Japanese grand strategy

[Hornblower]

Am i the only one who this that its funny/Odd how months ago there were threats along the lines "can japan last past '43?" no we have this, where we are talking about tweeks to prevent Japan from scoring a russia/china win, and wracking up points and winning. Excellent discussions so far. But no name callings, lets play nice in the sand box.... [:-]

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: moses

Mogami:

Now refering to me as a gamey is just not fair and truly insulting. In truth it is just an excuse that allows you to ignore problems that you don't want to address.

I have said repeatedly that the issue is not Russia or China but the imbalance of the game in favor of the attacker that exist in every courner of the game. Russia and China are just two proofs of this imbalance. The ease of invading Burma is another. The ability to successfully invade India another. The ease with which Pearl Harbor was taken another. The speed with which the SRA can be secured is another.

Apparently you think that there is only one valid strategy. Take the SRA and hold. Anything apart from that is gamey.

I have not done anything gamey in any game I have played or in any AAR I have posted. I have not been looking for loopholes in the rules. If so these are pretty huge loopholes. Here the are the obvious strategies: Invade Russia, Invade China, Invade India, Invade Austrailia, Invade the west coast, Invade PH. These are not the wierd and wonderous ideas of someone trying to game the system. These are the obvious possible strategies that should occur as possibilities to any player.

If you fix the attacker/defender imbalance all of these can work. Instead you just wish to insult players who differ from you're view of what the game is about.

Hi, Why was this addressed to me?

I said if you like it that way then play it that way
The game works both ways.

I don't think I've ever used the term gamey addressed towards anyone.

Now I do think that anyone who thinks Japan could take on everyone on the map and actually occupy all these areas is looking at the game froim a different angle then me but i don't care if they do it. (just not against me but I don't think alot of this excess is possible in PBEM)

I can't change the combat system. So I am not ignoring that issue.

[moses]

Sometimes its hard to keep a sence of humor. I'll try to play nice.

I'm worried less about winning via victory pts as about the game just not playing right.

The changes that I personnally think are needed are fairly marginal. I think the game is pretty close as is but plays a little too fast in every theater which allows the attacker to grab a little too much before the defender has a chance to equalize.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: moses

Mike Scholl:

"Gamey" enters into the equasion when "game players" find one of these "loopholes"
and shove an Army Group through it claiming "it's perfectly legal in the rules" instead
of turning to the design team and saying "you guys really blew this one---I have a
few ideas how you can fix it".

I think I've provided a few ideas. But frankly it is almost impossible to even get anyone to discuss the issue. The all purpose answer "thats not what the game is supposed to be about" allows everything to be swept under the rug.

Its quite possible that one post from someone willing to address my central claim might well convince me that I was just wrong. Apparently any discussion of anything that might require the combat model to be looked at is just off limits.

Here is the central claim once more: The entire model is biased in favor of the side that is on the offensive. The attacker can sustain long-term offensives without taking significant casualties and without incurring supply difficulties as would occur historically. I don't mean to be tautalogical here. Obviously the superior side should be able to win I just believe that he is able to do so a too little cost. Therefore some changes should be made to the model which favor the weaker side.

Agree or disagree.

AGREE in principle; though remember the defensive bias caused by the Japanese being
much more difficult (sometimes impossible) to make retreat.....But your basic arguement
has a lot of validity.

[jwilkerson]

Moses,

This thread has gotten so convoluted - I'm NOT{ed.} sure who called who gamey ... [ but it wasn't me !!! ].

I know what you're doing. Essentially testing the land system - finding the edge of the envelop - and reporting back. We both got called gamey ( or was it "silly" ) in another thread for reporting out on the "engineer probe" tactic. I don't see much point in calling us gamey ( or silly ) since we are clearly trying to help !

The fundamental reason some of us disagree on "Japanese Grand Strategy" is that some of us are coming from the historical perspective and others are coming from the WITP game only perspective. If - as you say - the game model makes it too easy for the Japanese to take out China/Russia then as you say - it should be fixed ... and I absolutely agree with that.

My position is that we should steer the game in the direction where Japanese Grand Strategy in the game ... is more closely correlated to JGS IRL. When we do this ... we will have fixed a number of issues with the game. As it stands right now IMHO Grand Strategy in the game is NOT reflective of historical reality hence the apparent disagreement amongst several participants in this thread. So perhaps we should say either JGS-IRL or JGS-WITP to qualify our perspective !

Joe W.

[moses]

I don't need to be told or shown by the game that Japan could not conquer the entire map.

Maybe this was an edited typo or maybe it was a blemish on my screen. Looked like gamey. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Now I do think that anyone who thinks Japan could take on everyone on the map and actually occupy all these areas is looking at the game froim a different angle then me but i don't care if they do it. (just not against me but I don't think alot of this excess is possible in PBEM)

Why is this so hard to understand. I don't believe that Japan could or should be able to conquer the entire map. What I believe is that the fact that you can do it in the game indicates a problem to be solved. I presented my view of what causes the problem and some ideas of how it might be solved.

[mogami]

Hi, Don't take every thing I post as directed at yourself. I am sometime addressing more then 1 post in my posts.
1. I can't change the combat system I can't change any code issue.
2. OOB, people can change themselves however they like.

That should clear up my position on everything.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Don't take every thing I post as directed at yourself. I am sometime addressing more then 1 post in my posts.
1. I can't change the combat system I can't change any code issue.
2. OOB, people can change themselves however they like.
That should clear up my position on everything.

MOG.....Unfortunately your two points make it obvious that even you cansider the game that is being sold as "broken" and basically a farce.....Players have to "fix" it to play it with any hope of reality being a basic ingrediant.....Not much of an arguement for playing an expensive and "ultimately detailed" game.....Is it wrong to want and hope for more?

[mogami]

Hi, Mike you are drawing wrong conclusions. I think the game is fine. I have 8 PBEM going and all are fine. And fun. (and unmodified)

[moses]

Jwilkerson:

Yeah its sad that people who are trying to help meet so much resistance. Maybe its just arogance on my part to think that I might have an idea to improve the game.

Seems the best way to have handled the issue would have been to address it head on and just discuss if people feel that their is an attacker/defender imbalance or not. After that if it looks like there is significant sentament for some change the mod says " I brought the thread to so and so's attention, he's looked at it, I'll let you know if they think any change is warrented." Or "so and so has looked at the thread and thinks the idea is stupid and would ruin the game"

I thought one of the purposes of the forums was to raise issues and problems with the game. Perhaps I was wrong.

[Hornblower]

ORIGINAL: moses

Sometimes its hard to keep a sence of humor. I'll try to play nice.

I'm worried less about winning via victory pts as about the game just not playing right.

The changes that I personnally think are needed are fairly marginal. I think the game is pretty close as is but plays a little too fast in every theater which allows the attacker to grab a little too much before the defender has a chance to equalize.

- Ah this is nothing, you should have seen some of the Posts in UV.. phewwww. Whatever happened to trishjohn anyway??

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Mike you are drawing wrong conclusions. I think the game is fine. I have 8 PBEM going and all are fine. And fun. (and unmodified)

But MOG, I'll bet in the majority of those games YOU are the Japanese....And as you
are a reasonable and rational person, you aren't looking to shove a bulldozer into
every rules gap or silly possibility for play.....Are you palying any as the Allies against
a genuine "loophole lawyer" who's trying to exploit every game weakness he can find?

[BlackVoid]

However strange, I agree with both Mogami and Moses.

Clearly this game is geared towards naval and aerial combat. Unfortunately these are not perfect either, but ground combat is way off.
A player might restrict himself like Mogami and stay within historical limits.
However most of the fun in a game like this is to try different strategies. We all know that Japan failed against the US in the pacific. So many players try to do something else, like conquering China or India or Russia. Conquering Russia ATM is very gamey IMHO, because Russia is not allowed to move any troops.
All other things I consider perfectly OK. Even if I am allied. I would not even care about moving Kwantung army divisons by the japanese player. A few divisions will not change the situation in China.

I agree that the attacker has it too easy. I also agree with Mogami that the game is not designed around the conquest of India, China or Russia.

It was a VERY BAD design decision to include these theatres with the current land combat system. When you design a game, you have to make compromises someplace. This is even more true with such a monster game as WITP. With limited budget and limited time you cannot do everything. Now 2by3 are faced with a lot of totally valid complaints. The only way out would be a major overhaul to the land combat system. This is not good, because I think everyone would be happier if they could concentrate on the Pacific war and fixing the bugs/problems in the naval and air war.

Despite all of the above, WITP is still a very good game. Most of the problems affect both sides. Players have to learn that this is a game and not an entirely accurate simulation (which is impossible anyway). Allies in the starting year should pay more attention to China. They also should concentrate on scoring points against Japan in the 1st year. It also should be a house rule to leave out Russia (until they are allowed to move). I don't think the solution is simply some major OOB changes (China was divided, the Russians were weak in the far east - all those divisions in Russia were just on paper I think, no way they had such a large army there).

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: moses


I thought one of the purposes of the forums was to raise issues and problems with the game. Perhaps I was wrong.

Not at all

One thing we must all realize that everyone's thinks and feels a little differently and to not take offense because we don't understand other's differing personalities and thoughts. I for one also think detailed and give my opinions to "fix" things that are really not too bad. Not that I don't like the whole idea or package but I am also looking for ways to make them better. Sometimes that is taken the wrong way. So I always try to attempt to take things not personally and let everyone give their opinion without prejudice. I very much agree that this forum is to raise issues, discuss gameplay, suggest solutions, give opinions and listen to other's opinions. We may not all agree but we should be able to discuss issues without feeling that we are not being heard or attacked. (sound like a shrink yet).

I personally agree that issues raised in this forum, possibly voted on to get a concensus, then taken to the developers with investigations into whether they could be implemented if worth it. That is all, a little "I passed it on to have them look at it".

[Hirohito]

ORIGINAL: moses

When I did the Russia only game it was originally to prove that Russia could not be easily defeated as Hirohito kept claiming. Every experienced player kept saying that Japan would be crushed and Hirohito kept insisting that it was easy. My PBEM partner was ill for a couple weeks so I did the test. Opps it was real easy.

So to Mogami, keep in mind that I was supporting the conventional wisdom at that point and not trying to slam the game as some seem to think. If you read that thread you will see.

With that in mind:

Its very important when doing your scenario to give Russia some ability to react to the initial Japanese deployment. This is what makes it so easy to conquer Russia. I can mass 15 divisions at any point I want and you can do nothing until I cross the border. Even with the current OOB it would be much more difficult to take Russia if they were able to see my guys lining up and just move their force to meet it. If you only change the OOB but do not give them some reaction ability then it just means that I have to bring a few more divisions.


Lots of ways to allow Russia reaction so I will not elaborate further.

Is this an apology?

Hirohito

[Hirohito]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: moses

THE RULES

If the Japanese player moves a unit into the Soviet Union or Mongolia, or in any way attacks a Soviet unit or base, the Soviet Union is immediately activated.

The rules explicitly allow Japan the option of attacking Russia. There's a whole section in the rules that discuss it. The code in the game clearly allows it. It certainly appears to be the clear intent of the designer that Japan can attack Russia if he chooses.

So any claim that the game is not really supposed to be about these areas is just wrong.

Now I think attacking Russia should be a pretty stupid idea for Japan. But its easy for reasons I've described. So this should be fixed in any of a multitude of ways.

I just do not understand why it is considered wrong or gamey for players to try alternative strategies.

I guess my 2 comments would be

1. The real Japanese were smart enough not to attack the Soviet Union for a reason. And that reason is that they were both busy elsewhere and afraid they'd get their butts kicked as they had on 2 previous attempts.

2. If the game was designed to represent a Japanese attack on the Soviet Union ( and I'd hope that it wasn't )...then the designers did blow it. You'd need virtually a global representation to provide all the input needed by the SOviet player to decide where to move his troops...and we don't have that in the game. And allowing the IJA to position itself for a "cheap shot" is hopefully, clear evidence of lack of serious intent to represent a Japanese attack on the Soviet Union.

IMHO discussions of Japanese Grand Strategy in WTIP should focus on how to take and defend the SRA for the longest possible time.

Then the game should have been named "The Japanese take and defend the SRA for the longest possible time".

Hirohito

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


I guess my 2 comments would be

1. The real Japanese were smart enough not to attack the Soviet Union for a reason. And that reason is that they were both busy elsewhere and afraid they'd get their butts kicked as they had on 2 previous attempts.

Just for clarity, I assume you are not referring to the Russo-Japanese War, in which Russia was reduced from a leading naval power to a third rate naval power and Japan annexed Korea from the Russians.

[Ron Saueracker]

What were the realities of Japan not attacking Russia historically? Basically, they had the snot kicked out of them earlier and did not have an army equipped to fight a mechanized army like Russia possesed. Right? Sooo, unless this is modelled properly into the game(but the land combat model is not up to the task), along with a myriad of offmap response possibilities, it should not be possible for the player in the game. Period. This could have been abstracted more to avoid this debate we are now having.

Attacking Russia is simply out of the design scope of the game. It's should be no different than the absolute which we have to live with in the game...all other nations are at war at the games start. There is no way to just attack DEI or British Empire and ignoring the US, hoping that the US or other countries will not become involved. It's simply out of the scope of the game.

At this point, I'd simply inactivate all units involved in this peaceful stalemate from player control and simply have them draw supply etc until Russia historically becomes a beligerent. TFEasy.

We don't even have Russias naval assets so why bother with this in bits and pieces?

[Moquia]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

IMHO discussions of Japanese Grand Strategy in WITP should focus on how to take and defend the SRA for the longest possible time.

Hear, hear.

[moses]

Is this an apology?

Hirohito

Not an apology. You made a claim. I disagreed. So I tested it. Turns out you were right. So armed with new facts I changed my opinion. The people who should apologize are the ones who refuse to acknowlegde new facts as they become available.

At this point, I'd simply inactivate all units involved in this peaceful stalemate from player control and simply have them draw supply etc until Russia historically becomes a beligerent. TFEasy. Ron Saueracker.

Ron: Its even easier than this. If you just allow the russia the ability to move, the problem with russia is solved. Russia will beat the current Japanese forces at the start even if they bring in 10 extra divisions. Its the fact that I can destroy a good chunk of their army and split their entire defence on the first turn that allows Japan to win.