Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( Town/ City) bases?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( Town/ City) bases? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( Town/... - 11/11/2011 9:12:06 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2595
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
Simply if the allies bomb their own people and infastructure occupied or not , should thay say lose a VP per air raid?

I cannot imagine bombing your own people could have been taken too lightly.

M
Post #: 1
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/11/2011 9:33:58 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
We bombed France in WWII and there was a lot more fall out over the RN shelling the French fleet than all the bombs we dropped on France.

_____________________________


(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 2
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/11/2011 9:40:57 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5293
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
Perhaps then the Japanese should lose points for sending their young men off to pointless death in banzai charges and suicide planes...after all, they are the "seed corn" of the future.

If doing stupid things taken lightly is to be penalized then the Imperial High Command deserves the higher "honors".




< Message edited by spence -- 11/11/2011 9:42:52 PM >

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 3
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/11/2011 10:46:39 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4129
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
I see this thread going downhill...

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 4
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/11/2011 10:52:21 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10332
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

I see this thread going downhill...


So cynical and mistrusting...

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 5
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/11/2011 11:09:37 PM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 705
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
I could see VP loss for bombing industry in OZ or NZ or the United States, but nowhere else. The people at home in 1942 don't care about the colonies the europeans have and wouldn't care if india or the DEI got bombed to rubble.

But then I also can't see the japanese being able to benefit from industry in OZ, NZ or America even if they somehow managed to capture that industry.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 6
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/12/2011 12:17:50 AM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2595
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
Not going to talk politics...

My idea would help fix some of the issues discussed in other threads, like bombing in China, DEI etc.


(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 7
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/12/2011 12:37:29 AM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2595
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
The allies do after all lose one whole step of victory for using the third A bomb?

Is that still the same but I wonder why?




(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 8
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/12/2011 12:55:11 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5293
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
My take on colonialism is that no leader of any Western Power (including the leadership of the USA of the time) would lose much sleep over the death of indigenous persons so long as the cause of victory in the current war was advanced by the destruction of Japanese capabilities.

The destruction of valuable Allied owned production facilities might be viewed by the particular owning Ally as regrettable but might well be viewed as a potential future economic opportunity (with some degree of secret delight) by other Allies who were competing economically within the region/country. The U.S. wasn't overly concerned about the maintenance in perpetuity of the European Empires in Asia. It seems pretty unfair to penalize the (mostly) U.S. Player for something that was pretty dang low on his/its national priority list.

Already the Allied Player is playing to European priorities with the hard coded 75%+ of U.S. production going to the war elsewhere and all the extra withdrawals to service those priorities.

Finally imposing 21st century morality onto a conflict waged in the mid-20th century amongst powers whose moral compasses represented different cultures in different centuries seems utterly invalid. But at least in so far as victory conditions in the game are concerned the same set of morals should be imposed on both sides.

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 9
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/12/2011 1:04:50 AM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry
Not going to talk politics...

My idea would help fix some of the issues discussed in other threads, like bombing in China, DEI etc.


IMHO they should get the VPs but still lose the some number of PPs (for bombing the rafineries in DEI etc.).

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 10
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/12/2011 1:20:13 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Well if the enemy is there then it belongs to them in my book. And I am going to bomb the snot out of them until they are nice enough to return it. Simple as that..

By the way Ark. I don't care if I get reduced to a triple major defeat. Once I get the A bomb, I am going to drop every one of them on you until you are reduced to wearing nothing but palm leafs for clothing. Sorry, but this is war...

< Message edited by crsutton -- 11/12/2011 1:23:45 AM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 11
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/12/2011 2:10:28 AM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4129
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

I see this thread going downhill...


So cynical and mistrusting...


...hardly....these topics tend to steer off course...just an observation.

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 12
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/12/2011 3:02:14 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
The Allies ~did~ bomb refineries and such in the DEI (at least 1944 onward).

-F-

_____________________________

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


(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 13
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/12/2011 3:11:46 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6190
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Conceptually there is no difference between bombing industrial targets occuppied by the enemy and sabotaging them before they are captured. Nor is there any difference with blowing up bridges or dams to slow down the rate of advance of the enemy.

Back then they were not so squeamish about suffering collateral damage as we are today. Besides, in the context of the game unless manpower centres are targetted, it is not a certainty that any civilian casualties would be incurred in bombing industrial targets.

Alfred

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 14
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/12/2011 3:15:50 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13256
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Simply if the allies bomb their own people and infastructure occupied or not , should thay say lose a VP per air raid?

I cannot imagine bombing your own people could have been taken too lightly.

M



I´ve long been using the hr in my PBEMs of Allied not being allowed to strategic bomb Allied territory of 7 Dec 41. Not because I think they wouldn´t do it but for a better PBEM as I´ve seen Allied players sending their carriers in late 42 to bomb Palembang´s oil and while losing the carriers doing that, it usually ended the game with Palembang´s oil centers gone. And it also focusses the game around more historic and realistic targets IMO.

Of course, there are then Japanese players thinking it would be realistic to whipe out a whole country´s (China) industry and supply source by using a hundred IJAAF medium bombers for two or three weeks. This is also something I think is off...

_____________________________


(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 15
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/12/2011 6:33:28 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25212
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Conceptually there is no difference between bombing industrial targets occuppied by the enemy and sabotaging them before they are captured. Nor is there any difference with blowing up bridges or dams to slow down the rate of advance of the enemy.



Succinctly stated, as usual, Alfred. I agree completely.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 16
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/12/2011 9:48:42 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6337
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
IRL there were few opportunities for the Allies to stragically bomb their previously occupied "Cities"

Rangoon got a regular pounding, in 1944 or 45 the FAA hit the oil at Sabang & Palembang and once in range USAAF & RAAF Liberators hit the Balikpapan and Tarakan refineries.

As well, bombing the Oil in a city doesnt imply carpet bombing the city, in the PTO daylight bombing was the norm plus in such an undeveloped area the developed oil refineries would stand out amongst the background.

I see no reason for penalty for bombing a "Base", most base locations on the map are little more than villages, in most cases these people would have "gone bush" .

The japanese get points for capturing Indian/US/Aust, do they want points for being kicked out of them as well?


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 17
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/13/2011 5:19:23 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2595
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
I was always talking about City/ Manpower/ Fire attacks?


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 18
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/13/2011 9:31:09 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Seriously, they are going to fall out of the Japanese sky like rain in May....




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 19
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/14/2011 12:09:35 AM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 22399
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Seriously, they are going to fall out of the Japanese sky like rain in May....





That must be from the set.

"Nuclear weapon, handle with care"

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 20
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/14/2011 5:06:31 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Simply if the allies bomb their own people and infastructure occupied or not , should thay say lose a VP per air raid?




NO. It was s.o.p. to destroy any usefull industrial capacity or resources to keep them from being used by your enemy..., either by demolition or bombing.

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 21
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/15/2011 1:43:07 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5293
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
World War II was the last total war. Neither player is trying to "win" said war according to the standards of limited war as they might try in 2011 but rather by the standards of total war in 1945. At that time there was a very unambiguous meaning to victory. And local populations were damned if they stood in the way of that definition of victory.

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 22
RE: Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( T... - 11/15/2011 10:03:53 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline
+1

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 23
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Should the Allies lose VP for bombing their own ( Town/ City) bases? Page: [1]
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

0.145