Who has won PBEM as the Japs. ? (GC)

[Canoerebel]

Auto-victory probably isn't a real stretch in Scenario Two, which arms the experienced Japanese player with enough extra goodies at the beginning of the game to really make things hard on the Allies. A conquest or near conquest of India or Australia (or possibly Hawaii, though I'm not certain about that yet) might be enough. I think "might" becomes "probable" or even "near certainty" if the Allied carriers and combat ships suffer lopsided defeats early in the war.

I do not think auto-victory is a possibility against an experienced Allied player in Scenario One.

[FatR]

My big problem with the current point victory point win model is that it, at least if the scenario gives Japan a chance in hell at all (Scen 1 doesn't), encourages reckless landgrabs early in the game, in the hope of ending it on 1/1/1943. With the game generally skewed in the favor of the attacking side, thanks to easier logistics, and with qualitative superiority Allies eventually develop, defending so well that you still can hope for a victory later is practically impossible. And with the game ending far in 1946, any possible successes in the Pacific will be automatically invalidated by Soviet activation anyway. This leads to early-ending games. In my opinion, the game is better off without the possibility of early autovictory. The point victory should become possible from 1/1/1945, with any Japanese player surviving until September of 1945 receiving a point/victory step boost, that ensures at least a draw. Actually surviving to the end of the scenario should be recognized by the game as a clear victory for the Japanese player.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Auto-victory probably isn't a real stretch in Scenario Two, which arms the experienced Japanese player with enough extra goodies at the beginning of the game to really make things hard on the Allies. A conquest or near conquest of India or Australia (or possibly Hawaii, though I'm not certain about that yet) might be enough. I think "might" becomes "probable" or even "near certainty" if the Allied carriers and combat ships suffer lopsided defeats early in the war.

I do not think auto-victory is a possibility against an experienced Allied player in Scenario One.

Canoerebel,

I tend to agree that a Japanese auto-victory IRL would have to have been based on a combination of territorial gains and combat results. However, since VP's are vanilla in WITP-AE such a comination would not be needed in game -- but it is good rationale for an order-of-magnitude estimate of what may have been needed.

More specifically, I think a carrier imbalance of +4 in the Japanese favor is needed (i.e., four U.S. Carriers sunk for zero Japanese carriers sunk, or 5 to 1, 6 to 2 etc.). In addition to that, the Allied loss of Hawaii, most of Australia or most of India would have been enough to trigger a diplomatic solution by the Allies.

And, I would have the same criteria for either Scenario One or Two; it would just be far more difficult for the Japanese in Scenario One.

Regards,
Feltan

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: FatR

My big problem with the current point victory point win model is that it, at least if the scenario gives Japan a chance in hell at all (Scen 1 doesn't), encourages reckless landgrabs early in the game, in the hope of ending it on 1/1/1943.

My biggest problem with the current victory point model is that it exists! VP's are a crock..., and they lead to players devising strategies based to "game the system" rather than play the game. Not to mention the all too frequent "Well I didn't win an auto-victory on points at 1/1/43..., so since I can't win I quit" nonsense.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
My biggest problem with the current victory point model is that it exists! VP's are a crock..., and they lead to players devising strategies based to "game the system" rather than play the game. Not to mention the all too frequent "Well I didn't win an auto-victory on points at 1/1/43..., so since I can't win I quit" nonsense.

Yes, yes, we get that you hate challenge (assuming you play at all - against a human opponent - which I strongly doubt). This is not at all relevant to my post you've allegedly answered to, or anything at all, though.

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: FatR

My big problem with the current point victory point win model is that it, at least if the scenario gives Japan a chance in hell at all (Scen 1 doesn't), encourages reckless landgrabs early in the game, in the hope of ending it on 1/1/1943.

My biggest problem with the current victory point model is that it exists! VP's are a crock..., and they lead to players devising strategies based to "game the system" rather than play the game. Not to mention the all too frequent "Well I didn't win an auto-victory on points at 1/1/43..., so since I can't win I quit" nonsense.

And why shouldn't the VP model exist ? You are free to completely ignore it if you wish, I know I do, but if there are other players who wish to use it, let them. Saying the VP system shouldn't exist is, to me, equal to the person on an earlier thread saying that every game should be played for VPs.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
My biggest problem with the current victory point model is that it exists! VP's are a crock..., and they lead to players devising strategies based to "game the system" rather than play the game. Not to mention the all too frequent "Well I didn't win an auto-victory on points at 1/1/43..., so since I can't win I quit" nonsense.

Yes, yes, we get that you hate challenge (assuming you play at all - against a human opponent - which I strongly doubt). This is not at all relevant to my post you've allegedly answered to, or anything at all, though.

I generally play ONLY against human opponents, and I very much respect those who accept the challenge of playing the whole game. And you sound very much like the kind of player I was talking about who wants to quit as soon as he can't win an auto victory. You do realize the Japanese can also "win" by holding out long enough, right?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: FatR

The point victory should become possible from 1/1/1945, with any Japanese player surviving until September of 1945 receiving a point/victory step boost, that ensures at least a draw. Actually surviving to the end of the scenario should be recognized by the game as a clear victory for the Japanese player.

Not that I agree with you re auto-vic, but just for the sake of argument, what points would be needed on 1/1/1945 to get a Japanese victory? If auto-vic would be dumped, would you favor adjusting VP award rates for the Japanese to more weigh ships and aircraft bagging, and decrease base hex VPs? IMO, if you eliminate (for the GAME not the WAR) the chance for auto-vic, and don't give the Japanese player another way to leverage the starting advantages he has in 1942 to grab VPs before he gets crushed, you're not going to have ANY Japanese victories in the GAME.

To your second point, what does "survive until September 1945" mean? Have Tokyo and at least one ship? Ditto for your last point. If you take away auto-vic completely, what is winning for the Japanese player? Would you require the Allies to invade the HI and take the national capital by 1946, else the Japanese "win"?

IMO, the VP system rests on a foundation of auto-vic as a possibility and a whip for both players. If you remove it, I think you get more aimless play. Certainly if you remove it you would need to rejigger the whole VP system to be fair to the Japanese players' chances to win the GAME (Again, not the war. They aren't going to take Washington, Sydney, Dehli, etc. and require unconditional Allied surender.)

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: FatR

The point victory should become possible from 1/1/1945, with any Japanese player surviving until September of 1945 receiving a point/victory step boost, that ensures at least a draw. Actually surviving to the end of the scenario should be recognized by the game as a clear victory for the Japanese player.

Not that I agree with you re auto-vic, but just for the sake of argument, what points would be needed on 1/1/1945 to get a Japanese victory? If auto-vic would be dumped, would you favor adjusting VP award rates for the Japanese to more weigh ships and aircraft bagging, and decrease base hex VPs? IMO, if you eliminate (for the GAME not the WAR) the chance for auto-vic, and don't give the Japanese player another way to leverage the starting advantages he has in 1942 to grab VPs before he gets crushed, you're not going to have ANY Japanese victories in the GAME.

To your second point, what does "survive until September 1945" mean? Have Tokyo and at least one ship? Ditto for your last point. If you take away auto-vic completely, what is winning for the Japanese player? Would you require the Allies to invade the HI and take the national capital by 1946, else the Japanese "win"?

IMO, the VP system rests on a foundation of auto-vic as a possibility and a whip for both players. If you remove it, I think you get more aimless play. Certainly if you remove it you would need to rejigger the whole VP system to be fair to the Japanese players' chances to win the GAME (Again, not the war. They aren't going to take Washington, Sydney, Dehli, etc. and require unconditional Allied surender.)

Some good points. While I despise the fixation on "VP's", I did note that my game against Sonny II came to an end on 2/28/45 when the Allies achieved a 2:1 edge in VP's. Perhaps a quick leveling of the odds of Japan "winning" could be achieved by raising this to 2.5:1 or 3:1. Something that would encourage a Japanese player to imitate history and carry on the fight to the last ditch. I don't know what the "balance point" would be---but it could be an answer.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Some good points. While I despise the fixation on "VP's", I did note that my game against Sonny II came to an end on 2/28/45 when the Allies achieved a 2:1 edge in VP's. Perhaps a quick leveling of the odds of Japan "winning" could be achieved by raising this to 2.5:1 or 3:1. Something that would encourage a Japanese player to imitate history and carry on the fight to the last ditch. I don't know what the "balance point" would be---but it could be an answer.

Adjustments would be necessary if the central device of auto-vic were removed. Without it, the Japanese could do their own version of Sir Robin, pull back a LONG way (abanndon the Gilberts and Marshalls for example), and build a 50,000 plane kami force, while not giving away sunken ship VPs or lost garrison VPs on the forward defense line. They could establish a defense line in Burma stiffened by poor Allied southbound supply, secure the raw mateiral routes on interior lines, and build, build, build for the 1944--1945 Allied VP push into kami-land. It wouldn't be fun, and it would/should drive the "historical" player crown bats.

The central dilemma the original devs faced, it seems to me, is that they had two competing, overlapping skeletons to build the game around. One, they hard-coded in many historical events and truths. The fixed Allied OOB was the foremost, but also the Soviet activation in August 1945, USN dud torpedoes, limited R&D rates, and others. In truth, the Allied OOB was determined by other historical events like Coral Sea and Midway, and the Soviet declaration depended on millions of linked events such as the date of Barbarossa, the defense of Moscow, the failure of the U-boat war to shut down Murmansk, Stalingrad when and how, Kursk the same, etc. Without these puzzle pieces falling into place, Stalin would not have been in a position to declare on Japan in summer 1945. Yet both players know on 12/7/1941 that this will happen, and what the Soviet OOB will be that day.

The second skeleton, competing with the first, is the need to make it a game, to allow players to make their own history. In that realm, if the Allied player is masterful and the Japanese less so, why would the game need to go to August 1945, let alone spring 1946? Just because history went that way? (see above) To motivate good, hard-fought play, the game needs to reward good play, and we all can come up with many examples where history did not demonstrate good warfighting.

Auto-vic is the glue which holds these two competing design decisions together. Eliminating it would tilt the balance far toward the first "skeleton", channeling players into historical successes and failures, and the production/R&D offshoots of those, and eliminating the chance to be rewarded for fighting better than historical when given historical toolboxes. Since both PBEM participants can agree to ignore auto-vic, I don't see any utility in eliminating it. I think it's a case of "be careful what you wish for." I don't want to see every AAR reduced to two years of ho-hum, and 1.5 years of kami slaughters.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Adjustments would be necessary if the central device of auto-vic were removed. Without it, the Japanese could do their own version of Sir Robin, pull back a LONG way (abanndon the Gilberts and Marshalls for example), and build a 50,000 plane kami force, while not giving away sunken ship VPs or lost garrison VPs on the forward defense line. They could establish a defense line in Burma stiffened by poor Allied southbound supply, secure the raw mateiral routes on interior lines, and build, build, build for the 1944--1945 Allied VP push into kami-land. It wouldn't be fun, and it would/should drive the "historical" player crown bats.

According to your theory here, the best strategy for the Japanese would be to ignore "auto-victory" and do a Sir Robin. Have you tried it? I wasn't really talking about eliminating "auto victory" (though I should have made it clearer), just increasing the "final defeat" ratio some to give the Japanese player a chance and reason to play on if he doesn't achieve one.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Adjustments would be necessary if the central device of auto-vic were removed. Without it, the Japanese could do their own version of Sir Robin, pull back a LONG way (abanndon the Gilberts and Marshalls for example), and build a 50,000 plane kami force, while not giving away sunken ship VPs or lost garrison VPs on the forward defense line. They could establish a defense line in Burma stiffened by poor Allied southbound supply, secure the raw mateiral routes on interior lines, and build, build, build for the 1944--1945 Allied VP push into kami-land. It wouldn't be fun, and it would/should drive the "historical" player crown bats.

According to your theory here, the best strategy for the Japanese would be to ignore "auto-victory" and do a Sir Robin. Have you tried it? I wasn't really talking about eliminating "auto victory" (though I should have made it clearer), just increasing the "final defeat" ratio some to give the Japanese player a chance and reason to play on if he doesn't achieve one.

Well, this IS an interesting theory, since it rests on the current state of Allied naval flak. Few or no Japanese AAR players currently in their games knew how weak that flak model is when they started. It might very well be true that a Japanese Sir Robin is optimal and lower risk under the current model, rather than a Japanese auto-vic search by way of India or Aussie land grabs.

I didn't realize you were proposing keeping it. I could blame the early hour of my reading more than your writing.

That said, how many Japanese PBEM players walk away on 1/2/1943? I don't have any stats. Is it a real problem?

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Well, this IS an interesting theory, since it rests on the current state of Allied naval flak. Few or no Japanese AAR players currently in their games knew how weak that flak model is when they started. It might very well be true that a Japanese Sir Robin is optimal and lower risk under the current model, rather than a Japanese auto-vic search by way of India or Aussie land grabs.

I didn't realize you were proposing keeping it. I could blame the early hour of my reading more than your writing.

Not a problem "Bull". As I said I should have made it much clearer.

[Alfred]

You guys have all closely ready and understood pages 265-266 of the manual, correct?[;)]

In this thread, far too much weight is accorded to auto victory at the expense of all the other possible game outcomes.

There are five possible games outcomes:

[center]Decisive Allied Victory
Marginal Allied Victory
Draw
Marginal Japanese Victory
Decisive Japanese Victory[/center]

The game "Decisive Allied Victory" is the historical outcome. Any other outcome represents a significant better result for Japan than occurred historically and is therefore really a Japanese victory. IMHO, an Allied player who fails to achieve a "Decisive Allied Victory" has really lost.

Japanese players tend to give up far too easily. It is much harder than many seem to realise to actually achieve a decisive victory. For example, if in the Grand Campaign an Allied player fails to achieve a decisive victory by 31 August 1945, then at best he can only subsequently achieve a marginal victory, even if he post 31 August 1945 achieves a 2:1 VP ratio. Or consider the impact on determining victory levels if A-bombs are used.

Alfred

[jay102]

Why always talk about points? There is no points in a real war. The only way for the Allies to claim a victory is capture Tokyo before the end of game. This is the best way to create a legendary long term game and encourage Japan to fight to the bitter end.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Japanese players tend to give up far too easily. It is much harder than many seem to realise to actually achieve a decisive victory. For example, if in the Grand Campaign an Allied player fails to achieve a decisive victory by 31 August 1945, then at best he can only subsequently achieve a marginal victory, even if he post 31 August 1945 achieves a 2:1 VP ratio. Or consider the impact on determining victory levels if A-bombs are used.

Alfred

EDIT: Actually, I missed this point, noticing only the moment about the victory level move if Japan avoids losing by an Automatic Victory until the end of the scenario. This invalidates most of my complaint.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: jay102
Why always talk about points? There is no points in a real war. The only way for the Allies to claim a victory is capture Tokyo before the end of game. This is the best way to create a legendary long term game and encourage Japan to fight to the bitter end.

I've never heard of an Allied player taking Tokyo in WitP (it probably happened, but it was very rare). AE is so new that few PBEM have gone that deeply into the game, but I haven't heard yet of any Allied player taking Tokyo. I expect it will be exceedingly rare - less than 5% of PBEMs if that much.

[Bullwinkle58]

Alfred, what, me, manual?! Have you not been around here awhile?[:)]

Seriously, I know those ratios. I tend to forget them operationally since I play the AI and I've always gotten the auto-vic/decisive. I let my first GC got to August because I wanted to see a Soviet activation, but the AI is pretty easy to auto-vic long before that.

I suspect some players are put off by this section's labeling, as only two of five categories say "Japanese Victory." I tend to agree with your point that anything other than a shellacking by the Allies is really a loss for them, but that's not what the darn labels say. Perhaps we'd be better with just two? ("Draw" is for wimps.)

One thing I've disagreed with, back to WITP, was the bizarre atom bomb sub-rule. Again, the original team put us in historical shackles. There's no logical reason to penalize the Allied player for dropping more than two (and yes, there would have been more by April 1946), when the game can go on for eight more months after history ended. The penalty is doubly galling since atom bombs aren't even that great in their effects. When I've used them they do next to no damage to LCUs, and the city continues to be a semi-functioning economic entity (which Hiroshima certainly was not.)

[jay102]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: jay102
Why always talk about points? There is no points in a real war. The only way for the Allies to claim a victory is capture Tokyo before the end of game. This is the best way to create a legendary long term game and encourage Japan to fight to the bitter end.

I've never heard of an Allied player taking Tokyo in WitP (it probably happened, but it was very rare). AE is so new that few PBEM have gone that deeply into the game, but I haven't heard yet of any Allied player taking Tokyo. I expect it will be exceedingly rare - less than 5% of PBEMs if that much.

True it is very rare, probably not a single PBEM get that far. nevertheless, it is always good to use it as ultimate goal to give both player a motivated mindset. We all like to see epic long game, the kamikaze, okha, B29 bombing... right?

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

You can "win" if you believe in VP based auto-victory, or if your opponent gets discouraged and gives up, which happens on occasion. Other than that, victory for Japan often means doing better than the historical result. As to the other question, I would turn it around - What's the point of playing as the Allies when you know the sheer weight of numbers will eventually grant you victory? This is a tongue in cheek question, but I think the point is that most JFBs enjoy the challenge of the "unwinnable war." Finally, early on you have a big advantage in strength and have so many cool toys.

ORIGINAL: TommyG

I have lost several automatic 1942 victory games as the Allies with IJ invasions of India and/or Oz, spread out so thin I'm drooling in anticipation for 1943, and then when the auto victory kicks in they say "good game" and I never hear from them again. I've learned to demand a long term commitment at the beginning, but it doesn't always work.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

In my mind, a Japanese player who makes it into 1945 and can still "bite his opponent in the butt" on occasion is a real winner..., and will get my respect no matter what the "VP's" say.

AMEN.

My one and only PBEM has started in 2006 (early CHS version). In game time it has reached mid-1944.

My Allied opponent has recaptured most of the map - Bangkok, Singapore, Saigon, Hanoi, DEI, PNG/Solomons, Gilberts/Marshalls/Carolines/Marianas except Rabaul, Truk, Palau and some minor atolls, and he owns most of the Kuriles as well.
He is threatening Canton and Clark Field and has just captured Iwo Jima and the small islands west of Okinawa in the past few turns. His B-29s have started bombing the home islands at night - my night-fighters suffer higher losses than the B-29s. His carriers roam freely in the East China Sea.

I have accidentially activated the Russians in mid-43 (but managed to fend them off until now, at the expense of the other fronts).
My ressource and oil imports are ZERO, although oil stockpiles in the Hone Islands are ample. Factories and shipyards have been halted except for HI, armament, fighters and engines.
I have about 2000 planes left, mostly fighters. Remnants of bomber units are on search/ASW, since any other task would only result in pointless losses for no gains.
My Navy is down to four damaged BBs and five damaged CV/CVLs in the yards, undamaged Hosho and a new CV, plus a dozen CA/CL, about 20 DDs and a dozen SS, all with "minor" sys damage.

So I'm surely not winning and not even doing better than history (except in inflicted heavier losses).

BUT - I'm still having a blast!

I'm trying to pull off unexpected pinprick attacks with my remaining forces - a carrier TF roaming in the Allied "hinterland" attacking supply convoys while his CVs are busy protecting am amphib invasion, hit-and run attacks by surface TFs, massive Kamikaze strikes etc. - anything that may annoy and delay my opponent.

Winning isn't everything.