I now think a similar idea could apply to Finland.
Its 4 infantry can only move in the following territories:
Finland
Vyborg
Karelia
Norway
Sweden (not if the Axis are at war with the strict neutrals)
[Global 1940] One rule to balance it?
-
Yes, only I have hindsight. Otherwise, Japan loses.
Japan needed a lot going for them to have a small chance of winning, and with the kind of leadership they had, there was zero chance.
-
Are you talking about the game or the simulation?
Well, let me show you how the simulation played out in my head:
Midway, 1942. Without American foresight and broken codes, the US reacts with four fleet carriers (Enterprise sunk soon after the strike at Pearl Harbor, as explained earlier). History shows that Japan at this time could still prepare and launch a strike earlier than the US. US loses all four carriers, Japan loses Shoho, Zuiho crippled, and Akagi and Kaga damaged. The last three carriers survive but are repaired in 1943.
August 1943, Aleutian Islands. As Japan did not invade the Solomons or New Guinea, the Allies attempt to retake the Aleutian Islands instead. More on that later, but simultaneously, the Japanese invade the
August 1943, Java. Concurrently the Australians (with US naval and air support) attempt to invade Java. Thanks to my insane simulation rules, I know this so I convince the army to send a maximum of forces to the expected invasion areas. Meanwhile, IJAAS and IJNAS aircraft go in fierce battles with the 5th Ai Force. This is the Allied equivalent of the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. A bunch of Allied ships are sunk, but the Australians land in Java. Whilst gaining a little ground and setting up an airfield, a combined Japanese land offensive and fierce air support barely pushes the Australians out. Japanese air attacks sink more ships and a mutually destructive engagement between remaining Allied ships and 1 Mutuski class destroyer and 2 Yugumo class destroyers finishes of remaining Allied warships. The Australian transports make it home, however.
As you can see, it’s been taking insane good luck and simulation rules just to make it this far.
Could it have happened historically? No. Did the Japanese have a chance of winning with the leaders they had? No. They’re totally incompetent on most levels.
Just treat my stuff as fiction, like Guns of the South.
-
@superbattleshipyamato okay. Did you have relatives in the war?
-
Actually, no. I just like writing stories and playing “games” with my imagination, like putting a Kirov battlecruiser or Nimitz aircraft carrier during World War 2.
-
@superbattleshipyamato said in [Global 1940] One rule to balance it?:
Are you talking about the game or the simulation?
Was talking about the actual war. I’ll say it again, once the bombs dropped on Pearl Harbour, US victory was assured. Yamamoto planned that, maybe you are saying that he shouldn’t have done so and if that is correct, then perhaps if they tried to keep USA out of the war or (less likely) a limited role in the actual fighting, then there may have been a chance of Japanese victory.
-
Realistically, without hindsight superpowers and their leaders, I agree.
Have you read this book?
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37506/an-interesting-book-i-read?_=1665669837823
If you know what they’re talking about, this is the best World War 2 book ever. Never seen another book like this.
It goes through many World War 2 what ifs, from 1938 to 1945, and has fantastic analysis by many professionals, including David Glantz. Different chapters are written in different formats, but it’s not too hard to understand. The one question about Japan is an enormous source on how they could have defeated the US.
-
I may have to check this book out if it has what if’s for if Moscow would of fallen. In my game Russia still can take it back or hold Stalingrad or both and allies still win. Just happened last game.
Curious to see what they say on Russia counter when Moscow falls.Is there what if’s for that in this book ?
-
As I said, there are different views as the chapters are written by different professors. The one by David Glantz is most interesting. He says that had Germany taken Moscow, the this is how the general sequence in the east would have transpired:
Soviet counteroffensive in the central USSR, winter 1941.
German offensive in the southern USSR, summer 1942.
Soviet counteroffensive in the southern USSR, winter 1942.
German offensive in the southern USSR, summer 1943.
Soviet counteroffensive in the southern USSR, summer 1942.I’m not in the beat position to explain it, but the reason why the general tide would have been similar to history is something like the commanders involved, geography, political considerations, and other factors, regardless of what ifs.
His conclusions at the end of the chapter is that something which the Soviets call “objective reality”, where no single decision made solely for the Eastern Front (example, what if Germany attacked Moscow instead of Stalingrad) could have changed the outcome of the war.
It says that the rapier’s thrust was crucial in the chess like war of North Africa, but in the east, a war waged with meat axes, the thrust only gave a fleeting advantage.
The rest of the book is so good I don’t wanna spoil it to you.
-
I haven’t read the book
-
@simon33 I really like Crocketts France 1st idea.Always seems to me that it’s too easy for germany to kill szs110+111+106? as well as taking Paris.Historically,Germany needed the luftwaffe to defeat France.In early june1940 France had just replaced their top commander and was not yet at war with Italy.
I would suggest Frances 1st turn be restricted to non-combat.For their 19ipcs ,I place a TT in sz 93 to start plus 12ipc to spend on units.Keep in mind,not being at war with Italy ,France can pass through or park in szs95,96,97. -
@ampdrive I sometimes forget about that video. I think about it as a handicapping device, but you are right. One rule.
-
You make a good point about accuracy. However, as much as I don’t care about balance, how could Germany have come (somewhat) close to victory without sinking the Royal Navy? And why does those abilities/advantages not apply in the game?
-
@superbattleshipyamato I don’t think they ever came close to sinking the British navy. In the Atlantic or the med. even when the Brits weren’t escorting their convoys.
The Japanese had much tighter control on shipping lanes and square miles.
-
@ampdrive said in [Global 1940] One rule to balance it?:
@simon33 I really like Crocketts France 1st
I would suggest Frances 1st turn be restricted to non-combat.For their 19ipcs ,I place a TT in sz 93 to start plus 12ipc to spend on units.Keep in mind,not being at war with Italy ,France can pass through or park in szs95,96,97.Well thought out!
-
Exactly. If Germany didn’t come close to destroying the RN, and yet supposedly the ability to do so is crucial to balancing the game, then how come Germany had a chance at winning the war?
-
Unnerved on anti Axis imbalance on that idea.
-
@superbattleshipyamato I don’t think destroying the rn is necessary for balance.
-
Then why is it so easy? To be honest though, the big gun warships of the RN are of little use if Germany does Sealion. The journey to the Pacific is too long to be a viable option.
-
@superbattleshipyamato I’ve house ruled it so the rn survives and the results are unimpressive for the Allies
-
Good. How did you house rule that though? What did you change?
Suggested Topics
