Who Won

[stuman]

Hmm, given some of these arguments, I guess I win all of the time [:)]

[bradfordkay]

My feeling is that if you're playing a long campaign PBEM and are enjoying the experience, then you are winning (at life). WITP-AE is more than a game, it's a complete experience.

Of course, I could be harboring these feelings because I'm a lousy player!!

[m10bob]

Maybe the Japanese player could get some more VP's for certain accomplishments not yet in game?..

If any Japanese player could sink maybe 8 Allied carriers by June 1942, that would be a major feat, (and sure one of their real objectives, or close to it?)..

Sure, the Allies might just park the flattops in Frisco till then, but that presents other obvious problems as well, for the Allies.

[Nemo121]

bradfordkay,

Why the equivalence between enjoyment and winning? Surely it is ok just to enjoy the game irrespective of winning and losing? [8D]

We're all too caught up with "winning". If you play well and enjoy it then why can't that, on its own, be enough irrespective of points and dates etc.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

bradfordkay,

Why the equivalence between enjoyment and winning? Surely it is ok just to enjoy the game irrespective of winning and losing? [8D]

We're all too caught up with "winning". If you play well and enjoy it then why can't that, on its own, be enough irrespective of points and dates etc.

That was my point... playing and enjoying the game is a win in my book. We spend far too much time in a grand campaign PBEM to get all tied up in the need to gain a victory. When that becomes your main reason for playing you have a tendency to get upset at all the little setbacks you will invariably suffer along the way. If you are playing to enjoy the experience those setbacks don't matter as much.

I will bet that the vast majority of the people who quit a PBEM because of a major setback are more tied up in the idea of going for a victory than in experiencing the war.

[PresterJohn001]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

bradfordkay,

Why the equivalence between enjoyment and winning? Surely it is ok just to enjoy the game irrespective of winning and losing? [8D]

We're all too caught up with "winning". If you play well and enjoy it then why can't that, on its own, be enough irrespective of points and dates etc.

Absolutely.... but its much nicer if you win. [8D]

You want your opponent to try to win, whether winning is externally objectively defined or a more subjective personal goal...

Anyway i play witp ae for the experience but i also play to "win". Maybe i'm just looking for an excuse so when i get crushed by June '44 i can blame it on poorly defined victory conditions [;)] (actually thats not going to happen honoured opponents reading this) [:D]

[Sheytan]

Actually the Japanese had a win and lose point. They knew what would win them the war...and what would cause the war to be lost in thier estimation. So to assert the Japanese went to war with some abstract idea of what would win or lose the war for them is really a left field arguement.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Why should they have an objective method to determine the winner?

That's a very western concept. Western thinking about winning, time etc is very binary and linear. It is all Yes/No, c follows b which follows a. If you look at a lot of other cultures - particularly ancient ones - you find that they had a much more nuanced sense of what the object of a sport/game was, how time flowed etc. They were often less binary and linear.

E.g. The Mayans had a game very much like basketball played within a stone court in which players were to keep a ball in the air using only their feet and get it through a stone hoop in one of the walls. Whichever team scored more points got sacrificed to the gods as an example of the flower of Mayan civilisation being offered up as tribute. Most Westerners looking at that would interpret that in terms of "the winners" got sacrificed but the Mayans didn't view it that way. The purpose of the game wasn't about one team "winning" or "losing". It was, rather, about one team showing itself as sufficiently skillful to be worth of consideration for sacrifice.


So, just because in modern Western culture we've boiled most of these things down to the paralysing belief in the binaries of win/loss doesn't mean that that's the right way to look at it or that we have a right to dismiss views which don't centre on the binary win/loss view as not having value. That would be a very socio-syntonic belief obviously but just because it would be gratifying doesn't make it right.


So, while you can certainly continue to view competition in a modern Western context that doesn't mean it is the only context. I don't tend to ascribe to the Western view of competition in general within AE. While I certainly see that in some situations the binaryness of win/loss ( well, actually a trinaryness of win/loss and draw but I don't want to confuse the point too much ) matters in terms of competitive leagues for ease of assigning relative achievements to various teams it doesn't mean that we have to apply that single view to all forms of competition. Competition is possible without aiming towards win/loss. Many times competition's goal is a deeper truth or evaluation which cannot be encompassed within the simplistic binariness ( really trinariness but bear with me ) of win/loss.

Even within western cultures we recognise this in the mythos of the "valiant loser" etc.



Obviously, one can limit oneself to assigning value solely to the win/loss criteria if one wishes. We're all, thankfully, free to do so. With that said in many cultures they would have answered that whoever "won" was the person who played most skillfully as the point of the game wasn't the score but the exhibition of skill contained therein. Not all cultures accepted that winning was the same as being most skillfull and even if they did perhaps the point wasn't winning but showing one's skill. But, if you wish to view it as a binary then, of course, you should feel free to do so.

Obviously though, throughout history there were civilisations which DID focus purely on win/loss and were less interested in skill. Even with such an outwardly binary civilisation as the spartans though many of their punishments for "failure" during training weren't for failure but actually for the lack of skill said failure represented. You can argue that that's the same thing but it is clear from what survives of their training for men and women in both internal and external accounts that that wasn't how they viewed it. They separated the act from the manner in which it was committed and could punish commission even in the presence of success if the manner of commission wasn't sufficiently skillfull.

[Pascal_slith]

If I'm playing the AI, then if I can do better than the historical delineations as of March 1943, I consider it a "win".

If I play PBEM, then I follow bradfordkay's philosophy and ask my opponent what he's looking for as a 'benchmark' for 'winning'.

[RUDOLF]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I think you bring up a good point. Honestly, any Japanese player that prevents an Allied player from gaining a VP victory by 8-15-1945 could be said to have won the game. They did something to cause the allied player to take longer than was historically necessary to defeat Japan.

I 100% Totally agree

[Sheytan]

Agreed, it isnt in arriving at the destination that makes the trip fun, but rather traveling the road to get there.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

My feeling is that if you're playing a long campaign PBEM and are enjoying the experience, then you are winning (at life). WITP-AE is more than a game, it's a complete experience.

Of course, I could be harboring these feelings because I'm a lousy player!!

[Cribtop]

One thought that occurs to me is whether Aug 15, 1945 is really the best date to use. In scenario 1, what is the average date of Allied victory? What is the average date in scenario 2 games? To me that is a better benchmark, but YMMV.

Also, there is something to what Nemo says. Even before the war, the Japanese high command was well aware of the likelihood of defeat, but thought 1941 was the best balance of forces they would get and believed utter defeat preferable to backing down in China. In the end, their inability to resolve the China Incident doomed them. They had a plan for negotiated peace and intended to win in the Western sense, but they were willing to accept the risk of national annihilation in a way that can baffle our minds.

To me the closest analogue is the US Civil War, with the South determined to fight rather than accept what they perceived to be the destruction of their way of life.

[Nemo121]

Sheytan,

I never said Japan went to war with any more abstract idea of what constituted a win or loss than any other nation. However, even you would have to agree that whether something is viewed as a win or loss is multifactorial and dependent on many factors, including cultural attitudes to war, winning etc.

But, to answer your basic point... I never made the contention you seem to ascribe to me.


I believe however you may have misinterpreted something I DID allude to which is that different cultures may view very different things as being "wins". Certainly any culture can recognise that a decisive victory is gained by slaughtering all one's enemies whilst suffering minimal losses ( Actually even there that isn't accurate. In some cultures the failure to capture enemy troops and bring them home for sacrifice or slavery would be an utter disaster. Killing the enemy en masse was often not the goal of war in ancient societies. Often the goal was to take prisoners for slavery or sacrifice. Again, a different conception of "win". ) With that said other cultures have also recognised that great success can come from failure.

In Ireland the leaders of the 1916 rising against British occupation stated, quite clearly, prior to their rebellion that they knew they could never win militarily but that they would fight a quasi-military campaign instead of a guerilla campaign so as to legitimise their declaration of independence and so as to allow their deaths ( in combat or by execution later ) to water the seeds of future resistance. By the end of the the fighting the Irish population was split and as they were marched to jail etc the crowds were mostly silent. Some boos, very few cheers according to contemporary accounts. It was only later as the leaders were executed - including men in wheelchairs and one man whose stretcher was propped up so he could be shot - that the population turned and fully supported them. 3 years later support had swelled sufficiently that the lower-echelon survivors of 1916 could create a sustainable guerilla movement and waged a rather vicious little secret war against British intelligence services throughout Ireland. Eventually this escalated into a full-fledged insurgency vs British paramilitary forces with atrocities on both sides and by 1921 Irish guerilla leaders were negotiating with the British government for national independence.

Was the 1916 rising a "win"? Militarily it was actually somewhat inept and certainly not a win in any military sense at all. However the 1916 rising was by far the most successful rebellion Ireland had over the course of 800 years of intermittent rebellions - the longest of which lasted 8 years and saw tens of thousands of British troops killed. Why? It succeeded in its overall goal, a goal which didn't require winning, just trying.

Perhaps because of this history I have no problem with understanding that a "loss" in some terms can, to a different culture, be a fundamental history-changing victory. I don't think America has had a similar experience though, perhaps that underlies the difficulty some seem to have with this concept? I am NOT saying that as America-bashing or anything, I'm just trying to understand why what seems to evident to me ( and some others ) seems so alien to yet others... Any ideas guys?


There are countless other exampels of similar things throughout history. I find it surprising that people seem to find it so difficult to accept the existence of anything beyond the binary win/loss, zero/sum game scenario. I thought this was all fairly widespread stuff.



FWIW I'd agree with Cribtop (above ).

[Amoral]

There are countless other exampels of similar things throughout history. I find it surprising that people seem to find it so difficult to accept the existence of anything beyond the binary win/loss, zero/sum game scenario. I thought this was all fairly widespread stuff.

No one finds "shades of grey" to be a difficult concept, Nemo. But the question asked was "How can I decide a winner". Your answer of "you don't have to" is one take, but it isn't the only word.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

One thought that occurs to me is whether Aug 15, 1945 is really the best date to use? In scenario 1, what is the average date of Allied victory? What is the average date in scenario 2 games? To me that is a better benchmark, but YMMV.

It is..., IF the Japanese lose 4 CV's on June 4th, 1942! Otherwise, it is simply a good average point to be considering the situation. As for an "average date of Allied victory?" in ANY scenario, it would really have to be based on at least a couple hundred completed PBEM's --- and I doubt those exist.

Probably the fairest "victory conditions" would be those you and your playing partner chose before you started. Then at least both of you would know exactly how your play would be evaluated.

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

One thought that occurs to me is whether Aug 15, 1945 is really the best date to use. In scenario 1, what is the average date of Allied victory? What is the average date in scenario 2 games? To me that is a better benchmark, but YMMV.

The historical surrender date is problematic for a few reasons.

Firstly because it reflects the date the Japanese should surrender only if a completely historical course of battle is followed.

Secondly, the Japanese forces in game are far more capable than historically.
Factor in the usually far greater gains in the first 6 months due to near perfect intelligence of what forces are available to combat them and knowledge of the poor quality of these forces.
Also the much, much greater capacity to pump out both air frames and highly skilled pilots and finally the fact that dropping atom bombs will not force a surrender, but only damage industry and manpower etc.
This to me is the biggest issue with using a historic date, as it was the atom bombs that caused Japan's surrender by 15th Aug 45.

In game with an equal opponent and no ability to "rush" a victory with atomic bombings, I would actually expect Japan to hold out quite a bit longer.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Dobey
The historical history date is problematic for a few reasons.

All of which are wrong. Japan is underpowered in the current metagame, assuming historical Scen 1, and the only way for the Japanese player to hold to 1945 is to win some one-sided fleet victories, probably in 1942 (in 1943 this is much harder) or/and to have an opponent with an inadequate offensive plan. Whenever Japan suffers a big carrier defeat in 1942 (which is easy), it collapses by late 1943 - early 1944. Scen 2 seems to be better balanced to a game where Japan is likely to prolong meaningful resistance into early 1945.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: FatR

All of which are wrong. Japan is underpowered in the current metagame, assuming historical Scen 1, and the only way for the Japanese player to hold to 1945 is to win some one-sided fleet victories, probably in 1942 (in 1943 this is much harder) or/and to have an opponent with an inadequate offensive plan. Whenever Japan suffers a big carrier defeat in 1942 (which is easy), it collapses by late 1943 - early 1944. Scen 2 seems to be better balanced to a game where Japan is likely to prolong meaningful resistance into early 1945.

It's not a matter of over- or under-powered, it's a matter of foreknowledge and hindsight. Both sides have it, and can use it to "make hay while the sun shines". But barring an endless string of Allied disasters, they will have more time and more tools to do it with when their "moment in the sun" comes.

Historically the Allies were rather conservative in their comeback..., but just as the Japanese player can push farther and faster and in different directions in his opening offensive (because he knows EXACTLY where Allied assets are weakest and EXACTLY what odds he needs to beat them); the Allied Player knows when his turn comes EXACTLY the moves and tactics that will give the best results from his new-found strength. He can adopt riskier strategies because he knows his little "pixel men" have no little "pixel women and children and mothers and fathers" left at home. Some players (gamers) are willing to push this to extremes on both sides.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

One thought that occurs to me is whether Aug 15, 1945 is really the best date to use? In scenario 1, what is the average date of Allied victory? What is the average date in scenario 2 games? To me that is a better benchmark, but YMMV.

It is..., IF the Japanese lose 4 CV's on June 4th, 1942! Otherwise, it is simply a good average point to be considering the situation. As for an "average date of Allied victory?" in ANY scenario, it would really have to be based on at least a couple hundred completed PBEM's --- and I doubt those exist.

Probably the fairest "victory conditions" would be those you and your playing partner chose before you started. Then at least both of you would know exactly how your play would be evaluated.

Looking at it from that perspective, in a sense I've already won a victory in my WiTP camapaign because I'm going into 1943 without having lost a carrier (actually I've lost no ship larger than a light cruiser). That in itself, is a victory (especially considering that Fuso ate 4 torpedoes and I managed to repair it...85% float damage and I saved it). So I've won some minor victories already along the way.

Will I win the war...doubtfull, I did not manage to push much further than the Japanese did elsewhere...(though I did take Nome...does that count as a landing on the Continental US?) [:D]

Am I winning, absolutely not...the 4Es are seeing to that, and my opponant also has lost no carriers...its all a matter of time until my defense crumbles. But when its over I can walk away knowing I did better than historical.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

One thought that occurs to me is whether Aug 15, 1945 is really the best date to use? In scenario 1, what is the average date of Allied victory? What is the average date in scenario 2 games? To me that is a better benchmark, but YMMV.

It is..., IF the Japanese lose 4 CV's on June 4th, 1942! Otherwise, it is simply a good average point to be considering the situation. As for an "average date of Allied victory?" in ANY scenario, it would really have to be based on at least a couple hundred completed PBEM's --- and I doubt those exist.

Probably the fairest "victory conditions" would be those you and your playing partner chose before you started. Then at least both of you would know exactly how your play would be evaluated.

Looking at it from that perspective, in a sense I've already won a victory in my WiTP camapaign because I'm going into 1943 without having lost a carrier (actually I've lost no ship larger than a light cruiser). That in itself, is a victory (especially considering that Fuso ate 4 torpedoes and I managed to repair it...85% float damage and I saved it). So I've won some minor victories already along the way.

Will I win the war...doubtfull, I did not manage to push much further than the Japanese did elsewhere...(though I did take Nome...does that count as a landing on the Continental US?) [:D]

Am I winning, absolutely not...the 4Es are seeing to that, and my opponant also has lost no carriers...its all a matter of time until my defense crumbles. But when its over I can walk away knowing I did better than historical.

You've still got a ways to go..., but you are absolutely right SHARK. Sounds as if both of you are playing it very conservatively..., but now the onus is on him to push the issue, and you still have a big pile of "spanners" to toss into his "works". Should be fun (for both of you) to see just how far you can drag it out, and how many teeth you can chew of the gears of his machine as it tries to grind it's way to Tokyo. [8D]

[YankeeAirRat]

I think the idea of who "won" should be desided by the players. I have played a few board games (like Flat Top, Mustang, and some Clash of Arms Harpoon Trilogy) where even after I have lost during the beer and pretzel AAR we agreed that I won by forcing the battle in a different direction. I have yet to play WiTP:AE in the PBEM stage, but a couple of times that I played UV via PBEM again even though realisiticly looking at the VP, I got my clocked cleaned. I was still able to work the issue enough that my opponent had to really work hard to get his victory and it wasn't until the very end that he got his beacoup of VP additions when I tried a version of the I-GO plan to rescue Rabual and he got all of my carriers.