SeaMonkey

OK, now create a vision where there could be parity between the two combatants. Think about a diplomatic condition of where one side could accept certain viewpoints of the other before the war advanced to the degree of barbarism we are all familiar with.. Now also bring up a situation where through occupation and conquest, some diplomatic, some war based or threatened that could lead to an equity of resources. Keep in mind this is for the global scale, we are moving beyond PTO here, this is for the entire planet, 1936 to 1948 for instance. Can you envision a set of circumstances based on the above definitions that might lead to a game conclusion of Axis victory without the fantasy of USA invasion? Do you see the environment of a stand off where there is an Eastern Hemisphere dominated by the Axis offsetting the Western Hemisphere of Allied influence? Could that conclusion be considered ...perhaps... a marginal Axis victory?

Man...I knew you guys were getting it. One of the first pop-ups critical for decision making would be as Japan, "Do you wish to prosecute a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor?". Think about that for a moment for without the mistake of a surprise attack do you think the USA may have been a bit more inclined to accept a less than unconditional surrender from Japan? Remember historically it was not supposed to be a sneak attack. Now further ... think about other decisions that were critical, like Germany's genocidal tendencies against USSR, that moved the entire Allied camp into that unconditional surrender ultimatum. Could it have been different? WW1 was concluded with a conditional armistice.

That's exactly it A234, they bit off more than they could chew. See, Germany didn't really need to DoW the USSR, Stalin could be intimidated. Think about the diplomatic clout Hitler would have had if UK had surrendered or borne a successful invasion. What a monumental mistake Hitler made DoWing USA after Pearl Harbor. The Germans could have very well taken advantage of the isolationist view that the USA citizenry had at the time. Does anyone doubt that with Germany's full focus on taking out the UK that they could not at least have achieved an armistice? Now FDR and Churchill are another matter....for shrewd diplomacy, they really make things interesting, ideolists always do!

Forget it...lost the second one too, ....maybe another time????

test post......as I just lost the one defining "Axis Marginal Victory"

yes i do......., but it will be more applicable to the global SC edition. As I'm sure there will be much feedback from the community, it will probably need its own thread. I have a basic outline, but understand that as it unfolds it can lead to a complete deviation of what happened historically. Basically it will still be Allies vs Axis with the technological limitations of the era. Blashy, a war and its subsequent end is by no means simple. On the optimistic side, it will be handled by the game engine with only the players needing to answer some decision making questions when the "set of conditions" activate them. The "set" will have a wide variation of parameters tracked by the game revolving around diplomatic leanings and MPP allocations for each contestant. The variation is important to impart an environment of the unknown as the original participants experienced. True to repetition though, players will eventually be able to predict a subtle motion to a conclusion as their strategies are tested. Still it will be difficult to discern the details needed to produce the different layers of victory for each side.

I believe there is but one path to define an actual Axis win and that would be through a protracted course of occupation and negotiation, all within a certain time limit or in conjunction with evolving timelines. To be relatively accurate and viable, historically, and to satisfy game requirements, a variable set of economic and diplomatic conditions could be designed to produce an element or different levels of victory for both belligerents. It wouldn't necessarily be known to either players but could encompass a set of conditions based on certain countries' readiness(diplomatically) to join an alliance and an accumulation of resource wealth due to conquest. Now the discussion should revolve around the "set" that defines those conditions and how they should evolve into a global scenario, as it happened, loosely based upon historical reality.

I'll I add to the last statement, "Depending on which scenario you play".

Not at supply 5, only the leader himself is at 5. The rest of his group's supply is dependent on the AP cost of the tiles inbetween and the ones they occupy.

Thank you Rocko! No human in "their right mind" wants to go to war but would rather negotiate bloodlessly to get what they think they need. Many times the brinksmanship gets rather heated and threats are made, not really meaning to be carried out, but to emphasize a position in hopes the other side "blinks" first. I'm sure we all here of played a little poker....bluffing is part of the game. Its to bad when your bluff is called because of your "misjudgement" of the others intentions.

Without an available resource(port/city) the leader's max supply is 5. For every AP cost of tile the unit is in distance from the leader, the subsequent supply of the unit is reduced. So adjacent clear tile to leader, yields 4 supply to occupying unit, two clear tiles away(counting the tile the unit is occupying)=3, 2 clear(1AP/each)+one swamp(2AP) 3 total/4 AP cost = 1 supply, etc. Count from the Leader to the unit, counting the tile the unit is occupying. Always start the count from the supply source, but do not include the tile the source occupies.

VC ....simply...no vanquish = no port.

Although it is certainly a factor my dear Blashy, the most prominent contribution to war is (IMO) misjudgement.

VC if you want an enemy port for supply you must first vanquish all his forces from any adjacent tiles and then land one of your own amphibs. The port will then change colors(the efficiency rating) and it will become yours to use. Remember, this is a prime time for your opponent to launch strategic attacks on the port and accompanying city(if be there) to reduce your supply. So...make sure you have plenty of support forces available for dealing with the enemy counterattacks or your shore forces are toast.

scotts, just google "unsinkable aircraft carrier". The rest I won't touch with a ten foot pole!

So what do you propose for motorized infantry SC units(5/4 APs)? You do know that they depend upon the same things that the armored(Tank) units do to move. I propose that TAC have the ability to immobilize SC Tank units, perhaps reducing their supply(or disarray/disorientation of the command structure) so that they cannot move(and attack) a full AP(min. of 1 AP) and further the possibility to suffer a strength hit, but not as predominant as current WaW. Sort of like the way Bombers/Capital ships hit units in resources. Again the same application would be suitable for infantry units although they may not have as great of AP reduction, relying more on their animal transporting assets(min of 2 for Corps/1 for Armies).

Take it easy scotts!!! No slight intended. In this day and age I find it behooves me to examine every possible perception. You just never know how people will interpret things, I mean Pacific islands were known as unsinkable aircraft carriers. I sometimes forget that it is difficult to discern on a forum the tone in ones comment, it is after all...."just words"..."no speeches".(a pun on Obama) My apologies.

I can agree with all you have presented, two. A couple of clarifications on my part may be appropriate. Racism is nothing but a form of prejudice, my catch all definition, a preconceived unjustified opininon, usually negative and we all are susceptible from one time to another. Bigotry, idolatry, obsession, etc. , there are so many forms that tag along behind Big Brother(prejudice). Racism was the term used so liberally from my studies of that era, seemed to endear a nostalgic essence to this discussion as the ugly misconceptions of one society for another(Japanese and American). Detestable....yeah I thought about that for one fleeting moment..but in my context, I was comparison shopping with the past history of warfare versus this present scent(not too aromatic), the 20th century as well as the 21st, where civilians(esp. women & children) weren't so victimized. But if you travel far enough back it was that way before, not on the modern scale perhaps, but none the less as barbaric. I was comparing to a time of a code of conduct, sometimes refered to as a degree of chivalry(Geneva Convention), a mutual respect of killing, of uncrossed boundaries between combatants..what a paradox ehhh. Believe me..did I know way intend to draw any ill feelings to the Americans for their use of any means necessary....it is as you alluded to...we'll capture the moral high ground again later.... there's a job to be done! As there is today that sanctimonious pursuit of idealogy, unjustifiably imposing itself upon the innocent, especially when man is without clarity, and masquerades in many forms....but we know it well.... In the words of Church Lady..."Could it be Evil"?:mad:

I don't see any problem with an historical conclusion, just adjust the victory conditions accordingly for an even playing field. Example: Satisfying the historical results designates a tie. Perhaps program a couple of what if/alternative battle plans for each sides choice with a different set of victory conditions. Neither knows the others choice.

No doubt you contribute viable points t2. I think the establishment of an American "attitude" with regards to the Japanese interpretation of the Bushido code started a bit earlier than just the Okinawa incidences. Saipan was, IIRC, one of the first displays of massed civilian suicides and of course in breeching this outer perimeter of Imperial defence(Marianas) insighted greater ferocity of defence and noncombatant interactions. So I'm saying, coupled with the somewhat racist orientation of Americans towards Asians in that period, subscribing to the additional propaganda of wartime, it was a slow unveiling of a barbaric cataclysmic conclusion. I understand why it was done but that does not remove the detestable degree that war had progressed to.

Mightily insightful arado!

Uhh tt...when can you start? Actually I was looking for a simplier answer and how it might be modelled by PTO. Obviously "success" is a matter of perspective, just as it seems the "truth" is nowadays. Kurita was tasked with a 90 minute bombardment, but cut it short by 15 minutes because of his hesitant use of the 2 BBs in such a capacity, especially in restricted waters consistent with Etajima indoctrination. Actually there are many accounts where naval vessels' barrages of Pacific islands were particularly effective, but met with intermittent success. Since t2 brought up some very good points about bombardment effects on a dug-in enemy defender, it reiterates my point of using an engineer to build improvements laid out in "The 1st House Rule" thread. Some of the shore defenders' eye-witness acoounts of Kurita's foray of Guadalcanal leads me to conclude the tactic, in conjunction with a shore side attack(amphib & otherwise), very well could have caused a major re-evaluation by the USA in reference to their present position. Perhaps it would have taken numerous similarly prosecuted night actions to achieve the desired effect but my conclusion was in this instance it was a successful Japanese strategy. Could be that PTO will provide us with a simulation accurate enough to test the theory. And...thanks to thetwo for his continuous contribution to keep the forum interesting...glad you found SC.

Do you think that the use of suicidal tactics by the Japanese might have led to the decision to use the A-bomb? And "if so" then do you concur they brought it upon themselves?

Moonslayer...kudos...why did it fail? What conditions would have been considered a success? Bill??? I need two chemists for my lab, any thought provoking answers will be considered as passing the first interview and you'll be allowed to apply for the positions.

Nice try scotts, but no cigar. This was not a surface engagement unless you include the island of Guadalcanal as a warship, but no doubt there was an exchange of large caliber weapons.