Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Attack on the USSR

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: Attack on the USSR Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 6:14:25 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6582
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I'm sorry Moses, but what sort of research do you have that says the German economy was, "the most advanced and technically proficient industry in the world".

I see no evidence that German ability to produce was "more technically advanced" in any way. Were specific industries more advanced (like rocket development)? Sure. But you're not talking about specific industries. You're talking about the ECONOMY, and the ability of those specific industries to mass produce.

Having advanced "rocked technology" is great. But if you can't PRODUCE it in quantity, who cares? Kudos to Mr. Speer for producing 1500 Me-262s in 2 years. Oops. Only 400 of them will ever leave the ground, because your economy has been wrecked, and you have neither the gas nor the parts to maintain them. Hm. The US just produced the same number of P-51s LAST MONTH. Ooops, there's another 400.. And another 400... For a total of 19,800 P-51s...

A problem with German industry throught the enitre war, was it's specialization. The German economic model was certainly not more "advanced" than the US economic model. And comparing the industrial output of basically the Ruhr to even only the northeast, well, there is no comparison.

Russian produstion - In 1941 and 1942, they litterally disasempled entire factories, and rebuilt the things on teh other side of the Urals. By 1943, they were certainly producing their own high quality tanks, guns, and aircraft. By January 1944, the Soviets were already crossing the border to "liberate" Poland (altho you could hardly call it that)., months before we were even in France. Those guys weren't just out for blood. They were going to erradicate the Germans, with our without our help.

US production - By 1944, the US economic output was greater than all the rest of the of the combatents combined. Granted, it's helped by the fact that nobody could touch (bomb) us. But either way, even with gross mis-management, the US could have outproduced both of the Axis powers (Italy didn't produce sqat anyway, if you want to use a screwed up economy as an example, they're the flag-bearers). There was never any doubt about US production capabilities. We simply buried everyone.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 31
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 6:28:01 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

A problem with German industry throught the enitre war, was it's specialization.


I read him to mean that this was a German failure that kept them from mass producing good if not great munitions in quantity. For example, what if the Germans had simply concentrated on mass producting Panthers instead of the myriad of heavy tank configurations?

Would they have matched US production? No. Would they have produced a startling quantity of very good tanks? Yes.

It may not have changed the outcome, but they were certainly capable of concentrating their industry if they had chosen to do so.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 32
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 6:30:05 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2243
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
First off I said "supposedly most advanced. And my point, specifically stated, was that they failed to deliver on their potential. Which is what you seem to be arguing. My only point which seems to be strangly controversial is that the allies might have screwed it up just as well.


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 33
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 8:29:44 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Where I said late 42 in my second paragraph I meant late 41.

Apart from that, excuse me for making "silly" claims. I would back things up with research and maybe a full bibliograpy if perhaps you paid me for the work, and I thought anyone really cared. As is I gave an opinion.

Niether the Russian or allied Industrial miracles were forordaned. Thats my opinion. If you want a good reference read "Why the allies won" by Richard Overy for a start. Other then that just use good sence and logic.

Nothing is easier in the world than screwing up. Germany with supposedly the most advanced and technically proficient industry in the world managed to be totally outclassed by a Russian industry which was crude by any standard. Russia and/or the US could easily have made errors, screwing up their production efforts. For example.

1.) US decides that high quality as opposed to mass produced is needed to match Germany.--This was Germany's call and it cost them.
2.) US planners are "rational" and consider the initial production targets as ridiculous. As would the rest of the world if they had been told. Production is reduced to more "achievable" levels.
3.) US make a catastrophicaly wrong design decision. Something like manueverability is the prime goal in fighter design. Production is set back a year or two as everything must be redesigned and restarted.
4.) Some critical bottleneck developes or someone just flat screws things up. etc. etc.
5.) As for Russia we can just allow for the possibility that the workers simply collapse under the inhuman strain placed upon them. Its hard even now to believe what they went through.

Now we know what happened historically. Its hard to do research on something that might have happened. But I hardly see that the idea that US or Russian production need not have been so amazing is hard to fathom.




1) Would have reduced US production totals, but would still have outproduced all of the Axis combined.

2) The actual production levels were way over what the goals were.

3) What makes you think the US didn't make some wrong design decisions? The original P-51 design was woefully underpowered for example.


_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 34
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 3:46:52 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2243
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
ARRRGGG. This thread is about a Japan attack on Russia. I simply said that Russia's margin of survival in late 41 and 42 was very thin. Things could have happened differently.

I don't think anyone has argued harder that in the game it is way too easy for Japan to defeat Russia. Let me say it again. THAT JAPAN CAN DEFEAT RUSSIA IN ONE OR TWO MONTHS WITHOUT EVEN THE INCONVINIANCE OF HEAVY CASUALTIES IS CLEARLY NOT HISTORICAL.

Still it is not inconsistant to believe that a Japanese attack on Russia may have had a chance of success and may even possibly have helped to cause a Russian collapse under some conditions.

IN AN IDEAL WORLD. (and I'm absolutly certain such changes will not be made so I'm just dreaming and wishing). Russian starting forces would be reduced but given some flexability to respond to Japanese starting move. Then if Japan attacks Russia, Russian reinforcements will begin arriving on based on a random calculation based on how well Russia is presumably doing with Germany.

So maybe Russia is near collapse and so in one game recieves only a couple divisions. In another game they have things under control and send 20 divisions.

Just a dream. I'll leave any further production discussion to another thread.

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 35
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 4:58:33 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6582
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
Production aside, I'll still have to "agree to disagree".

IMHO Japan never stood a chance against Russia, even under the "optimal conditions" of late '41. Hitler repeatedly asked Japan to attack Russia, throughout 1941 (when agruably Russia was at it's weakest), and made even greater noise in throughout 1942. And still, the Japanese said, "No way." Again, it was Japan that approached Russia with the non-agression pact; and Japan abided by it, because it was certainly in their best interest.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 36
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 5:26:35 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2243
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
I don't think attacking Russia was a good idea for Japan. I just don't believe that it was impossible.

IRL I suspect that had it been tried it would have required at a minimum a very hard battle lasting at least several months Even a Japanese victory would have essentially mangled all the participating divisions. And the possibility of Russia just flat stopping Japan is very significant.

In the game it is easy to defeat Russia with very few losses provided Japan commits the force which I recommend.

So there is a very wide disconnect between the game and even my very liberal view of Japan's possibilities.

Those who believe that Japan had no chance under any conditions should be even more concerned then I about this disconnect.

We could argue all year over whether Japan has no possibility of success(your position??) or whether it has some slight chance of very bloody success (my position). The fact is that in the game Russia can be conquered quite easily which is not quite historical by either of our standards.

NOTE: This is just a fun historical/game discussion and I for one am not lobbying for further changes in this area. I simply don't attack Russia.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 37
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 6:06:25 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6582
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I will most definately agree that Russis "mis-represented" in WitP. OB issues aside (and there are certainly many of them), the "wonkiness" of the land combat model also complicates the issue. A few weeks ago, I ran several controlled tests where I put 100 T-34s vs. 100 of the crappy Japanese light tanks (clear terrain, equal exp/morale/disruption/fatigue/commanders). The T-34s got clobbered (lost 16 - 20 tanks) every time (less than 5 light tanks destroyed for Japan).

But yes, the "wide disconnect" does concern me, and it's only complicated by my mistrust of the ground combat model.

In my PBEM games, Russia is stood down; and China too for that matter (or in one case, a "war zone" is declared, where speficied cities are capturable). Simply because the OBs and ground model is borked.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 38
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 7:33:50 PM   
testarossa


Posts: 951
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder
A few weeks ago, I ran several controlled tests where I put 100 T-34s vs. 100 of the crappy Japanese light tanks (clear terrain, equal exp/morale/disruption/fatigue/commanders). The T-34s got clobbered (lost 16 - 20 tanks) every time (less than 5 light tanks destroyed for Japan).


Just for info (on the side note). German army possessed vast number of outdated machines during attack on USSR. Pz I, Pz II, Pz III had 37-mm gun, Pz IV had short-barrelled 75-mm infantry gun, and so on. Still they clobbered Russians during 1941 who had only(!) 600 T-34, 200+ KV-1 and 12000+ light tanks (these numbers are not exact, but easily available in any book on Barbarossa). It's training and command that decided the outcome.

And Russians could always rise vast numbers of conscripts if things go sour, the way they did during battle of Moscow. They were poorly trained and armed but i think in the WitP terms they were roughly equivalent to Chinese militia divisions. So It could be done the way WitP handles invasion of Vietnam by Allies, I don't remember exactly but 2 or 3 VM division appear at Hanoi. If Japan attack USSR 10-15 "conscript" divisions should appear or something.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 39
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 7:41:15 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

A problem with German industry throught the enitre war, was it's specialization.


I read him to mean that this was a German failure that kept them from mass producing good if not great munitions in quantity. For example, what if the Germans had simply concentrated on mass producting Panthers instead of the myriad of heavy tank configurations?


One big problem would be that the Panther wasn't really designed to be "mass-produced". It wasn't until the germans were trying to design a "Panther II" that they began seriously trying to adapt it to be more easily produced. They got the design finished about the time the war finished. Easily observable difference---look at the turret construction on virtually all German tanks. They are constructed from multiple plates and parts. Look at the turrets on a Sherman or a T-34. They are one piece castings.
Simple and quick if you have the capacity to do it. German industry in general didn't think in mass-production terms. Worse, the Nazis and the Wehrmacht didn't trust it. Which explains why the largest automotive plant in Europe (the Adam Opel/Ford plant) did virtually NO war production work. The "professionals" didn't trust them to be able to meet the military's needs beyond a few thousand "camp stoves".

True Mass Production is a "ground up" process. When Ford set out to mass-produce B-24's, he started with designing the factory around the product it would produce. Took a while to get up and running, but in 1944 that ONE factory produced 51% (by weight) that all of Germany could manage in it's best year. Same thing with Henry Kaiser and his shipyards, Boeing's B-29 plant in Wichita, Higgins building landing craft in New Orleans, etc. Americans invented mass-production. American industrialists thought in those terms. The Russians had been forced into it in the 30's because thay had to maximize the use of their limited skilled labor force by fleshing it out with lots of unskilled labor---and the only way to do it was with massive single-purpose plants. Germany just didn't do things this way in general, and while they were starting to think about it in areas like the Volkswagen plant under construction when the war started, the firms that specialized in military production were much more old fashioned. And the Military wanted them that way. They liked firms that could answer their requests for upgrades and improvements quickly---rather than complaining that it would totally disrupt the production lines. So they constantly got new toys, but they didn't get very many of them.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 40
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 9:04:21 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2243
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
Which brings me (against my better instincts) back to my comments about Industrial what if's.

Germany, and to a lessor extent Japan, put their faith in high quality weapons systems. The allies relied on mass-production weapons. In 1939 the jury was still out as to which method was best. By 1944 the verdict was in. Mass production was proven to be superior over the long haul. The axis eventually tried to adjust but as they considered themselves to be winning until probably mid to late 42 they had little impetus to change until after it was too late.

Cultural considerations determined to a great extent how German leaders viewed production, still had a couple influential Germans come to the correct conclusions regarding mass production earlier in the war things might have been much more difficult for the allies.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 41
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 10:03:19 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3856
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
High quality tanks??? Japan??? TOO MUCH SAKI MOSES

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 42
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/28/2005 11:34:28 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2243
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
Not high quality tanks, and of course I mentioned Japan only tangentally, hence the words "to a lessor extent Japan".

Still Japan did not embrase mass production and instead hoped to succeed through higher quality pilots and seaman.

I don't think they ever modernized their army to any great extent as that was probably beyond their means. Perhaps they thought equipment didn't matter as superior morale would prevail.

< Message edited by moses -- 11/28/2005 11:35:21 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 43
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 12:17:52 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
In Japan's case, they "chose" to believe that "superior morale" could overcome superior numbers (and even superior equipment) because they had no choice. There was no way, ever, in any way, shape or form, in even a single piece of equipment, that Japan was going to outproduce the US. They knew that. They just did not want to admit it and they didn't like the inevitable conclusion of that fact so had to come up with some mental trick that would allow them to believe they could out-fight the US and win. So they allowed themselves to think that "greater dedication to a morally superior purpose" would mystically let them defeat an enemy who could literally bury their entire country with its industrial output.

(And just to add some napalm to the discussion, I will point out that in many ways this parallels the thinking behind many current terrorist organizations.)

Germany had a larger industrial base to begin with and could use it to maintain a technological advantage in some areas. Japan lacked the industrial capacity to maintain what (relatively few) tech advantages she started the war with.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 44
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 12:35:08 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2243
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
ohhh terrorists. Napalm to be sure!! Let me add a little to that.

In ten years historians will say one of the following.

1.) The Iraqi insugent victory was inevitable.

2.) The Iraqi terrorists were inevitably doomed to defeat.

3.) Stalemate in Iraq was inevitable.

Anyone who disagrees that the historical outcome was inevitable will be simply shown what happened historically. Therefore the case is proven.


Agree with you on Japan. I think the firepower vs. morale debate was pretty much settled by end of WWI if not earlier.

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 45
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 12:58:46 AM   
testarossa


Posts: 951
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses
Agree with you on Japan. I think the firepower vs. morale debate was pretty much settled by end of WWI if not earlier.


During Anglo-Boer War I think.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 46
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 1:30:41 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22520
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses
Agree with you on Japan. I think the firepower vs. morale debate was pretty much settled by end of WWI if not earlier.


During Anglo-Boer War I think.



How about US Civil War?

(in reply to testarossa)
Post #: 47
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 3:41:45 AM   
SGT Swanson


Posts: 291
Joined: 4/8/2002
From: Matthews, N.C.
Status: offline
Just to add my two pence, There are reasons Japan didn't invade historicaly. One of them was the pact. Another was having to keep a garrison in Manchuria (if you look at a base or unit?). Open the base up and you will see a garrison value and how much IS currently stationed there. Now, I don't know how much an individual unit contributes to the garrison figure, but at the begining of the war they are over what they need to keep the population happy and respectfull.

So, if Manchuria is required to have a garrison, and you need Oil & Resources to keep your war machine going strong, then when and with what will you use to invade with? Oh, and need I forget, Gen. Chuchov (spelling) the defender of Stalingrad fame was transfered out there in '39 and was transfered back west to command the 62nd Army in the summer of '42. He had asked for and got permission to transfer 5 DIVISIONS from his old command (Far East), because he knew they would fight for him. And these were 5 divisions of Sibearians no less. Now, as the Axis player, do you really want to go up against him? If so, then set it up as a regular game and I'll take the Russians any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

_____________________________

SGT Swanson
U.S. Army, Infantry
B Co 4/502d Inf. Berlin BDE (87-90)
A Co 5/502d Inf. Berlin BDE (90-93)
B Co 2/502d Inf. 101st Airborne Div. (93-95)

"Because freedom is NEVER free!!"

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 48
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 11:49:46 AM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 462
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline
Hi,
Manchuria doesn't need a garrison !
As for the composition of the Red Army in the far east:
A long time ago someone with insight into the Soviet OOB (Subchaser or Oleg ?)mentioned that in late 1941 those Soviet forces existed mainly on paper in order to discourage any japanese ambitions but of course this person was soon silenced by loud crys of anguish of those players who widely oppose any move of a japanese player into the USSR. I myself know few things about this but I find it highly interesting that top of the line equipment (T-34, KV-I, Yak fighters etc.) should be at the far east (i.e. in the WitP game) when the on the other hand the soviets have to fight with obsolete stuff BT-7, T-26, I-15, I-16 etc.) in the west against the germans (and the outcome of this battle was not clear to anyone). Therefore saying that any invasion of japan was doomed to failure like 1937 is comparing apples with oranges it just wasn't the same red army anymore.

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to SGT Swanson)
Post #: 49
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 1:12:08 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1774
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
Manchuria doesn't need a garrison !
As for the composition of the Red Army in the far east:
A long time ago someone with insight into the Soviet OOB (Subchaser or Oleg ?)mentioned that in late 1941 those Soviet forces existed mainly on paper in order to discourage any japanese ambitions but of course this person was soon silenced by loud crys of anguish of those players who widely oppose any move of a japanese player into the USSR. I myself know few things about this but I find it highly interesting that top of the line equipment (T-34, KV-I, Yak fighters etc.) should be at the far east (i.e. in the WitP game) when the on the other hand the soviets have to fight with obsolete stuff BT-7, T-26, I-15, I-16 etc.) in the west against the germans (and the outcome of this battle was not clear to anyone). Therefore saying that any invasion of japan was doomed to failure like 1937 is comparing apples with oranges it just wasn't the same red army anymore.


Hi,

that is not completely true. Matrix used the June 1941 OOB for Soviet forces in WITP. Many formations were withdrawn to Europe by December, but some experienced formations remained and it seems that these kept the Soviet April 1941 TOE (very strong). These formations remained in the Far East until 1945 and eventually participated in August Storm. And the Soviets raised new divisions (including two tank divisions, and one of these oddly existed until 1945) to replace the one that had been transferred to Europe. There were also some new tank brigades formed (containing KV and T-34). And it seems that some divisions were transferred from Europe to the Far East in 1942 and 1943. Last thing: Matrix did not include formations that were under command of Trans Baikal Front and Mongolian formations under Soviet command.

K

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 50
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 1:33:58 PM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 462
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline
Hi,
I know that those units existed on paper. But the complaint of afore mentioned person (who was then cried down) was that those units were at all times far away from being full-strength.

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 51
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 2:27:22 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1774
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
I know that those units existed on paper. But the complaint of afore mentioned person (who was then cried down) was that those units were at all times far away from being full-strength.


This seems unlikely in the case of the pre-war units. The Soviets mostly used their infantry units until they were worn out due to combat attrition instead of diverting soldiers and equipment from them to other (newly formed or depleted) formations. And the divisions in the Far East had been (kind of) elite units before the war and always been at war footing due to the "problems" with Japan.

The newly formed tank brigades were formed under war TOE's (and thus were rather battalion-sized formations by Western standards) and it seems unlikely that they received old equipment because they would have been strange (and completely useless) formations if that would have been the case.

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 52
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 3:09:13 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6582
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I certainly don't know anything beyond the historical records, but simply saying, "I don't believe the documentation." rather closes the discussion. "The documentation" is all we have. This isn't counter-intel being spun by a war ministry during a time of war. It is documentation by the powers that be, after the war is over.

I'm sure that the other poster that you refer to must have made some seriously in-depth research, which is great (exactly what is needed). But I'd be very interested to see it.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 53
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 3:47:27 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2243
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
While we argue about whether a Japanese invasion of Russia should be impossible or just very difficult we should remember that in the game Japan is able to easily defeat Russia in a short bloodless campaign.

Unless someone is willing to argue the position that this is as it should be, there seems no need to even look at documentation.


< Message edited by moses -- 11/29/2005 5:25:10 PM >

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 54
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 3:59:40 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6582
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

While we argue about whether a Japanese invasion of Japan should be impossible or just very difficult ...



Wouldn't be too difficult, I should think...



-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 55
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 5:30:38 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2243
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
oopps. I went back and fixed that.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 56
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/29/2005 11:26:08 PM   
grunt6971


Posts: 424
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Ya sure, you betcha
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

While we argue about whether a Japanese invasion of Russia should be impossible or just very difficult we should remember that in the game Japan is able to easily defeat Russia in a short bloodless campaign.

Unless someone is willing to argue the position that this is as it should be, there seems no need to even look at documentation.



I agree - In WiTP, the Soviet Army in the Far East can be beaten [they can't replace units that are destroyed with like units] and the resources/oil used by Japan. Then Manchurian Garrison number appears only for the purpose of Soviet activation -

While others caution against a winter campaign, one must remember that the Japanese have "owned" Manchuria for nearly ten years - enough time to become accustome to this harsh enviornment [men and equipment]?

Anyway, this discussion was meant to be addressed from the present confines of the game system [whatever we may think of it].

_____________________________

"Over?! It's not over until we say it's over. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!" John Blutarsky from the Movie "Animal House"

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 57
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/30/2005 12:41:26 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10496
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Moses referenced me in our campaign about this...ahhhhhhhh....discussion and I thought that I might jump in.

The whole land-based combat part of this game seems to be woefully done. In the hands of a competent player, they can easily defeat their opponent. This happens regardless of which side you are playing. In my game with Moses, he is playing the Chinese and against a decent (read--STEEP learning curve for me!) opponent he has destroyed the Japanese army. Could that have happened in real life? NO! I wager if we switched sides, the same thing would happen in reverse. Is that real? NO!

Japan having any real chance of winning in Russia??? NO! The simple fact that these things are possible speaks of an issue within game mechanics and construction. The game code should be re-written and/or changed. Is that going to happen? NO! Seems to me, the smartest move is to simply 'turn off' Japan vs. China/Japan vs. Russia as a possiblity.

I believe that the game is entitled...War in the Pacific. My .02...

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 58
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/30/2005 1:19:24 AM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline
If you want to see how war in Russia looks like see my AAR vs GH.Soon,you will see how Japan gets easy points in Russia.

_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 59
RE: Attack on the USSR - 11/30/2005 1:49:58 AM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
I played a test match vs moses, where he invaded Russia with 10 more divisions from China/South Army. I think it was in version v1.4 but the current version may be bloodiest for Japan, as many frontiers are river and so units may come in two days and be disrupted one after the other. Also shock attack are now bloodiest for the attacker.

My strategy as a Soviet was to invade Manchuria from Iman and it worked almost. The Soviet Army was finally defeated in front of Harbin but most of it was then here.

The WITP model is way off in the hability to do a blitzkrieg in Siberia. Even if there is a rail line, there is and was scarcely any road and any army will have to advance slowly in this theater, during winter but most of it during spring (when the snow melts and everything is muddy or flooded).

Another problem is the initial position of the Soviet Army, it may be accurate but in RL, Soviet units along the border will probably march to the railroad farther than Japanese advanding over the frontier. In WITP Japan will probably take Vladivostok before the divisions NW of it will move one hex.
It is the same problem as for China. The OOB may be more or less equilibrated, but the initial placement is allowing Japan much more things than its enemies.

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: Attack on the USSR Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.114