Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Not much sense in playing to lose..., but the overall situation in THIS conflict was such that one side never had a chance of "winning" in the normally accepted sense. Wasn't even a part of their most optimistic war aims. So if the game is an accurate historical potrayal of the War in the Pacific, then "How Long Can the Japanese Player Drag It Out?" would HAVE to be the only realistic "victory condition".
From a historical perspective, I'd like to see the system allow neither player "production". It's too subject to player exploitation. But it would be fun to have as an "option" along with the others.
I think we've beaten this one to the ground, yet again.  Victory conditions seem to be a big topic with AE players, and a real minefield if ever there is a WITP2.
I'll just add one more coda, and you can respond if you like.
Your post above illustrates what is perhaps the biggest break-point amongst players--the "historical" line of argument. If you assume, as you seem to, that the game is on some degree of historical rails (clearly in OOB, technology, very top-line economics, etc., it is), then victory conditions which swerve from that history might be distasteful, or "wrong." WWII ended in August 1945 due to a confluence of millions of decisions and random events, but AE's designers did keep to WITP's ahistorical early-mid 1946 end-date, although some theorists have posited a later end if Downfall had been needed. They also kept AV, which folds in the ideas you presented yesterday, that a side being thouroughly beaten on some combo of geographical loss, unit loss, and strategic capability loss (although not in your ratios or favored scale) should end the war earlier than history.
As Alfred added (twice) AV can be ignored in PBEM if it is achieved, although your point that its very presence makes players act in ways they would not otherwise act has great merit IMO.
However, in your proposed system of yesterday I think you couldn't help yourself from taking on the role of an Allied player. There, and again above, you assume that the Japanese must be beaten to a pulp by that historical date, and the main issue is deciding the score ratios used to assugn a final condition label.
But stand in the shoes of the game designer for a moment. He must design an end-game model which works for any and all eventualities.
Case 1: The Allied player romps, crushes, and destroys the Japanese pretty quickly. By mid-1943 the Japanese player has no ability to really resist. As I understand your proposal, however, since no AV would be allowed, both players would have to go through the tedious motions until the summer of 1945 to have the code assign a win condition. If that is an incorrect understanding of mine, then the result is that AV WOULD be allowed, but only for the Allies? Overall, it seems to me that your Allied-centric game view would allow the game to end as soon as the Japanese were prostrate? Against this view, however, one must place your view that history controls, and in that light we have one, and only one, historical record where the summer of 1945, with all its accessories--Soviet war declaration, B-29 bombing, VE Day, and the A-Bomb--was the date when the Japanese surrendered. The set of conditions short of the historical record which might have motivated a surrender will always be the subject of lively debate. The current designers have chosen a 30,000-foot view using VPs gained from a variety of sources, and AV on a strictly B&W, quantitative basis. When Japan is beaten by a 4:1, 3:1, or 2:1 ratio, history changes.
Case 2: This is much harder, but necessary from the designer's POV. How do the Japanese win? Yes, they could simply survive to August 1945, or January 1946, or April 1946, or some other later, extremely historically-subjective date. At that time your system of measurement could be applied. I assume it would be possible for them to still lose although they "survived" in a political sense, if the values assigned to geography, units, and strategic damage went against them. Some, but not all, players would be OK with that. "Doing better than history" has become a sort of shorthand here for a spiritual JFB win condition, despite what the code says. But I'm sure an end state when Japan did better and still lost would enrage some JFBs. Balancing your loss value system would be a nice trick.
The real sticking point, call it Case 2(a), is when Japan romps early and often. A designer has to take up this scenario in the model. Right now AV solves the issue cleanly and transparently. Do away with AV though and you have, IMO, a real design dilemma. Say a superior JFB is up against the rankest of beginners. Not optimal, but again, the system has to handle all eventualities. Say the Japanese, by mid-1943, take the entire map west of CONUS/Canada. To make it easier, assume production is the same as curently. The Japanese can't stop US and Canadian units being delivered to remaining Allied bases, but OTOH Japan has total control of the economy of Asia and Oz, and there are no other Allied nations alive except the US and Canada. Every Japanese asset can be focused on the longitude of PH, and east. Since there is no AV, garrison requirements in the Japanese sphere are pretty meaningless too, although there might be supply flow and economic disruption. (If this had happened IRL I think Japan would have used gas or any other means to suppress dissent, but that's another can of worms.) Regardless, in the summer of 1943, the above is the tableau. How does the designer handle that?
He could make the "historical" argument that the US would never seek peace with Japan under any circumstances, baking in our timeline's events which likely would not be operative in that world (what would be the ETO situation if Britain had lost 100% of its forces in Asia and the Pacific? And what US contribution would there have been if the PTO had gone this disasterously wrong? Keeping to our history in this case might be a terrible design decision.) Regardless, the designer is left with the problem of what to do. Force the players to keep moving US forces off the WC for two more years, trying to batter out a PH landing? Is that a good game? This is the core question that designer has to consider. It's a game for sale by Matrix at the end of the day. If you don't allow the Japanese to "win" in mid-1943 with this set of facts, and instead hew to a history which does not exist in that game, you've made a poor product IMO. AV is necessary in that case to address the majority of players who would find those next two years of moves excrutiating.
That said, I'm not opposed to allowing set-up options which disallow AV in any circumstances, for those players who don't mind the prospect of playing Bambi vs. Godzilla. I'd play with AV on, but I understand there are those who wouldn't. I would, however, resist those who call for AV to be removed for everyone, out of a sense of historic purity or because it allows one side to play for an early win at the risk of resignation.
_____________________________
The Moose
|
Printable Version
RE: SLC = 15K VP? - 
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