Can an Allied Player Win the Game?

[2ndACR]

Yep, you are behind the times. Russia gets knocked out of the war by feb 42 at the latest in H2H tests. It may take longer against a PBEM opponent, but the Russians are at a severe disadvantage due to their frozen status.

The Japanese player can mass 15 divisions at one base and beat the crud out of the Russians before any help arrives. It is a cascade effect from there. There is an AAR by Moses called Hirohito II.

[mogami]

Hi, Yes I pointed this out over 2 months ago after I became aware that units in China could move between there and Manchuria with no penalty. (it was the Hirothito test game ) Once I was made aware of this I pointed out it was wiser (game wise) to attack the Soviets and let China go (you can fix it once Soviets are gone)

The problem is there is no restriction going the other way. There is a check for against Soviets but Chinese penalty is to damage airfields and ports (that are not being used)

China needs a garrsion requirement above and beyond the base needs. The penalty would be increased Chinese supply and manpower. (the reason the Chinese do not have it is the Japanese are taking it but even if there are no Japanese present the game keeps giving to Japan.)

It is not a major problem if you just realize that it is not really possible. We return to the old debate. Does the game have to restrict everything or can players realize when they are exploiting the system? The game is about the war between the USA and Japan. The Japanese should just refrain from trying to win the war else where. If we get really technical the Chinese army would need enlarged and to be made more effective. But then we have the Allied player winning in China and not fighting a drive accross the Pacific. But if we go there then in actual practice it would have been easier for the Allies to invest in China and win then for the Japanese to concentrate against the Soviets and use the forces freed against China.

In Short it is like anything. Designed for one purpose it can be used for another but it is only good for what it is designed for. Personally I think both players should be restrained in China. The more the Japanese try to win the game there the more code the Allied player needs to reflect the actual situation.

Myself as Japan before I open offensive operations in China I first meet all garrision requirements.

I have made major efforts in games in China but only in response to major enemy efforts. I won't allow enemy success if I can prevent it but there are down sides. Units used to secure China in my games all came from out side China but not a unit I would other wise need to pay PP for. It's a question of taste but if you know something is broken and still exploit it then the real problem is not the system being broken but a lack of restraint.

I'm where I was many months ago here on many issues.

Why require Matrix/2by3 to code preventions of issues that once made known as exploits should cease? Sure it can (and will) be done if needed but are there not more important issues? The players drive the testers and coders. Once the player knows cetrtain practices are going to be coded or they are not intended they should cease.

Instead on several occasions when I point out an exploit I get asked to prove it is "offical"

(because it is possible in the game)

Common sense in many regards does not exist.

[2ndACR]

I understand that, but that is why the person started this thread. Some are getting worried about those 15 divisions getting freed up for use elsewhere, like China, India.

I believe the troop ratio worked out to 5 Southern Army divisions and 5-6 divisions from China for success in Russia. Plus 4 Zero groups for air cover. Russian fighters are too powerful for IJA air units. Most of the units will arrive and be ready for offensive operations in Manchuria by late Dec 41. I have yet to try it against another human in PBEM or to defend against it. I was going to try a H2H myself and started it, but once my PBEM game with Ron got killed by a major bug, I lost interest competely with the game for a week or 2.

I do not particularily like the strategy myself. I do believe that I as the Allies could really hurt a Japanese player bad in too many other areas to make it worthwhile. I do think the Russians should start out with size 9 forts in all locations and maybe have 3-4 divisions hidden like in the USA to use in case of an early invasion there. Would help to prevent it or at least make it a little harder to do.

Not sure if the editor can do hidden units like in the USA or not.

[Ron Saueracker]

Well, if you try it Dave I won't send any Allied units to Russia, not with the political restrictions which existed.

[mogami]

Hi, I Understand all that. My question is mainly can Japanese players just forget exploits or does 2by3 need to program in preventions that in design were taken as understoods?

The garrison requirement are meant to tie down Japanese forces. There was no desire to prevoke a Japanese war against Soviets that now is too easy for Japanese to win.
Japanese players should just content themselves with preventing Soviet war and realize units in Manchuria/Korea could not be used in China and Chinese units could not be used against Soviets. The solution is easy. It requires code. Is this where we want Mike Wood working? It is simply Japanese players seeking to win the game in manners that have no historic basis.

The war should not be solved in China. Or against Soviets. The easiest solution is to freeze Japan units in Manchuria/Korea

Otherwise we need a more exact Soviet OB and fewer restrictions on them. But then the Allied player would need to spend time for the bulk of the game on units that should have no impact before Aug 1945.
There will always be exploits to any game. Why use them when common sense dictates it was not possible? The game requires no special code. The Allied player can ignore the area and the game will revolve around the actual conflict.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I Understand all that. My question is mainly can Japanese players just forget exploits or does 2by3 need to program in preventions that in design were taken as understoods?

The garrison requirement are meant to tie down Japanese forces. There was no desire to prevoke a Japanese war against Soviets that now is too easy for Japanese to win.
Japanese players should just content themselves with preventing Soviet war and realize units in Manchuria/Korea could not be used in China and Chinese units could not be used against Soviets. The solution is easy. It requires code. Is this where we want Mike Wood working? It is simply Japanese players seeking to win the game in manners that have no historic basis.

The war should not be solved in China. Or against Soviets. The easiest solution is to freeze Japan units in Manchuria/Korea

Otherwise we need a more exact Soviet OB and fewer restrictions on them. But then the Allied player would need to spend time for the bulk of the game on units that should have no impact before Aug 1945.
There will always be exploits to any game. Why use them when common sense dictates it was not possible? The game requires no special code. The Allied player can ignore the area and the game will revolve around the actual conflict.

Why not place these restrictions in the game initially when it is being designed if it is an "understood exploit"? Why add to the already massive list of house rules? With a game this big, it is too hard to make sure your house rules are followed on your end and one must trust ones opponent to do the same. It's enough just to make sure you have not forgotten a unit.

[mogami]

Hi, Ron it is my fault. I should have just attacked Russia right away in a game I thought was about the "Pacific War" This would have alerted the designers to the problem and they would have prevented it. Instead I wasted my time fighting battles in the Pacific.

Look we can be finding exploits from now till the cows come home. If the designers need to prevent all exploits they will eventually be preventing valid options.

The troops in CHina/Manchuira/Korea have restrictions so they can't all just jump to Port Moresby but they have to be allowed a certain degree of freedom. It was an oversight that allowed them to intermingle . Since this seems to be an issue that players cannot comprehend without code then there will need to be code. This is silly and serves no purpose but the game is broken without it.

By understood at the start I only mean that as a tester I was confused and tested one war without realizing that the players would not be interested in that war but instead would try to win the game in minor theaters.

The best (and easiest) solution is simply to freeze Japanese units in place. (I would be upset with this)
What is so hard about Japanese players simply understanding that Japanese units assigned to 1 HQ cannot be used by another? (THey must pay PP ) If they have to pay PP then all this nonsense stops.
Southern Area Army controled all units outside China/Manchuria/Korea so there is no problem. If players just use this rule then there isno need for more rules or code. Lets put just a smigion of history into the game. In actual practice the only Japanese units with complete (no pp cost) freedom are those assigned to SAA.

(also of couse are IJN LCU but do I need to point this out?)

[ADavidB]

Mog -

I'm going to jump back into my thread here with a few thoughts. I understand what you are saying about focussing on the war between Japan and the US - that's how I've handled the game up until recently. But what the designers have inadvertantly given us is something like three-quarters of a game of "What If in the Pacific".

I don't mind that the Japanese can invade Russia, China, India, Alaska, etc. What it means is that the Allied player has to come up with more imaginative plans than simply trying to replay history. But it is the game's mechanics that make this less than satisfying. First and foremost, the land movement function just doesn't work for the following reasons:

- Movement on rails is too fast for invaders, too slow for defenders
- Movement in non-rail hexes is too slow - all terrain is treated as being nearly impassible
- Weather doesn't affect movement

Make these three things more "realistic" and the land game becomes much more historical and then the Japanese player has a lot more to think about before adventuring into mainland Asia in search of "cheap" victory points, "easy" resources and the ability to free up forces for use elsewhere.

I don't want a rule to stop the Japanese from invading Siberia or Alaska in January 1942 - I want the Japanese player to "enjoy" the same effects of weather conditions that are routinely written into all "East Front" games. [;)]

We are very close to having a great game here - it doesn't have to simply be a replay of the US/Japanese conflict of WW II - it can be more and better than that. Folks like you and Frag can best influence the Devs to put in that last little bit of effort to make this the great game that it can be. Push for greatness! [:)]

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

[BlackVoid]

I agree with Dave, land movement and combat needs to be looked at.
It is also very strange, that when you enter a hex, you pay the movement points for the hex you are leaving and not for the hex you are entering.
This means, that if you send your troops from the rail to the jungle, they are there quickly, but when you want to come back it takes forever.

Never seen this in any other game.

[Milman]

Only solution for China/Russia/india is when japan take X base big english /chinese/soviets corps with big experience coming in game .

edit: it is stupid that when those fronts are colapsing those country just watch. China had 10.000.000 soldiers and I am not sure that in game there is 1.000.000

[Ron Saueracker]

Well said DaveB. Mog, you point out that the necessity to pay PP costs are missing and that players should assume they exist. That's not adequate IMHO. Since the code is there, I say adjust it. Personally I like the PP/HQ requirements but I don't think they go nearly far enough. They only seem necessary for restricted HQs.

Considering how fast we can accumulate these PPs (and how few other restrictions we have which slow the pace of the game down) I suggest that all HQs become restricted but units can be sealifted freely only if the destination is a base with same HQ. Exception: transport to another HQ base or enemy base...a daily PP cost is paid per unit depending on size/type until either the unit is transferred to the friendly bases HQ, the unit returns to a base with its current HQ, or the enemy base is captured and becomes a friendly base with the unit's same HQ. This would severely hamper any ability to fly about in a utopian world with no abstract way to simulate the myriad of issues which prevented this in the real world.

Further, I believe it was an oversite to not have shipping restricted by HQs. Ships should be attached to naval HQs which are subordinate to the main theatre HQs. They may not be homeported outside their theatre HQ unless those units have been transferred to another HQ. If they refuel/rearm at a different HQs base or replenishment TF, a PP penalty is paid.

Other things could have been added as well here to simulate poor communications/relations between HQs/services. If ships of different nationalities are placed in the same TF, a combat penalty could be added. For transports (like IJN and IJA merchants), a PP penalty could be paid if an IJA unit is loaded onto an IJN transport and vice versa. Air units supporting operations over units with different HQs have a chance for poorer performance (LR CAP or bombing missions don't fly).

The basis for this is already in the design. With a little time an effort, it could be expanded and used to flesh out the game's pace and add some missing depth which extended play has shown is needed.

[WiTP_Dude]

I would like to see the developers fix this oversight. If they intended for units in Manchuria to stay in Manchuria, code it that way!

[BlackVoid]

ORIGINAL: Milman

Only solution for China/Russia/india is when japan take X base big english /chinese/soviets corps with big experience coming in game .

From where? The brits and the soviets had their hands full with the germans. China would be OK to have more troops, if that does not allow them to chase Japan out of China.

Russia should have a more sensible setup of forces at the start. Weather should affect fatigue and movement rate.

[Feinder]

Hi, If I ever lose a game of WITP as the Allies I will shave my butt.

Ok, well now I'm seriously rooting for Mog. This is way too much information!

-F-

[Halsey]

I was told that hair doesn't grow on steel.[;)]

[Milman]

From where? The brits and the soviets had their hands full with the germans. China would be OK to have more troops, if that does not allow them to chase Japan out of China.

I am not talk about history , i talk about jap auto victory . if things stay like this with china and russia like gift to japan no one will play PBEM . I play this game becouse of great naval battles , if I want to lose on ground then I will play games about europe in WW2 . Now we have game in whitch any player who play this game 2-3 months can't lose the game with Japan . And if you want history Russia sends many unit on front with out trening . Do you think that they will sit down and watch how that front colapse . second if things were going in that way USA would regrout more units and transfer all unit which was reserved for europe and africa to help brits and chinese .

[duckenf]

Since Japan seems to have no trouble brushing aside the Soviet defenses, and then turning elsewhere with all the left-over forces, it would seem that there should be some long-term consequence to such an attack. I think that IRL the Soviets would have been able to gather armies from the European theatre (especially after turning the tide at Stalingrad and the gates of Moscow in mid-1942) and deployed them along the trans-siberian railway to retake the Soviet Far East. Japan would have needed sizable forces to defend against this counter-offensive.

I would propose that a solution to this might be the creation of two Soviet supply/reinforcement points representing European USSR at the western (top) edge of the map along the rail-lines the go north and south of Lake Baikal - this would be akin to the "USA hex" in North America. These could be level 9 forts and have a few hundred thousand trained troops located on them. If Japan really wanted to eliminate the USSR, they'd have to send a pretty huge army up the rail-lines, which is what they would have had to do in reality. The Russians might not be able to go on the offensive with 300,000+ troops, but they should be able to defend their reinforcement hexes. Then they could accumulate troops and be ready for a counter-offensive in 1943 or 1944. Again, that is probably accurate. There should also be some heavy Japanese garrison requirements in China, USSR and India (perhaps even in non-urban hexes) to keep guerrilla forces at bay.

Japan could get the short-term benefits of attacking the USSR (resources and HI), but the long-term costs would be equally modelled as well - the Russians coming back to the Far East in force. I think that is quite fair and would be something that would discourage the strategy of knocking out russia, use the spare troops to knock out China and use those spare troops to knock out India/UK. I think Japan should retain its freedom of action to be try and win the war in alternative ways, but the allies should have their military possibilies in those circumstances accurately modelled as well.

[erstad]

Personally, the Russia thing doesn't bother me. That is trivial to address in your pre-game discussions with your opponent. (You want to fight in russia? No? Me neither. OK) or (You want to fight in Russia? Yes? Oh, I find that boring/silly/irrelevant/too land-based [8|] Maybe we're not a good match).

China definitely moves too fast. I'm finding that out in my current PBEM (I'm Japan), although my opponent was a little slow to react to some broad encirclements and I was able to cut off some goodly chunks of units; but even without that it seems too fast paced. However, there is one aspect that I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion, which is that another aspect of the game is that it seems like it's going to be too easy to base strategic bombers out of China (this is not a criticism, but it's more based on the over-simplicity of the necessary-but-abstract "supply is supply" model). Although I haven't played a PBEM to that point (obviously), it seems like I can't afford the VPs and industry loss by allowing the Allies to apply a large fraction of their overwhelming force so easily. Am I overreacting to this, or is this a valid concern? It might be that LCU combat is slowed down only to be followed (many years later [:)]) with cries of "Japan is toast, because the Allies can bomb her to the stoneage from China). Historically, there was very little of this due to the logistics issues.

Of course, that can also be addressed with house rules. (I'll add my 0.02 next to Mogami's $100 - save the limited coding resources for the problems that can't be addressed by the players), e.g., no more an N (N = 0, 1, or whatever) non-Chinese air groups based in China.

[BlackVoid]

erstad: China has supply problems from the start. Heavies need a lot of supplies. I think without supplying China from India, you cannot run an effective bombing campaign.

[Feinder]

China is completely deficient in supplies to start. As in, even if you don't move a single unit in China, China will eventually starve. You MUST create airborne supply bridge to China. Esp once the battle is joined at the large resource centers (and they stop producing because you lost them, or even because there's a bad-guy squatting in your hex), there is zip being produced for supply in China. Then you really MUST have an airsupply route.

Frankly, I belive that the supply situation in China is a bit too dire for what "should" be. I think it's mearly a situation that didn't stand up to "prolonged" testing. You can feed China just fine for about 2 weeks (from their starting supplies), but after that, things begin to wither on the vine. Couple that with the capture/contention of one or two major resource centers on the front lines (since they produce supplies), and you're suddenly starving to death.

I'm not complaining. I just think it's been something that initially looked ok (because it does), but could use a "tweaking". All the same, I'm dealing with it in my own PBEM games. It amounts to using every bomber/transport you can get your hands on, and flying as much rice into China as you can. It's even funny (I track the supply at every Chinese city, to see that it's being fed), and you can see which days it rains. When it rains, the planes don't fly, and the supply levels drop. When it's clear, the plane fly, and the replacement pool drops (a good thing).

-F-