Mayday Mayday, The USN is on the brink of disaster. AFB Advice needed

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: rtoolooze

"Most important thing: as an Allied player, YOU CANNOT LOSE. PERIOD."


I've been getting closer to finally buying this monster game, studying the manual, and tutorials. But after seeing this, it kinda took the wind out of my sails. Why play a game when you know who will win.
So no matter what, Japan can't win?

I hate it when the uninformed make statements like the one you reacted to. It is categorically false.

I'm a decent player. Been playing AE and WITP for 13 years. I've completed three PBEM games as the Allies and I lost two of them. In my fourth now and the outcome is in doubt. IF you play the game design and understand the victory conditions, Japan can win. In some sense it's easier for Japan to win as all they have to do is hang on and not lose. The Allies MUST, under the design, get an auto-victory to win the game.

Japan has numerous advantages built into the design they did not have in RL. Over the decade of AE's existence Japan players have come to understand how to optimize those advantages. Today, unlike 2009, you will likely encounter a Japan PBEM opponent who is very, very tough.

I would say that the outcome of this game is still very much in doubt, but the safe money bet would be on the Japanese. It's mid June of 1942 and my opponent already has a 2.5-1 spread on points. Can he get to 4:1 in 1943 ? Considering that his carriers can range far and wide with little to stop them, I would say that he has a decent chance. And I will need to have a pretty good year in 1943 to keep him from a 3-1 margin in 1944. So I know that it could very well end up being a losing effort for the Allies. My opponent graciously offered me the chance to restart the game, and I declined. I want to see if I am up to the challenge.

It is much, MUCH harder to go from a 2.5:1 ratio to a 4:1 ratio than from a 1:1 ratio to a 2.5:1 ratio.

All of his actions will be costing him points as your assets destroy some of his assets. Trading above a 4:1 ratio to that degree over a long period of time is exceedingly difficult, especially since VPs from bases is "temporary" (can be recaptured).

You will have at least 6 months during 1943 to marshal sufficient assets to make a large VP attempt if you have to - if not multiple.

[ndworl]

[/quote]

Geographically, I feel pretty good about my position. This latest carrier battle occurred in the Marshalls. I have Wotje, Maloleap, Ailinglaplap, in Allied hands. All of the Gilberts are mine, as is Makin. Nauru, Ocean, Kusaie are mine as well. I have about 250 AV on Lunga, with an ongoing struggle to keep them supplied. I'm using a bunch of subs and transport planes for that purpose. I have repelled two invasions at Cocos Island and continue to build up there. That will be my eventual launching pad into the DEI. I'll post a screenshot of the strategic map.
[/quote]

The Marshalls? In 1942? I'm not surprised you've lost all your carriers. If you can maintain this position, it is a major strategic defeat for Japan as you have a fantastic springboard for the advance in 1943. If your opponent had concentrated his carriers instead of using them as commerce raiders, I suspect you would have lost the entire force that attacked the Marshalls.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: rtoolooze

"Most important thing: as an Allied player, YOU CANNOT LOSE. PERIOD."


I've been getting closer to finally buying this monster game, studying the manual, and tutorials. But after seeing this, it kinda took the wind out of my sails. Why play a game when you know who will win.
So no matter what, Japan can't win?

I hate it when the uninformed make statements like the one you reacted to. It is categorically false.

I'm a decent player. Been playing AE and WITP for 13 years. I've completed three PBEM games as the Allies and I lost two of them. In my fourth now and the outcome is in doubt. IF you play the game design and understand the victory conditions, Japan can win. In some sense it's easier for Japan to win as all they have to do is hang on and not lose. The Allies MUST, under the design, get an auto-victory to win the game.

Japan has numerous advantages built into the design they did not have in RL. Over the decade of AE's existence Japan players have come to understand how to optimize those advantages. Today, unlike 2009, you will likely encounter a Japan PBEM opponent who is very, very tough.

The statement made by rtoolooze is false, no doubt. However, is Japan the only side with advantages built into the design they did not have in RL? And are the Japanese players the only ones who have come to understand how to optimize their advantages? And have Allied players not learned anything about how to negate / reduce the impact of the Japanese advantages? Sure, there are cases of Japanese players winning, but I'm convinced that in games between equally skilled players, the Allies will win more often than not by a very large margin. Maybe the adage goes "As an Allied player, YOU CANNOT LOSE - unless you make big mistakes or get unlucky dice rolls"?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: rtoolooze

"Most important thing: as an Allied player, YOU CANNOT LOSE. PERIOD."


I've been getting closer to finally buying this monster game, studying the manual, and tutorials. But after seeing this, it kinda took the wind out of my sails. Why play a game when you know who will win.
So no matter what, Japan can't win?

I hate it when the uninformed make statements like the one you reacted to. It is categorically false.

I'm a decent player. Been playing AE and WITP for 13 years. I've completed three PBEM games as the Allies and I lost two of them. In my fourth now and the outcome is in doubt. IF you play the game design and understand the victory conditions, Japan can win. In some sense it's easier for Japan to win as all they have to do is hang on and not lose. The Allies MUST, under the design, get an auto-victory to win the game.

Japan has numerous advantages built into the design they did not have in RL. Over the decade of AE's existence Japan players have come to understand how to optimize those advantages. Today, unlike 2009, you will likely encounter a Japan PBEM opponent who is very, very tough.

The statement made by rtoolooze is false, no doubt. However, is Japan the only side with advantages built into the design they did not have in RL? And are the Japanese players the only ones who have come to understand how to optimize their advantages? And have Allied players not learned anything about how to negate / reduce the impact of the Japanese advantages? Sure, there are cases of Japanese players winning, but I'm convinced that in games between equally skilled players, the Allies will win more often than not by a very large margin. Maybe the adage goes "As an Allied player, YOU CANNOT LOSE - unless you make big mistakes or get unlucky dice rolls"?

Here we go again.

No, the Allies do not have the optimizing advantages the Japanese do in the game design.. That is by . . . design. The OOB is the OOB, the LCU pool system is restrictive and cannot be accelerated or expanded, aircraft R&D is fixed, etc. Further, Japan knows exactly, on 12/7/41, what the Allies will get and when they will get it. Even the random arrival set-up spinner acts to hurt the Allies as much as help, and is thus neutral.

Further, there are major portions of the Allied war machine that are missing from the game models, while nothing Japan possessed is really not there. I'm speaking primarily of all things CAS, at which the Allies excelled, and which had a major effect in large campaign in cutting the legs out from Japan's logistics. There is no napalm, There are no parafrags. There are no rockets. No WP. And, of course, the whole submarine game is nerfed to the point of near irrelevance compared to history. The Allies must use assets to hit the seaborne economy that were in RL used to support combat campaigns. And shall we speak of amphibious landings? The entire concept of a beachhead is missing. Repeated shock attacks by the entire force ashore when even one new combat device is landed on a small island are certainly not "real." And complicate the invasions the Allies must do, over and over, to a fare thee well.

There are advantages built in that both sides use, yes. Op tempo is very fast. Ship repair is very fast. There is no av gas, and thus island logistics are much easier. No wounded to evac. Base infrastructure repairs at no cost. Aircraft replacements bip onto distant bases with no transport required. Many more. But I'm at a loss to find any major game mechanism that the Allies get that Japan does not that aren't based on historic OOB decisions.

I'm sure that over the nine years since launch more Japan PBEMs have been lost than the opposite. I'm not sure that's true in the last three years, when the games went to completion. Since it's an unknowable stat we're each going to have to accept our own impressions. Bottom-line, I'm glad you reject the central premise of my post: it's ludicrous to assert that Japan can never win.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




I hate it when the uninformed make statements like the one you reacted to. It is categorically false.

I'm a decent player. Been playing AE and WITP for 13 years. I've completed three PBEM games as the Allies and I lost two of them. In my fourth now and the outcome is in doubt. IF you play the game design and understand the victory conditions, Japan can win. In some sense it's easier for Japan to win as all they have to do is hang on and not lose. The Allies MUST, under the design, get an auto-victory to win the game.

Japan has numerous advantages built into the design they did not have in RL. Over the decade of AE's existence Japan players have come to understand how to optimize those advantages. Today, unlike 2009, you will likely encounter a Japan PBEM opponent who is very, very tough.

I would say that the outcome of this game is still very much in doubt, but the safe money bet would be on the Japanese. It's mid June of 1942 and my opponent already has a 2.5-1 spread on points. Can he get to 4:1 in 1943 ? Considering that his carriers can range far and wide with little to stop them, I would say that he has a decent chance. And I will need to have a pretty good year in 1943 to keep him from a 3-1 margin in 1944. So I know that it could very well end up being a losing effort for the Allies. My opponent graciously offered me the chance to restart the game, and I declined. I want to see if I am up to the challenge.

It is much, MUCH harder to go from a 2.5:1 ratio to a 4:1 ratio than from a 1:1 ratio to a 2.5:1 ratio.

All of his actions will be costing him points as your assets destroy some of his assets. Trading above a 4:1 ratio to that degree over a long period of time is exceedingly difficult, especially since VPs from bases is "temporary" (can be recaptured).

You will have at least 6 months during 1943 to marshal sufficient assets to make a large VP attempt if you have to - if not multiple.

Agreed. If he's doing the things he's 'supposed' to do as a Japanese player, he should be ahead of you by 2:1 or 2.5:1 at a minimum in June 1942. This is the high water mark for many Japanese players, as the ratio becomes more and more difficult to improve upon by January 1, 1943. If you trade 3 fighters against his 1, you're taking away from his 1/1/43 AV probabilities. "Even trades" for CVs=disaster for Japanese autovictory.

Watch where he has the greatest lopsided autovictory count. My guess is it's Allied land forces destroyed and Bases. The former can be mitigated somewhat in 1942 by not getting your Chinese LCUs trapped and killed. The latter is temporary and reversible.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Yeah, here we go again [:D] because I think the ability of Japan to "optimize" things is not as bad (or good - depending on the POV) as it sounds here.

The "optimizing advantages" for Japan are limited to the aircraft production. The OOB is the OOB for both sides, the squad and device production is automatic and cannot be "optimized" - Japan does not get more or better LCUs other than "by design". The Allies know on 12/7/41 what Japan LCUs and ships can get and when at the earliest. Ships can be accelerated for heavy costs - the Allied shipbuilding is already "accelerated" by design.

Now, the aircraft R&D and production management does give some leeway to Japan which the Allies don't have, but it is less an "optimization" but more a "rob Peter to pay Paul" kind of ability. Oil and resource centers cannot be expanded so the number of HI points and fuel points the Japanese player can use during the game is more or less fixed - a Japanese player must make choices how to spend them. If they go into aircraft R&D production, they must make cuts elsewhere or risk crashing the economy. In PDU off games it doesn't even make sense to accelerate certain good airframes or to build tons of them, because the OOB does restrict the number of air units which are allowed to fly those plane models. And finally, even with accelerated R&D the boost to Japan does not seem to be a total game-changer. In my experience the Zero M8 I advanced to late 1943 dies just as easily as the earlier models.

Agreed that there are major portions of the Allied war machine that are missing from the game models (You want napalm and parafrags? I want the first ever weapon possessing intercontinental range - balloon bombs [;)]). There are also major portions which are in the game but should not be. Take a look at ship withdrawal dates - they are missing for many many ships which left the PTO temporarily or permanently. Most prominently USS Nevada which in the game stays in the PTO while in RL she left to participate in Overlord and Dragoon. Then take a look at ship arrival dates - I have found many ships which arrive on map weeks and months earlier than IR (I have also found some which arrive later, but far less in numbers). Submarines nerfed - yes, but largely a Japanese player choice to devote assets to AWS which could be used for other things - robbing Peter again. Neither Allied nor Japanese subs can target multiple ships in one attack, so it is neutral. Amphib ops - the mandatory shock attack as such is neutral. If the Allies select to attack heavily defended bases subject to shock attack rules, it is poor target selection. The Japanese OOB is way too thin to allow for a solid defense across the PTO. The Allies can hit them where they ain't.

I don't have the stats either. A Japanese player can achieve AV in a PBEM for sure. But he must be very good - the perceived or real advantages for Japan are not "fail-safe".

[dave sindel]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: dave sindel




I would say that the outcome of this game is still very much in doubt, but the safe money bet would be on the Japanese. It's mid June of 1942 and my opponent already has a 2.5-1 spread on points. Can he get to 4:1 in 1943 ? Considering that his carriers can range far and wide with little to stop them, I would say that he has a decent chance. And I will need to have a pretty good year in 1943 to keep him from a 3-1 margin in 1944. So I know that it could very well end up being a losing effort for the Allies. My opponent graciously offered me the chance to restart the game, and I declined. I want to see if I am up to the challenge.

It is much, MUCH harder to go from a 2.5:1 ratio to a 4:1 ratio than from a 1:1 ratio to a 2.5:1 ratio.

All of his actions will be costing him points as your assets destroy some of his assets. Trading above a 4:1 ratio to that degree over a long period of time is exceedingly difficult, especially since VPs from bases is "temporary" (can be recaptured).

You will have at least 6 months during 1943 to marshal sufficient assets to make a large VP attempt if you have to - if not multiple.

Agreed. If he's doing the things he's 'supposed' to do as a Japanese player, he should be ahead of you by 2:1 or 2.5:1 at a minimum in June 1942. This is the high water mark for many Japanese players, as the ratio becomes more and more difficult to improve upon by January 1, 1943. If you trade 3 fighters against his 1, you're taking away from his 1/1/43 AV probabilities. "Even trades" for CVs=disaster for Japanese autovictory.

Watch where he has the greatest lopsided autovictory count. My guess is it's Allied land forces destroyed and Bases. The former can be mitigated somewhat in 1942 by not getting your Chinese LCUs trapped and killed. The latter is temporary and reversible.

Thank you again for your perspectives as an experienced Japanese player. I've never played the campaign game as Japan, so I am not familiar with what is supposed to have been accomplished by this game date. But it "feels" to me that his major focus has been on the naval portion of the game, and there hasnt been nearly as much (or enough) attention paid to the CBI theater. I still have control of Wenchow as one example, despite several attempts to take it. Sian, Changsa, Wuchow, Nanning, Yenan are all still under Chinese control. Ramree Island is fairly strongly defended, as are Akyab and Cox's Bazzar. Chittagong is a size 7 airfield, size 5 port and heavily garrisoned. So yes, while you are correct that the bulk of his points are from Allied LCU losses, the count of bases is fairly even if I recall correctly.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Yeah, here we go again [:D] because I think the ability of Japan to "optimize" things is not as bad (or good - depending on the POV) as it sounds here.

The point was they can optimize fighting structures at all. The Allies get handed the historic OOB, even though that was based on things like Midway happening and late-war crap Japanese air capabilities driven by a lack of av gas for training. The 1944-45 strat bombing campaign OOB is fixed (some B-29s with no self-defense) because by then the Japanese air defenses were on their butts. In the game an Allied player faces literally thousands of 3rd gen fighters with a fixed-size bomber force.


The "optimizing advantages" for Japan are limited to the aircraft production.

And accelerating ships. And investing in Arm and Vehicle points to speed replacements. And the ability to expand shipyards. Far more capability to over-expand air unit counts. The amphib bonus. A victory term win if more than two A-bombs are used.

The OOB is the OOB for both sides, the squad and device production is automatic and cannot be "optimized" -

Japan can choose to create a cushion of Arms and Veh points by trading off elsewhere. So long as there are points there will be replacements.The Allies can't do this. We get a trickle of upgrade squads at key interfaces like the 1942-1943 transition. The only way to "accelerate" is to disband healthy LCUs to rob them of devices, then wait six months for them to re-queue.

Japan does not get more or better LCUs other than "by design". The Allies know on 12/7/41 what Japan LCUs and ships can get and when at the earliest. Ships can be accelerated for heavy costs - the Allied shipbuilding is already "accelerated" by design.

But they CAN be accelerated. The Allied naval OOB is accurate so far as the dev's data let it be. If an APA is two weeks early I can assure you it makes no strategic difference given the distances to the front. The major combatants are accurate so far as I know. The USN subs are.

Now, the aircraft R&D and production management does give some leeway to Japan which the Allies don't have, but it is less an "optimization" but more a "rob Peter to pay Paul" kind of ability.

It's not free, no, but the ability to get, say, the Frank -r six months early is massive given that planes fly on supply. I would give a LOT of supply--millions of points, to get Hellcats six months early. Let alone Jugs.

Oil and resource centers cannot be expanded so the number of HI points and fuel points the Japanese player can use during the game is more or less fixed - a Japanese player must make choices how to spend them.

Yes, and those limits were set over a decade go. These days it's common in AARs for Japan players to announce they have 3-5 million HI in 1945. I don't think the devs foresaw that.

If they go into aircraft R&D production, they must make cuts elsewhere or risk crashing the economy. In PDU off games it doesn't even make sense to accelerate certain good airframes or to build tons of them, because the OOB does restrict the number of air units which are allowed to fly those plane models. And finally, even with accelerated R&D the boost to Japan does not seem to be a total game-changer. In my experience the Zero M8 I advanced to late 1943 dies just as easily as the earlier models.

My experience with Lokasenna's use of the Frank -r was quite different. Zeros are Zeros the world round. And th eP-38 line is not the plane the real world saw, even though it is a tent pole model for the whole mid-war. Even the P-51D is meh as a dogfighter when facing pilots with 90+ experience, again, trained with no limits on flight time.

You do bring up a good point that has been lost in the mists of time. The devs intended that the "normal" game be Scenario 1 with PDU OFF. Virtually no one plays that. It's rare an Allied player can get a game with PDU OFF. OFF prevents a lot of the R&D "optimization" games.


Agreed that there are major portions of the Allied war machine that are missing from the game models (You want napalm and parafrags? I want the first ever weapon possessing intercontinental range - balloon bombs [;)]).

No rabid bats? [:)]

There are also major portions which are in the game but should not be. Take a look at ship withdrawal dates - they are missing for many many ships which left the PTO temporarily or permanently. Most prominently USS Nevada which in the game stays in the PTO while in RL she left to participate in Overlord and Dragoon.

No Allied player would miss Nevada a whit. The pre-war BBs are as much hindrance as benefit. Slow, fuel pigs, Long Lance magnets. OTOH I could use a few UDT teams to do pre-invasion recon of fort levels.

Then take a look at ship arrival dates - I have found many ships which arrive on map weeks and months earlier than IR (I have also found some which arrive later, but far less in numbers).

If they're merchants the differences are meaningless. The Allies get literally thousands of merchants. By 1945 many are sitting in ports due to click fatigue and multi-million point supply dumps forward already.

Submarines nerfed - yes, but largely a Japanese player choice to devote assets to AWS which could be used for other things - robbing Peter again.

A lot of threads of this fiction. The Japanese economy, no matter the trade-offs, could not have mounted a credible ASW effort. Simply not possible given shipbuilding and electronics industries. The game is fantasy. The ability to get a 10/10 DL on a sub 200 miles offshore is just ludicrous and belies hundreds of patrol reports available on-line. I've read them.

Neither Allied nor Japanese subs can target multiple ships in one attack, so it is neutral.

Umm, no. The USN submarine effort was central to the war fighting strategy at sea. The Japanese submarine effort was an afterthought.

Amphib ops - the mandatory shock attack as such is neutral.

It's not neutral if Japan has no need to land after the amphib bonus.

If the Allies select to attack heavily defended bases subject to shock attack rules, it is poor target selection.

The Pacific is mostly atolls. It's just a fact of geography. And the US devised ways to attack and take them. But if landing a single 105 arty piece on D +1 would have caused the 1st Marine Division to get to their feet and charge into MG fire I don't think they would have been taken. The first wave shock attacking? Fine. But once there was a beachhead, no.

The Japanese OOB is way too thin to allow for a solid defense across the PTO. The Allies can hit them where they ain't.

Except the route to a strat bombing of the HI--the goal in the game as well as real-life--doesn't go through Tahiti. It can't. The route taken is the route required. Japan players can and do defend that route with the OOB in game. And I haven't even mentioned three-month prep periods for the next target, totally ahistoric.

I don't have the stats either. A Japanese player can achieve AV in a PBEM for sure. But he must be very good - the perceived or real advantages for Japan are not "fail-safe".

I didn't say that. I said Japan can win. And I said I think Japan wins a lot more often now than in 2009. The Japan side's culture has been a dynamic evolution over a decade, while the Allied side has been pretty static.

[Encircled]

Worth bearing in mind (if you haven't done it already of course!) is maximise the size of your bases to increase your VPs.

[Lecivius]

I'm gonna go with The Moose on this. I have said this before, but he is far more eloquent than I ever could be.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Worth bearing in mind (if you haven't done it already of course!) is maximise the size of your bases to increase your VPs.

It depends on where and when and which side. CONUS and HI for sure, but for Japan there needs to be a trade-off analysis over the short-term bennies of the VPs and capabilities versus what the Allies will save in time if you hand them a ready-made base two years from now.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I'm gonna go with The Moose on this. I have said this before, but he is far more eloquent than I ever could be.

[;)]