Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone?

[topeverest]

My suggestion is to reduce the date of required allied victory rather than play with any other 'feature' of the game simply for balance purposes. If more punch in the Japanese arsenal is desired, add some major naval or ground assets that have to be produced. If that is not desired, then I would significantly increase the VP's for allied home country hexes (like Oz) / or major bases - or I would setup additional auto victory conditions that the Japanese can win if at any moment they hold say 7 of the following critical enemy cities...say Calcutta, Bombay, Karachi, Rangoon, Singapore, Manila, Pearl Harbor, Anchorage, Melbourne, Sydney, Aukland, Chungking, Hong Kong, Vladivostok, Irkutz, Seattle, San Fancisco, Los Angeles, or San Diego. This would require only that they take 3 more cities and can win even if they dont reach auto victory the old way. This is a similar approach to games like Advanced tactics.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Japan clearly can win Scen 1 as we have seen, but I agree there has to a confluence of the moon and stars. Poor allied strategy and bad luck on the battlefield are both required. I am curious if we will see any Jap auto victories in 43. It seems through the AAR's that the only time for the Japs to win is late 42, and the Japanese player was both very aggressive and successful. My quick read suggest Oz from darwin and perth driving to SE Oz is the common potinential win with the outlier in India. China, USA/Canada/Alaska, and USSR are not paths to Japanese victory.

Still an early read, but to me it seems fairly balanced. The Japanese players who resign as Japan after the initiative inflection will always occur. For whatever reason they do not want to play a defensive game. I am not sure any design change could make that go away.

Where is an example of Japan winning playing Scenario 1?
I would like to read such an AAR.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

My suggestion is to reduce the date of required allied victory rather than play with any other 'feature' of the game simply for balance purposes.

The problem is, currently the game seems to be somewhat disbalanced in Allies' favor. Easier logistics and near-total control over available assets disproportionally benefit the side that holds initiative, and for the 3/4ths of the game that's usually Allies. Either that, or Allies just have ahistorically good stuff (quality of their LCUs is particularly suspect), but, looking at AARs, Allies are a year or more ahead of the historical schedule in about a half of those that reach into 1943. Hopefully, soon we'll learn how the events in several AARs where Japanese had a very successful early game will develop, but so far Japanese perspectives seem rather grim.

ORIGINAL: topeverest
If more punch in the Japanese arsenal is desired, add some major naval or ground assets that have to be produced.

That's the way already chosen with air production, and now people complain that the game actually rewards a Japanese player for good micromanagement.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: topeverest

My suggestion is to reduce the date of required allied victory rather than play with any other 'feature' of the game simply for balance purposes.

The problem is, currently the game seems to be somewhat disbalanced in Allies' favor. Easier logistics and near-total control over available assets disproportionally benefit the side that holds initiative, and for the 3/4ths of the game that's usually Allies. Either that, or Allies just have ahistorically good stuff (quality of their LCUs is particularly suspect), but, looking at AARs, Allies are a year or more ahead of the historical schedule in about a half of those that reach into 1943. Hopefully, soon we'll learn how the events in several AARs where Japanese had a very successful early game will develop, but so far Japanese perspectives seem rather grim.

ORIGINAL: topeverest
If more punch in the Japanese arsenal is desired, add some major naval or ground assets that have to be produced.

That's the way already chosen with air production, and now people complain that the game actually rewards a Japanese player for good micromanagement.

No, I want the Japanese player to have some freedom of action to divert and better the historical outcome of the game. Problem is as it now stands the Allied player has little or no option to counter it and the Japanese player always has a pre-knowledge of what he has to deal with. (For example 35 P40Es per month. )

I am playing scen 2 as the Allies and my opponent has done an excellent job of building up his fighter force-including the obscene Tojo [:@]. There is no way for me to counter this by producing more fighters. I would be happy to say, spend some PPs to double my production of a particular aircraft for a month. That way JFBs can't count beans on me and hold an advantage.

That said, we don't really know how balanced the game is as we really are not too far into most of our PBEM games. Too early to tell from a few AARs as they are usually written by top notch players. I want the Japanese players to have an excellent chace to win. That should be the reward for good play and should be done with VP balancing. However, I want my P38s to perform like P38s should and not be an afterthought due to the fact that there are none of them and they spend most of their time being repaired or getting murdered by tojos.

[CapAndGown]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am playing scen 2 as the Allies and my opponent has done an excellent job of building up his fighter force-including the obscene Tojo [:@]. There is no way for me to counter this by producing more fighters. I would be happy to say, spend some PPs to double my production of a particular aircraft for a month. That way JFBs can't count beans on me and hold an advantage.

This sounds like an interesting idea. I think I would endorse this.

That said, we don't really know how balanced the game is as we really are not too far into most of our PBEM games. Too early to tell from a few AARs as they are usually written by top notch players. I want the Japanese players to have an excellent chace to win. That should be the reward for good play and should be done with VP balancing. However, I want my P38s to perform like P38s should and not be an afterthought due to the fact that there are none of them and they spend most of their time being repaired or getting murdered by tojos.

Use your P-38s on Sweep missions. They do fine that way. In my game, P-38s were doing fine against Tojo's when they were on sweep missions, especially when they were coming in at 39,000 feet! The one turn my opponent decided to use them to escort some B-17s, however, was a disaster. They were slaughtered!

Also, when my Tojo's Swept against Hurricane Trop's, they only came out even. Hardly an "uber" result. I can't say against P-40s, since I didn't run into many of those.

Maybe what you and your opponent should do is have a HR that limits Sweeps and CAP to 30,000 feet. Even then, however, there seems to be an inherent sweep bonus that results in the first several attacks being weighted in favor of the attacker. Nothing we can do about that except hope that the Matrix team decided to look into this issue.

[Swenslim]

More interesting question is... can Japan win in 1944-46 ? Saying win I meen to deprive allied side ability to strategically bomb Japan and have possibilty to ship oil and fuel from DEI and resources from Malaya, China, PI.

If Japan player can sink enough allied CV's, control Marians, PI, Java, Sumatra, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, territories in China I think this will be victory.

Is it possible ? Who knows


In my PBEM game is only late october 1942, but I destroyed 5 USN CV's, 5 USN BB's, 4 CA's, 15 CL's, 30 DD's and lost 1 CV, 1 CVL , 8 DD's.

Main battle is now going for Gudalcanal, both sides are loosing lots of planes and AK, AKL and AP trying to support ground units on island. USA troops landed on Karoline islands, but I dont care about them, they are not defendable in any case.

DEI become stronghold, with Mini KB and Yamato battlegroup patrolling seas and I dont think Allied navy will apear here before 1944.

So, if I will be able to sink all USA CV's wich will arive in 43 and first monthes of 1944 I think I can win the game.

[Lecivius]

I do know, from cold hard experience as a novice player, that if the Japanese get in amongst the allied transport lift early in the war, it's Game Over.  I played 2 PBEM's, in my second my opponent sank every transport that went to sea.  By August of '42 PH, Oz, and everything in between was flat on it's back starving to death.  I had 7 AK's left in the game.
 
I gave up PBEM's over that [:(]   I don't want to waste peoples time over my poor skills.    I still don't know how I lost so many ships so fast, even with the loss of the Lex & Enterprise let my opponent move around more freely [&:] 

[CapAndGown]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I do know, from cold hard experience as a novice player, that if the Japanese get in amongst the allied transport lift early in the war, it's Game Over.  I played 2 PBEM's, in my second my opponent sank every transport that went to sea.  By August of '42 PH, Oz, and everything in between was flat on it's back starving to death.  I had 7 AK's left in the game.

I gave up PBEM's over that [:(]   I don't want to waste peoples time over my poor skills.    I still don't know how I lost so many ships so fast, even with the loss of the Lex & Enterprise let my opponent move around more freely [&:] 

It's too bad you don't know, because I sure would like to! [X(]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Japan clearly can win Scen 1 as we have seen, but I agree there has to a confluence of the moon and stars. Poor allied strategy and bad luck on the battlefield are both required. I am curious if we will see any Jap auto victories in 43. It seems through the AAR's that the only time for the Japs to win is late 42, and the Japanese player was both very aggressive and successful. My quick read suggest Oz from darwin and perth driving to SE Oz is the common potinential win with the outlier in India. China, USA/Canada/Alaska, and USSR are not paths to Japanese victory.

Still an early read, but to me it seems fairly balanced. The Japanese players who resign as Japan after the initiative inflection will always occur. For whatever reason they do not want to play a defensive game. I am not sure any design change could make that go away.

Very much the way I see it as well. Not a bad thing though ... I feel it SHOULD be challenging for the JAP player.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: crsutton
That said, we don't really know how balanced the game is as we really are not too far into most of our PBEM games. Too early to tell from a few AARs as they are usually written by top notch players. I want the Japanese players to have an excellent chace to win. That should be the reward for good play and should be done with VP balancing. However, I want my P38s to perform like P38s should and not be an afterthought due to the fact that there are none of them and they spend most of their time being repaired or getting murdered by tojos.

In my experience stratospheric sweeps by P-38s dominate the air, unless pilots lack experience (and after playing both sides I can say for certain, that Allies benefit from much higher pilot survival rate - whether this is from aircraft armor, fighting mostly over their airfields in early 1942, or a hardcoded bonus, I don't know - so unless you ignore pilot management, the EXP levels should at least even out in 1942) or the defender has massive numerical advantage. Better yet, I have two squadrons of Lightnings that already saw months of regular combat over New Guinea before the historical date of P-38's combat deployment in the Pacific. An in RL Lightnings weren't exactly unstoppable wonderplanes. For example, they often took heavy and dispoportional losses when forced to escort bombers, or fly ground support, because keeping at relatively low speed and altitude, necessary for these types of missions, made them very disadvantaged against Japanese fighters.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: jeffs
I do agree it does take away from the "gaming" side is Japan has a very tough situation....But I think that changing the core of the game is a mistake.[:(]
Of course if an allied player is willing to play a mod that is ahistorical in the name of a more balanced game I see no problem with that. [8D]
I do have a problem with fudging the historical scenario to make it "balanced"[:-]

I think we make the distinction between "Winning on VP Points", vs. "Winning the War", and the game should not be unbalanced so that Japan can "Win the War". Historically of course, the Japanese loss was inevitable. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.

The point is to do BETTER than history.

I think you understand though, after all, if the bar for "Winning the Game" was "Winning the war", it would be tough to find opponents to play Japan, or the Confederacy, or Nazi Germany in Russia, or any number of nations that were ultimately doomed.

My point: Japan should have a lower bar for "Winning the Game", without changing the game balance

I 100% agree with this post. No Japan could not have won the war, but the Japanese player should be able to win the game. It is a game afterall. What fun is there in playing a game where you have no chance to win? Many would contend that playing WiTP/AE is more about the experience than the results. That may be true, but there still should be a chance for victory for Japanese players.

In my mind, Autovictory does not represent the Allies surrendering but instead the point where Japan's conquests and battlefield success reach a point where the Allies would have had to change their "Europe First" strategy. The political and strategic implications of this would have been extraordinary to Roosevelt and to a lesser degree Churchill. It would have change the course of the war in Europe and possibly reshaped the world we know today.

So beyond a crushing defeat at sea, what would have caused the Allies to change their strategy? Obviously an outright invasion of North America but I do not think this is possible for the Japanese. I cannot imagine the Allies would have abided the loss of Australia. I don't think Churchill could have survived the loss of India. So perhaps the important bases in those continents should have bigger VP values for Japan. I disagree about China. The Japanese already get far too many points for killing hapless Chinese LCU's. That and I don't think China was really that important politically to the Allies (at least in the sense that losing it to Japan would have changed the course of the war)

Also, the discussion seems to be focused on 1942/1943. What about 1944 or 1945? The Allies were getting pretty war weary by 1945. Should not the Japanese be rewarded for extending the war beyond the historical scope? If that is true then perhaps increase the VP for places like the Marianas, Formosa, and the Islands near Japan should be increased. That way a well played game by Japan that has kept the wolf at bay longer than the historical record is rewarded.

Again, these changes need to be very carefully evaluated. While I agree that it should be easier for Japanese players to win, it should not be made so easy that all our games end in 1942 or on 1 January 1943

[Q-Ball]

Good thoughts Vettim. I don't think the Allies though were going to give up under any circumstances at all though; the biggest mistake the Axis made was maybe not even underestimating the Allies CAPACITY to win, but rather their WILL to win. Even if it took into 1946, we were set upon unconditional victory. This was a critical miscalculation by both the Japanese and Germans, but partcularly the Japanese.

If Australia fell, we would have fought on. France fell, and it was a more important Allied power (in a military and industrial power sense).

[topeverest]

Q-ball, the comments on the americans not giving up certainly are valid to any reasonable degree portayable by the game. I really scratch my head trying to think what intermediate auto Japanese victory conditions could be offered if the Japanese fail to reach auto victory at the end of their initial expansion and the allies are beginning the march to japan. Date of Allied auto victory is what jumps to my mind.

I can see reducing or eliminating VP's for damaged Japanese Home Island factories. Reducing VP's for destroyed Japanese Home Island factories also could be a good card to play. While I havent done the math, I expect that would reduce VP's enough to extend the war materially. The team also might think of adding large forts or otherwise increasing the ease of Japanese building forts up to a certain level..on the Mariana islands / taiwan, etc. This will definately slow down any advance and shift play balane a bit to Japan in the mid and later war. If it is painful to take the islands in the dirty ground invasions, the allies will be much more deliberate and slower.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Good thoughts Vettim. I don't think the Allies though were going to give up under any circumstances at all though; the biggest mistake the Axis made was maybe not even underestimating the Allies CAPACITY to win, but rather their WILL to win. Even if it took into 1946, we were set upon unconditional victory. This was a critical miscalculation by both the Japanese and Germans, but partcularly the Japanese.

If Australia fell, we would have fought on. France fell, and it was a more important Allied power (in a military and industrial power sense).

Again, agree that the Allies were commited to victory no matter what happened in the course of the war. My point about Oz was in the context of the game not necessarily to the course of the war.

The attitudes of general populace of the US were highly racist in WWII. I think that having millions of Asians, Melanasians, and Polynesians fall under the domination of Imperial Japan would not be viewed the same as having millions of Australians mostly of northern European descent having the same fate.

So while losing Oz would not be a deathblow to the Allies in any way, the political implications would have been enormous. Also if the Japanese were invested in SE Australia in late 1942, do you really think the US would have sent two Armored Divisions and three Infantry Divisions to North Africa in November?

So Autovictory for Japan should be tied to success in vital areas for the Allies of political importance as well as strategic

[erstad]

An interesting concept in the original WITP monster game that isn't in either WITP-classic or AE is 'shortening the war'. If the Japanese achieved certain goals, the end date by which the allies had to achieve victory (in game terms) was moved up. For example, if the japanese had a foothold beyond a certain point in india along with a line of communications, the allies would get a ton of reinforcements but the war might also be shorted by something like 6 months. With current AE, allies get the reinforcements but there is no penalty reflecting the impacts to other theaters.

The allies also had to maintain a continuous merchant pipeline from the US to Oz after 4/42, every turn they didn't shortened the war by 2 weeks for ever week it was missed, IIRC. Which then in turn forced the allies to defend the SLOC.

[witpqs]

I think that tuning a VP mechanism in a game like this requires lots of outcome examples, including full-length outcomes. Therefor, I think that VP's are relatively useless, and players really need to decide on their own victory conditions, whether jointly or independently.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think that tuning a VP mechanism in a game like this requires lots of outcome examples, including full-length outcomes. Therefor, I think that VP's are relatively useless, and players really need to decide on their own victory conditions, whether jointly or independently.

Because some VP awards are hard coded (strategic losses), even modified the game will fall along certain lines of progress as far as VP go. So perhaps you are right in saying that victory conditions might be best negotiated by HR.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: erstad

An interesting concept in the original WITP monster game that isn't in either WITP-classic or AE is 'shortening the war'. If the Japanese achieved certain goals, the end date by which the allies had to achieve victory (in game terms) was moved up. For example, if the japanese had a foothold beyond a certain point in india along with a line of communications, the allies would get a ton of reinforcements but the war might also be shorted by something like 6 months. With current AE, allies get the reinforcements but there is no penalty reflecting the impacts to other theaters.

The allies also had to maintain a continuous merchant pipeline from the US to Oz after 4/42, every turn they didn't shortened the war by 2 weeks for ever week it was missed, IIRC. Which then in turn forced the allies to defend the SLOC.

I am work so no access but I'll dig up my rules this weekend. From memory these were:

* MS Pipeline to Oz from 4/42 to the end of the war
* LCU in India with SLOC
* LCU (no SLOC necessary) in Aleutians but only after one year of occupation
* Had to do a Doolittle Raid

I think they were a few more but my memory fails me at the moment.

While not modable into the present game, it would be very easy to make HR's. Problem is on the map game (can't really call a game that consumed a whole room a "boardgame"), the players could verify these circumstances as they were freely visible. Not so easy with the computer version

[erstad]

Problem is on the map game (can't really call a game that consumed a whole room a "boardgame"), the players could verify these circumstances as they were freely visible. Not so easy with the computer version

Well, you certainly could tie something to the same events that trigger extra reinforcements. In fact, that's not a bad idea; I might use it if I ever start another game as Japan. As it sits, the Allies can use a lot of force, for example, in Northern/Eastern Oz because the southern part is somewhat safer because the Japanese player is going to be reluctant to trigger the reinforcements. Might have to limit it to capture of a major city to avoid any gaminess where someone might paradrop onto a dot base or whatever for the sole purpose of triggering the event.

BTW, it maybe wasn't a board game but it could be considered a "boardsgame" - IIRC, we had ours on two 4x8 pieces of plywood [:D] (Sitting on a ping-pong table)

I thought the doolittle raid changed the fighter garrison requirement in Japan, didn't affect war length. But it's been so long that you could well be correct.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: erstad

Problem is on the map game (can't really call a game that consumed a whole room a "boardgame"), the players could verify these circumstances as they were freely visible. Not so easy with the computer version

Well, you certainly could tie something to the same events that trigger extra reinforcements. In fact, that's not a bad idea; I might use it if I ever start another game as Japan. As it sits, the Allies can use a lot of force, for example, in Northern/Eastern Oz because the southern part is somewhat safer because the Japanese player is going to be reluctant to trigger the reinforcements. Might have to limit it to capture of a major city to avoid any gaminess where someone might paradrop onto a dot base or whatever for the sole purpose of triggering the event.

BTW, it maybe wasn't a board game but it could be considered a "boardsgame" - IIRC, we had ours on two 4x8 pieces of plywood [:D] (Sitting on a ping-pong table)

I thought the doolittle raid changed the fighter garrison requirement in Japan, didn't affect war length. But it's been so long that you could well be correct.

Memory is a little iffy but IIRC there were certain tasks the players were required to perfomr. One was Force Z had to sortie towards northern Malaya. Another was the IJN had to send a sub squadron to WCUSA during teh first month of the war. I am not sure if Doolittle Raid was one of those events or if it was shortening the war. Will check in about half an hour