Autovictory - suggestions needed (Full Version)

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



Message

ITAKLinus -> Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/21/2020 1:05:15 PM)

Hi everyone,


In my current PBEM we're still in end of May 1942, but it will end up with a 4 : 1 in score at 01-Jan-1943.

At the present moment, 25-May-1942, we are at 4.08 : 1 with roughly 35,000 points for Japan and 8,500 for the Allies (I don't remember the precise amount on the spot).

The score will likely go much further for Japan since I am in the process of conquering very rewarding locations under this point of view.


Now, on one side I'd like to continue the match even in case of autovictory. On the other, I would like to put some peace conditions.

My weird idea is to imagine that Australians and NZ surrendered but the other keep fighting.
I have proposed the idea of putting every Australian and NZ aircraft/ship/LCU in UK (or Port Stanley), forbidding their use for the rest of the game.

What do you think about that?

Also, has somebody done something like that before? I'd like to know what has been done or if someone has interesting ideas at this regard.


So far, I have said that my proposals are:
A) Finishing there with Japanese total victory
B) Limitations mentioned above to Australians and NZ
C) Continuining and switching sides on 01/JAN/1943



Note that I conquered the historical perimeter plus:
- South Pacific west of Samoa Islands (included)
- Australia (except Sydney, which is under siege and won't last long)
- NZ will be brutalized after Sidney
- Half of China only (he still controls Chungking plateau and Sian)


To the current score there are to be added:
- NZ
- Sidney
- Philippines (I'm now in the process of taking them)
- Some bases with high value such as Darwin and Port Moresby, technically still in Allied hands
- Some progress in Chinaa (either in Sian area or in Chungking plateau)

Therefore I guess I'll reach at least the 4:1 in 01-January-1943.



RangerJoe -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/21/2020 1:11:42 PM)

It really depends upon the other player.

It may just depend upon what his Navy is like. The US can strike places where you are not and an Allied player might stave off Auto Defeat. For learning purposes, you can either keep playing or start another game.



HansBolter -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/21/2020 1:49:17 PM)

If you have already trounced your inexperienced opponent so heavily by the end of '42 why would he want to play on after that in an even more heavily handicapped situation?

Better to give him a chance to play through 1942 again and put some lessons learned to use.



Canoerebel -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/21/2020 1:53:19 PM)

There's a world of difference between May 1942 and October 1942. If your opponent is experienced, there's a good chance you won't achieve AV. If he's inexperienced and at a decided disadvantage, why continue the punishment (unless he wants to)? In that case, you might also approach your opponent about you starting a parallel game, seeking an experienced Allied player to step in as of the same date.



ITAKLinus -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/21/2020 2:08:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

There's a world of difference between May 1942 and October 1942. If your opponent is experienced, there's a good chance you won't achieve AV. If he's inexperienced and at a decided disadvantage, why continue the punishment (unless he wants to)? In that case, you might also approach your opponent about you starting a parallel game, seeking an experienced Allied player to step in as of the same date.



Oh I want to finish it, because it's quite a boring game. He would like to continue without any additional burden for the allies.

His navy is ok so far. I lost one CA (Maya) and roughly 20 DDs. Also most of my DMS.
He lost 2 old Class-R, the Repulse and a british CV. Plus a plethora of subs and many CLs (cannot quantify from the office, I'd say between 10 and 12, mostly outdated).

He's actually more experienced than me since it's only my second PBEM which will go beyond 1943


I am quite open to have someone else continue but since it's our game and he doesn't want to surrender at all, the proposal is not even under question.



Now, it's true he can do many things, but I am also quite convinced he cannot turn the tide in late '42 with my fleet and airforce intact and many troops free to reinforce whatever front.

So far he tried and succedeed in retaking Attu. It took him a couple of months roughly, though, since I had it guarded with around 200AV entrenched.


EDIT: to be honest, I would describe the situation as a "sir robin that went out of control". I skipped Philippines and landed in Port Augusta last week of Jan-42 coming from Java. A feint near Perth had him transfer most of his australian troops there, where they have been slaughtered. Now there is only Sidney resisting, with its 1300AV, but I am reducing it (forts lvl 2 and the whole fleet of japanese CAs and BBs bombarding it every single day).

NZ has to be taken yet, but he's not reinforcing it, making the conquer relatively easy to accomplish.





Canoerebel -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/21/2020 2:13:48 PM)

What the Allies can do in May 1942 is limited. They can do a lot more in October 1942. And 1:1 exchanges, which aren't that hard to get, help the Allies. Imagine a big carrier battle that you win at 2:1. That might hurt your efforts to achieve AV.

I don't think you understood my suggestion, above. It's that you start a second game, with an experienced Allied player, using your files from this game. I don't know the quality of the player you face, but there are any number of Allied players who wouldn't be sweating AV from a May 1942 position.



ITAKLinus -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/21/2020 2:20:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

What the Allies can do in May 1942 is limited. They can do a lot more in October 1942. And 1:1 exchanges, which aren't that hard to get, help the Allies. Imagine a big carrier battle that you win at 2:1. That might hurt your efforts to achieve AV.

I don't think you understood my suggestion, above. It's that you start a second game, with an experienced Allied player, using your files from this game. I don't know the quality of the player you face, but there are any number of Allied players who wouldn't be sweating AV from a May 1942 position.



Oooooh I see now. God, I thought you meant something very different.


That could be very very interesting.


For sure, I'll inquire about the possibility of that.


I guess that having the same match twice will just drive me insane but it's also very funny.




It should also be said that I know that a 1:1 ratio, or an easily achievable 1:2, is within reach and that the allies can shift the score enough to prevent the AV given that they still have 6 months.
I am talking about this specific situation in which I am: the prevailing mentality of my opponent is very cautious and defensive, that's precisely why I went so far through my aggressiveness.




Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/21/2020 2:25:46 PM)

If you are heavily involved in ANZ. I would strike deep somewhere else, somewhere where it hurts, definitively not Attu..

If I was your opponent I would choose A) and work hard to avoid auto-defeat
I won't find B) or C) appealing at all; but of course you know your opponent more



jdsrae -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/23/2020 5:19:32 AM)

Not having been in this situation, something like a 3 month cease fire might be interesting.
It would reward the Japan player for winning by delaying the allies for a period of time, but still allow the late war to play out.
This would represent the allies surrendering and agreeing to discuss terms, but secretly working in the background to restart the war after a period of reorganisation.

It would require:
- agreement between players
- 90-100 days of fairly boring turns
- create DMZ on land with allies to step back one hex
- all warships and subs on both sides return to port. Tankers and freighters can still move.
- all land combat units set to training
- engineers can still build forts, ports and airfields
- all air groups to be set to training, no search or recon to be flown
- all units are allowed to be moved and reorganised or repaired inside the respective perimeters



Encircled -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/23/2020 2:00:34 PM)

If he's transferred most of the Australian forces to Western Oz without making sure first SE Australia is safe then he's learnt a really important lesson.

There is a limit to what the allies can do when the Japanese concentrate and really go for it in 1942.

But if you are in Oz in strength, then he should be counter attacking all over the match everywhere else.




wernerpruckner -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/23/2020 6:03:37 PM)

Is this a Standard game?
So your opponent got the emergency reinforcements…..


Bullwinkle did some testing a way back......there is also some info on https://witp-ae.fandom.com/wiki/Emergency_Reinforcements



ITAKLinus -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/24/2020 9:03:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wernerpruckner

Is this a Standard game?
So your opponent got the emergency reinforcements…..


Bullwinkle did some testing a way back......there is also some info on https://witp-ae.fandom.com/wiki/Emergency_Reinforcements




Yeah, I'm a Scen1 fanboy


He got the australians only, so far but he's using them to reinforce Indian front. In Burma I'm doing pretty well with THAI divisions plus 3 IJA divisions.


Other fronts are quite static since he can't do much: Australia is mainly a land war, leaving the KB free to shield the Pacific. Also, the Pacific islands are quite well defended (I use the plethora of NavGuards/SNLF and IndMixedBrigades from China to defend the Pacific).


In line of principle, he tried to do a diversive action bombing Palembang with his carriers but the usual problem of not knowing where the KB is emerged: for many reasons he got convinced it was in the Pacific, while in the same turn we missed each other for few hexes. He attacked Palembang while I attacked Colombo.
After a long chase in the Indian Ocean with both fleets low on fuel, I sank few CLs/DDs of him and a British CV. I lost the CA Maya and 4 DDs.

That's so far his only probation attack. He reconquered Attu because he had a strong supply line in the Aleutinans. He also tried to recapture Raoul Island with NZ forces but I have pushed them back into the sea, leaving no survivors.


He tried a couple of other raids with CVs but my recon is fairly accurate and it's quite a risk to raid Marshalls if you don't know where the KB is. He raided Samoa/Figi (without results: each of the few ships there left well before he attacked) and Tabiteua area (same results as above).
He also tried to attack Onshu with carriers but he got detected when he was 2-3 turns away and he decided to go back.


Since I don't use much my CVs, the game is difficoult because he doesn't know where they are and when he sees them, I relocate immediately, leaving little space to leverage on knowing where they are.

I have had even one month in a row without my CVs at all. And we all know how much Japs like/need CVs at the beginning of the match. I am also quite reckless in my moves: the landing in Port Augusta coming from Java, for example, has been done with NO air cover. I landed, got the base and relocated 45+45 zero from Normanton (if I'm not wrong).








Alfred -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/24/2020 3:24:02 PM)

This is all pointless as the Allied player has no idea how easy it is to have punished the Japanese strategy.  A good Allied player would get the VPs well below the 4:1 ratio by 1 January 1943. 

Alfred



Lokasenna -> RE: Autovictory - suggestions needed (1/24/2020 8:28:01 PM)

I would be mildly concerned as the Allied player in this situation, but not overly so... There are lots of opportunities for the Allied player to get even just 1000 VPs more than Japan in the next 7 months.

If staving off AV is all that's desired, the Allied player could craft several gambits to try to, at worst, trade a very large amount of VPs at a less than 4:1 ratio in Japan's favor. If you had a giant fleet battle and even if you traded 3:1 on the VPs, but the total losses were around 1000 for you and 3000 for him, he would be very close to being under the 4:1 ratio even just from the points totals you listed (~35K to 8.5K would become ~38K to 9.5K).

Play on, a lot can change in late 1942.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.3125