DEI almost completely falling on turn 1

[devoncop]

[:)]

Nice cartoon.

The logistics of the Pacific War in one image [&o]

[Numdydar]

My issue is that taking the DEI on Dec 7th is just so impossible. It is not a 'what if', it just could not be done.

The game forces you to do this on turn 1 because Japan would be crippled without it. When in fact Japan had enough fuel stored to cover the 4+ months they needed to take the DEI.

This is really bad game design to me. The game forces you to do something that was impossible in RL because Japan was not given the oil resources they should have had when the game starts. Plus, as I said before, if you HAVE to do something the same way every time you play the game otherwise you lose or are really crippled, does not provide the player with really exploring 'what ifs'.

To the point about trying to convince 'others my approach is correct'. If a game that is supposed to be a even rough approximation of what the war in the Pacific was supposed to be like, then it should have at least some resemblance to what was actually possible. If the game was on a random map with Red and Blue sides none of this would have been an issue. Since the game forces you to do something that was impossible in the real war, that make this game just as much a fantasy game as if it had Orcs and Elves.

I love the cartoon btw

[AlbertN]

Design choice Alvaro is correct here - the Allies will do their very best otherwise to reinforce DEI, somehow. (At the moment I am even thinking to disband all DEI units that are not the Batavia Corp to gain some more staying power!).

Then again there is also the deliberate choice that Japan has operational fuel for 1-2 months at the start of the campaign. That's fantasy too. (But that's another tale - as I think oil consumption in general is excessive).

I suspect anyhow soon enough the PBEM scenario will be '42. The '41 will turn repetitive pretty quickly - the Allies can do little to nothing and the Japanese will repeat roughly the same movements (they've more decisional power of where to toss their weight).

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

My issue is that taking the DEI on Dec 7th is just so impossible. It is not a 'what if', it just could not be done.

The game forces you to do this on turn 1 because Japan would be crippled without it. When in fact Japan had enough fuel stored to cover the 4+ months they needed to take the DEI.

This is really bad game design to me. The game forces you to do something that was impossible in RL because Japan was not given the oil resources they should have had when the game starts. Plus, as I said before, if you HAVE to do something the same way every time you play the game otherwise you lose or are really crippled, does not provide the player with really exploring 'what ifs'.

To the point about trying to convince 'others my approach is correct'. If a game that is supposed to be a even rough approximation of what the war in the Pacific was supposed to be like, then it should have at least some resemblance to what was actually possible. If the game was on a random map with Red and Blue sides none of this would have been an issue. Since the game forces you to do something that was impossible in the real war, that make this game just as much a fantasy game as if it had Orcs and Elves.

I love the cartoon btw

I would say if the AI taking NEI early is a fall on your sword issue, then the game, or at least the 1941 scenario, won't work for you. Period. And I don't think Alvaro will change it, though I suggested above how that could be done, more oil supply for Japan and setting up the scenario where it isn't possible to take the hexes that cause DEI's surrender quite as fast. Or he could change the DEI surrender rule to put a delay on it or require maybe that the main oil fields be captured, and the Japanese did go after the oil fields directly in Feb 42. Yet we would still end up in the same place in the spring of 42, and the Allies still wouldn't be able to do anything to prevent its capture, just as they weren't able to in real life.

On the other hand, if you want "at least some resemblance to what was actually possible," I think the game does much better than you portray it because we still end up in mid-1942 when the Allies start getting transports roughly where we would be historically. Considered that way, I think the early surrender of DEI works as intended and works just fine.

I also think Cohen_slith's excellent suggestion of just starting with the 1942 scenario might solve the problem for those unsatisfied with the 1941 Japanese opening moves. I've played the game enough as a beta tester to know that the first few months are usually very repetitive.

[Numdydar]

Those are good ideas.

Even in the WitP AE community many people would have loved a May '42 start to the game. There have been a few tries, but I am not sure how successful. Because even in WitP, Japan does a lot of the same actions game after game simply because doing anything too radical will lose you the game. Or I should say lose sooner as against any Allied player that is half way decent you will lose regardless lol.

A campaign starting there would solve a whole range of issues. I would be much more inclined to purchase the game if that existed. The big issue for the WitP community is that hard data of where all the Japanese forces were in May of '42 is hard to come by for oblivious reasons. One suggestion is to run a large series of AI versus AI games and see if there is any consistent baseline of where thigs are in May '42. If there is then that would be where the scenario would start.

You also bring up a valid observation that, if by mid '42 Japan is close to the same position that she was historically, then you could just close your eyes and hold your nose to get past the 'fantasy' stage of the game. I'll watch some more videos and aars to see how things shape up later in the game and to see what that would look like.

jwarrenw13 best comment in the thread as far as I am concerned. Even better than mine lol. So thank you for it. [:)]

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Those are good ideas.

Even in the WitP AE community many people would have loved a May '42 start to the game. There have been a few tries, but I am not sure how successful. Because even in WitP, Japan does a lot of the same actions game after game simply because doing anything too radical will lose you the game. Or I should say lose sooner as against any Allied player that is half way decent you will lose regardless lol.

A campaign starting there would solve a whole range of issues. I would be much more inclined to purchase the game if that existed. The big issue for the WitP community is that hard data of where all the Japanese forces were in May of '42 is hard to come by for oblivious reasons. One suggestion is to run a large series of AI versus AI games and see if there is any consistent baseline of where thigs are in May '42. If there is then that would be where the scenario would start.

You also bring up a valid observation that, if by mid '42 Japan is close to the same position that she was historically, then you could just close your eyes and hold your nose to get past the 'fantasy' stage of the game. I'll watch some more videos and aars to see how things shape up later in the game and to see what that would look like.

jwarrenw13 best comment in the thread as far as I am concerned. Even better than mine lol. So thank you for it. [:)]

There is a full map scenario starting 26 April 1942. I haven't played it. During beta testing I played only the full game 1941 scenario. However, looking at the scenario map, I think it would have what you are looking for.

[AlbertN]

I quite favor the '42 scenario already.

Testing out an Allied '41 PBEM and started a fresh Japan '42 PBEM.

One of the main peeve with '41 is that Japan logistics are just filled up already. So I feel expansion is redundant. Armed forces are kind of maxed out. '42 one has more leeway and ability to toy around with production.
In the '41 one as Allies I litterally have just to choose 'what to produce', and shuffle around some pieces in China and India / Burma.

Allies too lack oil for naval operations. UK is without fuel after 3 months of war and USA has so little that the fleet is persistently parked in ports.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

You are forgetting hindsight. What Allied player wouldn't sacrifice everything to ram and jam NEI? I would. No oil for Japan I win. That isn't historical either.

And so say I did put restrictions. Then the NEI would still get invaded in probably 3 turns. Which again isn't historical. I would immediately take all the objectives I need just so I can invade the NEI as soon as possible because it is the most important resource to Japan.

As the Allies I will send lend lease to NEI to beef up their defenses. I will park a battle fleet outside the NEI sacrificing them if need be to stop invasions.

There are so many "what ifs" that you just can't account for them all. It then makes the game kind of....boring. All you are doing is following history. In reality the Japanese couldn't even invade Hawaii. It was too far. But do I want to ruin that for players? Naw. I want them to have fun with the game.

After playing so many games of World in Flames over the last 25 years the largest satisfaction players got were sinking named ships and accomplishing things different from history. Players would literally line up all the enemy named ships they sunk during the game like a trophy case. It was social and fun.

If you want to reduce the game and make it more historical make it 5 days and reduce the movement of fleets. Then infantry on transports will wither very quickly on the way to long invasions in the early years.

Thanks for that explanation. I've found myself in the same "historical" mindset, but if i step back and think of this like a board game it really clicks in my head.

Hopefully it sticks, but i appreciate the constructive vision.