should axis be able to 'win'

[unmerged(10352)]

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

You go Grunthex!

and thanks to all you others indulging my pointless posts

I hope its only 3mo

 

[unmerged(10384)]

i see all this talk about the americans rebuilding there fleet carriers even if there main carrier fleet was destroyed at pearl harbor and midway was one, if this happend then japan would have control of the ocean and whats to stop them from blowing up the ship yards witch would have buildt the new carriers on the west cost im mean the american mainland airforce wasnt that srong at the time.., or say blowing up the panama canal preventing the atlantic fleet from interviening, i mean if japan had taken out the american pacific fleet and in my earlyer post the pacific fuel reserves witch will happen in my game, america would have no chanch to retake the pacific

 

[unmerged(8840)]

Originally posted by Laidler
i see all this talk about the americans rebuilding there fleet carriers even if there main carrier fleet was destroyed at pearl harbor and midway was one, if this happend then japan would have control of the ocean and whats to stop them from blowing up the ship yards witch would have buildt the new carriers on the west cost im mean the american mainland airforce wasnt that srong at the time..,

Whats to stop them? mainly logistics, they barely had the ability to operate a fleet at Hawaii, let alone the US coast.

The US produced 23,396 combat a/c in 1942, had the USA been threatened it is not unreasonable to expect that 15 or 20 thousand of those a/c might have been devoted to the defence of the USA.

Pretty hard to mount serious carrier launched strikes against that sort of defence.

or say blowing up the panama canal preventing the atlantic fleet from interviening,"

How does this prevent the atlantic fleet from intervening?, it only delays an intervention.


i mean if japan had taken out the american pacific fleet and in my earlyer post the pacific fuel reserves witch will happen in my game, america would have no chanch to retake the pacific

How the hell do you work that out?

It will only delay the US and probably divert the US to a Japan first strategy, the USN will rely on RAS (an area in which they excelled) while they build up new war stocks.

It will have little or no impact on a USN submarine campaign (leaving Jap logistics even more stuffed).

It will do nothing to improve the quality of late war Jap fighter engines, Radar, ASW.

Historically the US built 137 aircraft carriers (keep in mind that in mid 44 they cut planned production because it was unneccessary) - had the Japs won Midway, it is likely that the 3 Midway-class and 6 more Essex-Class CVs, plus the Saipan-class CVLs would have been quickly brought on line and filled with F6F and F4U fighters - the Japs would still have been vastly outnumbered by better trained pilots, flying better planes, from better carriers.

 

[unmerged(8840)]

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.

No I'm not - in 5 years there is little you can do to fix what was wrong with Japans economy.

You need to keep the Army, Navy and Airforces at least at the historical levels, but you also need a bare minimum of 8 million GRT of merchant shipping, plus a few million tons of specialist amphib shipping, you need to expand Japans aero engine production and research capability, massively expand a/c production and crew training, research into radar and sonar and you need to actually change the samurai culture that had fighter pilots getting slaughtered because they viewed air combat as a one on one deal when their enemies were using multi a/c tactics.
The same samurai culture that placed convoy escort so low on the list of priorities in the navy will have to go.
You will also need to invest in convoy escorts on a pretty massive scale and it is probably a good idea to invest in some much better artillery and AT guns if you are planning on attacking the big boys.

So to summarise, you can't give up anything you have (except your national culture) and you need to buy lots of almost everything needed to fight a modern war, you also have to hope that your enemies won't notice that you are doing this and start their own production early, or you lose anyway.


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.

Well Mein Kampf was first published in 1925/26 - "in the predictable future there can be only two allies for Germany in Europe; England and Italy" A. Hitler p.570 Mein Kampf

I won't bother posting any of the reams of anti communist stuff in Mein Kampf, suffice to say that Hitler makes it quite clear that his enemy is communism, both sides of that pact were playing for time.

"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.

This is a myth, the RAF a/c strength actually increased throughout the BoB and the forces kept out of the SE of Britain were maintained at full strength and could have been committed if needed.

There are only a few occaisions where the number of single engined fighters 'immediately available from storage' dips below 200 a/c.

But what about Pilots in Fighter Command, I hear you ask?

July 6 - 1,259
Aug 3 - 1,434
Sept 7 - 1,381 (widely considered the 'darkest hour')
Oct 5 - 1,703

To quickly contrast the relative state of the forces,

1 Jul 1940 - Fighter Comd 591 serviceable a/c - Luftwaffe 725
1 Oct 1940 Fighter Comd 734 serviceable a/c - Luftwaffe 275


So at the darkest hour, the RAF had more operational pilots and airframes, than at the start of the BoB.

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.

The whole basis of Pearl Harbour was wrong, the thinking was that democratic nations were too gutless to fight, hit them hard, grab what you can and dig in, they don't have what it takes to get it back.

Once the US chose to fight, Japan was doomed and since the Japanese chose to attack the US the the US was always going to fight.

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.

This neglects the massive advantage in production that the USA had, they could afford to roll bad dice many times and come back from it - Japan couldn't.

 

[unmerged(10352)]

husky65

We disagree on a lot of things and I have different assumptions.

I don't think we're gonna sway one-another's opinions and I'm not willing to quote references that disagree with yours cause then we would have to argue about which references are more authoritative. Life's too short and I got 2 more Strategy posts to write.

So, I'm just gonna agree to disagree. And when my Japan crushes the USA we'll just have to argue about how weak the AI is or how poor a historical simulation HOI is

 

[unmerged(8840)]

Originally posted by Meiji-Tenno

------------------------------------------------------------

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

You only have 5 years to change it and Japans industry was not capable of the massive changes needed to change all of the problems they faced.

To fix Japans inability to supply troops, you would need to build about 12 million GRT of shipping, which comes out at building more tonnage of merchant vessels, per year than Japan built in its best year of production.

You will also want to build a couple of hundred more DDs otherwise you will lose those new merchants fast.

You have to remember, that Japanese industry was working to capacity, to get something, you have to give something up - and there is nothing you can afford to give up.

If the game gives Japan any chance of winning, it is unrealistic - that is OK, as long as you know it is unrealistic.

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by husky65


You only have 5 years to change it and Japans industry was not capable of the massive changes needed to change all of the problems they faced.

To fix Japans inability to supply troops, you would need to build about 12 million GRT of shipping, which comes out at building more tonnage of merchant vessels, per year than Japan built in its best year of production.

You will also want to build a couple of hundred more DDs otherwise you will lose those new merchants fast.

You have to remember, that Japanese industry was working to capacity, to get something, you have to give something up - and there is nothing you can afford to give up.

If the game gives Japan any chance of winning, it is unrealistic - that is OK, as long as you know it is unrealistic.

Also, I could weaken American economy by sinking their merchant shipping. Japanese submarines were ordered not to attack merchant ships and only military ships were attacked. But, if I was to have them sunk.. But, still, that wouldn't make much of a difference.. We will have to see when it comes out.. I do think that it will be possible for Japan to win, though. If I wasn't to attack Pearl Harbor and just expanded elsewhere and built up my military and economy, while the Americans will have to get the support of their people. I am guessing that, in the game, they will be able to build up their armies faster or whatever after they have the support of their people? If my military was really strong, and say it is 1943. I already control the area controlled by the Japanese in real life (Maybe even more because the soldiers that went to the Phillipines could have went elsewhere) and then the Americans declare war on me (They are probably not too much more powerful than at Pearl Harbor. Definitely more powerful, but not as powerful as they would've been had I attacked Pearl Harbor. Now, the Americans get the support of their people and attack me. Two million+ Japanese soldiers (Which would've all been extremely well-trained since there wasn't any war with America for them to be sent to the front lines almost immediately), a huge navy (Still 10 carriers too, and probably another because I had another 2 years to build one ), a massive air force (The Japanese had over 2,000 planes in 1941, I would probably have about 3,000 if that number continued to grow, which would, because I wouldn't stop making planes ) and now, all of this force goes against the Americans, which would've probably attacked me when they declared war, and those troops/ships/planes probably would've been killed, and then, if they were losing really bad and I outnumbered them that much with soldiers who were better trained, I think maybe I could try to make peace..

I guess I will have to try this strategy when the game comes out.. I think I will be going after Siberia and trying to change the outcome of the Japanese/Soviet War of 1939... I won't attack Pearl Harbor, and we'll see what the Americans do. I will carry out all other plans for attacking the Dutch East Indies and Singapore, though.

Meiji-Tenno

 

[unmerged(10445)]

About Americans, replacing lost carriers by new Essex-class - WHO said, that the american community will allow the Navy to wait and strengthen forces? And "trained pilots" - don`t say it to me, in the situation "go-go, we must re-take Havaii as soon as possible" it`s very doubtful. At last, what do you think about japanese bombing Panama?

 

[unmerged(5367)]

But then, why bomb the panama channel, when you could fill a transport with rocks and sink it in the middle of the channel.. keeps it out of operations for atleast a year

 

[AlanC9]

Re: Victory Conditions...again

Originally posted by PBI
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.

Tell me about it.... I was one of the people doing it to death last time.

But you can't discuss victory conditions without discussing the probable outcome of the game --- assuming that we want victory conditions that are challenging but not impossible. Until we agree about what Japan can realistically achieve in the game, we can't set the victory conditions for Japan. It's all part of the same question.

 

[unmerged(7423)]

victory conditions

Well, I would expect (though perhaps incorrectly) that victory conditions would be much like EUII. You gain points for certain actions/results. Whoever comes out ontop (maybe who ever's alliance comes out on top) wins.

Depending on how the point scheme is handed out the Axis could be losing at the end of the game and win via points. Do well in the beginning and stock up on points, and hope your momentum lasts long enough to gain the points needed. Eventually the industrial power of the allies starts to be felt, and you just hope you can hold them off until the end of the game.

For instance, imagine if Japan was able to hold the Dutch East Indies and actually bring the oil production there up to full (which it never even got close to do to some initial oil refinery engineers going down with a transport). Imagine they built enough merchant marines to move it around? Lets just say no Pearl Harbor and US delayed action in the area.

Towards the end of the game you would see a self sufficient Japan that would be able to manuever much better against an enemy. Even if US decided to take Japan out entirely, it would have been a much more drawn out war of attrition (since the US wouldn't be out producing Japan AS ridiculously as we did).

So, I hope the victory conditions aren't set to 'taking over the world and completely destroying your enemy'. I enjoyed the feeling of achievement by optaining goals in EUII, and I imagine whether the computer says you won or not, I'll play this way in HoI.

Oh and I'm all for continueing the debate on Japans ability to win the war, but I thought I'd appease people wanting to get this thread back onto VC.

Makaer

 

[unmerged(10352)]

Re: victory conditions

Originally posted by Chamberlan
Oh and I'm all for continueing the debate on Japans ability to win the war, but I thought I'd appease people wanting to get this thread back onto VC.
Makaer

If there is one thing you should learn from politics pre-wwII is that "appeasement" is not the best move

 

[unmerged(7423)]

Re: Re: victory conditions

Originally posted by robothelpermnky

If there is one thing you should learn from politics pre-wwII is that "appeasement" is not the best move

The previous post said Originally posted by Chamberlan
and quoted me. How odd.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Re: Re: Victory Conditions...again

Originally posted by AlanC9


Tell me about it.... I was one of the people doing it to death last time.

But you can't discuss victory conditions without discussing the probable outcome of the game --- assuming that we want victory conditions that are challenging but not impossible. Until we agree about what Japan can realistically achieve in the game, we can't set the victory conditions for Japan. It's all part of the same question.

To a point, yes

Haven't we discussed what Japan and Germany could do to the nth degree, the outcome of which has been a split into two camps, the ones that believe Allied victory was not inevitable and those who think it was?

The more the debate rages and the more I see (and want to post) the same arguments, the more I become convinced that the only way to set victory conditions that will satisfy (at least in part) everybody is to use modified comparisions to the actual historical outcomes.

 

[unmerged(10352)]

Re: Re: Re: victory conditions

Originally posted by Makaer


The previous post said Originally posted by Chamberlan
and quoted me. How odd.

should have been Chambelain.

It was a joke British Prime Minister 193?-39 generally blamed for appeaseing Hitler by allowing him to annex Austria/Sudentanlnad/Czech in a bid to keep Britian out a another European war.

Get it? you were appeasethign readers by going back on thread, eh? ah nevermind

 

[unmerged(7423)]

Oh! Got it. Was too much in the headspace that it was someones nick that I didn't recognize.

Well, it is true. Appeasing militant groups generally speaking never ends the way the appeaser wants.

As for the two different camps of thought, those who think Axis could have won, and those who thing they couldn't have, I would say I am inbetween. Obviously, given the Axis' choices in the war, they would not succeed.

The debate is how radically different would the Axis choices have needed to be to have been able to succeed and 'win'.

Makaer

 

[unmerged(10352)]

Re: victory conditions

Perhaps something along these lines

If Japan and USA are ever at war Japan gets +1000vp (pulling number out my butt)

now there is a option/incentive for Japan to DoW USA, without forcing him/her to. She can also just cruize on a peacefull path, perhaps no so peacefull vs USSR But without getting overwhelmed by USA she should have a lot more ability to *earn* those 1000vp vs non-US nations.

The Japan player has to decide will he loose 1000vp in ships/men/teritory/resources fighting the USA, if not then proly wants to DoW.
Converse for USA (will I inflict 1000vp in damage) if they get the public opinion to go after Japan.

The idea is to have similar ending VP for an Axis nation that performs to a particular level whether they end up getting crushed by allies or not.

Of course there is lots of tweaking of actual numbers and perhaps the amount should decline with time.

similar "formulas" for other Axis, Allies?

perhaps Germany gets -500 pts if no war with France. They can make the choice I'll leave france alone and crush the Soviet Bear, making up those points there. If part-way through Barbarossa the French populace gets up the gumption to DoW Germany. Germany will effectilvly get +500vp which she'll need to have a chance of comming out on top after a 2 front war.

 

[unmerged(10352)]

Originally posted by Makaer
The debate is how radically different would the Axis choices have needed to be to have been able to succeed and 'win'.

Makaer

I think the fundemental radicaly difference is that they must not fight all of:
France
Britian
USA
USSR
China

aka the 5 nations with UN veto power aka the 5 'winners' of WWII

Or is that obvious?

If you think about it the Axis, 3 nations with little resources and big ambitions, say one day "hrmm? I only have the reserves to fight for a few years and only then if I have early successes and also seize some resrouces. Sounds good, but lets not just fight part of the world, lets fight the whole dang world, not piecmeal either lets get the whole world in a war with us ASAP."

I bet the above is the situation many people have in mind when they say no-way no-how are Axis ever gonna win, Denied!

 

[unmerged(8840)]

Originally posted by Meiji-Tenno


Also, I could weaken American economy by sinking their merchant shipping. Japanese submarines were ordered not to attack merchant ships and only military ships were attacked. But, if I was to have them sunk.. But, still, that wouldn't make much of a difference..



It would make very little difference, the US rate of Merchant building alone would guarantee this, however it is worth noting that the Jap subs were nowhere near the standard of the U-Boats, the USN did fine against U-boats and the USN convoyed its merchants (with the notable exception of that idiot Adm King, who got the message eventually).

I do think that it will be possible for Japan to win, though. If I wasn't to attack Pearl Harbor and just expanded elsewhere and built up my military and economy,



How?, the Japanese economy was already going flat out, what will you give up?

[B} while the Americans will have to get the support of their people. I am guessing that, in the game, they will be able to build up their armies faster or whatever after they have the support of their people? If my military was really strong, and say it is 1943. I already control the area controlled by the Japanese in real life (Maybe even more because the soldiers that went to the Phillipines could have went elsewhere) and then the Americans declare war on me (They are probably not too much more powerful than at Pearl Harbor.

[/B]

By Pearl Harbour the USA had already instituted a major military construction plan, they knew a war was coming with Japan - they just got the date wrong.

Definitely more powerful, but not as powerful as they would've been had I attacked Pearl Harbor. Now, the Americans get the support of their people and attack me. Two million+ Japanese soldiers (Which would've all been extremely well-trained since there wasn't any war with America for them to be sent to the front lines almost immediately), a huge navy (Still 10 carriers too, and probably another because I had another 2 years to build one

In 1943 the USA built 65 CV/CVL/CVE alone - if Japan is building a major force you can expect the US to build one (which is what historically triggered the construction programs), you would also consider it likely that they would embargo Japans oil.

a massive air force (The Japanese had over 2,000 planes in 1941, I would probably have about 3,000 if that number continued to grow, which would, because I wouldn't stop making planes


In 1943 the USA built almost 86,000 a/c - 3000+ Jap planes is no big deal.

and now, all of this force goes against the Americans, which would've probably attacked me when they declared war, and those troops/ships/planes probably would've been killed, and then, if they were losing really bad and I outnumbered them that much with soldiers who were better trained, I think maybe I could try to make peace..

The fact is that you can't out build the USA, the longer you wait, the stronger they are - by not attacking Pearl you give the USA time to train troops in the Phillipines, stock the place with plenty of stores and fighters and turn it into a fortress, one that sits astride the route between the oil that you need and the place it needs to go.

Japan didn't attack the USA because they wanted to, they attacked because they couldn't find any way not to.

I guess I will have to try this strategy when the game comes out.. I think I will be going after Siberia and trying to change the outcome of the Japanese/Soviet War of 1939... I won't attack Pearl Harbor, and we'll see what the Americans do. I will carry out all other plans for attacking the Dutch East Indies and Singapore, though.



Historically it wouldn't help - Japan was forced into war with the US by an oil embargo that was largely the result of the Japanese military being more than a touch atrocity prone (see rape of Nanking, as but one example) - this is a cultural problem that you would not eradicate over 5 years.
So you have an atrocity prone military that sets off to attack white people (racism was widespread at the time), atrocities (mass rape, murder) against white nurses, murdering wounded, butchering civilians en mass - you will be embargoed almost immediately anyway (throw in the fact that it is yet another war of expansion on Japans part and it becomes inevitable).

So you find yourself exactly where Japan was historically, with no incoming fuel, lots of outgoings and facing a nation that can outproduce you in its sleep, all whilst not having enough shipping to maintain your economy and what little you have is vulnerable to submarine attack and all of it coming to roost after the USA has had a few years of prodigious production come on line.

 

[unmerged(4953)]

Seems to me the best option for Japan is actualy to do nothing. Just sit on Manchuria and Korea and even join the allies and decalre war on the Axis...