Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ overpowered is such a problem.

 
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] >> Warplan Pacific >> Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ overpowered is such a problem. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ overpo... - 5/31/2021 5:42:52 PM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline 		Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ overpowered is such a problem.

I still see some people thinking that the 41 scenario is not a problem.

First please understand I criticize out of love. I want this to be the best WW2 game ever. Honestly I probably want this game to succeed as much as Alvaro because I want the good strategy game board feel that this game gives. I want the Warplan 2 and the global game.

I think a lot of people miss the point about Why we say Japan is overpowered and Why that is such a problem.

I do not find many, if any, people that say that Japan cannot easily invade Australia and/or India. I really don’t see anyone making the point that they cannot do it. Does it overextend the Japanese? Is it foolish for the Japanese to do so? In terms of a game, I do not know. It might be overextending. It might be foolish. It might be better to just reinforce and build up all of Japan’s conquest. In fact, for the game, I would not bother invading Australia, but would invade New Caledonia and Fiji and take those VPs since Australia only has Canberra as a VP. Does that make a good “game.” Sure.

Imagine you did a WW 1 game this way.
Germany easily conquerors France. Austria Hungary easily conquers Serbia. Germany and Austria drive deep into Russia,. The “game” is then about can the Allies fight back and get enough VPs to win the game.
Is that a good game? Could be.
Is that WW1? No.

I bought this game because I thought it was about WW2. It was marketed as WW2. I did not spend $40 USD to buy a game. I can buy many games. I spent $40 USD to buy a WW2 Pacific Theatre strategy game. The 41 scenario is so bad I almost went back and loaded up Strategic Command. Still thinking about it. I am even thinking about loading up Hearts of Iron.

I can buy (already have) lots of games that use WW2 names and use WW2 units and look nothing like WW2. If that is what the Warplan family is about, then I will just wait till World in Flames gets its AI.


It is not that the Japanese are overpowered.
It is the Japanese have been given ahistorical abilities to invade. It is the Japanese have been given the ability to conqueror things in days that it took them months to conquer.
It is that the Allies have been stripped of any means to react. This means they are undefended AND gives Japan no reason to be cautious.
Japan is given no reason to be slow and given no reason to garrison her conquest.

As it stands this game makes the Japanese military of WW2 look incompetent because according to this game they could have just walked into Australia.


< Message edited by incbob -- 5/31/2021 5:43:14 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 5/31/2021 8:48:25 PM   
Edorf

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/14/2013
Status: offline
I bought WPP on release but have not played it yet since I will be waiting until after a few more updates. When that is said I’m also a bit concerned about the seemingly lack of realism in this game. I know that this is not a WW2 simulation but it’s a letdown if realism is tossed out for the sake of just more “fun”. If so I agree that this is not a WW2 game but just a fantasy scenario. Hopefully the 41 scenario will be tuned and more balanced after some updates. (crossing fingers)

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 2
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 5/31/2021 9:55:31 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline 		In the coming patch this has been adjusted.

Philippines is slightly harder to take. Maybe a turn later.
NEI can't be 1 shot invaded and conquered on the first turn anymore otherwise the Japanese will be screwed.

I added more ports for the supply requirement in Australia (this might make it into the patch as it was done after I sent the email off but before I got confirmation patching got a hold of it.

East Australia - Rabauul, Port Moresby, Lae
West Australia - Batavia and Surabaya

A late transport for the US/UK in June was shifted to arrive March 1st, 2 turns earlier. The A.I. is sufficient enough now to conquer what it needs before they come in.


I think the East Australia change will make Port Moresby a hotter action location now.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to Edorf)
Post #: 3
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 5/31/2021 11:24:10 PM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline 		That makes a good start.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 4
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/1/2021 11:27:41 AM   
stjeand


Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline 		Al...I thought about a few things...what about...


1) Could the Amphibious Invasion research track be modified to include unit size?
Basically say that Amp Inv of 39 you can invaded with a Division Max
Amp Inv of 42 you can invade with a Small Corp
Amp Inv of 44 you can invade with a Large Corp
This would prevent the Japanese from being able to take major ports to easily, but also prevent the Allies.
Not sure this is code-able based on what you have now though.

2) Change the Japanese deployment to be spread out...
X Transports and X LC at the start...say 60 Trans and 50 LC...then add X per turn until the get the number they need to expand correctly, BUT it has to be such that they are not overly hindered. Perhaps the Japanese need more "smaller" units on ships...1/10 and 2/10 units to take ports and islands but not enough to capture locations outright in a single turn other than say a Marine unit to hit say Rubaul.

3) The Japanese need to be able to build small units...I was hoping you could either modify their Mountain troop into a 5/5 Jungle fighter OR give them a Partisan type unit 3/3 that can not invade but is cheap to build to "man" their islands.



Just some thoughts...



BUT we need to be careful.
Removing abilities means removing choice...and that is what this game is about.

Take WPE for example...

1) The Germans could never invade the US...but they can in that game if they build the units. Does that mean the game is broken because it is not real?
2) It is impossible for the Germans to take France in a month like the did in 1940...There is no possible way without the French basically having maybe 6 mobile division. Does that mean the game is broken?
3) The Japanese can invade the US if they so desire...Does that mean the game is broken?
4) The Japanese can build multiple more CV than they could in reality...does that mean the game is broken?
5) The Japanese could win the battle of Midway...heck they clearly should have but because of their failure at the Battle of the Coral Sea they lost 2 carriers that would have been there. In a replay no Japanese player would do that so does that mean the game is broken?


This game does not replay history...because the players have a choice to change it at every turn...just every other WW II games.
If you want a game to replay history this is not your game, go play a different one where you get no choices other than moving your chits on a map that you are given and you have to move them according to history not where you want.

Even changing the start the Japanese player could still build enough LCs to attack India if they wanted. Yes a few turns later but still could do it.
I guess it will still be broken because it will always be ahistorical.
This is a game that you play to try to change history not replay it. I don't want to replay it...I want to see if I can change it.

DO NOT remove that ability.


As for the Japanese Military being incompetent?

Well the meaning of incompetence is: inability to do something successfully.

Clearly this was the case as they lost the war.



(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 5
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/1/2021 1:25:28 PM   
Stelteck

 

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		WPP is a game.

But one thing to consider is : If the common frontline in many multiplayer games is east india, south africa, new zealand, mainland australia or US west coast, it is an issue because these areas are on the edge of the map and not well modelized, with a lot of abstraction. The game is clearly not made for have main battles there.

Typically the area between Rabaul and Noumea is well detailled with multiple islands, etc... The game is mean to be played with the frontline between Rabaul and Noumea. The battle here will be very interesting.

New Zealand and the edge of the map, not so much.

Or we need a bigger map.



< Message edited by Stelteck -- 6/1/2021 1:32:59 PM >

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 6
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/1/2021 7:13:59 PM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand
1) The Germans could never invade the US...but they can in that game if they build the units. Does that mean the game is broken because it is not real?


I am okay with a WPE game that allows the Germans to invade the US if they have finished off the Soviet Union, and it was a near death match, they have invaded England, they have completely control of Europe and it was difficult for them to get.

What you have is a game that allows the Germans to invade the US in 1943 while the Soviet Union and England are still alive. That is a problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand
2) It is impossible for the Germans to take France in a month like the did in 1940...There is no possible way without the French basically having maybe 6 mobile division. Does that mean the game is broken?


So a game that is meant so simulate A cannot possibly even come close to simulating A and you want to know if it is broken. Yes. It is broken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand
5) The Japanese could win the battle of Midway...heck they clearly should have but because of their failure at the Battle of the Coral Sea they lost 2 carriers that would have been there. In a replay no Japanese player would do that so does that mean the game is broken?


This one right here hits to the heart of the problem. Allowing the Japanese to concentrate their forces and use their 6 CVs at Midway instead of just the 4 they sent IRL is okay. It is what we want. Choice within historical bounds. Choice and abilit to do things within simulating WW2.

But what we do not want is in order to balance things in order to give the Japanese player a choice just something along the lines of just giving them abilities that they NEVER had. I don't the Japanese to start the game with the CVs Amagi, Tosa, Atago and Takao because we think they need them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand
This game does not replay history...because the players have a choice to change it at every turn...just every other WW II games. If you want a game to replay history this is not your game, go play a different one where you get no choices other than moving your chits on a map that you are given and you have to move them according to history not where you want.


I do not want to replay history, but I want to play WITHIN history.


The Japanese player SHOULD be able to choose to invade Australia, the US West Coast, or India. But it should be a choice of 1, not all 3 as it is now, and that it should happen much later, in April-May-Jun 1942 and it should be very difficult to do. Currently the Japanese can just walk into Australia because Australia cannot guard its ports.


quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand
As for the Japanese Military being incompetent?
Well the meaning of incompetence is: inability to do something successfully.
Clearly this was the case as they lost the war.


Let me explain to you and show you the problem with this idea.
If that is right and the Japanese Military of 41-45 was incompetent then what does that say about the Allies?

After the first 6 months of the war the Allies had naval equality at worse and by mid 43 we had naval superiority. Yet it took the Allies 3 years to get to Japan. I mean Warplan Pacific has told us what should have happened in the war.

How bad were men like Admiral Nimitz, General MacArthur, General Marshall, and Admiral King that it took them 3 years when the Japanese didn't even accomplish half of what they should have?

I do not want to replay history. I want to play IN history.
If this game is not about history then take Admiral Nimitz and Yamamoto of the cover.
If this game is about history and you do not like it you don't have long to wait Alvaro is supposedly working on a Fantasy game.


< Message edited by incbob -- 6/1/2021 7:16:10 PM >

(in reply to Stelteck)
Post #: 7
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/1/2021 7:55:49 PM   
stjeand


Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline
quote:

So a game that is meant so simulate A cannot possibly even come close to simulating A and you want to know if it is broken. Yes. It is broken.


Here is where we disagree...

The reason the Germans took France so easily is because their gerneals had no idea what they were doing.
They thought the Germans would go through the Maginot line which was wrong.
The British put their units in the wrong places.
The French put their divisions in the wrong places.
AND we all know that because we have read history.

NOW you put a NEW leader in charge and they KNOW how the Germans have to attack in order to take the country quickly and they defend against that.

That is not broken that is playing within history.

If you think having 6 carriers at Midway is "okay" but France not being able to be hold the Germans back longer than a month then something is wrong.



I do agree with you...the Japanese should not be able to invade everywhere...
I don't believe that they can invade India and Australia and survive...They will be spread to thin...
Yes for a time it will look really bad...even one country may fall...but they can't hope to hold either.
Hopefully Alvaro can make a few minor chances to resolve mass invasions of India / Australia.

Not sure the game mechanics will allow that so may have to make modifications.

We will see.




As for men like Nimitz, MacArthur, Marshall and King...we have the knowledge of history...they had the knowledge of WW I which was NOTHING like WW II...that guided their moves...and they went far slower than they had too.




I will leave with this...

Be careful how much get changed to push it more and more into history. I did not buy this game to play WitP and be stuck with a copy of history.

As the game stands players can build more carriers when they could not historically, should that be removed?
I hope not.
If the game started in 1937...WOULD any Japanese player build the Yamato and Musashi?
Of course not...they could build 5 or 6 more CVs for the same cost.

It would be interesting to have a game that starts with you being able to decide all this ahead, but then it would not be historical.

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 8
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/1/2021 8:36:06 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline 		WPE and WPP are designed to have fun but at the same time balancing and having players consider if they do X is it worth it over resources and time.

Like should the Germans or Japanese be able to invade the USA? Absolutely not! Impossible! But the game does allow it. it is difficult, very difficult though. That is why we have nudges in all areas.

Of course it is improbably the Japanese had real capacity to invade Australia but I don't want to remove that ability. So I introduced they needed to control and hold certain ports to be able to.

On the other hand, as pointed out, some things should not be easy. Like taking out the NEI on the 1st turn. I didn't see that so I modified and tested it so it can't.... I hope.

I added another convoy lane in India. I will probably add some port restrictions there too for the next patch like the Japanese have to control all Burma and NEI ports to be able to invade the East coast, and Ceylon to invade the West coast.

Simple solutions to make the game fun.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 9
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/1/2021 8:42:47 PM   
CrackingShow

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 12/29/2020
Status: offline 		I like the sound of those changes. We really don't want Axis overnerfed to the point where the Axis are certain to lose....

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 10
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/1/2021 9:40:51 PM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand
The reason the Germans took France so easily is because their gerneals had no idea what they were doing.
They thought the Germans would go through the Maginot line which was wrong.
The British put their units in the wrong places.
The French put their divisions in the wrong places.
AND we all know that because we have read history.



I do not know what history you are reading, but that isn't history.

The French and the British expected the Germans to repeat World War 1. Please note that the Germans in World War 1 tried to advance through Belgium, not the Maginot line. Thus the French and British placed their best troops up in Belgium.


Even with all of that the Battle of France was a close run thing.
The Germans instead advanced through the Ardennes.(No, it did not catch the French off guard because their Germans were there, but because...well more on that...in a moment.)

So yes, in a way the French and British troops were in the wrong place. But the French still had a strong number of divisions to fight the main German armored thrust, but they were weaker 2nd and 3rd rate divisions.

The reason the French lost so quickly isn't so much because their troops were out of place, but because of their Doctrine. They did not mass their tanks, as the Germans did, and they did not use things like radios.

The story of the Battle of France is one where continuously they would see a place they needed to go, but by the time they got the order out, got the troops together to move, and then moved, the Germans were already there.

A interesting side tidbit is to look at pictures of the French and German Generals involved. You will constantly see a difference that is hard to recognize at first, but when you do you can't miss it. The German Generals all have pictures of them with Binoculars and Radios. The French do not. You only need Binoculars if you are at the front. (Read about how the French commanded their armies during the battle).





< Message edited by incbob -- 6/1/2021 9:43:16 PM >

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 11
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 5:22:09 AM   
incbob


Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline 		I want to explain something.

What I am looking for is a game that will give World in Flames a run for its money. A game that takes me back to moving cardboard counters on a map.

These games allow the Axis, and the Allies, to "change history" and to do things that the originals never did. But they do it within a framework. They do it with the same limitations and same problems that the originals had.

Could Japan have invaded the USA, Australia, or India. Yes, but they could have done 1, not 2 and not all three. Even then it would have taken them withdrawing forces from China and even with that it would have been a slog.

So yes there has to be a level, even maybe a great level, of historocty. If Warplan Pacific is not going to be that kind of game just tell me.

As I see it in fact, this is the kind of game that Warplan Pacific needs to be. If not I will just turn to playing Strategic Command, Supreme Ruler 1936, or Hearts of Iron 4, or any number of the other games that have a WW2 flavor, but fail to be realistic.

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 12
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 12:22:52 PM   
stjeand


Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline
quote:

A interesting side tidbit is to look at pictures of the French and German Generals involved. You will constantly see a difference that is hard to recognize at first, but when you do you can't miss it. The German Generals all have pictures of them with Binoculars and Radios. The French do not. You only need Binoculars if you are at the front. (Read about how the French commanded their armies during the battle).


Agree but still disagree a bit...
I have read multiple books on the subject.

Their doctrine was incorrect.
Their expectations were incorrect...
Their units were not in correct defensive positions...especially the UK that thought the Germans would go through Belgium.


SO knowing all this...would a new commander, say you...follow the same historical path?

If you are a incompetent commander yes...so I suspect you would defend the way you need too with massed tanks and anti-tank units guarding the Ardennes...WHICH historically the French could have done but did not.


What that means is...the Germans will now face a defense that is unhistorical, therefore it is impossible that France will fall in a months time. The French have to much information.



I agree in regards to Japan being able to invade all.

I suspect some changes will occur to fix this.


Sadly I did not get in to playtest...not sure if you did.

Some game mechanics can not be easily addressed...so house rules exist if they can not be addressed.

Could be as simple as...well Japan don't invade India or Australia and see how the game goes.
Only invade with division size units to see what that does.


Things like that we should validate.

(in reply to incbob)
Post #: 13
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 12:54:25 PM   
ago1000


Posts: 856
Joined: 8/6/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline 		If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. Alvaro has done an excellent job with this game, and he continues to improve it like he did with WPE. WPE is still being adjusted but plays totally different than when I first purchased it. He will continue to tweak this game and make it better at every stage when he does so. If he feels something is gamey, he is the first to admit it and it will be removed from the game. I trust that every change that he makes, as he mentioned some above, as time moves on and more testing occurs, this game will simply get better and better. I for one, will enjoy the ride.



_____________________________

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeBzqHBz73uSJssgEvP9Y-w?view_as=subscriber

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 14
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 1:07:15 PM   
mannerheim4

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 9/16/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand

quote:

So a game that is meant so simulate A cannot possibly even come close to simulating A and you want to know if it is broken. Yes. It is broken.


Here is where we disagree...

The reason the Germans took France so easily is because their gerneals had no idea what they were doing.
They thought the Germans would go through the Maginot line which was wrong.
The British put their units in the wrong places.
The French put their divisions in the wrong places.
AND we all know that because we have read history.

NOW you put a NEW leader in charge and they KNOW how the Germans have to attack in order to take the country quickly and they defend against that.

That is not broken that is playing within history.

If you think having 6 carriers at Midway is "okay" but France not being able to be hold the Germans back longer than a month then something is wrong.



I do agree with you...the Japanese should not be able to invade everywhere...
I don't believe that they can invade India and Australia and survive...They will be spread to thin...
Yes for a time it will look really bad...even one country may fall...but they can't hope to hold either.
Hopefully Alvaro can make a few minor chances to resolve mass invasions of India / Australia.

Not sure the game mechanics will allow that so may have to make modifications.

We will see.




As for men like Nimitz, MacArthur, Marshall and King...we have the knowledge of history...they had the knowledge of WW I which was NOTHING like WW II...that guided their moves...and they went far slower than they had too.




I will leave with this...

Be careful how much get changed to push it more and more into history. I did not buy this game to play WitP and be stuck with a copy of history.

As the game stands players can build more carriers when they could not historically, should that be removed?
I hope not.
If the game started in 1937...WOULD any Japanese player build the Yamato and Musashi?
Of course not...they could build 5 or 6 more CVs for the same cost.

It would be interesting to have a game that starts with you being able to decide all this ahead, but then it would not be historical.


Or you could play "Rule the Waves 2" and build whatever you want within your financial and technical capabilities at a very detailed level. Of course, you won't have the operational choices of War Plan... So there is always some trade-off in wargame simulations.

Joe

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 15
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 1:28:27 PM   
stjeand


Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline
I think the issue is for the most part...

Playtests, and I have been one in the past, tend to stick to the historical script when testing.

IF you play the game and not invade India...not invade Australia...yes DEI and the Philippines are ahead of schedule but overall...everything tends to work out in the end.

NOW you add in hundreds of other players and they try something that a playtester did not think of...and suddenly it causes a break.


As a programmer I hate testing my own stuff...it seems to always work. Then I send it out and people go...hey when I press ctrl-alt-X it breaks it. I am left asking...WHY would you do that? OH well I have to for my program to reset something...There is just no way to think of everything possible.
What is why we are here.

(in reply to mannerheim4)
Post #: 16
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 1:37:04 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline 		@incbob - I know your input is constructive, otherwise I'd just read "it sucks" then you would move on. I read all the posts and reply when required. I try not to get into historical debates as WW2 is so wide and varied sometimes it is hard to know the truth. You have one excellent source that says one thing then in 3 years another source says something else.

The more WPP is played the more it is nudged. The port suppression is the easiest format to account for distance and invasions. If it wasn't for the A.I. games I would put some in for invading the NEI.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to mannerheim4)
Post #: 17
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 2:02:33 PM   
stjeand


Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline 		Al could you not make a scenario that you called...say "Historical 1941" and just tell all that the AI will not handle it correctly?

I think most of us would be fine in that regard.

OR call it PBEM 41..

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 18
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 2:44:30 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline 		I'll ask. What do you want out of a historical 1941 scenario? What results?

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 19
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 3:08:43 PM   
CrackingShow

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 12/29/2020
Status: offline 		I want both sides to be able to win if you have a good strategy and execute it well. I don't want a history documentary where the Axis are doomed to lose because the US has a big fat economy.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)
Post #: 20
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 3:13:51 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline 		Wouldn't that be more ahistoric, though? If you take a page from Grigsby games (and, obviously many others, but I have a lot of time in those games), historical inevitability is balanced on by appropriately placed and scored VP.

(in reply to CrackingShow)
Post #: 21
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 3:16:13 PM   
CrackingShow

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 12/29/2020
Status: offline 		Yeah I want some ahistoricalness, otherwise I don't see the Axis winning, and I want the game to be winnable as the Axis.

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 22
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 3:26:51 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline 		I think the simplest way to implement that is autovictory conditions for Axis or autodefeat conditions for Alloes, say, not holding specific number of VP at certain dates. Otherwise, there is no pressure not to just turtle in Hawaii till 44.

(in reply to CrackingShow)
Post #: 23
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 3:35:15 PM   
Stelteck

 

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		In my opinion, Japan is doomed to fail the war on the long run but will win in the game by exceeding historical expectation (conquering more than historical and resisting longer to the US juggernaut) and it will be shown by more Victory Point.

About "the conquering more" part, it is ok to do better than history with excellent play, but the battle shall still take place inside the limit of the map and not on the edge, or we need a bigger map.

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 24
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 4:34:00 PM   
CrackingShow

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 12/29/2020
Status: offline 		It doesn't matter very much if AUS dies. It does matter if India is taken, maybe change the fast travel spots so you can't get the 6 Jap Carriers into the Indian Ocean so early

(in reply to Stelteck)
Post #: 25
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 4:49:20 PM   
eskuche

 

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline 		I suggested that 1 turn loops are a bit overpowered quite early on. Someone will always throw out the point that it technically was possible to travel there in one month, though.

The abstraction of oilers being an instant click-to-resupply further exacerbates the Schrodinger's navy issue. I suppose you could gamble on the 3% interception/sub group if you hightail your Philippine subs to India, but IJN just clicks the button again, or, more likely, just moves outside the sub range oil up.

(in reply to CrackingShow)
Post #: 26
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 5:03:53 PM   
stjeand


Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline 		I don't think the Japanese can use those fast travel points can they? They are for the Allies...maybe they were opened up in WPE.

Supply oilers should get exceedingly more difficult to use as ships patrol the areas. I am not sure that is the case...it is not in WPE and should be addressed.

Will have to see in this game.


To fix India you have to do one or more of a few things...
1) Give India more troops to start or a homeguard if invaded, like the US gets.
2) Perhaps make the ports NOT produce supply for the Japanese. That would change everything as they would have to go overland and have a highly vulnerable thin supply line. They would have to use ships to supply troops and only be on the coast.
3) Give the Japanese less LC(move to deployment queue) so they have to spend them in the Pacific as we all know and if they "save" them up to invade India it should be too late by then and not matter.

OR you have to have house rules...no Japanese invasions in the Indian Ocean. BUT then they will just dump everything against the Australians.

(in reply to eskuche)
Post #: 27
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 5:21:34 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 1530
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

1) The Germans could never invade the US...but they can in that game if they build the units. Does that mean the game is broken because it is not real?


Actually in the early versions of the game this was possible and could really mess up the US and Canada. I don't remember what update fixed it so it wasn't a good idea.

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 28
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 5:24:44 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 1530
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I don't think the Japanese can use those fast travel points can they? They are for the Allies...maybe they were opened up in WPE.


Hep they can. That is how I sunk your two carriers.
Warp 7 Mr. Sulu

They use to be available to the Germans in Europe version until one of the later updates.

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 29
RE: Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ ov... - 6/2/2021 5:28:25 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 1530
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline 		The "Fast Move" hexes should be removed completely. In Europe they represented the lack of a Southern Hemisphere so you needed a mechanism to get around Africa and Arabia. There is no such problem in Pacific so why have super travel?

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Warplan Pacific >> Why the 1941 Japan problem with Australia/India/ overpowered is such a problem. 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

1.172