Winning PBEM as Japan (Full Version)

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



Message

JanSako -> Winning PBEM as Japan (2/3/2022 8:35:48 AM)

I have been reading AAR's with great interest & one thing that stands out is that late war seems to only be about ROFLstomping Japan back to the stone age.

This is of course quite the historical outcome (maybe not to the extent it is often achieved here - I see China, DEI etc. completely taken over by the Allies).

- Is simply holding out beyond the historical dates considered a victory for Japan and how often does that actually happen?

- Is JAP 'victory' even possible if the two players are evenly matched?

- What are the 'absolute must reach' objectives/milestones for the JAP player to hit in order to have a chance to survive?

Again, the assumption is that both players are roughly equally competent & understand the game & the mechanics. Of course it can be argued that even if an Allied player starts out as a complete rookie, by the time 1944 rolls in they have years of experience already :-).



JanSako -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/3/2022 8:37:53 AM)

Different scenarios/maps will differ a bit of course, maybe a DBB-C style game is what I am thinking of, but any insights are welcome!



Trugrit -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/3/2022 11:35:34 AM)


The game has a great points system. I recommend you study it in detail.

The point system is the best one I’ve ever seen in a wargame with the level of complexity that AE has.
The historical context that backs up the point system is absolutely magnificent. This is one of the reasons
that I think this is the best strategic wargame ever designed.

As for Japan, the Outlaw commented on the two ways that Japan can win under this system.
I’ve provided that commentary below along with a few of my own comments in italics.

The Idea is that Japan can conduct an active defense by a series of operations that buy time.
This prevents the Allied player from achieving his victory conditions.

The Outlaw:
Japan will experience an economic implosion. As it should because that is historically accurate.
But it does not follow that the Japanese player is doomed to lose the game.

Japan has two ways of winning in AE. One is by achieving an auto victory which can occur
at any time after 1 January 1943. I see too many Japanese players who recklessly throw everything
to achieve an auto victory on 1 January 1943 and failing to do so then they reap the consequences
of their poor play. They forget that unless their opponent plays very badly, a later auto victory
which builds on thoughtful play throughout 1942, is the road to take.
A very good example of properly approaching an auto victory is found in Cribtop's recent AAR
where a Japanese auto victory on 1 January 1944 was assured (provided he did not lose his head waiting)
and an auto victory in the last quarter of 1943 was very much on the cards.

Cribtop AAR:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2742735&mpage=1&key=
Note that there were a number of House Rules agreed to and listed in Post #4.
I don’t believe they made a difference in the game. I don’t think they were needed.

In Post #40 Cribtop explains his war strategy and that he subscribes to the Q-Ball Theory:
I’m sure it was not originally the Q-Ball Theory but the ultimate Allied strategy in the Pacific War.

Two main objectives of the Allies are:
1) To cut the flow of raw materials from the SRA to Japan.
2) To seize bases within range of the Home Islands to allow for a strategic bombing campaign.

Conversely, the strategic objectives of Japan are, at a minimum,
1) seizure of the Oil bases in the SRA.
2) capture of a defensible perimeter ensuring that convoys can move from the SRA to the industry of the Home Islands.

In Post #2189 Cribtop gives his retrospective of the operations he conducted:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3477619

The Outlaw:
The other approach to achieve a Japanese victory is to prevent the Allied player from achieving either
an auto victory or a decisive victory at the end of the scenario. AE's victory conditions are very much
shaped by the historical outcome which equates to the game's auto/decisive victory conditions.
A Japanese player who prevents the Allied player from achieving that outcome, has in fact performed
much better than Japan did historically and therefore can consider to have won their race.

As to the strategy of digging in, at least in terms of how most interpret that strategy,
they simply get it wrong. The correct approach has always been for Japan to employ an active,
not passive defense.
Again a very good discussion on how to conduct an active defense is found in Cribtop's AAR.
The fact is that the simplified and abstracted logistics model, combined with
certain "switches" which greatly augment Japan's historical at start asymmetrical advantages
and initiative, a good Japanese player can keep the initiative until he achieves victory.

Supply is overrated. Or more correctly, the lack of supply is unnecessarily feared. This is due
to the simplified abstracted logistics model. In AE a division which has zero supply still fights
at 25% of its theoretical combat power. In real life, such a unit, without water, puts up zero resistance.
In AE a unit with zero supply is only in trouble if it is called upon to do prolonged fighting or is confronted
by an overwhelming enemy force. In AE Japan will always be able to produce more supply than it was able to historically.
The ability to fly planes consuming only rice instead of avgas, means there is always the potential of flying air missions.

The issue really is not the production of supply per se but the distribution of supply to where
it is really needed. What usually happens is that Japanese players tend to look at their supply
distribution network and priorities only when it is too late. Not too many Japanese players consider
how much supply will be subsequently needed, and how to get it there, before embarking on their operations.
Cost benefit analyses do not figure prominently in their planning.




JanSako -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/3/2022 2:09:47 PM)

Thank you for your insights Trugrit! Definitely good pointers on HOW to win as Japan.

I am familiar with the victory points system (I better be after 10+ years of playing!)

Cribtop's AAR is one of the gems, that is for sure!

My main question still stands, but maybe I was not clear enough what it was! I am not asking about 'auto victory' or score, I am asking WHAT would a player consider to be a Japanese victory.

Is it:
- still controlling Tokyo in 8/45?
- no US troops landed on Home Islands by the same date?
- all of the above + SRA? - I would think this last one definitely qualifies

Achieving all historical goals of Japan or a peace request by the Allies is a victory without a doubt, same as capping Japan in early 44 & will most likely result in an Allied auto-victory.



Lokasenna -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/3/2022 3:38:00 PM)

I think the points system is great, so far as it goes, but that the victory conditions are miscalibrated. I think this is the result of it being essentially impossible to sufficiently play test the system as it was set up.

Philosophically, to me, the point of victory conditions should be that, all else equal (i.e., player skill), each side should have equal chances of achieving a victory as coded. And that is where I think the system fails. All else equal, I think it is nearly impossible for Japan to win/for the Allies to lose. The time scale and the VPs, as coded and as represented on the map, are just too tilted against Japan. I've played both sides into 1945 (admittedly only once as Japan), and every single game (plus the vast majority of those in the AAR section) has been the same: despite some tactical victories by Japan, the weight of the VP system will always come down and say that they lose. I'm convinced that the absolute best a Japanese player (against a similarly skilled Allied player) can achieve, outside of autovictory in 1943, is a draw in 1946. The system is off.

So, how would I fix it? First of all, I think the date at which a Japanese victory would occur should have been bumped up to coincide with the activation of the Soviets on September 1, 1945, rather than January 1, 1946. If Japan hasn't surrendered by the historical date (i.e., Allies achieve autovictory), then I think it's only fair that it should be considered at best a draw for the Allies from then onwards. If Japan can manage to hold off autovictory by the Allies entirely until the scenario ends in March 1946, then the Allies shouldn't even achieve a draw. But all of that would require changing the code.

Since that's not possible, ideally I would see a lot of tinkering with the VP values of bases, with an eye towards either increasing the VPs Japan has from bases (that they probably still hold) in 1945, decreasing the value of some Allied conquests, or both. If doing the first, then commensurate increases in the value of early war Allied bases would probably need to occur to prevent a slew of Japanese autovictories in 1943. It would be a massive undertaking to get this right, and require a lot of play testing - the same problem the original designers had.

I've tried to find the thread(s) where I have talked about this in the past, but no dice. I did find this one, but I don't think my thinking on it had reached its conclusion by this point in time. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4223188&mpage=1&key=

The number of VPs that you would need to add would be at least 10,000 if not approaching something like 20-40K. If adding these to pre-built Japanese bases (i.e., Okinawa and the Home Islands), you would need to add around half as many Allied VPs so as to not influence the chances of Japanese autovictory in 1943 by too much.


quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSako

Is it:
- still controlling Tokyo in 8/45?
- no US troops landed on Home Islands by the same date?
- all of the above + SRA? - I would think this last one definitely qualifies

Achieving all historical goals of Japan or a peace request by the Allies is a victory without a doubt, same as capping Japan in early 44 & will most likely result in an Allied auto-victory.


None of these things is really realistic in 1945, except for still controlling Tokyo, nor descriptive of victory. I think it's best to stick with overall points.

TLDR - the in-game victory conditions system is deeply flawed and that robs the game of a certain something, as it means players must instead agree on what victory means. And everyone will have a different take on that.



JanSako -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/3/2022 4:09:36 PM)

quote:

players must instead agree on what victory means. And everyone will have a different take on that.


That is the crux of the matter!

Points are just counters, they are fine & all & the designers needed some mechanic to measure who is winning. But I think we should leave point counts and what they mean entirely off this discussion.

This is my 'measure of victory':

If the Japanese HQ IRL would be in a similar position than what I see on the map, would they have sued for peace?

- If the answer is NO, then I have achieved a measure of victory.
- If the answer is Yes, and the date is past 8/45, then I 'did well', but still lost.
- If the answer is Yes, and the date is before 8/45, then I lost & no 2 ways about it.

Now, given two players of equal skill, is it logical to I expect a 1/3 chance of achieving any of those or is it more like 5%-10%-80%?

Sure, planes can fly on rice & one can have tons of HI points stockpiled to continue producing but if all you have left of the Home Islands is Hokkaido, then you lost & that is that, never mind that you still hold half of China.




Lokasenna -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/3/2022 5:05:44 PM)

The point of victory is that there is consensus that one side has won and another side has lost. Without the points system, you really can't have a third-party standard for which of the two parties was victorious. Without that, one person's definition of victory is just that - one person's definition.



Yaab -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/3/2022 5:12:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSako

I have been reading AAR's with great interest & one thing that stands out is that late war seems to only be about ROFLstomping Japan back to the stone age.

This is of course quite the historical outcome (maybe not to the extent it is often achieved here - I see China, DEI etc. completely taken over by the Allies).

- Is simply holding out beyond the historical dates considered a victory for Japan and how often does that actually happen?

- Is JAP 'victory' even possible if the two players are evenly matched?

- What are the 'absolute must reach' objectives/milestones for the JAP player to hit in order to have a chance to survive?

Again, the assumption is that both players are roughly equally competent & understand the game & the mechanics. Of course it can be argued that even if an Allied player starts out as a complete rookie, by the time 1944 rolls in they have years of experience already :-).


Allied do better then historically because they benefit from universal supply in the game. This alone negates any benefits Japs get(avgas as supply, no animosity between IJA-IJN etc.)



JanSako -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/3/2022 7:22:22 PM)

quote:

The point of victory is that there is consensus that one side has won and another side has lost. Without the points system, you really can't have a third-party standard for which of the two parties was victorious. Without that, one person's definition of victory is just that - one person's definition.


Personal opinions are what I am asking for here. The 3rd party system is already clear & well documented.

What is your definition of Japanese victory?

I am trying to see if (some sort of) consensus exists outside of the victory points.

And yes, at the end it depends on when your opponent concedes, because that is when you have truly 'won'.



Trugrit -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/4/2022 10:12:52 AM)


I don’t think there is a forum consensus on this.

In PBEM players can set up any victory conditions both players agree on.
The possibilities are limitless. They can set up their own point system.

Players have the Editor and they have their imagination.

If you are looking for a validation of various ideas no validation is required,
your ideas for play are as good as anyone else.

I have created two scenarios off the standard path.
I was able to find opponents for both.

An Island Too Far:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3809085

Objective Burma:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4074985

Whatever you have in mind you won’t be any more screwball than me.




BBfanboy -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/4/2022 1:00:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSako

quote:

players must instead agree on what victory means. And everyone will have a different take on that.


That is the crux of the matter!

Points are just counters, they are fine & all & the designers needed some mechanic to measure who is winning. But I think we should leave point counts and what they mean entirely off this discussion.

This is my 'measure of victory':

If the Japanese HQ IRL would be in a similar position than what I see on the map, would they have sued for peace?

- If the answer is NO, then I have achieved a measure of victory.
- If the answer is Yes, and the date is past 8/45, then I 'did well', but still lost.
- If the answer is Yes, and the date is before 8/45, then I lost & no 2 ways about it.

Now, given two players of equal skill, is it logical to I expect a 1/3 chance of achieving any of those or is it more like 5%-10%-80%?

Sure, planes can fly on rice & one can have tons of HI points stockpiled to continue producing but if all you have left of the Home Islands is Hokkaido, then you lost & that is that, never mind that you still hold half of China.



If I were playing as Japan, I would agree that Allied landings on the four main home islands delayed until 1946 would be a Japanese victory.

Operation Olympic was supposed to happen in November 1945. The Allied nations were running short on money to continue the war - Britain was already deeply in debt and people in the US were not investing in Victory Bonds as readily as they were earlier. The US had to wrap things up quickly.

On the Japanese side, their people were starting to starve, not just getting skinny but showing signs of malnutrition. They could grow food in the country side but had no fuel to transport it to cities, and not enough horses or oxen to pull cartloads there! Not sure if they had coal for trains or if that was all used up powering industry. Most of their coal (I think) was on Hokkaido anyways and that required ships to get it to Honshu. Having lost control of the sea they could not do that more than a trickle.

And then there were the cut-off troops - able to scrounge some food from the local countryside at the point of a gun, but not able to get munitions and medical supplies. Japanese leaders may have feared for the survival of their race if their men were slaughtered and the "barbarians" took over their country. If they did not stop Operation Olympic cold, or delay it, they would have to capitulate to save their population.



paradigmblue -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/5/2022 1:08:20 AM)

While you may not see them in AARs, there are plenty of games that wind up abandoned by the allied player mid-42 after the Japanese player takes a (seemingly) insurmountable lead, or late 42 when it is clear that once Jan. 1 1943 comes around the Japanese player will achieve an auto victory. Both scenarios are a Japanese victory, even if they never see a victory screen.

I think when it comes to this community and AARs, we usually see games where players are interested in playing a game that is at least hypothetically historical. This precludes them from engaging in play that might be considered "gamey". However, the Japanese player, if they free themselves of that restriction and use some creative restructuring of first turn extended-move task forces, can engage in first-turn landings at Bataan, Palembang,and Singapore that can massively move up the Japanese timetable to conquer SEA. There are similar moves using extended move task forces that can be made to take other bases in the first two days of the war, such as Port Morseby and Darwin.

Now, all of this is only tangentially related to your question, but I just wanted to weigh in that most Japanese players handicap themselves in the interest of avoiding ahistorical/unrealistic early game outcomes. This makes for a more satisfying game, but we would certainly see a higher win rate for Japanese players if they used every tool available to them at the start of the war, regardless of its plausibility.



Nomad -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/5/2022 2:38:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

While you may not see them in AARs, there are plenty of games that wind up abandoned by the allied player mid-42 after the Japanese player takes a (seemingly) insurmountable lead, or late 42 when it is clear that once Jan. 1 1943 comes around the Japanese player will achieve an auto victory. Both scenarios are a Japanese victory, even if they never see a victory screen.

I think when it comes to this community and AARs, we usually see games where players are interested in playing a game that is at least hypothetically historical. This precludes them from engaging in play that might be considered "gamey". However, the Japanese player, if they free themselves of that restriction and use some creative restructuring of first turn extended-move task forces, can engage in first-turn landings at Bataan, Palembang,and Singapore that can massively move up the Japanese timetable to conquer SEA. There are similar moves using extended move task forces that can be made to take other bases in the first two days of the war, such as Port Morseby and Darwin.

Now, all of this is only tangentially related to your question, but I just wanted to weigh in that most Japanese players handicap themselves in the interest of avoiding ahistorical/unrealistic early game outcomes. This makes for a more satisfying game, but we would certainly see a higher win rate for Japanese players if they used every tool available to them at the start of the war, regardless of its plausibility.


The same idea holds for the Allies. If Japan is allowed to do what they want no matter what, then the Allies can do anything they want on turn 1, including B-17s at 1000 feet Naval Attack. [:)]

And December 7th Surprise should be turned off.



BBfanboy -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/5/2022 7:56:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

While you may not see them in AARs, there are plenty of games that wind up abandoned by the allied player mid-42 after the Japanese player takes a (seemingly) insurmountable lead, or late 42 when it is clear that once Jan. 1 1943 comes around the Japanese player will achieve an auto victory. Both scenarios are a Japanese victory, even if they never see a victory screen.

I think when it comes to this community and AARs, we usually see games where players are interested in playing a game that is at least hypothetically historical. This precludes them from engaging in play that might be considered "gamey". However, the Japanese player, if they free themselves of that restriction and use some creative restructuring of first turn extended-move task forces, can engage in first-turn landings at Bataan, Palembang,and Singapore that can massively move up the Japanese timetable to conquer SEA. There are similar moves using extended move task forces that can be made to take other bases in the first two days of the war, such as Port Morseby and Darwin.

Now, all of this is only tangentially related to your question, but I just wanted to weigh in that most Japanese players handicap themselves in the interest of avoiding ahistorical/unrealistic early game outcomes. This makes for a more satisfying game, but we would certainly see a higher win rate for Japanese players if they used every tool available to them at the start of the war, regardless of its plausibility.


The same idea holds for the Allies. If Japan is allowed to do what they want no matter what, then the Allies can do anything they want on turn 1, including B-17s at 1000 feet Naval Attack. [:)]

And December 7th Surprise should be turned off.

I've tried B-17s at 1000 feet to see what would happen. Turns out they can still miss - a lot! Training is needed to get the skill level above 30 before you see decent results. Now a B-17 bombing troops in clear terrain from 2000 feet would probably be pretty devastating!



paradigmblue -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/5/2022 8:38:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I've tried B-17s at 1000 feet to see what would happen. Turns out they can still miss - a lot! Training is needed to get the skill level above 30 before you see decent results.



Agreed, you can have your 4E's on 1,000 ft naval attack on the first turn and they're not going to do much. The low nav skill of the pilots is just too low to get consistent results.



JanSako -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/5/2022 10:26:20 AM)

If the opponent throws in the towel, you won & that is that, no matter the game date. The OP here was more about games that go all the way to the end and what would be considered a victory at that point.
BTW I agree that if the Japanese side is free to change turn one into whatever, then allies should be able to as well. In this case you are not starting with a surprise attack.

About 4E low level naval bombing, the rule is not so much for day one, but 6-8 months into the game these beasts would absolutely sweep any shipping within range, sort of like Betties except that unescorted Betties can be swatted down real easy. For B-17 & co. it makes no difference if they are escorted or not. If you can gather a 100 or so they would probably wreck even a full KB in the fall of '42. Want to try a 100 unescorted IJN torp bombers against a USN full CV TF? :-)

An easy way of training your US navy pilots against the AI early on is to bring a 4 CV TF about 15-16 hexes off Roi-Namur, put your fighters on 80-90% CAP, then watch the kills roll in. Come back in another month when they replenished. If you want to be even safer, stay beyond the Nell's torp range so not even a freak torp can hit you.



mattj78 -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/5/2022 10:35:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSako

quote:

The point of victory is that there is consensus that one side has won and another side has lost. Without the points system, you really can't have a third-party standard for which of the two parties was victorious. Without that, one person's definition of victory is just that - one person's definition.


Personal opinions are what I am asking for here. The 3rd party system is already clear & well documented.

What is your definition of Japanese victory?

I am trying to see if (some sort of) consensus exists outside of the victory points.

And yes, at the end it depends on when your opponent concedes, because that is when you have truly 'won'.

i think its up to the individual playing as japan to be what he or she considers there ideal outcome



Lowpe -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/5/2022 4:56:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mattj78

i think its up to the individual playing as japan to be what he or she considers there ideal outcome


+1 or that you had fun!

I usually set personal goals for each year and decide from there, and then at game end let the readers draw their own conclusions!

I like nothing better than hanging on a tight rope where and being very hard pressed.



Lokasenna -> RE: Winning PBEM as Japan (2/5/2022 9:37:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSako

quote:

The point of victory is that there is consensus that one side has won and another side has lost. Without the points system, you really can't have a third-party standard for which of the two parties was victorious. Without that, one person's definition of victory is just that - one person's definition.


Personal opinions are what I am asking for here. The 3rd party system is already clear & well documented.

What is your definition of Japanese victory?

I am trying to see if (some sort of) consensus exists outside of the victory points.

And yes, at the end it depends on when your opponent concedes, because that is when you have truly 'won'.


There isn't a consensus that isn't the official definition.

I basically stated my (loose) definition: the official conditions are not quite one step towards Japan off of fair. I.e., adjusting 3 steps toward Japanese victory if time expires would be closer to fair than the 2 steps that does occur, but would then probably be a bit unfair in Japan's favor. Probably. Impossible to know without playtesting several times, which takes years and years.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.65625