should axis be able to 'win'

[Johnny Canuck]

The problem for Japan is that nothing they did in 1941 or 1942 against the Americans would have made a bit of difference. Even if they sank all the American carriers at Pearl Harbour, won Midway, & occupied the Hawaiian Islands, none of that would have made a difference. In 1940, the Americans launched a naval construction programme that guaranteed them naval superiority over Japan by the end of 1943/early 1944, even if all six American carriers in the Pacific had been lost. The new Essex-class carriers & Independence-class light carriers, in combination with the next generation of American naval aviation, (F6F Hellcats, etc.), ensured the Americans naval superiority by 1944 regardless of losses suffered.

Also, I don't think Japan could have taken the Hawaiian islands even if they had wanted to. First, the only amphibious landing they conducted in the Second World War that was opposed on the beaches was Wake, & they lost that the first time. Second, the Americans would have thrown all available airpower in the Hawaiian Islands to hold them, which likely would have been a match for the Japanese carriers. Thirdly, the Japanese themselves concluded in early 1942 that even if they managed to take the islands, they did not have the merchant marine to keep the garrison of the island supplied past three months.

As well, I just don't buy the idea that the US home front was fragile & would have demanded peace if losses continued. In all countries during the war, the home front held up under pressure of losses and defeats. Britain survived the Blitz, Germany survived years of day & night bombing, Russia survived wholesale massacres. I just don't see the Americans reacting all that differently.

Plus, there is another whole problem with the idea of Japan invading Australia or the United States - the Army would never have released that many divisions for overseas operations. They viewed China as the key theatre, even after 1941. I hope HOI simulates the extreme rivalry & disunity between the Japanese Army & Naval commands. The Japanese player shouldn't be able to pick whatever divisions they want & land them at Australia, for example.

 

[Marcus]

Why not just make Japan win by NOT attacking Pearl Harbor and keeping the US out of the war that way while getting their badly needed oil from East-Indian colonies taken from GB, France, Portugal and NL? Then build up industrial production and see how far you go. As long as you do not wake the sleeping giant, I'd like to see how far Japan goes.

Just my 2c

And yes, the first thing I do when this game comes out is..... Launch Operation See-Lion (in 1942 of course, with ME262 fighter cover muhahahahahaaaaa). I think the war is most definantly winable with Axis, using ME262, Uralbomber and some more allies (Franco/Sweden).

 

[King]

in my opinion Japan had 2 major problems which cost them, wether or not it made is a difference is a matter of debate.

1) The failure to invest in technology. In 1941 the Zero was by far the best fighter plane in the Pacific, Japan had a similiar advantage in other forms of aviation. In 1945 the Japanese will still using virtually the same planes while the allies had advanced in design. This is repeated elsewhere.

2) The failure to escort convoys. The Japanese suffered due to convoy escort duty being seen as being unworthy of a warior this lead to problems in defending Japanese shipping.

These 2 factors did not do Japan any favours.

In the case of Germany in my opinion the real failure was in the invasion of USSR. The objective fo the campiagn was not clear. The directive talked about the destruction of Soviet forces and the occupation of terrorty, but as a focused objective there was none. In fact Hitler kept pushing for economic objectives and the generals kept pushing of political objects. In my opinion the Germans should of been more focussed in their approach.

As for Italy the real problem was industral strength. Italy just could not properly equip the army they had. A smaller but better equiped army could not of done any worse and would of probably doen better.

 

[unmerged(9422)]

As an extra aside, I don't agree with Russia joining the Axis. Neutrality... maybe. The reason that Hitler lost the war was because he hated Bolsheviks with the passion only a nut can muster.. That was one of the main reasons he started it, it was the only reason he invaded Russia. Oil? Steel? Uranium? Pffft... sure. You can get that in Russia. But you can get that in the Middle East and Africa, too. No way should Stalin and Hitler be fighting side by side.

Yes, but in that Gamespot Interview with Johan, it said that there would be Axis, Allies, and Comintern. The Comintern (Communists) could join Axis, Allies, or remain neutral. So, if the Axis did get Russia on their side..

As for the U.S./Japan war.. It is true that I could just not attack the U.S., but it would be fun to have that war. Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku wanted to make peace with China so that the lands that Japan captured there could be secured, and the army there could have helped fight against America. Obviously, the government didn't agree (obviously because I don't recall the Kwantung Army fighting in New Guinea or some lonely Pacific island ). Attacking the Americans in a different way than "just Pearl Harbor" would be good too. For instance.. I could start my campaigns in 1939 and bomb Pearl Harbor, the rest of Hawaii, San Francisco, Los Angelos, and also send my armies from China (I would make peace with them or something) and hit the Americans hard before they could get me. Then, I could use the rest of my armies to fight in southeast Asia and get me those nice resources.

I hope HOI simulates the extreme rivalry & disunity between the Japanese Army & Naval commands.

Yes, there was extreme rivalry between the Army and Navy. One of the reasons was that the Navy was trained by British officers and the Army was trained by German officers back in the Meiji Restoration. The Navy would usually choose sides with England, and the Army with Germany. And, as you know, England and Germany weren't really best "buddies" during the first half of the 20th century.. Yamamoto was the only officer that was respected by both the Army and the Navy. And, the Navy and Army did work together in WWII. They actually started working together quite well in the later part of the war.


Meiji-Tenno

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

as far as japan goes unless you fight a weak ai or weak human player they will never be able to invade america itself. america didnt start to build-up in dec of 41. the build-up draft and other parts of re-armement had already begon. if japan can somehow beat china enough to take huge lands in a peace then they can release more forces for the war. they can then take more islands fortify them more and threaten india enough that rommel can proably even without more support take the seuz.
but the main thing is the only real hope the axis have of winning in the sense of keeping their gains is by cooperation. something they did so much worse then the allies. for the overall part except for italy and germany in mid war the axis were basicaly 3 countries with different goals/plans and just happened to have the same enemies

 

[jpd]

Originally posted by King
In the case of Germany in my opinion the real failure was in the invasion of USSR. The objective fo the campiagn was not clear. The directive talked about the destruction of Soviet forces and the occupation of terrorty, but as a focused objective there was none. In fact Hitler kept pushing for economic objectives and the generals kept pushing of political objects. In my opinion the Germans should of been more focussed in their approach.

As for Italy the real problem was industral strength. Italy just could not properly equip the army they had. A smaller but better equiped army could not of done any worse and would of probably doen better.

The Germans did have a clear objective for Barbarossa. The campaign intended to push like crazy into Russia, encircle and anihilate any Russian opposing armies, and secure the front near the Ural mountains by the time the winter kicked in. Then dig in and defend against the Russians, indefinately if needbe. After securing the front at the Urals, the Germans would then again shift the attention to the western front.

And they very nearly succeeded as well, in 1941. If they hadn't moved Guderian's panzers to army group south in the summer, they would have captured Moskow for sure. And with Moskow out of the way, they would have reached the Ural mountains in time. However, at the time the German high command saw army group center ahead of schedule and army group south running behind (against stiffened opposition), so they desided Guderians' panzer would be best deployed south. That decision, while helping army group south reach their objectives, robbed center from it's main hitting power, thus denying them Moskow before the winter.

As for Italy. That was less of an industrial strength problem, but instead more of a technological choice problem. Especially the Tankettes were of no use at all against the English. Too lightly armored and hopelessy undergunned. The point is, they could have produced better stuff if they had wanted to. Certainly the indusrtial capacity was available.

PS. It is worth noting that both Stalin and Hitler were convinced that war between them was inevitable. It was just a matter who would strike first.

Jan Peter

 

[unmerged(8840)]

Originally posted by Meiji-Tenno
I think that if the U.S. carriers at Pearl Harbor were sunk, then Japan would've had a very good chance of winning. As long as Midway was won, too. Also, without the U.S. carriers, there wouldn't have been a Battle of the Coral Sea and the Japanese could've taken Port Moresby easier.


This would have had little impact on the course of the war - had the US lost every single carrier at midway, within 6 months their available Fleet CV deckspace would have been on a par with their Midway strength.


This would've cut Australia off from U.S. and then Darwin could've been captured, then the east coast of Australia.

Not a hope, the Japanese force that tried this would be slaughtered.

The IJN asked the IJA to participate in a limited invasion of Nth Aust and they felt that they would need at least 12 Divs and could not guarantee success with that amount of troops - they pointed out that they didn't have 12 Divs to spare.

They also lacked the shipping to move them and any ability to supply them.

By mid 42 Aust had enough forces (in Aust) to raise 8 divs as 4 corps - these corps would be fully equipped (minus light mortars, these would be replaced with medium mortars) - in Tanks, AT guns, AFVs, Small arms, Arty and AA the Japanese would have been badly out gunned (for example the throw weight of an Aust Divs arty was over twice that of a Jap Divs and it outranged them - and the 2 Pdr AT gun was capable of penetrating the best armoured Jap tanks at any range.


If Midway was won, then Hawaii would've been threatened, and, since they would have lost at Midway (And no carriers, and the fuel supplies if that was destroyed too), the Americans would've had a weaker defense in Hawaii and then the Japanese could've attempted to capture that too.

Another massacre in the offing, the US had roughly 100,000 troops (2 inf divs plus servicemen who could serve as inf in a pinch) - The Japanese were not able to spare the troops and didn't have the ability to move or supply enough troops to do the job.

Also the Japanese NEVER had a successful opposed amphib landing, so I see no reason to think that they would do well against heavy opposition, far from hom.

Midway as a base for an invasion, Midway is too small to base more than about 100 a/c and is over 1300 miles from Hawaii - any bombers flown from Midway in support of an attack, go unescorted.

Air Superiority - by Apr 1 1942 the US had 275 a/c in Hawaii, a further 90 could have been added (from Saratoga) had Hawaii been threatened, with that many a/c on well dispersed airfields Japan was never going to gain air superiority.


If Hawaii was captured, the Americans definitely would've been worried and would have sent many many soldiers to try to recapture it. If the Japanese could defend well, then then San Francisco could've been bombed and attacked and perhaps captured. Then U.S. would've probably sued for peace. However, it is said that Yamamoto once said that the Army would have to go Washington DC itself, and would have had to march into the White House and demand peace. But, it is possible that if San Francisco was captured they would have wanted peace, too.

This is simply fantasy - even if Hawaii surrendered without a shot fired, Japan has no ability to move or supply troops to the USA, let alone win a fight there.


If Russia stayed in Axis,

Russia was never in the axis - they signed a non aggression pact with Germany.


Germany focused on Britain and successfully captured it,

Germany notably lacked any chance of doing this, they had no ability to force the RAF to fight to the last before any invasion, so a well equipped RAF was always going to intervene in sea lions slow moving river barge invasion fleet.


Japan has more success at Pearl Harbor and can get those carriers, can win Midway, get Hawaii, then San Francisco, along with Port Moresby, I think Axis have a pretty good chance of victory...

Yes, unfortunately the only one they had any chance of there is Moresby, and they could never have kept it - let alone used it as a springboard for further conquests.

Also, with the Russians, the Axis on their side, the Axis could more easily get the oil of the Middle East and have plenty of oil for use against Allies.

The Soviets never trusted Germany (probably because of the evil communist references in Mein Kampf) and never trusted Japan (probably something to do with having to crush a Japanese invasion of one of their client states just prior to the war - so they were never going to ally with them, just try to buy time to get their industry on line.

 

[King]

Originally posted by jpd


The Germans did have a clear objective for Barbarossa. The campaign intended to push like crazy into Russia, encircle and anihilate any Russian opposing armies, and secure the front near the Ural mountains by the time the winter kicked in. Then dig in and defend against the Russians, indefinately if needbe. After securing the front at the Urals, the Germans would then again shift the attention to the western front.

And they very nearly succeeded as well, in 1941. If they hadn't moved Guderian's panzers to army group south in the summer, they would have captured Moskow for sure. And with Moskow out of the way, they would have reached the Ural mountains in time. However, at the time the German high command saw army group center ahead of schedule and army group south running behind (against stiffened opposition), so they desided Guderians' panzer would be best deployed south. That decision, while helping army group south reach their objectives, robbed center from it's main hitting power, thus denying them Moskow before the winter.

I disagree here. I base this on two things.

Firstly we see the German deployment. In France we have three army groups each with a clear objective, C pinning the French on the Marginot Line, B invading Belgium and the Netherlands to draw the allies in and A doing the encircling sweep. all three working in tandem. In Russia the three army groups were North which was going to the Dvina and then no one was sure after that. Centre wich was to encircle the forces at Minsk and then no one knows what, and South which was to drive south for a while. There was no coherent plan of how to achieve the objectives.

The Tensions in the high command. The army consistently drove for poltical objectives. We see Leebs creative obedence in front of Lenningrad abd Guderians obsession with Mosocw, while Hitler very consently went after economic objectives. This does not smack of a coherent plan either.

Originally posted by jpd

As for Italy. That was less of an industrial strength problem, but instead more of a technological choice problem. Especially the Tankettes were of no use at all against the English. Too lightly armored and hopelessy undergunned. The point is, they could have produced better stuff if they had wanted to. Certainly the indusrtial capacity was available.

The Italian Industry had several serious bottlenecks, lacking both Coal and oil to sustain thier industry. This was a serious problem and since they imported most fo thier coal from Britain when they jioned the war they were dependant on German supplies. This did seriously hold back Italy. Just for your interest the Italians were building a tank comperable to the T-34 in 1943 only a few were produced prior to the surrender.

Originally posted by jpd

PS. It is worth noting that both Stalin and Hitler were convinced that war between them was inevitable. It was just a matter who would strike first.

Jan Peter

I totally agree.

 

[unmerged(10352)]

husky65

You are ignoring the timeframe starting in 36 and the ability for Nation's historical choices to be changed.

A lot of the things you are saying Japan lacked (shipping, available troops, better amphib) are all things a player could do a lot towards rectifiying in 4-5years 36-40/41 if they decided to go heavy against the US.

Similar applies to continued Russio-Nazi pacts. We're talking about a 36 campaign and alternate history. In a 39 or 40 or 41 or 42 campaign alot more of what you say applies.

"Germany notably lacked any chance of doing this, they had no ability to force the RAF to fight to the last before any invasion, so a well equipped RAF was always going to intervene in sea lions slow moving river barge invasion fleet. "

I agree Sea-Lion is impossible (at least when UK/USA are allied) perhaps vs a bonehead AI.
But, I disagree that the Luftwaffe could not anhilate and keep down the RAF. They were jacked until Goering shifting bombing factories/airfields to bombing civies. Which gave them time to rebuild and eventualy win Battle of Britain.


From the otherside: The people's saying Japan just has to do a little better in Pearl Harbor or win Midway. Are forgetting that Pearl Harbor was a big gamble. It's like rolling a snake eyes or something. If the codes had been broken just a bit before, or leaders payed more attention to what intel there was, or clearer weather and some lucky scout planes could have spotted the waiting attack fleet.

Expecting the Japanese Navy to consistantly come out on top on all these gambles (Pearl Harbor, Midway, Coral Sea, whatever battles your game has) is not sound strategy. Unless one side concedes control it will be very hard for either the US or Japan to gain dominance in the Pacific, they are too evenly matched. Until one or the other makes a gamble and 'rolls' badly lossing a significant portion of their fleet.

IMHO Pearl Harbor was a huge mistake, they should have fortified the defensive perimeter they had obtained. Leave the Aussies alone too.

 

[AlanC9]

Originally posted by robothelpermnky
husky65

You are ignoring the timeframe starting in 36 and the ability for Nation's historical choices to be changed.

A lot of the things you are saying Japan lacked (shipping, available troops, better amphib) are all things a player could do a lot towards rectifiying in 4-5years 36-40/41 if they decided to go heavy against the US.

(snip)

IMHO Pearl Harbor was a huge mistake, they should have fortified the defensive perimeter they had obtained. Leave the Aussies alone too.

OK, Japan builds shipping, troops, better amphibious capacity.... at the expense of what? Do they reduce their land commitment against China? Do they not build carriers and planes?

I agree 100% that Pearl Harbor was completely misconceived. I've said before that their only realistic choices were to either really go after Russia, in the hope of a total German victory on that front, or to confine themselves to "liberating" the Dutch East Indies, gambling that the US wouldn't really be interested in preserving the Dutch colonial empire.

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by AlanC9


OK, Japan builds shipping, troops, better amphibious capacity.... at the expense of what? Do they reduce their land commitment against China? Do they not build carriers and planes?

I agree 100% that Pearl Harbor was completely misconceived. I've said before that their only realistic choices were to either really go after Russia, in the hope of a total German victory on that front, or to confine themselves to "liberating" the Dutch East Indies, gambling that the US wouldn't really be interested in preserving the Dutch colonial empire.

In an interview, it said that the Americans (Maybe other democracies too, but I am not sure) wouldn't be able to fight unless the people sided with them. If Japan was to attack Pearl Harbor, the people will probably side with the government. I guess a good strategy with Japan would be to carry out all plans as usual, but not attack America. If America was to attack Japan, by the time they do, the Japanese will probably be able to have gained lots of resources and build up the defences and have a huge army/navy/air force, while U.S. military wouldn't be in top condition because the people would have to side with government first. So, the Japanese could have the Phillipines surrounded, a huge stockpile of resources and nice consolidated empire and if the U.S. was to attack, then the Japanese would be able to conquer the Phillipines in no time (Since the place would be surrounded by well defended bases with strong armies) and defend from American attackers, then maybe attack U.S. mainland and fight so hard and beat them bad enough so they would give up. This could be achieved by Japan not attacking U.S. and building up its military and defences while the U.S. government tried to get the support of its people so it could start building up its military forces. The Phillipines would still be hard, though, since it would still be under good leadership and the Filipino troops would have completed training. But, then the Japanese troops would also be trained, and there would be a larger amount and with all of those resources, perhaps Japanese military technology could advance past U.S. technology. Not attacking Pearl Harbor could actually be quite advantageuous in ways.. hmm.. But, then the Americans could attack after the Dutch East Indies were captured. They wouldn't be able to win early on though. But, maybe with the war started they could focus on building up their military and something similar would happen... hmmm... Many possibilities..


Meiji-Tenno

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by husky65

Originally posted by Meiji-Tenno
I think that if the U.S. carriers at Pearl Harbor were sunk, then Japan would've had a very good chance of winning. As long as Midway was won, too. Also, without the U.S. carriers, there wouldn't have been a Battle of the Coral Sea and the Japanese could've taken Port Moresby easier.


This would have had little impact on the course of the war - had the US lost every single carrier at midway, within 6 months their available Fleet CV deckspace would have been on a par with their Midway strength.


This would've cut Australia off from U.S. and then Darwin could've been captured, then the east coast of Australia.

Not a hope, the Japanese force that tried this would be slaughtered.

The IJN asked the IJA to participate in a limited invasion of Nth Aust and they felt that they would need at least 12 Divs and could not guarantee success with that amount of troops - they pointed out that they didn't have 12 Divs to spare.

They also lacked the shipping to move them and any ability to supply them.

By mid 42 Aust had enough forces (in Aust) to raise 8 divs as 4 corps - these corps would be fully equipped (minus light mortars, these would be replaced with medium mortars) - in Tanks, AT guns, AFVs, Small arms, Arty and AA the Japanese would have been badly out gunned (for example the throw weight of an Aust Divs arty was over twice that of a Jap Divs and it outranged them - and the 2 Pdr AT gun was capable of penetrating the best armoured Jap tanks at any range.


If Midway was won, then Hawaii would've been threatened, and, since they would have lost at Midway (And no carriers, and the fuel supplies if that was destroyed too), the Americans would've had a weaker defense in Hawaii and then the Japanese could've attempted to capture that too.

Another massacre in the offing, the US had roughly 100,000 troops (2 inf divs plus servicemen who could serve as inf in a pinch) - The Japanese were not able to spare the troops and didn't have the ability to move or supply enough troops to do the job.

Also the Japanese NEVER had a successful opposed amphib landing, so I see no reason to think that they would do well against heavy opposition, far from hom.

Midway as a base for an invasion, Midway is too small to base more than about 100 a/c and is over 1300 miles from Hawaii - any bombers flown from Midway in support of an attack, go unescorted.

Air Superiority - by Apr 1 1942 the US had 275 a/c in Hawaii, a further 90 could have been added (from Saratoga) had Hawaii been threatened, with that many a/c on well dispersed airfields Japan was never going to gain air superiority.


If Hawaii was captured, the Americans definitely would've been worried and would have sent many many soldiers to try to recapture it. If the Japanese could defend well, then then San Francisco could've been bombed and attacked and perhaps captured. Then U.S. would've probably sued for peace. However, it is said that Yamamoto once said that the Army would have to go Washington DC itself, and would have had to march into the White House and demand peace. But, it is possible that if San Francisco was captured they would have wanted peace, too.

This is simply fantasy - even if Hawaii surrendered without a shot fired, Japan has no ability to move or supply troops to the USA, let alone win a fight there.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it may all be fantasy and far-off ideas, but this is a game.. Anything can happen. As for supplying the troops, perhaps the Japanese really couldn't do it, but the player could perfect that mistake. Like you were saying for the air superiority, the Japanese player could change that. I am not saying what could've happened in the real-life situation. The game starts in 1936. All of that can be changed. You can change history in this game. We aren't just going to relive it.. That wouldn't be as much fun.

Meiji-Tenno

 

[unmerged(2005)]

Germany should with 99% probability be in real trouble by 1945 or near extinction. The industrial swing in highly favor of the allies needs to be simulated.

 

[unmerged(10352)]

Originally posted by Clemens August
Germany should with 99% probability be in real trouble by 1945 or near extinction. The industrial swing in highly favor of the allies needs to be simulated.

I agree but only if things go very nearly historical.

Lot of that industrial disparity has to do with German industy being constantly bombed, lack of resources, and the Kriegsmarine failure at keeping American supplies and men in America or at the bottom of the Atlantic.
Should have listened to Rommel and gotten that mid-east oil. Should have ignored/shot Goering and done what Doenitz wanted.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Victory Conditions...again

How about we drop the 'if Germany/Japan did this or that they had a chance' thread and get back to what the original question was, namely what will/should the victory conditions be?

To be honest, this whole detailed discussion/debate on how Germany and Japan could have won the war historically has been done to death.

 

[Grunthex]

Yeah, but there's at least 3 months to go. Everything'll be done to death. It's that pre-game hype-machine.

 

[unmerged(7423)]

Japan vs US

Most of what has been said about Japan's ability to bring the US to its knees is true. It just wasn't going to happen. In fact, these posts remind me of an article I read. I dug up the link:http://64.124.221.191/guadoil1.htm

This article talks about the logistics and resources involved in japans strugle and why she was doomed to fail against the US.


(In fact, more articles listed under:
http://64.124.221.191/articles.htm
for some really nice indepth numbers).


Anyhow, Japans industry could not compete with the US. The very fact that Japan was importing an enourmous amount of resources FROM the US pre-war should be telling. Japans aggression in China caused Embargoes to be placed against her from the US. This brought the industrial/economic crunch down on her, and (partially) fueled the drive for the resources in the dutch indies.


I read an alternate history in "Red Sun Rising" (if I recall correctly the name, but I don't recall the author, it was a great read though) that had Japan withdrawing from China (keeping Manchuria) and invading Russia instead of the Dutch Indies (et al).

This sounds like just the kind of strategy that will be fun to play in a game like HoI. Keep diplomatic ties with US strong, withdraw from China to remove resource embargoes and continue getting oil and rubber from the US to help campaign against Russia. That should work at least for a little while.

Anyhow, I find this kind of discussion very interesting, so I had to have my say. However, I will back up others who have said it. No matter how many tactical wins Japan had at midway, pearl, guadalcanal, they simply did not have the logistics or resources to keep it up. http://64.124.221.191/economic.htm <-- for good economic break down.

They simply didn't have the oil to be driving their boats around for as long as it would take to win a war.

Makaer

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Re: Japan vs US

Originally posted by Makaer
Most of what has been said about Japan's ability to bring the US to its knees is true. It just wasn't going to happen. In fact, these posts remind me of an article I read. I dug up the link:http://64.124.221.191/guadoil1.htm

This article talks about the logistics and resources involved in japans strugle and why she was doomed to fail against the US.


(In fact, more articles listed under:
http://64.124.221.191/articles.htm
for some really nice indepth numbers).


Anyhow, Japans industry could not compete with the US. The very fact that Japan was importing an enourmous amount of resources FROM the US pre-war should be telling. Japans aggression in China caused Embargoes to be placed against her from the US. This brought the industrial/economic crunch down on her, and (partially) fueled the drive for the resources in the dutch indies.


I read an alternate history in "Red Sun Rising" (if I recall correctly the name, but I don't recall the author, it was a great read though) that had Japan withdrawing from China (keeping Manchuria) and invading Russia instead of the Dutch Indies (et al).

This sounds like just the kind of strategy that will be fun to play in a game like HoI. Keep diplomatic ties with US strong, withdraw from China to remove resource embargoes and continue getting oil and rubber from the US to help campaign against Russia. That should work at least for a little while.

Anyhow, I find this kind of discussion very interesting, so I had to have my say. However, I will back up others who have said it. No matter how many tactical wins Japan had at midway, pearl, guadalcanal, they simply did not have the logistics or resources to keep it up. http://64.124.221.191/economic.htm <-- for good economic break down.

They simply didn't have the oil to be driving their boats around for as long as it would take to win a war.

Makaer

Yes, I have definitely thought of invading Siberia..
But, I want to try the war with U.S. and see how well I can do, too. It will be a great challenge.

Meiji-Tenno

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Re: Japan vs US

Originally posted by Makaer
I read an alternate history in "Red Sun Rising" (if I recall correctly the name, but I don't recall the author, it was a great read though) that had Japan withdrawing from China (keeping Manchuria) and invading Russia instead of the Dutch Indies (et al).

This sounds like just the kind of strategy that will be fun to play in a game like HoI. Keep diplomatic ties with US strong, withdraw from China to remove resource embargoes and continue getting oil and rubber from the US to help campaign against Russia. That should work at least for a little while.

Being able to try these sorts of ahistorical strategies is precisely one of the reasons why I'm so looking forward to HOI. Was there anything that Japan could have done? Would an attack on Russia help the Germans seize Moscow in '41?

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Re: Re: Japan vs US

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


Being able to try these sorts of ahistorical strategies is precisely one of the reasons why I'm so looking forward to HOI. Was there anything that Japan could have done? Would an attack on Russia help the Germans seize Moscow in '41?

Yes, it is one of the things that I am most excited about in HOI, too. It will be interesting to see how much history will be changed. I am hoping to win with Japan, and even try to make some smaller, "less-important" countries in the world make a difference. Maybe try playing Poland and see how well I can defend from Germany and Russia.. hmm..


Meiji-Tenno