Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5313
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA
Contact:

RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

Post by Tanaka »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Frankly, I couldn't possibly find this to be more comical.


"the means for offering resistance have been largely exhausted and the game becomes a dull enduring of ever increasing Allies hammer blows without the slightest chance to inflict losses and to hit back from time to time."

Substitute 'Japanese' for 'Allies' and you have an apt description of the first 18 months of the game.

Why is it that only the Allied player is expected to endure this, while the Japanese always seem to want a free pass to quit as soon as they have to endure what the Allies have already endured?

Replacing "Allies" with "Japanese" would mean that in the first 18 months of the game, the Allies exhaust their means for offering resistance and have no chance to inflict lossses and to hit back from time to time.

Despite the 1945-level supply and fuel production they get from Day 1 which is virtually untouchable for the Japanese, despite the never-ending and ever-increasing amount of reinforcements the Allies receive?

I find this hard to believe - maybe if an inexperienced or over-agressive or extremely unlucky Allied player squanders his assets. But even if the entire pre-war US Navy gets sunk in the first 18 months - the Allied player can still make a comeback.

That the Allied player has to endure a tough time in 1942 is in the nature of things and can't be held against the Japanese player - the Allied player has to endure if the game is to continue to the point when he can hit back. If the Allied player doesn't want to endure "Japanese hammer blows" in 1942, then he can play the Marianas or Downfall scenarios instead of the grand campaign.

What is comical is to compare what the Allies have to endure in 1942 with what the Japanese have to endure in 1944 - apples and oranges, I wonder if you you have ever played a PBEM on the Japanese side into the late war?

If you start a grand campaign as Allied player, you know that you will suffer in 1942, but also that you can come back with a vengance and an unstoppable steamroller - that helps to endure the tough start.

As Japanese player in 1944 you know the situation is bad - and can get only worse.

I agree though that the Japanese player should continue to fight as long as he has some fighting assets left. But when the fleet is sunk, the airforce impotent and the industries gutted, then it should be ok to call it quits?

You fail once again to grasp the point I have always and will continue to make:

The Allied player has to pay up front for his heyday by first enduring the Japanese heyday.

The Japanese player has his heyday handed to him on a silver platter and only has to pay the piper after the fact.

This places on Japanese players a debt of obligation to stick it out and weather the Allied heyday.

In my one and only, sour taste in my mouth experience, with PBEM, in an Uncommon Valor game, my low life scum Japanese opponent, who duped this newbie into agreeing to play the UV equivalent of an Ironman game because he would need a beefed up force to be able to go the distance, promptly quit when his early bid for autovictory failed.

My observations see quitting as soon as your heyday ends continues to be a prominent trend amongst those who play the Japanese side.

I have the utmost respect for the few Japanese side players who actually go the distance.
You happen to be among that group.

Completely agree with you with both of you. And this is pretty much how every WW1 and WW2 game works. You definitely better find a good stable opponent that will stick it out playing either side...if you are just in it to win only you are not the right opponent. You both have to enjoy the journey not the destination...
Image

Check out my mod for Strategic Command American Civil War!

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 9f17441266
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5313
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA
Contact:

RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

Post by Tanaka »

Double post

Image

Check out my mod for Strategic Command American Civil War!

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 9f17441266
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

Post by spence »

Unfortunately it took me more than 7-8 years to find a Japanese opponent that would stick it out.
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

Post by rustysi »

so as to reduce ops losses

These are insignificant in the game. Reason CV qualified pilots are not necessary.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

Post by rustysi »

Let's see if you can stop being a smarty pants for a minute or two and agree with that, eh?

No problem. Bye-bye. Green button.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
Ian R
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

Post by Ian R »

ORIGINAL: rustysi
Let's see if you can stop being a smarty pants for a minute or two and agree with that, eh?

No problem. Bye-bye. Green button.

So, that means you won't be reading, or reply to my posts anymore with your specious arguments and snide remarks?

I'll take that as a win.

Bye-bye.
"I am Alfred"
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4968
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

You fail once again to grasp the point I have always and will continue to make:

The Allied player has to pay up front for his heyday by first enduring the Japanese heyday.

The Japanese player has his heyday handed to him on a silver platter and only has to pay the piper after the fact.

This places on Japanese players a debt of obligation to stick it out and weather the Allied heyday.

In my one and only, sour taste in my mouth experience, with PBEM, in an Uncommon Valor game, my low life scum Japanese opponent, who duped this newbie into agreeing to play the UV equivalent of an Ironman game because he would need a beefed up force to be able to go the distance, promptly quit when his early bid for autovictory failed.

My observations see quitting as soon as your heyday ends continues to be a prominent trend amongst those who play the Japanese side.

I have the utmost respect for the few Japanese side players who actually go the distance.
You happen to be among that group.

Hans, I grasp your point but I think you don't see that I just make a distinction between #1 The Allied-side player has to suffer before his heyday and the Japanese-side player has his heyday before he suffers and #2 Japanese player quitting when they start to suffer.

You cannot blame the Japanese player for #1 - since this is in the nature of things if you play a grand campaign game. But I agree that #2 is dishonorable and I fully understand that you feel cheated and frustrated by your experience with your opponent in UV.

Maybe I have been lucky, in my dozen or so PBEMs in PacWar, UV, WitP to AE against different opponents I never faced a quit when my opponent's losses got painful - but maybe because I have always played the Japanese side (except in my current game).

You are probably right that more Japanese player quit than Allied players - that can be explained but not excused by the fact that unlike the Allies the Japanese side cannot recover from a disaster. But I'm sure there are Allied players as well who quit the game early at the first serious reverse suffered - I think the famous "early carrier loss syndrom" works for both sides.

Hope the hatchets have been buried.
ORIGINAL: Tanaka
...if you are just in it to win only you are not the right opponent. You both have to enjoy the journey not the destination...

Amen!
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

That one would likely correspond to the one restricting The Japanese from having operational jets in '44.

Oh, wait a minute, the latter one doesn't exist.

Never mind.






ps....for those too thick to grasp my point.......it's that it is the Japanese side that needs reigning in on ahistorical capabilities, not the Allies.

Considering how nigh-impossible it is for Japan to win the game on the victory conditions, as coded...

Not really.



But more importantly - aren't the Corsairs that arrive before then not CV-capable anyway?
Evoken
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:51 pm

RE: Is this still a valid house rule for WITPAE?

Post by Evoken »

Considering how nigh-impossible it is for Japan to win the game on the victory conditions, as coded...

Not really.

That is objectively false statement. So many good Japanese players won their campaigns. To name a few; Desertwolf(crushed allies all game), Castor Troy(currently crushing allies in 1945) , Jdsrae (got Auto Victory in 43) , Lowpe got really close in a PDU=OFF game , twitch streamer hellsenstrat won 2 PBEM's as Japan in 1942.

Also as Andy Mac said this rule was for the older game idk what are you guys still discussing , both sides got ahistorical stuff , no matter how long you discuss nothing will change in this game.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”