Scenario 17, 19, 200% fallacy

[wga8888]

Lonely in this forum but I think I would like the game if I ever get to play it.

Most of my starts where in the same timeframe with opponents preferring scenario 17, 19 and/or 200 ship commits on the basis of having more to play with. At the time I did not know better. What I have learned is the result is a game using the UCV system but does not resemble War in the South Pacific. In the most advaced game got into late July 1942, I faced 10 IJN CVs roaming around in various TF acting together, destroying all TF, bases, ports in it path and immune to attack in the late July 1942 timeframe. One unintentionaly attempt in defending Noumea with the five available USN CVs with the available weak LBA support had predictable all US CVs sunk and the IJN CVs suffering no damage. [be careful of the react to enemy setting]. Destruction of the Noumea entry port would be next, as there is not safe USN port comparable to Truk. Game continues through a mulligan where the only USN response was to send all ships to PH, give up any concept of simulating a historical situation, wait for air/land forces to build, abandon Cooktown and & Cairns and hope to avoid IJN automatic victory in Dec42. No Australian base can be defended with LBA, Espirto Santo is to be lost, Efate, Noumea [and bases on the island] and Townsville [& Southeast Australia] must be kept or any IJN presencess supply diminished to avoid defeat in 1942. If my USN is successful to that point, game will be decided with a 10 IJN CV vs 6 USN CV near near ALD bases in 1942 is the IJN continues to be agressive. Otherwise the safe IJN move is for force the ALD to attack 10 IJN bases supported by IJA bases with the inferior USN CV force and if carefully horded, a massive B17 fleet. CV attrition works to the IJN favor. So I have at least three months (90 turns) of activity limited to minimize unnecessary losses. Effectively playing the role of AI opposition in human form. We see how things turn out.

Historically there were three CV battels in this theater, all with IJN 2 CV + 1 CVL vs USN 2 CVs. Usually mutual destruction of airgroups and/or ships with the majority of the action by surface forces, land force, LBA with scant resources, and supply challenges. That would be respresentive of there intended simulation (scenario 16, 100%). Apparently to many, that is too boring. What I have been playing vs 5 opponents is something else using the UCV system. More in the line of a Civil War game where one side gets automatic weapons, where Napoleon has B1 bombers, options selection in War in Europe so Axis are immune to supply & weather constraints in Russia, and assortment of various fantasy games. All are games using a game system but not representative of what the game was suppose to simulate. However given the few active players, options are limited.

In a larger scale game such as WITP or Pacific War, if the iJN kept thier entire CV resources in the the SoPac and SWPac, Allies would move forward largely uncontested in teh Central Pacific, North Pacific, Bay of Bengal, Indonesia and China.

I have no experience playing the actual UCV game as intended. I have played other similar games SSI/War in the South Pacific; SSI/Matrix Pacific War; SPI/War in the Pacific; TAHGC/Victory in the Pacific, and TAHGC/Flattop. SoPac and SWPac was one of many theatres in the Pacific war. I assume use of CVs is limited, such battles are rare and other naval actions occur with assumed risks.

IJN can threaten early, eventually atrritional warfare, then superior Allied planes and resourcea appear to shift momentum; IJN/IJA wither, then a race to see if the necessary VPs can be collect for a Allied victory. IJA/IJN many not have much forces left in the end game; but if the allied counteroffensive is hindered throughout the game, the IJA/IJN can acheive victory. Like most games victory is achieved by delaying defeat, not by being decisively dominant with eventually inferior forces.

[borner]

If you have 100% or 200%, the carriers from both sides are going to show up.  I do not think the game is designed to reflect history. If so, then what is the point of playing as the US would always win, and rather easily at that. (Also, I personally think the game mainly was a testbed for WiTP.)  Yes, the system assumes a total committment by both sides into the theater, which would not have happened in
"real life". WiTP you do have a system of ships being recalled that was never put into UV.  Also, the battle of Midway changed things drastically, and had the KB not been smashed there, then it is highly unlikely that the US could have pushed very far forward anywhere before late 42/early 43.
 
As for the game itself - the IJN has great power early in the game, but it is not unbeatable. Ralf, who is in the process of slapping me around for a 6th time   - engaged the KB off Australia in Aug 42. he lost 2 carriers, the IJN just Shokaku damamged and a CS sunk, but the IJN fleet has at most 60 bombers left on the decks. It is a problem that can kill the IJN. You have great strength, but once it is gone, it's gone.

[wga8888]

Thus is the difference between a historical gamer and an gamer. The former historical gamer a game to simulate a historical event where player decisions can change outcomes, typically measure if one side loses before or after the historical date. The gamer seeks a game loosely based on history but where improbable outcomes are possible. Scenario 17/19 at 200% allow both navies entire CV fleets to be availabe solely in the SW Pacific for 12+; dominating the game and negating all other aspects. It may be interesting to the gamer but it bears no relation to history.