An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness

[Barb]

I had to confess, I am not looking into VPs at all so far (PBEM as Allies in Sept 1943, PBEM as Japan in Aug 1943) - maybe there will be some point in 1944/1945 for me to check the ratio for Defeat/Victory screen. But I am having my own "competition" with game.

As the Allies I am trying to be early on the schedule, even if the KB is still untouched so far (just single IJN CVL sunk), I am already in the Gilberts and in the Marshalls while New Guinea is mine up to Hollandia. I have positive loss ratio in the air, minimum ship loses, etc. My subs are active and effective against IJN merchant marine (few turns ago 5 tankers went down in a single replay, yayks!). So far I am certainly on the winning "streak" at least till KB shows up and slows me down.

As the Japan I am having my share of defensive action, lost some carriers, most of my CAs (5 remaining!). But I kicked allies from Kuriles (about 2-3 divs worth of troops killed), I am hanging in the southern Burma, sucessfully evacuated everything south of Wewak-Manus despite US having Kavieng! Enemy battleship force was whittled down as well as his cruiser and destroyers got their share of kicks. Allied air forces had lost more B-17D/E/Fs, LB-30s/B-24Ds than they had received as replacements (thus I mostly cleared their pools). P-40B/E/K and P-38E/F/G suffered accordingly. Brits had their Blenheim/Hudson pools cleared too. So now it is a matter of enemy replenishing his units and preparing for a new air offensive. Not to mention overall air losses are still in Japans favor!

So while I am not looking at the VP ratio right now, I had set up "my own competitons within game" - aircraft looses ratio, ships sunk, territory, troops saved/destroyed, submarine operations, etc.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

ZEN and the art of motorcycle maintenance.

Nope. Zen and the Art of Japanese AC production.

The difficulty with that is coming up with enough R2Dtoos to crew the AC you produce. Oh, wait, you're telling me R2Dtoo isn't even in Beta yet!? OMG.

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I have read Lokasenna's comments today that the VP system is good but probably could do with some tweaking. IE, the idea that, between players of equal capaibilities, right now the VP system still probably favors the Allied player by 70-30 or some such. That's worth considering. But against that I'd also want to carefully explore the idea that IJ players could compete deeper longer if they weren't so prone to invading India or Oz and otherwise running amock.

I tend to agree with Alfred. In my opinion, the question of Japan being more competitive later in the game depends on Japan being aggressive, albeit selectively, into 1943. The issue is not so much how much territory Japan occupies. Rather the question is how many allied assets does Japan destroy. Keeping the allied fighter pools low, depleting the British, Indian, Australian force pools, sinking U.S. naval assets in 1942 and 1943, these are the keys to Japan being competitive into 1944 and 1945.

I think that the older AARs, in which Japanese players were able to defend by a series of parries and ripostes, were responses to different era in allied player thinking, when the VP system was not fully understood. Today, I think that the better informed allied players, who understand the VP system, realize that achieving a VP victory is only a matter of acquiring one or more large airbases in range of Honshu. Island hopping, picking up small amounts of base VPs in places like Truk or Java is not essential to an allied strategy for a VP victory, because the points that can be gained here are small compared to the points that can be gained by strategic bombing. Therefore, island hopping can be abandoned in favor of a few all-in, kitchen-sink moves in 1944, covered by the full USN. This makes the Japanese construction of layered defensive zones of inter-connected airbases inconsequential, because most of these defensive zones can be bypassed without consequence.

This is one reason why I believe that depleting the U.S. force pool and forcing a major naval engagement is essential to Japanese victory and that Japan should play aggressively for auto-victory: though not for 1943. Rather Japan should play for auto-victory on Jan. 1, 1944. If Japan does not achieve auto-victory on Jan. 1, 1944 but if Japan has depleted the auxiliary force pools (Britian, India, Australia, etc...), sunk significant U.S. naval assets, and held its perimeter through 1943, Japan may be able to delay the start of the allied offensive campaign until mid 1944, which does make possible a late-war draw or even a Japanese marginal victory.

Paxmondo has laid out an alternative strategy for Japan that is more defensive minded (since Japanese naval air will be badly outclassed in 1943, pitting A6M5s against Hellcats) and depends heavily upon R&D in several late model Japanese aircraft, especially the A7M2, as part of an attempt to seek a Kentai Kessen against the full USN in early 1944. This strategy is only available for PDU:On games, however, since the idea is to bypass most A6M research and move directly to the A7M2, which is impossible in PDU:off.

So, my suggestion to balance the VP system, is to increase the base values of bases that lie just outside the periphery of the Japanese historical area of conquest: places such as Port Moresby, Ndeni, New Caledonia, Darwin, and the border region of India. This encourages the allied player to contest these regions rather than yield them without fear of Japanese auto-victory. In exchange, the PP points available to each side could be lowered, or alternatively, the best Manchurian garrison units could be placed on a carefully crafted release schedule as you suggest (either appearing later or as permanently restricted until a set date). Also, hard limits would be placed on early-mid war Japanese aircraft production, which makes it more difficult for Japan to achieve overwhelming air superiority in the early war and completely drain the allied fighter force pools.

[LargeSlowTarget]

There is a vexatious tendency on this forum to postulate dogmas and to denigrate anyone who does not abide. Those who do not embrace the VP system are hard-headed or myopic? That's pretty rude. How about some tolerance for a point of view which differs from your own?

For some players VPs seem to be the holy grail, the core of the game design around everything revolves, something that must be maximized in order to "win" with the highest possible score. For others VPs are just an indication how well one is doing, but not the determining force behind gameplay decisions. And others again ignore VPs completely, they don't need a more or less artificial score to tell them it's game over, they decide themselves when they have had enough and it is time to concede defeat or claim victory.

The "one true way" does not exist. There is no law that states the VP system must be used. It's in the game, but each player has the liberty to use it or not. To denigrate those who elect not to use the VP system as some sort of second-rate players (or not even players, since for some not using the VP systems means "not playing the game") is pretty arrogant.

[Aurorus]

The irony is that I am playing one game at the moment where my opponent has expressed a concern for VPs, and I am playing another game in which my opponent has told me that he does not consider VPs very important. I am content to play either way: to play for VPs or not to play for VPs. The real objective for me, is to try to play my best and be as competitive as I am able every day. If this results in a VP victory for me, that is fine. If it does not, that is fine too. The journey more than the destination is the real reward.

However, many people view the game as having no clearly defined objectives without VPs, and I can understand that position. The question at hand is how can the VP system be modified to make for more interesting games for those who play for VPs. This is a relevant question even if one merely uses VPs as a rough guide, rather than a definitive measure of performance.

[HansBolter]

What I see here is the standard litany of elite PBEMers shouting down the interests of solitaire players.

While we soloers may well represent 80% of those actually playing this game we certainly don't have equal representation in this so called community.

Any time a soloer contributes an opinion it is shouted down by the overrepresented PBEM crowd who make it perfectly clear they have no interest in our interest.

Why should we have any interest in your interest in return?

You get the treatment in return that you dish out. Its how life works.

You reap what you sow.

This "community" always has been, and apparently always will be, hostile to solitaire players.

You have made it quite clear you don't want me and my kind in your 'community'.

[Macclan5]

There are various and mostly thoughtful responses ...

Its very interesting reading.

Again I do not want to "muddy the waters through inexperience" so please accept this suggestion with a grain of salt.

Why not agree upon a handicap system using 'off scorecard' VPs ? The Golf analogy once again.

The objective as I understand is:

1) Balance the game for as long as possible
2) Encourage both sides to play deep into the game i.e. September 1945 the historical conclusion of the war

However these objectives are counter balanced by real life history and the modeling of game mechanics on real life history.

Defacto overwhelming logistics and material superiority for the Allies by 1945.

Is not the answer to "reward" the Japanese player "off scorecard VPs" at the conclusion of the game ?

1) A sliding scale of off scorecard VPs based upon experience and tenure. i.e. 500 for a veteran IJN ; 1000 for a rookie.

2) Additional off scorecard VPs based on duration. 100 bonus for every month in 1945. 200 bonus for every month in 1945 post August 1945

3) In line with the suggestion to increase or decrease the relative value of selected bases... Build a matrix that rewards the Japanese player for holding those bases in 1945 ....

Of course most of this 'handicap' system must be done with pen and paper or on a spreadsheet. I am certain the large brained contributors that developed the Tracker and the Intel Monkey could easily adapt something.

Anyway ... I suggest this only as a rookie with limited experience... so please accept its relative value in that light [8D]

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

This "community" always has been, and apparently always will be, hostile to solitaire players.

I am sorry you perceive that - honestly - and perhaps there is a history that I should simply stay out of here.

So please accept that I do not wish to open scars or 'meddle in the affairs of wizards...'

However I personally do not perceive the same.

I have only been around for a year or so - but everyone including yourself Hans... have been tremendously supportive.

Additionally I must say I am so very impressed with the historical acumen of this community as well. I have learned or unlearned a large number of things.

[Zecke]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The game is about history. The closer it cleaves to that the better. History doesn't care about what anyone's concept of winning or losing is. History doesn't care about play balance or any of that stuff. History is what it is. Approaching the game from the Axis point of view, thinking that you can "win" is foolhardy. You can't win. You can just do the best you can and maybe flabbergast your opponent. Why would we need to get away from that? Why wouldn't it be fun to surprise your opponent? I don't, as Daedelus, need to invent nylon just so I can laugh at my son Icarus falling to his death. WWII was what it was. We don't need to reconfigure it so it conforms to anyone's idea of what a game should be.

GeoF.....FLAMBERT¡ you COOL; very...TOP...(Me also)

MOD edit: This paragraph may violate forum rules

About single players that came to play alone but not participate; the community Known this problem; its a question of EGGS.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

What I see here is the standard litany of elite PBEMers shouting down the interests of solitaire players.

While we soloers may well represent 80% of those actually playing this game we certainly don't have equal representation in this so called community.

Any time a soloer contributes an opinion it is shouted down by the overrepresented PBEM crowd who make it perfectly clear they have no interest in our interest.

Why should we have any interest in your interest in return?

You get the treatment in return that you dish out. Its how life works.

You reap what you sow.

This "community" always has been, and apparently always will be, hostile to solitaire players.

You have made it quite clear you don't want me and my kind in your 'community'.

I don't think that describes the community as a whole. Most of the contentious discussions seem to revolve around HR's, a subject which obviously has much less effect on solo play.

[MakeeLearn]

Mandala...

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

Keeping the allied fighter pools low, depleting the British, Indian, Australian force pools, sinking U.S. naval assets in 1942 and 1943

In my Japan game, I've done all of these things, in addition to sinking significant USN assets in 1944. I've shot down 675+ P-47D25's. I've shot down almost all of the P-47D2's. I've emptied the Commonwealth replacement pools. I eliminated China, such that there are only 3 or 4 Corps on the map right now. I've given the Marines a bloody nose and forced a 3-month land campaign for Java, whittling his aircraft pools all the way, where his LCUs will need a long time to repair from being 2/3 disabled. On Mindanao, he's about 1/2 disabled and hasn't quite captured Davao yet (his landing location). The LCU VPs that I have earned are in excess of 26,000 - well higher than other examples.

I've sunk 20+ CVEs. I've sunk several fast USN BBs (3 or 4), over 30 modern cruisers, 5+ fleet CVs, 3+ Independences... I'm at work so I can't look at the full list, but it's significant in terms of combat power.

It still hasn't delayed him that significantly, and the VP cushion earned is just not enough as it stands right now, and the opportunities/ability of Japan to extract tithes only gets relatively worse and in 1945 that relative decline happens very quickly. I'm not trying to imply that he's played poorly - it may seem that way, from the losses I've listed, but he's trading assets for VPs of his own and territory and it's slowly working. I know the Allied OOB - he's not going to run out, and even if he runs out of cruisers the sheer volume of Fletchers, Bensons, and even modern RN DDs can overwhelm the IJN surface forces on their own.

It's just not going to matter because there's too much time left on the clock. If the game plays out as I think it will through all of 1945, I would say I'd have earned a minor victory - but the game is not going to say that is the case if the VPs end up how I think they will. It will be a draw or a minor victory for him, according to the game's VPs. I think an Allied minor victory is the most likely scenario (40-45%?), with a draw (35-40%?) and a Japanese minor victory (15-25%?) being less likely.

I meant to post images of my VPs last night to try to show this succinctly in maybe a single paragraph. Somebody remind me to do that tonight [:'(].

[Canoerebel]

Loka's thoughts are good thoughts and deserve careful consideration. I bet nearly all players who use the VP system - or who would do so if it is balanced and fair - are open to adjusting the VPs prudently towards that objective. It would take a lot of time and thought to do it. If it's possible to use the editor to make the adjustments, it might be interesting at some point to create a committee that would act on all information (much of which is yet to come, no doubt, as more thought is given and more players weigh in) to create a VP Mod. Then unleash a bunch of players that are relatively evenly matched to try it on for size. (Now if only Loka and Bullwinkle would do an AAR so we could follow their game).

[Canoerebel]

I think HansBolter misinterpreted my opening post because I didn't word it clearly. It wasn't directed at solo players at all (though I did refer to one solo player who seemed to me to express a petulant reason for avoiding PBEM). I don't know any PBEM players who "look down" on solo players. I certainly don't. There is a difference between the two, so that some prefer the one and some the other.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Loka's thoughts are good thoughts and deserve careful consideration. I bet nearly all players who use the VP system - or who would do so if it is balanced and fair - are open to adjusting the VPs prudently towards that objective. It would take a lot of time and thought to do it. If it's possible to use the editor to make the adjustments, it might be interesting at some point to create a committee that would act on all information (much of which is yet to come, no doubt, as more thought is given and more players weigh in) to create a VP Mod. Then unleash a bunch of players that are relatively evenly matched to try it on for size. (Now if only Loka and Bullwinkle would do an AAR so we could follow their game).

He won't be doing one and I knew he wouldn't from the start.

I do have an AAR thread for the game, but I haven't updated it in at least one solar eclipse... or at least a half-dozen blue moons... If I have time, I will post updates to it. I have been saving turn files and the notes that I keep during each replay can be referenced later to provide a synopsis. In looking up my thread, I notice that I last updated in October 2016 and it was June 1944 in-game at that time. In 14 months, I have only advanced the game 5.5 months. The delay and slowdown is almost entirely my fault.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

Keeping the allied fighter pools low, depleting the British, Indian, Australian force pools, sinking U.S. naval assets in 1942 and 1943

In my Japan game, I've done all of these things, in addition to sinking significant USN assets in 1944. I've shot down 675+ P-47D25's. I've shot down almost all of the P-47D2's. I've emptied the Commonwealth replacement pools. I eliminated China, such that there are only 3 or 4 Corps on the map right now. I've given the Marines a bloody nose and forced a 3-month land campaign for Java, whittling his aircraft pools all the way, where his LCUs will need a long time to repair from being 2/3 disabled. On Mindanao, he's about 1/2 disabled and hasn't quite captured Davao yet (his landing location). The LCU VPs that I have earned are in excess of 26,000 - well higher than other examples.

I've sunk 20+ CVEs. I've sunk several fast USN BBs (3 or 4), over 30 modern cruisers, 5+ fleet CVs, 3+ Independences... I'm at work so I can't look at the full list, but it's significant in terms of combat power.

It still hasn't delayed him that significantly, and the VP cushion earned is just not enough as it stands right now, and the opportunities/ability of Japan to extract tithes only gets relatively worse and in 1945 that relative decline happens very quickly. I'm not trying to imply that he's played poorly - it may seem that way, from the losses I've listed, but he's trading assets for VPs of his own and territory and it's slowly working. I know the Allied OOB - he's not going to run out, and even if he runs out of cruisers the sheer volume of Fletchers, Bensons, and even modern RN DDs can overwhelm the IJN surface forces on their own.

It's just not going to matter because there's too much time left on the clock. If the game plays out as I think it will through all of 1945, I would say I'd have earned a minor victory - but the game is not going to say that is the case if the VPs end up how I think they will. It will be a draw or a minor victory for him, according to the game's VPs. I think an Allied minor victory is the most likely scenario (40-45%?), with a draw (35-40%?) and a Japanese minor victory (15-25%?) being less likely.

I meant to post images of my VPs last night to try to show this succinctly in maybe a single paragraph. Somebody remind me to do that tonight [:'(].

I have stopped posting on the forum due to fatigue with it as well as general distaste to re-litigate the same arguments over and over. My interests of late have somewhat moved away from AE, although I continue two PBEMs. Facing a big decimal birthday makes one realize that time is not infinite.

I have looked in on the forum as a Guest, reading in a far more limited manner than previously. Mostly at selected AARs I have followed for a long time. This thread, as well as the other ("Gamey") where Alfred presents such well-reasoned posts, have drawn my attention. This one, where my esteemed opponent Lokasenna has posted on our game is also pertinent. On the chance that he did so assuming I was not reading, I wanted to show him that I am. And while it is somewhat humiliating to have my many mistakes and shortcomings on display, nothing he says is false. Our game has been a monumental struggle from my POV, and I am very much a better player than when we began. Some mistakes, however, are baked into the cake. I wanted to offer a few thoughts and additions for CR and other readers. Not to dispute his analysis, but to add to it.

On opponents and equal matching . . . yes, of course. But it's difficult. My earliest archived email with L., where we discussed which save slot to use, is dated September 2013. I was largely at home, semi-retired and not volunteering, and he was in an apartment with cats and roommates. Both of those scenarios have radically altered since. In our fifth year, we are still in 1944, and turns have slowed markedly. At this rate we're looking at eight years or so?

In 2013 I was coming off my first PBEM game, the one I AARed. My opponent had resigned, and I counted that as a win. I was pretty cocky about my skills. I didn't know L. at all as I recall, didn't know he could play either side. Didn't know much at all except he was willing to play a no-HR game. I therefore offered a Scenario 2 game with non-historic R&D, stock PP budgets, no HRs (but internally reserving the idea there were some things I wouldn't do), and a lot of hope for success. Thus my point that opponent and set-up selections are important, and can be an 8-year millstone. If I had known how good he is, how analytical, how able to ignore emotion and focus on the math of a decision, I NEVER would have played Scenario 2, let alone offered non-historical R&D. That first decision on my part still resonates, and it's one many players have also faced. I'm not his equal as a player, I don't play Japan, and I threw gasoline on those factors out of hubris.

I then exacerbated those errors by trying to repeat my successful wholesale retreat of the Chinese army out of China. He used tanks to cut the railroads, and then sliced and diced me to ribbons in a matter of a few months. The resurrected corps in Chungking were huge, yes, and his take-down of the capital took the better part of a year and a lot of investment, but he did it. When he says three Chinese corps got out he's right. China was a game-changer. And on me and my poor play.

I made other errors. I misunderstood exactly how powerful the game makes jungle and how much supply can reach Japan even in dense jungle. In Burma, I tried to sledgehammer my way past a big stack on the road outside Ramree, and got gutted. I am still paying for that and will to the end through flat pools. He knows this. He plays the hexside game many moves (months) ahead, and I have been consistently outclassed there. I have tried to engage in anti-supply tactics by air, but as he notes this has cost me a lot of planes, although his fighter presence in Burma has been largely removed. I still have not taken Rangoon, and only try to do so for the VPs. At this point I doubt there will ever be operations south of there.

At sea, I screwed up over and over. He has detailed my defeats. I was a sailor and this part of the game is intensely personal for me; I don't play the math. I nearly quit at least twice over naval debacles. Yes, I continue to move forward. But I say a mantra before every replay ("This could be really bad".) Yes, really. Out loud. Sometimes it helps. I have many complaints about the naval war in the game models, particularly the submarine war. As above, I won't re-litigate. And yes, I'm better than I started out. But it's also true as he says that in late-1944 the IJN is decisive in constraining my movements. Every move forward he extracts blood and VPs. I have tried to remove his fuel, and been somewhat successful. But he says in this thread he has fuel for a year, and that's a Long Time at this point in the game. For those who say the USN subs can stop the POL game I refer you to L's PM address. He can tell you how to mount a MASSIVE LBA ASW effort and remove the subs from meaningful play.

So. Yeah. I've been outplayed. I begin every turn with a weight on my shoulders, slogging through mental mud. So I have to say it's surprising to read L's analysis of how he sees the game (he has said in email but without the buttressing facts he provides here.) I have been playing for a draw for about a game year. To me, that's my penance for the mistakes I made 4.5 years ago as outlined above. And reading L's analysis I have to again join him, and Alfred, and others in singing the praises of the VP system. I feel beaten. Yet I can still win the game. While playing L I also played a DBB game (again, with an unknown sharpshooter) wherein I was AVed on 1/1/43 and resigned, despite my opponent's pleas to continue. That experience is overlaid on my experience in the L. game. It is ENTIRLEY possible for the Allies to lose on the first day AV is possible.

As far as VP win versus "internal" win, Loka makes the point I can probably eke out a marginal win in 1946 due to the Soviets. He's probably right. You guys should listen to him, because he is a master player on both sides, an untold advantage in AE. But for me, winning due to the Soviets, if it happens, will not be satisfying. I'll take it, but thin gruel. On that measure I think he has a point about the VP system post-1944. It's a long, long haul to spring 1946. Strat bombing is probably over-powered in VP terms. Some bases might be adjusted to compensate, but strat bombing is always going to be how the Allies come back from a poor 1944. It's history. But maybe industry ought to be a bit less valuable. And possibly using the Soviets at all after 9/1/45 ought to make a draw the best outcome possible for the Allies.

For CR specifically, and others generally, try to get the best opponent you can. But understand you really don't know. Don't know if you're evenly matched. So be very careful what you agree to in the set-up. And be very careful you don't re-play your last game.

If you can, try to find somebody better than you; they will make you better too. Try to find somebody who isn't a jerk when you have a disaster turn, who doesn't insist on their brand of trash-talking when you say that isn't your flavor of sportsmanship. If you can stand to, learn to play Japan, even if just a little. It offers huge advantages. And, re my second PBEM game going, play a newbie sometimes. They have to learn, and it's a different sort of challenge to your pre-conceptions. "My" newbie is getting better by leaps and bounds, and yet he constantly makes me stay on guard as he does things no veteran player would ever think of doing. And often those things work.

[Canoerebel]

Thanks for posting in-depth thoughts, Moose.

We're getting rich input from experienced players. And we're even provoking some to come outa the weeds, where they've been hiding. Perhaps Greyjoy is next.

[zuluhour]

Nice to see you post Bullwinkle. A game this detailed lends itself to constant reflection, speculation, and rehash.
It is a love it or leave it deal. I tried to start a WITE with a really solid player across the ocean who had the pleasure
of auto victory on me in A&E, letting me play to April '46, god BLESS him, but I really just wanted another shot at A&E.
(fourth shot truth be known). Anyway, to the point, the allies must get the B29 in range of the HI. The strategic
bombing VP will overcome a lot of short comings. You have to avoid auto vic and get somewhere close enough for the
true heavies in time.

*simple[:D]

[Lokasenna]

I thought you might be peeking in every now and again [;)]. It wouldn't have changed what I wrote.

[modrow]

Canoerebel,

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I have long advocated that the need is to make Japan stronger mid- or late-war. Not early war. Japan is now on steroids early war. Witness the aggregate number of games in which Japan invades California or Australia or India. Making further early game concessions to Japan only adds fuel to the fire.

Japan does have trouble in the late game, so I'd be more interested in changes that address that, within reason.

I think that an interesting aspect of this game is how the balance is made to swing. In my opinion, much of the balance change is a change of capabilities of the units in the OOB by TOE changes for LCUs, by something (possibly radar) for naval units and by plane stats for air units.

So one way to achieve what you want is giving IJ another set of squad/device upgrades for staying competitive in ground combat and/or revise TOEs towards more fire power in mid/late war. One may also consider embedding AAA, AT devices and/or engineers into LCUs in a late war TOE upgrade.

I suspect something similar is possible for naval combat. My impression is that the growing success of Allied navies in naval combat is not just due to an increase of experience (albeit this is an important parameter), but also because radar is factored in somehow and its importance grows with time. If this assumption is correct, providing a late war improved radar for IJN could help to achieve what you want.

As for planes, I am not sure whether I would touch anything.

All of the above would have to be adjusted very carefully. Note that it would likely remove the need to allow IJ "overexpansion", so perhaps at the same time the Allied should be strengthened in early war. To do so, I would raise experience/morale levels, eventually readiness (less disabled devices) and add devices to the pool. By selective upgrades/assignment of reinforcements the Allied player would then ideally gain the possibility to strengthen defenses locally at selected locations, which would put an end to the optimized early war expansion of IJ that IJ players can run now, which can be done due to the perfect knowledge of force allocation/distribution and mostly static/frozen Allied assets.

Just my view

Hartwig

edited 2x for more clarity