Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 2:16:11 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I am wondering if anyone has come close to Japanese Auto Victory in a PBEM.

It was very difficult to acheive in WITP. In AE it seems just about impossible; taking all of Australian MIGHT be enough, but that's very difficult.

As far as VPs matter, I personally think AE is almost impossible for the Japanese player to win; played all the way through the Allies will win nearly every time. Am I right, or does anyone think differently?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 2:25:27 PM   
stldiver


Posts: 724
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: West Palm Beach, USA
Status: offline 		I did it vs Scott a few months ago.

The Spam and Saki thread page 3, It ended at the end of 42.

I should really go back and update the ships sunk file.

It took going into India to achieve, although I fail at Suva.


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 2
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 2:48:24 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I stand corrected, forgot about that one. Nice job, though I think your opponent made more than a few tactical errors; and you had a great Pearl Harbor strike.

Anyone else? I suspect that only a handful will end that way

_____________________________


(in reply to stldiver)
Post #: 3
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 3:12:11 PM   
stldiver


Posts: 724
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: West Palm Beach, USA
Status: offline 		To win as Japan, your opponent has to make tactical mistakes as well as you have to capitalize on them. Although I think there is more then one way to Autovictory in PBEM.

Japan is only allowed one or two mistakes and its over while the allied player is allowed numerous.

I believe in the premis of your thread that Japanese Autovictory will be few and far between. Its a tougher road then in Witp.

That being said this was the first time I played Japan and really enjoyed the rising sun, its a more difficult side to play long term, but definatly gives you the invinciable feeling early, unlike the allied side reverse syndrone of tuck tail and pull back waiting for an opening.

All in all I constantly thank the AE team for many hours of enjoyment.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 4
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 3:45:43 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		My opponent has 10k points from trashed ground units - while a fair few are colonial types and Americans, the majority of them are Chinese. Its been total butchery in China, due to supply being in the pits after all the resources were bombed out.

Assuming resource bombing in China is allowed, that seems to be points in the bag pretty much for Japan.

_____________________________


(in reply to stldiver)
Post #: 5
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 3:51:45 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		I have finished yesterday a PBEM on which the japanese player aimed to Australia for 4:1. At 6/42 we were 32.000 vs 9000. Brisbane in japanese hands. Non historical begining.

Doable? May be. Very close, undoubtely.

(in reply to stldiver)
Post #: 6
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 4:47:32 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		Ha, I'm in a PBEM and my opponent has landed in Oz in Jan '42.  Took Cooktown, assaulted Cairns (but I have troops defending Cairns.  He will have to reinforce to take it), then took that base a few hexes north of Brizzy and Marybourough (sp?).  We'll see what happens.

_____________________________


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 7
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 4:54:51 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

My opponent has 10k points from trashed ground units - while a fair few are colonial types and Americans, the majority of them are Chinese. Its been total butchery in China, due to supply being in the pits after all the resources were bombed out.

Assuming resource bombing in China is allowed, that seems to be points in the bag pretty much for Japan.


Japanese don't score any point for strat bombing in China; only India and OZ (and US West coast too; good luck with that one!)

_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 8
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 5:04:21 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stldiver

To win as Japan, your opponent has to make tactical mistakes as well as you have to capitalize on them. Although I think there is more then one way to Autovictory in PBEM.

Japan is only allowed one or two mistakes and its over while the allied player is allowed numerous.

I believe in the premis of your thread that Japanese Autovictory will be few and far between. Its a tougher road then in Witp.


I didn't want to say, but leafing through your AAR, your opponent made several tactical mistakes, including allowing troops to get surrounded, and committing naval assets piecemeal, both of which allowed you to rack up points, and also pave the way in India. In your opponent's defense, you had a terrific Pearl Harbor attack, which put him behind in terms of surface ships.

The only way to score the points is to invade India or Australia. And I think the Allies can make a couple elementary precautions to stop that, namely:

1. Don't commit troops forward into Burma; let the Japs have it. In fact, pull the troops there out to India
2. Send US troops to OZ right away; you can easily get 2-3 divisions there by March, plus some tanks.
3. Send the AIF troops to Australia when available


_____________________________


(in reply to stldiver)
Post #: 9
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 7:31:38 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Yes, I agree. Against a good conservative Allied player, I think it is almost impossible. I don't much care for it anyways. Too many games were just "over" in Witp when the Japanese player shot his wad trying for an autovictory and then gave up when it was not done.

You might be very right about VP balance at the end the game but that is hard to tell until we see some more campaigns played out. However, VP can easily be adjusted for balance if that is the case. For example. I have always said that a lost Japanese carrier in 1942 should cost about twice as much in VP as a lost Alllied carrier in 42 and then in 1944-5 a lost Allied carrier could cost three or four times more than a lost Japanese carrier. Or, how about if the Allies lose major ground unit late in the war a big VP penalty. Historically there might have been a big political price to pay for excessive losses so late in the war.  There are many ways to adjust VP. Perhaps something as simple as if there are no Alllied ground unit is on the Japanese home islands by 9/45, then the best Allied result could be a draw, and if not by 1/46 then the best Allied result is a minor loss.

This sort of stuff would encourage the Japanese player to fight it out to the bitter end.  Much better than the unreal and ahistorical benefits given to the Japanese side in the games present form. I know that a true blue Japanese fanboy must be fatalistic about the pimp slapping he is going to take late in the game. However, there should always be a chance to win the game-to the end.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 10
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 7:51:07 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		The biggest VP adjustment I would recommend is in aircraft; I have always thought airplanes were worth too much. Is a sunk DD the same as 7 Nates? In VP terms it is. Aircraft should be worth less relative to ships and other stuff.

Another tweak might be to reduce points for strat bombing japan.

I like Herwin's idea for VP conditions in his New AAr, or some variation thereof



_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 11
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 8:50:46 PM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		Japan clearly can win Scen 1 as we have seen, but I agree there has to a confluence of the moon and stars. Poor allied strategy and bad luck on the battlefield are both required. I am curious if we will see any Jap auto victories in 43. It seems through the AAR's that the only time for the Japs to win is late 42, and the Japanese player was both very aggressive and successful. My quick read suggest Oz from darwin and perth driving to SE Oz is the common potinential win with the outlier in India. China, USA/Canada/Alaska, and USSR are not paths to Japanese victory.

Still an early read, but to me it seems fairly balanced. The Japanese players who resign as Japan after the initiative inflection will always occur. For whatever reason they do not want to play a defensive game. I am not sure any design change could make that go away.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 12
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 9:24:45 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline 		As this is modable, it might be better to give the Japanese a better chance. Right now bases that are infinitely valuable to Japan do not have very VP values. Palembang comes to mind. One would need to be very careful when doing this as it could lead to too many autovictories. Still if the japanese had played well through 1942 and tehn say one a huge carrier battle in early 1943, that should be rewarded. yes in Rl the Allies would have fought on but extending the war beyond its histroical by a year should in my mind be a Japanese victory. Also this would discourage overly passive Allied play which in RL would not have been tolerated from a political standpoint

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 13
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/18/2010 11:20:04 PM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline 		Although it may take many interations to get right, I would like to see a bidding system for victory conditions at the end of each year. Maybe the higher the bid, the fewer more PP's allocated? Maybe modded in the editor at the start of each year? Perhaps take both bids and somehow "normalize" them....there should be a penalty of PP's based on success for each year....the promises for the year weren't met, so it will take more "political will" to continue the struggle? Many possibilities....I'm sure some more imaginative than myself could come up with some good interations...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 14
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/19/2010 4:54:53 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

Although it may take many interations to get right, I would like to see a bidding system for victory conditions at the end of each year. Maybe the higher the bid, the fewer more PP's allocated? Maybe modded in the editor at the start of each year? Perhaps take both bids and somehow "normalize" them....there should be a penalty of PP's based on success for each year....the promises for the year weren't met, so it will take more "political will" to continue the struggle? Many possibilities....I'm sure some more imaginative than myself could come up with some good interations...



I do not think you can edit a game file. I could be wrong. Probably better dealt with as a HR

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)
Post #: 15
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/19/2010 11:31:42 AM   
jeffs


Posts: 644
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Tokyo
Status: offline 		In my mind...Japan getting nuked in 1944, 1945 or 1946 is a Japan loss. And the reality making it is easier for Japan to declare victory in early 1943 when the allies would have fought on is very bogus.

The reality is, from a historical simulation perspective...Japan faces incredibly long odds. And going out of ones way to "make it fair" leads to massive distortions that many players have problems with.

I do agree it does take away from the "gaming" side is Japan has a very tough situation....But I think that changing the core of the game is a mistake.
Of course if an allied player is willing to play a mod that is ahistorical in the name of a more balanced game I see no problem with that.
I do have a problem with fudging the historical scenario to make it "balanced"

_____________________________

To quote from Evans/Peattie`s {Kaigun}
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 16
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/19/2010 12:53:06 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I am wondering if anyone has come close to Japanese Auto Victory in a PBEM.

It was very difficult to acheive in WITP. In AE it seems just about impossible; taking all of Australian MIGHT be enough, but that's very difficult.

As far as VPs matter, I personally think AE is almost impossible for the Japanese player to win; played all the way through the Allies will win nearly every time. Am I right, or does anyone think differently?



while I disagree that it was very difficult to achieve in WITP at all, I agree that it seems near impossible in AE. I´ve felt being smacked hard in my ongoing PBEM as Allied but the Japanese never got higher than 2.3:1 IIRC and are now (12/42) down below 2:1 already again and it seems that´s constantly going down from now on.

As in WITP, the big chance I see for the Japanese is destroying large Allied land units until the end of 42. If you get stalled, that´s it IMO.

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 17
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/19/2010 2:27:57 PM   
Bogo Mil

 

Posts: 286
Joined: 1/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89
As this is modable, it might be better to give the Japanese a better chance. Right now bases that are infinitely valuable to Japan do not have very VP values. Palembang comes to mind.

I don't think so. Palembang is vital for Japan, as you wrote. Taking it is usual, if they lose it, they lost the war. There is no need to back this up with VPs.

But there are other bases which should provide more VPs - Bases which were much more valuable or otherwise important (politically, psychologically) in reality than in the game. Yenan comes to mind, Alaska, maybe the USSR.

_____________________________

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 18
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/19/2010 2:47:54 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffs
I do agree it does take away from the "gaming" side is Japan has a very tough situation....But I think that changing the core of the game is a mistake.
Of course if an allied player is willing to play a mod that is ahistorical in the name of a more balanced game I see no problem with that.
I do have a problem with fudging the historical scenario to make it "balanced"


I think we make the distinction between "Winning on VP Points", vs. "Winning the War", and the game should not be unbalanced so that Japan can "Win the War". Historically of course, the Japanese loss was inevitable. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.

The point is to do BETTER than history.

I think you understand though, after all, if the bar for "Winning the Game" was "Winning the war", it would be tough to find opponents to play Japan, or the Confederacy, or Nazi Germany in Russia, or any number of nations that were ultimately doomed.

My point: Japan should have a lower bar for "Winning the Game", without changing the game balance

_____________________________


(in reply to jeffs)
Post #: 19
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/19/2010 3:02:21 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Japanese don't score any point for strat bombing in China; only India and OZ (and US West coast too; good luck with that one!)


No, but they get points for the mass slaughter of hundreds of Chinese infantry squads when the supply runs out...

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 20
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/20/2010 12:10:22 PM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		My suggestion is to reduce the date of required allied victory rather than play with any other 'feature' of the game simply for balance purposes. If more punch in the Japanese arsenal is desired, add some major naval or ground assets that have to be produced. If that is not desired, then I would significantly increase the VP's for allied home country hexes (like Oz) / or major bases - or I would setup additional auto victory conditions that the Japanese can win if at any moment they hold say 7 of the following critical enemy cities...say Calcutta, Bombay, Karachi, Rangoon, Singapore, Manila, Pearl Harbor, Anchorage, Melbourne, Sydney, Aukland, Chungking, Hong Kong, Vladivostok, Irkutz, Seattle, San Fancisco, Los Angeles, or San Diego. This would require only that they take 3 more cities and can win even if they dont reach auto victory the old way. This is a similar approach to games like Advanced tactics.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 21
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/20/2010 1:17:57 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Japan clearly can win Scen 1 as we have seen, but I agree there has to a confluence of the moon and stars. Poor allied strategy and bad luck on the battlefield are both required. I am curious if we will see any Jap auto victories in 43. It seems through the AAR's that the only time for the Japs to win is late 42, and the Japanese player was both very aggressive and successful. My quick read suggest Oz from darwin and perth driving to SE Oz is the common potinential win with the outlier in India. China, USA/Canada/Alaska, and USSR are not paths to Japanese victory.

Still an early read, but to me it seems fairly balanced. The Japanese players who resign as Japan after the initiative inflection will always occur. For whatever reason they do not want to play a defensive game. I am not sure any design change could make that go away.



Where is an example of Japan winning playing Scenario 1?
I would like to read such an AAR.

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 22
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/20/2010 4:35:21 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

My suggestion is to reduce the date of required allied victory rather than play with any other 'feature' of the game simply for balance purposes.

The problem is, currently the game seems to be somewhat disbalanced in Allies' favor. Easier logistics and near-total control over available assets disproportionally benefit the side that holds initiative, and for the 3/4ths of the game that's usually Allies. Either that, or Allies just have ahistorically good stuff (quality of their LCUs is particularly suspect), but, looking at AARs, Allies are a year or more ahead of the historical schedule in about a half of those that reach into 1943. Hopefully, soon we'll learn how the events in several AARs where Japanese had a very successful early game will develop, but so far Japanese perspectives seem rather grim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest
If more punch in the Japanese arsenal is desired, add some major naval or ground assets that have to be produced.

That's the way already chosen with air production, and now people complain that the game actually rewards a Japanese player for good micromanagement.





< Message edited by FatR -- 5/20/2010 4:38:23 PM >

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 23
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/20/2010 5:27:01 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

My suggestion is to reduce the date of required allied victory rather than play with any other 'feature' of the game simply for balance purposes.

The problem is, currently the game seems to be somewhat disbalanced in Allies' favor. Easier logistics and near-total control over available assets disproportionally benefit the side that holds initiative, and for the 3/4ths of the game that's usually Allies. Either that, or Allies just have ahistorically good stuff (quality of their LCUs is particularly suspect), but, looking at AARs, Allies are a year or more ahead of the historical schedule in about a half of those that reach into 1943. Hopefully, soon we'll learn how the events in several AARs where Japanese had a very successful early game will develop, but so far Japanese perspectives seem rather grim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest
If more punch in the Japanese arsenal is desired, add some major naval or ground assets that have to be produced.

That's the way already chosen with air production, and now people complain that the game actually rewards a Japanese player for good micromanagement.






No, I want the Japanese player to have some freedom of action to divert and better the historical outcome of the game. Problem is as it now stands the Allied player has little or no option to counter it and the Japanese player always has a pre-knowledge of what he has to deal with. (For example 35 P40Es per month. )

I am playing scen 2 as the Allies and my opponent has done an excellent job of building up his fighter force-including the obscene Tojo . There is no way for me to counter this by producing more fighters. I would be happy to say, spend some PPs to double my production of a particular aircraft for a month. That way JFBs can't count beans on me and hold an advantage.

That said, we don't really know how balanced the game is as we really are not too far into most of our PBEM games. Too early to tell from a few AARs as they are usually written by top notch players. I want the Japanese players to have an excellent chace to win. That should be the reward for good play and should be done with VP balancing. However, I want my P38s to perform like P38s should and not be an afterthought due to the fact that there are none of them and they spend most of their time being repaired or getting murdered by tojos.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 24
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/20/2010 5:52:04 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am playing scen 2 as the Allies and my opponent has done an excellent job of building up his fighter force-including the obscene Tojo . There is no way for me to counter this by producing more fighters. I would be happy to say, spend some PPs to double my production of a particular aircraft for a month. That way JFBs can't count beans on me and hold an advantage.


This sounds like an interesting idea. I think I would endorse this.

quote:


That said, we don't really know how balanced the game is as we really are not too far into most of our PBEM games. Too early to tell from a few AARs as they are usually written by top notch players. I want the Japanese players to have an excellent chace to win. That should be the reward for good play and should be done with VP balancing. However, I want my P38s to perform like P38s should and not be an afterthought due to the fact that there are none of them and they spend most of their time being repaired or getting murdered by tojos.


Use your P-38s on Sweep missions. They do fine that way. In my game, P-38s were doing fine against Tojo's when they were on sweep missions, especially when they were coming in at 39,000 feet! The one turn my opponent decided to use them to escort some B-17s, however, was a disaster. They were slaughtered!

Also, when my Tojo's Swept against Hurricane Trop's, they only came out even. Hardly an "uber" result. I can't say against P-40s, since I didn't run into many of those.

Maybe what you and your opponent should do is have a HR that limits Sweeps and CAP to 30,000 feet. Even then, however, there seems to be an inherent sweep bonus that results in the first several attacks being weighted in favor of the attacker. Nothing we can do about that except hope that the Matrix team decided to look into this issue.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 25
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/20/2010 8:36:52 PM   
Swenslim

 

Posts: 437
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Odessa, Ukraine
Status: offline 		More interesting question is... can Japan win in 1944-46 ? Saying win I meen to deprive allied side ability to strategically bomb Japan and have possibilty to ship oil and fuel from DEI and resources from Malaya, China, PI.

If Japan player can sink enough allied CV's, control Marians, PI, Java, Sumatra, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, territories in China I think this will be victory.

Is it possible ? Who knows :)


In my PBEM game is only late october 1942, but I destroyed 5 USN CV's, 5 USN BB's, 4 CA's, 15 CL's, 30 DD's and lost 1 CV, 1 CVL , 8 DD's.

Main battle is now going for Gudalcanal, both sides are loosing lots of planes and AK, AKL and AP trying to support ground units on island. USA troops landed on Karoline islands, but I dont care about them, they are not defendable in any case.

DEI become stronghold, with Mini KB and Yamato battlegroup patrolling seas and I dont think Allied navy will apear here before 1944.

So, if I will be able to sink all USA CV's wich will arive in 43 and first monthes of 1944 I think I can win the game.

< Message edited by Swenslim -- 5/20/2010 8:48:01 PM >

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 26
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/20/2010 9:08:22 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline 		I do know, from cold hard experience as a novice player, that if the Japanese get in amongst the allied transport lift early in the war, it's Game Over.  I played 2 PBEM's, in my second my opponent sank every transport that went to sea.  By August of '42 PH, Oz, and everything in between was flat on it's back starving to death.  I had 7 AK's left in the game.

I gave up PBEM's over that    I don't want to waste peoples time over my poor skills.    I still don't know how I lost so many ships so fast, even with the loss of the Lex & Enterprise let my opponent move around more freely  

(in reply to Swenslim)
Post #: 27
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/20/2010 9:56:36 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I do know, from cold hard experience as a novice player, that if the Japanese get in amongst the allied transport lift early in the war, it's Game Over.  I played 2 PBEM's, in my second my opponent sank every transport that went to sea.  By August of '42 PH, Oz, and everything in between was flat on it's back starving to death.  I had 7 AK's left in the game.

I gave up PBEM's over that    I don't want to waste peoples time over my poor skills.    I still don't know how I lost so many ships so fast, even with the loss of the Lex & Enterprise let my opponent move around more freely  


It's too bad you don't know, because I sure would like to!

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 5/20/2010 10:46:59 PM >

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 28
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/21/2010 6:14:04 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Japan clearly can win Scen 1 as we have seen, but I agree there has to a confluence of the moon and stars. Poor allied strategy and bad luck on the battlefield are both required. I am curious if we will see any Jap auto victories in 43. It seems through the AAR's that the only time for the Japs to win is late 42, and the Japanese player was both very aggressive and successful. My quick read suggest Oz from darwin and perth driving to SE Oz is the common potinential win with the outlier in India. China, USA/Canada/Alaska, and USSR are not paths to Japanese victory.

Still an early read, but to me it seems fairly balanced. The Japanese players who resign as Japan after the initiative inflection will always occur. For whatever reason they do not want to play a defensive game. I am not sure any design change could make that go away.


Very much the way I see it as well. Not a bad thing though ... I feel it SHOULD be challenging for the JAP player.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 29
RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? - 5/21/2010 7:45:43 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
That said, we don't really know how balanced the game is as we really are not too far into most of our PBEM games. Too early to tell from a few AARs as they are usually written by top notch players. I want the Japanese players to have an excellent chace to win. That should be the reward for good play and should be done with VP balancing. However, I want my P38s to perform like P38s should and not be an afterthought due to the fact that there are none of them and they spend most of their time being repaired or getting murdered by tojos.

In my experience stratospheric sweeps by P-38s dominate the air, unless pilots lack experience (and after playing both sides I can say for certain, that Allies benefit from much higher pilot survival rate - whether this is from aircraft armor, fighting mostly over their airfields in early 1942, or a hardcoded bonus, I don't know - so unless you ignore pilot management, the EXP levels should at least even out in 1942) or the defender has massive numerical advantage. Better yet, I have two squadrons of Lightnings that already saw months of regular combat over New Guinea before the historical date of P-38's combat deployment in the Pacific. An in RL Lightnings weren't exactly unstoppable wonderplanes. For example, they often took heavy and dispoportional losses when forced to escort bombers, or fly ground support, because keeping at relatively low speed and altitude, necessary for these types of missions, made them very disadvantaged against Japanese fighters.

< Message edited by FatR -- 5/21/2010 7:53:23 AM >

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.625