Slitherine

Assuming you fulfil all Japanese secondary objecitves in the whole campaign, the OoB WWII is different in the following:

1. A third strike is launched against Pearl Harbour, allowing more extensive damage to facilities etc. (Pearl scenario)
2. The fuel dumps at Pearl are destroyed, crippling US efforts for at least 6 months. (Pearl scenario)
3. Corregidor is taken in January 1942 rather than May, allowing troops to be diverted earlier. (Bataan scenario)
4. Port Moresby is taken, giving Japan a base to bomb Brisbane from. (Coral Sea scenario)
5. Japan loses no more than 1 carrier, while the US loses 3. Because of this, the IJN has a major advantage in 1942 and into 1943. (Coral Sea and Midway scenarios)
6. USA's only base in the Central Pacific is captured. (Midway scenario)
7. USA loses a very significant number of marines, and a crucial airfield in the SE Pacific. (Guadalcanal scenario)
8. Various Japanese tanks and other stuff, historically reserved for use in Japan, is sent to the front, such as the Type 3 Chi-Nu tank (Beginning New Caledonia scenario)
9. Germany sends Japan some military technology, such as better tanks and submarines. (Mentioned in New Caledonia scenario)
10. Japan can bomb or capture all island bases in the SE Pacific following conclusion of Operation FS. (New Caledonia scenario)
11. More major US naval assets are destroyed in Australia, including probably 1/2 of the Australian Army. (Brisbane scenario)
12. A widely-recognised 'excellent' general is captured at Brisbane. (Brisbane scenario)
13. The supply route between Australia and the USA is cut off. (New Zealand scenario)
14. D-Day fails (New Zealand scenario)
15. 2 'Armies' and a significant fleet are lost near Christchurch (New Zealand scenario)
16. Germany regains the initiative after defeating D-Day and retakes Moscow, distracting the USSR from the Pacific (Melbourne scenario)

Each of these events has a pretty big impact on the war, so 16 major 'losses' on the USA is bound to be crippling. None of these by themselves is unreasonable either, so there isn't really any glaring problem that I can see with it.

WarHomer wrote:I do agree that it shouldnt be as easy (or as fast) as in the current Pacific installment.

It took the Japanese about 5 months to plan the Pearl-Phillipines-Wake-Hong Kong-Malaya-Guam-etc. offensive. In the game, it takes a year to attack New Caledonia after the Coral Sea (the Japanese plans were to attack around August 1942, not July 1943). Then it is a further year before Brisbane is attacked, which is either reasonable or generous. 2 years to advance from Brisbane to Melbourne is probably a bit too generous, as not every square foot of land would be defended.

- BNC

WarHomer wrote:Yes, Zum Tode Gesiegt, I´ve read quite a bit of WW2 literature also, but this is a WW2 game that allows me to win crucial victories that the Axis didn´t, and therefore I think it´s reasonable to have a chance to alter the outcome.

Historical production output and manpower shouldn´t passively be allowed to alter this. What would be the point in playing, and who can seriously predict what would have happened if Germany had in fact taken Moscow (and Stalin) or London, won the Battle of Britain, wiped out the BEF at Dunkirk, stopped D-day on the beaches and so forth. The same goes for Japan if the US was forced to commit massivily more in the ETO while sustaining loss after loss in the POT?

I do agree that it shouldnt be as easy (or as fast) as in the current Pacific installment.

There are a whole bunch of books and movies which tried to predict what would have happened if history had turned out differently.
The best is probably the book of Philip K. Dick "The Man in the High Castle"

I think there are most of the things, you write about, in this game just don't want to see it.
It is even possible to "realize" the Blitzkrieg.

The real problem facing the Japanese was that they begin the war at their peak strength and afterwards constantly decreased in capability, because their economic production and available resources could not replace inevitable losses. The US meanwhile started at about parity with the Japanese and then constantly increased its strength in all areas. The Japanese were committed to holding vast areas of the Pacific, all of which had to be garrisoned and supplied, and which the Japanese simply never had enough naval, air, infantry units to accomplish. If the US had lost Midway and Guadalcanal (which likely would not have been invaded if Midway had been a defeat), they likely would have garrisoned Hawaii, Fiji, New Zealand and Australia to the max, which would have made any Japanese invasion virtually impossible, and then used some style of island hopping to force the Japanese to support insignificant, widely separated islands. By 1944 the US would have had a major advantage in ships, planes, troops and logistics of all sorts, by 1945 it would have been overwhelming, by 1946 .... The Japanese would have had to split their fleet to cover all this territory, the US could concentrate force to its advantage. You see where this is going. The longer the war lasts, the less chance the Japanese have to win (same could be said for the Germans). So yes, if the US manages to lose every engagement, the Japanese might win. Economic production, resource and manpower availability make this a virtual impossibility. They started a war most senior Japanese generals and admirals knew they would lose. Their advantage lasted barely 6 months. Afterwards they were constantly on the defensive. Hubris is a bad reason to go to war.

While I don't doubt what you said, where is this island hopping strategy going to base itself? The only place close enough to a friendly port for supply is the stuff that the player is attacking (with all of the best equipment the Japanese had access to), and in places like New Caledonia and New Zealand the player is able to defeat these attacks.

I am aware that Pearl Harbour was 'head base' in real life, but when something like the Solomon campaign was going on, there was land based aircraft coming from Australia and/or New Guinea. Wounded were being taken to other nearby friendly bases.

You could argue that the US could make some huge carrier force to provide enough aircraft for such an operation, and to an extent that is true. Except that the Japanese never lose anything valuable because the player is pretty good, while the US consistently loses lots of stuff.

It puts me in the mind of Napoleon defeating everything that was thrown at him, and Waterloo was simply a difficult mission that he made a few misclicks in. (For those interested, I have read or heard somewhere that he could have won the battle if he engaged the enemy at dawn, rather than 1 pm, giving him enough time to beat the British before the Prussians arrived, which would then be defeated a bit later.)

- BNC

BNC, you seem to want to argue that the Japanese are somehow ubercompetent and never suffer any real losses in either men or equipment, plus somehow miraculously replenish their resources, while the US, despite having more manpower, greater economic productivity and resource availability, and more advanced technology, loses battle after battle. So yes, if one miracle after another happens for the Japanese maybe they could win.

But the fact is, the Japanese never won any carrier vs carrier battle even when the odds favored them, not Coral Sea (a draw) or Midway (a debacle). So how do you figure they could win the war? Hawaii (Pearl Harbor) served as the main staging area for most of the northern-avenue island hopping (Gilberts, Marshalls, Marianas, Guam, Palau, Iwo Jima, Okinawa). It's long been argued the southern route really wasn't necessary, but was given resources as a sop to MacArthur's vanity and popularity. Most of the US Navy braintrust thought that a ridiculous waste of limited resources, since the northern route would cut Japanese supply lines to the southern areas causing them to wilt on the vine. A path not taken.

As far as Napoleon defeating everything that was thrown at him, where did you ever get that spurious idea? Ever hear of his Invasion of Russia, 1812, that destroyed the Grande Armee (400,000 dead), or the Battle of Leipzig, Oct 1813, where he lost decisively to Coalition forces and was forced to abandon Germany, or the Peninsular War, 1808-1814, that destroyed his hold over Spain. Napoleon actually had nothing but losses from 1812 on, Waterloo just kept his losing streak intact. And even had he defeated the English at Waterloo, he almost certainly would not have defeated the fresh Prussian troops with his exhausted, vastly depleted army the next day. Or does a miracle happen there too?

bjarmson wrote:BNC, you seem to want to argue that the Japanese are somehow ubercompetent and never suffer any real losses in either men or equipment, plus somehow miraculously replenish their resources, while the US, despite having more manpower, greater economic productivity and resource availability, and more advanced technology, loses battle after battle. So yes, if one miracle after another happens for the Japanese maybe they could win.

The game is set up in such a way that the IJN can win those naval battles, and a skilled player doesn't take too many losses. In those circumstances, Japan has a decent chance of winning, based on the fact that they keep whittling down the US forces as they get built. I am simply arguing within the circumstances that OoB offers.

For instance, the USA has 0 carriers at the end of Midway, and only the North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa classes of BBs (13). This is against about 10 IJN fleet carriers and 10 or so BBs and BCs.
In Guadalcanal, the skilled player takes no major losses (excepting DDs etc.)
In Brisbane, I think there are 2 or 3 BBs that can be sunk, and one or two carriers. At Mar 1944, when the scenario takes place, there were 12 Essex classes in service. -2 takes them to 10, or only equal to the Japanese number in 1941.
In New Zealand, there are 3 BBs that can be sunk, and no carriers. Meanwhile the USA builds another 3 Essexes, which barely makes up the loss at Brisbane.

So, at the conclusion of OoB 1944, the USA has approximately 1/2 the number of BBs as the IJN, and probably about 3/4 the number of CVs. Seeing as the Japanese have an excellent general leading them (the player), this will not be enough for the USA to win. This is in contrast to the Japanese having 6 CVs to the US 12 around the time of the Phillipine Sea, which suggests a US victory.
Note that for these calculations I am omitting the Japanese Taiho class and others built around then (about 8 CVs?) and the US CVLs (20 or 30 ships, each able to carry <50% of a CV). These values roughly cancel out numerically, so I don't consider them important.

bjarmson wrote:But the fact is, the Japanese never won any carrier vs carrier battle even when the odds favored them, not Coral Sea (a draw) or Midway (a debacle).

Whichever admiral or general was leading them isn't as skilled as the person the player represents, hence the IJN being able to win time and again. As you say, the odds favour them so it is not unreasonable that they could conceivably win.

bjarmson wrote:Hawaii (Pearl Harbor) served as the main staging area for most of the northern-avenue island hopping (Gilberts, Marshalls, Marianas, Guam, Palau, Iwo Jima, Okinawa). It's long been argued the southern route really wasn't necessary, but was given resources as a sop to MacArthur's vanity and popularity. Most of the US Navy braintrust thought that a ridiculous waste of limited resources, since the northern route would cut Japanese supply lines to the southern areas causing them to wilt on the vine. A path not taken.

Pearl is fine for basing carriers out of, and for sticking men in when you are drawing up the invasion plan. When you are in the '<6 months before X-Day' period, the men need to be based closer.
- I am pretty sure the Marianas were used as a base for the invasion of Iwo and Okinawa. If anything more than 1000 men in that operation stopped there before hand, it must have been an important base.
- Then, in the planning of Operation Downfall, there was to be an attack on Kyushu Island (in the months before, the men were to be kept on Okinawa), for the purpose of securing a base for the landing in Tokyo bay in March 1946. If the USA has no bases to use as equivalents to Okinawa, the invasion plan is not going to go very well. Especially when your enemy has a slight numerical advantage from above.

I agree that supporting MacArthur as a bit of a waste (I consider the man an idiot, but that is beside the point), but when I play more 'grand strategic' games (Strategic Command and Hearts of Iron etc), I usually end up taking the route of Pearl -> Midway -> Wake -> Iwo and Okinawa -> Japan. The important thing here being that a closer base than a port 4000 km away is needed for a successful invasion. Especially if you know your enemy is this mastermind that has defeated everything he has looked at so far.

bjarmson wrote:As far as Napoleon defeating everything that was thrown at him, where did you ever get that spurious idea? Ever hear of his Invasion of Russia, 1812, that destroyed the Grande Armee (400,000 dead), or the Battle of Leipzig, Oct 1813, where he lost decisively to Coalition forces and was forced to abandon Germany, or the Peninsular War, 1808-1814, that destroyed his hold over Spain. Napoleon actually had nothing but losses from 1812 on, Waterloo just kept his losing streak intact. And even had he defeated the English at Waterloo, he almost certainly would not have defeated the fresh Prussian troops with his exhausted, vastly depleted army the next day. Or does a miracle happen there too?

Napoleon started his career sometime around 1794. Between then and the invasion of Russia, he defeated five coalitions that included virtually all of the great powers of the day (Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia and some minors), conquering much of the continent and defeating nearly everything that went near his army. Even in the invasion of Russia, I don't recall him being defeated in a pitched battle until after the winter retreat. That is nearly 20 years of virtually unbroken success.

In the battle of Leipzig, he began with a 3:2 disadvantage and ended with a 3:1 disadvantage. Even then, the casualty rate favoured him for the majority of the battle. In those circumstances (say, fighting 9 US battleships with only 3 IJN ones, in OoB terms), what is the realistic chance that anyone can win? My numbers above show that the US didn't even have that sort of numerical advantage until about Dec 1944.

As for Waterloo, his army wouldn't have been ruined by one day of fighting. Gettysburg was fought for three days and I'm pretty sure the troops weren't exhausted by the start of day 2. Napoleon had rough parity with Wellington's force by itself, and IIRC a small (6:5) advantage over the Prussians. If he fights each independently, he can win in each case ('divide and conquer') and it doesn't need to be considered 'miraculous'. Maybe a (small) bit of luck, but nothing excessive.

However, I did say that 'it put me in the mind of' Napoleon. If we take that to mean his whole career, as I intended it to, then for the first 90% of it there is an unbroken string of victories. The first 90% of the OoB campaign is everything except the last scenario, which we can take to represent Leipzig and Waterloo in Napoleon's case. Once I did get my entire army destroyed in the Melbourne map, so I think that is a fair point to make.

In short, my point is the following: I do not state that in the historical situation of Japan post-Midway that the Japanese could have won the conflict in any way that let them keep their 'empire'. However, in the case of Order of Battle's missions that allow the Japanese to win battles that they could reasonably have won in mid-1942, combined with the skilled generalship (that being the player automatically bestows you with), and following a reasonable course of events such as the implementation of Operation FS, then Japan could have won the war "and control of the Western Pacific for her Empire".

- BNC

Again I don't know where you're getting your numbers at. I urge you to check out the Imperial Japanese Navy Page (http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm), which has a wealth of information about all aspects of the Japanese Navy. The Japanese would have had only 6 fleet carriers till well into 44 (given no losses anywhere), meanwhile the US is building Essex-class carriers at the rate of 6/7 a year starting in 43. Essex-class are tougher (no Essex class was lost in battle), carry more, and better, planes, are technologically more advanced, and have much better damage-control operations than any Japanese carrier. Your remark that the US 'only' had the South Dakota, North Dakota, and Iowa classes of battleships is a bit silly. These 10 were all fully modern battleships, built between 1937-44, featuring 16 inch guns (radar controlled) and all the most modern equipment available. Most navel historians consider the Iowa class (4 were built ) the best battleships ever built (with the South Dakota class, 4 built, being almost as good), they were also fully capable of maintaining flank speeds (32 knots) and thus could accompany carrier fleets without slowing them. All the Japanese battleships except the Yamato and Musashi were upgraded WWI era battleships with many of the limitations inherent in 25 year old ship designs. At the end of WWII the US Navy was bigger than every other navy in the world combined.

So while you can win OoB as the Japanese, it's my contention that the developers have contrived their scenarios so that is possible, rather than permit historical realities to get in the way. I detest all the Pacific hypothetical scenarios (including the US one) because they are all disconnected from any sense of reality. They just don't reflect what probably would have happen if the Japanese had won at Midway, which WAS a real possibility. If the Japanese had totally defeated the US carrier fleet, it's almost certain Guadalcanal would never had been contested since they didn't have the carriers to support an invasion. The US would have built up its fleet so that by mid-43 they have a slight advantage, garrisoned Australia and New Zealand (in 42-43 the US out built the Japanese in planes about 150,000 to 26,000). and started planning a northern island hopping strategy. Hypothetical scenarios built around these facts might have been interesting, but ....

As far as Napoleon, you can't absorb a 40/50% casualty rate one day and engage a fresh army in battle the next. That's why in the Napoleonic era there were long intervals between battles. The battle of Gettysburg is not comparable as Lee used fresh units to assault with each day (none of which was capable of fighting in the next days battle). Napoleon used most of his reserve (even the vaunted Imperial Guard) against the Brits, so facing a fresh Prussian army with exhausted troops (which would have outnumbered his by more than 2-1) could only have been a total debacle. As far as Napoleon's unbroken sting of victories, it only matters who wins the war, not who has an impressive win streak. Hitler's armies seemed unbeatable until the defeat at Moscow in 41/42, Stalingrad only assured this was inevitable. Midway assured Japan's ultimate defeat, but a US loss would have been only a temporary set back.

It seems to me that BiteNibbleChomp talked about the game (Rising Sun DLC) but not about reality.

In 1944 in the Philippines landing operations , there were approximately 35 large (fleet) and small (escort) US Navy aircraft carriers.
The Americans built during the war: 17 Essex-class carriers, 9 Independence-class carriers, 130 small escort carriers (many of them were rebuilt ships of other types).
The difference in quality was colossal. As cavemen fighting with medieval knights.

kondi, the difference in both quantity and quality was overwhelming. I think this short movie of US planes in flyby over the surrender ceremonies in Tokyo Bay sort of sums up how the US won the war. You've never see so many planes at one time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRHpeAOo2p4

kondi754 wrote:It seems to me that BiteNibbleChomp talked about the game (Rising Sun DLC) but not about reality.

I was starting with the real numbers, then applying what happens in the game to see what can happen to them. The result being that the IJN is able to maintain parity long enough to set itself up in Australia and New Zealand.

I don't think that either bjarmson or I is ever going to convince the other, so I'll just leave this as what it is. Ultimately it is a game, and no one is forcing you to play it.

- BNC