Scoring?

[Mike_B20]

I'd like to see a system whereby victory is determined by how long Japan can delay the inevitable.
Any locations 'value' is only of value in how it can be used to achieve final victory or defer defeat and I don't believe any location should have 'victory points'.
The idea of Japan forcing an early peace by capturing Hawaii or even one or two cities on the US west coast is a pipe dream. The US would simply have diverted more resources to defeating Japan.
IMHO, there should be no 'automatic victories', unless one player controls the industrial and economic heart of the other country, or is in a position to destroy such.
Of course, this should be virtually impossible for Japan to achieve and I'd expect to see WITP thoroughly tested and mechanisms in place to make sure it is virtually impossible.
Japan's biggest mistake in WW2 was starting the war and once started, Japan's only hope was setting up some sort of defensive line in the hope of tiring the US out.
This was never going to happen but Japan's ability to slow the juggernaught seems at least an historic way of determining 'victory/defeat' in a wargame simulating the clash.

Regarding points for assets destroyed, I'd like to see an assets value derived from it's crew size, at least for the allies.
Japan had a limited supply of ships and such and they should therefore be worth more.
Japans troops on the other hand should be worth less than the allies.

[Mr.Frag]

Japan had a limited supply of ships and such and they should therefore be worth more. Japans troops on the other hand should be worth less than the allies.

While this probably should be the case, it might cause Japan players to not go for it for fear of risking high value ships due to the loss cost. I really prefer a date victory vs a score victory. It seems really the only way to value the accomplishments.

The USA should be score neutral at the date the war actually ended (including historically lost assets). To this base 0, add or subtract for date and or equipment/troops. Japan's score should not matter at all and be given no value as it is not really a driving force to victory as the Allies.

I think it would get cheesie if we force a situation where Japan is faced with scuttling large portions of her fleet simply to avoid VP losses near the end of the game. The same holds true to Allied super-base building to inflate their score.

[Luskan]

Of course, this should be virtually impossible for Japan to achieve and I'd expect to see WITP thoroughly tested and mechanisms in place to make sure it is virtually impossible.

Well, I can assure you right now, that it is impossible. Perhaps the only reasons an IJN player in WITP would a west coast landing are 1. Insane, 2. Wanting to loose the game in the fastest manner possible. 3. Wanting their opponent to think they are the previous two, and 4. trying to scare the hell out of the US player and forcing him to keep more resources further back from the front lines.

The first three, well, I've met those players and they won't last long. The fourth reason however is a viable scare gambit for a small suicide squad (although I wouldn't be attacking the US rear quite as far back as that - one of the hawaain chain or some spec island out in the middle of nowhere would be much better since it would require to sacrifice a hundred troops rather than thousands). One of those dots in the ocean behind the front lines suddenly gets invaded by a sub tender and a tiny jap inf unit, maybe a seaplane tender too, suddenly blotting that red spot from the map becomes very important.

Trust me - the flanks are very, very very long and exposed in this game and the ability to slip through the air search gaps and bypass the "front line defences" is going to be very, very easy for an IJN player with a sense of timing. The Allied player will quickly realise (as the P.I, Malaya, Indoneasia, PNG, Solomons and maybe even scraps of India start falling to the enemy) that he has to establish a "line" in order to be able to react to IJN incursions. This line will be a very long one, and as long as the Ijn has the initiative the allied player is going to have to keep his guard up EVERYWHERE at the same time.

[Hoplosternum]

I am not too concerned by VP and win conditions as I am not very interested in them myself. I know if I am doing well or badly in my own mind depending on the scenario / campaign. Regardless of the VP score. This game (and UV) is so long that counting wins or highest scores seems rather pointless. Especially as these often have so much to do with the abilities and tactics of your opponent. Plus critical luck plays a very large point. You can play an almost perfect game and then in a critical CV to CV battle you go in all uncoordinated and your opponent doesn't....

I hope there are no auto - victories or at least make them very tough. I don't especially want to see glory rides by the Japanese trying to grab Sydney and Pearl (say) for a day to get a win.

If they are to change the VP conditions from UV I hope they consider awarding points for the time objectives are held. Plus a bonus for initially capturing a base. Both should encourage the allied player actually to fight early on. It seems that a very good tactic for allied players with patience is simply to wait. Don't fight any equal battles and hide in Pearl or the West Coast until late '43. Then simply overwhelm the Japanese with the help of the Essex's, fleets of bombers and 2nd Generation fighters. Why risk delaying this by fighting a Coral Sea or even a Midway?

For those that care about VPs I hope they at least encourage fighting early on. The exciting part of the Pacific War is for a few months around mid '42. Both sides were fairly even and both could launch attacks and counter punch. The mopping up (both before and after) while interesting in it's way is far less tense.

[Mike Scholl]

Scenarios are by nature built around one or both side's efforts to sieze or
nutralize a main objective. If you are playing an Operation Cartwheel Scenario,
which is basically what Uncommon Valor is, then the Allies have to nutralize
Rabaul and sieze enough bases in the New Gunea, New Britian, New Ireland area
to support the next leap forward. If the game ends without this, the Japanese
have won. Quick Victories, automatic wins, and such are so much garbage. If the Japs chose to defend aggressively by grabing for Port Moresby or something
of the like, that's tactics. Whatever the player thinks will give him the best
shot at preventing the Allies from doing what they need to do. Giving Victory
Points for a bunch of little ports, islands, and airfields, or for bombing Sydney,
or for losing/sinking ships is only an attempt by the game designer to force
tactical choices on the players. If the Japanese or the Allies lose a bunch of
ships, they've lost tools with which they could try to achieve their overall
objective. The "value" of each loss will show up in the rest of the game as the
player has to do without that asset---it doesn't need to be arbitrarily assigned
by the designer (and argued about interminably by the players).

For the REAL Game (the entire war), it's a little more difficult. Both sides know
it's conquering/destroying the Japanese Homeland---and both sides know the
Allies will do it eventually. Dropping "the Bomb" doesn't work as a goal, because
it was dropped virtually as soon as it could be finished and gotten to Tinian. The
Allies can't "improve" on that. Seems to me that the best measure of success
would be the amount of industrial points the Japanese can produce before they
collapse. The Japs went to war to secure the Southern Resource Zone for their
Economy---how well they do this and transport the resources home and produce
War Material with those resources seems as good a measure as any one could
devise of how well the Japanese Player performed. It gives him a reason for all
other conquest attempts of keeping the Allies from getting at those targets; and
it forces the Allies to push to try to take back the sources, interdict the
convoys' or bomb the factories to oblivion. Everything else is TACTICS---and
the game should not force tactics on the players. If you're going to invest a
thousand or more hours playing the whole war, you ought to be free to make
your own strategies and tactics. The designer needs to concentrait on seeing
that those tactics HAVE TO BE REALISTIC AND VIABLE---but not on what they
should be otherwise, or on how many "points" this boat or that island is worth.
Designers need to be working on the combat interface, repair an construction
capibilities, terrain effects, weather effects, and preventing stupidities like
either side trying to build major bases in the Aluetians (if you think it's not a
stupidity, I suggest you try and build something substantial on permafrost your-
self. Look at the aircraft types and loss rates for that theatre---they're the
highest in the Theatre for non-combat losses).

[Mike_B20]

Without the assets, whether they are troops, ships or planes being assigned some value (that's one of the reasons I like the idea of an asset's value being derived from the number of crew), there is no way of assessing whether an operation has been successful in terms of cost involved.

A good leader in times of war would try and achieve victories while minimizing loss of life and waste of national resources.
There are political and social repercussions involved in large scale disasters.

An asset such as a ship is more than just a tool, a means to achieve a victorious end to a war.
It is crewed by human beings and cost plenty to build.

[Mike Scholl]

Without the assets, whether they are troops, ships or planes being assigned some value (that's one of the reasons I like the idea of an asset's value being derived from the number of crew), there is no way of assessing whether an operation has been successful in terms of cost involved.

A good leader in times of war would try and achieve victories while minimizing loss of life and waste of national resources.
There are political and social repercussions involved in large scale disasters.

An asset such as a ship is more than just a tool, a means to achieve a victorious end to a war.
It is crewed by human beings and cost plenty to build.

What you seem to be describing involves someone making some rather
arbitrary "value" judgements---something I was wanting to avoid. But
in your system, how would you handle it? The Americans lose one VP
for every 10 "human beings" lost, but the Japanese (who squandered
manpower all over the Pacific in hopeless causes/efforts) lose 1 for every
100? And or that the Japanese (who couldn't produce adequate amounts
of material) lose 1 VP for every ton of shipping sunk---but the Americans
(who could and did replace entire fleets) lose only 1 for every 10 tons?
Your way puts someone in the awkward position of assigning values in
terms of VP's to those "human lives". I don't want that job..., do you?

My proposal was to base "success" on achieving the goals of the campaign.
How you did it was up to the players. And as we all have a fair idea of what
would constitute a "large scale disaster", leave it to the players to worry
about. If one "wins", but suffers twice the historical loss rate to do it, then
his opponent can raze him about being a "butcher" and cheapen his "win".
The objective was met/taken---so it was a "win". The other side got in some
shrewd and telling blows---so he can hold his head up. Who lost an excessive
number of jeeps or samurai swords doesn't need to be in the equasion.

[Mike_B20]

What you seem to be describing involves someone making some rather
arbitrary "value" judgements---something I was wanting to avoid. But
in your system, how would you handle it? The Americans lose one VP
for every 10 "human beings" lost, but the Japanese (who squandered
manpower all over the Pacific in hopeless causes/efforts) lose 1 for every
100? And or that the Japanese (who couldn't produce adequate amounts
of material) lose 1 VP for every ton of shipping sunk---but the Americans
(who could and did replace entire fleets) lose only 1 for every 10 tons?
Your way puts someone in the awkward position of assigning values in
terms of VP's to those "human lives". I don't want that job..., do you?

My proposal was to base "success" on achieving the goals of the campaign.
How you did it was up to the players. And as we all have a fair idea of what
would constitute a "large scale disaster", leave it to the players to worry
about. If one "wins", but suffers twice the historical loss rate to do it, then
his opponent can raze him about being a "butcher" and cheapen his "win".
The objective was met/taken---so it was a "win". The other side got in some
shrewd and telling blows---so he can hold his head up. Who lost an excessive
number of jeeps or samurai swords doesn't need to be in the equasion.

I agree with the idea that the success or failure in a campaign could very well be left to the players. In fact, this is very much my attitude currently playing UV. The concept of victory points, victory locations, auto victories etc does not appeal to me.

However, players will want some kind of point system for competetive play.
The idea of assigning values for assets based on crew size is an attempt to get to the heart of the worth of these assets...the lives and resources invested.
I don't really have a problem assigning an arbitrary value to a human life
For example, an infantryman is worth one point and an asset is worth 1.5 by crew size.
In that system both sides assets could be valued the same way, perhaps with some minor adjustments to reflect the scarcity of the asset or national attitude towards the value of a soldiers life. Perhaps the commonly held view that the Japanese held their soldiers life cheaply is something of a myth though.
I am sure the relatives of their dead mourned just as deeply as our own.
I am not suggesting that one allied life is worth 10 Japanese or one ton of Japanese shipping is worth ten tons of allied shipping.

Mr Frags idea of using the historic surrender date as a point of reference is good.
Every day the war lasts beyond that date could be worth so much to the Japanese and each day the allies can shorten the war is worth so much to the allies.
Of course, gameplay and testing would be needed to work out the respective values.