Can an Allied Player Win the Game?

[Philwd]

Beat me to it Boerwar[:D].

Quark

[Ron Saueracker]

Does anyone ever wonder why this was not attempted historically? Had to be a darn good reason not modelled in the game, otherwise it would have been an historical fact.

[Halsey]

Oh, I'm sure Stalin would have offered some kind of incentive for the Eastern Russians.[;)]

The conscripts might not have been very well trained, but there would have been troops. So you think he would have just ignored the Japanese? Stalin didn't work that way. He would have found some way to get more bodies into the action.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Does anyone ever wonder why this was not attempted historically? Had to be a darn good reason not modelled in the game, otherwise it would have been an historical fact.

I believe it could have been that before the war there was a debate in the Japanese High Command whether to go north or south because they knew they couldn't do both. It could have been that once the decision to go south was made they never considered a move into the Soviet Union again.

[jnier]

I think some people are losing sight of the victory conditions. Japan can have PH & Alaska. Japan can win in India and even Russia and still lose. By 44-45 B-29's will decimate Japan regardless of Japanese land victories. Japan's only real chance to win would seem to be an auto-victory in 1942 or early 1943, and if an aggresive japanese player takes heavy loses in 1942 (like WITP Dude), he will not win an auto-victory and he not win the game. The victory conditions reward cautious Japanese (and Allied) play.

I think the victory conditions clearly favor the allies. I find it difficult to see how a cautious allied player could lose (retreat until mid 1943, then work to establish B-29 bases by mid 1944, then bomb Japan into the stone age). An allied player only loses if he foolishly over-commits the USN before 1943.

BTW, has a japanese player won a single game yet in PBEM?

[Feinder]

The reason that the IJA was "hesitant" (to say the least) to attack the Soviet Union was because Zhukov clobbered them at the battle of Khalkin-Gol in 1939. It was the Japanese that approached the Soviets with a non-agression pact, not the other way around.

===

A good page for this little known bit-o-history...

Russo-Japanese war of 1939


Enjoy.
-F-

[Arkady]

ORIGINAL: jnier

I think some people are losing sight of the victory conditions. Japan can have PH & Alaska. Japan can win in India and even Russia and still lose. By 44-45 B-29's will decimate Japan regardless of Japanese land victories. Japan's only real chance to win would seem to be an auto-victory in 1942 or early 1943, and if an aggresive japanese player takes heavy loses in 1942 (like WITP Dude), he will not win an auto-victory and he not win the game. The victory conditions reward cautious Japanese (and Allied) play.

I think the victory conditions clearly favor the allies. I find it difficult to see how a cautious allied player could lose (retreat until mid 1943, then work to establish B-29 bases by mid 1944, then bomb Japan into the stone age). An allied player only loses if he foolishly over-commits the USN before 1943.

BTW, has a japanese player won a single game yet in PBEM?

I agree...

those allies fans, after seeing December 1941 havoc, starts rant,but game is now too much pro allied that only chance for Japan victory is 42 or 43 auto-victory, after that time Allies win...no matter Japanese will do.

see allied continuos uninterrupted flow of supplies and production from off-map, free CV replacement for 42 losses, check parameter values fro A/C, ships etc. and I'm suspicious that allies are favoured in combat calculations (for example it seems to me that allied CAP get always one free attack round against japanese bombers, no matter how many escorts, own losses during dogfight or altitude differences)

Arkady

[moses]

ORIGINAL: jnier

BTW, has a japanese player won a single game yet in PBEM?

Of course this is flawed. Has anyone won a single game as allied yet??

[jnier]

ORIGINAL: moses

ORIGINAL: jnier

BTW, has a japanese player won a single game yet in PBEM?

Of course this is flawed. Has anyone won a single game as allied yet??

My point is that Japan probably must win early by auto-victory, and the allies will probably win if they avoid a japanese auto-victory. And I have seen in several PBEM games where Japan clearly has no chance for auto-victory and will likely lose by 44-45.

[moses]

The problem is that taking russia quickly creates a domino effect. There are 15 divisions there. Defeat russia by Feb 1 and the bulk of these (say 10) can be sent to China. Now you have 30 good divisions in China by Mar1 (plus a whole lot of smaller units). These will make short work of the Chinese. Keep in mind that Japan will not have been idle in China prior to Mar 1. Only 5 china divisions are used in russia. This still leaves enough in China for limited offensive operations. At least Changsa should be taken and provide a base for Japan to thrust northward. By June 1 China should be gone. Now Japan has 35 good free divisions!! They also have a lot of small units,mongol divisions, independent bde's etc. that can be used to mopp up any stray russian and chinese units still surviving off the countryside.

Is there the slightest chance that India can put up a fight? The best India can do is to force Japan to move overland. This would delay the fight for India until Sept 1 or so with India. If a landing can be made without going by trail through Burma, then India will fall with ease probably before Oct.

So before the end of 1943 japan has the entire mainland of Asia. They also have hordes of troops with little to do. By now they have enough PP's to activate at least 6 of these divisions and more if they have set replacements to off and allowed the divisions to deplete a little.

The SRA by now is long conquered so you have thse 12 divisions to play with. So I'm guessing by 1943 you have about 20-22 good divisions that can be sent on futher conquests. Can Austrailia hold off this force. If I take Nome and march south can even the west coast hold against this much force?

[jnier]

ORIGINAL: moses

The problem is that taking russia quickly creates a domino effect. There are 15 divisions there. Defeat russia by Feb 1 and the bulk of these (say 10) can be sent to China. Now you have 30 good divisions in China by Mar1 (plus a whole lot of smaller units). These will make short work of the Chinese. Keep in mind that Japan will not have been idle in China prior to Mar 1. Only 5 china divisions are used in russia. This still leaves enough in China for limited offensive operations. At least Changsa should be taken and provide a base for Japan to thrust northward. By June 1 China should be gone. Now Japan has 35 good free divisions!! They also have a lot of small units,mongol divisions, independent bde's etc. that can be used to mopp up any stray russian and chinese units still surviving off the countryside.

Is there the slightest chance that India can put up a fight? The best India can do is to force Japan to move overland. This would delay the fight for India until Sept 1 or so with India. If a landing can be made without going by trail through Burma, then India will fall with ease probably before Oct.

So before the end of 1943 japan has the entire mainland of Asia. They also have hordes of troops with little to do. By now they have enough PP's to activate at least 6 of these divisions and more if they have set replacements to off and allowed the divisions to deplete a little.

The SRA by now is long conquered so you have thse 12 divisions to play with. So I'm guessing by 1943 you have about 20-22 good divisions that can be sent on futher conquests. Can Austrailia hold off this force. If I take Nome and march south can even the west coast hold against this much force?

I'll worry about this as a playbalance problem IF i see it happen against a competant Allied player. Until then I'm very skeptical that a Japanese player could achieve these results against a human opponent and still win the game.

[moses]

Thats a convinient reply since it cannot be tested for well over a year.

I can demonstrate very easily, and fairly quickly, however that russia can be taken against any allied player. From there the rest follows.

It's very clear to me that the ground combat system needs to be fixed to prevent these kind of non-historical exploits.

[jnier]

ORIGINAL: moses


I can demonstrate very easily, and fairly quickly, however that russia can be taken against any allied player. From there the rest follows.

Then by all means, demonstrate it. And demonstrate that it makes Japanese victory inevitable.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I just don't think it will be as easy as you believe it to be.

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: jnier


My point is that Japan probably must win early by auto-victory, and the allies will probably win if they avoid a japanese auto-victory. And I have seen in several PBEM games where Japan clearly has no chance for auto-victory and will likely lose by 44-45.

I really hope this is not how it turns out. A game where the only sensible strategy being an all out attack by the Japanese far beyond what occured historically countered by a hide in San Fransisco strategy by the allies is neither Historic nor fun to play. This was the principal problem with UV. This game (and that) is simply too long to be fun if at all times only one player is doing anything and there is just one set strategy (ultra aggression v very defensive).

Japan did not have the power at any time to crush India, China and Russia's Far east. If the game not only lets them (and for me the jury is still out on whether it can) but lets them do it with only a minor delay on conquering the SRA then thats a serious flaw.

Hopefully the standard scenario will not turn out to be so imbalanced. I hope there is a reasonable counter to the Japanese asia land blitz and that the Allies can do something more than hide until well into '43. Likewise I hope (but fear you are right) that the Japanese have a chance to slow the allies down once the tide turns. i.e. There may be a defensive strategy that works in WitP where as there was not in UV.

Fortunately this can all be solved in the editor if the standard campaign turns out to too far biased towards Japan early on.

[Ron Saueracker]

I just love the sound of quotes like "If I march south from Nome...". Yech! Trying to visualize Japanese units on sled dogs traveling faster than a holiday Winebago.[8|]

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I just love the sound of quotes like "If I march south from Nome...". Yech! Trying to visualize Japanese units on sled dogs traveling faster than a holiday Winebago.[8|]

Ron - You've captured the exact point that Moses and I are trying to make - armies shouldn't be able to "race" across Siberia or Alaska at will in winter. The game makes no provision to differentiate between an armored division on a desert highway in California and on snowcovered highway in Alaska.

At least in Pacwar there were winter effects upon aircraft. This did mean that you could bring ships into the winter weather areas without fear of attack by naval or land-based air, but that's effectively how it was during the war.

Dave Baranyi

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

ORIGINAL: jnier


My point is that Japan probably must win early by auto-victory, and the allies will probably win if they avoid a japanese auto-victory. And I have seen in several PBEM games where Japan clearly has no chance for auto-victory and will likely lose by 44-45.

I really hope this is not how it turns out. A game where the only sensible strategy being an all out attack by the Japanese far beyond what occured historically countered by a hide in San Fransisco strategy by the allies is neither Historic nor fun to play. This was the principal problem with UV. This game (and that) is simply too long to be fun if at all times only one player is doing anything and there is just one set strategy (ultra aggression v very defensive).

Japan did not have the power at any time to crush India, China and Russia's Far east. If the game not only lets them (and for me the jury is still out on whether it can) but lets them do it with only a minor delay on conquering the SRA then thats a serious flaw.

Hopefully the standard scenario will not turn out to be so imbalanced. I hope there is a reasonable counter to the Japanese asia land blitz and that the Allies can do something more than hide until well into '43. Likewise I hope (but fear you are right) that the Japanese have a chance to slow the allies down once the tide turns. i.e. There may be a defensive strategy that works in WitP where as there was not in UV.

Fortunately this can all be solved in the editor if the standard campaign turns out to too far biased towards Japan early on.

The only way I can see for the Allied player to defeat this strategy is to husband forces on the West Coast of the US, and build up the Eastern Pacific Islands as much as possible. Thus, when the Japanese player starts to bring those free (and very experienced) divisions eastward the Allied player can try to block them from landing. If the Japanese player can avoid losing the KB and his surface fleet, then things will be fairly even on the water in 1943 and the Allied player will have a chance to beat off some landings, although I could see a very big blood bath at some point.

However, if the Japanese player keeps the KB active in the Central Pacific in 1942 and prevents effective build-up of US positions on the north-south line from Alaska through Hawaii to Palmyra/Christmas Islands, then the Allied ability to interdict invasion will be very limited.

The problem will continue to be the ability for the Japanese to do ahistorical things on the ground. Granted, the current engine will allow the Allies to do the same thing in the 1944 scenarios, but the Allies do not have the forces in 1942 to do anything similar.

Dave Baranyi

[Dereck]

Likewise I hope (but fear you are right) that the Japanese have a chance to slow the allies down once the tide turns. i.e. There may be a defensive strategy that works in WitP where as there was not in UV.

** Since I play the Allies this is pure OPINION **

If a Japanese player generally follows the original Japanese plan which was to conquer the territory and then create a defensive perimeter to defend and don't make the blunders the real Japanese did (such as Coral Sea and Midway) and conserve their carrier forces they could possibly drag the game out long enough to force a draw or better.

[jnier]

ORIGINAL: dereck

Likewise I hope (but fear you are right) that the Japanese have a chance to slow the allies down once the tide turns. i.e. There may be a defensive strategy that works in WitP where as there was not in UV.

** Since I play the Allies this is pure OPINION **

If a Japanese player generally follows the original Japanese plan which was to conquer the territory and then create a defensive perimeter to defend and don't make the blunders the real Japanese did (such as Coral Sea and Midway) and conserve their carrier forces they could possibly drag the game out long enough to force a draw or better.

I usually play allied too, so I can't say for sure. But by the time late 43 rolls around a cautious allied player can have:

11 CV
9 CVL
16 CVE
5 British CV

These ships are all loaded with good pilots in the latest planes (except the British CV's). If the allies concentate the fleet carriers in a group of maybe 10 different TF's it would slaughter KB. The best the Japanese can hope for at this point, IMHO, is to avoid a fight with the USN and hold back KB to use it as a deterrent. Allied naval power is unstoppable by late 43 unless the allies have allowed themselves to be attritted.

[moses]

Reply to Ron Saueracker:

Yes as ADavidB said this is exactly the point. I'm not saying that it is realistic. In fact it is absolutely absurd. There is no way Japan could have defeated Russia in 2 or 3 weeks. Had they gone all out and attacked Russia they may possibly have won eventually but they would have lost heavy casualties. Then the thought of quickly sending these troops to China to participate in a lightning invasions of China. Then after all that send them off to India. TOTALLY COMPLETLY IMPOSSIBLE.

But I have demonstrated that Russia falls in exactly this way and the rest of the above plan follows much more easily.