Has anyone won playing IJ?

[bradk]

If yes, was it against AI or human, and what were the help settings?

[bradk]

No one? How about a draw. Any draws?

[zeke99]

I once dragged on until 1946 as Jap against a human player, does this count [;)]

[bradk]

ORIGINAL: zeke99

I once dragged on until 1946 as Jap against a human player, does this count [;)]

A superb performance. But the game still called in an IJ loss, right?

I suspect if you can't even tie as IJ, no one can.

In SSI, IJ had a slight chance of a win or tie. In general terms, if IJ could keep maybe 60% of the bases it captured and sink 12 - 15 CVs while keeping its own losses low, it could win or tie Jan 45.

Concerning the possibility of an IJ win or tie, in the original manual, Gribsby said "I sacrificed some realism for a better game".

[Skipjack_]

ORIGINAL: zeke99

I once dragged on until 1946 as Jap against a human player, does this count [;)]

Oh, sure, you had to bring THAT game up [8|]

[zeke99]

LOL skip [;)]

Hi Brad,

One possibility to win as Jap is in 1942 to land in LA from Hawaii. Thus killing US supply and reinforcements. [:D]
Usually this is not allowed by house rules and a bit unrealistic.

[Capt. Harlock]

One possibility to win as Jap is in 1942 to land in LA from Hawaii. Thus killing US supply and reinforcements.

Actually, the Japanese player must take San Francisco if he wants to cut off reinforcements. Taking Los Angeles will, however, mess up the Routine Convoys. (There will still be some supply in the western areas from Calcutta.)

[bradk]

I once thought that IJ could win by taking some US west coast bases very early. However, my conclusion now is that the ponts obtained are not sufficient to win and IJ will be unable to hold the bases.

Due to my experiences with some new PBEM players, and some things I did myself when first playing PBEM, I'd say the following to any player regardless of which side he is playing: You will not be able to devise some fantastic never thought of before plan to win the game in 1942. If you try as IJ you will end up losing sooner, and if you try as Allies you will end up winning later.

Which brings me to what I think is the real problem with the Matrix version. We know what the result will be, and it doesn't matter how good the IJ player is or how bad the Allied player is. If the game goes on long enough, Allies will win.

Now, its argued that historically the Allies never would have quit no matter how hard it was, but is that really the historical evidence? UK never would have quit as long as Churchill was PM, but the Conservatives lost the May (?) 1945 election and Churchill was out after Germany was defeated but before IJ was defeated. Less than a decade later, the US decided three years in Korea was enough. And Eisenhower ran for President on a pledge to end the war in Korea, and did it.

The SSI version is a multi dimensional game. It is more than going out to see how much you can destroy. IJ has to be concerned about resources, not just oil, if Allies have a lot of ships under repair they might not have enough construction points to activate new ships on time, and both players have to look at operations from the standpoint of getting good value for their losses. These are not features in Matrix and its a mono dimensional game.

Isolated aircraft shortages can occur in SSI, and so better players look for the highest value use of their best aircraft, knowing they don't have enough of their favorite aircraft to assign them to every airgroup, even if that airgroup is only keeping an AZOC over a bypassed base. In Matrix, the supply of aircraft for IJ is functionally infinite. For the Allies, the supply of the best aircraft is functionally infinite.

It could be argued forever with no resolution possible whether IJ historically had a chance of getting the ALlies to quit. But I think the relevant statement is one made in the original manual concerning IJ having a slight chance to draw and a remote chance to win in SSI.

Based on his statements, Gary Grigsby believes it historically was impossible for IJ to get the Allies to quit without complete victory. But even with that view, he created a game in which an Allied victory was not a sure thing not matter what either player did, and said "...I sacrificed some realism to improve the game".

With all the improved realism of the Matrix Edition in aircraft and ship performance and availability, it is not a better game, because there is no uncertainty concerning who will win. That is a basic requirement for a good game. And while moving the kill multipier from 1944 to 1946 is sometimes identified as the problem, it is not the whole problem. Even resinstating the SSI kill multiplier system does not create uncertainty about who will win.

Anyway, this central issue can be addressed by modifying some Matrix obc values to the SSI values and by manually calculating the score using the SSI system. I can (and am) editing an obc. It would be nice if someone had the skill to modify the exe (I don't) so the SSI kill multipier is reinstated. But that's not completely necessary as the score can be calculated manually with ease.

However, this only really works with PBEM. I can't see anything that can be done to significantly improve an AI game. Removal of the AI "cheats", which qualify as a game design "best practices", makes an AI game trivially easy. Which means that the problem I've encountered, how stunned new PBEM players are at how different and how much more difficult a PBEM is, cannot be addressed.

[Capt. Harlock]

Now, its argued that historically the Allies never would have quit no matter how hard it was, but is that really the historical evidence? UK never would have quit as long as Churchill was PM, but the Conservatives lost the May (?) 1945 election and Churchill was out after Germany was defeated but before IJ was defeated. Less than a decade later, the US decided three years in Korea was enough.

Let me haul out my soapbox once more: the only, repeat only, way for the Japanese to pull out a marginal victory was *not* to do the Pearl Harbor raid. Instead, they should have invaded only the DEI at first. This would have triggered a declaration of war from Great Britain and the United States, but with much less popular support. The amazing feats of production the U.S. achieved would not have been politically possible, and the U.S. at least would have been more willing to settle for a negotiated peace.

I continue to be amazed that no one seems to include this scenario in Pacific wargames.

[bradk]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Now, its argued that historically the Allies never would have quit no matter how hard it was, but is that really the historical evidence? UK never would have quit as long as Churchill was PM, but the Conservatives lost the May (?) 1945 election and Churchill was out after Germany was defeated but before IJ was defeated. Less than a decade later, the US decided three years in Korea was enough.

Let me haul out my soapbox once more: the only, repeat only, way for the Japanese to pull out a marginal victory was *not* to do the Pearl Harbor raid. Instead, they should have invaded only the DEI at first. This would have triggered a declaration of war from Great Britain and the United States, but with much less popular support. The amazing feats of production the U.S. achieved would not have been politically possible, and the U.S. at least would have been more willing to settle for a negotiated peace.

I continue to be amazed that no one seems to include this scenario in Pacific wargames.

Well, we're on the same page on popular support. I agree your scnenario is the most likely way IJ could have made sure of lack of popular support in the US.

That aside, I think having some uncertainty about the outcome, even if only a slight amount, even if not completely realistic, would make this a better game.

In the past we've talked about the delay in the kill multiplier. Well, you know, reverting it to 1944 doesn't introduce uncertainty about the outcome either. Because kills don't matter.

Bold statement I know, but look at these numbers. Back when Grigsby wrote that the kill multiplier gave IJ a slim chance of a draw, and he did it for a better game, total control points in the game on the first turn were 35,450.

Now, first turn control points are 79,780. But kill points have the same numerical value as before, meaning that the relative value of kill points decreased 55%. Well below the point where they have any meaning.

Which provides more incentive for an unrealistic extra agressive my own losses don't matter strategy. Because the fact is no ones losses matter. Only retaining enough relative power to be able to take bases matters.

Which I think is why we see AARs where IJ has lost most of its major ships by 1944 and the Allies have lost 15 CVs, a dozen BBs, and complete distruction of half a dozen Divisions more than historical. There is no incentive for anything other than conquest at any cost.

Anyway, I'll shortly have a scenario where IJ resources matter, putting expensive aircraft to their highest value use matters, and getting a good value for ship and LCU losses matters. And where the Allied player at least has in the back of his mind that he might not win if he doesn't get a good value for his losses and the IJ player has in the back of his mind he might not lose if in inflicts a lot more damage than he sustains. Even if victory conditions aren't completely realistic. Because for me, there's no use playing now that I've realized there is no uncertainty in the outcome, not even a shadow of one, with the Matrix scenarios.

Any I'm not saying that because I prefer playing one side of the other. From my posts here, its known my standard want a game post includes "will play either side".

[bradk]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Let me haul out my soapbox once more: the only, repeat only, way for the Japanese to pull out a marginal victory was *not* to do the Pearl Harbor raid...

...I continue to be amazed that no one seems to include this scenario in Pacific wargames.

I agree with you. Start the game sometime during the pre-war politicing. Let IJ decide when the shooting starts and who gets attacked. Put in some randomization of which countries not attacked decide to jump in.

[bradk]

ORIGINAL: zeke99

LOL skip [;)]

Hi Brad,

One possibility to win as Jap is in 1942 to land in LA from Hawaii. Thus killing US supply and reinforcements. [:D]
Usually this is not allowed by house rules and a bit unrealistic.

Y'know... maybe someone could test that. It could be done fairly quickly with Allies set to AI and IJ set to human but with HQs on computer op control. I bet IJ can't get enough points to make it happen in 42.

I'd curious enough to test it but I'm testing the revised Tora right now. So if its me, its several weeks away before we find out what's behind door #1.

[Eno67]

When I saw this thread I started a japanese campaign with the Allies getting a little bit of help. I took India, and most of China and Australia. In January 1943 I got a message the war was over. Something to the effect the allies drop their demand for an unconditional surrender and the japanese withdraw to their pre-war territory. If their pre-war territory would include what they held in China on Dec 1941 I would consider this japanese victory.

[bradk]

ORIGINAL: Eno67

When I saw this thread I started a japanese campaign with the Allies getting a little bit of help. I took India, and most of China and Australia. In January 1943 I got a message the war was over. Something to the effect the allies drop their demand for an unconditional surrender and the japanese withdraw to their pre-war territory. If their pre-war territory would include what they held in China on Dec 1941 I would consider this japanese victory.

That's the erroneous "its a draw" message, a bug that dates back to the beginning with SSI V 1.0. Continue playing! You're not done! <G> (The message will go away after a few turns, maybe come back, maybe not.)

Actual victory conditions are if starting Jan 1944 one side doubles the score of the other, that side wins. If by Jan 1946 no one has doubled, its a draw.

[Tebok]

ORIGINAL: Eno67

When I saw this thread I started a japanese campaign with the Allies getting a little bit of help. I took India, and most of China and Australia. In January 1943 I got a message the war was over. Something to the effect the allies drop their demand for an unconditional surrender and the japanese withdraw to their pre-war territory. If their pre-war territory would include what they held in China on Dec 1941 I would consider this japanese victory.

There is a patch you can use called 'NoEndWar' It will keep that message from appearing. You may still be able to find it online, if not I can put it up for download.

[bradk]

ORIGINAL: Tebok

ORIGINAL: Eno67

When I saw this thread I started a japanese campaign with the Allies getting a little bit of help. I took India, and most of China and Australia. In January 1943 I got a message the war was over. Something to the effect the allies drop their demand for an unconditional surrender and the japanese withdraw to their pre-war territory. If their pre-war territory would include what they held in China on Dec 1941 I would consider this japanese victory.

There is a patch you can use called 'NoEndWar' It will keep that message from appearing. You may still be able to find it online, if not I can put it up for download.

I'm sure people would appreciate it if you would post it. I wonder if ot works on PBEM games?

You wouldnt' happen to have any other old files would you? I'd like to get the file that sends all IJN TKs back to Nagoya. I think it is called tanker.exe.

I'm not playing against AI anymore but having it would make my scenario test games a lot easier. Combined Fleet grabls a bunch of TKs any time its doing something and uses them for Replenishment TFs. Out of Nagoya, it kills IJs oil. Hey, guys, you have AOs for Replenishment TFs, you know! <G>

[Tebok]

I edited a game starting in 1941. I gave all Japanese Units 99 experience with 250/250/250 vehicles/squads/artillery. Maxed out the cargo capacity on all the destroyers transports, tankers and cargo ships, plus I gave them a speed of 50 knots. All the Japanese ships classes had AA triple that of the average US ships in 1945 along with max armor and durability. Finally, I made the Japanese aircraft more durability and firepower. At the same time, I made all the Allied aircraft basically useless.


I won that game as the Japanese. >:D

[bradk]

Here you go.  I have three games here for comparison.

1) AI/AI game using SSI.
2) PBEM gamem using Matrix.
3) PBEM game using my revised Tora scenario.

Game 3) is the basis.  Date is August 15, 1943.  IJ (not me, unfortunately) is kicking butt.  Holds the map except for parts of Aus, Hawaiian Islands, US West Coast, and a couple of atolls.

Games 1) and 2) establish production and provide the basis for control points for those scenarios.  Control points adjusted as if controlled areas matched game 3). Kill points from game 3) used.

Game 1), SSI, adjusted
IJ 79003. Allies 54234.  IJ needs 29,465 points to double the score and win.

Game 2), Matrix, adjusted
IJ 106,049, Allies  87,344, IJ needs 68,639 points to double the score and win.

Game 3) Tora revised, actual game, no adjustments
IJ 79,775, Allies 50,899, IJ needs 22,023 points to double the score and win.

I think its pretty clear from the Game 2) numbers why no one reported winning as IJ.

Player performance is the same in all three games. But the IJ victory situation is far different.

In game 1), if IJ can keep oil and resource over 10,000, the 50% kill multipler applies in 4.5 months, Jan 44, and if IJ can take one US West Coast base IJ wins.

In game 3), if IJ can keep oil and resournce over 10,000, the 50% kill multiplier applies (by house rules agreement, calcualted manually) in 4.5 months, Jan 44, and IJ wins. No additional conquests needed.

In game 2) IJ doesn't get the kill multiplier for another 28.5 months. To win, IJ needs to hold on to current territory for over two years with a 1:1 loss ratio while keeping oil and resource or can possibly win without the multiplier by taking a few more Aus and/or some Hawaiian Island bases and probably at least three US West Coast bases.

I think this is a better game when IJ has a slim chance of a victory, not an implausibly remote one.

[Capt. Harlock]

Game 1), SSI, adjusted
IJ 79003. Allies 54234. IJ needs 29,465 points to double the score and win.

Game 2), Matrix, adjusted
IJ 106,049, Allies 87,344, IJ needs 68,639 points to double the score and win.

Wow -- that much of a difference? I assume this is using the OBC41 scenario?

[bradk]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Wow -- that much of a difference? I assume this is using the OBC41 scenario?

SSI was obc41. Matrix was Tora, Tora, Tora. Howver, any scenario starting Dec 7 in either SSI or Matrix would produce the same results.