Who Won

[PresterJohn001]

First up i'll lay m cards on the table, i'm a gamer, not a simulationist. That doesn't mean i don't like historical accuracy, i do, but that comes in many forms, some of which can be modelled by witp ae and some that can't. Oh and i play mainly Japanese.

Regardless, what is the bar for who "won" a game of witp ae? Can it really be measured outside of the individual game itself especially with the rules changes that have occurred so far?

As a base for any Pacific Theatre game the date 15th August 1945 should feature. In a balanced game, between 2 equal opponents this should be (on average) when Japan is defeated. Is this possible, do the outcomes of witp ae reflect this?

What about Victory Points do they really give an effective measure of victory. I think , given the democracies aversion to casualties that losses should reflect this in heavier VP losses (drastically so) for the allies. Maybe i'm wrong... but what i'm interested in is how to evalaute the outcome of a game. Who played best overall? We know the allies are going to "win" the war but were they the better player?

I'm not interest per se in balance, yeah allied 4E's are grossly overpowered etc etc, the game is asymeterical and the ruleset is not perfect but within the rules of the game it should be possible to determine who "won".

And to be sure its the game experience that i enjoy, but as a gamer the subject interests me. Is the WITP AE game balanced?

[Shark7]

I think you bring up a good point. Honestly, any Japanese player that prevents an Allied player from gaining a VP victory by 8-15-1945 could be said to have won the game. They did something to cause the allied player to take longer than was historically necessary to defeat Japan.

[Alfred]

You might care to look at this thread.

tm.asp?m=2613802

Alfred

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

As a base for any Pacific Theatre game the date 15th August 1945 should feature. In a balanced game, between 2 equal opponents this should be (on average) when Japan is defeated.

Lot of folks would do well, and be happier, if they adopted this philosophy. Of course, that was the date when the Japanese Emperor accepted reality and surrendered. They'd been defeated since the summer of 1944, and their Military didn't want to give up even in August of 1945. Plenty of room for discussion.

[Kubel]

I'm of the opinion and so is my Honoured Japanese opponent that if the allies do not secure a Point Victory by 15 Aug 45 it is a Japanese victory. Bottom line for us is he does better than historical he wins (Japanese).
That being said my early war aggression has but the Japanese in a favourable position in October 1943, with the KB largely intact.
All in all its a game and a damn fun one to play.[:D][:D]

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I think you bring up a good point. Honestly, any Japanese player that prevents an Allied player from gaining a VP victory by 8-15-1945 could be said to have won the game. They did something to cause the allied player to take longer than was historically necessary to defeat Japan.

I agree with this. Also. very close 2-1 VP victory in 15.08.1945 could be considered draw. I would consider Allied victory to have at least 2.5-3:1 in points.

[Nemo121]

Whoever played best and with the greatest skill and subtlety "wins" as the binary delineation of "winning" is meaningless.

[PresterJohn001]

Lots of excellent points especially what is defeat for Japan, but using 15th August as an end point for victory determination and the victory point ratio as the scoring mechanism seems reasonable. So now, and given the length fo the game im not expecting the data to be there, what sort of victory point totals are being seen between two matched opponents?
 
 
re Nemo,In the context of a game winning has meaning. Games should have objective methods to determine the winner. Whether you care about winning in that defined sense is up to you.
 
I don't play witp ae to gain VP's, i hope that the VP's reflect how well i'm doing!

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I think you bring up a good point. Honestly, any Japanese player that prevents an Allied player from gaining a VP victory by 8-15-1945 could be said to have won the game. They did something to cause the allied player to take longer than was historically necessary to defeat Japan.

That would equate to a boxer coming away from a fight with his skull fractured, all his teeth knocked out, one eyeball dangling out of its socket, two broken arms and a total loss on points, but still claiming victory because he can walk away unassisted.

In other words, it's nonsense.

[Nemo121]

Why should they have an objective method to determine the winner?

That's a very western concept. Western thinking about winning, time etc is very binary and linear. It is all Yes/No, c follows b which follows a. If you look at a lot of other cultures - particularly ancient ones - you find that they had a much more nuanced sense of what the object of a sport/game was, how time flowed etc. They were often less binary and linear.

E.g. The Mayans had a game very much like basketball played within a stone court in which players were to keep a ball in the air using only their feet and get it through a stone hoop in one of the walls. Whichever team scored more points got sacrificed to the gods as an example of the flower of Mayan civilisation being offered up as tribute. Most Westerners looking at that would interpret that in terms of "the winners" got sacrificed but the Mayans didn't view it that way. The purpose of the game wasn't about one team "winning" or "losing". It was, rather, about one team showing itself as sufficiently skillful to be worth of consideration for sacrifice.


So, just because in modern Western culture we've boiled most of these things down to the paralysing belief in the binaries of win/loss doesn't mean that that's the right way to look at it or that we have a right to dismiss views which don't centre on the binary win/loss view as not having value. That would be a very socio-syntonic belief obviously but just because it would be gratifying doesn't make it right.


So, while you can certainly continue to view competition in a modern Western context that doesn't mean it is the only context. I don't tend to ascribe to the Western view of competition in general within AE. While I certainly see that in some situations the binaryness of win/loss ( well, actually a trinaryness of win/loss and draw but I don't want to confuse the point too much ) matters in terms of competitive leagues for ease of assigning relative achievements to various teams it doesn't mean that we have to apply that single view to all forms of competition. Competition is possible without aiming towards win/loss. Many times competition's goal is a deeper truth or evaluation which cannot be encompassed within the simplistic binariness ( really trinariness but bear with me ) of win/loss.

Even within western cultures we recognise this in the mythos of the "valiant loser" etc.



Obviously, one can limit oneself to assigning value solely to the win/loss criteria if one wishes. We're all, thankfully, free to do so. With that said in many cultures they would have answered that whoever "won" was the person who played most skillfully as the point of the game wasn't the score but the exhibition of skill contained therein. Not all cultures accepted that winning was the same as being most skillfull and even if they did perhaps the point wasn't winning but showing one's skill. But, if you wish to view it as a binary then, of course, you should feel free to do so.

Obviously though, throughout history there were civilisations which DID focus purely on win/loss and were less interested in skill. Even with such an outwardly binary civilisation as the spartans though many of their punishments for "failure" during training weren't for failure but actually for the lack of skill said failure represented. You can argue that that's the same thing but it is clear from what survives of their training for men and women in both internal and external accounts that that wasn't how they viewed it. They separated the act from the manner in which it was committed and could punish commission even in the presence of success if the manner of commission wasn't sufficiently skillfull.

[PresterJohn001]

There are many "Western" Games that don't require a winner as such, role playing games for example which is much more about the journey. However in the context of a wargame about the Pacific Theatre there can be an objective method for detemining victory. Its all very well thinking you won because you had more skill, but the other player probably thinks the same unless victory is clear cut, and then they'll ascribe it to circumstance. I don't think its an Eastern / Western (whatever that means really) concept, its how people as individuals value what they are doing.
 
I'm just interested in where people think the victory/loss line in witp ae. If (for example)  the allies are routinely defeating the Japanese in June 1944, the a better Japanese player will survive after this time and the less able before this time. Victory conditions help balance a game for those who wish to know who won.

[yoshino]

As already said,personally If Japanese player still fight well(hold Iwo-Jima and Okinawa etc) than historical outcome at 15 Aug 1945,He would deserve as a winner.
Eventually Japan lose the war for sure.

[Amoral]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


E.g. The Mayans had a game very much like basketball played within a stone court in which players were to keep a ball in the air using only their feet and get it through a stone hoop in one of the walls. Whichever team scored more points got sacrificed to the gods as an example of the flower of Mayan civilisation being offered up as tribute. Most Westerners looking at that would interpret that in terms of "the winners" got sacrificed but the Mayans didn't view it that way. The purpose of the game wasn't about one team "winning" or "losing". It was, rather, about one team showing itself as sufficiently skillful to be worth of consideration for sacrifice.

The stories about the mayan ball game are all apocryphal. But even in your version they determined a binary yes/no winner using a scoreboard. And you can't possibly claim that the Japanese Command had anything else in mind other than total victory/total defeat.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Why should they have an objective method to determine the winner?

Excellent point! In KORSUN POCKET the designer specifically refused to include "VP's" or any other specific "victory conditions". His point was that if one player performed demonstrably better than the other, they both know who "won"..., and if both felt pleased with their own performance, it was probably a "draw" (and an excuse to play again). And each was free to play according to his own notions of what mattered, and not be hemmed in by what the designer thought.

[EUBanana]

I don't get too hung up on victory conditions. I think for a game of this length in particular it is the wrong way to look at things.

I think of it more as a series of linked campaigns which all fit into one huge mega-campaign - and each individual aspect of it is of interest in its own right. I don't think winning or losing is necessarily part of the issue.

The game as a whole is too big almost to really be worth attributing victory conditions to overall IMHO.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I think you bring up a good point. Honestly, any Japanese player that prevents an Allied player from gaining a VP victory by 8-15-1945 could be said to have won the game. They did something to cause the allied player to take longer than was historically necessary to defeat Japan.

That would equate to a boxer coming away from a fight with his skull fractured, all his teeth knocked out, one eyeball dangling out of its socket, two broken arms and a total loss on points, but still claiming victory because he can walk away unassisted.

In other words, it's nonsense.

Yeah, but he still got the purse. It's not about a knockout, its about going the distance. You make it through all 12 rounds still standing, it is still a draw, period.

It is a foredrawn conclusion that who-ever plays as Japan will lose the war. However, this is a game, not a war. And in this game, if you can outmanuevre your opponant to the point that he takes more losses than historical, or takes more time than historical it is a victory. Us JFBs are not playing to beat our opponant, with the vast superiority in production the Allies get, that is all but impossible...we play to see if we do better than historical. If the war isn't over by 8-15-1945, then yes, we have won our game.

And it most certianly is not nonsense. In fact, you should be thankful anyone is willing to play the Japanese side, given what is almost certain to happen every time.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn
Regardless, what is the bar for who "won" a game of witp ae?

In most "games" or "conflict simulations" - there may be multiple ways to determine "who won". There might be a formal way like a score - but there might be less formal ways - like "who really dominated who?".

I've played numerous games, like tennis or chess, for instance, where one player or the other might have "won"' according to the score - but both players might agree the other player played a better game overall.

My general feeling about the larger war games - is that if you play the game through - pretty far at least - then it will be obvious if one player is out playing the other - regardless of the score. For me at least, it is this mutual agreement between players about who played the better game that matters most.

And if neither player clearly out played the other - then it was a draw. Most games between more or less equal players will probably be draws. Playing the larger war games as "competition games" probably doesn't work - if I want to play a competition match - I'll definitely try something on the smaller side.

[Nemo121]

Amoral,

Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't. All archaelogy is hypothesis-driven. As to the score board determining win/loss... No, objectively speaking the score board only determined who had scored more points. We as members of generally uniformly cultured societies are culturally taught that scoring more points = "win" which is what matters. But in different cultures with different value systems where "winning" may not have been what they viewed as most important that score board could be taken to mean different things, e.g.
a) This one is favoured by the Gods, he should be our leader. In other words, he didn't win, the Gods gave supported him to score more points as a sign of their favour in a leadership contest.
b) In trial by combat/sport which was common up until 500 or 600 years ago scoring more points/killing the opponent only meant that God supported your contention and thus whatever allegation you made was right or whatever allegation was made against you was wrong. You didn't "win", God supported you and smote your opponent down for his lies.

So, really, the idea that extra points on a board signifies a win is correct in our current culture but that doesn't mean that that's where the significance stops ( or even starts ) all the time.

You can certainly choose to differ, which is entirely your right, but to deny this different viewpoint the right of existence is, IMO, rather high-handed.


As to what the Japanese High Command had in mind... They didn't have in mind "winning" or "losing". The real world is far too complex for such simplistic notions to have much traction on the geopolitical level. The had in mind the gaining of resources and the strengthening of their nation and their own power blocs within that nation. Later on when things started going badly they focussed on saving what they could reducing their view of what was "unacceptable" as their position worsened. However, to be fair, at the end of the war while it is fair to say Japan "lost" in terms of having to surrender it is also fair to say that their resistance, particularly in the last year to 18 months of the war, was sufficiently strong as to convince MacArthur to treat the Japanese Emperor with such respect that the "unconditionality" of the surrender was null and void. He treated the Emperor with a measure of respect that Japanese would have asked for in a conditional surrender.

So, did the Japanese lose? To an extent, a great extent they did BUT whilst not overtly achieving their imperative objective of securing a conditional surrender which would guarantee the Emperor's position they did, through their struggle, achieve a situation in which they de facto albeit indirectly guaranteed the Emperor's position and authority - even if only as a glue to bind the country together and prevent too many factions from committing guerilla acts against the Americans. The amount of care MacArthur took in attempting to ensure the Emperor's dignity is pretty astounding. Sometimes he F'ed up and tried to ensure his dignity in Western terms which proved highly insulting in Japanese terms but he tried... I would direct you to the actions re: Chrysanthemums on weapons, prohibitions against non-factory produced military swords being returned home etc if you doubt this.

So, yes America "won" and Japan "lost" but that's a very simplistic, binary view and the world can rarely be appropriately described by such a simplistic binary representation.


A numerical score can't encompass the psychological aspects of the game, or who dominated whom as jwilkerson says. It also can't show who showed much greater skill in threading the needle with rapier-like ripostes against superior forces or who managed to acheive things which others thought impossible given the odds against them. If this person scores less numerically by a certain date they may well, by some standards, have lost... but by others they may have more than achieved their goals, shown their worth, proved their favour etc etc. Just cause in Western society we're used to getting a score, comparing and declaring win/loss based on that score doesn't mean that's always so. E.g. How will anyone determine who has "won" in Iraq or Afghanistan? America has killed innumerably more of its enemy than it has lost its own troops and civilians but is that a measure of winning? Is the body count? Does a further terrorist attack mean America has lost? How many points should we ascribe to an attack? How many to a foiled attack? So, numerical scores are often poor adjudicators of win/loss particularly as it is difficult to apply numerical scores to real-world events.

Hell, even in this game a single-engined fighter is worth the same VP as a B-17. This means that sending B-17s into IJN fighter hordes where they will shoot down 4 or 5 IJN fighters before being shot down themselves is a valid way for the Allied player to gain a VP lead or reduce a Japanese player VP lead. Is that realistic? Is that even reasonable given the relative industrial investments in building a B-17 vs a Ki-27? No, so numbers don't describe reality and win/loss conditions based on these numbers are equally flawed. That's even if we ignore the flaws in the whole concept of winning being ascribed on the basis of "scores".


While August 15th 1945 is a useful time point I would suggest that, in reality, since this game can't reproduce history - model it relatively accurately, yes, reproduce it, no - that using such a date is fraught with difficulty. In reality, as in all things, your only competition is really yourself. You are competing with how well you can play if you played every turn at your best. If you come close to that then that was a game worth having.

[Sredni]

For me winning or losing witp is all about doing better or worse then historical

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Sredni

For me winning or losing witp is all about doing better or worse then historical

The problem with this view is that the game deviates from history on day 1. Also with the degree of abstraction involved, no player comes close to being put under the same conditions which affected the historical commanders.

Alfred