WWII is quite the cash cow as far as subject content for video games, with shooter, strategy, and multiplayer games all around. There have been many games recently that have been testing the subject matter of world events, both current and historic, with some quite sensitive content coming out. It is understandable that this subject matter would be a curious venture, pulling information from mission plannings and info on strengths and fortifications of mainland Japan, as well as issues coming up with the debate on the use of atomic weapons. It would be a shaky subject, but possibly an interesting experience as either a full campaign of a video game, or a mission or collection of missions in a campaign of a game. What does everyone here think?
What is the possibility/feasibility of Operation Downfall, the US planned invasion of the Japanese Home Islands in WWII, as the subject for a video game?
Too controversial, if the game played out how the Japanese intended to defend the home islands, you'd be mowing down waves of suicidal civilians (including children). Not saying I wouldn't play it.
Not that controversial games DON'T get made (see JFK: reloaded), but it's not likely to happen. (see Six days in falujah)
Well I can tell you one thing - it certainly won't be developed by Konami.
Has this setting and scenario ever been approached by other mediums?
I would definitely buy it, especially if you were allowed to play on either side of the conflict a la Red Orchestra.
Google Six days in Falujah. Thats why it'll never happen, likely.
I think this would be a good possibility. It has WW2, which is prime FPS material, and adds some alternate history which means it can be more character driven and feel fresh with a good fictional setting.
Physically, Japan made an imposing target, with very few beaches geographically suitable for sea-borne invasion. Only Kyūshū (the southernmost island of Japan) and the beaches of the Kantō plain (both southwest and southeast of Tokyo) were realistic invasion zones.
Epic beach landing levels with frantic combat which could rival Normandy invasion levels in other WW2 games.
The combined Allied naval armada would have been the largest ever assembled, including 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts. Fourteen US divisions were scheduled to take part in the initial landings.
Epic set pieces.
Over the next four months, the Imperial Japanese Army transferred forces from Manchuria, Korea, and northern Japan, while raising other forces in place. By August, they had 14 divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank brigades, for a total of 900,000 men.[22] Although the Japanese were able to raise large numbers of new soldiers, equipping them was more difficult. By August, the Japanese Army had the equivalent of 65 divisions in the homeland but only enough equipment for 40 and only enough ammunition for 30.[23]
Huge number of Japanese forces for last-stand defense.
Huge number of Japanese forces for last-stand defense.
And women, and children. You would also land on a beach and see hundreds of civilians committing suicide by leaping off cliffs because they were told it was better to die than to be captured.
Sounds like a fun game. I think the sequel should focus on the rape of Nanking.
Might as well title the series "Historical War: Total Controversy."
Talonsoft's Rising Sun (turn-based tactical wargame) had scenarios based on Downfall I think, although they could have been created by users rather than the game designers.
In addition to the unpleasant issue of who you would be fighting, civilans, kids, women... there is the issue of what they'd be fighting with.
Not much fun gunning down folks who might have some semi modern weapons but after a while there wouldn't be much to pick up in terms of enemy weapons and etc.
U.S. overpowered Japan completely in every aspect from manpower, weapons to resources. From purely gameplay perspective, it won't b fun unless one can play for Japanese side.
It has been done. Hoi2 had a scenario where the US didn't bomb the islands and invaded instead. RTS though
Do not want.
Shooting a bunch of 12 year olds with guns and walking through villages of suicide civilians would be quite the experience.
I think that could be done in a Vietnam war FPS.
They didn't really do that in Vietnam though.
They did. It could also have been like in platoon, when the soldiers destroy the village.
They did
No. They didn't.
This is a common misconception about the Vietnam war.
I think it would be much more interesting to have a game about 'Operation Unthinkable', Churchill's plan to attack the Soviet Union after the Second World War. However, I think it would be better to have two campaigns, one where the Allies (minus Soviet Russia) win, and one where Soviet Russia wins, just to stop either the 'Fuck Communism' or 'Fuck America' circlejerks.
I'd play it.
Aces of the Pacific had an expansion pack that included "1946 Missions" that were supposed to be part of the hypothetical Operation Downfall.
[removed]
Because it's unrealistic. By this point in the war, Japan would have no navy, no air force, and no supply lines, indeed, no supplies coming in, as Japan itself is too small on its own to sustain a WWII industrial war machine without external supply of at least fuel, to take one example. Also food, to take another, with no ability to use the sea and no ability to sustain an industrial distribution infrastructure without it getting bombed. Japan had enough supplies housed internally to put up a fight, and at great cost to the civilians they could have hoarded those resources for military uses for a long time, but every gallon of fuel they used would have been essentially irreplaceable.
You're probably projecting what appears to be the modern state of the US Military onto the past. Part of the reason the US Military seems so ineffective today is that they are trying to preserve the civilian populace. They do this precisely because they are powerful enough to at least contemplate that possibility, if not necessarily successfully pull it off. If they cared less about this, even the WWII military might of the US would have sufficed to depopulate the entire nation of Japan for all practical purposes, if nothing else by starvation and siege, if that's what it took. It's only a question of will (on both sides) and of how many casualties would have resulted, not really of possibility.
We are all fortunate that we all found a better path. Perhaps there were better paths yet, we will never truly know, but it's not hard to see there were very realistic worse possibilities.
On that note, this is probably a sufficient explanation of why it's not a very good game, either, not even by war game standards.
[removed]
So the atomic bombs were worthless? I couldn't be speaking from a more ignorant view, my knowledge is based out of AP history courses in high school, but if Japan had no Navy and no Air Force what was the point of not just starving them out?
From my understanding the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost much less causalities than than the the invasion would have cost. We are talking about about ~250k Japanese vs ~250k - 500k US and Millions of Japanese causalities.
To illustrate the estimated causalities of the invasion:
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.
To starve Japan out would take many years and is simply not rentable from US side. We speak about the costs to uphold the military industrie and war fatigue, so you want to end such a long war as soon as possible.
Was dropping the bombs really the best way to do things?
That is a really debatable point you bring up here. I personnaly think there could have been better options and that in the worst case one bomb would be enough. We also have to consider that Japan was struggling a lot internal about capitulation.
Why not wait for the people to riot because they had no supplies?
To hope for the people to riot and go against their government and especially their emperor is simply wishfull thinking. You have to consider the huge difference in the understanding of duty and honor of the japanse people at the time of WW2 to our western thinking. The people of Japan were much simpler (meaning less educated) and have a very strict honor code. The honor of the country and especially the family was very important for them. Also they viewed their emperor as nearly a god.
Just look at how few japanese prisoners where taken in the pazific campaign. It had not only to do with the viciousness of the fighting but also with the fact, that those soldiers would mostly rather die or commit suicide than taken prisoner and dishonor their family and country.
That is in a huge contrast to the US soldiers who would mostly surrender when faced with certain defeat. For example no US pilot would do kamikaze runs on their own. The japanese pilots did this and considerd this an great honor.
So no, the poplulation had no direct impact on the surrender of Japan, this could and was only decided by the military high command and especially the emperor. In the end the emperor was the one who decided on the instant surrender when they realised what devestating powers the US had with the atomic bombs, so no more civillians have to suffer.
On an additional note about the importance of the emperor for the japanese people. The US had to keep him in his office, even without acutal power to get the capitulation done. So he was the only leader of an axis country which not only did not put on trial but could also keep at least a part of his power.
To conclude this big wall of text, the droping of the bombs may not be the best solution (regarding causalities) but sure the quickest and much better than a costly invasion of the mainland.
Alternate history is a place where only crappy games have ventured. A high quality title using an alternate history as a backdrop could create a new trend.
I'd love to play an open world game set in Berlin after the Nazis have won and turned it into Welthauptstadt Germania.
Code Geass, except with Germany instead of Britain.