Announcing An Exciting New PTO Wargame For Your PC!
Annette Brooks
Release
Shrapnel Games Awakens The Sleeping Giant With War Plan Pacific!
Announcing An Exciting New PTO Wargame For Your PC!
Hampstead, NC, 02 April 2008
It should have been just another December Sunday morning. It wasn't.
Scores of aircraft
dropped from the sky, blood red suns adorning their wings, unleashing
a Hell borne from
bullet, bomb, and torpedo. Body and hull shattered, blood and oil
staining the Hawaiian
waters as most of the United States' Pacific Fleet was transformed
into a mangled wreck
of flesh and steel within hours. As bad as the carnage was it was but
a sign of the days to
come, as the greatest naval conflict the world had ever seen-- or
would see-- erupted upon
that infamous day. Forged in the flames of Pearl Harbor this conflict
would only end in
the atomic flames of Nagasaki.
Shrapnel Games is pleased to announce the upcoming publication of War
Plan Pacific,
developed by KE Studios, a new development house based in the Puget
Sound region.
Currently about to enter beta War Plan Pacific will be available for
the Windows
operating system, price to be decided.
War Plan Pacific is a turn-based computer wargame for one or two
players (IP based
multiplayer capability) covering the entire war in the Pacific from
1941 until 1945.
Focusing on power projection through the use of a strong navy, players
will assume the
role of the heads of either the Imperial Japanese Navy or the United
States Navy (along
with allied British, Australian, and Dutch forces), commanding a
historical force mix in a
total war aimed at achieving nothing less than an unconditional
surrender of the enemy.
Individual ships of light cruiser size and larger are represented, and
each turn represents
one month of real world time.
The Japanese player faces a challenging road to victory, although
victory is possible
through either a quick win or a slow win. He can cut the vital US to
Australia sea lines,
isolating Australia and thus denying the US its important forward and
submarine bases
necessary to march steadily towards Japan. If denied for six months
the Japanese will
win. This is the quick win for the IJN. The slow win involves
staving off total defeat
until 1946. To do so the Japanese has to do more than hold onto a few
ships and bases
though, as both the loss of oil or a successful strategic bombing
campaign (which also
abstractly culminates in the atomic bombings of the mainland) will
spell defeat for the
Japanese.
Long time wargamers who are familiar with Avalon Hill's classic
Victory In The Pacific
will feel right at home with War Plan Pacific. This is not a game
that seeks to track every
single widget, bullet, and drop of sweat in the Pacific theater, but
rather one that allows
the entire war to be fought in a single session. As lead designer and
KE Studios' founder
John Hawkins says, "Put the kids to bed, play a full game, be in bed
yourself by
midnight." Eschewing hexes, War Plan Pacific uses a system of twenty-
nine important
bases. Your naval forces are either found around the bases or in
transit. The speed of
your task force determines transit time, something to keep in mind
when planning an
assault involving task forces from all over the Pacific.
War Plan Pacific is a game of naval conflict, with land combat
represented by the taking
of bases through the successful use of sea power. And while the game
abstracts several
elements to make it playable in a few hours, its heart beats a
historical reality. Naval
forces arrive on a historical timetable. The Japanese long lance
torpedo is a thorn in the
USN's side. Players can attempt to recreate the Doolittle raid, tying
up Japanese coastal
forces for months, or as the IJN scare the Hell out of the American
public by shelling the
West Coast. Try out historical strategies, or try out your own. What
will be your turning
point? Coral Sea? Midway? Guadalcanal?
Keep an eye on Shrapnel Games at www.shrapnelgames.com for more
information as
development progresses, and while there be sure to check out our
complete line up of
award-winning strategy titles for the discriminating gamer. With
titles spanning such
genres as fantasy, sci-fi, World War II, Age of Sail, and modern
there's something for
everyone.
About KE Studios
KE Studios is an independent game studio located in the Puget Sound
region, dedicated
to making strategy games that are fun and challenging. Strategy For
Fun is our motto.
We believe in the old adage that the best games are easy to learn but
hard to master, and
find that the most interesting pages of the rule book are the one
discussing strategic
options and their implications, not the ones detailing rules and
interface mechanics.
About Shrapnel Games
Formed in 1999 by Tim Brooks as a vehicle to publish the sequel to the
hit skirmish level
tactical wargame, 101st: The Airborne Invasion of Normandy, Shrapnel
Games soon took
on a new persona as a publisher of the finest niche gaming found on
the Internet. With
numerous genres represented by a bevy of critically acclaimed titles,
Shrapnel Games has
a little something for everyone tired of the mundane world of
mainstream gaming.
For press related information please contact Scott R. Krol at:
sk...@shrapnelgames.com
To visit our company blog go to www.shrapnelcommunity.com/blog/
For all other information, please contact:
Timothy W. Brooks
Shrapnel Games, Inc.
P.O. Box 488
Hampstead, NC 28443-0488
tbr...@shrapnelgames.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Long time wargamers who are familiar with Avalon Hill's classic
> Victory In The Pacific
> will feel right at home with War Plan Pacific.
Sold.
I'm simply dying for a quick PTO game at this scale - been posting
here not too many moons ago about how VitP could be turned into a
great computer wargame and now this.
Screenshots ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > Long time wargamers who are familiar with Avalon Hill's classic
> > Victory In The Pacific
> > will feel right at home with War Plan Pacific.
>
> Sold.
>
> I'm simply dying for a quick PTO game at this scale - been posting
> here not too many moons ago about how VitP could be turned into a
> great computer wargame and now this.
Yeah. Even WPO, which I like, is really too big and monsterish for
regular play. This sounds nifty.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"You know, let's have the Democratic Party go on record against seating
the Michigan and Florida delegations three months before the general
election? I don't think that will happen. I think they will be seated.
So that is where we are headed if we don't get this worked out."
- Hillary Clinton
"You go, Hil. Rip those stubborn Dems a new asshole ... wait, what?"
- Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> Screenshots ?
Got them :
http://www.kestudios.com/games.html
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
tbr...@shrapnelgames.com
wrote:
Jut so everyone knows. The game is in late alpha, and everything you
see in the screenies is subject to change as we enter beta.
Greetings.
HR
I thought Shrapnel was done.
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Jut so everyone knows. The game is in late alpha, and everything you
> see in the screenies is subject to change as we enter beta.
More info on the game's victory condition mechanics
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/blog/2008/04/02/the-question-of-victory-in-war-plan-pacific/
The more I read about this game, the more I know I'm going to like it.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> And they have an ETO coming out 2nd qtr.
>
> I thought Shrapnel was done.
No, they're just "rare" :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
old....@cmaaccess.com
>More info on the game's victory condition mechanics
I always felt the way (damn memory) "The game in the Mag that
was put out every month" did it was the best. It was done on a point
system, so with WW-II in the Pacific, if you were the US, and won the
war but took longer then it did historically the Japanese would win
the game. If it took you the historical time, it was a draw, and if
you did in less time then historically then you won the game.
I remember on game of War in the Pacific, where I was the US,
in 3 game turns (9 months) I won, losing 2 Carriers to Japan's lose of
15 Carriers.
--
If you like my photos at www.myspace.com/osalt feel free to buy them.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 03:06:22 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >More info on the game's victory condition mechanics
>
> I always felt the way (damn memory) "The game in the Mag that
> was put out every month" did it was the best.
The French wargame mag Vae Victis had a pretty good grand strategic
game PTO game called "Typhon sur le Pacific" but I guess that's not
the one you're thinking off.
Other gaming mags of note containing wargames : Strategy & Tactics,
Command, The Wargamer.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
GJK
wrote:
> On 2 apr, 14:16, tbro...@shrapnelgames.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jut so everyone knows. The game is in late alpha, and everything you
> > see in the screenies is subject to change as we enter beta.
>
> More info on the game's victory condition mechanics
>
>
> The more I read about this game, the more I know I'm going to like it.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
I was going to mention that this game seems to be more of a
computerized version of MMP's "Fire in the Sky" than it does AH's old
"ViTP" when I read a reference to the same in that link. Being a huge
fan of "FITS", I will anxiously await the release of this one!
HR
Anyway..the ETO game looks cool...except no AI :(
That kills that.
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d18338cc-50c0-4923...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
HR
fght for Guadalcanal zone or not. All else being standard strategy.
For the Japs it outstretched them and their precious land based air.
For the US it could be costly.
What did that zone have for both sides....not a lot other than it was
tempting and of course..historical :).
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d18338cc-50c0-4923...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
eddys...@hotmail.com
> If I remember too..the strategy for both sides in VITP came down to do I
> fght for Guadalcanal zone or not. All else being standard strategy.
Hold it - there were plenty of attempt to come-up with the perfect
strategy - and all of them failed because of a counter-strategy. No 2
games were ever the same and no single strategy guaranteed a win.
Got 8 VitP strategy analyzing articles which appeared in magazines in
pdf format right here, all with cute sounding names like "Keep on Truk-
In" or "The Maniacal Approach". Anyone who wants them : send me a
mail.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> hmm.. thiught I heard it here too:)
>
> Anyway..the ETO game looks cool...except no AI :(
Well, given that it's a boardgame ... :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
HR
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:08b9581c-72be-4f7d...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Ah yes..the Truk strategy..I'm pushing my memory here because I had read all
the General's magazine strategies. Still..there was always the question was
it worth extending the perimiter for the Japs at guadalcanal because it was
too much to hold and made Truk more vuneralble.
I remember the land based air counters being the most poweful right?
People complained how it was unrealistic it could govern a zone and find
enemy ships. You don't get it ....land base in seal lanes is huge and will
control a sea area.
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> I remember the land based air counters being the most poweful right?
They could hold a zone and got replaced (in the next after next turn)
while ships that went down stayed down. Also : during the course of
the game the US got more and more of them.
> People complained how it was unrealistic it could govern a zone and find
> enemy ships. You don't get it ....land base in seal lanes is huge and will
> control a sea area.
Given how much the little "Cactus Air Force" at Guadalcanal
accomplished and their strategic importance in general it's hard to
overestimate LBA
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
old....@cmaaccess.com
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Strategy & Tactics,
That's the one.
Dav Vandenbroucke
> I always felt the way (damn memory) "The game in the Mag that
>was put out every month" did it was the best.
SPI first published USN as a magazine game Strategy & Tactics. It
has since been reissued by Decision Games.
Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net
Mike Kreuzer
news:9c82c59a-19e9-4d75...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I dunno. I like the oil mechanic, I think that's a neat abstraction, but
I'm lukewarm about the strategic bombing.
If the US turns up with just one airbase, one bomber and The Bomb, then
surely Japan gets nuked no matter what happened before that. I'm
borderline, maybe it's all explained how this is all a cumulative thing on
top of strategic bombing and just the bomb wouldn't have done it. But a
hard end date of any time after August if there's an airfield in range would
have seemed more realistic to me ...
And as for isolating Australia being the quick route to victory ... what!?
Flattering, but really.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
old....@cmaaccess.com
<dav_and_france...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>SPI
Yep that's the company. I always want to put SSI, which I
know is not the same.
old....@cmaaccess.com
<mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>And as for isolating Australia being the quick route to victory ... what!?
>Flattering, but really.
Isolating Australia would mean the Japannies had split the
Pacific into two. British and the Americans could not resurpply each
other.
Mike Kreuzer
news:tnebv35odll161s8b...@4ax.com...
The British and the Americans could not resurpply each other? ROTFL.
Classic Salt.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
> <old.s...@cmaaccess.com> wrote in message
>
> news:tnebv35odll161s8b...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:34:03 +1100, "Mike Kreuzer"
> > <m...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>
> >>And as for isolating Australia being the quick route to victory ... what!?
> >>Flattering, but really.
>
> > Isolating Australia would mean the Japannies had split the
> > Pacific into two. British and the Americans could not resurpply each
> > other.
> > --
>
> The British and the Americans could not resurpply each other? ROTFL.
> Classic Salt.
I interpreted it as *both* then having to go on without Australian
beer - which, you have to admit, would have serious consequences for
moral.
All kidding aside, the Japanese did develop plans/dreamed of the
invasion of Australia.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Mike Kreuzer
news:c1f0f95b-26fe-4c72...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
--
Tragic indeed, especially after the loss of the Philippines, no access to
the dubious virtues of some of our own shady laydees would've meant the
whole R&R thing was a washout.
Just cause Tojo dreamed about it doesn't mean it would've meant the end of
the war though. If the US got cut off from Australia and Britain at the
same time it wouldn't have been the US war effort that collapsed. Plus, err
.. the Atlantic ...
Its a gamey BS way of giving the Japanese a way to win other than by not
being completely pummeled after X years. It's the same old 'conquer Pearl
Harbor and the US gives up' rule, just dumber.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Its a gamey BS way of giving the Japanese a way to win other than by not
> being completely pummeled after X years. It's the same old 'conquer Pearl
> Harbor and the US gives up' rule, just dumber.
I disagree. Look, historically there's no way outside Alien Space Bats
invading Earth that the Japanese could have won the war. Winning as in
the US giving up on trying to smash their Co-Prosperity Sphere to
pieces. That's the historical miscalculation the Japanese made : they
knew the US could outproduce them economically and outfight them in
the long term, they just counted on delaying the US for long enough
thereby making it too costly. Short : they counted on the US to give
up after a while, to become war-weary. A big psychological mistake.
So when you design a PTO game where do you set Japanese victory
conditions ? Holding on until 1946 is one option, but that isn't
terribly exiting from a gaming pov, so you pick something else that's
really, really difficult both historically and in the game, and
voila : conquer Oz produces a Japanese win. That's not gamey, that's a
good compromise with some historical validity.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
GJK
wrote:
> I disagree. Look, historically there's no way outside Alien Space Bats
> invading Earth that the Japanese could have won the war. Winning as in
> the US giving up on trying to smash their Co-Prosperity Sphere to
> pieces. That's the historical miscalculation the Japanese made : they
> knew the US could outproduce them economically and outfight them in
> the long term, they just counted on delaying the US for long enough
> thereby making it too costly. Short : they counted on the US to give
> up after a while, to become war-weary. A big psychological mistake.
>
> So when you design a PTO game where do you set Japanese victory
> conditions ? Holding on until 1946 is one option, but that isn't
> terribly exiting from a gaming pov, so you pick something else that's
> really, really difficult both historically and in the game, and
> voila : conquer Oz produces a Japanese win. That's not gamey, that's a
> good compromise with some historical validity.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
Again, I love the way that "Fire in the Sky" (MMP) handles it. Oil
points are crucial for the Japanese and are required for operational
and reactionary movement. If they go big and get too aggressive,
they'll run out of oil points for the turn and will not be able to
react to any advances done by the Allies. They can sit back and
defend and then react where needed as the other option, but the
overall oil reserves dwindle as the game goes on so they become more
and more limited with their options. Doesn't sound like a fun time
for the Japanese player, but it is. All that is needed to win is to
either reach 20 VP's at any time during the game (from conquests) or
to have just 1 VP at the end of the game (again, holding out a
conquest).
From the rulebook:
During the Victory Point Adjustment Segment, any bases that have been
captured by the Japanese add to the Victory Point total, and any bases
that have been captured by the Allies deduct from the Victory Point
total. Note that for the purpose of this rule, "capture" means taking
control of a neutral or enemy-controlled base (even if this previously
was a friendly base).
The amount of Victory Points added or deducted for captured bases
varies as follows:
5 VP Pearl Harbor, Kure, Yokosuka
3 VP Singapore, Manila, Calcutta, Bombay, Brisbane
1 VP All other bases
Note that only bases provide Victory Points. The Gangetic Plain,
Burma, and Malaya hexes (with a circle) are worth no Victory Points.
· Every Japanese Player Turn a Supply Line cannot be traced from the
US Home Base to Brisbane during the Victory Point Adjustment Segment,
two Victory Points are added to the total.
· Additionally, at the start of Turn 4, if the Japanese have not
captured Manila, one Victory Point is deducted; if Singapore has not
been captured, one Victory Point is deducted. This deduction is made
at the start of every turn beginning with Turn 4. Should the Japanese
capture either base, this special Victory Point loss will no longer
occur for this specific base, even if the Allies recapture it later.
If the Victory Point total reaches 20 or more, the game ends
immediately with a Japanese player win.
If the Victory Point total ever reaches -1 or less, the game ends
immediately with an Allied player win.
old....@cmaaccess.com
<mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>Just cause Tojo dreamed about it doesn't mean it would've meant the end of
>the war though. If the US got cut off from Australia and Britain at the
>same time it wouldn't have been the US war effort that collapsed. Plus, err
>.. the Atlantic ...
>
>Its a gamey BS way of giving the Japanese a way to win other than by not
>being completely pummeled after X years. It's the same old 'conquer Pearl
>Harbor and the US gives up' rule, just dumber.
Yes it's a way for Japan (player) to win the game. Does Japan
win the war, no. Since there is no way for Japan to win the war, with
the US carrier out put, compared the Japanninse, is something like 90
US carriers to 4 Japanninse for the leath of the war.
So unless in game the Japananninse player has some slim hope
of winning, why would anyone want to play it. That's why the game is
set up the way it is, to make it fun for both players.
--
If you like my photos at www.myspace.com/osalt feel free to buy them.
Mike Kreuzer
news:dqkcv3p9hbka2n5jl...@4ax.com...
Well yes, but that's what I mean by gamey BS.
I see the point in motivating the Japanese player to go the historical rush,
rather than just spending years fortifying Tokyo. And I understand the need
to motivate anyone to want to play the Japanese, cause yep, in the end
they're going to loose. But it's the sudden death aspect of getting to Oz I
find most odd. And fire in the sky seems to have this Brisbane fixation too
... So how about (in general terms):
+ 1vp Japanese player goes further than they did historically (eg by getting
to Australia)
+ 1vp Japanese player lasts longer than they did historically
- 1vp Japan folds earlier than they did by some margin (to motivate the US
player after they retake Oz)
And when the game ends cause the US got to within bomber range of Japan
after August 45, or has occupied all of Japan, whichever happens first:
2vp: amazing Japanese victory
1vp: Japanese victory
0vp: US wins
-1vp: US amazing victory
That coupled with the oil thing would make for a nice game, IMHO, with no
sudden death victory other than the collapse of Japan either by invasion or
running out of resources. Something like that any way.
What the hey though, I'm already dreaming about playing this game as it is.
<g>
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
old....@cmaaccess.com
<mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>That coupled with the oil thing would make for a nice game, IMHO, with no
>sudden death victory other than the collapse of Japan
I don't recall any "sudden death victory" in any of the games
I played dealing with fighting Japan.
Mike Kreuzer
news:2m3ev391lhoejg172...@4ax.com...
What does "Re: Announcing An Exciting New PTO Wargame For Your PC!" mean to
you?
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Jo...@kestudios.com
for the US public to decide it's not worth it to keep fighting.
That's a dubious foundation for strategy, but that's what it was in
real life. Interestingly, US planners in the 20's and 30's thought
they only had two or three years to win the war before the public lost
patience, so maybe, prior to Pearl Harbor and Bataan anyway, it really
was a valid idea.
Losing contact with Australia was certainly something the Allies
worried about. The entire Guadalcanal campaign was to protect the sea
lanes to Australia, so it seemed important to include it in the
victory conditions. Also, Australia was a far better base for US
submarines than Pearl, being so much closer to the shipping routes
through the DEIs. A less effective sub war would have meant stiffer
resistance, and a longer war. MacArthur
BTW, Japan can invade Hawaii and it doesn't end the game. Just makes
it a little more difficult for the Allies.
Regards,
John Hawkins
KE Studios
JohnH
MacArthur probably influenced things a bit, since he needed Australia
as a base for his return to the Philippines. He was certainly able to
get FDR and the Joint Chiefs to deviate from pre-war plans.
old....@cmaaccess.com
<mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>What does "Re: Announcing An Exciting New PTO Wargame For Your PC!" mean to
>you?
I never played the original PTO Wargame, so my statement still
holds. Now if this game had some dumb "sudden death victory" aspect
to it, I do agree with you. \
But doing a game on a point system where the players either do
better, same, or worse then what happen historically to decide the
outcome of the game I feel is the best way to deal with wargames in
general as for a who wins who loses the game.
Dav Vandenbroucke
>Interestingly, US planners in the 20's and 30's thought
>they only had two or three years to win the war before the public lost
>patience, so maybe, prior to Pearl Harbor and Bataan anyway, it really
>was a valid idea.
In 1945, there was concern about growing war weariness. We'd already
beaten Hitler, and here these "Japs" didn't know when they were
licked. I still doubt that a negotiated armistice was in the cards,
but stranger things happened in the war.
Art Weingardner
one possibility for the Japs holding out and gaining a draw is the
development of a Japanese atomic bomb.
Mike Kreuzer
news:24d1930b-238b-4fbb...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
[said something like]
> The Japanese victory conditions are based on Japan lasting long enough
> for the US public to decide it's not worth it to keep fighting.
> That's a dubious foundation for strategy, but that's what it was in
> real life. Interestingly, US planners in the 20's and 30's thought
> they only had two or three years to win the war before the public lost
> patience, so maybe, prior to Pearl Harbor and Bataan anyway, it really
> was a valid idea.
>
> Losing contact with Australia was certainly something the Allies
> worried about. The entire Guadalcanal campaign was to protect the sea
> lanes to Australia, so it seemed important to include it in the
> victory conditions. Also, Australia was a far better base for US
> submarines than Pearl, being so much closer to the shipping routes
> through the DEIs. A less effective sub war would have meant stiffer
> resistance, and a longer war. MacArthur
>
> MacArthur probably influenced things a bit, since he needed Australia
> as a base for his return to the Philippines. He was certainly able to
> get FDR and the Joint Chiefs to deviate from pre-war plans.
>
> BTW, Japan can invade Hawaii and it doesn't end the game. Just makes
> it a little more difficult for the Allies.
Would it have meant a longer war? Sure, why not. A different war
certainly. Would it have meant the US throwing in the towel after six
months? I just can't see it happening. But hey, it's your game, you do
what you want!
Also, thank you for bothering to show up & argue the toss with a tosser like
me, that's guaranteed you at least one sale. <g>
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
JohnH
> certainly. Would it have meant the US throwing in the towel after six
> months? I just can't see it happening. But hey, it's your game, you do
> what you want!
>
I agree the US probably would have carried on to the bitter end,
regardless. But, at the time, everyone on both sides thought maybe
not. History certainly shows the US can be fickle (but woe to those
who guess wrong). I figured I'd set victory conditions based on what
people knew and expected at the time. I dunno, maybe look at it this
way - as the US commander, if you lose the sea lanes to Australia,
maybe the Allies still go on to win the war, just with someone else in
command<g>. And you don't get any big nuclear carriers named after
you... As the IJN commander, well, you did as much as possible. If only
those fanatics from the Army had listened. Come to think of it,
trying to cut those sea lanes was the death of Yamamoto.
> Also, thank you for bothering to show up & argue the toss with a tosser like
> me, that's guaranteed you at least one sale. <g>
>
Hey, what fun would it be if there was only one answer to anything?
Dav Vandenbroucke
<ar...@softhome.net> wrote:
>one possibility for the Japs holding out and gaining a draw is the
>development of a Japanese atomic bomb.
Considering the state of their program, you'd have to keep the war
going until 1955, at least.
Mike Kreuzer
My thinking exactly. (Oh oh, no we've agreed <g>).
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com