How do you define a Japan win ?

[Cuthalin]

The new update has sparked the board into life and raised an interesting point.
How do you define a Japan win?

Japan had set aims at the start, and yet, if they achieve these and can get enough leverage to negotiate to keep them, still do not win in the game.

Opponents :-
Britain. Capture all including Ceylon and Andaman Is. up to India border. Negotiate a return of Burma and Ceylon but keep rest.
France. Dutch. Indiginous peoples. Eliminate all forces.
Australia. N.Z. Capture N. Oz and All South Seas Is. Negotiate return of these BUT keep D.E.I. and S.R.A. North of Oz.
China. Capture as much as possible and give back all but 100 miles inland from the coast.
U.S. Capture Marshalls, Wake, Midway, Line Is. Aleutians to Dutch Harbour. Negotiate return of all but Midway and Wake.

This would get Japan ALL she wanted, with a negotiated settlement, but in the game, capturing this teritory, it does not.
I have capture all but the Conus / UK bases and still not got a game win.

What are your thoughts on the Japan win conditions?

[bradk]

"This would get Japan ALL she wanted, with a negotiated settlement, but in the game, capturing this teritory, it does not.
I have capture all but the Conus / UK bases and still not got a game win. "

That is the effect of the changes Matrix made in the scoring. Under the GG system that would be a win.

Rich's earlier releases - but not the current one - played with modified obc_a and obc_d - use the GG system. The current one may benefit IJ more than the GG system.

[bradk]

"in the game, capturing this teritory, it does not.
I have capture all but the Conus / UK bases and still not got a game win."


Players look at the map, look at the kills, look at the date, look at the remaining fighting ability - as you have done - and decide on that whether its a win, a draw, or a loss. Matrix scoring does not match human evaluation due in part to delay of the kill multiplier but also due to changes in production and control points.

See below.

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: Cuthalin

The new update has sparked the board into life and raised an interesting point.
How do you define a Japan win?

Japan had set aims at the start, and yet, if they achieve these and can get enough leverage to negotiate to keep them, still do not win in the game.

Opponents :-
Britain. Capture all including Ceylon and Andaman Is. up to India border. Negotiate a return of Burma and Ceylon but keep rest.
France. Dutch. Indiginous peoples. Eliminate all forces.
Australia. N.Z. Capture N. Oz and All South Seas Is. Negotiate return of these BUT keep D.E.I. and S.R.A. North of Oz.
China. Capture as much as possible and give back all but 100 miles inland from the coast.
U.S. Capture Marshalls, Wake, Midway, Line Is. Aleutians to Dutch Harbour. Negotiate return of all but Midway and Wake.

This would get Japan ALL she wanted, with a negotiated settlement, but in the game, capturing this teritory, it does not.
I have capture all but the Conus / UK bases and still not got a game win.

What are your thoughts on the Japan win conditions?

Possibly the Kill Point multiplier should be moved back. Another possibility: overrun all of India. Up until the latest version, the SEAC forces were very vulnerable to collapse through those wretched experience checks.

[bradk]

Bill and I have played multiple PBEM games with the original kill multiplier settings and are quite happy with it. Also with control points back to GG values.