An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: obvert

My point is not about rader v Greyjoy.

I don’t think the IJA could have taken all of China historically.

Also, I do think the Japanese in game can take it quickly enough without SL (which make a massive difference defending China as the Allies) to then have a chance to still move on India, Russia or Australia if they would want to extend that far and burn that supply/fuel.

I don't think so either. It was a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation. The Japanese advanced in 1944 because they just had to to prevent the forward placement of American air assets. Although successful on the ground it was at a cost in men and resources that they could already not afford and had an ultimate effect on her capacity to fight elsewhere. I got no problem with a Japanese player that wants to take out China. It is expensive and time consuming and really the one theater the Allied player can lose and still easily win the game. I think I can hold out in China well into 1944. That is good enough. In fact, I really think that the Japanese player has to neutralize China to have any chance.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

ORIGINAL: obvert



Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.

The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.

In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India. The gpace of a non-SL game allows this. Playing DBB it's much harder.

Rader vs. Greyjoy was scenario 2. I do not think stacking limits are nearly as important as most people think, but that is the subject for another discussion. Comparing scenario 2 games and scenario 1 games is comparing 2 things that are not alike.

I don't think stacking limits makes much difference in the overall balance. On the one hand, Japan can't stack anywhere near the quality within the same number. On the other, it does slow the Allies down a bit because they can't just land 5000AV on Guam, knowing that it will eventually overwhelm the defenders.

Actually, I think it does. It allows Japan to clog a hex and stall for time. Also, I am a good Allied player but terribly unorganized. In stock, I just jammed all my troops for offensive operations in one hex and proceeded from there. Now if Japan holds bases that allow large stacks it is harder for me to coordinate. I bypassed the PI last campaign but think I really need it this game to build up units for my late war offensives. So for some, stacking limits are tough..[:D]

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Aurorus





Rader vs. Greyjoy was scenario 2. I do not think stacking limits are nearly as important as most people think, but that is the subject for another discussion. Comparing scenario 2 games and scenario 1 games is comparing 2 things that are not alike.

I don't think stacking limits makes much difference in the overall balance. On the one hand, Japan can't stack anywhere near the quality within the same number. On the other, it does slow the Allies down a bit because they can't just land 5000AV on Guam, knowing that it will eventually overwhelm the defenders.

Actually, I think it does. It allows Japan to clog a hex and stall for time. Also, I am a good Allied player but terribly unorganized. In stock, I just jammed all my troops for offensive operations in one hex and proceeded from there. Now if Japan holds bases that allow large stacks it is harder for me to coordinate. I bypassed the PI last campaign but think I really need it this game to build up units for my late war offensives. So for some, stacking limits are tough..[:D]

I have a tendency to do the same thing, but I also know that if I really wanted to I could still just land overwhelming force and take the place. Probably. The risks involved are not minor and require many more supplies (and possibly more support, and probably a lot more bombing than I usually do).

But I think this is counterbalanced by stacking limits slowing down Japan in China in the same way - and she doesn't have the supplies to burn like the USA does.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Moving the industry would not really change strat VPs that much - they would become harder to hit if the hypothesis that "smaller" factories are harder to hit, which would slow things if that's true... but other than that, you'd have to most almost everything out and that would fundamentally change the game so is off the table, IMO.

I had the thought about it already with regards to simply removing Light Industry in favor of auto-generated supply, but nixed that as an idea after thoughts on the consequences and degree of balancing vis-a-vis Resources that would need to be done.

On page 264 of the manual there's a discussion of victory points associated with strategic bombing, including this sentence - "Points will only be scored by the Allies for bombing industry in mainland Japan". Assuming that is still true, then (another assumption) it seems reasonable that the game is hardcoded to assign VPs ONLY for industry destroyed/damaged in specific base hexes. If that is true, you could add NEW base hexes in mainland Japan, situating them in hexes which are currently just terrain. If you then move industry into these new base hexes, then strat bombing of these hexes will still damage the Japanese economy, but it will NOT generate Allied VPs, since the game code does not "know" that these new hexes are "mainland Japan".

Which means the total number of industry points in Japan can remain EXACTLY the same, but only the industry located in the original game hexes will still generate Allied VPs.

Accordingly, if the crux of the "late game problem" comes down to "valuation of strat bombing points", this can fix that in a manner that is very easy to mod and yet will have little or no effect on any other aspects of the game.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Moving the industry would not really change strat VPs that much - they would become harder to hit if the hypothesis that "smaller" factories are harder to hit, which would slow things if that's true... but other than that, you'd have to most almost everything out and that would fundamentally change the game so is off the table, IMO.

I had the thought about it already with regards to simply removing Light Industry in favor of auto-generated supply, but nixed that as an idea after thoughts on the consequences and degree of balancing vis-a-vis Resources that would need to be done.

On page 264 of the manual there's a discussion of victory points associated with strategic bombing, including this sentence - "Points will only be scored by the Allies for bombing industry in mainland Japan". Assuming that is still true, then (another assumption) it seems reasonable that the game is hardcoded to assign VPs ONLY for industry destroyed/damaged in specific base hexes. If that is true, you could add NEW base hexes in mainland Japan, situating them in hexes which are currently just terrain. If you then move industry into these new base hexes, then strat bombing of these hexes will still damage the Japanese economy, but it will NOT generate Allied VPs, since the game code does not "know" that these new hexes are "mainland Japan".

Which means the total number of industry points in Japan can remain EXACTLY the same, but only the industry located in the original game hexes will still generate Allied VPs.

Accordingly, if the crux of the "late game problem" comes down to "valuation of strat bombing points", this can fix that in a manner that is very easy to mod and yet will have little or no effect on any other aspects of the game.

I think the association is not with a specific base, but with the country code of the hex. Press 4 to see it.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I think the association is not with a specific base, but with the country code of the hex. Press 4 to see it.

That makes sense. Which actually means it's even EASIER to do this. Use a map editor to take existing "mainland Japan" base hexes and reassign them from code 100 to 101 (Japan Islands). You might not even have to change ANY of the default industry values in each base hex.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I think the association is not with a specific base, but with the country code of the hex. Press 4 to see it.

That makes sense. Which actually means it's even EASIER to do this. Use a map editor to take existing "mainland Japan" base hexes and reassign them from code 100 to 101 (Japan Islands). You might not even have to change ANY of the default industry values in each base hex.

There are other consequences to doing this. Changing to code 101 means there would be no reinforcement trigger for an invasion of the four main islands or Paramushiro Jima. I think country code is also used to define where squadrons belonging to various Air HQs can go. Likely the same for LCUs.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I think the association is not with a specific base, but with the country code of the hex. Press 4 to see it.

That makes sense. Which actually means it's even EASIER to do this. Use a map editor to take existing "mainland Japan" base hexes and reassign them from code 100 to 101 (Japan Islands). You might not even have to change ANY of the default industry values in each base hex.

There are other consequences to doing this. Changing to code 101 means there would be no reinforcement trigger for an invasion of the four main islands or Paramushiro Jima. I think country code is also used to define where squadrons belonging to various Air HQs can go. Likely the same for LCUs.

The idea isn't to entirely remove code 100, but to change several existing hexes from 100 to 101 so they do not generate strat bombing VPs. You could even restrict the change to inland hexes (such as Maebashi and Yamagata) to avoid any issue with the invasion trigger. As for the restricted air units, that's not a problem as (by default) they have access to the Japan Island hexes. Ground units are even less of a problem, as there's no code in AE to keep restricted ground units from marching elsewhere.

[Hortlund]

My thoughts:
VP is an abstraction of each side’s willingness and/or ability to stay in the war. That is the rationale I see for autovictory, the discrepancy in vps represent the loss of willingness in one side to stay in the fight. I think this makes sense and has a reasonable base in reality.

Why do nations surrender in war? We can look at the nations who actually did surrender in ww2 and realize that there is some complex mechanism at work with a LOT of influencing factors. Size of army, size of nation, will of nation to fight, number of allies, number of enemies. How well is the war going, how many dead. How many civilist deaths, how much the leadership cares about civilist deaths. Is it a struggle for national survival or is it a struggle over colonies? Etc etc. Hundreds of factors really. And it boils down to philosophical or metaphysical questions really.

Why did Denmark surrender immideately and Norway not? Why did Finland not surrender? Why did it accept a cease-fire? Why did France surrender and not England? Why did Germany surrender, or rather, why did they not surrender sooner? Why did russia not surrender? Why did no-one accept a cease-fire? I can go on, But you get my point.

Thousands of questions, which needs to be boiled down to a vp-system that can handle all possible outcomes of the war in the pacific. So, Im not complaining. The vp-system is close enough.

If I could wish for something, it would be to have some sort of separate peace-mechanism. Or the ability to wage war on separate nations. It would make for one hell of an interesting game if you could declare war on England But not the US for example. And after some threshold, you could declare war on japan as the US. There would still be two sides and two players, but resteicted units for those at peace like with the soviets.

[Canoerebel]

The easiest solution to this is to simply come up with a table of victory ratios. That would be done outside the game and thus wouldn't require any changes to the game whatsoever. We appoint a willing committee who looks into it, comes up with the table of ratios, and then we try them on for size.

[Hortlund]

Agreed. Then we could also have more nuanced levels than major or minor victory and draw if we wanted.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The easiest solution to this is to simply come up with a table of victory ratios. That would be done outside the game and thus wouldn't require any changes to the game whatsoever. We appoint a willing committee who looks into it, comes up with the table of ratios, and then we try them on for size.

Exactly my point succinctly stated.

I equated it to a golfers handicap score adjustment.

[wneumann]

I’m in a late-war PBEM (Mar 1945 as Allied) that has been in progress since 2010. At this point there is little question as to the projected outcome of this campaign – what’s at stake is mainly the margin of victory (or defeat). From my view, VP in this campaign is largely irrelevant (46K to 34K, Japanese favor), I’m playing the game now with the intent of creating the best possible Allied strategic position with the “cards” I still have left to play before calling it a day. .

Overall, play balance in AE is pretty good on many levels and I think the game works pretty well. My discussion is addressing one area in the game that heavily tilts play balance to a point where no amount of historical Allied late-war superiority can counter Japanese advantage(s) this creates. Tweaking VP does not alter this imbalance.

The Japanese Player is already handed a solution to the historical stalemate in China which prompted the whole war in the first place: attack and the Chinese will fold up by mid 1943 or so.

What happens (or doesn’t) in China has a huge effect on play balance in AE. The issue here isn’t whether or not China is too easy to completely eliminate. A well planned and executed Japanese strategy in China with a significant level of effort should be able to bring on the fall of China. What’s key here is the overall situation AE represents in China should require the Japanese player to commit a significant level of effort, if necessary at the expense of other theatres (which does not appear to be true).

Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.

The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.

In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India.

What happens after the fall of China in AE is my major issue. This event in AE triggers a huge opportunity for large parts of the IJ Army to transfer to other theatres, notably the Pacific. The end result as experienced in my campaign is a carpet of heavily garrisoned, maximum fortified Japanese strongholds that historical Allied ground forces in AE are insufficient (in numbers) to overcome. In my campaign I’m now rebuilding half the Allied combat ground force in the Pacific after eliminating 30+ Japanese LCU’s at Buna in 12/44 (Verdun in the Pacific). Now looking at a 50+ LCU Japanese garrison in Rabaul. You can’t island hop around everything. US late-war air and naval superiority doesn’t even touch this. Strategic bombing of anything in my campaign is currently a fantasy.

No matter how “friendly” warlords in China are with Japan after a complete Japanese conquest of China, there are hundreds of millions of peasants with pitchforks to keep in line not to mention the urban population. This would appear (at least in RL) to require the IJ Army to maintain a considerable garrison in China instead of allowing a virtually unrestricted transfer of Japanese divisions from China. Nothing gamey or cheating on the part of my opponent, he simply made best and most effective use of his opportunity inside the game.

Although I do have some specific thoughts on how to remedy this inside of AE, my intent here is not to suggest or promote any particular solution. This can be handled by a separate discussion. On one hand, I risk a head-on collision with a JFB firestorm. On the other hand, I break my silence.

[Kull]

Your opponent put 30 LCUs in Buna (which you attacked) and has another 50 LCUs in Rabaul (which you plan to attack). The problem isn't China, but the solution can be found there - read Sun Tzu. [:)]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: wneumann

I’m in a late-war PBEM (Mar 1945 as Allied) that has been in progress since 2010. At this point there is little question as to the projected outcome of this campaign – what’s at stake is mainly the margin of victory (or defeat). From my view, VP in this campaign is largely irrelevant (46K to 34K, Japanese favor), I’m playing the game now with the intent of creating the best possible Allied strategic position with the “cards” I still have left to play before calling it a day. .

Overall, play balance in AE is pretty good on many levels and I think the game works pretty well. My discussion is addressing one area in the game that heavily tilts play balance to a point where no amount of historical Allied late-war superiority can counter Japanese advantage(s) this creates. Tweaking VP does not alter this imbalance.

The Japanese Player is already handed a solution to the historical stalemate in China which prompted the whole war in the first place: attack and the Chinese will fold up by mid 1943 or so.

What happens (or doesn’t) in China has a huge effect on play balance in AE. The issue here isn’t whether or not China is too easy to completely eliminate. A well planned and executed Japanese strategy in China with a significant level of effort should be able to bring on the fall of China. What’s key here is the overall situation AE represents in China should require the Japanese player to commit a significant level of effort, if necessary at the expense of other theatres (which does not appear to be true).

Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.

The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.

In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India.

What happens after the fall of China in AE is my major issue. This event in AE triggers a huge opportunity for large parts of the IJ Army to transfer to other theatres, notably the Pacific. The end result as experienced in my campaign is a carpet of heavily garrisoned, maximum fortified Japanese strongholds that historical Allied ground forces in AE are insufficient (in numbers) to overcome. In my campaign I’m now rebuilding half the Allied combat ground force in the Pacific after eliminating 30+ Japanese LCU’s at Buna in 12/44 (Verdun in the Pacific). Now looking at a 50+ LCU Japanese garrison in Rabaul. You can’t island hop around everything. US late-war air and naval superiority doesn’t even touch this. Strategic bombing of anything in my campaign is currently a fantasy.

No matter how “friendly” warlords in China are with Japan after a complete Japanese conquest of China, there are hundreds of millions of peasants with pitchforks to keep in line not to mention the urban population. This would appear (at least in RL) to require the IJ Army to maintain a considerable garrison in China instead of allowing a virtually unrestricted transfer of Japanese divisions from China. Nothing gamey or cheating on the part of my opponent, he simply made best and most effective use of his opportunity inside the game.

Although I do have some specific thoughts on how to remedy this inside of AE, my intent here is not to suggest or promote any particular solution. This can be handled by a separate discussion. On one hand, I risk a head-on collision with a JFB firestorm. On the other hand, I break my silence.

Kull has the right of it, so I'll leave that aspect as dealt with.

Regarding Japanese moves in to China, the Allies have a suitable strategic response in the form of funneling supplies and material in to China to prolong the resistance and fighting for Burma to keep supplies flowing down the Burma Road. With enough investment, the Allies can seriously bulk up Chinese strength and tie down a great deal of Japanese fighting power. Skimping on this dooms the Chinese in-game, as it would have in real life.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: wneumann

Now looking at a 50+ LCU Japanese garrison in Rabaul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITx4aFhASTE

Sorry, couldn't resist..... [:D]

[wdolson]

That congressman is known for his very dry and absurd sense of humor.

Bill

[John 3rd]

Is there a place in the editor to change VP value for things? Example the VP for aircraft? VP for destroying a unit?

Not something I have ever looked at...

[Timotheus]

My solution, a very simple one:

Victory points are counted for two things:

1) For occupying a base, of course different bases have different values for both sides, counted at end of every week.

2) A bonus for owning a whole region (for example, owning ALL the bases in the Philippine Islands), without the presence of any enemy forces. Make it a substantial bonus. Also counted at end of every week.

3) These point costs are time stamp based. For example, I foresee that owning the Philippine bases and Singapore in 1941-42 gives the Allied player a substantial point infusion.

This means that there are zero victory points for sinking enemy ships, shooting down airplanes or destroying enemy manpower. That is correct. Those are tools to accomplish your mission.

This solves many problems.

This should eliminate the "gaminess" of leaving Allied units in the Philippines by the Japanese player to get kamikazes sooner.

This should prevent the Allied player from not fighting for anything and just withdrawing in 1941-42 everything that he can away from PHI, DEI, Malaysia, and many times even Burma. Now there is a choice - he can do that, but there is a cost. And every week counts.

Both sides now fight tooth and nail for everything.

Yes, you can choose to let them "wither on a vine" and leave them be in that isolated base - but now there is a substantial cost for that. Especially if that one base is all that prevents you from reaping in that sweet, sweet bonus for owning whole region bonus.

And that means that in 1941-42 the Allied player, and in 1943-45 the Japanese player WILL fight tooth and nail for that one base. It will become a flashpoint in that game - a strategic point of contention for both.


PS
I have said it before, and it bears repeating. This is the most badly organized forum for a game I have ever seen. Looking for information, even basic information, is a hassle.

There is a great post for new players (and basically a great post for all players with reference information):
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2260137

All I ask is that more great guides created by other players be added to it.

Because a lot of guides and useful posts have been made by this community since December 5, 2010...................................

For example, the TENDERS and SUPPORT/AUXILLARY SHIP GUIDE has superb info on auxiliary ships and what they really do in game
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2920431

and

the Japanese Production Primer is invaluable for anybody trying to come to grips with playing Japan in the Grand Campaing
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3329605


The last time I brought this issue to the forum, I was set upon by some very rude, obnoxious and vindictive forum members who poked fun at me, and shot down the idea down because "the forum is perfect the way it is".

I am with Hans on this one - this forum is dominated by a certain "mafia" which has its own agenda, and likes it just the way everything is on this forum.

Well... it is not fine. This forum needs better organization for new players to quickly and efficiently find new info.

Especially since it is as simple as editing the FAQ / Info for Newb's post, for the first time..... since 2010.......

[adarbrauner]

Welcome back Timotheus, you've been missed.