Proposed Scoring system for Group Campaign

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 1:55 am

I was thinking about how to make the game more interesting, instead of having either the Allies win or the Japanese win I thought that adding an extra dimention to the game will increase its complexity and interest.

If it were to remain just as a Allies or Japanese win all then there will be no incentive for any sort of actual division (IJN vs. IJA, Nimitz vs. MacArthur, British vs. American, etc.). So, I propose an alternate way in scoring.

For the Allied and Japanese GHQ commands the sole goal is to win the war. So, it is either a clean cut victory or defeat for them.

With the other suborninates (IJA, IJN, USN, US Army, and British) there are many other possible options. Possibly the Japanese lose the war, but, the IJA gets a positive point score. It is also a good way in cutting combined efforts to a minimum, as, it may not be in the IJN's best interest to use its resources to further IJA goals.

Here is a rudamentary points list.

Victory Areas are grouped in regions-island groups

For the Japanese Navy, they get points if the occupy all or most of (like the US elections, you win most you get all).

-Mariana Is. (Tinian, Guam, Saipan)
-Caroline Is. (Truk, Palau)
-Marshall Is. (Kwajelien)
-Soloman Is.
-Hawaiian Is. (Hawaii, Midway, Plamyra)
-Alaskan Is. (all Islands off Alaska)
-North Japan Is. (all Japanese Islands North of Japan)
-Central Pacific (Wake, Marcus, Iwo Jima)
-Gilbert Is. (Tarawa)
-South Central Pacific (Fiji, New Caledonia)
-New Britain (Rabul, Kaiving)

Japanese Army

-Philippine Is.
-Burma
-India (Ceylon, India)
-Malaya
-Indo-China (Bangkok, Saigon, Haiphong)
-North East Indies (Celebes and Borneo)
-South East Indies (Java and Sumatra)
-East East Indies (all small Islands in East Indies)
-New Guinea (ALL of New Guinea)
-Australia
-Formosa
-Ryukyu Is. (Okinawa)

US Navy

-Mariana Is. (Tinian, Guam, Saipan)
-Caroline Is. (Truk, Palau)
-Marshall Is. (Kwajelien)
-Soloman Is.
-Hawaiian Is. (Hawaii, Midway, Plamyra)
-Alaskan Is. (all Islands off Alaska)
-North Japan Is. (all Japanese Islands North of Japan)
-Central Pacific (Wake, Marcus, Iwo Jima)
-Gilbert Is. (Tarawa)
-South Central Pacific (Fiji, New Caledonia)
-New Britain (Rabul, Kaiving)
-Formosa
-Ryuku Is. (Okinawa)
-Japanese Home Islands (Japan proper)

US Army

-Philippine Is.
-North East Indies (Celebes and Borneo)
-New Guinea (ALL of New Guinea)
-Australia
-Ryukyu Is. (Okinawa)
-Japanese Home Islands (Japan proper)

British/ABDA

-Burma
-India (Ceylon, India)
-Malaya
-Indo-China (Bangkok, Saigon, Haiphong)
-North East Indies (Celebes and Borneo)
-South East Indies (Java and Sumatra)
-East East Indies (all small Islands in East Indies)

Each of these bases will be of a certain point value for each military arm. For example, the Philippine Islands will be worth a lot more to the US Army player than New Guinea. Whereas, holding New Guinea might offer more points to the IJA player than holding the Philippines.

Also, notice that there is some overlap. Both the British and the US Army get points for occupying North East Indies (Borneo and Celebes), US Army and USN get points for Okinawa, and so on. This is to instill some political competition between the armed forces. It is a race to see if they can get more than their opponent.

The end result will be determined in percentages, as the amount of possible points varies from Military arm to arm. For example, a IJA player could beat a US Army player even if the Japanese lost the war, purely on a basis that the IJA player held more of THEIR point-bases at the end of the game than the US Army player.

Points are only calculated AT THE END of the game (ie. whenever one side surrenders). So, a quick Japanese victory COULD result in each of the Allied players beating the Japanese players, on the basis that they occupy more critical territory.

Comments, criticism?

Jeremy

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 2:09 am

Having a scoring system this way, will solve MANY problems. For one, it will make a player not want to quit the game when the outlook seems bleak, as, they might lose the war, but win the game.

Also, this stops some unhistorical possibilities from happening, such as the US focussing PURELY on taking the Central Pacific and then Japan. The US Army will not want to do this because they will end the game with virtually ZERO points. The IJN player won't want to support actions in the Indian Ocean or against Australia, as they will get nothing out of them (It does pay for IJN and IJA coordination to secure the East Indies, Malaya and the Philippines, as without these bases there would be no fuel from Sumatra and Borneo).

Hopefully there will be fights and disagreements between where resources should be spent. It SHOULD be up to the 2 GHQ Commanders to determine where these reinforcements should go. Also, ANY major attack should be approved by the GHQ. You shouldn't have to approve of details (like EXACTLY what base you are landing on and what forces to use) just a general plan, like the USN proposes to invade and secure the Marshal Islands.

One thing that has to be done is to agree on the Point value for each of these base regions. If we are to use this idea.

Andrew Brown · Post by **Andrew Brown** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 3:03 am

Hmmmm, interesting idea and I can see the benifits for a multiplayer game. Just a couple of quick comments:

- To avoid future disputes each area should be defined exactly - ie. what bases it consists of. (eg. does New Guinea include the islands off it's coast?)

- A lot of the decision making ultimately falls on the shoulders of the supreme commander. This makes sense, but if the victory calculation for the supreme commander is independent of the points being earned by the subordinate commanders, then what incentive would there be for the supreme commander to provide material support for one subordinate over another. The supreme commander will simply look out for his own interest in winning the war and ignore the arguments of a subordinate who wants more material to get some points of their own. Perhaps there should be some benifit to the supreme commander when a subordinate is doing well, or a penalty if they are doing badly? Maybe the supreme commander should also receive points of their own, including the 'best two' points values from each subordinate, with the result that if one subordinate is doing badly because they are being starved of material then this will reflect badly on the supreme commander as well.

folgore · Post by **folgore** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 3:33 am

I agree but the satisfaction of performing well while "the incompetent allied is making me losing the war" is always present !

andrewmv · Post by **andrewmv** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 3:33 am

>>Also, this stops some unhistorical possibilities from happening, such as the US focussing PURELY on taking the Central Pacific and then Japan. The US Army will not want to do this because they will end the game with virtually ZERO points. The IJN player won't want to support actions in the Indian Ocean or against Australia, as they will get nothing out of them (It does pay for IJN and IJA coordination to secure the East Indies, Malaya and the Philippines, as without these bases there would be no fuel from Sumatra and Borneo).<<

One point here, it was the IJN who wanted to push into the Indian Ocean and Australia and the IJA who vetoed it by refusing to release the neccessary troops.

>>Hopefully there will be fights and disagreements between where resources should be spent. It SHOULD be up to the 2 GHQ Commanders to determine where these reinforcements should go. Also, ANY major attack should be approved by the GHQ. You shouldn't have to approve of details (like EXACTLY what base you are landing on and what forces to use) just a general plan, like the USN proposes to invade and secure the Marshal Islands.<<

The allied GHQ basically represents the US JCS, and as such they should not be able to control the deployment of British, Indian, Australian, NZ and Dutch forces. They were under the control of their national governments. They always go to the relevant player (British, Indian and most Dutch to the British; Australian and Dutch air to the Army; and NZ to the Navy).

Also the US navy was *very* reluctant to give up control of its carriers and the army likewise with its heavy bombers, this should be modelled someway.

Another factor to take into account is the fact that the navy regularly "stole" forces in transit through the Pacific Ocean Area command destined for SW Pacific and redirected them to SoPac. It was a major cause of friction between the army and navy throughout the war.

In any multiplayer game you need to model the extreme political difficulties that dogged the Pacific command structures. These things caused all sorts of weird results such as the SW pacific choosing to use paradrops because the thought them easier than trying to get landing craft out of the navy!

folgore · Post by **folgore** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 3:40 am

yes but we dont have to put in artificial attriction between commands , im sure that there will be enough when the game will begin , anyway ALL regarding house rules and how we will determine the winner will be decided between the 2 supreme commanders and me ( im playng god in a cameo role

)

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 10:18 am

Each region will be completely defined later, with each base receiving a specific region.

I agree that there should be more to the Supreme commander, and that the incorporation of a 'God' personality is vitally important.

I was just putting a few suggestions into the air. Some of my details might not be 100% correct, but, as long as the general idea gets across, that's all that matters.

The players need a reason to want to continue, even if they are the IJN in 1945 with virtually every ship sunk.

sethwrkr · Post by **sethwrkr** » Mon Dec 04, 2000 2:23 am

Just reading the post on having winners without a win makes my organizational desighn hackles rise.

Individual goals/objectives change all the time winning is the key.

I think some of the issues you are running into is that you just do not need that many people playing (managing) each side. You will end up spending more time communicating than is saved by the division of labor. Further I bet performance will suffer. I mean it just aint that hard. I would go so far as to say that the team with the fewest commanders will "win"

Seth

Seth

sethwrkr · Post by **sethwrkr** » Mon Dec 04, 2000 2:28 am

As long as i am on my high horse. I like it up here by the way.

What5 is wrong with unhistorical outcomes.

I don not plan to follow history. You can bet your *** that if you play me the outcome will not be historical. I will take a lot more risks and be a lot more aggressive. Japanese taking all of India and atempting to take australia, would be a given. I mean if we are not shooting for an unhistorical outcome...whats the point.

Seth