Skanvak

Manpower limit is a real problem for total war. Germany was using ukrainian soldiers in its rank at the end of the war because there was not enough german left. The force pool limit is a simple system. A more complete system will have unit cost both MPP and Manpower Point ( err MPP too). I don't know if going to this level of complexity is in line with SC2 or not.

Edwin, I agree with all your points. Points 1 and 5 (and JJ answers) illustrate the risk of throwing our crimes at each others... (Point 2 is correct, Japan begin to modernize at a very fast pace just 70 years before the war. So arguably their view of warfare would not have change dramatically over 1 or 2 generation).

Liam, at least we seem to reach a sastisactory agreement on Japanese gaols. I am only advocating that the Japanese crime were only warcrimes of less (but not minor) importance than the Germany's warcrimes and crime against humanity which was funded on an ideology of hatred (and murder in mass its own people). ((look back at the reason I reacted in first place)) I am not covering anything up (but if we go to harshness of occupation, we should look at our past first so it will not be outstanding enough, even though you're right)

:cool: Yes, indeed. The last idea is very neat too.

Kelly Indeed, that's what I mean by outstandings. Rambo, I agree on German bahaviour (my grand father finished the war in a concentration camp for having escaped from a POW camp). though Germany still trated POW correctly as long as they did not try to evade. The reasons I don't like the POW issue is that the Russians treated badly the POW, even liberated POW (after being liberated by the Russians, my grand father escaped from the Russian who were taking them to the east). Same reasons for Nanking, as the Russians behave very badly when they took Berlin (thousands of rapes). I did not mean that Japan did not made those crimes either (the POW ratio is in line with my own source). On the other hand there are nothing like the Comfort women among the allies. That is, Kelly, I am more comparing Japan to Germany than Western allies (I think that wasn't clear and I made it not clearer lately).

I like those idea Kelly. Thought boats does not require that much manpower to build. The JJ's force pool limit is a good idea, it should any way goes to the editor if it does not goes in the game. The limit should be adjustable by date too. on point 3 I agree (US end the war with half the world GNP). I would add too an option to have an MPP increase and some reinforcement after September 1945 (once Japan is defeated, there is no need for the US to have their economy cut in half).

Actually, I limit myself to what accounted as warcrime. Because all army, even nowdays, have rogues soldiers that rape and plunder. We will never end if one frame an army for any rogue soldier crimes. Because the accusation will go both way very quickly. Even on warcrimes, some English officers testified in defence of German Officers on the ground that they did the same things. So it is important to focus on what is outstanding.

For the Japanese prb, I don't think so. If you accept the survivor report to be true (which I do), the Japanese army would not have needed a lot more than 200,000 sex slaves (with your numbers, Liam, they will have nearly 1 women for each soldeirs which would have been overtly costly and uneeded). Even with that number that stay the greatest crime of Japan.

Liam, Yes, Belgium was a technical ally of France at the time. 2 points : the Maginot line was not finished in order to guarantee Belgium that we will try to protect it ; the allied plan we belgium agreement was to have the Anglo-French army entered the country once German begin the attack. those plan have been discussed before the war and actually the french army did enter Belgium by error once without triggering a war (but upset the Belgium governemnt). On the other hand LC seem to have tried to stay neutral like in WWI. The Belgium gambit should work like the greek gambit of WWI (that actually took place). The neutrals army should simply disappeared and no plunder taken. But it should dramatically affect US entry IMO.

Civil war is a good game. There is an e-mail version that is very good. do you know it?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/AMH/AMH-23.html For an american military historian point of view on Japan Strategy and goals in the war. http://serveur.ichrdd.ca/francais/commdoc/publications/femmes/tokyoFemmesReconfort.html On confort women (they give a number and I guess you will not contest it once you see the source).

No the 3rd Reich never used chemical weapons on the battlefield because of Hitler experience in WWI. The 3rd Reich thought their were not "warrior weapons" or something like that. The Japanese and british (to a lesser extend and in retaliate to the Japanese doing so) used chemical weapon on the pacific theaters. Kelly, speculating on what Hitler will or will not have done evenwith knowledge of the future is well just risky speculation. Just reading the in troduction to "Mein kampft" make you reallize that he might just have done the same. [ March 30, 2004, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Skanvak ]

What do you think of adding a manpower limit and/or industrial building limit. Because in the end of the game, I experienced germany buiding a fleet greater than the british fleet in 2-3 turn from scrap (after defeating the USSR). Also in one game I know they consider that at some point the economy of a nation at war will wear out (it depend of the nation's economy). I don't know if that can apply to a germany still fighting in 1946? That could provide too for limiting some of the huge income at the end of the war.

On the Atomic Bomb I don't see why TL5 should be a preriquisite as France was researching the Bomb at the begining of the war. I've got some confirmation on this and the fact that about 20L of heavy water was transferred to England in a recent biography on Einstein. Beside I see another reason why not. A final technology should never be a preriquisite because they don't represent ultimate limit but much more what we think realistic to acheive as advance in the time frame of the war. The final level should represent a somewhat better acheivement that what was acheive in reality and therefore could not be a prerequisite IMO.

I think that feldtrompeter idea is not bad. This way the soft att/def will improve without having the tech tree expanding. Beside artillery, tank gun, AC gun, AA gun were derived from closed technology. But the effect on combat is more significant for tank battle than for infantry battle. which made advance in soft att/def slower than AC att/def rational. ("The more human factor, the less technology will impact battle result").

I globally agree with the idea that the enemy of the Japanese were tough too. I should say thought that the Japanese army did have a kind of samurai spirit of no surrender. For ex : from japanese sources, prisonner of war who returned from china were suggested to commit suicide because they have dishonored their family (after the end of the war). But I think that is not the kind of western fanatism we know. It was more a social pressure to fight to the death because not doing so was a (Great) shame for the family and the country. 70 years before the war it was commonly accepted (and expected) that defeated generals and soldiers should commit suicide. On Russia on the other hand I will disagree. They were as good warrior as the others, but their fanatism came greatly from the political commmisar. Russian soldiers surrendered as any other troops. The German took a huge number of prisonners. The Russian economy was weak too. It was the US lend lease that save russia. Until Stalingrad Stalin were ready to negociate peace with Hitler (except his removal of power). Part of the huge number of death resulted from the disorganization of russian agricultral sector after Stalin's reforms and it was an economic decision to let starve the common citizen to feed the army. Russains fought well but mainly because they had no other choice left. On a military point of view their resistance was good but it is the intervention of the US that break the Axis back (for the reason you stated). To quote an article "The german always withdrawned unit from the eastern front to send them to the western one, never the other way round" (Vae Victis don't remind the issue).

About research and medium tank, one of my friend I played with was surprised by the instantaneous up-grade of all unit when you get the technology. A simple way to approach the med/heavy tank prb could be to have choice of tech level to build (lower level are cheaper) and to actualy have to pay for upgrading a unit (example during a reinforcement). In this way one will have several different unit fielded on the map. On the supply system, I agree with Freindly Fie taht a one hex is enough to supply a unit. But I think that there aren't enough supply sources on the map. For example the Ggreek's unit start out of supply. How could they not be in supply in their own country. I think that the urban density in western europe should be higher. It is Russia that is lowly urbanised with widely appart cities. But For hex, Englnad should have more city. For landing operation, too the number of port is not enough. In the debarquement of normandy, in addition of the artificial port, their main objectives was cherbourg which was a big enough port for their need not Brest that was too far. On pont 7 I totally agree. The lend lease should be left to the apprecaition of the western allied and depend of the control of a way to brought it to Russia.

Buddy Lee, Do you have references about the issue you raised? (not internet one, but books or publication).

Rambo, I understand that and somewhat agree. So why not put it like this in the first place? (If you need an explanation on what was shocking, e-mail me).

I second edwin on this point. The allied should be able to set-up the minor units.

Liam, Kamikaze were not fanatical, it was a strategy devised by the military leadership. Actually the leadership was fanatical, as a last time coup try to prevent the Emperor and part of the leaderships from surrendering prove it. I believe that the population was resigned to their death rather than fanitacal. About the Kamikaze, a recent article demonstrate that they were socialy compelled to volunteer. The evidencs referred in the articles tend to show that most kamikaze at a last moment wish to avoid death, and most were not really aiming at the carrier. Rambo, re-read your first paragraph, I can't comment it. Even thought I think I am on the same ligne as Kelly's on the A-Bomb's topic. [ March 25, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Skanvak ]

The lowest (thought totally fancy) is about 40 000. The one I stick with is the one of the Tokyo Tribunal (a US thing) that is 200 000 to 260 000 deads. The chinese numbers are propaganda. I believe that an involuntary slaughter (the soldiers where looking for hidden chinese soldiers) to be as dramatic as the voluntary interment of your own local population (I refferred to the interment camp for Japanese immigrants). That an opinion of course; The point is that the rape of Nanking was not a planned operation and for the rapes, I don't think the russian were condamned for the rapes in Berlin (agreed it was not the US, but of the same scale). The Japanese did made more warcrimes than the US, but not more dramatics one (except the confort women) and definetly not comparable with the one the nazis made. I have react to the violence of Rambo statement about Japan. I don't say that Japan is an innocent victim, they chose their course of action. [ March 24, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Skanvak ]

I am NOT Japanese, re-read my post. Japan was part of my courses at university and it was the subject of my graduating paper. Looked like it needed to be clarified.

You confused "victims of war" with "victims of war-crimes". And the expcept for the nankings massacre (about 200,000 people according to the tokyo trials) all the other crimes did not involved a lot of victims if you compare them to WWII standard of NAZI genocide (about 10 millions in camps ; by Jersey reckonings it should be well over 30 millions), of course! Those facts are corrects, the other are irrelevant : For nanking International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000 Center for Research and Documentation on Japan's War Responsibility [http://www.jca.apc.org/JWRC/exhibit/Index.HTM] Nanjing Massacre: 155,337 dead bodies (a bit underrated, except if you exclude the chinese soldiers in hidings) Chinese official estimate: >300,000 (of course wrong) Japanese scholars:100-200,000 (a bit underrated) Datong Coal Mine, China: 60,000 slave laborers killed Forced labor camps in Japan: 6,830 imported workers died Singapore: 5,000 Chinese k -- another estimate: 50,000-60,000 k. Burma-Siam RR: 12,400 POWs + 42,000 Asian wkrs Curry, Are you kidding me???????????????????????? During research when I was at university I made on the war crime of Japan, it appears that most of them are one time event (like the bayonet stuff and the beheading). The Nanking disaster was a mess (that led to another one) that was considered unacceptable by the Japanese high command. I am of course well aware of the japanese attempt to cover up such things. I don't excuse the war crimes but they are not incomparable with the ones the US commited (the concetration camps), so no need to hammer Japan. As for the prisonner some one already stated why japanese act like they did. Kelly Yes, I studied Japan, and I don't beleive the use of A-Bomb unjustified (ie I think it was justisfied). I don't see why knowing people well will make me less able to have a correct judgement than people that don't. Rambo, I try to make a point that the Japanese were figthing a traditional power struggle in Asia because the US challenged them, they act in what they beleived (wrongly) their best interest and that's not a crime. Compare it to the Nazis that attacked every thing around them for the sake of making Hilter's War, out of an hideous ideology, which is a crime and led to crime against humanity. to all I try to have a balanced point of view. Making war is not a crime, and that is all what Japan did ; because it was against us does not make it a crime either. [ March 24, 2004, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Skanvak ]

That's why the cost of each A-bomb used should be high (250 any better offer). Now if we consider that any ressources based economy we could have uranium ressources and heavy water factory (the allied bombed some heavy water convoies)... But as the game stand, Germany can build a 100 armies which will probably accounted for more people that the german population of the time, so I don't see any need to limit building of A-bomb except with cost, unless SC2 as force pool limits liks CoS:future or Wif.