Should an invasion of the US be very difficult to outright impossible in HOI4?

[permanently_afk]

Theres not much I can say if you believe perception is reality, instead of reality being reality.

Part of my perception may be real, but because I am trapped inside my perception I can't tell which parts are. Compare it to the Platos cave. Each of us can only see the shadows on the wall, but not what casts them. Admittedly, it's very zen and a bit of a hassle to communicate in writing.
This is quite different from the spiel that is usually done with these sorts terms, but hey, science isn't what it used to be.

Wernher's rockets couldnt hit Number 10 Downing, I seriously doubt they can hit a ship.

I mentioned the V1 in a throwaway aside, and yet you latch onto it, as if would be the lynchpin of my argument.

Now, part of that is because of slave labor, and part of that is because Wernher willfully sabotaged his own calculations. Im sure, he could have, built a rocket to hit ships. It just wasnt something he was either tasked with doing, or was willing to do.

The germans built the Fritz-X (and deployed it successfully) in abysmal conditions. If the conditions were better, it is quite possible that they would build a super-X with a rocket motor to hit ships at sea or in port.

I do find the assertion im a US fanboy pretty funny.

Ill have to tell all the people who call me a USSR fanboy that. Theyll get a kick out of it. As will the ones who say im a German, French, English, Chinese, and Japanese fanboy.

Good for you. I can only tell you that for me and in this thread, you behave like a US fanboy who refuses to stand corrected or even moderate his stance when presented with contrary argument.

Ive found in my many years, the hardest thing for people to accept, is that history unfolded the way it did because it HAD too, not because of the actions or decisions of rational actors. Rational actors, by providence of BEING rational actors, make rational choices, based on variables outside of their control. The reason world war two occurred the way it did and had the results it had was because it was decided before any human being ever conceived of starting the war.

I have found quite the contrary. Humans long for the familiar. Thats why even with a POD pre-1800 familiar things and names will crop up, even if by all rights they shouldn't. This is compounded by the hindrance that an action which may be rational in one context may be unrational in another. History is best understood as a tree, with the nodes representing points of divergence and the branches being time.
To believe that history is preordained betrays lack of imagination and rational thought. Also, very calvinistic.

As said, its math.

Math so complex, it may well be magic to us. Have you, perchance ever dealed in simulation?

Not human decision making. Reality dictates the decisions people make. Especially when diffused over thousands of decision makers. Even if one irrational actor makes a choice, and creates a "What if" by virtue of there not being a rational actor, you still arrive at the same end results even if you had a rational actor, making decisions based on fact rather than belief.

The present circumstances dictate the possible actions, human action determines the path actually taken. Whether this path is rational or not depends on the human in question.

The way the Axis wins world war two, is by not starting it.

Seriously? You are asserting that for any WWII, the Axis must always loose?

Or by inventing reflexive control. But they were too stuck on Neumann, to read any Buhkarin.

For the record, im Israeli. Not American either.

Not that I care much. Americans just tend to get...defensive when the greatness of the US is questioned.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Wasn't meant in an attacking way. Just categorising things (in this case, it goes partially into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero's_journey drawer) - I recently picked up an interest in how stories evolve. The USA are nice subject for a variety of reasons (in brief: great, but severly flawed).

Not really getting what story motifs have to do with the Central Pacific offensive of 1944. They built the largest navy and used it to force their way across Pacific, right. Taking number of places from the enemy and setting up their own advance bases in them with enemy unable or unwilling to respond, neutralizing the enemy's foward base and then defeating the enemy in series of fairly lopsided battles while advancing into the enemy's comfort zone and finally securing bases from which to decisively constrict the enemy.

This campaign was presented as rebuttal of your admittedly broad "I don't understand why everybody seems confined to thinking that the only weapon against a navy is a bigger navy, when the US proved something else." by noting that US eventually defeated Japan in fairly conventional naval campaign using a "bigger navy" to defeat Japan's smaller but still dangerous navy. I don't think Japan would have surrendered just from US sieging Rabaul and US submarine campaign, certainly. I suppose I should ask what exactly was your point with your original remark (in italics above)?

 

[Krafty]

Seriously? You are asserting that for any WWII, the Axis must always loose?

In a game? No. Not always. In our game? No. In War in the East? Yes. Victory for Germany in War in the East for example is measured in how many extra days you can hold out so that the Allies take Berlin and not the Soviets. A game that strictly tries to model history, will never see the Axis win, it was impossible.

As to the rationality of actors, I think you miss my point, my point isnt that humans dont choose their path, its that the path is predetermined, regardless of their choice. If you choose to attack the Soviet Union on June 22nd 1941, no matter what cognitive choices you make along the way, you are always going to lose. There is no way to win. Typhoon, Citadel, Blue, it doesnt matter, you always lose. Whatever general you put where, whatever designs you employ, whatever division organization structure you pick, whatever political or military figure makes whatever decision, you still lose. Its math.

And yes, I have dealt in simulation, which is why I have the point of view that I have.

History is preordained because of we are limited by the resources, manpower, geographical location, etc etc, that we have no control over. Its the Guns Germs and Steel theory. I agree with it. Regardless of your choice as a rational actor, you are still working within a limited system, and that system, is more powerful than your imagination, your id, your thinking rational brain. No matter how much you want lead to be gold, itll always be lead. I dont find that Calvinistic, I find it be objective.

So theres our fundamental disagreement.

And the Fritz X is a joke.

The people who witnessed the attack thought the Germans were throwing toilets out of their aircraft to insult them. No one actually realized they were SUPPOSED to be guided. It was an utter failure. The two that hit the Roma were because the pilots dropped them accurately, not because they worked.

Max Kramer was ... to put it lightly...full of it.

Thats why the US government fired him. He's about on par with Bob Lazar, who, happened to live near him in California.

 

[Krafty]

Interestingly enough though, his inclusion in Paperclip shows how early the US government was looking for unmanned aerial vehicles. That was his field. Even though he was a hack, everyone else doing the same thing was a hack too. So he got a free ride to America. Then canned. And spent the rest of his days in California as a "carnival salesman" of bubkiss technology, and failed startups.

Im not trying to be rude to the poor man, but he was no Von Braun. He was a huckster.

 

[rust95]

In a game? No. Not always. In our game? No. In War in the East? Yes. Victory for Germany in War in the East for example is measured in how many extra days you can hold out so that the Allies take Berlin and not the Soviets. A game that strictly tries to model history, will never see the Axis win, it was impossible.

As to the rationality of actors, I think you miss my point, my point isnt that humans dont choose their path, its that the path is predetermined, regardless of their choice. If you choose to attack the Soviet Union on June 22nd 1941, no matter what cognitive choices you make along the way, you are always going to lose. There is no way to win. Typhoon, Citadel, Blue, it doesnt matter, you always lose. Whatever general you put where, whatever designs you employ, whatever division organization structure you pick, whatever political or military figure makes whatever decision, you still lose. Its math.

And yes, I have dealt in simulation, which is why I have the point of view that I have.

History is preordained because of we are limited by the resources, manpower, geographical location, etc etc, that we have no control over. Its the Guns Germs and Steel theory. I agree with it. Regardless of your choice as a rational actor, you are still working within a limited system, and that system, is more powerful than your imagination, your id, your thinking rational brain. No matter how much you want lead to be gold, itll always be lead. I dont find that Calvinistic, I find it be objective.

So theres our fundamental disagreement.

And the Fritz X is a joke.

The people who witnessed the attack thought the Germans were throwing toilets out of their aircraft to insult them. No one actually realized they were SUPPOSED to be guided. It was an utter failure. The two that hit the Roma were because the pilots dropped them accurately, not because they worked.

Max Kramer was ... to put it lightly...full of it.

Thats why the US government fired him. He's about on par with Bob Lazar, who, happened to live near him in California.

So you cant actually win as the Axis in WitE? I've always been looking to get it but never got round to it. Could you elaborate on that?

 

[Rudawitz]

So you cant actually win as the Axis in WitE? I've always been looking to get it but never got round to it. Could you elaborate on that?

I haven't played the game to the end myself, but you can defeat the Soviet Union in War in the East.

Look at this AAR for example: https://lparchive.org/War-in-the-East/

 

[Krafty]

So you cant actually win as the Axis in WitE? I've always been looking to get it but never got round to it. Could you elaborate on that?

The game is decided by victory points, theres some on the map, you gain or lose them for destroying divisions or having them destroyed, along with VPs based on the date. At the end of the game, ending I believe on or around June 45, unless the Soviets have gained a certain threshold of VPs before that time. Theres also a scenario now available where it ends sooner and slightly adjusts VPs.

Its set up so that the VPs will hit their thresholds on or about the time the war actually ended, and determine a victor. Germany wins if they have iirc 223 or more VPs at the end of the game. Theres several ways to accomplish that, but it always ends with the soviets pushing into Germany. Winning is about having those VPs past the date of actual German capitulation. If you lose those VPs BEFORE the historical date, its a Russian victory.

You CAN do some gamey things against the AI to win, but youd have to be really, really good at the game to do that on 1:1 settings, even more so at good settings, and I dont see MP games between equals ever seeing Russia "lose".

One game I took Gorky Park and called that a victory, after Moscow had fallen, but I was a ways from "winning" and Russia still had its factories in the Urals, so its quite possible they still pushed me back.

On easier settings its not quite as hard, and sadly the German army is weak enough when mixed with the AI, that as the Soviets, without giving a bonus to the Germans, its pretty easy to totally ruin their Barbarossa. Though the latest patches have made that harder.

But no id say that generally, you cant actually "win" as the Axis in War in the East or War in the West, unless you give a huge malus to the AI, or play against someone who has no idea what theyre doing.

 

[Krafty]

I haven't played the game to the end myself, but you can defeat the Soviet Union in War in the East.

Look at this AAR for example: https://lparchive.org/War-in-the-East/

To be fair he still didnt win. The allies took Berlin.

Its a win by VPs because he didnt lose to the Soviets. The game ends on a specific date, which the date that Gary supposes the Allies would have taken Berlin.

Works the same way in War in the West. If you dont take Berlin by the time the Soviets do, you dont win, Germany gets the victory screen.

And judging by the low casualties, hes on Easy.

 

[permanently_afk]

This campaign was presented as rebuttal of your admittedly broad "I don't understand why everybody seems confined to thinking that the only weapon against a navy is a bigger navy, when the US proved something else." by noting that US eventually defeated Japan in fairly conventional naval campaign using a "bigger navy" to defeat Japan's smaller but still dangerous navy. I don't think Japan would have surrendered just from US sieging Rabaul and US submarine campaign, certainly. I suppose I should ask what exactly was your point with your original remark (in italics above)?

The point was that the Cold War strategy of threatening a navy using airborne or landbased missile launchers could be deployed earlier and that land-based aviation can be a serious threat to ships when correctly used. It was more of a general point than anything on the pacific war.

In a game? No. Not always. In our game? No. In War in the East? Yes. Victory for Germany in War in the East for example is measured in how many extra days you can hold out so that the Allies take Berlin and not the Soviets. A game that strictly tries to model history, will never see the Axis win, it was impossible.

Hence why I asked in any WWII - this includes such funny things as Axis-aligned USA or "all against the USSR". Trying to model those is hard, since it will require you to go far, far out. Try answering the question asked in this case, not the question you like to answer. If you have the background in simulation you claim, it should be obvious why a single word matters.

As to the rationality of actors, I think you miss my point, my point isnt that humans dont choose their path, its that the path is predetermined, regardless of their choice.

Very calvin. Also, this means perception is reality (in this case in the word-sense, no zen), since reality itself is meaningless because of predetermination.

If you choose to attack the Soviet Union on June 22nd 1941, no matter what cognitive choices you make along the way, you are always going to lose. There is no way to win. Typhoon, Citadel, Blue, it doesnt matter, you always lose. Whatever general you put where, whatever designs you employ, whatever division organization structure you pick, whatever political or military figure makes whatever decision, you still lose. Its math.

No, it isn't. It is, if you deal with a static simulation, or leave the interation at a single step (i.e. the germans change, the soviets adapt, the germans do not re-adapt in response). According to you, even when changing things "upstream", it will be of no consequence, since upstream can't be changed because it is locked in by upstream-upstream. Therefore, the whole of history is deterministic. Fundamental mathematics (i.e. statistics) disagree.

And yes, I have dealt in simulation, which is why I have the point of view that I have.

Funnyly enough, me too. Which lead me to my "circumstances provide options, humans provide decicions" coupled with a non-deterministic view opinion.

History is preordained because of we are limited by the resources

Which may be bought or otherwise acquired,

manpower

Which may be increased in the short or longterm,

geographical location

That one is static, true. Poor Belgium. Hope their football team plays well.

etc etc, that we have no control over. Its the Guns Germs and Steel theory. I agree with it. Regardless of your choice as a rational actor, you are still working within a limited system, and that system, is more powerful than your imagination, your id, your thinking rational brain. No matter how much you want lead to be gold, itll always be lead.

What exactly do you want to say aside from "the circumstances provide possibilites, humans make the decisions"? But nevertheless, thanks for making my point.
You can obsess over your lead, or you can turn it to good use. You can educate people or keep them in servdom. Those are all choices, not deterministic outcomes. If they were, simulation would be boring.

I dont find that Calvinistic, I find it be objective.

It seems objective, but is in truth anything but.

So theres our fundamental disagreement.

Indeed there is.

And the Fritz X is a joke.

Again, you are mistaking the illustration for the point.

 

[Krafty]

Very calvin. Also, this means perception is reality (in this case in the word-sense, no zen), since reality itself is meaningless because of predetermination.

Ah hah, but it does not, reality is that which is there whether or not there is someone to view it. How we view it is meaningless. Human perception is not the origin of reality, reality exists without human perception.

Regardless of human perception, reality is reality.

This I find to be the crux of our difference in views.

My view is that options dictate choice, therefor there was never a choice to begin with, simply the using of the pre existing options, of which you have no control over.


As for the Fritz, whats the point? The point im making is that no one made a decent guided anti ship bomb, because no one was capable of it at the time. Your point seems to be "But if Max was somehow a smarter more awesome version of himself from a distant reality, it WOULD have worked" which, I find fault in. If it could have worked, it would have worked. If anyone existed who could have built it, it would have been built.

It was not. The Fritz and everything like it, was a failure, because no one existed to build a good guided munition and no one had the capability to do it.

Wernher stands hand and shoulders over the others, and he didnt do it either.

 

[permanently_afk]

Ah hah, but it does not, reality is that which is there whether or not there is someone to view it. How we view it is meaningless. Human perception is not the origin of reality, reality exists without human perception.

Regardless of human perception, reality is reality.

You don't understand the differnce between reality itself and our perception of it. Or rather, our lack of objectivity in its perception.

This I find to be the crux of our difference in views.

I'd rather go for the mono-deterministic/possibility-and-action split.

As for the Fritz, whats the point? The point im making is that no one made a decent guided anti ship bomb, because no one was capable of it at the time. Your point seems to be "But if Max was somehow a smarter more awesome version of himself from a distant reality, it WOULD have worked" which, I find fault in. If it could have worked, it would have worked. If anyone existed who could have built it, it would have been built.

You mean "it couldn't have been built in the strategic situation". You tend to leave out parameters which would lead to a simulation outcome which doesn't suit you.

It was not. The Fritz and everything like it, was a failure, because no one existed to build a good guided munition and no one had the capability to do it.

And your history of strong assertions without proof continues. Prior to WWI they though that noone would have the capability to go though with it. You should know the difference between "has not" and "will never". And if your teachers were any good, they told you to use the latter only for very simple things.

Wernher stands hand and shoulders over the others, and he didnt do it either.

Again "has not" does not equal "could not" or "will never".

 

[rust95]

To be fair he still didnt win. The allies took Berlin.

Its a win by VPs because he didnt lose to the Soviets. The game ends on a specific date, which the date that Gary supposes the Allies would have taken Berlin.

Works the same way in War in the West. If you dont take Berlin by the time the Soviets do, you dont win, Germany gets the victory screen.

And judging by the low casualties, hes on Easy.

Interesting, so the loss to the allies is predetermined. Would be nice to see a scenario whereby under certain conditions one could hold the allies in France perhaps based on not suffering the catastrophic losses of Barbarossa and Blau and securing Baku possibly?

As someone who is an avid HoI3 and Black Ice fan, but has yet to really delve into turn based strategy, would you recommend it? I'm not sure if that breaks rules of the forum so could you PM me if so?

 

[Krafty]

Its like this, you have a rock, and a coconut, and you're starving.

Do you choose to open the coconut with the rock? Is that a real choice? Just because someone one time chose to starve to death, does that make the choice any more real? Would the outcome of the correct choice been any different if someone decided to make the rational choice instead of starving to death? That is to say, if you make the rational choice to open the coconut with the rock, will not get milk, but instead get honey?

I postulate, that it is no choice at all, that the options exist before you enter the equation, and whatever you choose, the outcomes are predetermined. You either crack open the coconut and get milk, or you dont. You certainly dont crack open the coconut and get honey.

Now then...

If you dont have a rock, or a coconut, you're incapable of making a decision to open a coconut with a rock, right? Follow?

So, if you have rational actors who ultimately just make decisions that have predetermined outcomes, and they dont have the tools necessary for an outcome to occur...that outcome can NEVER occur. Correct?

In this light, Japan had no choice but to go to war, much like the Axis has no choice of winning.

They dont have a rock. So they cant ever get the milk. They certainly will never get honey out of a coconut, no matter how much they try.

So when you look at the production capabilities, the resources, the manpower, of the allies and communists, against the Axis, it becomes clear that theres no scenario where any rational actor changed the course of events.

And thats my position.

 

[Krafty]

Interesting, so the loss to the allies is predetermined. Would be nice to see a scenario whereby under certain conditions one could hold the allies in France perhaps based on not suffering the catastrophic losses of Barbarossa and Blau and securing Baku possibly?

As someone who is an avid HoI3 and Black Ice fan, but has yet to really delve into turn based strategy, would you recommend it? I'm not sure if that breaks rules of the forum so could you PM me if so?

Id recommend it. It is pricey, but its worth it. It takes ALOT to learn it, and the UI is terrible.

Definitely read some AARs of War in the East and War in the West on their forums and see if you like the scope and scale. Its pretty rigidly attached to history, but in some of those AARs you can see where the decision making comes into play and where people diverge from History to improve outcomes. If those seem attractive, definitely get it, its a great learning tool.

 

[Krafty]

You don't understand the differnce between reality itself and our perception of it. Or rather, our lack of objectivity in its perception.

I'd rather go for the mono-deterministic/possibility-and-action split.

You mean "it couldn't have been built in the strategic situation". You tend to leave out parameters which would lead to a simulation outcome which doesn't suit you.

And your history of strong assertions without proof continues. Prior to WWI they though that noone would have the capability to go though with it. You should know the difference between "has not" and "will never". And if your teachers were any good, they told you to use the latter only for very simple things.

Again "has not" does not equal "could not" or "will never".

I disagree, "has not" is the very essence of "could not" with regards to a historical perspective. In my view.

People are always attempting to do everything that can be done, at all times, what actually gets done, is the limit of ones ability, not the limit of their ambition.

Its comforting for people to believe that ambition is greater than ability, collectively, but it is not.

My proof is that no one built a decent anti ship guided missile until the late 50s. And no ship was sunk by one until 1967.

Now offer proof that someone could have designed one and deployed it before those dates.

Now THAT sir would be impossible to prove, and thus I rest my case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Check some of this out. Its not directly on topic, but science is trending more towards my view than yours. Id be perfectly happy to be wrong, but we'd need some proof to back that up.

 

[Rudawitz]

To be fair he still didnt win. The allies took Berlin.

Its a win by VPs because he didnt lose to the Soviets. The game ends on a specific date, which the date that Gary supposes the Allies would have taken Berlin.

Works the same way in War in the West. If you dont take Berlin by the time the Soviets do, you dont win, Germany gets the victory screen.

And judging by the low casualties, hes on Easy.

Since we're being fair, it would be silly to look for strategic victory in an operational game.

 

[inteljoe]

I really wish the diplomacy options in HOI4 were more expanded to allow for white peace and what not.

 

[Krafty]

Since we're being fair, it would be silly to look for strategic victory in an operational game.

Quite true.

I really wish the diplomacy options in HOI4 were more expanded to allow for white peace and what not.

I also wish you could stake claims before and during a war, and if someone takes your claim in a peacedeal, you get a wargoal and can immediately declare war.

 

[Drewoid13]

I doubt the US would have much appetite for war in a scenario where it is pitted against the new world order. Assuming that the only members of the Allies left are US, Canada, AUS/NZ and India. Germany winning Barbarossa too. It would be more likely a peace of some kind would be sought.

Alas this is a function non-existent in the game. The whole white peace or total war makes micro-wars in the game stupid. Ethiopia kicking Italy out for example unless I'm mistaken would lead to endless war until Italy lose to the allies, unless Ethiopia somehow take them out?

Totally agree. The lack of other political peace options is a huge hindrance.

Another ex being a minor fighting alone against a major or a coalition. They have no actual hope of winning, but can't sue for peace and maybe get a better deal from it. Or a. Major asking for white peace if there's a stalemate.

Compared to other PDS games, Hoi lacks the political aspect that makes the others great.

Clausewitz said, war is just politics by other means. Without a stronger political game in Hoi, it will remain shallower than it need be.

 

[permanently_afk]

Its like this, you have a rock, and a coconut, and you're starving.

Whats the system environment?

Do you choose to open the coconut with the rock? Is that a real choice? Just because someone one time chose to starve to death, does that make the choice any more real?

Yes, it does. The choice not to open it is - however miniscule - a vaild choice. You fail to consider external constraints, e.g. me having a religious prohibition against eating coconuts. Then not eating it would be a perfectly rational choice, because I exchange a little bit of mortal discomfort for eternal salvation or eternal dammnation for a bit of coconut.

Would the outcome of the correct choice been any different if someone decided to make the rational choice instead of starving to death? That is to say, if you make the rational choice to open the coconut with the rock, will not get milk, but instead get honey?

Referring to a model choice as "correct" implies the others should not have been part of the solution to begin with. As pointed out, it is possible that not eating the coconut is the most rational("correct") choice - relatively speaking. When opening the coconut, the contents matter little - the important bit is the event "starvation averted". You tend to look at the particulars instead of the whole, when you should be looking at the whole.

I postulate, that it is no choice at all, that the options exist before you enter the equation, and whatever you choose, the outcomes are predetermined. You either crack open the coconut and get milk, or you dont. You certainly dont crack open the coconut and get honey.

Schrödinger disagrees. In any case, the contents matter little as long as they avert starvation.

If you dont have a rock, or a coconut, you're incapable of making a decision to open a coconut with a rock, right? Follow?

No and no. Even without coconut and rock, I can decide to open a coconut with a rock. I merely lack the tools required. Decision does not equal action. I cannot take the action to open a coconut. But I can endeavor to get both coconut and rock. So, therefore, my decision to open a coconut (without either) precipates action.

This is the bit were we disagree: I may, when faced with starvation, equally decide to either starve (for some reason, example above) or procure another source of food (say, berries).

So, if you have rational actors who ultimately just make decisions that have predetermined outcomes, and they dont have the tools necessary for an outcome to occur...that outcome can NEVER occur. Correct?

Even with those limitations, this would require that you never have two or more equally rational actions AND that "rational" is objectively defined AND they have no course of action which may get them those tools.
But yes, using these extremely broad limitations, this is correct.

BUT: Your model is lacking even for such simple things as customer interaction with a web-UI. This means you are pruning your model until it delivers the desired outcome. This is very bad style. Never to mention that making such a model requires foreknowledge of the outcome and is therefore inherently unsuited to make predictions.

In this light, Japan had no choice but to go to war, much like the Axis has no choice of winning.

They dont have a rock. So they cant ever get the milk. They certainly will never get honey out of a coconut, no matter how much they try.

If you constrain them that much, yes. But as pointed out, thats not a good model. What if they had decided to break the parameters and open the coconut with their katana or the tools in their field kit? Your model is insufficient because it fails to allow for such events. You run and re-run the same chain of events, expecting a different outcome.
You lack of choice is not because of real lack, but because you simply discount all other options, because you deem them "irrational" for whatever metric you choose.

So when you look at the production capabilities, the resources, the manpower, of the allies and communists, against the Axis, it becomes clear that theres no scenario where any rational actor changed the course of events.

Suprise, suprise, initiating the RNG with the same seed yields the same numbers. What you are supposed to do if you talk about "possible", "likely" and "unlikely" is to run it with different settings (i.e. seeds). This is what you fail to do.

And thats my position.

Thank you.

I disagree, "has not" is the very essence of "could not" with regards to a historical perspective. In my view.

And thats were you are so wrong.
"has not" signals that a possible past event has not happend. E.g. I have not eaten muesli for breakfeast today. This is normal historiography, since we can't rewind time.

"could not" signals that an event can/could never occur.
E.g. (1) I could not have drunken small beer for breakfeast today. This is a false statement. While I didn't consume small beer for breakfeast today, I could have decided to do so in advance and have bought/made some. This is the kind of events useful for simulation or alternate history, since when rewinding time, they become possible.
E.g. (2) I could not have burnt the enemies of man with greek fire. This statement is as true as it gets - the recipie for greek fire is (probably) lost and RL is not 40k.

People are always attempting to do everything that can be done, at all times, what actually gets done, is the limit of ones ability, not the limit of their ambition.

Its comforting for people to believe that ambition is greater than ability, collectively, but it is not.[/quote]
Prioritisation is the key. What gets done are normally those bits deemed important enough to work on.

My proof is that no one built a decent anti ship guided missile until the late 50s. And no ship was sunk by one until 1967.

I'd speculate the former because other matters were more pressing and the latter because there were no targets in range.

Now offer proof that someone could have designed one and deployed it before those dates.

Now THAT sir would be impossible to prove, and thus I rest my case.

It'll be sufficient to prove the possibility of such an endavor - because if it acutally would have mattered enough there would have been. As for the sinking, you'll require a war in which those weapons are deployed - so I'll ignore that part and merely go for the design. I'll go digging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Check some of this out. Its not directly on topic, but science is trending more towards my view than yours. Id be perfectly happy to be wrong, but we'd need some proof to back that up.

I am familiar with that, and for a bit of my adult life I had much the same opinion as you. But, as a teacher of mine said: It is possible to precompute the universe. But it is equally impossible to know that precomputation.

So ultimately, it doesn't matter - we think we have free will (or what passes for it), therefore it is true. You should dig a bit about complexity theory and the predestination paradox.