Scoring?

[Mr.Frag]

Is the end goal of the VP values of things planned to be balanced against history in such a manner that Japan breaking even with history is considered a draw, lasting long a win, etc?

I don't think anyone is under any disbeliefs this time around due to the realities of fuel/supply that Japan can actually win (like in UV where winning by auto-victory was a standard goal for any player). Strategy looking into the game obviously needs to be shaped as something that can realistically happen based on what is theoretically possible between two equally skilled players.

How do others view this? Will we be looking at land grab/resource grab expansion until checked and rolled back? Denial of key areas to break convoy routes (something that can actually be done now that fuel/supply has value)?

Just wondering what people are looking at getting out of the game beyond the fun of playing for the sake of playing something at such an epic scale?

[Sonny]

I'm looking forward to the fun of playing for the sake of playing something of such an epic scale.

[PzB74]

This is exactly what I've been trying to address in the Ki-100 thread.

'Winning' is a relative issue and you're right when you say that Japan can't win a victory of conquest. If she can prevent the US from nuking them, then this has to be some sort of victory.

Japan has to be able to survive until the end date of the scenario played and still be able to defend herself. This would also represent some kind of victory.

I want both a historical accurate game and a challenge....
Loosing big time will bring total defeat on Japan already in 1944.
Playing a historical accurate game should bring defeat in september 45.
Performing better than history should put Japan in a better situation at this date.

Using 'history' as a receipt isn't easy since every little thing that doesn't go exactly as it did during the Pacific War will change the outcome. Taking this into account is challenging and, yes - back to Snigbers famous remark - if you change history the outcome will not be historical

Incredible how much truth such simple logic contains....

[USSMaine]

I think an epic of this scale is something that is experienced more than anything else - kind of when a friend and I actually finished a game of Second Fleet (boardgame from Victory Games) - even though I lost.

[Mr.Frag]

Yea, I was looking through that thread and it started to remind me too much of a UV thread about the virtues of a certain plane vs a certain plane and steared clear

Seriously, from a USA perspective, things are quite clear cut. One simply moves forward in a sustainable manner until Japan is ringed by CV's and airfields and has completely lost the ability to make war. The only issues that come into play are maximizing speed and minimizing losses.

Japan is a completely different beast. Even setting aside every possible thing that they did wrong that would have made some form of difference to the duration or position or holdings, they *will* loose. There is *nothing* that can be done to alter that fact as even a relatively new inexperienced USA player simply has so much war making capacity that Japan's feeble attempts are simply speed bumps. He might be late on the draw, but he still can't be stopped. Loose a dozen CV's? Who Cares, just call it a Bad day at the office

I am having a tough time thinking of *how* to play Japan and think it probably (seeing as we have lots of time still) will make for a great discussion that doesn't need to bog down into the technical details, but become more of a how-to strategy discussion because the scope of WitP is going to kill a lot of folks right out of the box without some basic *how-to play* guidelines. Obviously they will change as the game takes more shape, but the general strategies or goals shouldn't be dramatically altered.

[Fred98]

Yes I have the same view.

But my view was formed by looking at the victory conditions.

Once the allies take the lead in points, the Japanese cannot regain the lead. So the Japanese player has no incentive to continue.

If we use the same scoring system as in UV, then Tokyo and the bases nearby would need to be worth mega points, or the campaign ends in early 1943.

But my preferred scoring method, is that you receive “X” points per turn for holding the base. Of course if the base is larger you receive more points and if it is supplied you receive more points again.


-

[mogami]

Hi, The Japanese player has to ignore/forget things he knows are true (from hindsight or previous games) And play like it is 1941 and he has been told to go out secure resource for Japan and defeat the United Nations.
Then he has to play like it is 1942, 1943,1944,1945 and adopt whatever measures it takes to prolong the war and defend the Japanese Home Islands.

The only fair victory conditions are those that measure the Japanese player compared to Japan during the war. The easiest method is the A-Bomb test.
The game ends when the Allies deliever a bomb to a target in the home Islands
The date is compared to the historic and a winner is declared. The further in advance of history the lower the Japanese score. Since the Allies only have 1 group that can make a-bomb attacks they have to secure a base within range.
I admit I tend to over simplifiy things. But as Japan my main focus will be on preventing this capture. To make the game more interesting (and go totally away from reality) I would make it so only 1 base could be used to launch A-bomb strikes. (Not China or USSR or Alaska) Tinian. Of course by using these conditions the game takes away a large measure of Allied player independence.
(It turns the game into a race to capture Tinian. But still the supply situation means they just can not rush there and ignore everything else.

[Mr.Frag]

I agree with what you are saying Mogami, the question is what are possible strategies for conducting a '41/42 offensive?

Does Japan go for cleaning out the west, attempting to strengthen it's resource base and remove the Brits from play?

Do they head south and isolate the Aussie's making fuel ranges difficult on the USA?

Can they sustain a double campaign for the first year of the game for serious gains or is it more feasible to invest the whole works into a single overwhelming front of advance trying to break the Allied supply chain and seriously delay their efforts from a timeline perspective?

Obviously Japan has to play the game in increments of 3-6 months, ignoring the pending realities. The question is just how many paths are open that actually make sense seeing as we are not tied down to repeating past mistakes.

Is there a worthwhile bang for the buck by attempting a resource war, going purely for targets that boost Japan's ability to fight the fight or does it amount to little difference overall and would be a waste of time that could be better spent gaining bases deeper into the Allied turf making unlodging take longer...

Lots of thoughts, all of which potentially take 6 months to investigate

[mogami]

Hi, That question is the whole reason for playing the game (as Japan)

Myself, I would say my ultimate objective for every operation is to destroy as much Allied material (men/ships/aircraft) as I can while sustaining the fewest possible loss to my own material. Of course the problem is coaxing the allied player into sending enough to make it worth my while to destroy it while keeping enough material tied down else where to prevent overwhelming power being brought against my operation.

(He has to think he can spare the material for a victory or that he has to commit the material to prevent a defeat. But in no case can I give him a target
/place/time to actually hurt me.)

[DJAndrews]

I think it would be interesting if the scoring scheme attempted to make a judgement on the "quality" of the victory. The timing of achieving victory conditions is one aspect certainly, but the manner in which resources are utilized/mishandled should be reflected somehow. Things like hurting the allies morale, through excessive casualties or major unexpected defeats could be recgonized through some sort of non-linear scoring system (eg. if losses in men exceed the historical, the cost in points doubles, or some such thing; the value of major assets increases with time for the allies). Could the Japanese achieve a "conditional" surrender if they approached things differently, especially if say, the US had decided that the Bomb was not an option?

[PzB74]

[QUOTE=Mr.Frag]Yea, I was looking through that thread and it started to remind me too much of a UV thread about the virtues of a certain plane vs a certain plane and steared clear QUOTE]

How true…a due sense of exhaustion and dread came over me as well!

The results of the WitP scenario will depend more on the persons playing the game than the actual statistics of units. Playing a very defensive game will produce a very different result from that obtained if you go for an all or nothing strategy, that’s for sure.

Giving different objectives and thereby creating different victory conditions could be interesting!

'Prevent the Allies from capturing the Marianas by 1944'.
'Sink 75% of the Japanese merchant fleet by the end of 1944'.

A bonus/penalty could be awarded for how well you actually perform these 'major' assignments. (Not letting your opponent know your main objective would greatly increase the fog of war and create more tension.

Having many options is what I think will increase playability and make WitP appealing for more people.

[mogami]

Hi, I think there is some attempt to reflect the allies trying to reduce their loss in combat. Allied ground units score twice the value of Japanese. So the allied player who only suffers equal loss in game terms is behind in score. The allies have to win land combat with only half the loss of the Japanese just to break even point wise.

[Sonny]

........ - back to Snigbers famous remark - if you change history the outcome will not be historical

Incredible how much truth such simple logic contains....

Which I why I have all of his remarkably clear and to the point quotes in my sig.

[MemoryLeak]

I agree with DJAndrews comments. The quality (point value) of the victory should be linked to the amount of men and materials lost in an operation conducted by the Allies. That way, as Mr Frag reminded us, if you lost 12 CV's you could not just chalk it up as a bad hair day. There would be long-lasting consequences. I suspect there will be some players who will lose large quntities of ships and planes in one raid after another knowing that they will still win because of attrition.

[Antonius]

Usually I am a bit skeptical about determining victory mostly by comparing the player's achievement with the historical outcome since it means one assumes that the historical outcome was close to a fairly good though not brilliant performance by both sides and players always much more hindsight and intel than the actual commanders.

But for this game I think that the timing of Japan's defeat makes a lot of sense:
- for the Americans defeating Japan without any real Soviet help was a strategic victory in the emerging conflict with the USSR. If they had won in 1944 they could have used more ressources in Europe, which in turn would have altered the post-war division of the continent. Had they won in 1946 they could have faced the prospect of a Japan divided into US and Soviet zones or even worse, in turn altering the whole balance in Asia...
- for the Japanese every day without a US invasion held some hope of some new development.

[CommC]

Two tidbits of information have come to light only recently that are relevent to the victory conditions debate.

1. The Japanese tried to surrender to the US some time (several weeks?) before the A-bomb was dropped. To save face, they tried to surrender using the Soviets (Stalin) as an intermediary. This was a mistake as Stalin sat on the info and did nothing to forward the request to the US. This of course was deliberate on Stalin's part as he was hoping to prolong the war so Soviet forces could enter the conflict and the Soviets could get more of the "spoils". The US was anxious to end the war as quickly as possible before the Soviets could intervene, hence the A-bomb was used as soon as possible, without any delay to attempt to gain a Japanese surrender.

Even if Tinian is captured early (say 1942), the A-bomb can't be used. It simply wasn't ready until the date it was dropped historically.

2. After the Doolittle raid, the Japanese high command realized they could not win a protracted war with the US and resolved to try to end it by gaining overwhelming victories early in the hopes of demoralizing the US, and gaining a negotiated early surrender. To this end, their plan was to capture Midway, destroying the US carriers in the process, then use Midway as a spring board to invade and capture Hawaii. Again, they hoped that the loss of Hawaii would prompt a US surrender or cessation of hostilities in the Pacific.

This would make an interesting Japanese "automatic victory" if indeed some one could capture Hawaii as the Japanese player.

[Piiska]

Has anyone played Medieval:Total War? An absolutely brilliant game, by the way...

It has a scoring system called Glorious Achievement (which can be turned on or off). In this system a faction scores points if it is able to complete certain historical tasks within a certain time frame. For example England scores a lot of points if it successfully completes a crusade against Palestine before a certain year. Similarly Spain scores points if it manages to build certain amount of building in its homelands to signify their cultural achievements.

This translated to WITP would, for example, award Japanese x amount of points for successfully capturing Southern Resource Area by time X. Similarly U.S could score points by recapturing Solomon Islands before time X, or by sinking x tonnage of Japanese merchant fleet by the end of 1944. These 'goals' could be virtually anything, ranging from capture of bases, to gathering of x amount of resources (for Japan), to building up bases, doing the Doolittle, or the Singapore raid, or attacking Sydney Harbor with submarines. Only the history would be the limit

Additional points would be scored for destruction of enemy assets and also for controlling bases. This would mean that a loss of 12 carriers would actually mean something and, just like in Medieval, the player would be free to pursue own strategies and still score enough points by controlling other areas to win the game. The 'tasks' would just give a good incentive to launch particular missions using whatever assets the player has. In other words, the players would be encouraged to take more risks.

This could nicely simulate political pressure a real world commander would feel if he just remains inactive, waiting for those new carriers to arrive the next year.

The players could have competing goals through the campaign and the points scored, or not scored, from them would be permanent. Thus, if Japanese would score a massive amount of points by capturing Midway, even for a short time. At the end of the game they would have more points under their belly because they were able to do something their historical counterparts were not. This in turn could mean that by winning some important battles and fulfilling given goals the Japanese player could score a victory in the game, even when he gets nuked and is forced to surrender.

Ps. In this system, or in any for that matter, I would give heaps of point for the Japanese if they can get themselves conquered by the U.S instead of the Russians. The history has show that they were much better off under U.S occupation than any country under the Russians. This has to count for something

[HMSWarspite]

Two tidbits of information have come to light only recently that are relevent to the victory conditions debate.

1. The Japanese tried to surrender to the US some time (several weeks?) before the A-bomb was dropped. To save face, they tried to surrender using the Soviets (Stalin) as an intermediary. This was a mistake as Stalin sat on the info and did nothing to forward the request to the US. This of course was deliberate on Stalin's part as he was hoping to prolong the war so Soviet forces could enter the conflict and the Soviets could get more of the "spoils". The US was anxious to end the war as quickly as possible before the Soviets could intervene, hence the A-bomb was used as soon as possible, without any delay to attempt to gain a Japanese surrender.

Even if Tinian is captured early (say 1942), the A-bomb can't be used. It simply wasn't ready until the date it was dropped historically.

2. After the Doolittle raid, the Japanese high command realized they could not win a protracted war with the US and resolved to try to end it by gaining overwhelming victories early in the hopes of demoralizing the US, and gaining a negotiated early surrender. To this end, their plan was to capture Midway, destroying the US carriers in the process, then use Midway as a spring board to invade and capture Hawaii. Again, they hoped that the loss of Hawaii would prompt a US surrender or cessation of hostilities in the Pacific.

This would make an interesting Japanese "automatic victory" if indeed some one could capture Hawaii as the Japanese player.

Why do you say that this has 'just' come to light? I am trying to remember the reference, but I have known of the approach via the Russians for a long time. I would have to search the net, or my books, but IIRC the offer would not have been accepted anyway, because it had strings attached.

On the subject of the A bomb, this had great emotional impact, but didn't really produce the level of damage that conventional bombing did. If Jn had not surrended when they did, they would have discovered that there could not be another A bomb for some months. There would, however, have been continued incendiary raids on the big cities (overall, causing many more deaths than the A bombs). The positioning of a sizable force of B29 aircraft within range of Japan is the deciding factor IMHO, althought the capture of Iwo Jima acts as a force multiplier. I would say that the points system should just reflect that, by allowing a points build up so effectively that Jn reaches the surrender point when this happens. GG would have to be Very careful with auto victory capture of Tinian, especially against the AI, because it looks like a candidate for gameyness to me!

On your second point, Yamamoto realised this long before the Doolittle raid. He knew before Pearl! I also do not recognise the ambition to capture Hawaii. I thought Midway was an attempt to create a link in the outer defensive ring around the co-prosperity sphere...? The aim of this was (as you sort of imply) to make attacking the Empire prohibitively expensive, and force a negotiation to accept the status quo.

[mogami]

Hi, I would not have Tinian count for auto victory. I would however make it a condition that Japan would never surrender before at least 1 A-bomb had been dropped from group stationed there. Since B-29/Group/A-bombs are not all on map before mid 1945 going straight for Tinian would not end the war early.
I would allow early war ending if Tokyo and any 5 other cities on Home Islands occupied by allied troops.

[Mike Scholl]

Giving different objectives and thereby creating different victory conditions could be interesting!

'Prevent the Allies from capturing the Marianas by 1944'.
'Sink 75% of the Japanese merchant fleet by the end of 1944'.

A bonus/penalty could be awarded for how well you actually perform these

The problem with putting specific victory point goals into the game is that
you are then dictating the player's strategy. Mayby the player doesn't want
to invest 100's of hours of time just reproducing the original campaign. He
might want to come from the south through Formosa---should he "lose" the
game for not taking the Marianas" We need something that measures overall
success without forcing any particular strategy on the players.

One way to go would be to give the Japanese victory points for Production.
The more successful they are in keeping their economy going, the more points
they get. They might also get points for US losses starting in 1943. Not a
lot, but enough that if the Allied player got sloppy it would cost him. Then
you play until Japan is forced to surrender, and look at the point score to see
if in game terms the Japanese had been successful (ie., if they had accumulated
enough points before the end to keep "bragging rights" for their performance.

It would at least give both players freedom of action to chose their strategies,
wihle still offering some measure of successful play.