Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

quote:

ORIGINAL: marovici




This has been mentioned before. The simple soultion is to play 2 games (one Allied and one Japan) against the same player. This way any game imbalances cancel out and the skill of the player determines victory.

Yes but shouldn't the greater number of AARs correct for the individual player ability? SO IMO either Japanese players are smarter or the game is tilted. For selfish reasons I lean towards the game being tilted.

Just understand that there are a lot of games being played without any AAR being written. Also, the Japanese should win about 1/2 of the "games," not win the war, different thing entirely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

If you want to see some AAR that were good for the Allied, go to the AAR section, select all dates, and class AAR by number of hits. On the first page you will find the following (that I know and are good for Allied).

Here is an AAR that finished in Allied victory in summer 1942: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=861689

This classical AAR saw the Japanese player take Hawaii and conquer China (and Russia IIRC), but the Allied came back and won in fall 1945... ... http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=716742

And this one "5th of Aprile 1943: The allies are pushing everywhere." http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=833044

Current game in October 1944 and Japan being pounded: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1037321

Battle for New jersey (Formosa in Allied hands and HI bombed in summer 44, despite the fact that China AND India were conquered): http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1110403

Tom Hunter vs Mogami: Allied counter-attack in late 1942: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=947589

It seems to me it is the only AAR where Allied landed in Japan and took Tokyo in end June 1945. Allied brute force was at his best during the Japan campaign: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=722490&mpage=24&key=

Only in the first pages, and only the AARs I know.

By the way the IJN players are probably not smarter, but they are at less ready to have a more complex task, so maybe are more experienced in wargames... Also those who will last after 1943 should know how to defend... many Japanese players will resign then as "it will be no more fun". I think, and we are several, that it is as fun to defend than to attack, even against growing Allied power... by the way Japan AAR will usually emphasize what is working and not list the ordinary day of generalized terror bombing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

I think this thread wil turn in an AFB vs JFB match...

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: marovici

I don't know. I was talking about later war AAR's. Couple that I have been following do not look good for Allies. Trust me when I say I do look for AAR's where that is not the case.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

Are we allied players a little slow, or if not slow then perhaps slower than our Japanese counterparts who seem just to go on overbuild, overconquer and overshout anyone else who may say something else. Why this rant? Just tired of endless stream of allied defeats. We all can not be so bad can we?

• IJ players can learn from a plethora of RL mistakes
  
• IJ players can know exactly what to expect from their forces, their hardware, and most important of all, their enemies, and when to expect it,
  
• IJ players do not have to deal with the IJA/IJN issue
  

quote:

Are Japanese players smarter????

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658
Spread sheets? We JFBs don't need no stinkin' spread sheets!

Life is tough as Japan but you get to run wild for the first six months or so as a consolation. If you think the whole game will be like this you will be quickly disappointed. A good JFB must be a master of defense. While not as fun it can be quite rewarding.

I see that many Japanese players quit after this since they feel that the game is no longer fun. I totally disagree with this.

Even though I have been on the defensive since late 42 I have been having a blast. While these are not huge victories, like capturing tons of bases, they are rewarding just the same. I have:

1. Come up with a solution to the Allied sub menace in 1943 that stopped it cold
2. Learned how to use air transport and fast transports well enough to withdraw entire divisions from cut off bases (Even ones under the Allied air umbrella)
3. Run TKs full of oil thousands of miles through Allied contriolled waters all the way to the HI (Most were sunk but a few made it)
4. Pulled off a few spectacular surface raids that sunk Allied BBs (Big B nicknamed these "Long lance drive bys")
5. Launched an invasion of Russia

This does not mean in any way that I am kicking Allied butt. In reality it is my butt that has been kicked back all the way to the HI in 8/44. Formosa is in Allied hands so the empire has been cut in 2. Allied 4E bomber can reach any city in the HI and fighter sweeps by P-38s are shooting down my green pilots at a 4:1 rate.

Even if you are going to lose (I am hoping for a tie come 1/1/46) the fun is in playing. I have learned a ton of things that I will use in my next PBEM.

But to answer your orginal question: Yes, we are smarter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658
Spread sheets? We JFBs don't need no stinkin' spread sheets!

Life is tough as Japan but you get to run wild for the first six months or so as a consolation. If you think the whole game will be like this you will be quickly disappointed. A good JFB must be a master of defense. While not as fun it can be quite rewarding.

I see that many Japanese players quit after this since they feel that the game is no longer fun. I totally disagree with this.

Even though I have been on the defensive since late 42 I have been having a blast. While these are not huge victories, like capturing tons of bases, they are rewarding just the same. I have:

1. Come up with a solution to the Allied sub menace in 1943 that stopped it cold
2. Learned how to use air transport and fast transports well enough to withdraw entire divisions from cut off bases (Even ones under the Allied air umbrella)
3. Run TKs full of oil thousands of miles through Allied contriolled waters all the way to the HI (Most were sunk but a few made it)
4. Pulled off a few spectacular surface raids that sunk Allied BBs (Big B nicknamed these "Long lance drive bys")
5. Launched an invasion of Russia

This does not mean in any way that I am kicking Allied butt. In reality it is my butt that has been kicked back all the way to the HI in 8/44. Formosa is in Allied hands so the empire has been cut in 2. Allied 4E bomber can reach any city in the HI and fighter sweeps by P-38s are shooting down my green pilots at a 4:1 rate.

Even if you are going to lose (I am hoping for a tie come 1/1/46) the fun is in playing. I have learned a ton of things that I will use in my next PBEM.

But to answer your orginal question: Yes, we are smarter

Not to mention humble and modest. But three cheers for your attitude and perseverance..., hope you make it.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658
And better looking too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Most of the time if the IJ player starts losing, you don't see AARs into 1944... it's "Jan 1 1943 - game over"... or, "KB sunk in 1942, game over".

If the Allied player is losing, the game is more likely to go longer, because the Allied player has a chance to catch up in the later years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

I think this thread wil turn in an AFB vs JFB match...

It seems to me this could be the intent of the original poster...just my thought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: marovici

I don't know. I was talking about later war AAR's. Couple that I have been following do not look good for Allies. Trust me when I say I do look for AAR's where that is not the case.

Really, which AARs are those? I would like to read them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aztez

Well, it ain't all easy for allies.

I have one allied reaching the summer of 1945

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1027643&mpage=19

Basically, Dave has denied me any advance in DEI, South Pacific, China, North Pacific and even Burma it is tough going.

Well, one place I managed to get through was Central Pacific and that was Dave's only mistake. Now I'am bombing Japan to dust.

Allthough, to be honest Dave could have seized China earlier and had he chosen to do so I propably would be in world of trouble.  

It is not easy and with experienced Japanese opponent it is hard going all the way.

So, basically if you loose China as allies you are screwed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Are we allied players a little slow, or if not slow then perhaps slower than our Japanese counterparts who seem just to go on overbuild, overconquer and overshout anyone else who may say something else. Why this rant? Just tired of endless stream of allied defeats. We all can not be so bad can we?

I don't think it is so much a question of Japanese players being smarter than the allied, as it is that the Japanese players have many advantages in comparison to the IJ commanders IRL.

• IJ players can learn from a plethora of RL mistakes
  
• IJ players can know exactly what to expect from their forces, their hardware, and most important of all, their enemies, and when to expect it,
  
• IJ players do not have to deal with the IJA/IJN issue
  

In addition, the IJ leadership IRL would probably rank in the bottom quartile of players on this board.

To contrast, the allied war effort in the Pacific IRL was characterized by a high level of professionalism and intelligence. One has to look hard to find material errors of allied command and leadership, which abound on the IJ side. It is far more difficult for allied players to improve on RL than it is for IJ players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Many of the games that have gone to completion or near it are with stock. There are many games in the AAR section that are CHS and other mods that have basically gotten to near the end of 1942. Thus, they cannot be added to the mix. The mods have a different flavor. 

It also looks like RHS may be getting close to completion (less than one update per week) and may create a more difficult challenge for the Japanese player.

There are only a handful of player that have more than one complete game under their belt. This game is like chess, you need to play better players to improve your game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Woos

Well, one shouldn't feed the trolls, but with this topic-line I can't resist:

Of course they are!

Want proof?

All tools which support playing WitP (I'm not talking about editors) were/are written by Japanese players (in both senses of the word; does anyone know which side Bodhi actually played?). So obviously they are smarter. ;-P

BTW, happy 4th of July to the majority here! But actually you are two days late.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

99% of the players don't do AAR's.

Just two questions
Have you actually played this game against a human?
Or, are you basing your assumption only from AAR's.

Just curious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

If there is any slant to the game I would say that it slightly favors the Allies simply because of the fact that just like IRL the numerical advantage can over come a lot. Player quality being equal I think the Allies will eventually win.

The Japanese player has to be good (and aggressive) to have any chance of getting a 1946 draw let alone a win. As proof of this argument I would guess that every JFB's first game against the AI (mine included) ended in a stalemate or a restart. It is very easy to screw up Japan, espcially the economics (there have been several threads on this).

This is not to say that a good Allied player will always lose to a good Japanese player since there are many random factors along the way but Japan can be toast with a singlescrew up (KB lost, economy screwed up, ect). The Allies can make a few mistake and still recover. My opponant has yet to make a major mistake

If the Allies can prevent an auto-victory at the end of 42 they have a good chance at winning. I think a lot of the Allied p[layers that complain about inmalances or quit during this time simply have not accepted the fact that they will have to wait until mid 43 to go on the offensive and have a chance of success. If they do so before this they a taking a huge risk that could have horrible consequnces. My opponant shocked me by doing this (Carrier battle in May 42 and invasion of PM in December 42) but his gambles paid off and changed the tide of the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marovici

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

If there is any slant to the game I would say that it slightly favors the Allies simply because of the fact that just like IRL the numerical advantage can over come a lot. Player quality being equal I think the Allies will eventually win.

The Japanese player has to be good (and aggressive) to have any chance of getting a 1946 draw let alone a win. As proof of this argument I would guess that every JFB's first game against the AI (mine included) ended in a stalemate or a restart. It is very easy to screw up Japan, espcially the economics (there have been several threads on this).

This is not to say that a good Allied player will always lose to a good Japanese player since there are many random factors along the way but Japan can be toast with a singlescrew up (KB lost, economy screwed up, ect). The Allies can make a few mistake and still recover. My opponant has yet to make a major mistake

If the Allies can prevent an auto-victory at the end of 42 they have a good chance at winning. I think a lot of the Allied p[layers that complain about inmalances or quit during this time simply have not accepted the fact that they will have to wait until mid 43 to go on the offensive and have a chance of success. If they do so before this they a taking a huge risk that could have horrible consequnces. My opponant shocked me by doing this (Carrier battle in May 42 and invasion of PM in December 42) but his gambles paid off and changed the tide of the war.

As another poster pointed out in game terms points determine who wins when. I think that for the same player quality allied player should always win the war. I don't know how that works in terms of game points. Because if Japanese player is doing better than historical he is winning in my opinion.

My impression is that it is a lot easier for Japanese to be better than historical than it is for allies. Someone already addressed the Japanese 20/20 vision that benefits them a lot more than allies (debatablle, but let say it is true for now) they nevertheless receive a lot more material advantage that has nothing to do with points or knowledge of history. This is without going into what has already been addressed about merchant capacity, nuke bombardment, ground aces and so on (missing warships, etc). My impression that ever coming "Allied return" never happens and AARs show it.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658
If the Allies can prevent an auto-victory at the end of 42 they have a good chance at winning.

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.