War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

[Canoerebel]

I'll have to look at the file later today, but I think it's something like 27k to 8k. That's nothing remarkable in and of itself. I think at this point in my game with Q-Ball he probably had a 4:1 ratio. But the Allies began reclaiming points in a pretty serious way beginning around September of 1942.

Steve should be able to gain points in two ways: building some of the high-value bases he's taken (Calcutta and Anchorage, for instance) and by liquidating the Chinese army over time.

But he's got problems too. The Allies should be able to fight pretty effectively in India and will begin pressing forward elsewhere.

It's still very early to begin counting Victory Points. Too much can happen. And it seems like Steve would be pressing further hoping perhaps to get a few other high value locations like Noumea and Fiji and perhaps some in Oz and Ceylon and India. He's not showing much aggressiveness right now, as though his repeated comments that he's transitioning to the defensive are true.

In my game with Q-Ball, several readers kept saying, "You're in trouble from a VP standpoint." I knew I wasn't and I was right. I feel the same way in this game at this point, though I admit it's possible Steve has done a thorough VP calculation, while I'm flying more by the seat of my pants.

But right now I just don't see it happening.

[Canoerebel]

The lone DD raid in NoPac serves three purposes:

1) testing Steve's perimter (we've already visited Kodiak without incident, showing that he's not paying attention back here; tomorrow we visit Cold Bay; the day after we'll try Dutch Harbor).

2) the DD, if discovered, will add another element to the "interest" I'm giving to NoPac - I really want Steve focused there short term while I move on the Tarawa group. I've done a variety of small things in the past week to whisper "NoPac" in his ears.

3) there is always the chance that the destroyer will engage a nice transport TF.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The lone DD raid in NoPac serves three purposes:

1) testing Steve's perimter (we've already visited Kodiak without incident, showing that he's not paying attention back here; tomorrow we visit Cold Bay; the day after we'll try Dutch Harbor).

2) the DD, if discovered, will add another element to the "interest" I'm giving to NoPac - I really want Steve focused there short term while I move on the Tarawa group. I've done a variety of small things in the past week to whisper "NoPac" in his ears.

3) there is always the chance that the destroyer will engage a nice transport TF.

Yet more evidence that, contrary to your protestations, you really do play a bit of a "mental game" with your opponent. Not critisizing at all - it's an essential part of any war plan - make your enemy think you could show up everywhere. PzJH has been doing it with you for some time now and it's his turn to start fretting!

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

What?

The VP loss per Chinese ground trooper is lowest. Maybe 1 to 10?

The VP loss per Japanese ground trooper is middle. Maybe 1 to 4?

The VP loss per US, UK, Aus, NZ, etc. ground trooper is highest. Maybe 1 to 1?

I am not certain about all the various Allies, perhaps Indian, Burmese etc. are not 1 to 1?

Going from memory and not totally certain.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

What?

If you use US troops to take a 1000 VP base, but lose 4000 men doing it, you've moved closer to losing by auto-vic. Consult the Victory conditions portion of the manual; the Japanese have a large VP advantage in device casualty effects over US, British, Indian, Aussie, etc. forces. The only place they don't is in Chinese and Filipino forces. The Sovets are equal to Japanese rules.

The key to auto-vic is ratios, not absolute totals. In the air war, for example, you don't gain or lose against him unless the heavy bomber versus other type ratio is unbalanced between you (and even then he has unlimited and you have fixed pools, so it's complicated.) In ships it matters most what types are sunk and less how many, within a quantity distribution. It's possible to sink so many low-mix that the numbers overcome missing all of the heavy combatants, but it's unlikley you can do this.

So, the key for an Allied player skating near losing by auto-vic is to look for ways to skew the ratios in your favor. Looking at the rules alone and not bringing in anything relevant from PH's AAR, two options for you might be to look to kill Japanese troops in the open countryside of China, even at occassional loss ratios of 1:2. If you can use infantry to kill pure devices like AA or base units so much the better for your risk profile. But China is a place where you can bleed Japan of VPs in an acceptable way if you stay away from city sieges and husband your Chinese supply in such a way as the best bleeders get the most support.

A second way in your specific game (and here I'll be a broken record) is to go crazy with your subs. Each has a relatively low VP risk if lost, and in May 1942 you will lose very, very few even if you do "crazy" things like harbor penetration. But a low-VP sub can reap many multiples of its value even if sinking xAKLs and other low-mix crap. With non-dud fish you could easily come back several thousand VPs before 1943 heaves into view, if you use your subs appropriately for the era and dud state you have in hand.

[Canoerebel]

Here's the Victory Point breakdown as of the current turn (5/12/42):

IJ Points: 23,397
Allied pts: 7,836

IJ Bases: 10,218
Allied bs: 4,217

IJ Air Pts: 1,979
Allied Pts: 1,410

IJ Army Pts: 9,002
Allied Pts: 711

IJ Ship Pts: 1,883
Allied Pts: 1,156

Only in manpower does Japan have anything close to or above the necessary 4:1 ratio for auto victory. Over the coming seven months, I think the margins should become increasingly positive for the Allies in aircraft and shipping. For manpower and bases, it probably won't change a whole bunch.

[Canoerebel]

Bullwinkle, thanks for expanding on the point you were making. Now I understand completely.

I understand the ratio aspect. As you can see from my previous post, I look at enemy shipping and aircraft as the most favorable ways to keep the ratio effectively whittled below 4:1. I hadn't thought of the ground war in China specifically as a ratio thing, but I'll certainly look for opportunities to hurt Japan. (Right now, Japan is on the offensive and the Chinese are holding their own in each battle, so that in itself is helpful.)

I haven't mentioned Allied subs very much, but they've been very effective in the game to date. They are scoring frequently - mostly against merchant shipping in the Gulf of Alaska, around Sikhalin Island, and in the Andaman Sea. My subs around Korea, Japan and the Philippines have been pretty quiet, with occasional successes.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Bullwinkle, thanks for expanding on the point you were making. Now I understand completely.

That's good. China is perhaps the greatest riddle in the game, optimization-wise. There are just so many ways to go there, for each side.

I can't say more without stepping out of OPSEC bounds.

Good luck!

[Canoerebel]

A month ago in game times, I jumped at a chance to send 4,300 Chinese AV against 1,600 Japanese AV in the open. Steve massed his airforce and disrupted my army badly, so the ensuing attack failed. Then my troops got mauled by his airforce on their retreat. Overall, the campaign was a disaster, seriously weakening my Changsha-sector MLR.

I say this only to point out that it is very, very difficult for the Chinese to attack right now. They are probably better off conserving strength and fighting in the rough-woods and mountain hexes as much as possible....but always looking and hoping that Steve might eventually make a mistake that allows me to rough up some of his troops, as the Chinese maanaged to do several times early in the game.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

A month ago in game times, I jumped at a chance to send 4,300 Chinese AV against 1,600 Japanese AV in the open. Steve massed his airforce and disrupted my army badly, so the ensuing attack failed. Then my troops got mauled by his airforce on their retreat. Overall, the campaign was a disaster, seriously weakening my Changsha-sector MLR.

I say this only to point out that it is very, very difficult for the Chinese to attack right now. They are probably better off conserving strength and fighting in the rough-woods and mountain hexes as much as possible....but always looking and hoping that Steve might eventually make a mistake that allows me to rough up some of his troops, as the Chinese maanaged to do several times early in the game.

If it was easy and just anybody could do it, Honey Boo Boo would be on the case!! [;)]

[Canoerebel]

[:)]

[Lomri]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
If you use US troops to take a 1000 VP base, but lose 4000 men doing it, you've moved closer to losing by auto-vic. Consult the Victory conditions portion of the manual; the Japanese have a large VP advantage in device casualty effects over US, British, Indian, Aussie, etc. forces. The only place they don't is in Chinese and Filipino forces. The Sovets are equal to Japanese rules.

Ok, I'm just an AI player so I don't tend to worry about auto-vic and VP stuff, but I thought VPs for bases accrued over time. So losing 4000 men to take a 1000VP base might be bad on day one, over time it would pay off. In addition a 1000 VP base is a "swing" of points as opposed to straight up losing 4000 men. Am I off base?

[Canoerebel]

You're right.

For instance, say the Allies lose 4,000 squads (4,000 points) to take a base that's worth 1,000 points to Japan and 150 points to the Allies. Thus, the relative change in VP for the operation is 4,000 to 1,150. (Bullwinkle, was just making a point, but it's worth explaining in detail for those, like Lomri, that might want to really mull it over).

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right.

For instance, say the Allies lose 4,000 squads (4,000 points) to take a base that's worth 1,000 points to Japan and 150 points to the Allies. Thus, the relative change in VP for the operation is 4,000 to 1,150. (Bullwinkle, was just making a point, but it's worth explaining in detail for those, like Lomri, that might want to really mull it over).

It's a good point which emphasizes just how complex the VP/auto-vic game can get.

As another POV, a Japanese player looking to auto-vic could also time his "spring" just so (1/1/43?) in order to grab bases good for him in VP terms, bad for the Allies to lose in VP terms, while also springing on bases with low infantry but high device ratios (the Allies have a much richer "stuff versus men" ratio in their LCUs.) Thus making ground gains pay while also using the device rules to exert greater leverage on the VP ratio. If he grabs early he might get longer-term base-hold points by being able to build out the base, but also might have to defend the base several times in the interim before 1943.

[Canoerebel]

Good point; meaning even if a place like Fiji or Noumea seemed pretty secure and "to the rear" in late 1942, a clever auto vic gamble might lead an IJ player to invade purely for auto vic consideration and even though it wouldn't make sense outside of that narrow consideration.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lomri

Ok, I'm just an AI player so I don't tend to worry about auto-vic and VP stuff, but I thought VPs for bases accrued over time. So losing 4000 men to take a 1000VP base might be bad on day one, over time it would pay off. In addition a 1000 VP base is a "swing" of points as opposed to straight up losing 4000 men. Am I off base?

VPs for bases don't accrue over time; the VPs are a snapshot each turn. You don't get any credit today for holding the base yesterday. You only get credit today.

That said there are advantages to taking a base earlier rather than later. Huge VP advantages are gained if the capturing player has time, engineers, and supply to build up the base's port and/or airfield. (No VPs for building forts.) Also, a base at VP calculation time with less than needed supplies is penalized, all the way down to 25% of its potential VP worth if it has zero supplies on hand.

Trade-offs, always with the trade-offs . . . [:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Good point; meaning even if a place like Fiji or Noumea seemed pretty secure and "to the rear" in late 1942, a clever auto vic gamble might lead an IJ player to invade purely for auto vic consideration and even though it wouldn't make sense outside of that narrow consideration.

Right. If he wins on 1/2/43 he never has to worry about defending on 1/3/43.

[Alfred]

For LCUs, VPs are awarded on the basis of destroyed devices, not men. A single VP is awarded for each

• 12 Chinese or Filipino devices
• 6 Soviet or Japanese devices
• 3 for all other Allied devices

Losing 4000 Allied men in capturing a base worth 1000 VPs does not mean the Allies lost 1333 VPs in army losses. 4000 lost men is somewhere in the vicinity of 300-320 destroyed devices, thus if the casualties were American the lost army VPs is about 100. So in that instance the transaction would be quite profitable for the Allies. However the bases in question will be worth a lot more than 1000 VPs and the casualties will be much higher.

Alfred

[Lomri]

So, in straight combat you need to take 50% the losses of the enemy to make it a VP wash. But then enters the the math of swing VPs on the base. A base worth 100 VP to you and 900 VP to Japan is a 1000VP swing. You'd have to lose 333 devices MORE than that 1:2 ratio to make it a wash. I guess I see where BW58 is coming from that you have to be careful of pyrrhic victories.

[Canoerebel]

Add this to the mix: I am not specifically playing to avoid auto victory. The heaviest factor in my decision-making is whether a move or battle makes sense long-term. I don't want Steve to achieve auto victory, but I am not going to employ the "let's take Noumea on December 31 even if we can't hold it three days" kind of strategy. Perhaps I should, but I won't. I want Steve to shoot for auto victory because it's fun and challenging to oppose it. But that's not my main focus.