PBEM players LOOK

[Hanzberger]

Has anyone won playing the AXIS side??? (Japan) and if so how hard was your opposition, honestly? Just curious. Looking to start my first PBEM game and everyone wants to be ALLIED. If I understood production better I would try Japan.....[&:]

[mc3744]

As a matter of facts I'm not aware of anybody winning - the game - with the Allies [;)]

Mostly Japan gives up by the end of '42 or mid '43, hence the Allies win easily.

In my experience, for what it is worth, many Japanese players give up once they discover they cannot win the war.
With Japan - IMHO - it's not about winning the war (almost no way), it's about winning the game.
Hence making the allied vicotry so expensive that it's actually a defeat.

Just my two cents.

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: mc3744

As a matter of facts I'm not aware of anybody winning - the game - with the Allies [;)]

Mostly Japan gives up by the end of '42 or mid '43, hence the Allies win easily.

In my experience, for what it is worth, many Japanese players give up once they discover they cannot win the war.
With Japan - IMHO - it's not about winning the war (almost no way), it's about winning the game.
Hence making the allied vicotry so expensive that it's actually a defeat.

Just my two cents.

Nicely stated.[;)]

You'll see the Japanese win if house rules and restraint are thrown out the window.
Manchuko units deployed to overwhelm China.
Early invasion of India to deprive the Allies of Karachi's reinforcements.
First turn IJN warp move to snag the Eastern Pacific Islands, Solomons, PNG, and the New Hebrides to place a wall of torpedo bombers against Allied reinforcements.
With around 700 AK/AP's at their disposal they can swamp the Allies on any front.
The Allies can't sink them fast enough.
Also targeting the "at sea" US CV's on Dec 7 will wipe out any possible attempt to slow the invasion warp down.

There are more reasons, but these are the main ones.
So certain house rules are a "must have".
Especially for the starting sequence of the game.

My 2 cents.[;)]

[Hanzberger]

Interesting stuff guys. Which leads to another question. What is a balanced house rule setup? [:'(]

[DuckofTindalos]

One widely used one:

Japanese player agrees to target only one major Allied port (i.e. Pearl, Manilla or Singapore) with aircraft on 12/7, and in return, Allied player deploys no ships from his ports.

[mc3744]

Sounds like Terminus was in a hurry [;)]

There are quite a number of 'standard' house rules ... but I'm in a hurry too [:'(][:D]

Some are for the first turn, some for the game.
For air deployment, LCU deployment, ...

[Grotius]

I'm no expert on house rules, but some common ones include:

1. Only one Japanese port attack on turn 1.
2. On Turn 1, Allied player can't create new TFs but can move existing ones.
3. On turn 1, Japan can only invade targets that are within air cover; or, alternatively, only historical targets.
4. Some players just choose the 'historical first turn' and be done with it. But IJN players tend to find this unduly confining.
5. Limits on upgrading planes if you use player-defined upgrades; e.g., no upgrading 2-engine bombers to 4-engine bombers.
6. Must pay polit point cost to transfer Manchukuo units out of Manchuria. (The Mongolian Cavalry units, however, can move freely.)
7. Players used to limit ASW TFs to 8 or fewer, but this may not be necessary with the new ASW routines; not sure.
8. Often people will say no Corsairs on Allied CVs until a particular date, say 1/44.
9. Some players forbid removing "fragments" of surrounded units via sub/air transport. (These fragments can be "grown" into full-blown units later, which some people regard as gamey.)
10. Some players forbid invasions on non-base or non-"dot" hexes.
11. Some refrain from "training" pilots by assigning them to attack empty enemy bases.
12. Some forbid use of submarines to load troops to invade bases.
13. Some used to restrict the number of planes on ASW patrol, but again this house rule may now be moot with the new sub routines; not sure.
14. Some restrict night-bombing to some degree.
15. Some restrict the altitudes at which bombers fly; there are reports that there is a "flak gap" at certain altitudes, and house rules on this are designed to deal with this gap. There are arguments back and forth on whether such a gap exists, and if so whether it is historical.
16. Some restrict the numbers of heavy bombers in air raids at given points of the war. E.g., fewer than x Allied 4E bombers per raid in 1942, that sort of thing.
17. Some restrict the evacuation of Dutch units from the DEI at the start of the game.
18. Many players stipulate that Japan won't invade Russia early in the war. I haven't heard much talk of similar house rules for India or Oz, though.
19. Some restrict the use of Glen floatplanes on IJN subs, e.g., only use in good weather or on recon missions.
20. Some forbid "upgrading" the Glen to other floatplanes on subs, since only the Glen was designed for this role.

That's just some of the house rules you hear! I'm sure there are many others.

[Hanzberger]

Sounds like this game has a lot of LOOP HOLES>....[:-]

[Kapten Q]

Every game can be "gamed". You need house rules if you want to keep it real or you can agree that everything possible goes. Makes for two completely different types of games though. I prefer some basic houserules just to keep things real.

Q

[Hanzberger]

Well then, based upon experience, what seems to be some basic house rules to keep things balanced and Historical?

[8|]

[Halsey]

Type in houserules in the search bar.[:D]

You'll see quite a few listings.

[aletoledo]

out of about 4 games so far, against various opponents, I have managed to win once as japan. it was a no house rules game, so otherwise I don't think I could have pulled it off.

if its your first few games with WitP, I think its really impossible to win as japan. you have to understand what really consitutes a victory. in the end the victory is points and only points. japan could invade the USA and occupy San francisco, yet still not win because of the points ratio. so once you get that concept and aim solely for a points win, then you'll have a fighting chance as japan during the first year of the war. after the first year, its about stopping the allies from winning.

[Nomad]

My comment is don't worry too much about Victory Points or winning and/or losing. It is the game play that is fun ( PzB said something like "It is the journey that is fun" ) That said, you do need to do a bit of talking to a possible opponent about where you want the game to go and what you want from the game. Personally, I dislike a bunch of house rules but some people want a lot of them. I like to just set a condition or two about the first turn. I have been playing a Allies and my standard idea is "I'll just do what you do/I'll be as gamey as you" This works playing the Allies because your retaliation comes after the Japanese player is 'done'

[Hanzberger]

Good stuff guys. I think I would be more inclined to agree with Nomad as far as rules. I'm sure it can be gamey for both sides. I haven't done PBEM, so my only experience is reacting to the AI Japan right now. Any game that gets out of hand with cheats will be no fun. I don't know what the real out of bounds cheats are but from some things I have read I often think why not? Such as moving men or supplies with subs. Another thing to consider is that neither side had a bad plan for the war so following the skelton of what they did could lead to victory. If it wasn't for a little 'LUCK' or 'Godly intervention' at Midway, things could have turned out alot different for the USA. I think a real cheat would be knowing of some way to get more units, LCU's, planes, ships etc. As far as how you use them is up to you.......commanders' [8D]

[jeffs]

One can argue the whole game is gamey as both sides have a good understanding over each others capabilities.

For example, the allies know that force z is dead meat in the open, so run like hell.

On the other hand, the real killer, for those of pure history, is Japan not only knows when its mail is being read, but the exact dates when the allies get tons of intelligence.

The Japanese also seem to have a break in that it seems hard for 3 or 4 bombs to sink an IJN carrier at least early in the war (a la Midway)...

So if one wanted to do a truly historical game.
A. It is the first time you play (so you do not fully understand the capabilities, position of the opponent).
B. Japanese side has no idea mail is being read.
C. IJN is run by 2 people, one for army, one for navy who can only converse a little.
D. Allies have a bunch of seperate commanders. With Russia being totally out of the loop.
E. The China theatre is completely weird as Chang Kai Shek spent half of his time making sure many of the generals did NOT get supplies/weapons/troops as they were potential competitors to him.

Obviously, in the name of having a playable game, these things are ignored.

[RUPD3658]

Simple solution for players who have time for more than 1 game: Play 2 games (one as Allies and one as Japan) against the same oppanant.

Total scores from both games determine victory.

This was you can be as gamey as you want since both players beinfit/suffer as a result.

[Hanzberger]

You know, that coyote may have something there [&o]

[Nemo121]

I think that "win" is somewhat illusory here as a Japanese win can only occur via "points" and points are, by their very nature, artificial and somewhat arbitrary.

I also disagree with the need for a massive tome of house rules. Instead I think that both sides can play to the full extent of their in-game capabilities ( with some allowances made so that clear bug exploits don't happen) and be satisfied with the game so long as neither side is actually focussed on "winning" but more focussed on playing well.

For example, in a full campaign game the Japanese will "lose" no matter how skillful they are and the Allies will "win" but a Japanese player who far exceeds the historical high-tide of Japanese expansion AND puts together a number of skillful operations can lose knowing he has played a great game. it really is a case of the journey being the reward, not the end-point.

[mc3744]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

For example, in a full campaign game the Japanese will "lose" no matter how skillful they are and the Allies will "win" but a Japanese player who far exceeds the historical high-tide of Japanese expansion AND puts together a number of skillful operations can lose knowing he has played a great game. it really is a case of the journey being the reward, not the end-point.

 
I partially disagree ... sorry [;)]
Every good Japanese player should be able to expand far beyond the historical limits.
Especially in the Pacific and in China.
IMHO the 'masterful' Japanese play - as seen by an Allied fanboy - can be evaluated in measuring the losses of the expansion and in the following defensive phase.
VPs can be a reasonably good measure of that.
As Allies I played in games where by Dec '42 I was below 10-15k VPs to the Japs and other were I was already ahead by October-November '42. The land conquests were often similar, the losses not.