RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone?

RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

vettim89 -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 1:27:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball 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. [8D] 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 I 100% agree with this post. No Japan could not have won the war, but the Japanese player should be able to win the game. It is a game afterall. What fun is there in playing a game where you have no chance to win? Many would contend that playing WiTP/AE is more about the experience than the results. That may be true, but there still should be a chance for victory for Japanese players. In my mind, Autovictory does not represent the Allies surrendering but instead the point where Japan's conquests and battlefield success reach a point where the Allies would have had to change their "Europe First" strategy. The political and strategic implications of this would have been extraordinary to Roosevelt and to a lesser degree Churchill. It would have change the course of the war in Europe and possibly reshaped the world we know today. So beyond a crushing defeat at sea, what would have caused the Allies to change their strategy? Obviously an outright invasion of North America but I do not think this is possible for the Japanese. I cannot imagine the Allies would have abided the loss of Australia. I don't think Churchill could have survived the loss of India. So perhaps the important bases in those continents should have bigger VP values for Japan. I disagree about China. The Japanese already get far too many points for killing hapless Chinese LCU's. That and I don't think China was really that important politically to the Allies (at least in the sense that losing it to Japan would have changed the course of the war) Also, the discussion seems to be focused on 1942/1943. What about 1944 or 1945? The Allies were getting pretty war weary by 1945. Should not the Japanese be rewarded for extending the war beyond the historical scope? If that is true then perhaps increase the VP for places like the Marianas, Formosa, and the Islands near Japan should be increased. That way a well played game by Japan that has kept the wolf at bay longer than the historical record is rewarded. Again, these changes need to be very carefully evaluated. While I agree that it should be easier for Japanese players to win, it should not be made so easy that all our games end in 1942 or on 1 January 1943

Q-Ball -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 1:55:15 PM)
Good thoughts Vettim. I don't think the Allies though were going to give up under any circumstances at all though; the biggest mistake the Axis made was maybe not even underestimating the Allies CAPACITY to win, but rather their WILL to win. Even if it took into 1946, we were set upon unconditional victory. This was a critical miscalculation by both the Japanese and Germans, but partcularly the Japanese. If Australia fell, we would have fought on. France fell, and it was a more important Allied power (in a military and industrial power sense).

topeverest -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 4:05:18 PM)
Q-ball, the comments on the americans not giving up certainly are valid to any reasonable degree portayable by the game. I really scratch my head trying to think what intermediate auto Japanese victory conditions could be offered if the Japanese fail to reach auto victory at the end of their initial expansion and the allies are beginning the march to japan. Date of Allied auto victory is what jumps to my mind. I can see reducing or eliminating VP's for damaged Japanese Home Island factories. Reducing VP's for destroyed Japanese Home Island factories also could be a good card to play. While I havent done the math, I expect that would reduce VP's enough to extend the war materially. The team also might think of adding large forts or otherwise increasing the ease of Japanese building forts up to a certain level..on the Mariana islands / taiwan, etc. This will definately slow down any advance and shift play balane a bit to Japan in the mid and later war. If it is painful to take the islands in the dirty ground invasions, the allies will be much more deliberate and slower.

vettim89 -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 4:13:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball Good thoughts Vettim. I don't think the Allies though were going to give up under any circumstances at all though; the biggest mistake the Axis made was maybe not even underestimating the Allies CAPACITY to win, but rather their WILL to win. Even if it took into 1946, we were set upon unconditional victory. This was a critical miscalculation by both the Japanese and Germans, but partcularly the Japanese. If Australia fell, we would have fought on. France fell, and it was a more important Allied power (in a military and industrial power sense). Again, agree that the Allies were commited to victory no matter what happened in the course of the war. My point about Oz was in the context of the game not necessarily to the course of the war. The attitudes of general populace of the US were highly racist in WWII. I think that having millions of Asians, Melanasians, and Polynesians fall under the domination of Imperial Japan would not be viewed the same as having millions of Australians mostly of northern European descent having the same fate. So while losing Oz would not be a deathblow to the Allies in any way, the political implications would have been enormous. Also if the Japanese were invested in SE Australia in late 1942, do you really think the US would have sent two Armored Divisions and three Infantry Divisions to North Africa in November? So Autovictory for Japan should be tied to success in vital areas for the Allies of political importance as well as strategic

erstad -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 5:43:55 PM)
An interesting concept in the original WITP monster game that isn't in either WITP-classic or AE is 'shortening the war'. If the Japanese achieved certain goals, the end date by which the allies had to achieve victory (in game terms) was moved up. For example, if the japanese had a foothold beyond a certain point in india along with a line of communications, the allies would get a ton of reinforcements but the war might also be shorted by something like 6 months. With current AE, allies get the reinforcements but there is no penalty reflecting the impacts to other theaters. The allies also had to maintain a continuous merchant pipeline from the US to Oz after 4/42, every turn they didn't shortened the war by 2 weeks for ever week it was missed, IIRC. Which then in turn forced the allies to defend the SLOC.

witpqs -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 6:25:37 PM)
I think that tuning a VP mechanism in a game like this requires lots of outcome examples, including full-length outcomes. Therefor, I think that VP's are relatively useless, and players really need to decide on their own victory conditions, whether jointly or independently.

vettim89 -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 6:43:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I think that tuning a VP mechanism in a game like this requires lots of outcome examples, including full-length outcomes. Therefor, I think that VP's are relatively useless, and players really need to decide on their own victory conditions, whether jointly or independently. Because some VP awards are hard coded (strategic losses), even modified the game will fall along certain lines of progress as far as VP go. So perhaps you are right in saying that victory conditions might be best negotiated by HR.

vettim89 -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 6:53:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erstad An interesting concept in the original WITP monster game that isn't in either WITP-classic or AE is 'shortening the war'. If the Japanese achieved certain goals, the end date by which the allies had to achieve victory (in game terms) was moved up. For example, if the japanese had a foothold beyond a certain point in india along with a line of communications, the allies would get a ton of reinforcements but the war might also be shorted by something like 6 months. With current AE, allies get the reinforcements but there is no penalty reflecting the impacts to other theaters. The allies also had to maintain a continuous merchant pipeline from the US to Oz after 4/42, every turn they didn't shortened the war by 2 weeks for ever week it was missed, IIRC. Which then in turn forced the allies to defend the SLOC. I am work so no access but I'll dig up my rules this weekend. From memory these were: * MS Pipeline to Oz from 4/42 to the end of the war * LCU in India with SLOC * LCU (no SLOC necessary) in Aleutians but only after one year of occupation * Had to do a Doolittle Raid I think they were a few more but my memory fails me at the moment. While not modable into the present game, it would be very easy to make HR's. Problem is on the map game (can't really call a game that consumed a whole room a "boardgame"), the players could verify these circumstances as they were freely visible. Not so easy with the computer version

erstad -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 8:28:50 PM)
quote: Problem is on the map game (can't really call a game that consumed a whole room a "boardgame"), the players could verify these circumstances as they were freely visible. Not so easy with the computer version Well, you certainly could tie something to the same events that trigger extra reinforcements. In fact, that's not a bad idea; I might use it if I ever start another game as Japan. As it sits, the Allies can use a lot of force, for example, in Northern/Eastern Oz because the southern part is somewhat safer because the Japanese player is going to be reluctant to trigger the reinforcements. Might have to limit it to capture of a major city to avoid any gaminess where someone might paradrop onto a dot base or whatever for the sole purpose of triggering the event. BTW, it maybe wasn't a board game but it could be considered a "boardsgame" - IIRC, we had ours on two 4x8 pieces of plywood [:D] (Sitting on a ping-pong table) I thought the doolittle raid changed the fighter garrison requirement in Japan, didn't affect war length. But it's been so long that you could well be correct.

vettim89 -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 10:04:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erstad quote: Problem is on the map game (can't really call a game that consumed a whole room a "boardgame"), the players could verify these circumstances as they were freely visible. Not so easy with the computer version Well, you certainly could tie something to the same events that trigger extra reinforcements. In fact, that's not a bad idea; I might use it if I ever start another game as Japan. As it sits, the Allies can use a lot of force, for example, in Northern/Eastern Oz because the southern part is somewhat safer because the Japanese player is going to be reluctant to trigger the reinforcements. Might have to limit it to capture of a major city to avoid any gaminess where someone might paradrop onto a dot base or whatever for the sole purpose of triggering the event. BTW, it maybe wasn't a board game but it could be considered a "boardsgame" - IIRC, we had ours on two 4x8 pieces of plywood [:D] (Sitting on a ping-pong table) I thought the doolittle raid changed the fighter garrison requirement in Japan, didn't affect war length. But it's been so long that you could well be correct. Memory is a little iffy but IIRC there were certain tasks the players were required to perfomr. One was Force Z had to sortie towards northern Malaya. Another was the IJN had to send a sub squadron to WCUSA during teh first month of the war. I am not sure if Doolittle Raid was one of those events or if it was shortening the war. Will check in about half an hour

crsutton -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 10:04:40 PM)
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�[&:]� Man, that is a bummer. Say, you are'nt up for a game are you......? [;)]

witpqs -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 10:09:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erstad Well, you certainly could tie something to the same events that trigger extra reinforcements. In fact, that's not a bad idea; I might use it if I ever start another game as Japan. As it sits, the Allies can use a lot of force, for example, in Northern/Eastern Oz because the southern part is somewhat safer because the Japanese player is going to be reluctant to trigger the reinforcements. Might have to limit it to capture of a major city to avoid any gaminess where someone might paradrop onto a dot base or whatever for the sole purpose of triggering the event. The Allies have to be careful about that due to a game mechanism. All excess supply (meaning above 3 x each base's requirement) in Australia flows to Sydney. If the IJ player manages to pull off a coup de main right into Sydney they could bag 1,000,000+ supply in the process.

crsutton -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 10:11:32 PM)
Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight. I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is?

vettim89 -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/21/2010 10:41:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if�he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers�while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight.�I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is? I understand where you are coming from but I look at situations like the one in the WiTP "First Team" AAR where John3 and Q-Ball had truly defeated the Allies in 1942. I am talking a overwhelming victory that didn't bring autovictory in 1942 and might not have done so even on 1 January 1943 if the game had gone on. That shouldn't be the case. That kind of stomping should be acknowledge by the game

castor troy -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/22/2010 10:07:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if�he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers�while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight.�I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is? good comment and I totally agree here. It�s not the game�s victory points that should tell you when you�ve been defeated, you and your partner should notice it (guess you won�t be defeated by the AI if you know how the game�s functions work). Victory points are a nice way to portray how�s the war going but that�s it IMO. If you have bombed Japan that nothing is left in 44 but haven�t reached the needed ratio yet does this mean you haven�t won (yet)?

PaxMondo -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/22/2010 11:57:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if�he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers�while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight.�I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is? I understand where you are coming from but I look at situations like the one in the WiTP "First Team" AAR where John3 and Q-Ball had truly defeated the Allies in 1942. I am talking a overwhelming victory that didn't bring autovictory in 1942 and might not have done so even on 1 January 1943 if the game had gone on. That shouldn't be the case. That kind of stomping should be acknowledge by the game But in this case, Do you really want the game to end in auto-victory? I would think some (many) players would want to see what happens even IF Japan is able to do that well in '42, what does '45 look like?

jeffs -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/22/2010 12:36:48 PM)
Excellent point quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if�he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers�while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight.�I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is? Doolittle Raid had huge effects. 1. As pointed out it increased fighter squadron levels requirements in the home islands. 2. Japan ordered large amounts of its fleet to sea in a vain attempt to chase the American CVs. This lead to huge amounts of radio traffic that US cryptoanalysts were able to use to figure out code (to my knowledge, the game reflects US reading of traffic getting better...Though in he game it is never as detailed as the US really got) 3. Ended naval general staff and army oppositon to Midway. They had much preferred going for the South Pacific like Suva. No way to put that into the game system..... The core problem/issue is A. Clearly it is possible (and one can argue probable for Japan to do better in light of system changes (pilot training, etc) and playing with common sense (using convoys that are well protected) for Japan to better than history. B. In some cases, the Japanese will do hugely better than history. C. in most of those cases as well it still will not matter due to allied material advantage followed by nukes. So...How do we give the Japanese player a pat on the shoulder for doing better than historical but still not preventing nukes ...... [&:] Not sure if I have a good answer.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/22/2010 1:08:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if�he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers�while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight.�I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is? Without a doubt the most sensible post in this thread. Only you (and maybe your opponent) know what you were trying to achieve..., so why try to judge yourself by someone else's artificially constructed definition of a "win"? VP's and "autovictory" straightjacket play down predetermined lines, and result in artificial tactics and "mad pushes" for points as the critical dates approach. If you beat up your opponent, both you and he know it. If he beat you up, you both know that as well. And if you can't decide who accumulated the most bruises, it's probably a draw. What matters is the fun you had playing, not somebody else's predetermined notion of what ought to happen.

PaxMondo -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/22/2010 6:04:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeffs Excellent point quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if�he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers�while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight.�I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is? Doolittle Raid had huge effects. 1. As pointed out it increased fighter squadron levels requirements in the home islands. 2. Japan ordered large amounts of its fleet to sea in a vain attempt to chase the American CVs. This lead to huge amounts of radio traffic that US cryptoanalysts were able to use to figure out code (to my knowledge, the game reflects US reading of traffic getting better...Though in he game it is never as detailed as the US really got) 3. Ended naval general staff and army oppositon to Midway. They had much preferred going for the South Pacific like Suva. No way to put that into the game system..... The core problem/issue is A. Clearly it is possible (and one can argue probable for Japan to do better in light of system changes (pilot training, etc) and playing with common sense (using convoys that are well protected) for Japan to better than history. B. In some cases, the Japanese will do hugely better than history. C. in most of those cases as well it still will not matter due to allied material advantage followed by nukes. So...How do we give the Japanese player a pat on the shoulder for doing better than historical but still not preventing nukes ...... [&:] Not sure if I have a good answer. I agree with most points here, and especially: (Emphasis added above) "...How do we give the Japanese player a pat on the shoulder for doing better than historical" Excellent question and I agree, I haven't seen a good answer for a coded in game solution. Certainly, we all recognize when someone is doing really well in an AAR. How to code that though? How are judging that? Largely on two factors: number of CV's killed and area taken. Right? If JAP is killing USN CV's and not taking losses, simply she is ahead. If she is trading CV's, even at 2:1 it can still be strategically a losing proposition. Especially "true fleet" CV's, Japan has so few we all can name them. Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Shokaku, Zuikaku, and the Taiho (assuming you finish her). After that Jap CV's reallly tail off. Soryu/Unryu's aren't terrible, but they don't measure up to Essex class that they have to face. That would suggest that those 5 JAP CV's should have greatly enhanced VP, and the Allied CV's until mid-43 should also have greatly enhanced VP. So we are talkling about variable VP's based upon the timeframe.

bradfordkay -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/23/2010 4:38:08 AM)
"So...How do we give the Japanese player a pat on the shoulder for doing better than historical but still not preventing nukes ...... " In WITP (I'm not sure if the AE VC are the same, I've never read that portion of the rule book) if the game makes it to the 1946 finish, then the victory level shifted two levels in favor of the Japanese. Since the Allied player hadn't already achieved an auto victory, the best result he was likely to get would be a draw but more likely a Japanese marginal victory based on points. As an allied player, if the game makes it to the end in 1946, I will acknowledge that my opponent has outplayed me (he usually does anyway) but I will have enjoyed playing with the late war toys. Hell, if I can't close the deal by mid-August 1945 I will have considered myself to have lost the game whether or not I win the war. But winning or losing the game isn't the point in my book, it is enjoying the voyage that takes us to the end.

topeverest -> RE: Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone? (5/24/2010 1:53:44 AM)
I agree that the formal 'pat on the back' for a Japanese player via coded results is emminently elusive, even if there are some good suggestions. I too will shore up with my ersthwhile opponent and come to a concensus on bragging rights, but it will already be clear already if kudos are to be awarded. We generally do an intermediate result every six months and catalog them over the game. We consider absolute positions, positions relative to last update, and any remarkable battles / campaigns that may have occured. We then more or less add up the update points over time. We always agree in advance on the date the allies have to achieve auto victory to attain a game decisive or tactical victory. We generally think that if the allies dont achieve a tactical victory relative to our set dates, the Japanese achieve a 'remarkable victory' and we leave it at that. I also have awarded my opponent victory in the middle of one game desite playing on because he achieved an astounding naval victory in a major campaign. The allies of course, still we able to rebuild and march on. For us, the main fun is in getting there, win, lose, or draw.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1