Can we please defeat Japan historically?

[unmerged(13914)]

Math Guy, when I mentioned looking at the historical record, I meant only WWII, since that's what we're simulating. Also, I don't think you can look at the problem from a strictly mathematical point of view. History doesn't bear it out, in my opinion.

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by this. If I look at wars prior to WW II, and they show the same overall percentage when we define the problem the same way, I think that shows you CAN look at the problem from a strictly mathematical point of view. And on the other hand, if you look only at WW II and not at comparable conflicts, it's difficult to make any valid generalizations . . . e.g. most wars do not end in unconditional surrender or occupation of the loser's country.

This goes to the core of what you think the game is supposed to do. If it's meant to simulate how wars are fought in general, then I think you have to look at things like what would have happened if Stalin had asked for terms and Hitler had accepted, or if the Allies had not demanded unconditional surrender. On the other hand, if it's only meant to replay WW II more or less along the lines it actually occurred, you can discard contrary evidence from other wars.

I'm quite serious when I say that majors have a history of giving in earlier (in proportion to their total resources) than minors. I think there is evidence of that.

But it's moot because it won't work from a gaming perspective. The majors are supposed to be the big challenge, the minors are supposed to be easier. Player expectations are more important than academic questions about how war really works. A 40 % probability of instant collapse will not fly in this kind of game, whatever historical data is presented. So "capital shock" is going to remain something for modders.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Math Guy, the problem is that history just doesn't support you. There are too many instances where the corellation of forces on paper didn't match what actually happened. That implies that simple (or complex) mathematics cannot be used in this context.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose, because you'll never convince me otherwise and I'll doubt I'll be able to convice you.

 

[unmerged(27215)]

I think that the surrender point idea is good.There is however a small problem.Some countries because of size can take a huge amount of losses before any ideas for surrender.For example losing 20 divisions as SOV is nothing,as Greece its everything since Greece fielded aprox. that number.I have seen such system on several paper games like A3R and more or less was ok but hey this is computer era so we need something more specific and complicated.After all the PC will do the calculations.

my idea accounts for this because the amount of points that a nation starts out with is equal to the amount of provinces with IC's.

IE: Soviets: 150ish
Poland: 25 ish

 

[unmerged(26876)]

Hi Volkstrum,
Please don't think I was knocking you or your idea -

oh, and btw: if you think that the way you evaluate my concept is by looking at flaws in the example, remember that all it is, is an example. And minor technical flaws in the math dont mean that the idea is wrong by any stretch. Especially when the example was not ment as a concrete idea, rather just a way to proove its possibility.

Yes I do realise that. But I think you see my point which is that you start with a simple condition like {capital falls=Surrender}. Then someone says "Hey that is not always true". So you add {capital falls + half country lost=Surrender} and on it goes...

This thread started with {Japan gets A-Bombed twice = Surrender}!
Yes, it may be technically possible to continue with your idea to come up with a reasonably good set of surrender terms - but the amount of work involved? The amount of conditions you would have to consider?

And there will always be someone who will say "But I had them in a hopeless position and they wouldn't surrender!" because they have put them in a different position than you thought was possible.

You had clearly thought about many of the issues I raised (I actually thought that you would have) but did not include them for simplicity.
I understand that too.

But again, the problem for Paradox is that they do not have that luxury - they would have to include them all. Lots of time and money involved.
We could take your original post and have everyone give input for months and add sub conditions everywhere and still have someone say "but you haven't considered..."
Which is why i disagree with this:

this would be just as easy to program as the battle variables

But, a lot of people disagree with those too!

Great job at prooving that no idea will every be perfect, and especially in this type of game.
.... I dont see where your getting at, execpt that until the AI becomes nano, were not gonna have a perfect game.

Actually, that WAS my whole point.
Sorry if you felt it was aimed at you personally though - it wasn't o

Someone has suggested Neural Networks for AI. Interesting idea. Problems there too though....


Now PBI

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, czar1111

Fair enough.
I do see your point - I just disagree.
Just one thing I would like you to consider please:

Let's not reward silliness, here

There were many ideas in history that were considered "silly" that have since come to pass.
The idea that man would ever fly was one of them.

I'll leave you with my new sig:

 

[unmerged(27215)]

I agree that nothing is perfect... BUT i dont think that once we draw that conclusion, we abandon trying to inch closer.

 

[unmerged(29221)]

that Japanese forces would be allowed to fight along side allied forces, so puppeting should not be an option.

In fact, japanese POWs fought side by side with english colonial troops in the
malaysian uprising(1953?)

(Source: Ghostforce: the secret history of the SAS, Ken Connor)

 

[CommanderCody]

In fact, japanese POWs fought side by side with english colonial troops in the
malaysian uprising(1953?)

(Source: Ghostforce: the secret history of the SAS, Ken Connor)

I think you're referring to Vietnam right after WWII, when the Brits used Japanese troops to keep the Viet Minh in line (the Brits getting the responsibility for 'Nam occupation right after the Japanese surrender).

Anyway, I'd like to see nukes correspond to a dissent hit in HOI terms, and certainly in HOI2 have some sort of factor in causing a country to surrender. They definitely shouldn't have the tactical flavor that exists now.

BTW - I see where Caliagstro is coming from - this is what they teach in Japan. I watched some fantasy on History Channel that tried to make out that the Japanese were trying to surrender in May 1945 but the evil Russians and the evil SecState (forgot the name) blocked the message from getting into Truman's hands. That's a good one. Of course, the program turned out to be a joint BBC/Asahi production (Asahi likes North Korea and the BBC...).

 

[Aetius]

Math Guy, the problem is that history just doesn't support you. There are too many instances where the corellation of forces on paper didn't match what actually happened. That implies that simple (or complex) mathematics cannot be used in this context.

I think that the MathGuy's idea is given that its a game and has to simulate reality in some way that a mathematical view is simply unavoidable. How else to do it given the the restrictions on some sort of historicity and gaming pleasure? There needs to be some sort realistic but non-game destroying effects, which can only be modelled with probablity or with logic or both.

 

[unmerged(2997)]

I see where Caliagstro is coming from - this is what they teach in Japan. I watched some fantasy on History Channel that tried to make out that the Japanese were trying to surrender in May 1945 but the evil Russians and the evil SecState (forgot the name) blocked the message from getting into Truman's hands.

Im glad you went to a school in Japan and saw how history is taught.The only proplem is no 1)that is not what im saying and 2) Thats not how history is taught in Japan.

Assumption assumptions stereotypes the faded jaded jingoistic themes are all i seem to see.

take this...

I really wish people would stop putting personal feelings about trhe war into posts, and look at the record.

THE JAPANESE were responsibile for what happened, THEY started the war, they refused to surrender when it was obvious they were beaten.

I love that no personnal feelings there im sure.I refrained from comment as the thread moved onto to intelligently looking at ways of addressing the surrender thanks..Math Guy PBI etc....but the comments return.

Ok brief points
1) HISTORY is not taught in Japan period ...especially WW2 look at high school books a few page at most it started US dropped bomb end....so that is far from where Im coming from.
2)Japan bombed Pearl harbor yep thats true why the wanted the beaches of Hawaaii for Japanese hotels?Nope consider the reasons wether you agree with them or not .The US had said basically give up all your Chinese holdings without a fight if you want peace.Or you can fight and maybe get a result?
Now lets see economic and social ruin or fight if lose you have well lets see a fairly similar result.mmm hard choice.
3)i never said Japan tried to surrender in May thats a stupid idea .As another poster said didnt have any official backing.It was as realistic as Himmlers games in sweden in 45.Asahi also makes lots of programs on UFOs so what?
4)

It took Hirohito, AFTER he got the reports of the A-Bomb strikes, to break thouands of years of Japanese tradition to order the surrender, AND EVEN THEN young officers mutinied, tried to capture the emperor and destroy the surrender recording.

...if you think Hirohito was MR peacefull im glad you accept modern Japanese history .It was the fig leaf used to avoid prosecuting the Imperail family for its war involvement.He hadnt the position the resources the power to do that without the agreement of the Govt.That parts of the military disagreed yes but who stopped them the vast majority of the officers and army who had recommended the course.
5) Why did they sureender which goes back to original point....and my point long long time ago Japans surrender despite what is said in Japan and in the US .Was not the SOLE result of the Bombs.

How can you say

The Americans didn't 'convince" themselves of anything

When you basically rehash the same tired mantra about Bomb equals surrender.

That it had its part I dont dispute BUT thats all it was the convergence of event all of which had a part.If you ignore palpable truths the russians the effect it had on the GHQ If you ignore the memos and signals traffic of the time.And just look with tunnel vision at the BOMB to the exception of everything else.
HOW else can you explain it except with self conviced ...


LOOK at the record i do it seems many are too blinkered to do so.Challange your assumptions .I may be wrong but thats what I did otherwise i would have accepted the great wisdom of Japanese history teaching.War in China Japan makes mistake attacks US.US bombs Japan evil act nice Japan surrenders to avoid furthur human loss.Thats basically whats taught.I didnt accept that.. it was clearly a cover and justification and full of excuses.I see no reason to accept blindly same from other countries..

again a) Bomb Hiroshima ....reaction minimal Govt official sent to see how long take to get up and running again .Shock yes but overtly no.

b) Russia attacks 1 and half million men in well prepared well stocked positions of Kwantung army overwhelmed.Total dibelief and panic in Army and Navy .there experience in Pacific was a under supplied army could delay and extract losses.

c) Nagasaki ...Civil command now starts to panic as much as army

d)Osaka has food riots .....Government sees the start of loss of civilian control too.



Convergence ......not any of the above alone....

Ok if 20 30 bombs dropped would Japan surrender undoubtdly...but that didnt happen

If Russiasn forces landed in Honshu would they have surrended again probably.....if you look at the Army thinking of the time thats what they believed they thouight Sept and they saw no way of stopping.

If starvation and civil unrest got worse again most probably

But none did whhat did lead to Japan surrender was the above........


ANd if you want it historic that what you have to mirror** original post**

Not as was at first indicated drop a bomb lets all give up.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

I think that the MathGuy's idea is given that its a game and has to simulate reality in some way that a mathematical view is simply unavoidable. How else to do it given the the restrictions on some sort of historicity and gaming pleasure? There needs to be some sort realistic but non-game destroying effects, which can only be modelled with probablity or with logic or both.

I agree with what you've said, Aetius, but my read on Math Guy's comments has been that he advocates reducing things totally to mathematics, and that's just not on. There are too many significant examples in history where the math didn't bear out the result for any kind of game based on an historical event to be based solely in statistical analysis. The best games I've played have take their logic models a step further into the why, at times scrificing the math in order to provide a more in-depth look at the underlying causes and interrelationships. Much like some history books. Not all people like this approach to games, that's true, and at certain scales, I think the math takes greater precedence (i.e. tactical level), but war is not only about math, the oft-quoted axiom about logistics and tactics notwithstanding. That's all I'm saying.

 

[unmerged(19877)]

I agree with what you've said, Aetius, but my read on Math Guy's comments has been that he advocates reducing things totally to mathematics, and that's just not on. There are too many significant examples in history where the math didn't bear out the result for any kind of game based on an historical event to be based solely in statistical analysis. The best games I've played have take their logic models a step further into the why, at times scrificing the math in order to provide a more in-depth look at the underlying causes and interrelationships. Much like some history books. Not all people like this approach to games, that's true, and at certain scales, I think the math takes greater precedence (i.e. tactical level), but war is not only about math, the oft-quoted axiom about logistics and tactics notwithstanding. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not one of the 'Math Rats', so forgive me if my assumptions about the math prove to be wrong.

If we examine individual "historical events", I agree we would see instances that defy probability, i.e. defeat with superior conditions or victory with inferior conditions. However, these events did not occur in isolation and perhaps it is better to consider them in the context of a larger "historical event", namely the Second World War.

In the context of the war, they were anomalies. Yet, some of these anomalies had a significant impact on the course of war, so we feel cheated if they do not receive special attention. As I understand it, if we have a reasonable and accurate math model for combat in HoI, we still ought to see the anomalies that make history so darn interesting. It is just that they most likely will not be the same battles, at the same time, at the same location, with the same participants.

If HoI were a history lesson, I would agree with your assertion that reducing the war to statistical analysis is simplistic. But HoI is a game. Subsequently, whether it is a boardgame or computer game, I see no way around the math if we wish to entertain ourselves with a simulation of the war.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

I'm not one of the 'Math Rats', so forgive me if my assumptions about the math prove to be wrong.

If we examine individual "historical events", I agree we would see instances that defy probability, i.e. defeat with superior conditions or victory with inferior conditions. However, these events did not occur in isolation and perhaps it is better to consider them in the context of a larger "historical event", namely the Second World War.

In the context of the war, they were anomalies. Yet, some of these anomalies had a significant impact on the course of war, so we feel cheated if they do not receive special attention. As I understand it, if we have a reasonable and accurate math model for combat in HoI, we still ought to see the anomalies that make history so darn interesting. It is just that they most likely will not be the same battles, at the same time, at the same location, with the same participants.

If HoI were a history lesson, I would agree with your assertion that reducing the war to statistical analysis is simplistic. But HoI is a game. Subsequently, whether it is a boardgame or computer game, I see no way around the math if we wish to entertain ourselves with a simulation of the war.

I think I may be giving the impression I'm discounting the math too much. I'm not. But some of those "anomalies" were too significant to ignore. What I'm really getting at here is that having a one size fits all argument might work for combat (and does), but tends to break down for certain larger issues, the biggest being surrender. A single fromula for surrender would not be able to properly handle the specific conditions surrounding the fall of France (and yes, since this is a WWII game, the conditions that caused France to surrender should be replicated), and Italy while at the same time handling the resilience of the USSR and UK.

In fact, what I'm arguing for is that, as you've said, that things be looked at in the larger context so that the game retains the feel of WWII instead of becoming some sort of Civ2 maga-scenario.

 

[unmerged(13914)]

I agree with what you've said, Aetius, but my read on Math Guy's comments has been that he advocates reducing things totally to mathematics, and that's just not on. There are too many significant examples in history where the math didn't bear out the result for any kind of game based on an historical event to be based solely in statistical analysis. The best games I've played have take their logic models a step further into the why, at times scrificing the math in order to provide a more in-depth look at the underlying causes and interrelationships. Much like some history books. Not all people like this approach to games, that's true, and at certain scales, I think the math takes greater precedence (i.e. tactical level), but war is not only about math, the oft-quoted axiom about logistics and tactics notwithstanding. That's all I'm saying.

I don't advocate reducing things totally to mathematics. Never said that. In fact, I think my previous posts have really said the opposite, and Aetius at least seems to have followed my intent -- while simulation games are inherently driven by math (Boolean logic being part of math), ANY scheme for trying to evaluate when to surrender tends to be (a) exploitable, and (b) controversial.

The reason I like the "capital shock" rule is because while it is exploitable and controversial, it is also very general and relatively simple. It applies throughout military history in a fairly consistent way. When you choose a rule, you are making a generalization about war. What the record shows is that this generalization is true: countries actually have a significant chance (more than 10 % but less than 80 %, let's say) of surrendering if their capital is taken. That is what history tells us.

I'm saying that since you have no choice about making some kind of generalization, and since the game event engine is driven by probabilities, it is better to make a generalization that is supported by some kind of statistical evidence. For purposes of condensing a huge range of imponderables down to one rule, "capital shock" is a good rule to consider. Schemes involving counting battles won and lost, or numbers of divisions, or numbers of allies, all suffer from similar exploitability and controversy, but are more abstracted than actually capturing the enemy capital.

More elaborate schemes of game logic can be constructed, as you say. But in my experience, they are usually based at least partly on appeals to anecdotal and fairly subjective evidence. What really went on in the Japanese Imperial court is still a matter of tremendous debate. To argue that we can model the views of the Emperor and the War Cabinet under a huge range of hypothetical circumstances seems to me a lot shakier than simply saying, whatever happens in national leadership councils, there is a substantial chance that "capital shock" will end the war.

Being a "Math Guy," I'm very much aware of the limitations of mathematics. But trying to make sense of events withoutmathematics is hardly better.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

It looks like we're essentially saying the same thing, Math Guy, just that we're choosing to make different choices as to how and what to abstract

 

[unmerged(19877)]

I think I may be giving the impression I'm discounting the math too much. I'm not. But some of those "anomalies" were too significant to ignore. What I'm really getting at here is that having a one size fits all argument might work for combat (and does), but tends to break down for certain larger issues, the biggest being surrender. A single fromula for surrender would not be able to properly handle the specific conditions surrounding the fall of France (and yes, since this is a WWII game, the conditions that caused France to surrender should be replicated), and Italy while at the same time handling the resilience of the USSR and UK.

In fact, what I'm arguing for is that, as you've said, that things be looked at in the larger context so that the game retains the feel of WWII instead of becoming some sort of Civ2 maga-scenario.

Your points are well noted.

For the most part, I think we can ignore the most of the anomalies of the war in favour of playability. I'm certainly not in favour of constricting players to a WWII chronology. The game engine ought to create plenty of turning points in any given campaign (if not, the game engine ought to be tweaked). That said, I do like the texture historical events, such as the creation of Vichy France, give to HoI.

Perhaps there is a compromise. Maybe the concept of "capital shock" could apply to nations where the terms of surrender are unclear or where surrender never occured, e.g. Japan, USSR, UK, etc. Other events, such as Vichy France, could remain.

Regarding "capital" shock, may be we could have the chance of surrender indexed with the size of the conquering army or ther number of provinces adjacent to the capital under enemy control. In other words, the larger the invading army or the greater number of provinces near the capital in enemy hands, the greater the chance of capitulation. May be this could reduce the chance of exploiting "capital shock" with one motorized division?

My two bits, shoobee-doobie-dooo...