Hello, /his/. I am a German history student. Me and my team

>>1972957
You didn't give us many details on how these happened at all, so there's nothing we can really discuss based on what you said. While you and your friends' autism is appreciated, it's well known that Japan was at a huge, virtually insurmountable disadvantage.

I think we'd be more interested in seeing and critiquing any notable lessons you noticed or what worked for Japan in those 93 scenarios of stalemate/American surrender.

>>1972957
>Stalemate in the Pacific Ocean/White Peace: 87
>American surrender: 5
Not actually bad odds.

>>1972957
I'm with the other poster, I would like to know more about your methodology.

>>1972957

WIthout methodological data, I can't really comment about your conclusions.

But for any sort of conclusion to yield any kind of stalemate or Japanese victory, you'd almost certainly need to come up with some way to balance superior Japanese commitment (if such actually exists) with superior American conventional force (which quite obviously exists in all permutations I can think of at least).

How do you go about doing that?

>>1972957
>rate of fire of flak guns
So you do use quantitative data? What kind of heuristics did you use? Any mathematical modelling? Or did you run hearts of iron 4 a thousand times?

Need to know more methodology

>>1972957
>Stalemate in the Pacific Ocean/White Peace: 87
>American surrender: 5
You are really bad at this.

>>1972957
This sounds very interesting, but as is there's nothing to discuss really. If we could see what events lead, in your simulations, to the Japanese not surrendering, that would provide very good material for a discussion.

>>1974874
Jap AI always loses in HoI4 though. They never protect the home islands.

>>1974933
Honestly i don't think a japanese victory would be historically plausible. The japanese were betting on a stalemate or peace agreement anyway.

>>1974992
You could envision certain circumstances where the American fleet was destroyed by natural disasters. If that happened then perhaps Japan could have taken over Australia and cut off India from the UK.

In such a situation you might see the Japanese taking over the oil in the middle east, thus allowing them to access to their most needed resource.

I've come across some scholars like Palmer who argued for that if Imperial Japan and the 3rd reich were able to link up their territorial control in the middle east, then perhaps they could have won.

>>1976288
Even if Japan rekt the US navy, Japan would still only be able to produce 1 carrier at a time while the US would continue building 7 at a time.

There was no other way that shit was gonna go down.

>>1976288
They couldn't have taken Australia and how would taking Australia cut off India from the UK? Have you never looked at a map before?

>>1976315
Are you retarded? The Japanese was trying to invade India. If their fleet was freed up from fighting the US, over Australia and the islands north of it, then it could have been used in the Indian sea more efficiently.

>>1976303
A good argument there, but you could also argue that a defeat of the American fleet would cause ideological problems within the US. "Why can't we make peace with Japan, this is an European war, not ours?"

US isolation might have prevailed over helping Australia or European countries.

Then again, perhaps the high death tolls and hardships suffered from a naval defeat could have opened up the population towards socialism? Or facism for that matter. Facism movement in the US in the 30s that never got off the ground. You could imagine that if the US government totally failed at handling the Japanese then perhaps people would have demaned a change of government, giving other more pro-hitler parts of the US a chance at power.

>>1976288
>You could envision certain circumstances where the American fleet was destroyed by natural disasters.


Not really, no. Given that it was rarely in one place at one time, and mid 20th century vessels are perfectly capable of riding out a storm, I'm having trouble envisioning such. And in any case, the U.S. would be building more

>If that happened then perhaps Japan could have taken over Australia and cut off India from the UK.

Conquering Australia would have taken 200,000 troops at least, and Japan didn't have that kind of spare manpower available. It was hardly undefended, and bringing in troops past the contested Solomons would be difficult and time consuming even if ultimately successful, which gives the greater production of the Allies time to be felt.

>In such a situation you might see the Japanese taking over the oil in the middle east, thus allowing them to access to their most needed resource.

The Middle-East was not a large producer of Oil in the timeframe of WW2. Not to mention that you have several hundred thousand Allied soldiers hanging around there, and trying to mount an invasion over a distance of about 6,000 km is absurd.

>I've come across some scholars like Palmer who argued for that if Imperial Japan and the 3rd reich were able to link up their territorial control in the middle east, then perhaps they could have won.

And since neither of those are plausible without Alien space bat levels of differentation from the historical timeline, we can safely discard them.

>>1976362
>Are you retarded? The Japanese was trying to invade India. If their fleet was freed up from fighting the US, over Australia and the islands north of it, then it could have been used in the Indian sea more efficiently.


And there were literally over a million soldiers in INdia, which could produce both arms and supplies for them. Even if their fleet is unopposed (and it wouldn't be, no matter how bad the U.S. gets its nose bloodied) they don't have the land power to conquer India.

>A good argument there, but you could also argue that a defeat of the American fleet would cause ideological problems within the US. "Why can't we make peace with Japan, this is an European war, not ours?"

Because the counterargument would be the attack on Pearl Harbor and how much they hated those nips.

>giving other more pro-hitler parts of the US a chance at power.

What pro-hitler parts? There were none to speak of; Disinterest with getting into the war was almost entirely based on not liking the expense or the involvement, Hitler was deeply unpopular in the U.S. post fall of France.

>>1972957
Go work for Paradox and ditch your stupid project

File: smug anime girl.jpg (66KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 750x500px

>>1976464
>invading the middle east from thousands of kilometers away against hundreds of thousands of troops is impossible