Victory conditions

[jon_j_rambo]

Okay, how do you win the game as the Japs? Point system? Time survival?

[Blashy]

I am not sure how to answer that because my NDA so I will leave that up to Hubert.

[Retributar]

One or two victory condition's for Japan might be perhap's is for instance...

The Conquest of the Hawaiin-Island's [>Pearl-Harbour] and, or even somewhere in the game,...the destruction of the U.S. Pacific-Fleet that the Japanese had hoped to achieve during the attack on 'Midway!'.

[Retributar]

Only a part of my original message was retained in my previous reply?...

Anyway...to complete my original statement...

Victory Condition's might be...
#1. Conquest of the Hawaiin Islands_'Pearl-Harbour'.
#2. Destruction of the American Fleet ...Whenever During The Game!. EG:...'Midway' was a possible situation for this event. The Destruction Of The Fleet Would Then Have Opened Up The Potential Situation For The Invasion Of the West-Coast [Pacific] Shore Line!.

[Blashy]

Invasion of the US mainland. That is just out of this world, it was simply impossible. USA could easily have known it was coming without a major fleet at sea. USA had WAY too much manpower at home to resist. Japan had manpower issues from the get go, imagine the problems they would have faced if they had taken a messily 50 000 troops for USA.

Japan landing on North American shores would have ended up being Dieppe on a bigger scale.

I have to say that I fine the victory conditions just right, they are realistic. I actually prefer them to ETO, I find the idea that Germany could have DEFEATED USA preposterous, best bet is hang on until end of game and hold strategic elements, but outright win should not be possible, USA was simply too much of a production juggernaut often doubling Germany in many areas.

PTO I find has what I was looking for in ETO in terms of victory conditions.

[Battleboy]

I have to disagree with Blashy a little here, I don't think it would have been a Dieppe. This could depend on when and how they hit the US, the earlyer they landed the more ground they would have been able to take, remember we would have been fighting on 2 fronts and one of those would have been the US. I think at first there would have been a lot of panic so they would have made some inroads but we would have pulled ourselves together and drove them back into the Ocean. We got a little lucky with Midway even with breaking the code we could have still lost that battle. If those carriers were not rearming when we hit them they could have still had 3 carriers and they would have had a better chance to find our carriers and destroy them. Of course if they had just landed on Hawaii it would have been a long, long war for the US.

[Blashy]

There is ZERO chance they could have arrived by surprise and this alone gives USA time to prepare and they already had plenty of troops and equipment in USA. You simply need to look at what USA hand on land on the west coast and it was huge. I mean Dieppe in the terms that it would have been a disaster, they might have resisted a week or so but in the end it would have been total loss for Japan.

[Bill101]

The one thing in Japan's favour if they had landed in the USA was the fear their arrival would have caused. This was a big factor in their conquests of Malaya and Burma (where they were outnumbered by the defenders) and it would have certainly helped them here.

However, apart from all the US weaponry, economic potential, manpower, etc, I think that the biggest issue the Japanese would have faced was space. Part of this is the sheer distance they would have had to travel to get to the west coast, but also because the USA is a massive country. The numbers the Japanese would have been able to arrive with would probably have been tiny in comparison with the defender's potential, so even if they managed to secure a few cities, the chances of them being able to move on and take some more are very remote.

I think it may have lasted a little while, it would have made for some very interesting books/films/wargames, but there's no doubting the end result. Perhaps the National Guard would have been still rounding up some Japanese soldiers in remote areas on the west coast in the late 1940s?

[Battleboy]

We had a good idea they were attacking Hawaii, but what if they were going to hit the US direct and were using Hawaii as a ruse? If they found or Carrier force and destroyed it we would have been in the s%^$#@ for a while they could have destroyed the Battleships which possed no real threat on the way back. Remember Hawaii wasn't a supprise to everyone it was just a supprise to the commanders that needed to know.

[arado234]

Blashy is right.It would have been a total disaster for Japan to invade America.Even if the Amis. lost all three carriers at Midway to Japans none it wouldnt have mattered.America built 141 Carriers(this inlcudes the smaller escort models)Japans total was 16(from the book:WW2 the encyclopedia of facts and figures by John Ellis)The Amis.built 65 Carriers in 1943 alone compared to Japans 4.

Their best bet would have been to take Hawaii and hope America gets tired of war(no chance of that because of Pearl Habour).There is a reason why the SC2 series of games arenot set to historical industrial outputs.Its because the Axis will have virtually no hope.

Lets not forget the Atom bomb.

[jon_j_rambo]

The Japs invade the USA? Have you guys lost your minds? Every person in this country would drive their truck & their neighbors to the factories of the MidWest, pick up weapons and hit the beach. You think the Japs would clear out the Sierra Mountains? Blue Mountains? Columbian Gorge? Your nuts.

Even the Russians couldn't take the USA over! "Wolverines" --- Red Dawn

By the way, the attack on Pearl Harbor was weak. Surprise attack, and all the Japs did was sink old battleships! The Japs were pussy, only sent two waves. What a joke.

My name is Rambo, and I approve this message.

[Hubert Cater]

Sounds like Rambo is ready to play :)

[Blashy]

The Japs invade the USA? Have you guys lost your minds? Every person in this country would drive their truck & their neighbors to the factories of the MidWest, pick up weapons and hit the beach. You think the Japs would clear out the Sierra Mountains? Blue Mountains? Columbian Gorge? Your nuts.

Even the Russians couldn't take the USA over! "Wolverines" --- Red Dawn

By the way, the attack on Pearl Harbor was weak. Surprise attack, and all the Japs did was sink old battleships! The Japs were pussy, only sent two waves. What a joke.

My name is Rambo, and I approve this message.

When it comes to USA in WW2 I probably agree with JJvR 99% of the time, post WW2 less than 1% of the time.

The PH attack was a failure IMO. Why?

A) That is the ONE US objective they could (and should) have invaded to slow down USA.

B) If you are not going to invade... the very least you should do is take out THE most important thing on the Island. The big huge oil reserves.

[Retributar]

"Hubert!"_I have to agree with you!,...'jon_j_rambo' is Ready to 'Rock & Roll-In_The-Mud!!!-The Blood!!!-& The Beer!!!'.

I think maybey that i may have stirred up the 'Hornets Nest' a little?,...anyway it makes for exciting reading in any event!.

A "JAPANESE" Invasion of the U.S. may very well have been preposterous!,...however,...maybey there is someone with more insight on this 'Subject/Possibility/Extrapolation?'...who just might have more insight on this matter???.

[arado234]

The more I read through John Ellis,s book the less I see the Axis having a chance to win.The only hope they had was to gang up on one enemy at a time and finish them off completely and move on to the next one.There are some political circumstances that would have had a huge effect on the outcome of the war if the Axis(Hitler) played their cards right but other than coming up with the Atomic bomb long before we did the Axis simply had no hope.

[Blashy]

The Axis never had a chance whatsoever and you do not even need a book for that, just this:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm

That alone shows USA by itself was kicking Axis power combined.

A-Bomb aside what the Axis could have achieved is a peace treaty on equal terms and retain some territory.

[AZGungHo]

The Japanese MIGHT have invaded Hawaii, but even that would have been a long shot. They never even considered invading the mainland. Far too many of us and far to few of them! Their situation in China really kept them tied down for the entire war, and we ought to thank God for that. The island fighting was bad enough as it was, if they had been able to double the number of troops on some of those islands it would be have horrible - and I probably wouldn't be here either!

[thetwo]

I've posted on the general topics of what would have been likely outcomes for both theaters before. I found the Pacific one here.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83586&highlight=thetwo

I couldn't find the Eurpoean post so I'll repost it.

I agree that Churchill would have chosen to move to Canada. I think few would doubt that. He would be in a populous English speaking country with large natural resources. This would keep him close to Roosevelt too. What would happen then is more interesting.

Please bear with me. Some will be aware (others may not) that Churchill did contemplate surrender as a possibility at one point, because of the food shortages in the UK caused by U-boats. This burden weighed heavily on him in early and mid-1942. He was waiting and hoping and worrying. The turn around in the U-boat war in that July saved Britain.

This is significant in several respects.

- Great Britain was a net importer of food. A surrendered UK would still have to import food to feed the population. Continuation of hostilities would make this unlikely. The three breadbasket countries at the time were Canada, the United States, and Argentina. Transport would be necessarily by sea and would require the consent and cooperation of the German leadership. Any other option would lead to widespread famine in the British Isles in a matter of weeks. No British government could have fled and then allowed that to happen.

- Germany was itself short of food as early as March 1940. I am referring to a remembered reference to a diary entry that wheat flour was being replaced with potato flour at that time. Any importation of food to the UK could be diverted to other locations, essentially ending food embargoes on Germany and Italy.

- If you do a quick internet search on Spain's role in the war, you are likely to come up with reference to how the UK and US used petroleum imports as leverage to keep Franco from aiding the Axis. My own research has led me to the conclusion that this is a prettied up version of history. Spain at the time was also a net importer of food. Actually, Spain was importing food rather heavily and Churchill had threatened Spain with the same fate that his on country faced, famine. My guess is, that if the British Isles surrendered, the resultant food imports would allow Spain more freedom of action. (Or the Germans more freedom to deal with Spanish needs.)

- An interesting remaining question then is the fate of overseas forces. Germany would certainly want Gibraltar, Malta, and British withdrawal from the Middle East. The Germans would not be in a position to demand that those forces actually withdrew to a certain place. There is a limit to how far you can push the threat of starvation. You either can starve a populace or you can't. The Royal Navy would have probably withdrawn to Canada and the US as would most of the land units. The surrender of the British Isles would have been a gaping wound to the English speaking world, but there is very little that could have been done about it considering the food problem. (You get perhaps 350,000 British military personnel world-wide stranded while their families are home and hungry. Nasty scenario.)

I think the war with the West would have to come to a frustrating end. A Cold War situation would have developed. After all, we were shipping food to the Soviet Union during that “conflict.”

/ /

I would see that Cold War scenario suiting Stalin just fine. He would have loved seeing his Main Adversary (US and UK jointly) humbled and fully engaged. (I don't see that a Sealion had a great chance of success however.)

If I were to design a world scenario, I would build the Axis and Allied victory conditions around time limits. Can the Axis hold on to the historical surrender dates or not. That provides a solid design criteria as well; a goal for the designer to achieve.

The closer both sides come to meeting that date, the better the players will likely come to be satisfied with the overall effort. That is my guess.

[jon_j_rambo]

That's all great, that history stuff.

But far as having a fun game, how do the Japs win?

[thetwo]

I can't see that there was a way for them to win. In game terms holding out past the historical surrender date would be a good design goal.

If they wanted to win, their best bet was to never engage the US. Roosevelt was unable to drag the country into war on his own and the Japanese had a free hand until they took an overt act to change that. Somewhere I made a post about "inevitability" and how both the Germans and Japanese fell victim to it. Let me find the link.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84045&highlight=inevitability

For this to be built into a game, you have to suspend disbelief. The Japanese of the period have to be something other than the Japanese of the period, to pull this off. I put in some possible options for how it might be designed in to a world scenario. This was harder for the German side, but in fairness, I thought I should make the effort there too.

In my opinion, the Japanese had no real option leading to a "win-type" situation. The Germans had one "win-type" situation if they could have invaded Great Britain (low probability, but possible) and NOT done something stupid like ticking off the Soviet Union. Just my opinions of course. As far as the Cold War scenario, I haven't seen anyone else propose that one and I think that one is original to me.

Trying to find the "winning" scenario for both Axis powers has consumed untold man-hours and has produced some very strange ideas. Few have been practical. Once the cultures and economics come in to play, little wiggle room is left.

[SeaMonkey]

I believe there is but one path to define an actual Axis win and that would be through a protracted course of occupation and negotiation, all within a certain time limit or in conjunction with evolving timelines.

To be relatively accurate and viable, historically, and to satisfy game requirements, a variable set of economic and diplomatic conditions could be designed to produce an element or different levels of victory for both belligerents.

It wouldn't necessarily be known to either players but could encompass a set of conditions based on certain countries' readiness(diplomatically) to join an alliance and an accumulation of resource wealth due to conquest.

Now the discussion should revolve around the "set" that defines those conditions and how they should evolve into a global scenario, as it happened, loosely based upon historical reality.

[Blashy]

I find the current conditions just fine. Not complicated and realistic.

[thetwo]

SeaMonkey,

That's the most appropriate proposal so far. Do you have anything in mind?

[SeaMonkey]

yes i do......., but it will be more applicable to the global SC edition.

As I'm sure there will be much feedback from the community, it will probably need its own thread.

I have a basic outline, but understand that as it unfolds it can lead to a complete deviation of what happened historically.

Basically it will still be Allies vs Axis with the technological limitations of the era.

Blashy, a war and its subsequent end is by no means simple. On the optimistic side, it will be handled by the game engine with only the players needing to answer some decision making questions when the "set of conditions" activate them.

The "set" will have a wide variation of parameters tracked by the game revolving around diplomatic leanings and MPP allocations for each contestant.

The variation is important to impart an environment of the unknown as the original participants experienced. True to repetition though, players will eventually be able to predict a subtle motion to a conclusion as their strategies are tested.

Still it will be difficult to discern the details needed to produce the different layers of victory for each side.

[jon_j_rambo]

What do you mean that Japs & Germans couldn't have won? That's a bunch of hogwash. They owned half the planet. A few adjustments in strategy (Midway, Stalingrad) and they could have kept momentum.

[Blashy]

What do you mean that Japs & Germans couldn't have won? That's a bunch of hogwash. They owned half the planet. A few adjustments in strategy (Midway, Stalingrad) and they could have kept momentum.

JJvR is being satirical ;) .

[xwormwood]

When it comes to invading the US you should consider that invading alone would create the chance for the invader to do maximum damage.

What i mean is the following:

think of 9/11. Let our japanese invaders bomb skyscrapers for two weeks instead of crashing two (large) planes into one building.

I think you get the picture.

Than let them destroy or blockade some of the largest US ports while holding Hawaii.

This should gain the japs some time to do havoc on the british in burma / india or against the ANZAC. Maybe even to give them enough breath to do china.

Of course Japan would have always lost an invasion against the US.

I think the A-Bomb argument is a point against Japan, but on the other hand the US needed until summer of 1945 to get 3 bombs, so Nippon and Germany had some time to settle the one or the other thing until than.

Maybe it would have been possible to drive the UK out of the war (even though i don't think that food shortage alone would have brought the UK to its knees in 1942. Even Imperial germany was able to fight 4 years of WW1 with little and even less food).

[SeaMonkey]

test post......as I just lost the one defining "Axis Marginal Victory"

[SeaMonkey]

Forget it...lost the second one too, ....maybe another time????

[arado234]

The way I see it that if by 1942 the Axis didnt have Russia and England kaput(an extremely difficult task to have pulled off) then they were going to be kaput no matter what.To much Allied firepower.

[SeaMonkey]

That's exactly it A234, they bit off more than they could chew.

See, Germany didn't really need to DoW the USSR, Stalin could be intimidated. Think about the diplomatic clout Hitler would have had if UK had surrendered or borne a successful invasion.

What a monumental mistake Hitler made DoWing USA after Pearl Harbor. The Germans could have very well taken advantage of the isolationist view that the USA citizenry had at the time.

Does anyone doubt that with Germany's full focus on taking out the UK that they could not at least have achieved an armistice?

Now FDR and Churchill are another matter....for shrewd diplomacy, they really make things interesting, ideolists always do!

[Retributar]

To 'SeaMonkey'_'WormWood' & All!,...Thank's For Coming Out Of The Closet To Pummle/Fandangle 'Avante-Garde-Ideas' To Enhance/Enrichen The Game!.

I've been Too-Busy Working To Get Too Involved As Of This Time-Frame!,...I will have 7-Week's Off Soon...So I Expect To Participate More Then,...Than I Have Since June!.

Someone Has To Build These 'Tar-Sand-Projects!',...I Am Nearly Thoroughly Burned-Out As I Speak!.

[arado234]

SeaMonkey imho if Germany had planned from the start(fighters with longrange drop tanks,etc) to go allout after England then yes maybe they could have beaten them,but another big mistake the Axis made wasnot planning to"win"the war(maybe they didnt think they could).After Germany attacked France it was quite obvious after a few days France was done and yet they didnt really focus on the next task,defeating England.As soon as they realised they had the B.E.F.trapped(would have left Britain prettywell defenceless on land,plus Ultra wasnt a big factor yet)they should have planned a Para.drop onto English Airfiields to bring in airlanding troops.After the Allied debacle in Norway alot of Brits. werenot to happy with Churchill and if Germany landed Paras.onto England and started bringing in troops(like they did in Crete) it may have been enough for the Brits. to sue for peace(It would have been much easier for Germany to''bargin''with Britain from a position of strength).It would have been a big gamble for Germany but if they pulled it off then the whole course of the war changes.Weather Germany and Japan(I doubt it)would have worked together(another big mistake of the Axis)if that happened,who knows. leaving the Amis.out of the war as long as possible would also have been critical move.

[xwormwood]

Total victory like invading the USA shouldn't be a victory condition for Japan.
Much more it should be "achieve some major victories in Asia while doing an certain amount of damage to the US (while kicking the **** out of ANZAC, the UK, France and China).
This much success should enable Japan (after all) to achive some kind of peace talks with the US where the USA would / could grant Japan certain teritorial gains and trade rights in exchange for peace in which the US boys to could stay at home or return home.

Maybe there should be a score table for the Japanese player (?). Every great victory adds some points. After X points had been reached while the USA lost Y amount of troops and ships than Japan should be able to initate peace talks (we retreat from Hawaii, Midway, wake and Australie while we keep Chinese coastlines and lead an asiatic union (trade and defence) with members Burma, Philippines, Indonesia etc.

Japan would have never been able to force an unconditinal surrender from the US. It would always be only the question how much blood the US would be willing to sacrifice; as much blood as needed for a peace or even more blood for an unconditinal surrender.

I am talking about a what if scenario, not history as it happend.

[SeaMonkey]

Man...I knew you guys were getting it. One of the first pop-ups critical for decision making would be as Japan, "Do you wish to prosecute a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor?".

Think about that for a moment for without the mistake of a surprise attack do you think the USA may have been a bit more inclined to accept a less than unconditional surrender from Japan?

Remember historically it was not supposed to be a sneak attack.

Now further ... think about other decisions that were critical, like Germany's genocidal tendencies against USSR, that moved the entire Allied camp into that unconditional surrender ultimatum.

Could it have been different?

WW1 was concluded with a conditional armistice.

[SeaMonkey]

OK, now create a vision where there could be parity between the two combatants. Think about a diplomatic condition of where one side could accept certain viewpoints of the other before the war advanced to the degree of barbarism we are all familiar with..

Now also bring up a situation where through occupation and conquest, some diplomatic, some war based or threatened that could lead to an equity of resources.

Keep in mind this is for the global scale, we are moving beyond PTO here, this is for the entire planet, 1936 to 1948 for instance.

Can you envision a set of circumstances based on the above definitions that might lead to a game conclusion of Axis victory without the fantasy of USA invasion?

Do you see the environment of a stand off where there is an Eastern Hemisphere dominated by the Axis offsetting the Western Hemisphere of Allied influence?

Could that conclusion be considered ...perhaps... a marginal Axis victory?

[arado234]

SeaMonkey and xwormwood I get what your saying.For victory conditons in this game they make total sense.

[Hubert Cater]

Gentlemen, not to worry as much of what has been written here has been taken into account for the final Victory Conditions.

Bill has done an excellent job of including a variety of Victory Conditions for Japan ranging from Strategic to Tactical but at the same time we did include a single Decisive Victory condition that includes knocking out the USA. Why? Well, while not necessarily historically accurate and likely to only come into play for AI players, it was important to include a condition for those players that enjoy taking over the whole map without the game ending prematurely. Essentially we needed to take into account all playing styles as well as the historical context of the era and I think the current Victory Conditions achieve just that :).

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[AZGungHo]

Hubert,

I understand your reasoning and agree with it. But I do have a couple of questions if you have time to answer them:

1) Is there a decisive victory condition for the USA? Or only for Japan?
2) Would a roughly historical outcome be considered a Strategic Victory for the USA (Allies)?

Thanks - can't wait for this one!!!

[Hubert Cater]

AZGungHo,

Without giving it all away prior to release, both your points are taken into account as well :)

Hubert

[xwormwood]

I think that "the US surrendering to Japan" shouldn't be possible in the game.
In my eyes this result of the conflict would be absolutly unthinkable, and quite right impossible.

Let us AI-players conquer every free tile (sigh) of the US, yes of course, but please have mercy, spare us a "the USA surenders" message. PLEASE!

"The US agree to start peace talks", "the US accept Japan domination in South East Asia", i don't care, let these messages come, but please not "the the USA surrenders" message.

It is highly unlikly that Germany with all its european vassals would have ever been able to force the US to its knees (maybe in 1750), but how much more unlikely would it have been for Japan?

And maybe you COULD surrender to an european country, but to an asiatic country in 1945? I can imagine a world where people with german, french or english roots might surrender to the land of their forefathers, but not to a country which has such a complete differnt culture. These invaders would always stay "the barbarians" or the "the monsters".

Come on, give us something better. i know you can do it, you have the brain power to create something more advanced than this old and absurd "the USA surrenders".

Go wild, go creative.

We will love you for this, i promise!

:)

[SeaMonkey]

I'm with you xww, a USA surrender is no plausible than it is today. But remember, its just a game, and besides, knowing we are on the same page, let's concentrate our efforts for a realistic what-if Global SC.

So....HC...when does the coding start?;)

[arado234]

I like the idea of the Amis. surrendering only because it keeps the Allied player from just abandoning the mainland.If the Japanese player is able to pull it off against the A.I.or human player then great.Its should never be a problem so having it a possibility shouldnt matter.In reality it was never possible for Japan to pull it off.

As far as Germany being able to do it,they were developing a I.C.B.M.that would be able to hit America.Without a nuclear or some type of biological or chemical warhead it wouldnt have had any real effect but with those type warheads it may have.

Way off topic but I have to mention this.Im reading a book called:The German wars.It starts in the mid 1800s.Its basiclly about the the stupidity of man and how politics and bad decisions for one reason or another gets alot of people killed.Ive just read up to the end of 1915 and in that year alone on the western front there were over 2 million total battle casualties and the Allies gained a grand total of 8 square miles.People sure are dumb.

[scottsmm]

8 square miles is about 2 towns combined, and to only get that for 2 million people is simply beyond absurd. Just out of curiosity arado234 could you tell me what happens in 1918? Just so people can compare that to 1915.

[Hubert Cater]

xwormwood, honestly not to worry as it is not a *required* condition for a Japanese victory at all.

As I mentioned before there are quite a few appropriately designated STRATEGIC and TACTICAL victories scripted for the Japanese player that take into account the full historical context of the time and really the only reason this single DECISIVE victory condition was added was to give players the option to continue playing once they achieve their STRATEGIC or TACTICAL victories without the game ending prematurely. I guarantee you that there are players who, for example, once they conquer China and British India may want to take the fight to the Americans (without the game automatically ending) no matter how futile that endeavor may be and we need to take that into account. This allows Japanese players to play to the campaign end date and if they are not able to go any further they can still win the game if the appropriate STRATEGIC or TACTICAL victory has been achieved.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

P.S. I should add that even though the condition exists, considering supply, distances, and the manpower and resources available to the US, it will be a real challenge to pull it off (close to impossible), against the AI or otherwise ;)

[scottsmm]

Hubert Carter my guess is the vets will be able to pull it off against the AI and novice skilled other players after that though it's a crapshoot.

[Hubert Cater]

scottsmm, you might be surprised as this is a very different game from the European Theater but of course I'll never say never ;)

[scottsmm]

Yes I'm sure it's different, but I can't imagine it's totally different, and if it isn't I bet people like yourself, moon, etc could beat the US outright by being Japan.

[Retributar]

~QUOTE: 'By...scottsmm' _ "Yes I'm sure it's different, but I can't imagine it's totally different, and if it isn't I bet people like yourself, moon, etc could beat the US outright by being Japan".~

That's What i also plan to do!. What-If The Japanese had withdrawn their main forces from 'China',...and were then able to reconstruct/reconstitute those forces, into amphibious invasion forces_[Depending On How They Would/Could Have Planned Out The War]...then...maybey an invasion of the American-Shores would have be possible!. To what extent you say & why?,...well!,...of course with the intention of so redirecting American effort's to protect the U.S.A., instead of the U.S. forces being totally preoccupied with the Pacific!.

This...then could perhap's buy some time for other Japanese forces to have the opportunity to capture & consolidate stategic vital areas [Resources] to help the Japanese maintain the war-effort/machine to accomplish their objective of controlling the Pacific & winning the war or achieving a reduced victory out of it!.

Whether this new game will allow anything like this or not i do not know!. However!,...this is what i would like to try out!,...to see what happen's!.

[Blashy]

On DDay the Allies had the best amphibious technology on hand and they STILL had to cross the channel at the perfect time in transports and then onto amphibious transports.

Taking PH itself was almost an impossibility because of that alone... mainland USA, no a chance in "what if" reality.

[scottsmm]

If the Japs could succeed at a total suprise like in Pearl Harbour there would be a good chance of them succeeding in takeing beaches on the west coast. Fact is if they attacked I believe they would have advanced all the way to Chicago before we would push them back. Plus the Japs had good transports and Amphibious transports remember they were the first to create them. In the first year in the war Japan could win any battle after that they would be doomed for defeat. Even Isoroku Yamamoto knew this.

[SeaMonkey]

Now may be a good time to start the new SC Global thread?

But before that, perhaps it would be best to define a start date?

I have a few candidates to nominate. I'll start in chronological order.

1. Kwantung Army occupies Chinese state of Manchuria, September 1931.

2. Germany re-occupies the Rhineland, March 1936.

3. "China Incident", July 1937.

I'll state my leanings to #2.

Others to consider?

[scottsmm]

Germany annexing Austria

[xwormwood]

.Its because the Axis will have virtually no hope.


... of outproducing the Allies, yes. But they did of course have a chance for a different outcome of this war.

And that is why we play Games like SC.

[Blashy]

If the Japs could succeed at a total suprise like in Pearl Harbour there would be a good chance of them succeeding in takeing beaches on the west coast. Fact is if they attacked I believe they would have advanced all the way to Chicago before we would push them back. Plus the Japs had good transports and Amphibious transports remember they were the first to create them. In the first year in the war Japan could win any battle after that they would be doomed for defeat. Even Isoroku Yamamoto knew this.

You have to read about amphibious transports, they sucked, no way in hell they could have brought troops from Hawaii to USA in those OR mass them all from Japan to Hawaii. USA would have had days to see them coming.

DDay succeeded because of deception, if the Germans would have known exactly where it was to occur they could have stopped it, they had 300k troops in France while the Allies landed 100k by the end of the day.

The invasion of Hawaii was a remote possibility, the invasion of USA, a simple "what if" impossibility.

And they were not the first to create amphibious transports, that started as early as WW1 by many countries, USA was one of them.

[Blashy]

... of outproducing the Allies, yes. But they did of course have a chance for a different outcome of this war.

And that is why we play Games like SC.

I have a mod that gives USA proper production for ETO, the victory conditions for Germany are changed in a manner so Germany can still achieve victory. Makes the games much more fun IMO as it falls within reality and you pretty much have to fight until the end or close to it to know who wins, if both players play well.

[arado234]

Xwormwood the Axis did have a chance of a different outcome if Hitler wasnt Hitler and the Japs hadnt attacked America.Since Germany was being commanded by a madman and Japan did attack America,unless the Axis came up with enough super weapons(A.bomb,etc)I cant see there being anyother out come.

As far as SC goes this game in noway truley represents reality.Its impossible for any war game to do that(the board game squad leader came real close).It does have a good balance to give the Axis a chance to win but if you start adding things like historical Allied industrial might,Ultra,the A.bomb,etc.(the fact that before the game even starts the Allied player knows that America and Russia will be coming in on the Allied side which in reality nobody knew is a big plus which cant be changed)I think the Axis would lose everytime(unless Terif or jollyguy are the Axis).But the game is played for fun(as it should be)and by making it possible for the Axis to win(even take America)is fun.

[SeaMonkey]

:rolleyes:Rational thought effuses that SC is a game first and foremost, no need to reiterate a234's statement. Perhaps it is a simulation second, that is debatable, but assuredly it is nowhere close to reality, never will be, for simply one most prominent reason, hindsight.

Hindsight defined as either historical or repetition of the game mechanism.

So from there and there is no denying it, you'll always have a deviation from history and people will argue that it is not reality and we will be without reproach.

Bottom line, the game will always be a "what if", and in that embodiment there exists a chance that the Axis conglomeration could win, not the one that we know historically, but the one that SC presents.

The one conclusion that does exist is the one that happened, the why's and where for's will always be discussed, but in the context of reality, inconsequential.

Now our SC ending is another matter completely, so let us remember, in that setting, anything is possible, within the confines of physics....as we know them.

Even....."Sharks with Fricken laser beams on their Heads":eek:

[arado234]

Well put SeaMonkey.

[scottsmm]

Blashy of course the USA was one of them another less known one was Italy. On DDAy however the Germans did recieve warning from one of there spies however he was a double spy and informed them only 3 hours in advance. The reason for our success in DDAY was that most of the German 300K troops you speak of where only capable of a static defense and nothing more. On top of that Hitler wouldn't give Rommuel total control of the forces in France further limiting Germany's chances of success. On top of that there was Sabotage, and the allied soldiers bravery on the front. Combine all of this and you would realize the Germans didn't have much of a chance at success. For the Jap question the Japs were perfectly capable of launching any invasion because they would have had naval & air superiorty over an allied nation including your Canada.

[Blashy]

scottsmm, seriously go read on the technical aspects of transporting all those troops across all that sea, it was impossible. They would not have had air superiority for one thing as they would only have had 4 Carriers while USA had allot more air power available on the mainland, unlike Germany which had virtually zero air power vs. DDay.

AND they would not have had a steady supply like the allies had from the UK.

Just take the time to look at the logistics required for DDay now try and apply the same thing about 1000 times longer distance, without air superiority, with an enemy that could easily know where you would land, no sabotage, VERY well supplied US/Canadian troops (German supplies were crap by the time of DDay) and it goes on and on and on.

Logistics and manpower made it an impossibility.

I am all for "what if", as in realistic "what if" which best option for the Axis is hold on long enough with key areas to sue for peace on somewhat equal terms. That was their only shot when a giant like USA is doubling production of both of them put together, UK was producing almost equal to Germany and Russia was outproducing them as well.

[scottsmm]

Well Germany, Japan, & Italy decided to attack these nations so shame on them for taking more than what they could handle. I have looked at there transports, and I agree there no where as good as ours but the simple truth is if they attacked early on there wouldn't have been this great allied combined force to repel them immedately. Believe me if that was even remotley possible I would agree with you that they didn't have any chance at success. What I do think would have happenend is every abled bodied american & Canadian from my grandfather on would have picked up a gun and went west to kill the Japs, but that would take time. In other words I think the Japs where capable of getting troops on mainland North America, but from then on it would have been a disaster, and because of it would have ultimately speed up the decline of Japan, but probably let Germany & Italy survive a little longer. Since of course we wouldn't be producing arms and fighting troops for Europe but for our on land.