Can an Allied Player Win the Game?

[guke]

I think many of us were raised on WWII films that made the English speaking world the winners. And they were...eventually. But when you boot up the game as the allies and play your first year you get a hard dose of reality staring you in the monitor. The allies were in a tight spot in 1942.

I recommend John Costello's "The Pacific War"? I read it again after purchasing this game and was fascinated by the parallels. If you want to talk about historical double takes in the game, I wouldn't look to Singapore, nor the PIs. I'd rather look to China. There is the biggest surprise I found and there is where the land combat limitations ain the game re more easily exposed. I understand the political realities that were present in WWII, and the division of resources, but I am still curious if the goal of China was that obtainable in the real war.

I fail to see much difference between the historic situation at the start of the war and starting situation of the game.
Japanese forces were indeed superior in many regards at the time of the PH attack. They had the best carrier force
of the world (best planes and best pilots mostly) and carriers were the decisive factor in the trans-pacific expansion
of the Japanese. Their cruisers and destroyers were far superior to any allied ones (thanks to the long lance). The Zero
and the Betty were extremely successful designs and they were available in the theater in large numbers, contrary to
the allied planes at the start of the war. The end of japanese superiority was Midway and I don't feel compelled to repeat
that battle in the game.

If, as has been claimed, it is possible to conquer the US west coast in the game that would indeed have been impossible
for lots of reasons.

If conquering the Russian far east province and China is possible, who can tell without historic precedent.

[worr]

ORIGINAL: guke

I fail to see much difference between the historic situation at the start of the war and starting situation of the game

Agree with all of your post.

But just to say that my point was that the historic sumation we have in our minds isn't a snap shot at the start of the war, but the whole war, with the West as victors in the end. It is that wholistic view of the war that misses the point of the early war.

Worr, out

[Charles2222]

I find pasternakski's comments a bit reflective of wanting the game to do exactly what hapeened historically and therefore confine the JA player to sheer boredom.

His main objection at this point is the ability of JA to do some amassing against the USSR and so on. The problem with that approach is that it's a general flawed viewpoint, but not entirely. The basic flaw is that it's wrong to think that any nation, even JA, cannot amass it's men and supplies to strike in any one area, in fact, many of us claim the multi-front war was GE's downfall (conveniently forgetting that the winning nations fought on multiple fronts too). The frustration is that the PBEM JA opponent can do the "unhistorical". The spawning rule for the Allies isn't exactly comfortable for the JA player wanting military victory either (as opposed to point victory).

So, the idea is that it's "non-historical" for JA to attack the USSR, but is it really? Where is the flaw? We know of course, as I said, that any nation can amass, but with JA being able to do this in the game and indeed go that way in their real history, the game problem is the optional 1st turn (making an attempt to program for both JA attacking PH and not doing so as well). BTW, doesn't the game automatically make JA at war with all it's historical enemies even if PH or ANY attacks come from them at all (a serious flaw to be sure when this game dabs into the hypothetical)?

Realizing that the spawning ships was the 1st step into hypotheticals, where do you stop? If you have a non-historical 1st turn, ie that JA doesn't attack PH, then you very likely don't have a WITP, but if one plays JA and goes another route, say the USSR, then not only could JA do it, but you are also turning the game into possibly more of a WIA (War in Asia). Since JA attacks the USSR and 'doesn't' attack PH, there is no war with the USA. Given the neutrality of the USA, particularly if JA attacks the USSR, it's fairly unlikely that the USA gets involved with JA, and maybe the US doesn't even war against GE.

As hypotheticals go, unfortunately, it isn't everlasting in the game, Naturally, no matter how good the success may be for JA against the USSR there would have been some sort of reaction from the USSR that isn't covered here and I suppose that's pasternakski's gripe. Unfortunately again, there's all sorts of other hypothetical reactions that aren't covered too, such as a JA reaction to the proposed Operation Olympic invasion, which since this game is bringing more attention to the Pacific, it ought ot be covered too. Oh sure, if the game makes JA automatically surrender after the A-bombs there's no reason for it, but OTOH one should question such an automatic surrender as well.

Anyway, just wanted to throw a few things out there, as the hypotheticals have to have an ending point and as far as I know the only one current to the game is the ship spawn rule.

[guke]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I think many of you greatly over-estimate the Japanese goals, and even their potentional in WW2. You also greatly under-value the ability and the committment of the Allied sailors, soldiers, and airmen that were fighting in the Pacific. Have much to say, but need coffee.

I agree that underestimating the fighting spirit of allied soldiers was one of the greatest errors of the japanese.
Reading the stories about some of the fighting in the pacific it is impossible not to feel deep respect for these british
and american soldiers.

Two words.

"Europe First".

Then ask yourself why.
-F-

Again I agree in principle. Contrary to Germany the Japanese were no real threat to either Britain or America. Everybody
(including the Japanese) knew it would be impossible to actually occupy the US and win a "total" victory. In '41/42 the
Germans still were a formidable threat to Britain. Everybody (again including the japanese) also knew that Japan would
not be able to even defend themselves against occupation by the allies in a long war.

But I think that is besides the point. After all, the Allies will win if the Japanese don't achieve early victory
(I have not played that far mysef yet). Therefore I think there should rather be a discussion about the conditions for that
early victory than a discussion what might or might not have been possible had the japanese acted differently.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: worr

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

I don't mean to do this. But IMHO one is either prepared to fight KB or you stay out of the Pacific.

The Pacific is a huge ocean.

If you are not prepared to fight KB, and the US wasn't in 1941-42, then you fight where it isn't. Look at all the major CV actions before Midway. They all were counter offensives taken because KB was either split or missing. Iwould do the same.

The best advice is to wait for KB to commit and then attack. If he refuses to commit for fear of opening up your counter offensive, then your CVs have served their task in neutralizing his force.

The real KB when direct from Pearl Harbor to the India Ocean....thus opening up our CV skirmishes in the Marshal Island.

Worr, out

Taking on the KB/Deathstar may have been "easier" (i.e. - more likely to succeed) in WWII than in WITP because of intangible factors not built into the WITP model. It's very hard to build things like an IJN CV running into a reef causing it to need repairs (which happened early in the war (9 Feb 1942) to Kaga. ) The examples of ships (including major fleet units) being damaged/destroyed due to random factors in WWII are legion. WITP models this somewhat by the everpresent SYS damage - but you don't have capitol ships being suddenly and violently removed from random factors (i.e. - like the Mutsu blowing up). It might be fun if the game did this, but on the other hand people would scream if something like this happened to them...

Also, various factors not modeled in the game prevented the IJN from using its carriers and other resources - factors that could easily have changed the outcome of several battles, i.e. - at Coral Sea Shokaku and Zuikaku were knocked out of the war for some time. Shokaku was damaged (but had her aircrew pretty much intact) - Zuikaku had her air crew shot up, but was more or less intact. In WITP, no problem: you switch the aircrew from the damaged Shokaku to Zuikaku, and you have a fifth heavy carrier at Midway. In actuality, the IJN command system did not allow any such thing (the aircraft crews were apparently considered ship's company, and didn't allow such measures).

Lastly, the IJN and the IJA did not get along at all. The previously mentioned IJA building its own ships (including subs) has been mentioned - however, they started doing this from scratch as the IJN refused to make even ship plans available. I didn't realize the depth of this hatred until reading an account of an American Naval officer in Japan just after the war. While at a laundry, a cringing laundress came and abjectly apologized to this officer for the unforgiveable sin of allowing both Army and Navy officers to be in the building (under the same roof) at one time. She was expecting to be severely punished for this.

The game does not model this kind of interaction. Perhaps it could (and slow down the kind of unbridled Japanese advances early in the war) by making the Japanese player pay heftly political point costs for transferring air crews, IJN ships transporting IJA troops, bringing supplies to IJA troops, etc. Don't think the game designers will put this in any time soon...[;)]

[moses]

Reply to Guke:

My point is that things happen way to fast in WITP which distorts what is possible. For example:

Four or five JP divisions with supporting arms can march into a city like Changsa defended by 4 Chinese Corps and completely clear it of Chinese in 3 or 4 days. The Chinese force will lose much of its heavy equipment in the retreat and the Japanese forces will lose almost no casualties( just some disrupted units).

In reality you would probably spend several weeks and quite a few casualties just making the approach to the city, bringing up supplies and artilery, and doing the needed recon. The actual battle for the city might takes weeks and possibly much more and there is no way to do it cheeply. Then after you win you still have enemy forces outside the city but still in the hex.

My point being that it should not be impossible to take for instance Changsa, but it should not be doable in a week.

The fact that russia can be defeated is not a problem. The fact that it can be done in a month with negligible casualties is.

Land combat simply needs to be slowed down.

[Feinder]

I actually think part of the solution (which is completely un-doable, considering the current game design), is the "activation points" that you had in the original "War in the Pacific, The Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945" board game.

You had activation points. You activated your CVs or LCUs for a lenght of 14 - 28 days. You got a certain number of acitvation points each month, depending on a lot of things. You could bank actiavtion points for a "future op", but it was for a set month, and couldn't be rolled. But to activate units, you had to activate the parent HQ, and then spend the points to activate the units. The thing about China was that, the parent HQ was very expensive (and the units themselves were expensive also), so it ended up being the occasional heat-up of hostilities, but not the major focus of the war.

It also dictated the pace of the game (to more historical pace), because you COULDN'T run a campaing in SRA, Burma, China and South Pacific, all at once. You didn't have the actiavtion points to to anything like that. But in WitP (computer), everything is active all the time. It think there might have been some intent that political points woud approach this, the truth is, their functions are very different.

-F-

[guke]

ORIGINAL: moses
In reality you would probably spend several weeks and quite a few casualties just making the approach to the city, bringing up supplies and artilery, and doing the needed recon. The actual battle for the city might takes weeks and possibly much more and there is no way to do it cheeply. Then after you win you still have enemy forces outside the city but still in the hex.

I'd say it depends on the difference in strength between both sides. Germany and Russia conquered Poland in a few
weeks and the conquest of France didn't take very long either (maybe not comparable to the asian theatre).
Taking Bataan which is usually well defended can take quite long in the game even if the japanese player doesn't
bring in a huge amount of troops.

My point being that it should not be impossible to take for instance Changsa, but it should not be doable in a week.

The fact that russia can be defeated is not a problem. The fact that it can be done in a month with negligible casualties is.

Land combat simply needs to be slowed down.

In principle I agree that things are going too fast. But I'd rather blame troop movement which is too fast I think.
First, I'd say that a retreating defender would destroy railroads. Second, I wonder if it were really possible to move
many divisions simultaneously through the chinese rail network for example. I suppose to move even one division
you'd need lots of trains and I doubt underdeveloped countries in Asia had that many in WW2.
Also, I would imagine supply to be more of a problem over the vast overland distances in China and Siberia.

Also, as has been said before weather should have drastic impact on troop movement.

And there should be more severe penalties for moving unmotorized troops over large distances in the tropics.

[jnier]

In principle I agree that things are going too fast. But I'd rather blame troop movement which is too fast I think.
First, I'd say that a retreating defender would destroy railroads.

Agreed the speed of movement is too fast and is probably the single biggest contributor the increased pace of the game. Rail hexes should have to be repaired when captured and there should be movement penalties for large stacks to reflect limited volume of rails, highways, & trails. This would go along way to slowing down LCU's in asia.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

Where exactly would those reinforcements come from? As I recall German troops were just discovering that winter coats would have been handy 10 miles from Moscow in Jan 1942. There were no reinforcements, in fact Zhuikov and several divisions had just headed west.

Actually what saved Russia in 1941/1942 was their mandatory enlistment program started in 1938. Yes the winter helped save Moscow and stopped the German advance, but starting in 1938 every Russian citizen was required to serve in the military for a period of 2 years.

So by the time the Germans invaded in late 1941, there was already 3 1/2 years worth of militarily trained youth throughout all of Russia. Not just some, but every young Russian of military age had already been trained, so give them a rifle and work out a chain of command and poof you've got a division, no boot camp or infantry training schools needed.

They lacked in heavier equipment, but if you look at the manpower numbers that Russia raised in winter 41 and early 42, it becomes obvious their reserves were being hastily raised in cities all across Russia with very little training, yet they were able to put up determined resistance throughout the renewed offensives of 1942.

At least until late 1942 early 1943, by then most of this trained core group had been used up or killed, but for the first year or two this is what allowed Russia to rapidly replace losses that would have destroyed any other country in the world. This core of pre-trained youth saved Russia's behind, and many could have been hastily sent to the East if necessary to face the Japanese.

Jim

[Runsilentrundeep]

If I could I would like to put in my 2 cents, (lately the way I have played its about .75 cents)

I have played war games and time and again (30 years) I have heard the complaint that things simply move too fast, this applies to the old Avalon Hill games as well as the latest Computer sims. I agree land movement in its own right is way too fast, I also agree that KB with "everything on it" is pretty much unbeatable (though I just saw the AAR where the IJN lost 4CVs in the first week), anyway I think there is another intangible reason that things happen way too quickly for most.

It's a game and not real war.

What I mean is that people are more willing to push ships and land units to their limits then generals are willing to push soldiers to do the same thing.

Now before I get flamed about cold blooded commanders (especially Japaneese ones) one thing you should consider, the Japaneese where quite careful with their assets until they started losing, it was usually when things did not go their way that they resorted to desparation tactics. This tends to go for movement as well as combat, how many times do generals not give soldiers a day or two rest after 4 days heavy combat or at least light duty. In games we as gamers tend to push for ultimate victory.

The caution that is inherant in war is simply nonexsistant in games and I think this does make the difference.

OK flame away!

[Feinder]

Agree entirely RSRD.

I think part of the reason that players are -allowed- to act agressively is that, simply put, it's more fun. Even tho we veteran grognards are supposed to be patient, we still like throwing all the pawns into the ring, and tell 'em to slug it out.

I think that's the fundamental thing that folks argue about, whether they know it or not. It's the PACE.

Faster and furious benefits Japan. Just like in history, the WitP Japanese player, is playing to beat the clock. Folks can say China or Burma/India is borked. Why? Because Japan can mobilize everything, and throw it into the fray, much faster and more efficiently that was historically possible. Same is true for naval ops. You can mobilize your fleets in 24 hours, and keep them at sea indefinately. Whereas, historically, after KBs jaunt at PH/Wake, when was the next time you saw them in action? 6 weeks later they supported the invasion of Rabaul. Whereas in game, you can simply have them top off otw or at Truck, then head to Rabaul and be there by the 15th of December.

The problem with "balance" is, if you slow the pace (perhaps by activation points), it's only helpful for the Allies (so now Japan fanboys rightfully scream "NERF!"). I think that Japan -should- be able to move faster than historical, because otherwise, all you'll ever possibly see, is a historical outcome. Strategy becomes irrelvenent in 1944, because the Allies can walk across the Pacific on the decks of the CVs. I think that there should be some way for the Japanese player to win, using equal amounts of bold and luck.

So do I think the pace should be slowed down? Sure. How much? Couldn't say. Again, slowing the pace only benefits the Allied player. And frankly, the Allied capabilities do NOT suck in 1942. So slowing the pace may end up killing Japan considerably earlier (which isn't any fun either).

Dunno. Frankly, I'm enjoying my 2 PBEM games (as Allied). We have a long way to go, but I do think I'm giving a good accounting.

I suppose what somebody should check is, if you -do- lose China, will that likely trigger (or come close to) and auto-victory? I know the chinese cities are worth a lot (some even as much as 300). But the most points in this game are scored on ships sunk and aircraft downed.

-F-

[ltfightr]

I also agree and have stated before the biggest problem is both Hindsight, and THE FATE OF YOUR NATION DOES NOT RIDE ON YOUR DECISION.

This allows you the player to conduct operations and run your troops and ships in a manner that even the most insanly aggressive general would even dream about.

You know exactly as the allies that the f6f and f4u are killers against just about any thing the Japanese can put up. You know that the IJN will not grow much and you have a lot comming not just guess. You know that the Japanese have x oil and y supplies and that thier economy will not might but will crash ect....


As the japanese you know that the allies will not surrender and you must go for broke as there will be no negotiated peace. You know that the philipines and singapore will not hold up and you will over run over them you know that the sub onslaught is comming you know that the nate is a pos you know...

That is the problem when saying the speed of the game is too fast its too fast because people usually do not keep the rear areas secure enough or invade with a small force because you know the base will be empty. No "real general" would ever allow.

And further more as I shouted earlier. The fate of your nation does not truly ride on your decisions nor do you face your men and write the letters when they die.

I will agree that heavy fighting does not damage/disable a division for the victors fast enough IIRC the 1st marine division was almost a year recouping after the guadalcanal caimpain.

[Feinder]

Parker, unless you've sent us the turn, get off the boards, and get back to the game!

[:D]

-F-

[ltfightr]

I do not have the turn yet however I am at work and can read the boards on break but not play so even if I had it oh well.

[grraven2004]

Most definatly the Allies can win!

Take alook at this result from 12/10/42

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/10/41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 108,69


Allied aircraft
F2A Buffalo x 8
F4F-3 Wildcat x 21
SBD Dauntless x 68


Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless: 20 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu, Bomb hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
CV Hiryu, Bomb hits 5, on fire
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
CA Chikuma, Bomb hits 1
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
1 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
1 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
1 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet

No return attack from the Japanese. What doesn't sink over night will sink the next day when my torpedo bombers finally get into range.

[medicff]

It's a game and not real war.

My 2 cents (probably only worth 1 1/2 now to the euro)

It is only a game not history. Therefore we try recreate some POSSIBLE (note the emphasis on possible) alternatives to history. From a strategic level which I believe is the major implication of changing the outcome of history (the micromanagement is for us to curse at) we should and can make grand decisions to alter the course of action albeit we know the real historic outcome. Bottom line is we know Japan can never win the war, but they can win the game and we can use victory points /objectives/ conditions to achieve this game balance. I mean that is what we want right? A GAME that sort of recreates history with historic units and allows us freedom to change how it is fought strategically. A game that is fun because of the unknown and chess playing tactics of the players. A game that allows either side to win (the game) based on their decisions and the luck of the roll.

Of course what we don't want IMO is the ridiculous chance that Japan can roll up Russia and China without a seriously draining fight if they choose that route. But maybe they can gain victory conditions which may make it worthwhile to go that way. With this complex game and all the choices it may be difficult to make everyone happy and keep an even game balance.

[mlees]

As I understand it, some players feel that the Japanese player can snap up China and Russia WITHOUT diverting much away from the war against the US/CW.

With the high VP value of the Chinese/Soviet cities, Japan is relatively assured of more/easier VP's than is fair, given that the risk and (claimed required) force needed to acheive those points is not proportional with the reward gained.

If the "Russia (and/or China) first" strategy is so unanswerable, and so do-able, this tilts the "game balance" in favor of the Japanese. Again, without commensurate risk to Japan, a lot of players (call 'em Allied fanboys, if you MUST) would have problems with the scenario as it stands. It makes an Allied uphill fight (in '42) that much harder to swallow.

Reading Hirohito's thread in the WAR ROOM, I sense that some folks are getting a little hot under the collar.

I presume the editor can fix the VP rewards, if the players want too, right?

[Ron Saueracker]

Many players who may like to play one side more than the other are not necessarily "FANBOYS". Fanboys are those twats who like to win at all cost and press for countless ahistorical additions to capabilities, quantity etc.

A war game is only this when it fails miserably at attempting to be a war simulation. This was not intended to be a game but revealed itself as one. I don't play war "games". If it is too silly it is not worth my time as I don't enjoy it.

[Tankerace]

Some devs thoughts would be good right about now, you know? The audience that WitP was supposed to appeal to is beginning to shrink, and that isn't good for business...