Who has won PBEM as the Japs. ? (GC)

[vicberg]

I believe the point of auto-victory is to force the allies to fight. Otherwise they can (and do) sir robin until odds are much better in their favor and then come out and fight. Mike, if this is a historical simulation, why aren't allies in ANY pbem fighting in early 42 (coral sea, midway, guadacanal) at inferior odds?

That's what happened IRL and why? Because the allies didn't know the outcome of Europe and couldn't afford to sir robin. They were were compelled to fight right from the onset and did. This historical aspect of the real war ISN'T simulated in this game and as a result this game is anything but a historical simulation. It is also, IMO, why the japanese ASW, flak and plane production is not historical either. It's an attempt by the devs to keep the game balanced into 43-44.

I don't like auto-victory either. It's highly doubtful that the allies would have sued for peace under any circumstances. I would suggest that auto-victory be dumped (along with japanese uber plane, ASW and flak), but political points "levels" used to determine max allied moral (reflecting will to fight, etc.)...once again, as auto-victory is a game mechanism to prevent allied players from sir robin, allied moral would be a game mechanism, but at least it doesn't end the game prematurely. Allowing unchecked japanese expansion would make counter attacks that much harder in 43/44, but the choice is still in the allies hands.

[Canoerebel]

Auto-victory is fine.  It gives something for the Japanese player to shoot for an can add a tremendous element of excitement to the game.

As for Sir Robin, it is more a feature of inherent problems with the premise of the game.  There's essentially no way to eliminate the immense Japanese foreknowledge of Allied troop and ship disposition, poor aircraft quality, Allied capabilities, and when all these things change.  Likewise, the experienced Allied player knows the same things and also the highly increased abilities of Japan to advance and conquer.

There usually aren't any Coral Seas because both players mass their carriers into monolithic forces, and the Allied player knows that his monolith is seriously weaker than the Japanese monolith until sometime in '43 (or perhaps even '44 given the pilot training routine and IJ aircraft production).

I don't see any way to change these factors without having some intricate, elegant way of shuffling things so that players don't know exactly what they're dealing with as of December 7, 1941 - not only knowing as of that date, but also knowning what will arrive when and where four years into the future.

There's no way that kind of routine will be added to the game.

As is, the game is balanced and competitive.  Even with the many warts we are finding it's a tremendous thrill to engage an opponent in a challenge that will last years (at least if you play a Grand Campaign version).  But balance and competition does not reflect history. AE is only a fuzzy simulation of the Pacific campaign of World War II

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

I believe the point of auto-victory is to force the allies to fight. Otherwise they can (and do) sir robin until odds are much better in their favor and then come out and fight. Mike, if this is a historical simulation, why aren't allies in ANY pbem fighting in early 42 (coral sea, midway, guadacanal) at inferior odds?

If I had to speculate, I would say that each of these Allied counter-moves was based on accurate "intel" which the player doesn't get in the game. Plus the rarity of Allied "wins" in CV vs CV battles in the game in 1942, as opposed to history. Knowing this, Allied players tend to be more cautious than Nimitz. There are plenty of PBEMS where the Allies are fighting successfully in the areas where the game allows them to in 1942.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: vicberg
That's what happened IRL and why? Because the allies didn't know the outcome of Europe and couldn't afford to sir robin. They were were compelled to fight right from the onset and did. This historical aspect of the real war ISN'T simulated in this game and as a result this game is anything but a historical simulation. It is also, IMO, why the japanese ASW, flak and plane production is not historical either.

Japanese flak might be only non-historical that it is near useless, as of the latest patch. Ship-based flak can do some damage in edge cases, but land-based AA is toothless, unless you concentrate a pile of units in a single hex.
People like to talk about uber Japanese airplane production, but, IIRC, even in Canoerebel's game Japanese lost less planes by the end that they produced in RL (as about the scarcity of ops losses outside of contact with the enemy, allowing that, Allies have the same benefit - and the number of planes they can concentrate on frontlines is, consequently, ridiculous by RL standards, at least for 1942). Talk to me about uber air production, when a Japanese player successfully manages to make at least 100k planes during a PBEM. Quality of produced planes can be significantly better, with PDU ON, but, well, if the player must manage production, there should be some rewards for doing it well.
The same goes for ASW. Japanese ASW is not any more powerful that in RL. The players concentrate on its improvement from Day 1, unlike RL. Also, it benefits from the simplified logistics model in the game, which actually allows you to (mostly) ship everything in large convoys. But as the same model allows for the faster operational tempo, which mostly plays in the hands of Allies (as they are on the offensive for 3/4ths of the game, AFBs really should not complain about this.

[Keldun]

I just got the game so I havent finished any yet scenario yet but reading this topic I m wondering why not simply put an option to disable the vp automatic wins or not? Everyone would be happy this way it seems.
I like my games to last and at the moment I am playing against the cpu, I would certainly hate it to win early because I had too many vp.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Keldun

I just got the game so I havent finished any yet scenario yet but reading this topic I m wondering why not simply put an option to disable the vp automatic wins or not? Everyone would be happy this way it seems.
I like my games to last and at the moment I am playing against the cpu, I would certainly hate it to win early because I had too many vp.

When you 'win', you are given the option of continuing the game. At least vs the AI. Not sure about PBEM.

[Keldun]

Oh I see, thank you.
So putting that option would certainly be useless .

Edit: What about loss? Can we continue after it shows up ?
For example if I m playing with the japanese side and in 45 the allied cpu has twice my score, it seems that it would trigger a win for the cpu, would I be able to continue to play my defeat [:D] .

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Keldun

Oh I see, thank you.
So putting that option would certainly be useless .

Edit: What about loss? Can we continue after it shows up ?
For example if I m playing with the japanese side and in 45 the allied cpu has twice my score, it seems that it would trigger a win for the cpu, would I be able to continue to play my defeat [:D] .

I've never lost to the AI, but I assume you could continue a loss as well as a win.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Auto-victory probably isn't a real stretch in Scenario Two, which arms the experienced Japanese player with enough extra goodies at the beginning of the game to really make things hard on the Allies. A conquest or near conquest of India or Australia (or possibly Hawaii, though I'm not certain about that yet) might be enough. I think "might" becomes "probable" or even "near certainty" if the Allied carriers and combat ships suffer lopsided defeats early in the war.

I do not think auto-victory is a possibility against an experienced Allied player in Scenario One.

I am with CR here. Only vs a lesser Allied player in scen #1 but a crack Japanese player should be able to do an autovictory in #2. Scen #2 is pretty much a fantasy fest. This is with PDU on and Japanese control of production.

[Erkki]

Is it possible to keep playing, in a PBEM, after Allied auto victory in 1/44 or 1/45?

[CV 2]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: FatR

My big problem with the current point victory point win model is that it, at least if the scenario gives Japan a chance in hell at all (Scen 1 doesn't), encourages reckless landgrabs early in the game, in the hope of ending it on 1/1/1943.

My biggest problem with the current victory point model is that it exists! VP's are a crock..., and they lead to players devising strategies based to "game the system" rather than play the game. Not to mention the all too frequent "Well I didn't win an auto-victory on points at 1/1/43..., so since I can't win I quit" nonsense.

Your basic problem Mike is you translate "winning the game" as "winning the war". There isnt a person on this board that would say Japan had a chance to win the war.

War In The Pacific: Admirals Edition is a GAME. Would you play Monopoly if the Racecar was always given 4 rolls to every one elses 1 and $5000 every time they rolled doubles? Monopoly is a GAME in which any player has an equal chance to win the GAME. In chess, if the White always started with 1 pawn and a king, would it be a good game? Again, chess allows both players an equal chance of winning.

AE (scenario 1) cant be won against anything resembling a decent allied player. AE is a GAME. In a GAME either side should have an equal chance for victory given equal opponents. You do that by "victory conditions". And if the GAME cant be won by 1 side, then you adjust those conditions until they can be.

IMHO, the way the GAME SHOULD have been designed is starting at the end. What did the allies do and what did Japan do in the real war. If you are going to base the GAME on what was killed and what is controlled such as it is, then you FIRST tally the kills and figure out the points for each side based on that. Then, you adjust the points for control of the bases so that on Aug 15, 1945 the allies and Japan have exactly the same number of points.

Once you have done these "simple" 2 steps, now you can determine a winner based on the players play of the GAME. So the Allied player or the Japanese player WINS THE GAME based on how much better they did vs their real life counter-part not who "wins the war". The objective for the player should be to do better than his side did in the real war. But they didnt take the time to do these 2 steps. The eventual outcome of the war itself is a forgone conclusion. Why play if your only "goal" in the GAME is to see if you can beat Japan? I'll give you a hint, the allies win. Every time.

ed:
That being said I agree the conditions for auto-victory are bogus. The way they are they actually encourage the Japanese player to go balls out for auto-victory in 1943 because thats the only real chance they have to win the GAME as it stands. And in undergoing this strategy, the Japanese player will have nothing in reserve if he fails. If you see your opponent pursuing this strategy you can pretty well expect him to quit 1 way or the other in Jan 43 (or when his carriers get sunk). Its what he is playing for from the outset. Not saying this is the way Japan should be played. What I am saying is recognize the strategy and decide then if thats the kind of game you want to play, and the strategy will become evident early on in the game if this is the case.

IMHO the victory conditions should be modified (this isnt even a code change, this is a simple mod) and there should be a switch on the game start-up for turning on or off the auto-victory conditions. Both of these things are very simple "fixes" to the game. The first part would require a lot of research for a person that has the time to do it. The 2nd is a very simple code change. Changing the art for the new option would be harder than the changes to the code itself. Truth be told, you could probably just replace the "allied damage control" option with it as I seriously doubt that anyone turns this option "off" anyways.

Alternatively, the points awarded for "kills" could be changed, but this would require a code change and isnt too likely to happen.

[crsutton]

I am in early 44 of a scen 2 game. It has been challenging and difficult as the Allied player. It is a total fantasy fest but what the heck...It has been fun. Being a historical simulation sort of guy, I doubt I would play scen #2 again. It just becomes so odd and I have to constantly adjust my expectations to reflect the actual game.

That said, I never look at the VP score. Don't care what it is-does not matter. I will play as long as it is fun and my opponent thinks so as well. Probably would not consider a game vs an opponent who would play for AV. No big deal, just a matter of choice. I want to see a game go deep. AV is there for a player who wants to win a game. For me that is not really what matters when you commit to play something that might last three years or more.

[kaleun]

I'll add another Japanese autovictory in Jan 45 by Warspite.
We are now playing a new game and this time he can show me how he beats the evil Japanese.

[Canoerebel]

In my PBEM Scenario Two, PDU On, game vs. Miller, the Allies took a lead in early 1945 and held it when Miller finally ran out of assets to fight with in summer 1945. Sounds kinda like an Allied victory, right? Well, those forumites who followed the AAR made it clear that the game was no worse than a draw for Japan. Miller fought well (or the Allied commander didn't, or a bit of both) and the forum knew it. Some felt like he fought better.

P.S. Neverlethelss, I was quite impressed with The Great Allied Leap from Southern Borneo all the way across the South China Sea to China. That was FUN!

[khyberbill]

I won a PBEM game as Japan with WITP. I had to take Australia to do it (took about 8000AV to do that). The power of the Betty/Nelly was awesome, sunk at least 5 or 6 CV's as well as numerous CVE's. Now I am retired as a JFB with a perfect 1-0 record.

[Chickenboy]

I won a PBEM game as the Japanese when my first PBEM player disappeared after a major naval battle went awry for him. I imagined the the entire Allied high command committed sepuku or some Allied version thereof and quit the war. I broke his will to fight plain and simple. Hey, it's every bit as good a rubric as the AV system. I'm giving myself credit for that. [8D]

Auto-victory based exclusively on points? Nope. Not even close. It's OK though-my April 1943 scenario #1 game is slow paced-an almost 'historical' flavor. I enjoy the back and forth / give and take in every turn. I'm in no hurry to 'auto-vic or die'.

[AirGriff]

I've always felt that one of the unavoidable problems to this being a really accurate simulation of the war is the hindsight both sides have in the game. That said, I've found the most thrilling WitP and AE games are the one's when you have two smart, wargame experienced players playing the game for the first time. That's the best way to "simulate" the real world players who were alternately overly optimistic and overly apprehensive about the other side's capabilities. Once you've toyed around with the game and are pretty educated on each side's capabilities it turns into more of a chess match. Still great fun, though. Nothing like seeing the KB steam in from the mist off some key base you weren't expecting. That kind of threat and fret never goes away--at least until there isn't a KB.

[Zigurat666]

I find it humorous when people who play allied look at autovictory as not being a legitimate part of the game.I guess they are the bullies of the gaming world and cannot accept an outcome to that conclusion you must have played extremely poor as there are more than enough allied assets in the game to prevent this from occurring.I would have to assume that if all the places in the world that were occupied and all the assets that were lost that are required for obtaining an autovictory I would bet that the allies would indeed have sued for peace. That being said,as a Japanese player you could say that there is "always" a chance albeit miniscule that you could win a normal victory but the chance is very small.Also if the game were hypothetically 100% bugless it would be a lot closer in a great many games.
For the record I have never obtained an auto-victory.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Auto-victory based exclusively on points? Nope. Not even close. It's OK though-my April 1943 scenario #1 game is slow paced-an almost 'historical' flavor. I enjoy the back and forth / give and take in every turn. I'm in no hurry to 'auto-vic or die'.

I always thought going autovictory is a very risky strategy for the japanese player. Theres about 100 ways to screw
up and only a fraction leading to the goal.
In PBEM its easy to discern from a more conventional play and additionally requires streching your ressources and neglecting your
defensive preparations. If the opponent stays calm and times his countermoves to the attacks critical for autovic theres a decent
chance of an early japanese collapse.

Going for autovictory and assuring long time survival is a contradiction IMHO.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


Going for autovictory and assuring long time survival is a contradiction IMHO.

+1

I also think it generally means a short game either way. IJ player is likely going to either autovic or resign Jan 1, 1943. Allied player should consider this ....