Best in class

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Maybe they weren't suffering from a lack of fuel overall, just in that immediate area ...

It could all of been part of the IJN's underestimation of US resolve on the 'Canal that caught them unawares and (temporarilly) undersupplied.

[tocaff]

The US resolve did catch the Japanese totally unprepared for what transpired.  The Japanese were unprepared and slow to recognize the importance of the area.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

The US resolve did catch the Japanese totally unprepared for what transpired.  The Japanese were unprepared and slow to recognize the importance of the area.

Why is it that never happens in a game of UV?

[tocaff]

20/20 hindsight and an OOB that represents what was available to the IJN at the time and not specifically what was sent to the area or pulled out of it.

What the hell, it's a game and not a historical recreation.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

20/20 hindsight and an OOB that represents what was available to the IJN at the time and not specifically what was sent to the area or pulled out of it.

What the hell, it's a game and not a historical recreation.

Yes, but it isn't just any game, it's a game of historical recreation........

[Kingfisher]

Apart from limiting the Japanese OOB how else could the game be made to accurately depict the Japanese strategic blunders?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher

Apart from limiting the Japanese OOB how else could the game be made to accurately depict the Japanese strategic blunders?

Have the IJ player just repeat them? Good luck finding someone willing to do that!

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

20/20 hindsight and an OOB that represents what was available to the IJN at the time and not specifically what was sent to the area or pulled out of it.

What the hell, it's a game and not a historical recreation.

I agree that historical hindsight affects the play of a game of UV, but technically UV IS a historical recreation, not a simulation, i.e., it's not the strictly structured battles of CaW.

When I think of UV, I'm reminded of the old Koei motto: We supply the past; you make history.

Or, grammar aside, is there such a thing as re-making history?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher

Apart from limiting the Japanese OOB how else could the game be made to accurately depict the Japanese strategic blunders?

There are a multitude of simple mechanisms used in wargames for decades that can hold a side in check to prevent ahistorical exploitation.

Garrison limits and garrison restrictions are two very simple ones that would work in this particular case.

The problem being, of course, that players who want to be free to conquer Mars with the entire Imperial Japanese Navy would scream bloody murder that their "freedom" is being limited too much by forcing them into dealing with a more historical situation......

[tocaff]

Do you really think that the game would be marketable if the Japanese player could never have a shot at victory?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Do you really think that the game would be marketable if the Japanese player could never have a shot at victory?

Depends on how one defines Japanese victory.

The majority of UV Jaapanese players seem to define it as conquering the entire south Pacific.

Personally, I define it as surviving the 1943 Allied onslaught.

So, does that mean that American Civil War games are only marketable if the Confederates can win the war?

Does that mean that ........never mind....I hope you get the point.

[tocaff]

My point is ...well forget it as we're hijacking this thread.

[Ike99]

Do you really think that the game would be marketable if the Japanese player could never have a shot at victory?

Depends on how one defines Japanese victory.

The majority of UV Jaapanese players seem to define it as conquering the entire south Pacific.

Personally, I define it as surviving the 1943 Allied onslaught.

I have to agree with Hansbolter.

The definition of victory for the Japanese should be being able to survive the 43´ onslaught.

I don´t think anyone, including the actual Japanese leadership of the time believed the Japanese could win by conquer the USA or even all of the Pacific.

The best they could hope for was to survive long enough in good order and win favorable terms in a conditional surrender.

If this is marketable as you ask Tocaff, I don´t know. For me it is. If the game is going to be ¨realistic¨ in its victory conditions it has to be this way though.

Hopefully CF has removed the auto victory.

[Kingfisher]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Depends on how one defines Japanese victory.

The majority of UV Jaapanese players seem to define it as conquering the entire south Pacific.

Personally, I define it as surviving the 1943 Allied onslaught.

That's a tough tightrope to walk, IMO. While I understand there can be extreme cases of Japanese invasion fleets heading towards Brisbane in May '42, at what point does the Japanese player draw the line to try and keep the game within historical guidelines?

For instance, PM and GG certainly factored into the Japanese expansion plans early on, so going for both places seems reasonable. However, if successful, what then? Should the IJN hunker down, or push for Luganville as well?

I guess my question is, where is the line between a Japanese player trying to conquer the entire SPAC or one just establishing a forward defensive line in anticipation of the allied steamroller?

[tocaff]

If the Japanese had held Guadalcanal and Tulagi would they have gone into the NHs to disrupt the supply line to Oz?  Good what if question.

If the Japanese had taken PM I seriously doubt that they would've gone into Oz as the manpower really just wasn't available and the supply lines became just to long.

[borner]

   GIVE ME BACK MY THREAD!!!!!!!!   

Victory? 3 ways depending on your point of view as Japan as I see it ... Auto-victory, victory by points, doing better than the historical results...

[bigbaba]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Do you really think that the game would be marketable if the Japanese player could never have a shot at victory?

Depends on how one defines Japanese victory.

The majority of UV Jaapanese players seem to define it as conquering the entire south Pacific.

Personally, I define it as surviving the 1943 Allied onslaught.

I have to agree with Hansbolter.

The definition of victory for the Japanese should be being able to survive the 43´ onslaught.

I don´t think anyone, including the actual Japanese leadership of the time believed the Japanese could win by conquer the USA or even all of the Pacific.

The best they could hope for was to survive long enough in good order and win favorable terms in a conditional surrender.

If this is marketable as you ask Tocaff, I don´t know. For me it is. If the game is going to be ¨realistic¨ in its victory conditions it has to be this way though.

Hopefully CF has removed the auto victory.

totaly agree.

auto victory is simply totaly unrealistic. and in my games as the japanese, i try to win by points.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

If the Japanese had held Guadalcanal and Tulagi would they have gone into the NHs to disrupt the supply line to Oz?  Good what if question.

If the Japanese had taken PM I seriously doubt that they would've gone into Oz as the manpower really just wasn't available and the supply lines became just to long.

If there had been a better level of understanding on the part of the army for the need to cut off Australia from America, not for the purpose of invading Australia, but for the purpose of preventing it from being turned inot the England of the Pacific, then the Japanese might have pushed beyond the Solomons into the New Hebrides.

However, the important point isn't whether, or not the Japanese might have expanded further. The important point is whether, or not, losing the New Hebrides would have cost the Allies the South Pacific Campaign. Taking the New Hebrides would simply mean the Americans would fall back to Somoa and continued the fight. Since the game can't depict that scope it takes the totally lame path of awarding the Japanese a victory in the South Pacific Campaign for something that would NOT have brought them victory.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

... Since the game can't depict that scope it takes the totally lame path of awarding the Japanese a victory in the South Pacific Campaign for something that would NOT have brought them victory.

Has anyone ever won an autovictory in UV against either a fellow player or the Allied AI?

[jeffs]

Yes.. I did once....I got lucky and nailed about 300 planes including all the starting medium bombers and most of the B-17s as well at PM...I did Australia and barely one it.
 
Also one opponent of mine would do an all out blitz on NM (I was allies)...We played a few times....He won
maybe 30% of the time with that strategy.....There is a very brief window when the IJN has all of its main stuff and the allies do not have all their cvs, bbs etc....He would throw everything in......And it did work every now and then.