Japanese Auto Victory--Anyone?

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I do know, from cold hard experience as a novice player, that if the Japanese get in amongst the allied transport lift early in the war, it's Game Over.  I played 2 PBEM's, in my second my opponent sank every transport that went to sea.  By August of '42 PH, Oz, and everything in between was flat on it's back starving to death.  I had 7 AK's left in the game.

I gave up PBEM's over that [:(]   I don't want to waste peoples time over my poor skills.    I still don't know how I lost so many ships so fast, even with the loss of the Lex & Enterprise let my opponent move around more freely [&:] 

Man, that is a bummer. Say, you are'nt up for a game are you......? [;)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: erstad


Well, you certainly could tie something to the same events that trigger extra reinforcements. In fact, that's not a bad idea; I might use it if I ever start another game as Japan. As it sits, the Allies can use a lot of force, for example, in Northern/Eastern Oz because the southern part is somewhat safer because the Japanese player is going to be reluctant to trigger the reinforcements. Might have to limit it to capture of a major city to avoid any gaminess where someone might paradrop onto a dot base or whatever for the sole purpose of triggering the event.

The Allies have to be careful about that due to a game mechanism. All excess supply (meaning above 3 x each base's requirement) in Australia flows to Sydney. If the IJ player manages to pull off a coup de main right into Sydney they could bag 1,000,000+ supply in the process.

[crsutton]

Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight. I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is?

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight. I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is?

I understand where you are coming from but I look at situations like the one in the WiTP "First Team" AAR where John3 and Q-Ball had truly defeated the Allies in 1942. I am talking a overwhelming victory that didn't bring autovictory in 1942 and might not have done so even on 1 January 1943 if the game had gone on. That shouldn't be the case. That kind of stomping should be acknowledge by the game

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight. I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is?

good comment and I totally agree here. It´s not the game´s victory points that should tell you when you´ve been defeated, you and your partner should notice it (guess you won´t be defeated by the AI if you know how the game´s functions work). Victory points are a nice way to portray how´s the war going but that´s it IMO. If you have bombed Japan that nothing is left in 44 but haven´t reached the needed ratio yet does this mean you haven´t won (yet)?

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight. I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is?

I understand where you are coming from but I look at situations like the one in the WiTP "First Team" AAR where John3 and Q-Ball had truly defeated the Allies in 1942. I am talking a overwhelming victory that didn't bring autovictory in 1942 and might not have done so even on 1 January 1943 if the game had gone on. That shouldn't be the case. That kind of stomping should be acknowledge by the game

But in this case, Do you really want the game to end in auto-victory? I would think some (many) players would want to see what happens even IF Japan is able to do that well in '42, what does '45 look like?

[jeffs]

Excellent point

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight. I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is?

Doolittle Raid had huge effects.
1. As pointed out it increased fighter squadron levels requirements in the home islands.
2. Japan ordered large amounts of its fleet to sea in a vain attempt to chase the American CVs.
This lead to huge amounts of radio traffic that US cryptoanalysts were able to use to figure out code
(to my knowledge, the game reflects US reading of traffic getting better...Though in he game it is never as detailed as the US
really got)
3. Ended naval general staff and army oppositon to Midway. They had much preferred going for the South Pacific like Suva.
No way to put that into the game system.....

The core problem/issue is
A. Clearly it is possible (and one can argue probable for Japan to do better in light of system changes (pilot training, etc) and playing with common sense (using convoys that are well protected) for Japan to better than history.
B. In some cases, the Japanese will do hugely better than history.
C. in most of those cases as well it still will not matter due to allied material advantage followed by nukes.

So...How do we give the Japanese player a pat on the shoulder for doing better than historical but still not preventing nukes ......

[&:]

Not sure if I have a good answer.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight. I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is?

Without a doubt the most sensible post in this thread. Only you (and maybe your opponent) know what you were trying to achieve..., so why try to judge yourself by someone else's artificially constructed definition of a "win"? VP's and "autovictory" straightjacket play down predetermined lines, and result in artificial tactics and "mad pushes" for points as the critical dates approach.

If you beat up your opponent, both you and he know it. If he beat you up, you both know that as well. And if you can't decide who accumulated the most bruises, it's probably a draw. What matters is the fun you had playing, not somebody else's predetermined notion of what ought to happen.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: jeffs

Excellent point

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Truth be known, all VP and bragging rights aside, I know when I have been whipped. I might overwhelm my Japanese opponent in 1945 but if he gives me a bloody nose and sinks 20 carriers while doing it, he is going to get credit for a win. A good fight is a good fight. I don't think many of us here are playing for money so who cares what the VP count is?

Doolittle Raid had huge effects.
1. As pointed out it increased fighter squadron levels requirements in the home islands.
2. Japan ordered large amounts of its fleet to sea in a vain attempt to chase the American CVs.
This lead to huge amounts of radio traffic that US cryptoanalysts were able to use to figure out code
(to my knowledge, the game reflects US reading of traffic getting better...Though in he game it is never as detailed as the US
really got)
3. Ended naval general staff and army oppositon to Midway. They had much preferred going for the South Pacific like Suva.
No way to put that into the game system.....

The core problem/issue is
A. Clearly it is possible (and one can argue probable for Japan to do better in light of system changes (pilot training, etc) and playing with common sense (using convoys that are well protected) for Japan to better than history.
B. In some cases, the Japanese will do hugely better than history.
C. in most of those cases as well it still will not matter due to allied material advantage followed by nukes.

So...How do we give the Japanese player a pat on the shoulder for doing better than historical but still not preventing nukes ......

[&:]

Not sure if I have a good answer.

I agree with most points here, and especially:
(Emphasis added above)
"...How do we give the Japanese player a pat on the shoulder for doing better than historical"
Excellent question and I agree, I haven't seen a good answer for a coded in game solution.

Certainly, we all recognize when someone is doing really well in an AAR. How to code that though?

How are judging that? Largely on two factors: number of CV's killed and area taken. Right? If JAP is killing USN CV's and not taking losses, simply she is ahead. If she is trading CV's, even at 2:1 it can still be strategically a losing proposition. Especially "true fleet" CV's, Japan has so few we all can name them. Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Shokaku, Zuikaku, and the Taiho (assuming you finish her). After that Jap CV's reallly tail off. Soryu/Unryu's aren't terrible, but they don't measure up to Essex class that they have to face.

That would suggest that those 5 JAP CV's should have greatly enhanced VP, and the Allied CV's until mid-43 should also have greatly enhanced VP. So we are talkling about variable VP's based upon the timeframe.

[bradfordkay]

"So...How do we give the Japanese player a pat on the shoulder for doing better than historical but still not preventing nukes ...... "



In WITP (I'm not sure if the AE VC are the same, I've never read that portion of the rule book) if the game makes it to the 1946 finish, then the victory level shifted two levels in favor of the Japanese. Since the Allied player hadn't already achieved an auto victory, the best result he was likely to get would be a draw but more likely a Japanese marginal victory based on points.

As an allied player, if the game makes it to the end in 1946, I will acknowledge that my opponent has outplayed me (he usually does anyway) but I will have enjoyed playing with the late war toys. Hell, if I can't close the deal by mid-August 1945 I will have considered myself to have lost the game whether or not I win the war. But winning or losing the game isn't the point in my book, it is enjoying the voyage that takes us to the end. 

[topeverest]

I agree that the formal 'pat on the back' for a Japanese player via coded results is emminently elusive, even if there are some good suggestions. I too will shore up with my ersthwhile opponent and come to a concensus on bragging rights, but it will already be clear already if kudos are to be awarded. We generally do an intermediate result every six months and catalog them over the game. We consider absolute positions, positions relative to last update, and any remarkable battles / campaigns that may have occured. We then more or less add up the update points over time. We always agree in advance on the date the allies have to achieve auto victory to attain a game decisive or tactical victory. We generally think that if the allies dont achieve a tactical victory relative to our set dates, the Japanese achieve a 'remarkable victory' and we leave it at that. I also have awarded my opponent victory in the middle of one game desite playing on because he achieved an astounding naval victory in a major campaign. The allies of course, still we able to rebuild and march on.

For us, the main fun is in getting there, win, lose, or draw.