Grognard Wargamer Thread!

It’s impossible to divorce the technological aspect from the political, though. The IJN could have won a war, but they lost any chance at fighting that war as soon as bombs fell on Hawaii and the Philippines.

I enjoy a good discussion as much as anyone but when someone mentions as an advantage of the IJN “Dual main gun mounts on destroyers”, i can’t help but shake my head and think someone’s mostly gotten their history from World of Warships.

In other news, i’ve been enjoying Silver Bayonet so far- it’s a bit meat’n’potatoes but you don’t often see operational Vietnam games and it works pretty well. @Navaronegun’s NVA ran over my LZ X-ray pretty handily after it was revealed that Westy had replaced the 105mm howitzers with fireworks dispensers.

I saw Thorogood in Athens, GA some years ago. Good show I suppose, but man that video is cringe worthy.

But, but, you mean battleships didn’t spend the war four feet from the shore, and cruisers didn’t hide behind islands using radar that magically penetrates solid rock? Lies!

Heh. Whenever people say things like “OMG the turret design,” I think the appropriate response is, “Yeah. We had Detroit.”

There’s a reason why most of the war refits for destroyers of that armament layout were lopping off one or two of the turrets to put a bunch of AA mounts.

I live about 15 minutes away from what used to be a factory producing 5" guns.

Not that the Japanese had a monopoly on the arms race of destroyer main guns- the US had a class with even more guns than any Japanese destroyer (Somers), but like other destroyers of its type, the common war refit was to take of two of its four twin turrets to put AA on there.

Its time to move to the advanced game. One or two bad rolls and X-Ray can go pretty badly pretty quickly for the Cav. In another game against @Lloyd_Heilbrunn he attacked A Company that was a mile from the LZ. I reacted into the hex to defend, figuring I’d show the NVA what’s what with firepower on the defensive. It went south (figuratively) quicker there for the US than it did for @Panzeh.

Yeah, I don’t want to rehash an argument that apparently has already happened here, but I’m a huge military history fanatic, have been studying military history for about 40 years, and I tend to pick a war/era and go crazy on it for a while. In doing so I also got very deeply into the Pacific War in WWII which also led down the bunny hole of studying Japan itself and the history and culture of Japan (Including more than one trip to Japan and visiting with Japanese historians there.)

The REALLY short version: Japan’s economy was relatively weak at the time, their actual goal of grabbing resources in SEA (and in some ways, conflicting goal that their Army had of grabbing Manchuria) already had created some cracks and weaknesses. They certainly could win some battles, especially early on, but even Yamamoto in his famous “sleeping giant” comments knew that, once America decided to truly commit to war against Japan with all of America’s resources committed to that war, Japan had zero chance of winning. Zero.

They certainly made strategic mistakes that made it even harder even in the short run, like their lack of understanding of how important massive submarine operations could have been. But they would have had to pull a “Vietnam” and win by making it so painful that America lost their will to fight. and not by any actual full military victory. And in the time frame we’re talking about, it would have been very difficult to avoid the crushing power of America in full blown all resources focused on prosecuting the war mode.

FWIW. I could be wrong. Don’t think I am, but that’s one reason we all love to wargame, to see if different strategies could bring about ahistorical results in a believable manner.

No, you’re not wrong. After Pearl Harbor it wasn’t going to end until they were crushed.

No, it’s that you’ve done this already. And then refused to present any evidence, ignored all counter-evidence, and then came back and did it all over again. It’s like the drunk at the party who can’t stop yelling slogans when the polite discussion has already moved on.

What do you mean by “meat and potatoes”? I found the system quite interesting - with its dual attack methods and CRTs.

What “greens” would you match with this starchy, high protein meal? :)

lol Brooski - you are like the enforcer for the thread.

“The drunk at the party” … bullies the both of you. Clearly.

Whatever Tom says I see Bullies. Typical. Brooski you’ve already named called me “ignorant” in this thread above.

I wonder how many years it takes to be in a thread and talk wargames it takes to be so absolutely patronizing.

Bullies? I don’t even…

You have stated the historical equivalent of “the earth is flat.” and have tossed aside reasonable arguments to the contrary. If anyone is picking a fight…

I sincerely think that you are way out of the line.

Well, that is quite wrong.

You don’t get to sound patronizing to those who wilfully ignore good info just by hanging out in a thread and regurgitating posts made by other people in other forums or hundreds of posts above.

Let me share with you what I appreciate in these fellas over here that you just accused of being bullies:

  • Have backgrounds in history and political science at the grad and post grad level.
  • Have served in the armed forces in a variety of postings involving planning and training.
  • Have reviewing professionally wargames and sims for a living, or editing magazines specialised on that topic.
  • Quote and refer to history books they have personally read, often critically and even taking notes.
  • Have in the past or are actively developing computer and hybrid table top/VASSAL war games.
  • They have extensive games libraries, they have played these critically, and offer insightful perspectives on gameplay and game systems.

You don’t get to do any of those things just by hanging out, or wasting time “discussing” with the likes of posters like you.

FYI I found this in the community guidelines,

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But, remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:

  • Name-calling.
  • Ad hominem attacks.
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content.
  • Knee-jerk contradiction.

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

Courtesy r/Wargaming, some free Normandy scenarios for Command Ops 2:

Whoa, nice. After many attempts at playing this one and bouncing off of it since picking up the Commander Pack eons ago, I am finally starting to dig in and get the hang of it.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but I hardly think it’s the case. There are plenty of people here with a lot of knowledge and insight about wargames, and the discussion is usually very enjoyable. When someone persists in posting things without any basis and refuses to engage counterpoints, it just stands out that much more from the usual thread traffic.

Is this playable on the free trial version?

I’m pretty sure it should be, yes.