Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
If you use US troops to take a 1000 VP base, but lose 4000 men doing it, you've moved closer to losing by auto-vic. Consult the Victory conditions portion of the manual; the Japanese have a large VP advantage in device casualty effects over US, British, Indian, Aussie, etc. forces. The only place they don't is in Chinese and Filipino forces. The Sovets are equal to Japanese rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right.

For instance, say the Allies lose 4,000 squads (4,000 points) to take a base that's worth 1,000 points to Japan and 150 points to the Allies. Thus, the relative change in VP for the operation is 4,000 to 1,150. (Bullwinkle, was just making a point, but it's worth explaining in detail for those, like Lomri, that might want to really mull it over).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lomri

Ok, I'm just an AI player so I don't tend to worry about auto-vic and VP stuff, but I thought VPs for bases accrued over time. So losing 4000 men to take a 1000VP base might be bad on day one, over time it would pay off. In addition a 1000 VP base is a "swing" of points as opposed to straight up losing 4000 men. Am I off base?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Good point; meaning even if a place like Fiji or Noumea seemed pretty secure and "to the rear" in late 1942, a clever auto vic gamble might lead an IJ player to invade purely for auto vic consideration and even though it wouldn't make sense outside of that narrow consideration.

• 12 Chinese or Filipino devices
  
• 6 Soviet or Japanese devices
  
• 3 for all other Allied devices
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

For LCUs, VPs are awarded on the basis of destroyed devices, not men. A single VP is awarded for each

• 12 Chinese or Filipino devices
  
• 6 Soviet or Japanese devices
  
• 3 for all other Allied devices
  

Losing 4000 Allied men in capturing a base worth 1000 VPs does not mean the Allies lost 1333 VPs in army losses. 4000 lost men is somewhere in the vicinity of 300-320 destroyed devices, thus if the casualties were American the lost army VPs is about 100. So in that instance the transaction would be quite profitable for the Allies. However the bases in question will be worth a lot more than 1000 VPs and the casualties will be much higher.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lomri


So, in straight combat you need to take 50% the losses of the enemy to make it a VP wash. But then enters the the math of swing VPs on the base. A base worth 100 VP to you and 900 VP to Japan is a 1000VP swing. You'd have to lose 333 devices MORE than that 1:2 ratio to make it a wash. I guess I see where BW58 is coming from that you have to be careful of pyrrhic victories.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Add this to the mix: I am not specifically playing to avoid auto victory. The heaviest factor in my decision-making is whether a move or battle makes sense long-term. I don't want Steve to achieve auto victory, but I am not going to employ the "let's take Noumea on December 31 even if we can't hold it three days" kind of strategy. Perhaps I should, but I won't. I want Steve to shoot for auto victory because it's fun and challenging to oppose it. But that's not my main focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right.

For instance, say the Allies lose 4,000 squads (4,000 points) to take a base that's worth 1,000 points to Japan and 150 points to the Allies. Thus, the relative change in VP for the operation is 4,000 to 1,150. (Bullwinkle, was just making a point, but it's worth explaining in detail for those, like Lomri, that might want to really mull it over).

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right.

For instance, say the Allies lose 4,000 squads (4,000 points) to take a base that's worth 1,000 points to Japan and 150 points to the Allies. Thus, the relative change in VP for the operation is 4,000 to 1,150. (Bullwinkle, was just making a point, but it's worth explaining in detail for those, like Lomri, that might want to really mull it over).

now the question is how does someone lose 4000 Allied squads taking a base that would be worth 1000 points. Pretty theoretical IMO. If you actually win battles then it's pretty much impossible to lose on the vp side because the winnner usually isn't destroyed, the loser is though. So as long as you win battles and he loses them you should be safe pretty much all the time.

quote:

As Alfred helpfuly pointed out, it's devices, not squads. Squads are devices, but not all devices are squads. It's not hard to lose 4000 devices taking an urban hex.

In my haste to devise an example to make the point I was making I engaged in that fine old Internet tradition of doing one's research after one posts. JeffK's helpful suggestion to look in Tracker and rank order VP totals for each side under the Base tab showed how in error I was in using 1000 VPs as any sort of basis for my argument. Almost no hexes are worth 1000 VPs to the Japanese, and those which are should be safe from a late 1942 assault in any kind of evenly-matched opponent set as we have in this AAR.

Something in the 250-400 VP range better makes my point. Luganville-esque if you will. Bases which "hang out" geographically and can be apporached without deep continental penetrations, but which still, if combined, could give an auto-victory-seeking Japanese player a nice run in very late 1942 or early 1943. That is not to say that ten of these could be engineered to all trigger on New Year's Eve, but they don't have to be. Distance and Allied response times would make a mini-campaign to reap VPs--say, six weeks to two months--feasible if the Japanese player were less interested in the map status post-mini-campaign. IOW, a roll of the dice for auto-vic. It might be fatal to the game, but it would be a wild ride for both players for those six weeks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

There are the places where Japan can accumulate points but I might suggest that auto-victory not only requires point accumulation but denying the Allies easy bases to build up. Also taking these bases subtracts points which has the same effect as critical "plus" bases like Luganville ..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right.

For instance, say the Allies lose 4,000 squads (4,000 points) to take a base that's worth 1,000 points to Japan and 150 points to the Allies. Thus, the relative change in VP for the operation is 4,000 to 1,150. (Bullwinkle, was just making a point, but it's worth explaining in detail for those, like Lomri, that might want to really mull it over).

now the question is how does someone lose 4000 Allied squads taking a base that would be worth 1000 points. Pretty theoretical IMO. If you actually win battles then it's pretty much impossible to lose on the vp side because the winnner usually isn't destroyed, the loser is though. So as long as you win battles and he loses them you should be safe pretty much all the time.

As Alfred helpfuly pointed out, it's devices, not squads. Squads are devices, but not all devices are squads. It's not hard to lose 4000 devices taking an urban hex.

In my haste to devise an example to make the point I was making I engaged in that fine old Internet tradition of doing one's research after one posts. JeffK's helpful suggestion to look in Tracker and rank order VP totals for each side under the Base tab showed how in error I was in using 1000 VPs as any sort of basis for my argument. Almost no hexes are worth 1000 VPs to the Japanese, and those which are should be safe from a late 1942 assault in any kind of evenly-matched opponent set as we have in this AAR.

Something in the 250-400 VP range better makes my point. Luganville-esque if you will. Bases which "hang out" geographically and can be apporached without deep continental penetrations, but which still, if combined, could give an auto-victory-seeking Japanese player a nice run in very late 1942 or early 1943. That is not to say that ten of these could be engineered to all trigger on New Year's Eve, but they don't have to be. Distance and Allied response times would make a mini-campaign to reap VPs--say, six weeks to two months--feasible if the Japanese player were less interested in the map status post-mini-campaign. IOW, a roll of the dice for auto-vic. It might be fatal to the game, but it would be a wild ride for both players for those six weeks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It is very much possible to come out on the negative side in terms of casualties and attendant VPs but yet still win the battle. Much depends on the quality of the respective firepower deployed. In practical terms this is unlikely to be the case where USA/USMC LCUs with their great superiority in firepower are involved in late war combat. However early war combat, particularly combat involving non American/AIF units, where the firepower disparity is not really present, the phyric victory is definitely a possibility.

Also bear in mind that a defeated Allied force is quite prone to retreat. Being forced to retreat results in additional losses. However a defeated Japanese force is not necessarily forced to retreat. A defeated Japanese force may be able to make its exit out of the hex before it is forced to do so and thereby avoid incurring the losses from a forced retreat.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
squads or devices, if you lose 4000 devices (aka any other thing as squads) you have done something seriously wrong when being on the offense. You are not awarded points for disablements, so actually having 4000 (or any other number in the thousands) would be quite ludicrous for me when attacking a target. This would look like the AI has taken over control. Talking about a normal sized, usual battle in the game, not hundreds of thousands of Allied troops landing on Japan in 45 facing halve a million dug in Japanese.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Here's the Victory Point breakdown as of the current turn (5/12/42):

IJ Points: 23,397
Allied pts: 7,836

quote:


IJ Bases: 10,218
Allied bs: 4,217

IJ Air Pts: 1,979
Allied Pts: 1,410

IJ Army Pts: 9,002
Allied Pts: 711

IJ Ship Pts: 1,883
Allied Pts: 1,156

Only in manpower does Japan have anything close to or above the necessary 4:1 ratio for auto victory. Over the coming seven months, I think the margins should become increasingly positive for the Allies in aircraft and shipping. For manpower and bases, it probably won't change a whole bunch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

... EDIT - ... The Allies will be able to increase value of their bases more quickly than the Japanese ...

• Lanchow and the base immediately to its north (50:1 ratio) and every base further north which are very weakly held have a 10:1 ratio
  
• a breakthrough onto the Chungking plain would see the Japanese player head directly to Chengtu, not Chungking because the former base is a 100:1 ratio
  
• Perth is a 50:1 ratio and every other WA base is on a 10:1 ratio
  
• both Colombo and Trincomalee are 25:2 ratios
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Using Tracker,

Can you get a list of all bases sorted by VP and start ticking off the valuable ones you hold which are at risk, as well as look at any PJH held bases which might be available.

Plus, are there any "clumps" of VP bases such as SW Australia where there are 5-6 bases close together?

Reading all of this, I hate VP games of any type!

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmoney

That said, I hate VPs and when i make the jump to PBEM I would find an opponent that wanted to play the war to it's end and ignore VPs

Gmoney

quote:

To that point I would (gently) re-point out how this idea meshes with the NorPac strategy in this particular game

quote:


Something that I had not read in the AAR yet .. might be covered and I missed it . but are victory conditions based on points or like porn .. we will know victory when we see it?

If it is points .. the Alaska Northwest offers an interesting problem. As Rangoon as a value of 100 multiplied by airfield and port to achieve victory value for the Allies Juneau offers a multiplier of 100 max port 6, max airfield 3 1800 victory points .. Skagway 25 5/3; 275; Ancororage 25 4/9 900 ...and in fact there are plenty of 10, 20, 25 multipliers concentrated in the area. In terms of auto-victory it might be a gold mine in terms of minimal investment with a
maximum gain in VP's ... add on the other stuff that IJ usually takes might just be the plan to take things over the top ..