement with the Japanese may not be out of order in that case. Speculation and opinion, yes. But that's my two bits.

ORIGINAL: rev rico

WITP:AE is a great game, but I'm wondering about the "historicity" of excessive Allied losses in the first couple years. How would it affect morale, strategy, and public opinion?

For example, in one of my PBEM games, it is Jan '43 and the Allies have lost (FOW understood):
6x CV
1x CVL
1x CVE
18x BB
17x CA
21x CL/CLAA
92x DD/DE/APD
381x AK/AP
43x TK/AO
131x others
Basically, their carrier & battleship fleets are gutted.

My courageous opponent doesn't care because in 12 months it'll all be replaced! But what how do you think the Allies woud've responded in WW2?

BTW, IJN cap.ship losses are
2x CV
2x CVL
4x BB
3x CA

Curious,
Bob

What is the vp situation?

18 battleships....

yikes....what was he doing....??

ORIGINAL: zace

What is the vp situation?

40,159 to 19,360

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

What the hell did your opponent do with his capital ships? Clear mines? [X(]

We had a huge carrier battle off of Ceylon that neutered his CV force. That allowed my CVs to roam about; I'd catch his surface TFs at sea w/o air cover and, well, batter them.

He plays very aggressively. He invaded Tulagi and I destroyed the landing as well as the supporting surface fleet. He took PM back, but a few turns later I caught his BBs heading back to Australia.

His land based air force, however, is deadly. 4E bombers & P38s own the skies that they can reach. My one mistake is losing too many planes & pilots over the year.

The war against Japan could only be won with sea power. If it seemed the Japanese were totally invincible at sea, it would very likely sap Allied morale. That said, I think at some point the Allies would stop trying to throw material against a now superior force, so I don't think 18 battleships would have been destroyed in real life attempting extremely aggressive operations. Pulling back and going on the defensive until reinforcements arrive would seem a more likely strategy, and with the whole "Europe First" mentality going on anyway, I don't think this would have actually been considered a terrible strategic blow. It would probably just make the Allies focus completely in Europe until they were done there, then switch all forces possible to dealing with Japan. Japan might have more time to build up a war industry, but was there anything war winning actually building? Not terribly. Industrial inferiority would still be their curse, and that is something that would just take too long to change.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I agree with the other posters that have opined that the political implications of such one-sided losses would have been staggering. If hundreds of thousands of American men were drowning (or burning, etc.) at sea and every major combatant afloat had been butchered by the Japanese in the first year of the war, the American will to fight WOULD have been sapped.

I think we saw some shock and revulsion from the (order of magnitude less than the provided example) casualties from Pelileu and Betio/Tarawa. I can only imagine the numb shock from such naval losses as you've posted.

A quiet settlement with the Japanese may not be out of order in that case. Speculation and opinion, yes. But that's my two bits.

I disagree. There was never any significant anti war movement in the US and the public was overwhelmingly in favor of the war after Pearl Harbor--as much as any allied democratic country and more than any in WWI. Actual US losses as a percent of the population were negligible, and it is hard to imagine a scenario that they would remotely rival WWI or WWII totals from countries like the UK due to casualties in the Pacific (it is hard to get a couple million killed through naval actions).

I can't imagine the US cracking due to the loss of CVs and battleships, but if you think they would, I'd question what makes the US so much more adverse to casualties than other countries in the world.

To expound a bit more, casualties tend to steel a population as much as break it. See the US Civil War (WWII is not much closer in time to the modern day than the Civil War). It wasn't necessarily a war the people of either side wanted, but both sides were able to be substantially mobilized once the casualites started coming in. A person who is against a war is in many ways arguing the dead died in vain, while a politician turning against a war is admitting he led a bunch of people into getting killed for nothing.

Having known a number of WWII veterans, many of them felt that the Japanese were the most evil people in the world. I see little chance that the US would give up after a couple of years when they had far more men, far more industrial capacity, a strong sense of moral right/purpose, and a homeland that was effectively untouchable to the enemy.

I support Brian 800000000000's ideas, I assumed at least that the American peoples were a bit tougher than implied by many.

Just as well its the Brits and the Commonwealth that had to put up with Norway, France, Dunkirk, Greece, Crete & various Nth African Ventures before 7/12/41 then the defeats in Malaya, Singapore & Burma.

I find it hard to believe the stories of Americans being war weary by the time of Iwo Jima, and you guys imply it started at Tarawa!!

ORIGINAL: rev rico

WITP:AE is a great game, but I'm wondering about the "historicity" of excessive Allied losses in the first couple years. How would it affect morale, strategy, and public opinion?

For example, in one of my PBEM games, it is Jan '43 and the Allies have lost (FOW understood):
6x CV
1x CVL
1x CVE
18x BB
17x CA
21x CL/CLAA
92x DD/DE/APD
381x AK/AP
43x TK/AO
131x others
Basically, their carrier & battleship fleets are gutted.

My courageous opponent doesn't care because in 12 months it'll all be replaced! But what how do you think the Allies woud've responded in WW2?

BTW, IJN cap.ship losses are
2x CV
2x CVL
4x BB
3x CA

Curious,
Bob

Too lopsided to be plausible unless Kirk Douglas went back in time and CVN-65 sided with the red team.

How would the Allies have responded if this had happened in Bizarro World? With nukes.


Ditch your courageous opponent and play against the AI for better results.

ORIGINAL: rev rico

ORIGINAL: zace

What is the vp situation?

40,159 to 19,360

How is this not higher???

Can you break it down by air/base/land/sea points?

ORIGINAL: rev rico

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

What the hell did your opponent do with his capital ships? Clear mines? [X(]

We had a huge carrier battle off of Ceylon that neutered his CV force. That allowed my CVs to roam about; I'd catch his surface TFs at sea w/o air cover and, well, batter them.

He plays very aggressively. He invaded Tulagi and I destroyed the landing as well as the supporting surface fleet. He took PM back, but a few turns later I caught his BBs heading back to Australia.

His land based air force, however, is deadly. 4E bombers & P38s own the skies that they can reach. My one mistake is losing too many planes & pilots over the year.

Looks like an uneven match. No experienced Allied player would play this aggressive.

Back to the OP, clearly this was always a concern.  Little doubt that Roosevelt's key instruction to Nimitz was: "Force Preservation".  Hence, the allies very conservative, albeit almost faultless, approach to the Pacific theatre.  Very few risks were taken, Coral Sea probably the biggest with Midway just behind it.  In both cases, Nimitz forced the action and did so only by knowing IJ plans in advance AS WELL AS the force compositions to be encountered.
 
Even these gambles were hardly huge risks.  He was able to meet the IJ:
1. knowing their plans and force compositions
2. fairly even odds (counting launchable a/c)
3. on the defensive.
 
Would the allies have buckled under similar losses taken by the IJN?  Fair question.  Buckled?  Probably not.  Not sure that I see Roosevelt initiating peace talks.  But if the IJ had sent emmissaries to sue for peace keeping the DEI and certain other areas?   Tough call.  I wouldn't want to bet against it.  You're referring to colonies, and in that era that wasn't the same thing as national turf.  Roosevelt might have taken it to allow focus on Germany.  I'm almost positive Churchill would have agreed as it would have allowed the empire the ability to focus and releived a lot of political pressure.  Stalin would have been the one to convince, but in summer of '42 he would have sold Sakhilin for another few hundred tanks and P-39's.