Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

[Cavalry Corp]

Hi Guys,

which scn have balanced victory conditions? I mean in game terms that both sides can win despite the outcome. This is my first campaign as Japan

I ask this as I am playing scn 2 as Japan. I have captured in 41-43 far more and destroyed much more than they ever did - now in Sept 44 allies approaching an all that ( and that have captured Burma Singapore etc ) but the allies already on minor victory and I still had all my CV and he had half his... So question is there campaign scn that have balanced Victory conditions or not as this game seems impossible for Japan. What Japanese player has ever got a major victory other than a auto one??

I have a new game of RA as allies and in March 43 - you can make many mistakes as the allies - it seems that a major victory is certain. Just gind forward wait for Japan to make mistakes. That does not seem fair in terms of playing this as a competitive game.

[HansBolter]

If you mean that it is unfair to allow Japan to be able to conquer much, much more than they did historically I concur.

If you mean that it is unfair to make it possible for Japan to win by autovictory in 43 before the Allies ever get a chance to build up sufficiently to make a comeback I concur.

If you mean that it is unfair to allow Japan to conquer China with ease then I concur.

You are playing a beefed up way beyond historical Japanese side in an ahistorical scenario and are complaining because the game isn't fair....go figure.

[btd64]

There is no "BALANCED VICTORY". In AE anything is possible....GP

[bradfordkay]

You were able to advance beyond the historical Japanese perimeter, which is a good start. But in order to obtain a victory in 1945, you have to have racked up permanent victory points by both destroying large armies (beyond those historically defeated) during that expansion and making the reduction of that perimeter enormously costly in terms of men and material. Base VPs are good only for Auto-Victory for Japan - so they mean very little (the ones on the extremes of the perimeter mean nothing) if you are playing for a victory in 1945=46.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Hi Guys,

which scn have balanced victory conditions? I mean in game terms that both sides can win despite the outcome. This is my first campaign as Japan

I ask this as I am playing scn 2 as Japan. I have captured in 41-43 far more and destroyed much more than they ever did - now in Sept 44 allies approaching an all that ( and that have captured Burma Singapore etc ) but the allies already on minor victory and I still had all my CV and he had half his... So question is there campaign scn that have balanced Victory conditions or not as this game seems impossible for Japan. What Japanese player has ever got a major victory other than a auto one??

I have a new game of RA as allies and in March 43 - you can make many mistakes as the allies - it seems that a major victory is certain. Just gind forward wait for Japan to make mistakes. That does not seem fair in terms of playing this as a competitive game.

You are playing a beefed up way beyond historical Japanese side in an ahistorical scenario an

Relatively speaking, an Allied minor victory is really a Japanese major victory. That said, especially if you are playing another human, I would urge you to not worry so much about what sort of "victory" the victory point screen tells you either side has won.

Nonetheless, I realize some people really need to know which side is the "winner" and which is the loser. If that's the case with you, see previous posts for advice on how to achieve it. As for your post, I've only played the full campaign scenarios, and they are all going to be relatively the same as far as "victory conditions" go.

[Cavalry Corp]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

If you mean that it is unfair to allow Japan to be able to conquer much, much more than they did historically I concur.

If you mean that it is unfair to make it possible for Japan to win by autovictory in 43 before the Allies ever get a chance to build up sufficiently to make a comeback I concur.

If you mean that it is unfair to allow Japan to conquer China with ease then I concur.

You are playing a beefed up way beyond historical Japanese side in an ahistorical scenario and are complaining because the game isn't fair....go figure.

no I was not saying that - I was saying that even a beefed up Japan that has done better than historical does not get to be ahead in the long term despite good play unless its by some auto victory in 42 I suppose. Not sure I have ever seen a post mentioning auto victory in 43 but I maybe wrong.
And anyway the scn 2 seems loaded with trouble with the economy oif you ant to build the stuff because the HI points you are starved of.

[Cavalry Corp]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Hi Guys,

which scn have balanced victory conditions? I mean in game terms that both sides can win despite the outcome. This is my first campaign as Japan

I ask this as I am playing scn 2 as Japan. I have captured in 41-43 far more and destroyed much more than they ever did - now in Sept 44 allies approaching an all that ( and that have captured Burma Singapore etc ) but the allies already on minor victory and I still had all my CV and he had half his... So question is there campaign scn that have balanced Victory conditions or not as this game seems impossible for Japan. What Japanese player has ever got a major victory other than a auto one??

I have a new game of RA as allies and in March 43 - you can make many mistakes as the allies - it seems that a major victory is certain. Just gind forward wait for Japan to make mistakes. That does not seem fair in terms of playing this as a competitive game.

You are playing a beefed up way beyond historical Japanese side in an ahistorical scenario an

Relatively speaking, an Allied minor victory is really a Japanese major victory. That said, especially if you are playing another human, I would urge you to not worry so much about what sort of "victory" the victory point screen tells you either side has won.

Nonetheless, I realize some people really need to know which side is the "winner" and which is the loser. If that's the case with you, see previous posts for advice on how to achieve it. As for your post, I've only played the full campaign scenarios, and they are all going to be relatively the same as far as "victory conditions" go.

OK so they are all about the same - I would not play scn 1 though. Imagine if we played for cash prizes. I would not see anyone choosing Japan...

[Cavalry Corp]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

You were able to advance beyond the historical Japanese perimeter, which is a good start. But in order to obtain a victory in 1945, you have to have racked up permanent victory points by both destroying large armies (beyond those historically defeated) during that expansion and making the reduction of that perimeter enormously costly in terms of men and material. Base VPs are good only for Auto-Victory for Japan - so they mean very little (the ones on the extremes of the perimeter mean nothing) if you are playing for a victory in 1945=46.

Thanks
so what are the key permanent points Japan can win, and look to win in future games.

[BBfanboy]

Permanent points are destruction of enemy devices (squads, vehicles, guns, ships, aircraft) and strategic points for destruction or damage to enemy industry.

[BillBrown]

Too late.

[Cavalry Corp]

So where is the best allied industry to be destroyed that is realistically reachable. Also how do the VP for bases work is that each turn and the same or less if recaptured per turn?

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Relatively speaking, an Allied minor victory is really a Japanese major victory. That said, especially if you are playing another human, I would urge you to not worry so much about what sort of "victory" the victory point screen tells you either side has won.

+1

Further to the point above and the points made by Ser Hans:

I think Player of WITP-AE must think beyond the Victory Point mechanism if you truly understand this game; enjoy it for what it is. Revel in the challenge.

The Victory mechanism is designed as it is and it is a good tool.

However the “thinking of a Japanese Victory - balanced win” cannot be anchored in the “points alone”. Nor should the Allied Victory – balanced win be anchored in points alone.

Very basic google skills will point out the facts; it was a very uneven war in the first instance.

Admiral Yamamoto was correct to fear western industrial might and a war of attrition.

Rather one should think of Victory in “qualitative” factors as well.

I recently completed my first ever Grand Campaign. Despite winning a decisive victory in August 1944 – I did not consider victory complete unless: (1) I invaded Tokyo by September 2 1945 and or (2) dropped the bomb (s) ~ which I was reluctant to ~ to force capitulation on or before September 2 1945

For Japan qualitatively I would consider that by September 2 1945 ~ if the Empire holds oil / rubber / war raw material possessions in the Dutch East Indies and is capable of maintaining shipping convoys to the Home Islands of the same ~ that is a victory.

There could well be a variety of other qualitative measures that I have not considered. I would leave that to each gamer individually.

Proxy Indicators of the imbalance of position in WW2:

Population of Japan in 1940 * wikipedia
1940-10-01 73,114,308

Population of USA in 1940 *wikipedia
1940 132,100,000

1938 Nominal GDP of Major Nations * Wargamer Forum based on Harrison’s Book

The USA nominal GDP is "almost 1.5" X as large as Germany / Italy / Japan combined.

(1) United States: 84.7 billion
(2) Germany: 46.0 billion* (includes Austria/Sudetten Czech)
(3) UK: 27.51 billion
(4) USSR: 23.02 billion
(5) France: 16.18 billion
(6) Italy: 8.68 billion
(7) Japan: 7.49 billion ***

** and we know there was no inherent oil production - limited steel production; that in 1938 Japan relied on the USA for the majority of its oil imports, further scrap iron and metal.

The Economics of WW2, Harrison, chapter 3, page 83 ; The Economics of WW2, Harrison, chapter 4, page 158

[Lokasenna]

Crashing work computer ate my response, but since there's a +1 to the "minor victory is really major defeat" sentiment...

No, it's really not. In order to achieve a major victory (and therefore not a minor victory, which according to y'all is really a major defeat), the Allied player must absolutely crush the Japanese player with a 2:1 VP ratio prior to September 1, 1945. Have any of you actually played a grand campaign to that conclusion? I'm in the midst of my second that's in 1945 right now and I can tell you that a 2:1 VP ratio is a lot of VPs.

Achieving a 2:1 ratio between September 1, 1945, and the scenario end date (in March 1946) is a minor victory.

Not achieving a 2:1 ratio at all is either a draw (if you fall between 1.7:1 and 2:1) or a defeat. You could argue that this is really a Japanese victory, sure.

Those steps are modified by atomic bomb usage.


I've done a lot of VP math between 3 different games with different circumstances so far, from both sides of the table. I know what I'm talking about here. I really don't want to recreate my 3-paragraph takedown of the notion, so this response will have to suffice for now.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Relatively speaking, an Allied minor victory is really a Japanese major victory. That said, especially if you are playing another human, I would urge you to not worry so much about what sort of "victory" the victory point screen tells you either side has won.

+1

Further to the point above and the points made by Ser Hans:

I think Player of WITP-AE must think beyond the Victory Point mechanism if you truly understand this game; enjoy it for what it is. Revel in the challenge.

The Victory mechanism is designed as it is and it is a good tool.

However the “thinking of a Japanese Victory - balanced win” cannot be anchored in the “points alone”. Nor should the Allied Victory – balanced win be anchored in points alone.

Very basic google skills will point out the facts; it was a very uneven war in the first instance.

Admiral Yamamoto was correct to fear western industrial might and a war of attrition.

Rather one should think of Victory in “qualitative” factors as well.

I recently completed my first ever Grand Campaign. Despite winning a decisive victory in August 1944 – I did not consider victory complete unless: (1) I invaded Tokyo by September 2 1945 and or (2) dropped the bomb (s) ~ which I was reluctant to ~ to force capitulation on or before September 2 1945

For Japan qualitatively I would consider that by September 2 1945 ~ if the Empire holds oil / rubber / war raw material possessions in the Dutch East Indies and is capable of maintaining shipping convoys to the Home Islands of the same ~ that is a victory.

There could well be a variety of other qualitative measures that I have not considered. I would leave that to each gamer individually.

Proxy Indicators of the imbalance of position in WW2:

Population of Japan in 1940 * wikipedia
1940-10-01 73,114,308

Population of USA in 1940 *wikipedia
1940 132,100,000

1938 Nominal GDP of Major Nations * Wargamer Forum based on Harrison’s Book

The USA nominal GDP is "almost 1.5" X as large as Germany / Italy / Japan combined.

(1) United States: 84.7 billion
(2) Germany: 46.0 billion* (includes Austria/Sudetten Czech)
(3) UK: 27.51 billion
(4) USSR: 23.02 billion
(5) France: 16.18 billion
(6) Italy: 8.68 billion
(7) Japan: 7.49 billion ***

** and we know there was no inherent oil production - limited steel production; that in 1938 Japan relied on the USA for the majority of its oil imports, further scrap iron and metal.

The Economics of WW2, Harrison, chapter 3, page 83 ; The Economics of WW2, Harrison, chapter 4, page 158

These considerations all abstracted in the VP system, however because the system is highly granular in terms of exact numbers of bases, loss of devices on each side, and so forth, it is highly variable and not necessarily close to history.

But it's still accounted for. Your stated goals, which are highly subjective (e.g., Japan can't lose if it controls any oil centers) are better suited for a custom map that greatly inflates the VP value of those oil centers for Japan (make Palembang worth *500 VPs for Japan but keep it at *2 for the Allies, for example).

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

If you mean that it is unfair to allow Japan to be able to conquer much, much more than they did historically I concur.

If you mean that it is unfair to make it possible for Japan to win by autovictory in 43 before the Allies ever get a chance to build up sufficiently to make a comeback I concur.

If you mean that it is unfair to allow Japan to conquer China with ease then I concur.

You are playing a beefed up way beyond historical Japanese side in an ahistorical scenario and are complaining because the game isn't fair....go figure.

no I was not saying that - I was saying that even a beefed up Japan that has done better than historical does not get to be ahead in the long term despite good play unless its by some auto victory in 42 I suppose. Not sure I have ever seen a post mentioning auto victory in 43 but I maybe wrong.
And anyway the scn 2 seems loaded with trouble with the economy oif you ant to build the stuff because the HI points you are starved of.

Let me just say, by any real measure reality, in game terms, ended in a Total Allied victory. So again, relatively speaking, a minor Allied victory is a huge win for a Japanese player.

[Cavalry Corp]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: cavalry

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

If you mean that it is unfair to allow Japan to be able to conquer much, much more than they did historically I concur.

If you mean that it is unfair to make it possible for Japan to win by autovictory in 43 before the Allies ever get a chance to build up sufficiently to make a comeback I concur.

If you mean that it is unfair to allow Japan to conquer China with ease then I concur.

You are playing a beefed up way beyond historical Japanese side in an ahistorical scenario and are complaining because the game isn't fair....go figure.

no I was not saying that - I was saying that even a beefed up Japan that has done better than historical does not get to be ahead in the long term despite good play unless its by some auto victory in 42 I suppose. Not sure I have ever seen a post mentioning auto victory in 43 but I maybe wrong.
And anyway the scn 2 seems loaded with trouble with the economy oif you ant to build the stuff because the HI points you are starved of.

Let me just say, by any real measure reality, in game terms, ended in a Total Allied victory. So again, relatively speaking, a minor Allied victory is a huge win for a Japanese player.

agree but its such a shame the games run with hindsight of both sides. The allies have the advantage in that as they can wait and there is no loss of will to continue to fight if say India is lost or Australia?

[Cavalry Corp]

Should the allied player have to drop the bombs? Is that just one level of victory or two?

[BillBrown]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Should the allied player have to drop the bombs? Is that just one level of victory or two?

The first 2 do not change the victory level, only the third and others do that.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: cavalry

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

If you mean that it is unfair to allow Japan to be able to conquer much, much more than they did historically I concur.

If you mean that it is unfair to make it possible for Japan to win by autovictory in 43 before the Allies ever get a chance to build up sufficiently to make a comeback I concur.

If you mean that it is unfair to allow Japan to conquer China with ease then I concur.

You are playing a beefed up way beyond historical Japanese side in an ahistorical scenario and are complaining because the game isn't fair....go figure.

no I was not saying that - I was saying that even a beefed up Japan that has done better than historical does not get to be ahead in the long term despite good play unless its by some auto victory in 42 I suppose. Not sure I have ever seen a post mentioning auto victory in 43 but I maybe wrong.
And anyway the scn 2 seems loaded with trouble with the economy oif you ant to build the stuff because the HI points you are starved of.

Let me just say, by any real measure reality, in game terms, ended in a Total Allied victory. So again, relatively speaking, a minor Allied victory is a huge win for a Japanese player.

Except it's not, given how thoroughly and totally Japan was defeated IRL. If things had broken Japan's way just a few times IRL, they would still have lost but it might have taken a little longer. That's a minor Allied victory in the game.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: cavalry



no I was not saying that - I was saying that even a beefed up Japan that has done better than historical does not get to be ahead in the long term despite good play unless its by some auto victory in 42 I suppose. Not sure I have ever seen a post mentioning auto victory in 43 but I maybe wrong.
And anyway the scn 2 seems loaded with trouble with the economy oif you ant to build the stuff because the HI points you are starved of.

Let me just say, by any real measure reality, in game terms, ended in a Total Allied victory. So again, relatively speaking, a minor Allied victory is a huge win for a Japanese player.

agree but its such a shame the games run with hindsight of both sides. The allies have the advantage in that as they can wait and there is no loss of will to continue to fight if say India is lost or Australia?

This wouldn't have affected the US will to fight in the slightest. After December 7, the US was in it to win it, all the way to the end, no matter what happened. The Japanese fantasy of the US surrendering after major losses was always just a fantasy.