Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AZGungHo

  1. It's all taken care of now - thanks for your help!
  2. Hi, For some reason unknown to me, I can't seem to get registered to download scenarios. I reset my password, and am signed in here, but everytime I try and sign in there, I'm told I"m using the incorrect password. I just reset it, how can that be? Do I need to wait a while or what?
  3. I just finished my first game using the new patch - I LOVED IT!! I played as the Allies and won a Decisive Victory against the AI on October 7th, 1945. The Japanese were more historical in their actions, although I still think they are way to strong in CBI theater. Still China managed to hang on to the end, I never did liberate Burma, but did take Japan (with only 1 Atom Bomb being dropped) Soul. The Russian end of things seems more historical to me also, but again I think the Russkies ought to have more troops to start with. Anyway - well done! I had a blast playing this! And in the end that's what it's all about isn't it?
  4. You are both correct, the invasion of the southern Island of Japan was Operation Olympic, and the invasion of the main island, near Tokyo, was Operation Coronet. My Dad was slated for the invasion also, which is why I guess you could say I'm a product of the Atomic Bomb, since it's doubtful he would have survived, he didn't expect too that's for sure.
  5. I like Colin's idea, sounds reasonable given how the Japanese were able to construct defenses. It would motivate the Japanese player to get his troops to the outer islands fast - and so might change up some common game strategies.
  6. Slow would be fine. In fact that would give the US player more incentive to purchase more for more places. If they could do that, build harbors where none are (slooooowly) and build airfields too ( a little less slowly!) I think that would give the game a lot more flavor!
  7. I agree with Happycat. I talked about this in another thread, the really important thing is that game FEELS realistic to the player, not that every little thing is realistic. It's the old John Hill school of design, which I think is the reality of wargaming. No game can be completely realistic, but they can have enough realism and reproduce the psychology and feeling of the era to pull you into the game. If that's done, then you've a winner on your hands!
  8. I think that cool has a good idea here. During the war the US did a lot of upgrading to ports, etc. Here's something that you could perhaps allow the engineers to do? That would give the US player a good reason to purchase them.
  9. I'm glad you see Kuni - cause I'm still lost!! Is this a scenario available at Buntaland? Or...?
  10. Remember all the aircrews who's lives were saved by our holding Iwo. I'm not sure exactly how your proposal would work Lambcord. You mean if Japan holds certain islands or groups of them their morale is higher thus they are less likely to surrender than if they don't? I like that. It would give us gamers a reason to go for those islands. Some might complain that it's a little "gamey" but if it reproduces the psychology or the circumstances of that day, then I think its a good thing.
  11. I must disagree with you Rambo. One reason we took all those islands was to make it a short war, because the US leaders knew the country would quickly grow restless with a long one. They did then, and as we've seen in Iraq, the USA just doesn't want to be involved in any conflicts that are very long. Another fact overlooked here is that there were howls of protest in the US over the cost of taking those islands. Tarawa, Iwo, Okinawa, Peleiu, etc. were public relations disasters! Only the flag raising photo saved Iwo in the minds of the public. The leaders were faced with a problem they couldn't solve. They could wage a quick war - which they did - or they could wage a war which cost very little in blood, but that would have taken years! There might still be islands out there with Japanese holding out on them if we hadn't taken them! Also from a humanitarian point of view, what about the native tribes on those islands? Was it a moral obligation for the Allies to liberate them as soon as possible from the terrible treatment they received from the Japanese? I agree that couldn't and shouldn't have been the chief deciding factor in war planning, but it had to factor into them. The fact that we knew about the concentration camps for years and did nothing about it (ie. bomb the rail lines leading into them, etc.) has long been rightly held against us. Just a few thoughts!
  12. I think the value of the smaller islands to act as airfields, supply bases - and for the US - medical facilities closer to the battlefield, is being vastly underrated here. I do agree that some of what happened in the pacific was at least in part politically motivated but I don't think that all or even most of it was political. If you look how conservative the US tended to be in it's war fighting, it helps you to understand why they wanted each of those island chains. Otherwise they MIGHT have been used by the Japanese as bases for subs, planes, etc. I agree that wasn't very likely from late '43 on, but that was the approach nearly all commanders used. Look at the Allies in Europe, they passed up great chances for some amphib operations because the landing zones couldn't be covered by land based air power, etc. The Japanese certainly believed those islands were vital to their protection, which is why after the fall of Saipan the leadership knew the jig was up, but fought on anyway. You might be right that there's no intrinsic value to the islands, but in the minds of the commanders of that time, there WAS value. To ignore that is a MAJOR departure from history, and renders the game far less an accurate reflection of history and the historical mindset of the men in charge of the war.
  13. Uh, I'm afraid you left out Okinawa. The first Marine division was part of that brutal battle too.
  14. I know for the invasion of Okinawa many Marines started their voyage at Guadalcanal! All the pacific invasions had much longer to go than the ones in Europe.
  15. Looks like the Japanese are going for broke in Burma alright! And landing in Australia! Great game and great AAR! Keep it up!
  16. This discussion reminds me of the old realism debates way back in my board gaming days. I remember lots of people were desperately trying to get every detail in a game right. Then John Hill came along with his philosophy of making the game "feel" right, even if the actual mechanics of the game weren't realistic. Blashy is right, but so is Lampcord. It doesn't FEEL or seem right to be able to conquer Iwo or any island help by Japanese troops with just airpower alone. I know that's a tactical or operational issue and this is a strategic game. But that doesn't change how the experience feels to the player. To me this is a case where some attention at least needs to be paid to how the experience feels to the player, to make sure the over all impact of the game leaves the player with the sense that he's experienced something strongly akin to the actual event. Or, I could be wrong!! :-)
  17. Will do Hubert - when I can I'll try and recreate it. For now my brave troops fight on without him - much to the delight of the entire United States Marine Corps!! :-)
  18. Hi Hubert, Unfortunately I didn't save that turn and it's been long past time. I can send you what I have now, but doubt it would help. Let me know if you want it. Presently it's early 1043
  19. In my current game as the Allies I tried something different. I pulled the US Corp out of the Philippines in what turned out to be a vain attempt to save them. The Japanese sunk them on their run to Australia. But I just realized that MacAurther hasn't shown up in Australia yet either, and it's way past time! Is this a bug or a result of my pulling the troops out? Like he went down with the ship?
  20. Hey Big Dog, I know how you feel, frustrating isn't it? But hang in there, you'll get it back and a whole lot more too!
  21. Whoa! That hasn't happened to me yet, but it needs to be fixed for sure!
  22. The imbalance of forces is pretty much the nature of the beast. From what I can see the design actually cuts back the US quite a bit from what happened historically, and yet the Allies still end up dominating Japan. Given everyone knew Japan couldn't actually defeat the US, only hope they'd quit after suffering casualties, I think Z does a pretty good job making things as balanced as possible.
  23. No one's crying about anything, just pointing out that for some of us the AI does a pretty good job of keeping us busy. After all, not everyone can be a legend!
  24. Hey Willy, I'm with you brother! I did well with the Chinese on my first game, but everything fell apart on the second try (I'm still involved in game #2). The AI has it's problems, but as far as I'm concerned it's giving me a good game - and that at the default setting! Heck, It's late 44 and I just repelled yet another invasion of India! Sheesh! Looking forward to learning from my betters here.
  • Create New...