Are Japanese players smarter????

[Cathartes]

Are Japanese players smarter????

As a Japanese player in a current PBEM, I can say honestly, NO.

[ny59giants]

Many of the games that have gone to completion or near it are with stock. There are many games in the AAR section that are CHS and other mods that have basically gotten to near the end of 1942. Thus, they cannot be added to the mix. The mods have a different flavor. [:D][&o][:D]

It also looks like RHS may be getting close to completion (less than one update per week[:D]) and may create a more difficult challenge for the Japanese player.

There are only a handful of player that have more than one complete game under their belt. This game is like chess, you need to play better players to improve your game. [:-]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658
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[;)]

Not to mention humble and modest. But three cheers for your attitude and perseverance..., hope you make it.

[RUPD3658]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658
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[;)]

Not to mention humble and modest. But three cheers for your attitude and perseverance..., hope you make it.

And better looking too.[;)]

[Woos]

Well, one shouldn't feed the trolls, but with this topic-line I can't resist:

Of course they are!

Want proof?

All tools which support playing WitP (I'm not talking about editors) were/are written by Japanese players (in both senses of the word; does anyone know which side Bodhi actually played?). So obviously they are smarter. ;-P

BTW, happy 4th of July to the majority here! But actually you are two days late.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658
And better looking too.[;)]

Hey..., none of that! Just because my Mother told me the more of my face I hid beneath a beard the better looking I would be doesn't mean you get to get into the act! Happy 4th....

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: 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.

There may be some of that, but I don't think it explains it.

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: 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.

No my intention is not to start AFB vs JFB match. Actually I think there is not so much of that around here. And usually in my opinion that argument usually benefits status quo which I think preserves the tilt that the game already has. I posted because I felt fed up by what I saw as one sided pounding of allies as "the inevitable allied come back" never happens as Japanese are outproducing allies. My impression so far is that majority of people here do not share my opinion, but I did get some AARs to check and people listed some reasons they think may give this impression. I still continue to think I am right about the tilt, but hey that's me.

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: 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. [:)]

I shared my over all late war AAR impression and will not comment on individual player's abilities. If you disagree or think there are none that show this then there is nothing for me to add.

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Have seen that over and over again although people pretend it is possible. China, India, PH, Australia and why not WC and Canada it is all open. I am just tired of hearing it gets better for allies when I so rarely see it. As someone already pointed out you better do so much better than allies did in RL to be even close in game terms.

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

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.

I agree. in addition the game is tilted towards Japanese even more so as Admiral outlined in part of his email (he outlined allied advantage as well, but i think Japanese side has better end of it) with an end result of fewer late war AARs where allies are doing good.

[Halsey]

99% of the players don't do AAR's.[;)]

Just two questions
Have you actually played this game against a human?
Or, are you basing your assumption only from AAR's.

Just curious.[;)]

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Many of the games that have gone to completion or near it are with stock. There are many games in the AAR section that are CHS and other mods that have basically gotten to near the end of 1942. Thus, they cannot be added to the mix. The mods have a different flavor. [:D][&o][:D]

It also looks like RHS may be getting close to completion (less than one update per week[:D]) and may create a more difficult challenge for the Japanese player.

There are only a handful of player that have more than one complete game under their belt. This game is like chess, you need to play better players to improve your game. [:-]

I guess it will take time for those games to come through, but from my very limited MOD knowledge it seems that majority of them do not and can not address the underlying game logic that drives the game. I am not sure if Japanese can still outproduce allies or if allies get what they historically have gotten but lets hope MODs correct at least some of that.

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: Woos

Well, one shouldn't feed the trolls, but with this topic-line I can't resist:

Of course they are!

Want proof?

All tools which support playing WitP (I'm not talking about editors) were/are written by Japanese players (in both senses of the word; does anyone know which side Bodhi actually played?). So obviously they are smarter. ;-P

BTW, happy 4th of July to the majority here! But actually you are two days late.

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.

It seems a lot of people appreciate the work you have done on your tool and I applaud your effort, but your social skills might need some work. I obviously do not think my post fits in this category. Nevertheless you may be onto something here. A lot of this game is managing and organizing your resources which I would imagine people with programming skills may have more finely tuned, but can not explain all of the difference.

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

99% of the players don't do AAR's.[;)]

Just two questions
Have you actually played this game against a human?
Or, are you basing your assumption only from AAR's.

Just curious.[;)]

Combination of the two, but mainly AARs as that is the only way to see more late war games.

[RUPD3658]

If there is any slant to the game I would say that it slightly favors the Allies simply because of the fact that just like IRL the numerical advantage can over come a lot. Player quality being equal I think the Allies will eventually win.

The Japanese player has to be good (and aggressive) to have any chance of getting a 1946 draw let alone a win. As proof of this argument I would guess that every JFB's first game against the AI (mine included) ended in a stalemate or a restart. It is very easy to screw up Japan, espcially the economics (there have been several threads on this).

This is not to say that a good Allied player will always lose to a good Japanese player since there are many random factors along the way but Japan can be toast with a singlescrew up (KB lost, economy screwed up, ect). The Allies can make a few mistake and still recover. My opponant has yet to make a major mistake[;)]

If the Allies can prevent an auto-victory at the end of 42 they have a good chance at winning. I think a lot of the Allied p[layers that complain about inmalances or quit during this time simply have not accepted the fact that they will have to wait until mid 43 to go on the offensive and have a chance of success. If they do so before this they a taking a huge risk that could have horrible consequnces. My opponant shocked me by doing this (Carrier battle in May 42 and invasion of PM in December 42) but his gambles paid off and changed the tide of the war.

[marovici]

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

If there is any slant to the game I would say that it slightly favors the Allies simply because of the fact that just like IRL the numerical advantage can over come a lot. Player quality being equal I think the Allies will eventually win.

The Japanese player has to be good (and aggressive) to have any chance of getting a 1946 draw let alone a win. As proof of this argument I would guess that every JFB's first game against the AI (mine included) ended in a stalemate or a restart. It is very easy to screw up Japan, espcially the economics (there have been several threads on this).

This is not to say that a good Allied player will always lose to a good Japanese player since there are many random factors along the way but Japan can be toast with a singlescrew up (KB lost, economy screwed up, ect). The Allies can make a few mistake and still recover. My opponant has yet to make a major mistake[;)]

If the Allies can prevent an auto-victory at the end of 42 they have a good chance at winning. I think a lot of the Allied p[layers that complain about inmalances or quit during this time simply have not accepted the fact that they will have to wait until mid 43 to go on the offensive and have a chance of success. If they do so before this they a taking a huge risk that could have horrible consequnces. My opponant shocked me by doing this (Carrier battle in May 42 and invasion of PM in December 42) but his gambles paid off and changed the tide of the war.

As another poster pointed out in game terms points determine who wins when. I think that for the same player quality allied player should always win the war. I don't know how that works in terms of game points. Because if Japanese player is doing better than historical he is winning in my opinion.

My impression is that it is a lot easier for Japanese to be better than historical than it is for allies. Someone already addressed the Japanese 20/20 vision that benefits them a lot more than allies (debatablle, but let say it is true for now) they nevertheless receive a lot more material advantage that has nothing to do with points or knowledge of history. This is without going into what has already been addressed about merchant capacity, nuke bombardment, ground aces and so on (missing warships, etc). My impression that ever coming "Allied return" never happens and AARs show it.

[Caliban]

Having never played the Allied side I would have to state that the Japanese are indumbdidly more intelligent.

CALIBAN [;)]

[RUPD3658]

ORIGINAL: marovici

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

If there is any slant to the game I would say that it slightly favors the Allies simply because of the fact that just like IRL the numerical advantage can over come a lot. Player quality being equal I think the Allies will eventually win.

The Japanese player has to be good (and aggressive) to have any chance of getting a 1946 draw let alone a win. As proof of this argument I would guess that every JFB's first game against the AI (mine included) ended in a stalemate or a restart. It is very easy to screw up Japan, espcially the economics (there have been several threads on this).

This is not to say that a good Allied player will always lose to a good Japanese player since there are many random factors along the way but Japan can be toast with a singlescrew up (KB lost, economy screwed up, ect). The Allies can make a few mistake and still recover. My opponant has yet to make a major mistake[;)]

If the Allies can prevent an auto-victory at the end of 42 they have a good chance at winning. I think a lot of the Allied p[layers that complain about inmalances or quit during this time simply have not accepted the fact that they will have to wait until mid 43 to go on the offensive and have a chance of success. If they do so before this they a taking a huge risk that could have horrible consequnces. My opponant shocked me by doing this (Carrier battle in May 42 and invasion of PM in December 42) but his gambles paid off and changed the tide of the war.

As another poster pointed out in game terms points determine who wins when. I think that for the same player quality allied player should always win the war. I don't know how that works in terms of game points. Because if Japanese player is doing better than historical he is winning in my opinion.

My impression is that it is a lot easier for Japanese to be better than historical than it is for allies. Someone already addressed the Japanese 20/20 vision that benefits them a lot more than allies (debatablle, but let say it is true for now) they nevertheless receive a lot more material advantage that has nothing to do with points or knowledge of history. This is without going into what has already been addressed about merchant capacity, nuke bombardment, ground aces and so on (missing warships, etc). My impression that ever coming "Allied return" never happens and AARs show it.

Even if we look at points VS reality I don't think this should always be the case. Let's assume that IRL the Allies won an auto victory on 08-15-1945 with a 2:1 VP margin. Had there not been a "Miracle at Midway" and the KB not been destroyed, it is reasonable to assume that the war would have been extended at least until 01-01-1946. In game terms this would have been a draw.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658
If the Allies can prevent an auto-victory at the end of 42 they have a good chance at winning.

That kind of sums up the whole problem right there. There was never any realistic chance of Japan conquering even one of Australia, China, India or beating the Soviets, yet the Allied player's biggest concern is preventing the Japanese from doing two or more of those.

The game's Victory Conditions are basically those of Japan in real life. Give the Americans/Allies a bloody nose and they'll cave. Some time back Mogami proposed a game with victory conditions that were closer to the Allied ones. A few simple house rules requiring the Japanese player to use his AKs and TKs and victory was based on how many, if any, he had left at various dates, representing the Allies goal of destroying Japan's ability to continue waging a war.