Are Japanese players smarter????

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I admire anybody who plays the Japanese side, just because Allied production is tied to a known quantum.

IMHO any Japanese player who can defeat naval and transport units as quick as they are launched, can win.
Seems a simple solution, but it requires an agressive Japanese player for at least 70% of the game, whilst minimizing not just losses, but even damage.

Further, I appreciate the Japanese AAR's..

number wise they should be offset by an equal number of aggressive allied players across AARs. There will always be better and worst players. I would expect the to be equally distributed. My opinion is that for the same quality of players allies should be winning more games.

[RUPD3658]

ORIGINAL: marovici

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

I think this thread wil turn in an AFB vs JFB match...

The game allows both sides huge benefits compared to IRL. The Allied side is favorised by some of the above (among other things), the Japanese side is favorised (among other things) by the magic first movement, the production system and by the fact that the game allows operations at a faster pace than IRL so enabling Japan to conquer more territory before the Allied will be able to stop it.

As for having more AAR showing a triumphant Japan, I don't agree. The two examples given above, and Battle For New Jersey AAR and Captain Mandrake are all AAR where the Allied are IMOO winning.
In fact as a general rule team games (where Japan is played by more than one player) are usually closer to reality in 1942, as divided Japanese forces can concentrate and crush everything as they did in most games. The division of command of Allied forces probably played a role too in these games but is less important on the defence (where you have to react with local forces mostly) than on the offence.

Honestly I think AFB vs. JFB match is over. JFBs won!!!

I disagree. I will certinly look up those 2 AARs. I understand that this does not mean allies should be the only ones winning, but as it stands now my impression is that in a great majority of cases they are winning so either game is tilted towards them or greater number of allies are a little slow. I would venture a guess that both sides should have the same number of us who are a little slow therefore the game is tilted toward Japanese.

This has been mentioned before. The simple soultion is to play 2 games (one Allied and one Japan) against the same player. This way any game imbalances cancel out and the skill of the player determines victory.

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I admire anybody who plays the Japanese side, just because Allied production is tied to a known quantum.

Gotta add my kudos to this..., anyone willing to wrestle with the total abortion that is the game's Japanese Production System is a masochist and has my admiration. Can't believe the designers never heard of a "spreadsheet".

Spread sheets? We JFBs don't need no stinkin' spread sheets![:D]

Life is tough as Japan but you get to run wild for the first six months or so as a consolation. If you think the whole game will be like this you will be quickly disappointed. A good JFB must be a master of defense. While not as fun it can be quite rewarding.

I see that many Japanese players quit after this since they feel that the game is no longer fun. I totally disagree with this.

Even though I have been on the defensive since late 42 I have been having a blast. While these are not huge victories, like capturing tons of bases, they are rewarding just the same. I have:

1. Come up with a solution to the Allied sub menace in 1943 that stopped it cold
2. Learned how to use air transport and fast transports well enough to withdraw entire divisions from cut off bases (Even ones under the Allied air umbrella)
3. Run TKs full of oil thousands of miles through Allied contriolled waters all the way to the HI (Most were sunk but a few made it)
4. Pulled off a few spectacular surface raids that sunk Allied BBs (Big B nicknamed these "Long lance drive bys"[:D])
5. Launched an invasion of Russia

This does not mean in any way that I am kicking Allied butt. In reality it is my butt that has been kicked back all the way to the HI in 8/44. Formosa is in Allied hands so the empire has been cut in 2. Allied 4E bomber can reach any city in the HI and fighter sweeps by P-38s are shooting down my green pilots at a 4:1 rate.

Even if you are going to lose (I am hoping for a tie come 1/1/46) the fun is in playing. I have learned a ton of things that I will use in my next PBEM.

But to answer your orginal question: Yes, we are smarter[;)]

Certainly sounds like a good game. Will have to read up on it.

I guess my fears are not the figment of my imagination!!!

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

ORIGINAL: marovici

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Actually this game favors the Allies.[;)]

Allies get free airfield intel after the Japanese phase. (massive bonus)
Allies get free sub location intel. (if you know what you're looking for)
Only the Allies can actually close an airfield through air bombardments.
Allied engs are way too good at construction and repair.
Allied 4E bombers are way too durable.
Oscar's suck wind, considering they represent 70% of the IJAAF.

Air balance notations favor both sides.

My 2 cents...[:D]

Well if that is the case there will be no lack of late war AARs displaying the "allied superiority". I don't see it.

Check out "The Battle for New Jersey" and you will see what late war Allied AC can do to inexperinced Jap pilots. It is not pretty.

Japan is unstoppable until mid 42. Forces are even until about mid 43 then the Allies are unstoppable from there. Each side has it's time. That is what makes the game fun.

As mentioned earlier, many Jap players quit if they don't win by the end of 42 and even many Allied players quit in early 42 since they can't take getting beaten up for the first 6 months. No one seems to like playing the underdog on the defensive. This is why the AArs don't always refelct game balance.

To prove my point: How many PBEMs have you seen where someone is willing to play Japan in the 45 scenario? Feinder is the only one I have seen isince the game came out.

No one should have to take on historical 45 game. In that one allies were the superior players by far. Only in 5% of the games would a player be able to pull it off from 1941.

Some games may end early for Japan, but they do so for allies as well.

[marovici]

[/quote]

This has been mentioned before. The simple soultion is to play 2 games (one Allied and one Japan) against the same player. This way any game imbalances cancel out and the skill of the player determines victory.

[/quote]

Yes but shouldn't the greater number of AARs correct for the individual player ability? SO IMO either Japanese players are smarter or the game is tilted. For selfish reasons I lean towards the game being tilted.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: marovici

well like, I can make any statement I want. Don't need your guidance on how to share my belief that the game is insanely warped towards Japanese and the paucity of AARs that speak

ORIGINAL: pauk


ah, that is what i missed so much on this forum... a good, old, balkan-thrash talk....[:'(]

to the "so called Allied resurgence" address that. Right now I do not think there is even 50-50 division between Japanese and allies winning. 50-50 is a defeat for allies given the "multitude of everything" so in my opinion is that given for the same quality of players the score should be 70-30 for allies once greater number of games are played to make up for "alleged allied superiority".

me too thinks we Japs are smarter....[:'(]

bye

[Halsey]

BTW

I base my opinions on personal experience with the game.
Yes, I have played both sides.[;)]

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: marovici

well like, I can make any statement I want. Don't need your guidance on how to share my belief that the game is insanely warped towards Japanese and the paucity of AARs that speak

ORIGINAL: pauk


ah, that is what i missed so much on this forum... a good, old, balkan-thrash talk....[:'(]

to the "so called Allied resurgence" address that. Right now I do not think there is even 50-50 division between Japanese and allies winning. 50-50 is a defeat for allies given the "multitude of everything" so in my opinion is that given for the same quality of players the score should be 70-30 for allies once greater number of games are played to make up for "alleged allied superiority".

me too thinks we Japs are smarter....[:'(]

bye

well look to yourself. I just reply in tone I received the message. If I misread I appologize if not then deal with it.

[Cpt Sherwood]

ORIGINAL: marovici




This has been mentioned before. The simple soultion is to play 2 games (one Allied and one Japan) against the same player. This way any game imbalances cancel out and the skill of the player determines victory.

Yes but shouldn't the greater number of AARs correct for the individual player ability? SO IMO either Japanese players are smarter or the game is tilted. For selfish reasons I lean towards the game being tilted.

Just understand that there are a lot of games being played without any AAR being written. Also, the Japanese should win about 1/2 of the "games," not win the war, different thing entirely.

[AmiralLaurent]

If you want to see some AAR that were good for the Allied, go to the AAR section, select all dates, and class AAR by number of hits. On the first page you will find the following (that I know and are good for Allied).

Here is an AAR that finished in Allied victory in summer 1942: tm.asp?m=861689

This classical AAR saw the Japanese player take Hawaii and conquer China (and Russia IIRC), but the Allied came back and won in fall 1945... ... tm.asp?m=716742

And this one "5th of Aprile 1943: The allies are pushing everywhere." tm.asp?m=833044

Current game in October 1944 and Japan being pounded: tm.asp?m=1037321

Battle for New jersey (Formosa in Allied hands and HI bombed in summer 44, despite the fact that China AND India were conquered): tm.asp?m=1110403

Tom Hunter vs Mogami: Allied counter-attack in late 1942: tm.asp?m=947589

It seems to me it is the only AAR where Allied landed in Japan and took Tokyo in end June 1945. Allied brute force was at his best during the Japan campaign: tm.asp?m=722490&mpage=24&key=

Only in the first pages, and only the AARs I know.

By the way the IJN players are probably not smarter, but they are at less ready to have a more complex task, so maybe are more experienced in wargames... Also those who will last after 1943 should know how to defend... many Japanese players will resign then as "it will be no more fun". I think, and we are several, that it is as fun to defend than to attack, even against growing Allied power... by the way Japan AAR will usually emphasize what is working and not list the ordinary day of generalized terror bombing.

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

ORIGINAL: marovici




This has been mentioned before. The simple soultion is to play 2 games (one Allied and one Japan) against the same player. This way any game imbalances cancel out and the skill of the player determines victory.

Yes but shouldn't the greater number of AARs correct for the individual player ability? SO IMO either Japanese players are smarter or the game is tilted. For selfish reasons I lean towards the game being tilted.

Just understand that there are a lot of games being played without any AAR being written. Also, the Japanese should win about 1/2 of the "games," not win the war, different thing entirely.

Yes that is true, not sure to what extent though. Assuming the point system was done correctly to reflect that then 50% should be the right number. In my view it feels Japanese get there much faster and a lot more often. More importantly it feels they can outproduce, outconquer and outwin anything the allies can throw at them during the game. Historical outcome should be default, better japanese players should do better, better allied players should be able to do better as well.

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

If you want to see some AAR that were good for the Allied, go to the AAR section, select all dates, and class AAR by number of hits. On the first page you will find the following (that I know and are good for Allied).

Here is an AAR that finished in Allied victory in summer 1942: tm.asp?m=861689

This classical AAR saw the Japanese player take Hawaii and conquer China (and Russia IIRC), but the Allied came back and won in fall 1945... ... tm.asp?m=716742

And this one "5th of Aprile 1943: The allies are pushing everywhere." tm.asp?m=833044

Current game in October 1944 and Japan being pounded: tm.asp?m=1037321

Battle for New jersey (Formosa in Allied hands and HI bombed in summer 44, despite the fact that China AND India were conquered): tm.asp?m=1110403

Tom Hunter vs Mogami: Allied counter-attack in late 1942: tm.asp?m=947589

It seems to me it is the only AAR where Allied landed in Japan and took Tokyo in end June 1945. Allied brute force was at his best during the Japan campaign: tm.asp?m=722490&mpage=24&key=

Only in the first pages, and only the AARs I know.

By the way the IJN players are probably not smarter, but they are at less ready to have a more complex task, so maybe are more experienced in wargames... Also those who will last after 1943 should know how to defend... many Japanese players will resign then as "it will be no more fun". I think, and we are several, that it is as fun to defend than to attack, even against growing Allied power... by the way Japan AAR will usually emphasize what is working and not list the ordinary day of generalized terror bombing.

Thanks for posting the AARs. Certainly will read up on them.

You make a good argument why it might seem that Japanese are winning in late war AARs. In that case unfortunately it seems I was right. The japanese players are smarter wargamers as part of an overall selfselection process. I don't know how I feel about that. I could live with a slight wargamer intelectuall edge for the reasons you outline, but not to an extent that it does happen.

[pauk]

Amiral is right..as always... i would only add that this doesn't mean that Jap player are 'smarter wargamers'. IMHO, it means that Allied players are usually more careless with their forces because they have or they will get more troops, ships, units...than he can lost...at least that is my own experience...

As Japanese player i must care for every transport, patrol boat or gun boat (not to mention CVs[:D])... Allies not....

[aztez]

Well, it ain't all easy for allies.

I have one allied reaching the summer of 1945

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1027643&mpage=19

Basically, Dave has denied me any advance in DEI, South Pacific, China, North Pacific and even Burma it is tough going.

Well, one place I managed to get through was Central Pacific and that was Dave's only mistake. Now I'am bombing Japan to dust.

Allthough, to be honest Dave could have seized China earlier and had he chosen to do so I propably would be in world of trouble. [:(] 

It is not easy and with experienced Japanese opponent it is hard going all the way.

So, basically if you loose China as allies you are screwed.

[rtrapasso]

Most of the time if the IJ player starts losing, you don't see AARs into 1944... it's "Jan 1 1943 - game over"... or, "KB sunk in 1942, game over".

If the Allied player is losing, the game is more likely to go longer, because the Allied player has a chance to catch up in the later years.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

I think this thread wil turn in an AFB vs JFB match...

It seems to me this could be the intent of the original poster...just my thought.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: marovici

I don't know. I was talking about later war AAR's. Couple that I have been following do not look good for Allies. Trust me when I say I do look for AAR's where that is not the case.

Really, which AARs are those? I would like to read them. [:)]

[aztez]

Yes, you get tons of aircraft as allies but the problem with it is that they are hard to deploy most of the times. The range for a lot of these squadrons are too short.
 
..and as I said China is too valuable to be lost. Too much firepower to be released elsewhere for Japan.
 
I have said this many times but it is kind of diffrent to go through atolls with level 9 fortifications later on than to capture them half empty.
 
What you have troubles with allies is 1) Infantry units (You have plenty of support units) 2) Transport ships (Be careful with them).
 
The above explains a lot of the so called "deep" strikes made by Allied side later. (This has been critized quite a lot lately as being unhistorical) ie. PzB vs Andy, etc. Well, that is a lot of the times the only way to gain anything. [8|]
 
Just my 2 cents.

[tsimmonds]

Are we allied players a little slow, or if not slow then perhaps slower than our Japanese counterparts who seem just to go on overbuild, overconquer and overshout anyone else who may say something else. Why this rant? Just tired of endless stream of allied defeats. We all can not be so bad can we?

I don't think it is so much a question of Japanese players being smarter than the allied, as it is that the Japanese players have many advantages in comparison to the IJ commanders IRL.

• IJ players can learn from a plethora of RL mistakes
• IJ players can know exactly what to expect from their forces, their hardware, and most important of all, their enemies, and when to expect it,
• IJ players do not have to deal with the IJA/IJN issue

In addition, the IJ leadership IRL would probably rank in the bottom quartile of players on this board.[;)]

To contrast, the allied war effort in the Pacific IRL was characterized by a high level of professionalism and intelligence. One has to look hard to find material errors of allied command and leadership, which abound on the IJ side. It is far more difficult for allied players to improve on RL than it is for IJ players.

[niceguy2005]

OMG! LOL! This thread seems very...off...I smell something fishy going on...that's all I have to say...over and out.