Old Subject: Japanese need their own victory conditions

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

House of the Rising Sun, perfect for this thread!

Hideki Matsuyama wins the first ever Major for Japan!

Congrats, Golf, the world's game.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: LoneRunner

Relocating the Japanese capital to Seoul is not historically accurate. And it's not good for the game. Yes, Korea was important to the Japanese war effort. But would the Japanese continue the war if they lost Honshu? At the end of World War II before the Soviets invaded, Japan still held Manchuria, most of China, and a lot of Southeast Asia. Most of their army was available. But they seriously considered surrender because the home islands were being devastated. Also, no way would the Emperor have agreed to move to Seoul!

The reasoning behind Seoul being an alternative capital is that in 1945 the die-hards did want to continue the fight from there, so in game if Japan's National Morale hasn't reached zero when its capitals within Japan proper are taken, then it can continue to fight on from there.

That said I am happy to think about options to improve the gameplay/importance of the Pacific theater.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

Been meaning to ask-are Mulberries enabled? They are available in the editor...

They aren't enabled, so that isn't currently an option.

[fluidwill]

I know its been said before but its worth saying again. I am constantly impressed and pleased that you and Hubert are always engaged and open to suggestion but with a measure twice cut once mindset. Thank you [&o][:)]

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

The game is awesome. 5-star. Been playing for a Year + 100 games. I'm just trying to stir the Pacific pot of play.

[HamburgerMeat]

Some responses off the top of my head:

I agree that taking Pearl Harbor is somewhat pointless. But it makes sense

I think that the Japanese are already quite deadly. They get three long-range amphibious transports for every level of amphibious warfare. This can lead to some very devastating attacks against targets that the Japanese would have had difficulty maintaining supply routes to historically speaking.

Maritime bombers are extremely powerful and cost effective, but they help prevent the western Allies from immediately smashing the Japanese navy. Instead, the Allies have to cautiously approach

Although the naval aspect of the game is often complained about, I think the carrier vs carrier battles work fine as they are. It's a very deadly game of scouting. Whoever scouts and gets into striking range of the enemy carriers first wins. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that more or less historically accurate?

While Germany first is still the better strategy, I think it is inevitable so long as the developers are trying to keep Axis and Allied win-loss ratios the same. The easiest way for the Axis to win is to knock the USSR out of the war, and the Germans are in a much better position (militarily and geographically) to do that.

==

However, I do have one possible suggestion that may spice up the meta: German/Italian convoys to Japan.
This should only be an option if the Axis have taken Egypt and the Suez Canal. This should make taking Africa and the Middle East more enticing if the Axis wanted to make a more powerful Japan and wanted to focus on a UK/USA first strategy. It can also make the prospect of a Japanese DoW against the UK more enticing in order to protect the convoys.

Maybe this could be tied to the UK decision event to force India to join the Allies. The more successful the Axis are in Africa/Middle East/Asia, the more likely that India would resist UK rule due to encroaching danger + worsening famine, especially if the UK forced India into the war.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

We've discussed this in the past, the Victory Conditions are all about Russia. Thus, the players just abandon Pacific. Been there, done that.

The Axis cannot regain their Morale after losing key cities. Thus swarm Italy strategy at all costs. In reverse, the Japs have no means to win. I stated it probably about a year ago, the Japs need a way to win. Capturing Hawaii is a waste of time. Costs 3+ ground units + HQ + fleet support. What do they get in return, not much. USA can just bypass or better yet, leave. India is the new Capital for Yanks.

We all know, the United State entered World War II based on the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7th, 1941. Half the country enlisted that week. Soon, war with Germany. Since the morale was so high, causing the DOW soon on Germany, any losses or failure of victory in the Pacific was critical for the United States. This translates, the United States should have to do something in the Pacific and/or the Japs should get huge morale for holding key citys (Hawaii, some Islands, name it).

What is the "What If" scenario in real life? If the Japs were not touched by the USA, could they build some Super Weapons? Some funky Jet Planes, Nukes, etc. They certainly should have more income.

Ideas:
1) Japs get huge Morale for Capturing something cool. Hawaii is a joke now. Nothing.
2) Japs can begin massive Chemical Weapons. With no battles with USA, Japs had Chemicals vs. Chinese. More time to develop
3) Japs should get some Ports that are greater than strength 5.
4) Japs should be allowed to store Oil. No USA around, they would be building more than Pokémon games.
5) Japs should get something special, more than bland units.

Needs design work.

My question is what are you doing as the Japanese or your opponents doing as the Japanese? I run wild with them and I love it. If an allied player abandons the Pacific against me they will pay. Hawaii, San Fran, Los Angeles, Canberra, Wellington, Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay...are all NM cities now.

I do not agree that capturing China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, Alaska, and the United States is easy as Japan. Not at all. It is very difficult to pull all of that off. But again if the allies abandon the Pacific all bets are off...

I agree maritime bombers should not be more powerful than carrier bombers. I think they should be about even. Except that one is land based.

It is almost impossible to take an atoll in this game if you cannot land troops. You can reduce the port supply to 0 and you still cannot reduce the unit supply enough even if you are pounding them with carrier air (which do almost nothing) and battleships. And you have to bring in several amphibious transports to make a dent in the unit. I think carrier bombers should have a stronger ground attack. Very very difficult.

My question is why are Washington DC and Ottawa not NM cities? How about making the Panama Canal more important? NM or convoy route going through?

And I will say it again Mobile, Alabama should be a port haha. There is a reason the Germans moved their subs to the Gulf of Mexico! New Orleans and Mobile!

[pjg100]

I think this issue could probably be effectively addressed by giving US a meaningful morale hit, and possibly JA a meaningful morale boost, if japan holds certain NM objectives at a periodically recurring check, eg, every June and December. Honolulu, Sydney, Panama, possibly American Samoa come to mind. Some of these could also affect UK morale.

[Marcinos1985]

In SC:WaW Japan is not such resource strained as it was IRL. Therefore going for India/Syberia/Hawaii is not out of the question for them, even though supplying troops so far away from home would be a nightmare.

There are plenty of good points in this thread. Still, I find it puzzling a bit when I read that Allies should be somehow penalized for not being active in Pacific. Game essentially forces them not to be. If USA allows Germany to run rampage in Europe up to 1944, it's game over because head to head USSR just loses. Therefore USA throws everything at GER, in order to not lose outright.

Japan's strength comes from China weakness, around 1941 China is mortally wounded and will be mopped up with a handful of troops. Therefore Japan has a free hand in Pacific region, with all free stuff they get. They would not, if China was still kicking.

Why is China going down so quickly? There are multiple reasons, Inf Weapons dicrepancy is probably the most important. But they also face a lot stronger army than IRL. That's because any competent Axis players operates armies/corps from Manchuria, swaping them for garrisons. IRL, Japan held a formidable Kwantung Army for whole War duration, not a bunch of peasants with bamboo sticks. In game it is not reflected. What would Stalin do if he saw that Japan empties its borders? In game he can't do anything unfortunately.

Maybe if Japan wasn't allowed to use Kwantung Army in current way, dynamics of Pacific theater would differ. In exchange for this 'nerf' US/UK could be somehow pressured to be more active, there are several ideas in this thread. But forcing Allies to split their forces in current game setup would be a huge Axis boost and I strongly believe they don't need any at all.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

I don't think the European people understand the significance of the United States AFTER the attack of Pearl Harbor. Voluntary enlistment went wild to fight the Japanese. All over the country dudes drove themselves, walked, took buses, hopped trains to join the Armed Forces to fight the Empire of Japan. They didn't show up to recruitment centers barking about wanting to fight Nazis or die in Europe because of a little Corporal who had bunch of dudes waiving flags in leather boots. They wanted to kill Japanese. Lied about their age. Looks at the Doolittle Raid of April 1942. It was a suicide mission, all about MORALE. The Doolittle raid was a basically a Kamikaze raid BEFORE the word Kamikaze was even known.

At the end of 1941, the Germans had annexed Denmark, Austria, rolled over Poland, Low Countries, France, etc. Italy was on their side. And of course, in June 1941 to end of 1941, the Buntas captured huge gains in Russia. Did the United States people really care? No, they didn't. Maybe some Destroyers, Supply Ships to England. Some Planes & Pilots to the United Kingdom. Dudes in the USA didn't want to come to Europe & die over European politics and another war.

The United States went to war all over the Pacific in 1942. We weren't waiting for anything. Morale is everything for the United States. People didn't interrupt their lives over Europe, it was Japan. More than just factories. You think Americans in 1941 even cared about China? We weren't buying plastic crap from them, yet. China had zero interest to the American people. Americans care about American interests. That interest, was to destroy Japan for Pearl Harbor.

The US Navy, Air Force, Marines were badass in the Pacific. Morale is everything.

The people were angered. Japanese people were shipped to holding camps in Idaho, California, Utah, etc. They weren't shipping Germans/Italians there.

[eriador08]

As far as i can tell, i agree in most part with your statements about the effect on US morale that the attack on PH plays. But how should the neglecting of PH on Japanese side play out then, if we spin this thought even further. What if Japan concentrated only on south east asia and/or india? I know about the concerns japan had about Phillipines and such, but lets just say, for the sake of the argument, that japan would not anger the US in any way. Should the states even be allowed to enter the war in a normal way over mobilization then?

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

ORIGINAL: eriador08

As far as i can tell, i agree in most part with your statements about the effect on US morale that the attack on PH plays. But how should the neglecting of PH on Japanese side play out then, if we spin this thought even further. What if Japan concentrated only on south east asia and/or india? I know about the concerns japan had about Phillipines and such, but lets just say, for the sake of the argument, that japan would not anger the US in any way. Should the states even be allowed to enter the war in a normal way over mobilization then?

True, you make a good point. Talking gaming now (or history for that matter), since the attempt is to coincide. "What if the Japanese" turn their Task Force PH around, and laid of the Philippines.

I got another test case, what if the USS Nimitz went back in time, like Marty McFly?

[firsteds]

Great thread. I would support a small NM increase for taking / holding Pearl Harbour.

In exchange, you could add a scripted Doolitlle raid choice, similar to the Dakar raid choice. High risk but high NM reward for the US.

[DrZom]

ORIGINAL: eriador08

lets just say, for the sake of the argument, that japan would not anger the US in any way. Should the states even be allowed to enter the war in a normal way over mobilization then?

No. Absolutely not. Elvis's rant is spot on. It was Pearl Harbor and only Pearl Harbor that triggered the American public to go to war.

I have played only two games so far as Axis vs. the AI, and in both of those games the US declared war on the Axis BEFORE Dec. 7 and without Japan taking any aggressive move against the Western holdings. This is absurd.

Absent Japanese aggression against Western interests the only things I can imagine that might have angered Americans enough to enter the war at all (against Germany) might have been release of information about the Holocaust or unrestricted U-Boat warfare resulting in in a high profile incident.

[eriador08]

In my opinion the US would have found a way into the war sooner or later. After all they were heavily investing materials to Allies and were expanding the naval presence aggressively to secure convoys in the Atlantic in late 41. The moral of the US population in such a case would be another question. But it is alway impossible to say, what would and could have happened. Just my opinion.

But in the end, i think, it is all about balancing and the right victory conditions. And no US intervention in any case would destroy the balance. Maybe the moral hits on Japan for the oil embargo could be increased, to guarantee an aggressive move on their side in the Pacific and other moral objectives could be added, like lately for Britain.

Who played 42 and 43 race to victory also lately? I think those scenarios are perfectly fine in this regard, since you have to invest heavily into the Pacific with Allies, to reach your Victory Conditions.

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: eriador08

In my opinion the US would have found a way into the war sooner or later. After all they were heavily investing materials to Allies and were expanding the naval presence aggressively to secure convoys in the Atlantic in late 41. The moral of the US population in such a case would be another question. But it is alway impossible to say, what would and could have happened. Just my opinion.

Ironic as it turned out, I think both Japan and the US earnestly sought to avoid a war in the Pacific, but their positions were irreconcilable. The United States wanted Japan out of China. Japan wanted a free hand on the continent. The Japanese government continued to negotiate because Hirohito insisted on it, and because the Japanese leaders knew how dangerous war with the United States would be. The Americans continued to negotiate because they did not want preparations for possible involvement in the European war to be disrupted by a Pacific War, and because it was thought that time was on the side of the United States, which was rapidly rearming and sending B-17 bomber groups to the Philippines in 1941.

There was an almost naive hope on the part of Roosevelt, Churchill, and MacArthur that between bomber reinforcements to Clark Field, moving the US Pacific fleet to Pearl Harbor and sending Force Z to Singapore they could deter Japan from going to war. This was wishful thinking. All it really did was make the concept of a preemptive strike into an even more attractive option to the Japanese.


It has been suggested by some historians that had American negotiations with Japan been handled more adroitly by the Roosevelt administration, Hull's policy of "no confrontation, no withdrawal, and no assent" might have been maintained long enough to avoid war, while leaving Japan so bogged down in China that the threat of Japanese southward expansion would not have materialized before German fortunes began to decline.

On the other hand, China might have collapsed, freeing large Japanese forces for a move south and east and making the task of defeating Japan much harder than it historically was. The freed Japanese forces might also have moved against Russia, making life for the German Wehrmacht much easier.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

The generation of Americans in the late 1930's had experienced the Great Depression, compliments of the Stock Market crash of the Roaring 20's. The young men of 1930 to 1960 either went to college, only if your family was rich, I'd guess 5% went to college. The rest, worked their family business (alot of agriculture/farming), factories, general labor or enlisted/drafted in the military. The majority of the population was of European decent, and many most recent due to legal immigration via Ellis Island for factory workers. Irish with the Potato Famine & Southern Europeans recent converted to Americanism weren't exactly interested in fighting their former homeland (Italy) nor helping the British (Irish weren't exactly fond of the King/Queen). This is just the men. Women weren't exactly heading to college, I'd guess < 1% went to college back then. Why does this matter? New Euros, broke ass dudes, & regular schmucks weren't exactly concerned about the politics of Europe. Plus, their Dads/Families may have been effected by WW1.

Contrary to public schools & TV commercials. Americans didn't fight in WW2 in Europe, to preserve freedom. We sort of had it (everything is relative) already. Dudes weren't getting blasted in North Africa, Italy, France, Skies over Europe, the Belgium saying "Gee, this will keep me free". Additionally, dudes weren't fighting for the Jews & many others getting systematically murdered in Europe. Nobody knew. Well, I can safely say the common dude had no clue.

Why did I type this? To give more material evidence (opinion if you wish) that Pearl Harbor was "Thee Event"

[ForzaA]

caveat: I'm not going to claim myself to be a particularly good WaW player, I do, however, have a fair bit of experience in game design.

I think the first question you need to answer, before you start thinking of solutions, is why does Japan need their own victory conditions?
Because reading through your posts, it seems like that's not actually what you're after - rather, you want the PTO to be more important to the game.

And if that's the question you want to actually address then I would argue it is NOT addressed by incentivizing a nation that's already focused on the PTO.

Rather, you would need to incentivize the Western Allies to focus more on the Pacific. But, obviously (so as to not affect overall balance), in a way that balances the "extra expenditure" with the "reward".

Resources/convoys?
Units?
unlocked by taking/holding certain locations?
E.g. a Philippine convoy unlocking once you've secure intermediate islands, Mongolian volunteers if Japanese morale drops enough? Chinese armies for the BIC campaign freeing up Indians for North Africa/Europe if you still hold certain Burma location by a certain date?

--

If you do want there to be a way for Japan to "win the war" (either the game throwing a victory screen, or in a way that will make an Allied player concede), then I would argue you would need to fundamentally reduce the chance of Germany/Italy winning the war on the Eastern Front with matching probability.

[Alcibiades73]

ORIGINAL: taffjones


At the moment the Axis throw everything at Russia, and the Allies throw everything at Italy and Germany.

So I agree if either side throws everything into one pot there should be some penalty for them or bonus for the other side.

Is this the case even against the AI?

By the way, this thread could be better without using the slur "Japs." "Japs," "Chinks" (Chinese), and "Guks" (Koreans) are basically the equivalent of the "n- word" for blacks. I am appalled that the moderators think this kind of language is acceptable today.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Brother Alcibiades73,

Came back to this thread to post about my Yankee sub strategy I'm using in a current game.

What in the world? Saying Japs is bad? I use the word Jap and I use the word Japanese, quicker to type.
Saying Jap is short for Japanese. 1 syllable verses 3 syllable(s).

It's not a big deal to me, if you want me to use Japanese, I'll type out Japanese, it's only 5 more characters. There a list/link of 2021 words that I shouldn't be typing please? Dude, I haven't been on the Internet Forums in over 10+ years. Check the logs. I'm here to play games, I came here because of Covid-19.

Regards,
-ElvisJJonesRambo