Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

should be>

Japanese Victory: While allies get beated, get kicked out of the war, get a draw, get a moderate victor, or get anything if Japanese side remained alive after August, 1945

Draw: An allies decisive victory after June, 1944, before August, 1945

Allies Victory: An allies decisive victory before June,1944


This should reflects the true skill level of two sides. And this is only after applying strict HR restriction to allies side.

Allies so-called victory, except for a quick and decisive one, is meaningless, considering those vast resource they have.

If in those RTS games one's farmer could collect resource in a speed 4 or 5 times faster than others, he could always hope to win some sets, even others are with vastly superior skill, but such "victory" is of course hollowed, could prove nothing.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Victory in a game like WITP, generally comes from "defeating the opposing commander".

In my PBEM games, which have thus far been predominantly from the Japanese side, my only "victories" have come when my opponent resigned. This has only happened in 1942, and only as a result of a "lopsided" and probably "unexpected" carrier exchange.

In the game, if the Allied player(s) do not quit in 1942, then they will almost certainly "win" in any "bean counting" exercise thereafter.

But when the day is done (in the game) if a player feels that he has consistently out played the other, then he probably has and a good opponent will usually acknowledge such with a "well done - good game" comment. I've gotten a few of these and I certainly value them much more than a "victory points total"!

:)

So really "defeating the enemy commander" ... taking the enemy commander "outside his expectation space" ... is just as valid in the game as it is in real life!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


............................


Amen! I wish they had left "VP's" out of the game entirely. They encourage too much "bean counting".

quote:


Allies so-called victory, except for a quick and decisive one, is meaningless, considering those vast resource they have.

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

There is no way I would play a game that involves potentially 5 years of my life and over 10 hours per week of that time - wow that comes to about 2,600 hours - to simply see a screen saying 'You have won' or 'You have lost'.

WIPT works for me for many reasons, but one of the key ones is that in those 2000+ hours I will regularly have wins and losses. I just wiped out an audacious paradrop on Wyndham. In the overall game I'm on 4.2 VP against but we play until we get to the end or till something tells us to stop. For all I'm getting a right royal beating, that one (there have been others) little victory has been hugely enjoyable. Almost every move brings with it a victory or defeat of some sort..... which is why I look forward to the next move, and why I seldom give up.

The only games where I have questioned the point of going on is where we have reached a really boring stalemate.....or where I have made such a mess that there is no way to come back!

Roger

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Victory in a game like WITP, generally comes from "defeating the opposing commander".

In my PBEM games, which have thus far been predominantly from the Japanese side, my only "victories" have come when my opponent resigned. This has only happened in 1942, and only as a result of a "lopsided" and probably "unexpected" carrier exchange.In the game, if the Allied player(s) do not quit in 1942, then they will almost certainly "win" in any "bean counting" exercise thereafter.

But when the day is done (in the game) if a player feels that he has consistently out played the other, then he probably has and a good opponent will usually acknowledge such with a "well done - good game" comment. I've gotten a few of these and I certainly value them much more than a "victory points total"!

:)

So really "defeating the enemy commander" ... taking the enemy commander "outside his expectation space" ... is just as valid in the game as it is in real life!

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Victory in a game like WITP, generally comes from "defeating the opposing commander".

In my PBEM games, which have thus far been predominantly from the Japanese side, my only "victories" have come when my opponent resigned. This has only happened in 1942, and only as a result of a "lopsided" and probably "unexpected" carrier exchange.In the game, if the Allied player(s) do not quit in 1942, then they will almost certainly "win" in any "bean counting" exercise thereafter.

But when the day is done (in the game) if a player feels that he has consistently out played the other, then he probably has and a good opponent will usually acknowledge such with a "well done - good game" comment. I've gotten a few of these and I certainly value them much more than a "victory points total"!

:)

So really "defeating the enemy commander" ... taking the enemy commander "outside his expectation space" ... is just as valid in the game as it is in real life!

Hopefully these endlessly lopsided CV exchanges, which inevitably ahistorically favour the Japanese thanks to the unwarranted coordination rules, the the use of tactical carrier aircraft ranges within a 2 phased non tactical daylight air model, a naval flak model which gives IJN TFs ahistorical capabilities, UBER CAP....the list went on and on...have now been nixed in AE. I've bailed on a game out of frustration at putting so much time into a game only to have the naval combat model produce endless one sided CV exchanges (at least allow simultaneous launches if one can't blend actual aircraft data with hex based maps and 8 hour air phases).

One can't really say that a player who bailed because his CVs failed to launch a single aircraft during the battle as it was out of range despite the non coordination of Allied strikes! lol...while the other Jap CVs launched hundreds of aircraft in fully coordinated strikes at the very max of their historical range limits (how was this physically possible?), with the almost inevitable result that Allied CVs get pounded by Jap CVs with impunity...surely, one can't blame the Allied player for bailing and claim a victory over the player!?? That's like claiming a victory in sport when one side fails to show because the other team died in a tragic airline crash!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

Merry Christmas, Ron

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

jwilkerson

I don't know Ron, I used to agree with you on this, but after a lot of testing, I think there are tactics in stock that allow the Allies to even the playing field. Primarily the "Single CV Task Force". That being group like 4-6 CV task forces (with 1 CV each) together in one hex with the "follow" order for the fastest. This tactic complete overrides the "CV strike rule". So, I'm not aware that we are doing anything to change this specifically for AE.

That being said, one of our major goals is to address "uber CAP". So we do hope that no matter how large the CAP, that leakers will get through. Once we can publish some public AARs hopefully this aspect will become better understood.

Oh and regarding victory (or not victory) I think you would need to understand more details of the situation to comment on whether or not victory was obtained. I guess you disagree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Victory in a game like WITP, generally comes from "defeating the opposing commander".

In my PBEM games, which have thus far been predominantly from the Japanese side, my only "victories" have come when my opponent resigned. This has only happened in 1942, and only as a result of a "lopsided" and probably "unexpected" carrier exchange.In the game, if the Allied player(s) do not quit in 1942, then they will almost certainly "win" in any "bean counting" exercise thereafter.

But when the day is done (in the game) if a player feels that he has consistently out played the other, then he probably has and a good opponent will usually acknowledge such with a "well done - good game" comment. I've gotten a few of these and I certainly value them much more than a "victory points total"!

:)

So really "defeating the enemy commander" ... taking the enemy commander "outside his expectation space" ... is just as valid in the game as it is in real life!

Hopefully these endlessly lopsided CV exchanges, which inevitably ahistorically favour the Japanese thanks to the unwarranted coordination rules, the the use of tactical carrier aircraft ranges within a 2 phased non tactical daylight air model, a naval flak model which gives IJN TFs ahistorical capabilities, UBER CAP....the list went on and on...have now been nixed in AE. I've bailed on a game out of frustration at putting so much time into a game only to have the naval combat model produce endless one sided CV exchanges (at least allow simultaneous launches if one can't blend actual aircraft data with hex based maps and 8 hour air phases).

One can't really say that a player who bailed because his CVs failed to launch a single aircraft during the battle as it was out of range despite the non coordination of Allied strikes! lol...while the other Jap CVs launched hundreds of aircraft in fully coordinated strikes at the very max of their historical range limits (how was this physically possible?), with the almost inevitable result that Allied CVs get pounded by Jap CVs with impunity...surely, one can't blame the Allied player for bailing and claim a victory over the player!?? That's like claiming a victory in sport when one side fails to show because the other team died in a tragic airline crash!!

I don't know Ron, I used to agree with you on this, but after a lot of testing, I think there are tactics in stock that allow the Allies to even the playing field. Primarily the "Single CV Task Force". That being group like 4-6 CV task forces (with 1 CV each) together in one hex with the "follow" order for the fastest. This tactic complete overrides the "CV strike rule". So, I'm not aware that we are doing anything to change this specifically for AE.

That being said, one of our major goals is to address "uber CAP". So we do hope that no matter how large the CAP, that leakers will get through. Once we can publish some public AARs hopefully this aspect will become better understood.

Oh and regarding victory (or not victory) I think you would need to understand more details of the situation to comment on whether or not victory was obtained. I guess you disagree.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Victory in a game like WITP, generally comes from "defeating the opposing commander".

In my PBEM games, which have thus far been predominantly from the Japanese side, my only "victories" have come when my opponent resigned. This has only happened in 1942, and only as a result of a "lopsided" and probably "unexpected" carrier exchange.In the game, if the Allied player(s) do not quit in 1942, then they will almost certainly "win" in any "bean counting" exercise thereafter.

But when the day is done (in the game) if a player feels that he has consistently out played the other, then he probably has and a good opponent will usually acknowledge such with a "well done - good game" comment. I've gotten a few of these and I certainly value them much more than a "victory points total"!

:)

So really "defeating the enemy commander" ... taking the enemy commander "outside his expectation space" ... is just as valid in the game as it is in real life!

Hopefully these endlessly lopsided CV exchanges, which inevitably ahistorically favour the Japanese thanks to the unwarranted coordination rules, the the use of tactical carrier aircraft ranges within a 2 phased non tactical daylight air model, a naval flak model which gives IJN TFs ahistorical capabilities, UBER CAP....the list went on and on...have now been nixed in AE. I've bailed on a game out of frustration at putting so much time into a game only to have the naval combat model produce endless one sided CV exchanges (at least allow simultaneous launches if one can't blend actual aircraft data with hex based maps and 8 hour air phases).

One can't really say that a player who bailed because his CVs failed to launch a single aircraft during the battle as it was out of range despite the non coordination of Allied strikes! lol...while the other Jap CVs launched hundreds of aircraft in fully coordinated strikes at the very max of their historical range limits (how was this physically possible?), with the almost inevitable result that Allied CVs get pounded by Jap CVs with impunity...surely, one can't blame the Allied player for bailing and claim a victory over the player!?? That's like claiming a victory in sport when one side fails to show because the other team died in a tragic airline crash!!

I don't know Ron, I used to agree with you on this, but after a lot of testing, I think there are tactics in stock that allow the Allies to even the playing field. Primarily the "Single CV Task Force". That being group like 4-6 CV task forces (with 1 CV each) together in one hex with the "follow" order for the fastest. This tactic complete overrides the "CV strike rule". So, I'm not aware that we are doing anything to change this specifically for AE.

That being said, one of our major goals is to address "uber CAP". So we do hope that no matter how large the CAP, that leakers will get through. Once we can publish some public AARs hopefully this aspect will become better understood.

Oh and regarding victory (or not victory) I think you would need to understand more details of the situation to comment on whether or not victory was obtained. I guess you disagree.

Merry Christmas Joe! I began using single CV TFs in UV because of this but having to do this because of game mechanics and non-historical abilities seems the wrong way to look for a solution to a design oversight. Especially given the fact that the "reaction" feature usually porks whatever benefit the player may get by manipulating the game mechanics. Why leave unwarranted abilities like the coordination bonus for Japan in? The only reason why any strikes were coordinated in any navy with CVs came from the expenditure of time and fuel forming up and plane handling (launch/landing etc) efficiency. This should always result in shorter strike ranges, yet there are no range penalties for coordinated strikes, resulting in those navies with longer ranged a/c to enjoy ahistorical dominance within the game's mechanics despite the inefficiency of the CVs launching them. As we all know CVs have differring levels of plane ops efficiency. Those built later with the benefits of ops experience were much more efficient than CVs converted from BCs, liners, etc. Plane ops efficiency should also be factored in, and in most games of this genre, especially more tactical based games, CVs have ops maximums. See Dunnigan's "Victory at Sea" or AH Flattop for a full conceptual breakdown of CV ops efficiency if I'm not coming in 5 by 5 on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

should be>

Japanese Victory: While allies get beated, get kicked out of the war, get a draw, get a moderate victor, or get anything if Japanese side remained alive after August, 1945

Draw: An allies decisive victory after June, 1944, before August, 1945

Allies Victory: An allies decisive victory before June,1944


This should reflects the true skill level of two sides. And this is only after applying strict HR restriction to allies side.

Allies so-called victory, except for a quick and decisive one, is meaningless, considering those vast resource they have.

If in those RTS games one's farmer could collect resource in a speed 4 or 5 times faster than others, he could always hope to win some sets, even others are with vastly superior skill, but such "victory" is of course hollowed, could prove nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
If the Allied player has a sea line of communications (a continuous path with air superiority) between North America and a fleet base in the Philippines or Taiwan and from there to a forward base in the Ryukyus, Korea, or Japan by 31 January 1944, he wins a decisive victory. If this requirement is met by 30 April 1944, it is a regular Allied victory. By 31 July 1944, a marginal victory, by 31 October 1944, a draw, by 31 January 1945, a Japanese marginal victory, by 30 April 1945, a Japanese regular victory, and by 31 July 1945 or later, a decisive Japanese victory.

If at any time, the Japanese player attacks forces present in a hex in Alaska, the Hawaiian Islands (excluding Midway), or continental North America, the Allied player has an additional two years (just so) to meet his requirements for a victory. Note that raiding the American sea lines of communication is OK, but during the first turn, the oiler task force supporting the KB should be assumed to be half empty.

Armistices can be offered by either side at any time. The side offering the armistice must abide by it once accepted. The other side can withdraw from the agreement with 90 days notice. If Japan takes Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay, or Karachi, the Indian Congress Party forces the British in India to offer an armistice on the current lines of contact. If accepted, this means no offensive operations by either side in India, Burma, or Ceylon. If the Chinese capital is taken or Japan accepts this forced armistice with the British, the Chinese offer a similar armistice.