Victory conditions

[jon_j_rambo]

Okay, how do you win the game as the Japs? Point system? Time survival?

[Blashy]

I am not sure how to answer that because my NDA so I will leave that up to Hubert.

[Retributar]

One or two victory condition's for Japan might be perhap's is for instance...

The Conquest of the Hawaiin-Island's [>Pearl-Harbour] and, or even somewhere in the game,...the destruction of the U.S. Pacific-Fleet that the Japanese had hoped to achieve during the attack on 'Midway!'.

[Retributar]

Only a part of my original message was retained in my previous reply?...

Anyway...to complete my original statement...

Victory Condition's might be...

#1. Conquest of the Hawaiin Islands_'Pearl-Harbour'.

#2. Destruction of the American Fleet ...Whenever During The Game!. EG:...'Midway' was a possible situation for this event. The Destruction Of The Fleet Would Then Have Opened Up The Potential Situation For The Invasion Of the West-Coast [Pacific] Shore Line!.

[Blashy]

Invasion of the US mainland. That is just out of this world, it was simply impossible. USA could easily have known it was coming without a major fleet at sea. USA had WAY too much manpower at home to resist. Japan had manpower issues from the get go, imagine the problems they would have faced if they had taken a messily 50 000 troops for USA.

Japan landing on North American shores would have ended up being Dieppe on a bigger scale.

I have to say that I fine the victory conditions just right, they are realistic. I actually prefer them to ETO, I find the idea that Germany could have DEFEATED USA preposterous, best bet is hang on until end of game and hold strategic elements, but outright win should not be possible, USA was simply too much of a production juggernaut often doubling Germany in many areas.

PTO I find has what I was looking for in ETO in terms of victory conditions.

[Battleboy]

I have to disagree with Blashy a little here, I don't think it would have been a Dieppe. This could depend on when and how they hit the US, the earlyer they landed the more ground they would have been able to take, remember we would have been fighting on 2 fronts and one of those would have been the US. I think at first there would have been a lot of panic so they would have made some inroads but we would have pulled ourselves together and drove them back into the Ocean. We got a little lucky with Midway even with breaking the code we could have still lost that battle. If those carriers were not rearming when we hit them they could have still had 3 carriers and they would have had a better chance to find our carriers and destroy them. Of course if they had just landed on Hawaii it would have been a long, long war for the US.

[Blashy]

There is ZERO chance they could have arrived by surprise and this alone gives USA time to prepare and they already had plenty of troops and equipment in USA. You simply need to look at what USA hand on land on the west coast and it was huge. I mean Dieppe in the terms that it would have been a disaster, they might have resisted a week or so but in the end it would have been total loss for Japan.

[Bill101]

The one thing in Japan's favour if they had landed in the USA was the fear their arrival would have caused. This was a big factor in their conquests of Malaya and Burma (where they were outnumbered by the defenders) and it would have certainly helped them here.

However, apart from all the US weaponry, economic potential, manpower, etc, I think that the biggest issue the Japanese would have faced was space. Part of this is the sheer distance they would have had to travel to get to the west coast, but also because the USA is a massive country. The numbers the Japanese would have been able to arrive with would probably have been tiny in comparison with the defender's potential, so even if they managed to secure a few cities, the chances of them being able to move on and take some more are very remote.

I think it may have lasted a little while, it would have made for some very interesting books/films/wargames, but there's no doubting the end result. Perhaps the National Guard would have been still rounding up some Japanese soldiers in remote areas on the west coast in the late 1940s?

[Battleboy]

We had a good idea they were attacking Hawaii, but what if they were going to hit the US direct and were using Hawaii as a ruse? If they found or Carrier force and destroyed it we would have been in the s%^$#@ for a while they could have destroyed the Battleships which possed no real threat on the way back. Remember Hawaii wasn't a supprise to everyone it was just a supprise to the commanders that needed to know.

[arado234]

Blashy is right.It would have been a total disaster for Japan to invade America.Even if the Amis. lost all three carriers at Midway to Japans none it wouldnt have mattered.America built 141 Carriers(this inlcudes the smaller escort models)Japans total was 16(from the book:WW2 the encyclopedia of facts and figures by John Ellis)The Amis.built 65 Carriers in 1943 alone compared to Japans 4.

Their best bet would have been to take Hawaii and hope America gets tired of war(no chance of that because of Pearl Habour).There is a reason why the SC2 series of games arenot set to historical industrial outputs.Its because the Axis will have virtually no hope.

Lets not forget the Atom bomb.

[jon_j_rambo]

The Japs invade the USA? Have you guys lost your minds? Every person in this country would drive their truck & their neighbors to the factories of the MidWest, pick up weapons and hit the beach. You think the Japs would clear out the Sierra Mountains? Blue Mountains? Columbian Gorge? Your nuts.

Even the Russians couldn't take the USA over! "Wolverines" --- Red Dawn

By the way, the attack on Pearl Harbor was weak. Surprise attack, and all the Japs did was sink old battleships! The Japs were pussy, only sent two waves. What a joke.

My name is Rambo, and I approve this message.

[Hubert Cater]

Sounds like Rambo is ready to play

[Blashy]

The Japs invade the USA? Have you guys lost your minds? Every person in this country would drive their truck & their neighbors to the factories of the MidWest, pick up weapons and hit the beach. You think the Japs would clear out the Sierra Mountains? Blue Mountains? Columbian Gorge? Your nuts.

Even the Russians couldn't take the USA over! "Wolverines" --- Red Dawn

By the way, the attack on Pearl Harbor was weak. Surprise attack, and all the Japs did was sink old battleships! The Japs were pussy, only sent two waves. What a joke.

My name is Rambo, and I approve this message.

When it comes to USA in WW2 I probably agree with JJvR 99% of the time, post WW2 less than 1% of the time.

The PH attack was a failure IMO. Why?

A) That is the ONE US objective they could (and should) have invaded to slow down USA.

If you are not going to invade... the very least you should do is take out THE most important thing on the Island. The big huge oil reserves.

[Retributar]

"Hubert!"_I have to agree with you!,...'jon_j_rambo' is Ready to 'Rock & Roll-In_The-Mud!!!-The Blood!!!-& The Beer!!!'.

I think maybey that i may have stirred up the 'Hornets Nest' a little?,...anyway it makes for exciting reading in any event!.

A "JAPANESE" Invasion of the U.S. may very well have been preposterous!,...however,...maybey there is someone with more insight on this 'Subject/Possibility/Extrapolation?'...who just might have more insight on this matter???.

[arado234]

The more I read through John Ellis,s book the less I see the Axis having a chance to win.The only hope they had was to gang up on one enemy at a time and finish them off completely and move on to the next one.There are some political circumstances that would have had a huge effect on the outcome of the war if the Axis(Hitler) played their cards right but other than coming up with the Atomic bomb long before we did the Axis simply had no hope.

[Blashy]

The Axis never had a chance whatsoever and you do not even need a book for that, just this:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm

That alone shows USA by itself was kicking Axis power combined.

A-Bomb aside what the Axis could have achieved is a peace treaty on equal terms and retain some territory.

[AZGungHo]

The Japanese MIGHT have invaded Hawaii, but even that would have been a long shot. They never even considered invading the mainland. Far too many of us and far to few of them! Their situation in China really kept them tied down for the entire war, and we ought to thank God for that. The island fighting was bad enough as it was, if they had been able to double the number of troops on some of those islands it would be have horrible - and I probably wouldn't be here either!

[thetwo]

I've posted on the general topics of what would have been likely outcomes for both theaters before. I found the Pacific one here.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83586&highlight=thetwo

I couldn't find the Eurpoean post so I'll repost it.

I agree that Churchill would have chosen to move to Canada. I think few would doubt that. He would be in a populous English speaking country with large natural resources. This would keep him close to Roosevelt too. What would happen then is more interesting.

Please bear with me. Some will be aware (others may not) that Churchill did contemplate surrender as a possibility at one point, because of the food shortages in the UK caused by U-boats. This burden weighed heavily on him in early and mid-1942. He was waiting and hoping and worrying. The turn around in the U-boat war in that July saved Britain.

This is significant in several respects.

- Great Britain was a net importer of food. A surrendered UK would still have to import food to feed the population. Continuation of hostilities would make this unlikely. The three breadbasket countries at the time were Canada, the United States, and Argentina. Transport would be necessarily by sea and would require the consent and cooperation of the German leadership. Any other option would lead to widespread famine in the British Isles in a matter of weeks. No British government could have fled and then allowed that to happen.

- Germany was itself short of food as early as March 1940. I am referring to a remembered reference to a diary entry that wheat flour was being replaced with potato flour at that time. Any importation of food to the UK could be diverted to other locations, essentially ending food embargoes on Germany and Italy.

- If you do a quick internet search on Spain's role in the war, you are likely to come up with reference to how the UK and US used petroleum imports as leverage to keep Franco from aiding the Axis. My own research has led me to the conclusion that this is a prettied up version of history. Spain at the time was also a net importer of food. Actually, Spain was importing food rather heavily and Churchill had threatened Spain with the same fate that his on country faced, famine. My guess is, that if the British Isles surrendered, the resultant food imports would allow Spain more freedom of action. (Or the Germans more freedom to deal with Spanish needs.)

- An interesting remaining question then is the fate of overseas forces. Germany would certainly want Gibraltar, Malta, and British withdrawal from the Middle East. The Germans would not be in a position to demand that those forces actually withdrew to a certain place. There is a limit to how far you can push the threat of starvation. You either can starve a populace or you can't. The Royal Navy would have probably withdrawn to Canada and the US as would most of the land units. The surrender of the British Isles would have been a gaping wound to the English speaking world, but there is very little that could have been done about it considering the food problem. (You get perhaps 350,000 British military personnel world-wide stranded while their families are home and hungry. Nasty scenario.)

I think the war with the West would have to come to a frustrating end. A Cold War situation would have developed. After all, we were shipping food to the Soviet Union during that “conflict.”

/ /

I would see that Cold War scenario suiting Stalin just fine. He would have loved seeing his Main Adversary (US and UK jointly) humbled and fully engaged. (I don't see that a Sealion had a great chance of success however.)

If I were to design a world scenario, I would build the Axis and Allied victory conditions around time limits. Can the Axis hold on to the historical surrender dates or not. That provides a solid design criteria as well; a goal for the designer to achieve.

The closer both sides come to meeting that date, the better the players will likely come to be satisfied with the overall effort. That is my guess.

[jon_j_rambo]

That's all great, that history stuff.

But far as having a fun game, how do the Japs win?

[thetwo]

I can't see that there was a way for them to win. In game terms holding out past the historical surrender date would be a good design goal.

If they wanted to win, their best bet was to never engage the US. Roosevelt was unable to drag the country into war on his own and the Japanese had a free hand until they took an overt act to change that. Somewhere I made a post about "inevitability" and how both the Germans and Japanese fell victim to it. Let me find the link.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84045&highlight=inevitability

For this to be built into a game, you have to suspend disbelief. The Japanese of the period have to be something other than the Japanese of the period, to pull this off. I put in some possible options for how it might be designed in to a world scenario. This was harder for the German side, but in fairness, I thought I should make the effort there too.

In my opinion, the Japanese had no real option leading to a "win-type" situation. The Germans had one "win-type" situation if they could have invaded Great Britain (low probability, but possible) and NOT done something stupid like ticking off the Soviet Union. Just my opinions of course. As far as the Cold War scenario, I haven't seen anyone else propose that one and I think that one is original to me.

Trying to find the "winning" scenario for both Axis powers has consumed untold man-hours and has produced some very strange ideas. Few have been practical. Once the cultures and economics come in to play, little wiggle room is left.

[SeaMonkey]

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.

[Blashy]

I find the current conditions just fine. Not complicated and realistic.

[thetwo]

SeaMonkey,

That's the most appropriate proposal so far. Do you have anything in mind?

[SeaMonkey]

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.

[jon_j_rambo]

What do you mean that Japs & Germans couldn't have won? That's a bunch of hogwash. They owned half the planet. A few adjustments in strategy (Midway, Stalingrad) and they could have kept momentum.