RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness

RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (Full Version)

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

Message

MakeeLearn -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 3:03:43 PM)
Mandala... [image]local://upfiles/55056/F4D2113E847C48BAA69A74FA95802AB3.jpg[/image]

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 4:54:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus Keeping the allied fighter pools low, depleting the British, Indian, Australian force pools, sinking U.S. naval assets in 1942 and 1943 In my Japan game, I've done all of these things, in addition to sinking significant USN assets in 1944. I've shot down 675+ P-47D25's. I've shot down almost all of the P-47D2's. I've emptied the Commonwealth replacement pools. I eliminated China, such that there are only 3 or 4 Corps on the map right now. I've given the Marines a bloody nose and forced a 3-month land campaign for Java, whittling his aircraft pools all the way, where his LCUs will need a long time to repair from being 2/3 disabled. On Mindanao, he's about 1/2 disabled and hasn't quite captured Davao yet (his landing location). The LCU VPs that I have earned are in excess of 26,000 - well higher than other examples. I've sunk 20+ CVEs. I've sunk several fast USN BBs (3 or 4), over 30 modern cruisers, 5+ fleet CVs, 3+ Independences... I'm at work so I can't look at the full list, but it's significant in terms of combat power. It still hasn't delayed him that significantly, and the VP cushion earned is just not enough as it stands right now, and the opportunities/ability of Japan to extract tithes only gets relatively worse and in 1945 that relative decline happens very quickly. I'm not trying to imply that he's played poorly - it may seem that way, from the losses I've listed, but he's trading assets for VPs of his own and territory and it's slowly working. I know the Allied OOB - he's not going to run out, and even if he runs out of cruisers the sheer volume of Fletchers, Bensons, and even modern RN DDs can overwhelm the IJN surface forces on their own. It's just not going to matter because there's too much time left on the clock. If the game plays out as I think it will through all of 1945, I would say I'd have earned a minor victory - but the game is not going to say that is the case if the VPs end up how I think they will. It will be a draw or a minor victory for him, according to the game's VPs. I think an Allied minor victory is the most likely scenario (40-45%?), with a draw (35-40%?) and a Japanese minor victory (15-25%?) being less likely. I meant to post images of my VPs last night to try to show this succinctly in maybe a single paragraph. Somebody remind me to do that tonight [:'(].

Canoerebel -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 5:05:21 PM)
Loka's thoughts are good thoughts and deserve careful consideration. I bet nearly all players who use the VP system - or who would do so if it is balanced and fair - are open to adjusting the VPs prudently towards that objective. It would take a lot of time and thought to do it. If it's possible to use the editor to make the adjustments, it might be interesting at some point to create a committee that would act on all information (much of which is yet to come, no doubt, as more thought is given and more players weigh in) to create a VP Mod. Then unleash a bunch of players that are relatively evenly matched to try it on for size. (Now if only Loka and Bullwinkle would do an AAR so we could follow their game).

Canoerebel -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 5:08:03 PM)
I think HansBolter misinterpreted my opening post because I didn't word it clearly. It wasn't directed at solo players at all (though I did refer to one solo player who seemed to me to express a petulant reason for avoiding PBEM). I don't know any PBEM players who "look down" on solo players. I certainly don't. There is a difference between the two, so that some prefer the one and some the other.

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 6:58:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Loka's thoughts are good thoughts and deserve careful consideration. I bet nearly all players who use the VP system - or who would do so if it is balanced and fair - are open to adjusting the VPs prudently towards that objective. It would take a lot of time and thought to do it. If it's possible to use the editor to make the adjustments, it might be interesting at some point to create a committee that would act on all information (much of which is yet to come, no doubt, as more thought is given and more players weigh in) to create a VP Mod. Then unleash a bunch of players that are relatively evenly matched to try it on for size. (Now if only Loka and Bullwinkle would do an AAR so we could follow their game). He won't be doing one and I knew he wouldn't from the start. I do have an AAR thread for the game, but I haven't updated it in at least one solar eclipse... or at least a half-dozen blue moons... If I have time, I will post updates to it. I have been saving turn files and the notes that I keep during each replay can be referenced later to provide a synopsis. In looking up my thread, I notice that I last updated in October 2016 and it was June 1944 in-game at that time. In 14 months, I have only advanced the game 5.5 months. The delay and slowdown is almost entirely my fault.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 7:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus Keeping the allied fighter pools low, depleting the British, Indian, Australian force pools, sinking U.S. naval assets in 1942 and 1943 In my Japan game, I've done all of these things, in addition to sinking significant USN assets in 1944. I've shot down 675+ P-47D25's. I've shot down almost all of the P-47D2's. I've emptied the Commonwealth replacement pools. I eliminated China, such that there are only 3 or 4 Corps on the map right now. I've given the Marines a bloody nose and forced a 3-month land campaign for Java, whittling his aircraft pools all the way, where his LCUs will need a long time to repair from being 2/3 disabled. On Mindanao, he's about 1/2 disabled and hasn't quite captured Davao yet (his landing location). The LCU VPs that I have earned are in excess of 26,000 - well higher than other examples. I've sunk 20+ CVEs. I've sunk several fast USN BBs (3 or 4), over 30 modern cruisers, 5+ fleet CVs, 3+ Independences... I'm at work so I can't look at the full list, but it's significant in terms of combat power. It still hasn't delayed him that significantly, and the VP cushion earned is just not enough as it stands right now, and the opportunities/ability of Japan to extract tithes only gets relatively worse and in 1945 that relative decline happens very quickly. I'm not trying to imply that he's played poorly - it may seem that way, from the losses I've listed, but he's trading assets for VPs of his own and territory and it's slowly working. I know the Allied OOB - he's not going to run out, and even if he runs out of cruisers the sheer volume of Fletchers, Bensons, and even modern RN DDs can overwhelm the IJN surface forces on their own. It's just not going to matter because there's too much time left on the clock. If the game plays out as I think it will through all of 1945, I would say I'd have earned a minor victory - but the game is not going to say that is the case if the VPs end up how I think they will. It will be a draw or a minor victory for him, according to the game's VPs. I think an Allied minor victory is the most likely scenario (40-45%?), with a draw (35-40%?) and a Japanese minor victory (15-25%?) being less likely. I meant to post images of my VPs last night to try to show this succinctly in maybe a single paragraph. Somebody remind me to do that tonight [:'(]. I have stopped posting on the forum due to fatigue with it as well as general distaste to re-litigate the same arguments over and over. My interests of late have somewhat moved away from AE, although I continue two PBEMs. Facing a big decimal birthday makes one realize that time is not infinite. I have looked in on the forum as a Guest, reading in a far more limited manner than previously. Mostly at selected AARs I have followed for a long time. This thread, as well as the other ("Gamey") where Alfred presents such well-reasoned posts, have drawn my attention. This one, where my esteemed opponent Lokasenna has posted on our game is also pertinent. On the chance that he did so assuming I was not reading, I wanted to show him that I am. And while it is somewhat humiliating to have my many mistakes and shortcomings on display, nothing he says is false. Our game has been a monumental struggle from my POV, and I am very much a better player than when we began. Some mistakes, however, are baked into the cake. I wanted to offer a few thoughts and additions for CR and other readers. Not to dispute his analysis, but to add to it. On opponents and equal matching . . . yes, of course. But it's difficult. My earliest archived email with L., where we discussed which save slot to use, is dated September 2013. I was largely at home, semi-retired and not volunteering, and he was in an apartment with cats and roommates. Both of those scenarios have radically altered since. In our fifth year, we are still in 1944, and turns have slowed markedly. At this rate we're looking at eight years or so? In 2013 I was coming off my first PBEM game, the one I AARed. My opponent had resigned, and I counted that as a win. I was pretty cocky about my skills. I didn't know L. at all as I recall, didn't know he could play either side. Didn't know much at all except he was willing to play a no-HR game. I therefore offered a Scenario 2 game with non-historic R&D, stock PP budgets, no HRs (but internally reserving the idea there were some things I wouldn't do), and a lot of hope for success. Thus my point that opponent and set-up selections are important, and can be an 8-year millstone. If I had known how good he is, how analytical, how able to ignore emotion and focus on the math of a decision, I NEVER would have played Scenario 2, let alone offered non-historical R&D. That first decision on my part still resonates, and it's one many players have also faced. I'm not his equal as a player, I don't play Japan, and I threw gasoline on those factors out of hubris. I then exacerbated those errors by trying to repeat my successful wholesale retreat of the Chinese army out of China. He used tanks to cut the railroads, and then sliced and diced me to ribbons in a matter of a few months. The resurrected corps in Chungking were huge, yes, and his take-down of the capital took the better part of a year and a lot of investment, but he did it. When he says three Chinese corps got out he's right. China was a game-changer. And on me and my poor play. I made other errors. I misunderstood exactly how powerful the game makes jungle and how much supply can reach Japan even in dense jungle. In Burma, I tried to sledgehammer my way past a big stack on the road outside Ramree, and got gutted. I am still paying for that and will to the end through flat pools. He knows this. He plays the hexside game many moves (months) ahead, and I have been consistently outclassed there. I have tried to engage in anti-supply tactics by air, but as he notes this has cost me a lot of planes, although his fighter presence in Burma has been largely removed. I still have not taken Rangoon, and only try to do so for the VPs. At this point I doubt there will ever be operations south of there. At sea, I screwed up over and over. He has detailed my defeats. I was a sailor and this part of the game is intensely personal for me; I don't play the math. I nearly quit at least twice over naval debacles. Yes, I continue to move forward. But I say a mantra before every replay ("This could be really bad".) Yes, really. Out loud. Sometimes it helps. I have many complaints about the naval war in the game models, particularly the submarine war. As above, I won't re-litigate. And yes, I'm better than I started out. But it's also true as he says that in late-1944 the IJN is decisive in constraining my movements. Every move forward he extracts blood and VPs. I have tried to remove his fuel, and been somewhat successful. But he says in this thread he has fuel for a year, and that's a Long Time at this point in the game. For those who say the USN subs can stop the POL game I refer you to L's PM address. He can tell you how to mount a MASSIVE LBA ASW effort and remove the subs from meaningful play. So. Yeah. I've been outplayed. I begin every turn with a weight on my shoulders, slogging through mental mud. So I have to say it's surprising to read L's analysis of how he sees the game (he has said in email but without the buttressing facts he provides here.) I have been playing for a draw for about a game year. To me, that's my penance for the mistakes I made 4.5 years ago as outlined above. And reading L's analysis I have to again join him, and Alfred, and others in singing the praises of the VP system. I feel beaten. Yet I can still win the game. While playing L I also played a DBB game (again, with an unknown sharpshooter) wherein I was AVed on 1/1/43 and resigned, despite my opponent's pleas to continue. That experience is overlaid on my experience in the L. game. It is ENTIRLEY possible for the Allies to lose on the first day AV is possible. As far as VP win versus "internal" win, Loka makes the point I can probably eke out a marginal win in 1946 due to the Soviets. He's probably right. You guys should listen to him, because he is a master player on both sides, an untold advantage in AE. But for me, winning due to the Soviets, if it happens, will not be satisfying. I'll take it, but thin gruel. On that measure I think he has a point about the VP system post-1944. It's a long, long haul to spring 1946. Strat bombing is probably over-powered in VP terms. Some bases might be adjusted to compensate, but strat bombing is always going to be how the Allies come back from a poor 1944. It's history. But maybe industry ought to be a bit less valuable. And possibly using the Soviets at all after 9/1/45 ought to make a draw the best outcome possible for the Allies. For CR specifically, and others generally, try to get the best opponent you can. But understand you really don't know. Don't know if you're evenly matched. So be very careful what you agree to in the set-up. And be very careful you don't re-play your last game. If you can, try to find somebody better than you; they will make you better too. Try to find somebody who isn't a jerk when you have a disaster turn, who doesn't insist on their brand of trash-talking when you say that isn't your flavor of sportsmanship. If you can stand to, learn to play Japan, even if just a little. It offers huge advantages. And, re my second PBEM game going, play a newbie sometimes. They have to learn, and it's a different sort of challenge to your pre-conceptions. "My" newbie is getting better by leaps and bounds, and yet he constantly makes me stay on guard as he does things no veteran player would ever think of doing. And often those things work.

Canoerebel -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 7:15:06 PM)
Thanks for posting in-depth thoughts, Moose. We're getting rich input from experienced players. And we're even provoking some to come outa the weeds, where they've been hiding. Perhaps Greyjoy is next.

zuluhour -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 7:24:12 PM)
Nice to see you post Bullwinkle. A game this detailed lends itself to constant reflection, speculation, and rehash. It is a love it or leave it deal. I tried to start a WITE with a really solid player across the ocean who had the pleasure of auto victory on me in A&E, letting me play to April '46, god BLESS him, but I really just wanted another shot at A&E. (fourth shot truth be known). Anyway, to the point, the allies must get the B29 in range of the HI. The strategic bombing VP will overcome a lot of short comings. You have to avoid auto vic and get somewhere close enough for the true heavies in time. *simple[:D]

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 7:40:50 PM)
I thought you might be peeking in every now and again [;)]. It wouldn't have changed what I wrote.

modrow -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 7:45:56 PM)
Canoerebel, quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel I have long advocated that the need is to make Japan stronger mid- or late-war. Not early war. Japan is now on steroids early war. Witness the aggregate number of games in which Japan invades California or Australia or India. Making further early game concessions to Japan only adds fuel to the fire. Japan does have trouble in the late game, so I'd be more interested in changes that address that, within reason. I think that an interesting aspect of this game is how the balance is made to swing. In my opinion, much of the balance change is a change of capabilities of the units in the OOB by TOE changes for LCUs, by something (possibly radar) for naval units and by plane stats for air units. So one way to achieve what you want is giving IJ another set of squad/device upgrades for staying competitive in ground combat and/or revise TOEs towards more fire power in mid/late war. One may also consider embedding AAA, AT devices and/or engineers into LCUs in a late war TOE upgrade. I suspect something similar is possible for naval combat. My impression is that the growing success of Allied navies in naval combat is not just due to an increase of experience (albeit this is an important parameter), but also because radar is factored in somehow and its importance grows with time. If this assumption is correct, providing a late war improved radar for IJN could help to achieve what you want. As for planes, I am not sure whether I would touch anything. All of the above would have to be adjusted very carefully. Note that it would likely remove the need to allow IJ "overexpansion", so perhaps at the same time the Allied should be strengthened in early war. To do so, I would raise experience/morale levels, eventually readiness (less disabled devices) and add devices to the pool. By selective upgrades/assignment of reinforcements the Allied player would then ideally gain the possibility to strengthen defenses locally at selected locations, which would put an end to the optimized early war expansion of IJ that IJ players can run now, which can be done due to the perfect knowledge of force allocation/distribution and mostly static/frozen Allied assets. Just my view Hartwig edited 2x for more clarity

Aurorus -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 8:12:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus Keeping the allied fighter pools low, depleting the British, Indian, Australian force pools, sinking U.S. naval assets in 1942 and 1943 In my Japan game, I've done all of these things, in addition to sinking significant USN assets in 1944. I've shot down 675+ P-47D25's. I've shot down almost all of the P-47D2's. I've emptied the Commonwealth replacement pools. I eliminated China, such that there are only 3 or 4 Corps on the map right now. I've given the Marines a bloody nose and forced a 3-month land campaign for Java, whittling his aircraft pools all the way, where his LCUs will need a long time to repair from being 2/3 disabled. On Mindanao, he's about 1/2 disabled and hasn't quite captured Davao yet (his landing location). The LCU VPs that I have earned are in excess of 26,000 - well higher than other examples. I've sunk 20+ CVEs. I've sunk several fast USN BBs (3 or 4), over 30 modern cruisers, 5+ fleet CVs, 3+ Independences... I'm at work so I can't look at the full list, but it's significant in terms of combat power. It still hasn't delayed him that significantly, and the VP cushion earned is just not enough as it stands right now, and the opportunities/ability of Japan to extract tithes only gets relatively worse and in 1945 that relative decline happens very quickly. I'm not trying to imply that he's played poorly - it may seem that way, from the losses I've listed, but he's trading assets for VPs of his own and territory and it's slowly working. I know the Allied OOB - he's not going to run out, and even if he runs out of cruisers the sheer volume of Fletchers, Bensons, and even modern RN DDs can overwhelm the IJN surface forces on their own. It's just not going to matter because there's too much time left on the clock. If the game plays out as I think it will through all of 1945, I would say I'd have earned a minor victory - but the game is not going to say that is the case if the VPs end up how I think they will. It will be a draw or a minor victory for him, according to the game's VPs. I think an Allied minor victory is the most likely scenario (40-45%?), with a draw (35-40%?) and a Japanese minor victory (15-25%?) being less likely. I meant to post images of my VPs last night to try to show this succinctly in maybe a single paragraph. Somebody remind me to do that tonight [:'(]. Here is your reminder. Please post the VP images. I am very curious, because one of my games is a VP contest, and I have never played into 1944-45. I am also curious how close you were to a 3-1 advantage on Jan. 1, 1944. In my opinion, the VP system does not value military assets correctly: especially naval assets. For example, a CV is worth 300 VPs, in a game in which sides accumulate 60,000 VPs and BBs are worth 200 VPs? A fleet carrer is far more important than a BB, not 50% more valuable. Maybe the solution to the dilemma that you present is to change how naval assets are valued in terms of VPs. Increasing the value of capital ships by 100% and CVs by 200% does not seem out of line with how VPs for other assets are awarded.

Lecivius -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 8:24:04 PM)
Well said, bubblehead [;)] Don't be a stranger!

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 8:38:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus Keeping the allied fighter pools low, depleting the British, Indian, Australian force pools, sinking U.S. naval assets in 1942 and 1943 In my Japan game, I've done all of these things, in addition to sinking significant USN assets in 1944. I've shot down 675+ P-47D25's. I've shot down almost all of the P-47D2's. I've emptied the Commonwealth replacement pools. I eliminated China, such that there are only 3 or 4 Corps on the map right now. I've given the Marines a bloody nose and forced a 3-month land campaign for Java, whittling his aircraft pools all the way, where his LCUs will need a long time to repair from being 2/3 disabled. On Mindanao, he's about 1/2 disabled and hasn't quite captured Davao yet (his landing location). The LCU VPs that I have earned are in excess of 26,000 - well higher than other examples. I've sunk 20+ CVEs. I've sunk several fast USN BBs (3 or 4), over 30 modern cruisers, 5+ fleet CVs, 3+ Independences... I'm at work so I can't look at the full list, but it's significant in terms of combat power. It still hasn't delayed him that significantly, and the VP cushion earned is just not enough as it stands right now, and the opportunities/ability of Japan to extract tithes only gets relatively worse and in 1945 that relative decline happens very quickly. I'm not trying to imply that he's played poorly - it may seem that way, from the losses I've listed, but he's trading assets for VPs of his own and territory and it's slowly working. I know the Allied OOB - he's not going to run out, and even if he runs out of cruisers the sheer volume of Fletchers, Bensons, and even modern RN DDs can overwhelm the IJN surface forces on their own. It's just not going to matter because there's too much time left on the clock. If the game plays out as I think it will through all of 1945, I would say I'd have earned a minor victory - but the game is not going to say that is the case if the VPs end up how I think they will. It will be a draw or a minor victory for him, according to the game's VPs. I think an Allied minor victory is the most likely scenario (40-45%?), with a draw (35-40%?) and a Japanese minor victory (15-25%?) being less likely. I meant to post images of my VPs last night to try to show this succinctly in maybe a single paragraph. Somebody remind me to do that tonight [:'(]. Here is your reminder. Please post the VP images. I am very curious, because one of my games is a VP contest, and I have never played into 1944-45. I am also curious how close you were to a 3-1 advantage on Jan. 1, 1944. In my opinion, the VP system does not value military assets correctly: especially naval assets. For example, a CV is worth 300 VPs, in a game in which sides accumulate 60,000 VPs and BBs are worth 200 VPs? A fleet carrer is far more important than a BB, not 50% more valuable. Maybe the solution to the dilemma that you present is to change how naval assets are valued in terms of VPs. Increasing the value of capital ships by 100% and CVs by 200% does not seem out of line with how VPs for other assets are awarded. The problem there is that VPs (for combat ships at least) is a calculated amount that is based on durability. I was not close to a 3:1 on 1/1/1944. On 8/29/43, the VPs were 51292:22668, which is a 2.263:1 ratio. My high point was somewhere around a 2.75 in late summer 1942. I haven't updated it in a long while, but this page begins what I have of 1944 in that game. I'm not heading home yet, so this reminder is insufficient [:D]. [image]local://upfiles/41335/E9ABE38860714440A3413D764236F39E.jpg[/image]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 8:50:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus In my opinion, the VP system does not value military assets correctly: especially naval assets. For example, a CV is worth 300 VPs, in a game in which sides accumulate 60,000 VPs and BBs are worth 200 VPs? A fleet carrer is far more important than a BB, not 50% more valuable. Maybe the solution to the dilemma that you present is to change how naval assets are valued in terms of VPs. Increasing the value of capital ships by 100% and CVs by 200% does not seem out of line with how VPs for other assets are awarded. It's far worse than that. As far back as WITP, and certainly in AE's early days, the VP ratio dilemma was discussed. A CV and a BB are in the same realm, more or less, in terms of building assets and crew investment. OTOH, a 4E bomber at 2 VP and a DD at 10 VP? The bomber has a crew of 10 men and costs low dozens (?) of tons of material, primarily aluminum. A DD has a crew of circa 250 men, and costs thousands of tons of material, mostly steel. Crazy. But, abstraction . . . For that matter, a 2E is a lot closer in investment to a 4E than it is a fighter, but a 2E is 1 VP as well. If IJA and IJN 2Es were 2 VPs they would be used differently. Don't get me started on how essentially "free" a torpedo is, when in reality they were Swiss watches, rare, and difficult to transport and store. Like mines, fish should be pool items, not cost a drop of supply.

Aurorus -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 9:12:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus In my opinion, the VP system does not value military assets correctly: especially naval assets. For example, a CV is worth 300 VPs, in a game in which sides accumulate 60,000 VPs and BBs are worth 200 VPs? A fleet carrer is far more important than a BB, not 50% more valuable. Maybe the solution to the dilemma that you present is to change how naval assets are valued in terms of VPs. Increasing the value of capital ships by 100% and CVs by 200% does not seem out of line with how VPs for other assets are awarded. It's far worse than that. As far back as WITP, and certainly in AE's early days, the VP ratio dilemma was discussed. A CV and a BB are in the same realm, more or less, in terms of building assets and crew investment. OTOH, a 4E bomber at 2 VP and a DD at 10 VP? The bomber has a crew of 10 men and costs low dozens (?) of tons of material, primarily aluminum. A DD has a crew of circa 250 men, and costs thousands of tons of material, mostly steel. Crazy. But, abstraction . . . For that matter, a 2E is a lot closer in investment to a 4E than it is a fighter, but a 2E is 1 VP as well. If IJA and IJN 2Es were 2 VPs they would be used differently. Don't get me started on how essentially "free" a torpedo is, when in reality they were Swiss watches, rare, and difficult to transport and store. Like mines, fish should be pool items, not cost a drop of supply. The metric is what I am questioning. The basis for ship VPs is materials used in construction, not the importance of the vessel to the war effort. As for torpedos, "a drop of supply" is relative to one's perspective, I suppose. If one has 150,000 supply at all the front-line bases, the supply cost of a torpedo is an after-thought. Unfortunately, Japan is rarely afforded this luxury. For Japan, torpedo sorties are expensive supply endeavors. Even refilling the torpedo sorties on KB will drain half of a large AKE.

dave sindel -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 11:09:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus Keeping the allied fighter pools low, depleting the British, Indian, Australian force pools, sinking U.S. naval assets in 1942 and 1943 In my Japan game, I've done all of these things, in addition to sinking significant USN assets in 1944. I've shot down 675+ P-47D25's. I've shot down almost all of the P-47D2's. I've emptied the Commonwealth replacement pools. I eliminated China, such that there are only 3 or 4 Corps on the map right now. I've given the Marines a bloody nose and forced a 3-month land campaign for Java, whittling his aircraft pools all the way, where his LCUs will need a long time to repair from being 2/3 disabled. On Mindanao, he's about 1/2 disabled and hasn't quite captured Davao yet (his landing location). The LCU VPs that I have earned are in excess of 26,000 - well higher than other examples. I've sunk 20+ CVEs. I've sunk several fast USN BBs (3 or 4), over 30 modern cruisers, 5+ fleet CVs, 3+ Independences... I'm at work so I can't look at the full list, but it's significant in terms of combat power. It still hasn't delayed him that significantly, and the VP cushion earned is just not enough as it stands right now, and the opportunities/ability of Japan to extract tithes only gets relatively worse and in 1945 that relative decline happens very quickly. I'm not trying to imply that he's played poorly - it may seem that way, from the losses I've listed, but he's trading assets for VPs of his own and territory and it's slowly working. I know the Allied OOB - he's not going to run out, and even if he runs out of cruisers the sheer volume of Fletchers, Bensons, and even modern RN DDs can overwhelm the IJN surface forces on their own. It's just not going to matter because there's too much time left on the clock. If the game plays out as I think it will through all of 1945, I would say I'd have earned a minor victory - but the game is not going to say that is the case if the VPs end up how I think they will. It will be a draw or a minor victory for him, according to the game's VPs. I think an Allied minor victory is the most likely scenario (40-45%?), with a draw (35-40%?) and a Japanese minor victory (15-25%?) being less likely. I meant to post images of my VPs last night to try to show this succinctly in maybe a single paragraph. Somebody remind me to do that tonight [:'(]. I have stopped posting on the forum due to fatigue with it as well as general distaste to re-litigate the same arguments over and over. My interests of late have somewhat moved away from AE, although I continue two PBEMs. Facing a big decimal birthday makes one realize that time is not infinite. I have looked in on the forum as a Guest, reading in a far more limited manner than previously. Mostly at selected AARs I have followed for a long time. This thread, as well as the other ("Gamey") where Alfred presents such well-reasoned posts, have drawn my attention. This one, where my esteemed opponent Lokasenna has posted on our game is also pertinent. On the chance that he did so assuming I was not reading, I wanted to show him that I am. And while it is somewhat humiliating to have my many mistakes and shortcomings on display, nothing he says is false. Our game has been a monumental struggle from my POV, and I am very much a better player than when we began. Some mistakes, however, are baked into the cake. I wanted to offer a few thoughts and additions for CR and other readers. Not to dispute his analysis, but to add to it. On opponents and equal matching . . . yes, of course. But it's difficult. My earliest archived email with L., where we discussed which save slot to use, is dated September 2013. I was largely at home, semi-retired and not volunteering, and he was in an apartment with cats and roommates. Both of those scenarios have radically altered since. In our fifth year, we are still in 1944, and turns have slowed markedly. At this rate we're looking at eight years or so? In 2013 I was coming off my first PBEM game, the one I AARed. My opponent had resigned, and I counted that as a win. I was pretty cocky about my skills. I didn't know L. at all as I recall, didn't know he could play either side. Didn't know much at all except he was willing to play a no-HR game. I therefore offered a Scenario 2 game with non-historic R&D, stock PP budgets, no HRs (but internally reserving the idea there were some things I wouldn't do), and a lot of hope for success. Thus my point that opponent and set-up selections are important, and can be an 8-year millstone. If I had known how good he is, how analytical, how able to ignore emotion and focus on the math of a decision, I NEVER would have played Scenario 2, let alone offered non-historical R&D. That first decision on my part still resonates, and it's one many players have also faced. I'm not his equal as a player, I don't play Japan, and I threw gasoline on those factors out of hubris. I then exacerbated those errors by trying to repeat my successful wholesale retreat of the Chinese army out of China. He used tanks to cut the railroads, and then sliced and diced me to ribbons in a matter of a few months. The resurrected corps in Chungking were huge, yes, and his take-down of the capital took the better part of a year and a lot of investment, but he did it. When he says three Chinese corps got out he's right. China was a game-changer. And on me and my poor play. I made other errors. I misunderstood exactly how powerful the game makes jungle and how much supply can reach Japan even in dense jungle. In Burma, I tried to sledgehammer my way past a big stack on the road outside Ramree, and got gutted. I am still paying for that and will to the end through flat pools. He knows this. He plays the hexside game many moves (months) ahead, and I have been consistently outclassed there. I have tried to engage in anti-supply tactics by air, but as he notes this has cost me a lot of planes, although his fighter presence in Burma has been largely removed. I still have not taken Rangoon, and only try to do so for the VPs. At this point I doubt there will ever be operations south of there. At sea, I screwed up over and over. He has detailed my defeats. I was a sailor and this part of the game is intensely personal for me; I don't play the math. I nearly quit at least twice over naval debacles. Yes, I continue to move forward. But I say a mantra before every replay ("This could be really bad".) Yes, really. Out loud. Sometimes it helps. I have many complaints about the naval war in the game models, particularly the submarine war. As above, I won't re-litigate. And yes, I'm better than I started out. But it's also true as he says that in late-1944 the IJN is decisive in constraining my movements. Every move forward he extracts blood and VPs. I have tried to remove his fuel, and been somewhat successful. But he says in this thread he has fuel for a year, and that's a Long Time at this point in the game. For those who say the USN subs can stop the POL game I refer you to L's PM address. He can tell you how to mount a MASSIVE LBA ASW effort and remove the subs from meaningful play. So. Yeah. I've been outplayed. I begin every turn with a weight on my shoulders, slogging through mental mud. So I have to say it's surprising to read L's analysis of how he sees the game (he has said in email but without the buttressing facts he provides here.) I have been playing for a draw for about a game year. To me, that's my penance for the mistakes I made 4.5 years ago as outlined above. And reading L's analysis I have to again join him, and Alfred, and others in singing the praises of the VP system. I feel beaten. Yet I can still win the game. While playing L I also played a DBB game (again, with an unknown sharpshooter) wherein I was AVed on 1/1/43 and resigned, despite my opponent's pleas to continue. That experience is overlaid on my experience in the L. game. It is ENTIRLEY possible for the Allies to lose on the first day AV is possible. As far as VP win versus "internal" win, Loka makes the point I can probably eke out a marginal win in 1946 due to the Soviets. He's probably right. You guys should listen to him, because he is a master player on both sides, an untold advantage in AE. But for me, winning due to the Soviets, if it happens, will not be satisfying. I'll take it, but thin gruel. On that measure I think he has a point about the VP system post-1944. It's a long, long haul to spring 1946. Strat bombing is probably over-powered in VP terms. Some bases might be adjusted to compensate, but strat bombing is always going to be how the Allies come back from a poor 1944. It's history. But maybe industry ought to be a bit less valuable. And possibly using the Soviets at all after 9/1/45 ought to make a draw the best outcome possible for the Allies. For CR specifically, and others generally, try to get the best opponent you can. But understand you really don't know. Don't know if you're evenly matched. So be very careful what you agree to in the set-up. And be very careful you don't re-play your last game. If you can, try to find somebody better than you; they will make you better too. Try to find somebody who isn't a jerk when you have a disaster turn, who doesn't insist on their brand of trash-talking when you say that isn't your flavor of sportsmanship. If you can stand to, learn to play Japan, even if just a little. It offers huge advantages. And, re my second PBEM game going, play a newbie sometimes. They have to learn, and it's a different sort of challenge to your pre-conceptions. "My" newbie is getting better by leaps and bounds, and yet he constantly makes me stay on guard as he does things no veteran player would ever think of doing. And often those things work. Moose, your presence on the forum has been missed. Glad to see you back, if just for a moment.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 11:17:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus In my opinion, the VP system does not value military assets correctly: especially naval assets. For example, a CV is worth 300 VPs, in a game in which sides accumulate 60,000 VPs and BBs are worth 200 VPs? A fleet carrer is far more important than a BB, not 50% more valuable. Maybe the solution to the dilemma that you present is to change how naval assets are valued in terms of VPs. Increasing the value of capital ships by 100% and CVs by 200% does not seem out of line with how VPs for other assets are awarded. It's far worse than that. As far back as WITP, and certainly in AE's early days, the VP ratio dilemma was discussed. A CV and a BB are in the same realm, more or less, in terms of building assets and crew investment. OTOH, a 4E bomber at 2 VP and a DD at 10 VP? The bomber has a crew of 10 men and costs low dozens (?) of tons of material, primarily aluminum. A DD has a crew of circa 250 men, and costs thousands of tons of material, mostly steel. Crazy. But, abstraction . . . For that matter, a 2E is a lot closer in investment to a 4E than it is a fighter, but a 2E is 1 VP as well. If IJA and IJN 2Es were 2 VPs they would be used differently. Don't get me started on how essentially "free" a torpedo is, when in reality they were Swiss watches, rare, and difficult to transport and store. Like mines, fish should be pool items, not cost a drop of supply. The metric is what I am questioning. The basis for ship VPs is materials used in construction, not the importance of the vessel to the war effort. As Lokasenna stated, the stated basis by the devs was a Durability ratio. I'm sure the posts can be found. Based on tonnage ratios there's no reason a 2325 ton Fletcher-class DD should be at 10 VP and a 27,208 ton Essex long-hull CV should be 379 VP. The importance of the vessel is strictly subjective. Not only by class, but by arrival date. USS Tang was of far more consequence to the war effort than most carriers, at a fraction of the cost in men or materials. USS Missouri played little role in the victory, yet is worth the same VPs as sisters arriving a year earlier. As for torpedos, "a drop of supply" is relative to one's perspective, I suppose. If one has 150,000 supply at all the front-line bases, the supply cost of a torpedo is an after-thought. Unfortunately, Japan is rarely afforded this luxury. For Japan, torpedo sorties are expensive supply endeavors. Even refilling the torpedo sorties on KB will drain half of a large AKE. As well they should be expensive. And rare. From Wikipedia: "The Navy had not learned from the torpedo supply lessons of WWI. Looking back in 1953, the Bureau of Ordnance stated, "Production planning in the prewar years was also faulty. Torpedoes were designed for meticulous, small-scale manufacture. When military requirements demanded that they be supplied in large numbers, a series of new problems was exposed. There were simply no realistic plans available for providing the weapon in adequate quantity."[23] There was little interest in torpedo production until 1933 when the Vinson Shipbuilding Program recognized the need for torpedoes to fill the torpedo tubes on its newly constructed ships.[24] Consequently, Newport received new production equipment and an increased budget.[25] NTS produced only 1� torpedoes a day in 1937, despite having three shifts of three thousand workers[26] working around the clock.[27] Production facilities were at capacity and there was no room for expansion.[26] By January 1938, unfilled torpedo orders at Newport amounted to $29,000,000. A forecast that did not include war estimated Newport would have a backlog of 2425 torpedoes by 1 July 1942.[25] More production was needed. The simplest route was to reopen the Alexandria Torpedo Station, but New England congressmen objected to reopening Alexandria; they wanted production concentrated in New England. The Navy side-stepped the opposition by including the Alexandria funds as part of the Naval Gun Factory's 1939 budget.[25] The Naval Torpedo Station at Keyport, Washington, was also expanded. "Although torpedo production was still low � 3 a day � when the national emergency was proclaimed in September 1939, an investment of almost $7,000,000 assured early improvement."[28] By the fall of 1941, Alexandria had been reopened.[29] The required production rate for torpedoes was raised to 50 per day. Both Newport and Alexandria went to 3 shifts operating 7 days per week, but their combined torpedo production was 23 torpedoes per day.[28] The Navy contracted with the American Can Company to produce torpedoes. The short supply of Mark 14 torpedoes was compounded by a 10 December 1941 Japanese air raid on Cavite Navy Yard. The attack destroyed 233 Mark 14 torpedoes.[30] After the U.S. entered the war, the contract with American Can was expanded and Pontiac Motor Company, International Harvester, E. W. Bliss Company, and Precision Manufacturing Co. were brought in as contractors. In May 1942, Westinghouse Electric Corporation was asked to build an electric torpedo (which would become the Mark 18 torpedo).[31] Only two thousand submarine torpedoes were built by all three Navy factories (Newport, Alexandria, and Keyport) during 1942.[26][27] This exacerbated torpedo shortages; the Pacific Fleet Submarine Force had fired 1,442 torpedoes since war began.[32] "Until the spring of 1945, supply was a problem" for the Mark 14 torpedo.[33]" WWII torpedoes were the most complex piece of ordnance extant. They not only carried their own guidance system, they also were self-propelled. Operated in three dimensions. Multiple fusing methods. In modern times ICBM/SLBMs and cruise missiles are more complex, but the modern heavy-weight torpedo is third in line. In the game they can be poofed into existence at forward bases at the cost of a part load of xAKL supply. In infinite numbers. In RL they were precious, expensive, and delicate. Costs of USN torpedoes are hard to come by, but one source I found quotes $10,000 to $15,000 per. That could buy you four pretty nice houses in the USA in 1940. A Gato-class submarine went for $2.85 million, so a load of 24 fish was a non-trivial expense in relative terms.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 11:18:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dave sindel Moose, your presence on the forum has been missed. Glad to see you back, if just for a moment. Thanks, Dave.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/5/2018 11:28:30 PM)
Not for nothing, as I occasionally do, here is the citation for Cdr. O' Kane's MOH, earned on USS Tang's last patrol. Compare this real life action with what is possible in the game re submarine attacks. "For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as commanding officer of the U.S.S. Tang operating against 2 enemy Japanese convoys on 23 October and 24 October 1944, during her fifth and last war patrol. Boldly maneuvering on the surface into the midst of a heavily escorted convoy, CMDR O'Kane stood in the fusillade of bullets and shells from all directions to launch smashing hits on 3 tankers, coolly swung his ship to fire at a freighter and, in a split-second decision, shot out of the path of an onrushing transport, missing it by inches. Boxed in by blazing tankers, a freighter, transport, and several destroyers, he blasted 2 of the targets with his remaining torpedoes and, with pyrotechnics bursting on all sides, cleared the area. Twenty-four hours later, he again made contact with a heavily escorted convoy steaming to support the Leyte campaign with reinforcements and supplies and with crated planes piled high on each unit. In defiance of the enemy's relentless fire, he closed the concentration of ship and in quick succession sent 2 torpedoes each into the first and second transports and an adjacent tanker, finding his mark with each torpedo in a series of violent explosions at less than 1,000-yard range. With ships bearing down from all sides, he charged the enemy at high speed, exploding the tanker in a burst of flame, smashing the transport dead in the water, and blasting the destroyer with a mighty roar which rocked the Tang from stem to stern. Expending his last 2 torpedoes into the remnants of a once powerful convoy before his own ship went down, Comdr. O'Kane, aided by his gallant command, achieved an illustrious record of heroism in combat, enhancing the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service." One of the longest-standing traditions of the US Silent Service has O' Kane's personal cribbage board (cribbage and acey-deucy being the traditional games of submariners) carried on board the oldest operating USN submarine. When decommed, the boat transfers the board to the next oldest boat.

witpqs -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/6/2018 12:48:28 AM)
Regarding VP's for military assets, keep in mind that VP's are meant to most especially take account of political importance, so the VP's of battleships is certainly warranted.

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/6/2018 1:30:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Regarding VP's for military assets, keep in mind that VP's are meant to most especially take account of political importance, so the VP's of battleships is certainly warranted. It is a weird mix of military and political considerations for VPs. That is where I think you can handwave away the 4E's being 2 VPs - given the focus on strategic bombing (at least in Europe), the public perception of the bombers as being that important to the war effort provides some kind of justification for their VP cost. Really, I'd prefer a general ballooning in VPs to provide for more granularity. If VPs were straight up doubled, fighters could be 1 VP, strike craft 2 VP, 2E's 2 or 3 VP, 4E's 3 or 4 VP... and you could really differentiate between capital ships better (currently, CV VPs = durability + 3*capacity). Alas, not in this game. But ultimately, a dual victory condition system would be better. A political (negotiated) settlement vs. the total military victory. PPs are meant to abstract the will to fight a little bit, and a Japanese autovictory is meant to simulate a negotiated settlement as well, but it's not perfect.

spence -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/6/2018 1:56:00 AM)
Excluding the "fish in a barrel" shooting at Pearl Harbor (where they managed a 50% hit rate) the IJN torpedo bombers of the KB scored all of 8 torpedo hits in all of 1942 on floating targets. Ninety Netties untroubled by any CAP sank the POW and Repulse but other than that managed only a torpedo hit on USS Jarvis, and a "kamikaze-style" crash into the USS George Elliot. Frankly it seems that the original designer in all the various permutations of AE was overawed by Japanese propaganda re: naval torpedo bombers. In the game, 6 Netties will attack without fighter cover against Allied CAP, have 5 planes get shot down by that CAP, and then score a torpedo hit on their target with the one remaining a/c. The torpedo bombers of the KB "practiced" the "Midway Shuffle" (twice before they got it right (losing Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu as a result of getting it right[:D]). In the game, the KB meanwhile puts up a standard CAP of 50+ fighters yet never has any difficulty launching a coordinated strike of all remaining carrier attack aircraft (actually double their IRL capability) even though the KB suffered the loss of 3 carriers at Midway directly related to their own lack of control of said CAP a/c (the CAP got land whenever they wanted and when they did the carrier decks had to be clear so the attack a/c had to be in the hangar where they could not warm-up their engines). Torpedoes were certainly expensive but in game they are over-rated as ship killers, not so much that they couldn't kill ships but rather that they can be found everywhere. Although in game I can create torpedoes in Malaya to outfit every torpedo bomber available I haven't actually read about any torpedo attacks (and it seems the game algorithms pretty much make bomb hits ineffective against the targets (BBs) the game-AI almost always picks.

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/6/2018 1:56:21 AM)
I had to decrease the quality of this image save in order to get it under the 500kb limit on general forum attachments. This is from the latest turn. My "permanent VPs" means the bare minimum that Bullwinkle will need to achieve is 129K VPs at the moment. If I were to somehow hang onto China (about 5K VPs) and not have it starving (and therefore worth only 25% of the VPs to me), my "permanent" VPs would be just over 70K (most of the bases in Japan proper, in Korea, and in Manchuria are not worth much to Japan). You can see that over the past 2 months, my base VPs have only dropped by about 200 (combination of losing more base VPs than that, but also some other bases getting built up) - so I've gained about 4400 permanent VPs in that time. That won't keep up forever, and can't be extrapolated at that rate for the rest of the war because it includes sinking a handful of CVEs and that won't be occurring on the dot every 2 months. I think the air and land pace of combat might remain around the same average level, so just looking at those... I've gained 1800 LCU VPs and roughly 1900 air VPs. Add some shipping into that and maybe we can say an average of 4000 every 2 months, or 2K per month. While I have my navy - that's the important part. Without my navy, my flexibility and ability to resist is noticeably reduced. In any case, that means I might be able to accrue perhaps another 20-25K permanent VPs before 1946. I am around 170K VPs in my Allied game nearing the end of August 1945 (admittedly with 30K more aerial VPs than Bullwinkle has now but he will gain probably another 15K by then at current pace). I might downgrade his shot achieving a minor victory to 40% instead of 40-45%, but I think it's still very much there - especially if I suffer any kind of cascading defeat somewhere. He's gained 3K VPs per month without sinking many major ships, without capturing any of the big giant VP bases (Manila, Rangoon, Singapore) that will probably fall eventually, and without destroying any huge armies - and without any strategic bombing. Once the next set of battles are resolved, I'll have a much clearer picture of the probabilities involved. This is absolutely not to say that I haven't been having any fun. [image]local://upfiles/41335/11579EAD5A084B1B8FF35C452CDF8B5B.jpg[/image]

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/6/2018 2:25:49 AM)
Here is from the Allied game that I think is comparable (in terms of the pressure on the Allied aircraft pools and the USN). Note that in less than 2 months, almost 40K Allied VPs were obtained - 3700 from aircraft, 6200 from LCUs, 8000 from bases, a few thousand from ships...and the rest was strategic VPs. The huge 12.5K boost on 7/26/1945 is from an atomic bomb drop. [image]local://upfiles/41335/C96498D7439C4825A77FE77D75745D4C.jpg[/image]

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/6/2018 2:36:18 AM)
And here are the two games compared on the most recent date of the Japan game. [image]local://upfiles/41335/B300A17031E441398AC5B3532A0EC3D7.jpg[/image] Territory-wise, there's not a huge amount of difference here. There is some - basically Burma. Manila was not captured until turn 1294 in my Allied game. But if you swap some here and there, there's not a huge difference. It mostly just shows in the VPs. Allied air losses are comparable, so the bar points needed to make up that score are basically the same. Allied ship VPs are in the same ballpark. The VPs I see on the Japan game are subject to FOW. But really, in sum, I see no reason why (even with a few months' delay in territory terms) the requisite number of VPs for the autovictory threshold can't be obtained against me in the Japan game, barring the loss of the bulk of the Allied assault transports (and/or troops onboard them) prior to being able to start strat bombing. The likelihood of that is so small as to be functionally nil.

Aurorus -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/6/2018 3:25:26 AM)
The conclusion seems to be that once strat bombing of Honshu commences, whatever marginal advantage Japan has been able to acquire in terms of both territory and VPs from one game to the next, even a rather substantial amount is nullified. In your example from your two games above, the difference in VPs is large. In the one game, Japan is leading by 25K VPs and in the other, the allies are leading by 15K on the same date: a difference of 40K in VPs. Yet, you believe that both games are likely to result in the same outcome. In effect, strat bombing trumps everything, and the VP system is mostly irrelevant because the outcome of the game is determined exclusively by the date at which the allies are able to begin strat bombing Japan. Would this be a fair conclusion to draw from the data that you have presented?

Lokasenna -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/6/2018 4:13:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus The conclusion seems to be that once strat bombing of Honshu commences, whatever marginal advantage Japan has been able to acquire in terms of both territory and VPs from one game to the next, even a rather substantial amount is nullified. In your example from your two games above, the difference in VPs is large. In the one game, Japan is leading by 25K VPs and in the other, the allies are leading by 15K on the same date: a difference of 40K in VPs. Yet, you believe that both games are likely to result in the same outcome. In effect, strat bombing trumps everything, and the VP system is mostly irrelevant because the outcome of the game is determined exclusively by the date at which the allies are able to begin strat bombing Japan. Would this be a fair conclusion to draw from the data that you have presented? If 10K strategic points can be had each month (granted over half of those were from one atomic bomb), with relative ease and without much concern for losses in the bomber units, then yes. But look more closely at the two games. There is a difference of 40K VPs, but the reason I was pointing out the differences in non-strategic VPs is because those are VPs that my opponent is likely to get a substantial portion of. Of that difference in VPs, roughly 8K is from bases switching sides alone. I've assumed ~10K that I will, at some point, no longer hold onto and that isn't even accounting for the worth of those bases to the Allies. Here's what the VP swing looks like for the "Big 3": Singapore - 540J / 2430A Manila - 1350J / 2700A Rangoon - 440J / 2200A That's a swing of 9660 VPs just for the bases switching ownership. This must be taken into account of any estimate being done on what the VP ratio is going to look like. That's also why I have been looking at the "permanent VPs" - everything but bases. That is the baseline level of VPs that the Allies will need to multiply by 2 in order to achieve AV. The difference in permanent VPs between the 2 games is about 9600, of which a decent portion (3-4K) is made up of the difference in sunk Japanese ships between the two. So some amount of it will come down to what happens in the naval war. It should be noted that the last time I got my KB in position to attack his invasion, I hit it without being retaliated against as he was set up entirely for CAP. The VP trade on the day, despite the VP-valuable ships that I sunk, was only +6 in my favor and he definitely killed more LCUs with what he was able to land than he lost in LCUs, meaning it wasn't a complete 1:1 exchange. As his OOB balloons from now until the middle of 1945, the ratio is going to flip and when it does, it's going to happen rapidly. In the other 2 games I've played and the others I've looked in on via AAR, the Allied VPs begin to cascade or snowball at some point. It will happen in this game too. Even if I was able to trade at an average ratio of say, 1.25:1 overall (as in I gain 125 VPs for every 100 the Allies gain), assuming that I will lose ~10K in LCU VPs, ~20K in aerial VPs, and ~3K in ship VPs... that's still only an additional 50K or so VPs that the Allies would have to gain relative to the Allied game example that I posted. Considering that I reached AV on 7/2/45 in that game... 50K VPs for the Allies in 4-5 months? That is well within the realm of possibility, if not a probability. (Edit - actually, if the aerial loss trends hold and I lose ~20K planes, he'll have only lost about 13K in planes instead of 25K, so that's only 26K in additional VPs he would need to obtain relative to the comparison game) To answer your final question, that's what I was suggesting with tweaks to the VP value of bases. These still aren't permanent VPs, but it's the only thing that can be changed with regards to the VP system as the victory conditions are baked into the engine. To go back to an abstract consideration of what the victory conditions mean and to use the common "how did they do relative to history" comparison, in order for Japan to win a draw they must last until 1946 - or 4 whole months (essentially) beyond V-J Day. In order to achieve any kind of victory, they must not only last until 1946 but stop the Allies from achieving a 2:1 ratio by sometime in March of 1946. Even just in the abstract, those victory conditions are absurdly slanted towards the Allies if you're looking at a game performance vs. historical position comparison. Why do you think the anecdotal "so many" Japanese players gun for an AV in 1943 (or 1944, although I think that's even less possible than achieving one in 1943 sometime)? That slanted victory conditions field is why.

witpqs -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/6/2018 4:33:50 AM)
I thought it might be helpful to post this section of the manual. 17.1 VICTORY LEVELS War in the Pacific, Admiral�s Edition� can end in either a Decisive or Marginal Victory for one side, or in a draw. Victory Levels are displayed at the end of the game and determined as follows: � Allied Decisive Victory: Allied VP Score is 1.75 times (or greater) higher than the Japanese VP Score � Allied Marginal Victory: Allied VP Score is 1.25 to 1.74 times higher than the Japanese VP Score � Draw: The Allied VP Score or Japanese VP Score is 1 to 1.24 times higher than their opponent�s score � Japanese Marginal Victory: Japanese VP Score is 1.25 to 1.74 times higher than the Allied VP Score � Japanese Decisive Victory: Japanese VP Score is 1.75 times (or greater) higher than the Allied VP Score 17.1.1 VICTORY AFTER 1945 If the game ends in 1946 when the scenario time expires (as opposed to ending due to an Automatic Victory), the Victory Level moves two levels in the Japanese player�s favor. Example: scenario 15 ends when time expires in March 1946 with the Allies having 1.8 times the Japanese points. Normally this would be a Decisive Allied Victory, but since it is ending due to time expiring in 1946, it shifts to a Draw. 17.1.2 USING ATOMIC BOMBS If the Allies use 3 or more atomic bombs during the game, then the level of victory moves 1 level in favor of the Japanese. This is in addition to the 2 level move if the game ends with the time expiring in 1946. If the player achieves a Decisive Victory having used more than 3 A-bombs, then the Allies win a Marginal Victory. If the game ends on its own due to time expiring in 1946, and 3 or more Atomic Bombs have been used, the best Victory Level the Allied player can hope for is a Marginal Victory for the Japanese (or a Marginal Loss for the Allies). 17.2 AUTOMATIC VICTORY Once 365 days have been played into a scenario, there is a possibility that the game will end immediately due to an Automatic Victory Condition. If any of the following Automatic Victory criteria are met, the game will end immediately with the side that met the criteria winning a Decisive Victory (unless the A-bomb exception (section 17.1.2) has been triggered, in which case the Allies would at best score a Marginal Victory). In addition, if the Allies score an Automatic Victory after August 31, 1945, the victory scored will only be an Allied Marginal Victory (unless the Allies have used 3 or more A-bombs, in which case the game would end a draw). 17.2.1 AUTOMATIC VICTORY IN 1943 In 1943, if one player has 4 times the VP�s of the other, the game will end. 17.2.2 AUTOMATIC VICTORY IN 1944 In 1944, if one player has 3 times the victory points of the other, the game will end. 17.2.3 AUTOMATIC VICTORY IN 1945 OR LATER In 1945 or beyond, if one player has 2 times the victory points of the other, the game will end.

crsutton -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/6/2018 5:38:10 AM)
The problem with VP in a game of this scope is that there was no way to fully test it in the beginning. You would have to had multiple completed games in the play testing phase to have any idea if there was balance. How many human play testing games do you suppose got anywhere near the end-much less through six months of time? So the VP totals were probably a best guess scenario. In fact a lot of us have been playing the game for a decade now and just by reading this thread it is pretty clear that there are about a million ideas as to what is balanced and how VP should be passed out (believe me I have a few of my own) So, I really don't play my games with much of a view towards VP. I am a pretty good enough Allied player by now that I know how to farm the maximum VPs to gain a big victory. The question remains, does that skew the game and does playing for VP over trying to keep a sane simulation make sense to me? Well, most of you know what I think. I am in it for the game and in it for the long haul. Auto victory means nothing to me and the final outcome as far as points means little to me as well because I know that the point system is very flawed. I want a good game and know when I have gotten one. That is all that really matters to me. I have my personal measures which are my own and I don't even mention them to my long time opponent. If I just accomplish what the Allies did historically then I got a draw. And I pretty much gauge it by territoriality taken. Likewise if I have not invaded the home islands by the time of Russian activation then I have a draw and nothing better. If I invade the HI and take Tokyo (have not done it) then I have won. Anything else is whatever I want to be. There is no second glance at VP.

Aurorus -> RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness (1/6/2018 1:18:24 PM)
Furthermore, there is the supply issue, especially, in your case, for base VPs in China. What territory Japan is able to hold is likely to be reduced somewhat in VP value because some bases certainly will be without supply by 1945. I am not sure what the solution is. Any changes to the values of base VPs of areas close to Japan in favor of Japan will favor those Japanese players who try for an auto-victory in 1943 or Jan. 1 1944 also and may do little to discourage front-loading the Japanese economy to play for a mid-war auto-victory. My dilemma in my game vs. Opilot is this, and I think this dilemma is a common one for Japanese players, which is why I present it. This is a game for VPs, and I want to try to win. As you observe, it seems that the far more probable path to Japanese victory is via auto-victory in the mid-war period as opposed to the end-war, and this was my conclusion from reading AARs and my general impression. However, I have never played into 1944-45 and neither has Opilot. He is a good player, and in both of our cases, our previous opponents had quit prior to 1943 as a result of losses, being overmatched, ill health, or for other reasons. so I wanted to pursue both a strategic and an economic plan that does not drain the Japanese economy of supply and heavy industry in the early and mid-war periods, because I want to be competitive in 1944 and 1945. I did not completely front-load my economy, and I have tried to conserve supplies where possible. In a scenario 2 game, Japan can both pursue a mid-war auto-victory and remain partially competitive in the late-war period. However, many players prefer a more historically accurate game, including myself, in which Japan is limited by the factors that she was historically. In the more accurate-to-history DBB and scenario 1 games, in which the Japanese player is ever-concerned with supply, pilots, fuel, etc... , all of her real, historical limitations, the Japanese player is presented with the dilemma that I portray above. My game with Opilot is a scenario 1-based DBB-Lite (which is my favorite scenario, actually). The only solution, in my opinion, to this dilemma is a carefully thought-out change to the VP system, and you are wise to bring this issue to the fore, Lokasenna.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.828125