Can an Allied Player Win the Game?

[Dereck]

No argument there Ron. I'm just saying the OPTION should be there but the game does need to add in "consequences" such as more Soviet reinforcements, better land combat in China etc.

A nice thing about a strategy game like this is to play around with "what-ifs". Only problem the way it is right now the "what-if" the Japanese attack the Soviet Union really needs some "balancing".

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: dereck

No argument there Ron. I'm just saying the OPTION should be there but the game does need to add in "consequences" such as more Soviet reinforcements, better land combat in China etc.

A nice thing about a strategy game like this is to play around with "what-ifs". Only problem the way it is right now the "what-if" the Japanese attack the Soviet Union really needs some "balancing".

Exactly. What ifs are one of my favourite aspects with wargames, but if they do not emmulate all the issues, it becomes boring fast. Like cheating, it makes playing the game pointless.

In my current 1.3 game, I'd be a little annoyed if these situations were exploited. Easy to deal with Russia (house rule says no Russian gambit) but China, how can one apply house rules to an entire combat/movement.logistics model?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: dereck

No argument there Ron. I'm just saying the OPTION should be there but the game does need to add in "consequences" such as more Soviet reinforcements, better land combat in China etc.

A nice thing about a strategy game like this is to play around with "what-ifs". Only problem the way it is right now the "what-if" the Japanese attack the Soviet Union really needs some "balancing".

I have no problem with the "what if's". But they need to be realistic what if's. When
players start talking about "beating Russia" in a few weeks or "conquering all of China
in a couple of months"..., it's pretty obvious to any student of the period that the sit-
uation represented is garbage. The Japanese could probably have conquered some
more of China over the course of 1942-44 (they would still have to meet realistic
garrison requirements for it to mean anything), but not in the "blitzkreig" manner the
game allows. Against the Soviets, its far less certain. Even a "second-line" Soviet
tank (in terms of the Russo-German conflict) was still far better than anything the
Japanese could field..., and Jap AT weaponry wasn't as good as the Germans. A
mechanized war on open plain is exactly the kind of war the Japanese Army was
least able to fight. Even "good infantry" means much less in this terrain..., and "good
infantry" was about all the Japanese Army really had going for it. It's equipment &
support were basically crap.

[Dereck]

No argument there. If a Japanese player wishes to transfer extra troops to the China area and launch an offensive they should expect to face opposition. They could even possibly win but not the way it currently allows.

Right now because of the way the game is set up, the Japanese player can launch a quick offensive and knock out the Soviets and free up troops to use elsewhere. I agree whole heartedly that in no way would it be as easy as the game has it. With the Soviet opposition set up in a more plausible way - I used plausible because without the Japanese really attacking the Soviets there's no way to say definitely what the Soviet reaction would/should be - the Japanese could even succeed but it should, as you say, be against troops which would be plausible. Realistically the Japanese should have to think twice about invading the Soviet Union and opening up a second (third or fourth?) front at the same time they had the slow steam roller of the American Army and Navy coming towards them.

[2ndACR]

I look at it like this, if the Japanese player wants to do it, so be it. Ever looked at what it costs to change the HQ on those divisions? Average of 3000+ points. You get 50 per day if you do nothing else with them.

Yes the Japanese player can make it a toltally one front war in the game, but it will take a long while for all those units to be released for duty in the Pacific. At 3000 a pop, you could change the HQ on 1 division every 2 months, but more like 3 months. Accounting for a/c re-assignments, leader swaps etc. The only units I will use with out swapping HQ's are unrestricted units. So Southern Army units can be used in China, Manchuria. But Manchuria and China units have to be HQ swapped before they can be used in either area.

More of a self imposed rule. I hate house rules as it is. But unless my opponent goes gamey with say heavy night bombing from low altitude, I will respect my rule. Gamey play leads to gamey play. I know that I eat up every PP I get all the way to Aug 1942. And that was to release 1 division from Manchuria to Southern Army for use in China in that game.

But I am also an organizational freak. Every unit has to be assigned to the HQ of that area. My Southern Army units stay in one army while in China composed of mostly Southern Army units when used. Makes more military sense to my mind. Even though there really is no penalty for having any unit 2000 miles from its parent HQ.

[Milman]

Nowhere in my post did I imply that it should be as EASY as it currently is. But since this is a GAME and not a REPLAY of WWII that option SHOULD and MUST be available to a Japanese player if he/she decides to pursue it and commit the forces necessary. It definitely should not be something that is as easy as it currently is but that option cannot be taken away from them.

If you don't want historic game than I want US navy TF with 4 CV with no penalty for air ops . "Non historic game" is not good answer for China/Rusia problem . Everybody know that this is only GAME , noone play historic , but Allies have penalties on everything plus China and Russia problem . Give US player KB of US CV's and you can take China and Rusia , I will not compain about that if this is alowed .

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Milman

Nowhere in my post did I imply that it should be as EASY as it currently is. But since this is a GAME and not a REPLAY of WWII that option SHOULD and MUST be available to a Japanese player if he/she decides to pursue it and commit the forces necessary. It definitely should not be something that is as easy as it currently is but that option cannot be taken away from them.

If you don't want historic game than I want US navy TF with 4 CV with no penalty for air ops . "Non historic game" is not good answer for China/Rusia problem . Everybody know that this is only GAME , noone play historic , but Allies have penalties on everything plus China and Russia problem . Give US player KB of US CV's and you can take China and Rusia , I will not compain about that if this is alowed .

Hey - use the editor and make yourself a USN KB if you so desire.

But you can't use the editor to fix the problems in land warfare.

As I've said before - if such attention is payed to the details in the weapons, OOB - then why not get the actual combat results approximating something that might have taken place, (instead of 14,000 to 1 results giving 17 casualties (out of 1000+ troops) and no retreat, no surrender)?

[sveint]

Just had fun reading this whole thread. Unfortunately Mogami beat me to it, I agree with him 100%:

I don't think there is a single historical scenario that the Allies can lose. The fun of being Japan is not winning the war it's causing the Allied player moments of doubt.

The title of the thread, and what you should be asking yourself is really: Is it possible to win as Japan?

The anwer is, no, not unless the Allies make serious mistakes.

And to amend Mogami's comment: The fun for me is to see if you can do "better" than historical. How long can Japan hold out? How early can you conquer Japan?

Those of you that think Japan can win is making a classical mistake in strategic thinking: You are assuming the best strategy for yourself (Japan) while giving the opponent (Allies) a passive strategy that plays into your hands. Believe me, we might not have seen it in an AAR yet; but Allied players will be throwing out some nasty surprises. In fact I just sat down and game-theoried the Japan-takes-Russia first scenario, and it seems there are... well, possibilities.

[sveint]

Oh and a note on China: Japan should not be able to conquer interior China unless the Allied players makes some horrible horrible mistakes. Just because that has happened in a few AARs, don't mistake it for a common occurence or an easy feat.

For a different story, see my AAR vs Mogami where China gave Japan alot of trouble and came close to destroying a large army. Which reminds, ever taking that game up again Mogami?