Bringing the Outer Islands into Play

[Blashy]

You are all trying to do too much with the islands. They had zero value and they could have easily been ignored by USA. It was political why they too them back.

As for the Japanese, lets be honest their strategy from the start was horrible, I am sure the smart brained generals in Japan were going crazy seeing the leadership force them to spread out so thin and take areas of no consequence so far away while all that time they could not take out China which was next door but yet had the tools to do so.

The worthless islands should have been ignored by both sides from a military point of view and this is what we do in this game. Simple as that.

[scottsmm]

You've got a good point Blashy except for the fact all Japs were crazy so I'm not sure if the smart brained generals really cared. If the Emperor told them to try to conquer hell they would devout their forces into a battle for it. As for playing the game though you should do as you say, and simply ignore them unless you have nothing better to attack. Unless of course you were determined to play it historical then you would have no choice, but to attack them.

[AZGungHo]

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.

[Baron]

AZGungHo - you were right, the older I get the more the old "brain housing group" forgets or maybe it is the increase in brainfarts but the 1st MarDiv did participate in taking "The Rock".

I also agree with your sentiments that the value of the islands is being way over simplified here. Sure some of the battles were mistakes Peleliu and the return to the Phillipenes are the most glaring examples. The truth of the matter is that by 1945 after taking all those islands and building the huge armada that was sweeping the Pacific we didn't need to take anymore islands but it took years to build the experience, equipment and flat out learn how to supply those forces over those huge distances. Fact is in 1942 even if the US had the knowledge it didn't have the equipment to just skip all those islands. The reasons the battles were fought for those islands was because the islands were needed.

To this day I'm shocked that MacArthur has received the "free ride " that he has. He was directly responsible for the debacle in the Phillippines during first months of the war and the unnecessary return to them in 1944.. I guess we needed heroes back then because his bad decisions cost a hell of a lot more lives than the people blamed at Pearl Harbor (Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short).

[jon_j_rambo]

The islands are worthless in this game just as they were worthless back in WW-2. The U.S. Government grabbed islands for morale & gain continious political support for the war. The majority of the US military leadership were complete losers too.

PROOF: Tarawa. WTF was that battle plan? Put a bunch of guys on rubber rafts to take over an island the size of my backyard. Why were those stupid islands worth the lives of US troops?

The islands have some importance, but as your leader, not one soldier would die on the ground. Starve them out. Use chemical & nuke weapons.

[jon_j_rambo]

Same goes for Iwo Jima. For those who say we needed it for air bases, that's a lie. Read the history. Alot of young guys died where a better strategy could have worked. Starve them out. I'd rather blockade them for 5 years than get 20,000+ wounded/killed Americans in the time it takes to watch a football game.

The war's outcome is known. There was no reason to get our guys butchered in rubber boats onto open beaches with landmines & bore sited artillery. Starve them out.

Same goes for American strategy against the German Nazis. Why die on some damn beach? Rather bomb their cities & people. It would take longer, but you'd save lives for our side.

Look at the US Civil War. Results happenend when Vickesburg was starved & Sherman burned civilian stuff.

Same goes for today's Middle East. Forget this country rebuilding & foot soldier crap. Cut off all their food, transport, communications, water. Plop a nuke on the mountain border with Pakastan.

Walk slowly & carry a big stick.

[Timskorn]

Was this really the sentiment of the US political and military forces early in the war, that no matter what happened that we would ultimately "win", so we'd hobnob around on little islands for a few years to make us look good? I find this difficult to believe. What if it was us that lost the Battle of Midway? It's easy to look back now and say, "We wouldn't have", but did the Admirals at the time really sit back and relax during these battles with the outcome so "certain"? Sure, we would have rebounded from a devastating loss, but it would have given the Japanese more breathing room (and time).

How long could we have been at war before our coffers and public sentiment for the war were drained? And if simply starving them out would have worked better, how long would this have taken, and what would have been the appropriate strategy to knock Japan out of the war? Wait until 1945 to do anything substantial, then just nuke their cities?

[AZGungHo]

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!

[LampCord]

I agree with Rambo that taking these islands was mostly political. But that is no small thing. I think in this day and age, when we hear the term political, we picture Senator Blowhard insisting we take the island because his constituents demand it.

But war is all about politics. Its about crushing the enemy's will to carry on. You win when the enemy quits and quitting is a political decision not a military one.

Taking Iwo Jima for example was devastating to the Japanese psyche and a reminder that we were just one step away. Was it really significant militarily? Probably not. But psychologically, it was very important. Both for us and them.

If you think about it, the exact same argument could be made about the atomic bombs. Dropping them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had very little military value but soon afterwards, the Japanese surrendered. That was a 'political' victory which saved possibly a million American and even more Japanese lives from the horror of a full scale invasion.

So back to the question of how to reflect the value of the island hopping?

One possibility would be that it would increase the likely hood that Japan surrenders before actually being invaded just like in real life. And it could possibly affect US industrial capacity as a way of reflecting political support for the continuation of the war. In my mind, that would most accurately reflect the importance of these islands.

[AZGungHo]

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.

[Retributar]

Ive heard a wide array of argument's for this game engine,...'Pacific-Theater'!,...and it's very interesting!. I have a few conclusion's...even though im not a studied student/diciple of the Pacific-War!.

***I have concluded,...based on some knowlege or no-knowlege of all said above!...***

-The 'PACIFIC ISLANDS',...were VERY-IMPORTANT!!!,...for what-ever 'Historical' reason!,...which i think that the reason for what-ever it was,...is not being reflected in the/this game???. I am sure that some of those island's,...such as DAVAO had 'Oil-Resources' as an incentive,...to cause the JAPANESE to make it ever-important to take!,...and for most of the other's,...One reason or another had made those island's an important directive to aquire!. [some-One-Else...will have to find out why!].

-"CHINA"!!!,...i don't know why the JAPANESE didn't make a more concerted effort to take China?,...perhap's they were too-widely strung out overall everywhere else to be able to make a definite effort there?. To my limited understanding,...it seem's that a 'Tragic-Mistake' was made there!.

-'AMPHIBIOUS-TRANSPORT'_Situation's were avidly discussed!. Im 'No-Marine!!!',...so i can't vouch for what the ordinary recruit can or cannot put up with,...when dealing with inordinate period's of time abord 'Troop-Ships'!. That's when i noticed that someone [LampCord] mentioned that something like 'Amphibious-Tech' could be developed in the game to make this hard-ship for marine infantry less of a debilitating factor on longer-term voyage's preceding debarkation!. "It makes sense to me!".

LEAVING THE OUTER ISLANDS OPEN_[Timskorn]_

-

[bowenw]

This is a great thread and you gentlemen sure do your homework, but I am slightly confused here, pertaining to this game only, not history, do you think the AI allies should try to take the islands or bypass them? To make the islands more important one major change could be made by the programmers and that is to use the same system used in prior SC games in the naval conflict, when ships were at sea in the other SC series their supply went down every turn, why not do the same here, this would make the capture of outer islands important for resupply of the US navy warships. As it is now the US ships dont ever have to resupply unless they were in combat [i think thats right] at first I liked this idea but now I would like to see the supply rule go back to previous games, I realize you need ports to rearm your ships rather than go all the way back to Hawaii or the USA. Getting away from the politcal aspect of our military and government in 1944 and the thinking back then would most of you players prefer to go atraight to Japan or take the islands one by one in this game that we all seem to like. I also realize the time constraint, fighting for each island eats up time and maybe it is not a good idea. I feel island fighting is good for the US combat forces if for no other reason then to build up experience for the ultimate battle for the Japanese main islands.

Willy

[Happycat]

To make the islands more important one major change could be made by the programmers and that is to use the same system used in prior SC games in the naval conflict, when ships were at sea in the other SC series their supply went down every turn, why not do the same here, this would make the capture of outer islands important for resupply of the US navy warships. Willy

Hubert, et al---this is not a bad idea at all

[Stitch]

Don't know about you guys, but when I have my IJN fleet blockading Hawaii for months, I definitely notice my fleet's action points and supply going down...

[bowenw]

Don't know about you guys, but when I have my IJN fleet blockading Hawaii for months, I definitely notice my fleet's action points and supply going down...

Stitch I am answering your post not to say your mistaken about supply but to save my sanity, I am sure you know what happened to you about supply in your blockade of Hawaii. I just started a new game to prove to myself Im not crazy. I went from dec 7th 1941 until march 27th 1942, I took no offensive actions in that time, all I did was move the Japanese fleet around the north pacific, I stayed away from any friendly Japanese ports so I could not be resupplied by them, in all that time I did not lose a single supply value in any of my ships, thats three and a half months of no resupply. My whole point that I tried to make was that you as the US navy could take your whole fleet straight to Japan bypassing all the outer islands and sit there for years with out resupply if you werent attacked in that time, when you have combat I know supplies go down. In SC2 you lost supplies every turn that you were not near a friendly port. This should be the same in the Pacific war that way you would have to capture outer islands to aid in the advance to capture the Japanese mainland. Why have all these outer islands if you dont make them even slightly important, are they there to fill out the map of the pacific ocean?

Willy

[Blashy]

Originally Posted by bowenw

To make the islands more important one major change could be made by the programmers and that is to use the same system used in prior SC games in the naval conflict, when ships were at sea in the other SC series their supply went down every turn, why not do the same here, this would make the capture of outer islands important for resupply of the US navy warships. Willy

Not a good idea IMO. The islands were not used to resupply ships, they had supply ships doing that.

As I said before, the islands had no military value it was a mistake for Japan to go there and USA simply did it for political reasons.

We have all the history in our hands and so we do not repeat those waste of resources.

Nothing needs changing in the official game.

If someone wants to go into ahistorical territory simply make a mod for it.

[SeaMonkey]

Actually Blashy, the islands did have military value. The airfields were used to shift assets in support of offensive and defensive naval operations.

But perhaps greater than that there was a psychological impact and that was security. Grant you, it may have been a false sense, but never the less important in the minds of man. As I've stated before, it was actually this circumstance that caused the Midway planning and execution, refering to the strike from "Shangri-La".

How do we incorporate this into the game? Do we all agree:rolleyes: that security is truly a matter of perspective...mind set? It is a consequence and it can be represented in physical means. Here's how!

The outer islands represent buffer bands to intruders, just like Stalin thought the Baltics, Balkans, and E. Poland were. When you insight the people of a country with that physical buffer they have emotions, mostly security, real or not, they tend to be more productive in that comfort as a result.

So...we have IT and PT techs at work in SC. I think the majority of this forum can figure it out from here.:cool:

[LampCord]

Here's something I've never been clear about:

If all these small islands had no value, then why did we even bother to defend Midway? Why not simply evacuate it and let the Japs have it?

It was a HUGE risk to engage their CV's the way we did and quite frankly, we got a bit lucky.

The Japs had better equipment and more experienced crews and leaders at the time. We were pretty sure we could win in the long run so why force the issue with one of the largest CV engagements in the entire war at a time where we could least afford it over a worthless scrap of land?

Were our admirals really that stupid? I guess we were really lucky to win the war then!

[bowenw]

Blashy not to argue with you but it seemed to work well in SC2 where you had to go near a base to resupply, my question is why was it dropped in this game where I believe supply is way more important than in SC2. Not taking the outer islands is historical incorrect and not taking them would in my opinion make the game very very boring and we dont want that now do we? Also as I stated earlier that by using Marines in fighting in the outer islands it would increase their experience rating for the big battle down the road. You said not to change anything, why not change the supply rule as some of the supply rules that are in this game are incorrect as compared to what happened in WW2, meaning a HQ completely cut off from sea and land and surrounded by the enemy and not sitting on a port can be resupplied thats wrong wrong wrong, if it looks wrong it is wrong. I have read the argument in the forums that they could have been resupplied by air. Well if I cant get an air sotie off for three months how can supply planes get through?

Willy

[LampCord]

Not a good idea IMO. The islands were not used to resupply ships, they had supply ships doing that.

True, but they weren't used to repair ships either. Or upgrade them for that matter. And I don't know about you but I do it all the time in the game.

So if we're going to have a port in Iwo Jima or Midway or the Gilbert Islands where we can upgrade a BB and repair a CV, two things that would require a MAJOR shipyard with tons of heavy equipment, skilled labor and massive amounts of fuel and electricity why NOT have it also affect supply which is something you could do by simply stockpiling provisions and fuel on a beach and ferrying it out to your ships with barges?

And while its true that supply ships supplied our ships (as the name would imply) the further they had to go to get there, the more vulnerable they were to enemy subs. Which isn't really reflected.

I still go back to the issue of operational air movement. If we limited how far planes could move operationally, it would have a huge impact on the game as the Allies would need to secure at least some islands between Hawaii and Burma for the sole purpose of moving their planes to where they are needed. This was actually done and the islands were actually used for this. At least some of them.

Either that or crate them up and ship them as was actually done sometimes.

Right now the omni present Allied air power is to me the most ahistorical aspect of this game. I can build a fighter squadron in San Francisco and one turn later its in Burma supplying air cover for the Brits. In fact, throwing air units in front of the Japanese advance is a gamey but effective tactic to slow them down till the Brits can build up enough force to do it on their own. What if the Japs destroy them? The US has practically unlimited MPP's. Munch all you want, we'll make more.

It seems we pick and choose what needs to be historically accurate.

[jon_j_rambo]

This thread is turning into a classical joke.

SeaMonkey says the Japs took the islands for military importance. Really? What good is Tarawa? Why stick 5,000 troops on that island? That's military importance? There's no resources, food, fresh water, no nothing on that island. No only no resources, it requires supply to keep those dudes alive. Then SM says the US took the islands for psychological reasons. How stupid is that. Let me charge an embedded rock in the middle of the ocean on a rubber raft so "we can all feel better". You going to take a bullet for the team for Tarawa?

Tarawa = no value. There's nothing there. No food, no fresh water, no steel, no gold, no Burger King's, no nothing. Everything must be shipped their in order to supply them. Granted some Jap could fish for sushi & eat a palm leaf, but 5,000 dudes ain't going to live there long w/o supply.

The American General/Adrimals/President whosover were complete idiots. Just bypass them, starve them out. Nobody dies on our side. It was all to write in a Newspaper,"Marines take Tarawa".

Iwo Jima was suppose to be for an airfield. IT WAS NEVER USED! All those poor saps got blasted there so we can watch John Wayne as Sgt. Stryker & Clint Eastwood's flick.

The islands have no value. Yeah, you might have a radio tower, couple spotting planes, but come on, you gotta build it all anyhow! Ports, mine cleared, docks, buildings, vehicles, supplies, shipyards, etc. It was all done by supply ships, NOT ISLANDS! Islands don't move, ships do. Once you take an island, it would take a year to make a proper supply port with ships anyways. Meanwhile, the action was moving forward.

What won the war was the Navy/Naval Air. Not sitting on some damn island w/o food.

[SeaMonkey]

Well JJR let's hypothesize! How about we say yes, no value at all and in hindsight, which you seem to have a profusion of, you're correct.

But say for instance one of those bypassed islands, one of the worthless ones that continued to function due to submarine resupply, had a seaplane or patrol boat, or some other means(like people) of detecting an enemy vessel coming within range.

Now just to theorize...what if that vessel happen to be the "Indianapolis" carrying an A-Bomb to another of those worthless islands with staged B-29s for the delivery.

Happens in this fantasy...so to speak....those guys on that deserted island of no value got the message out, or did something about it themselves and they captured or destroyed that device?

I mean Coast-Watchers are just that ...."A Fantasy"...never happened, couldn't be done.

But its fun hypothesizing....ehh?

[SeaMonkey]

Ohh ....and JJR... what are islands surrounded by?

No sustenance in those marine farms.....right? I mean absolutely no food comes from the oceans..... they are...just..liquid deserts!..... or I guess for some ....desserts!

[SeaMonkey]

JJR posts = no value

[jon_j_rambo]

SeeMonkeySpank --- Thanks for your 3 posts of nothing. Okay, you got sit on the island. Go eat your bugs, sand, and coconut juice. Who do you think you are, Tom Hanks in Castaway? You going to hang with Gilligan & the Skipper, then you find out Ginger/Maryann are lesibans so they are out of play too? The episode where Gilligan finds the Jap in the midget sub isn't going to sneak by the Yorktown & destroy Miramar. While the rest of you tough guys are basking on an island like the next season of Survivor, I'll be flying sorties off the Flat Tops, dropping nukes & mustard gas on the enemy. Then when I land back on the USS George H. Bush.....I'll be drinking booze, fornicating with the babes, and posting my kills on uTube. Have fun being stranded on your no Subway Sandwich island.

"Mission Accomplished" --- W

"Nuke 'em all & send in the Christians" --- Mac