Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

[MakeeLearn]

VPs are so HOT!!!

[btd64]

Yes they are[8D]....GP

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn



VPs are so HOT!!!

This is one of the best things I've ever seen on this forum! [:'(][8D]

[Yaab]

Seems the two VP locations were developed simultaneously to a healthy 4(4).

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Seems the two VP locations were developed simultaneously to a healthy 4(4).

Are you sure those are the right numbers?

[Revthought]

I hate to break it to you, but take it from a data scientist--me--every unit we use to measure is arbitrary by definition. You could chose to read that pejoratively, and maybe you should because there is some truth to the critque, but if you do so you are also making a pejorative statement about how we chose to measure length, temperature, speed, voting behavior, etc.

So when I say, the system is arbitrary, it is because all systems of measurement are. The people who designed the system might have what they think are "good reasons" to use points to represent "victory conditions" in the way they do, but in the end there are literally an infinite number of other ways one could have chosen to measure victory.

And I will double down on my statement, even in front of the newbies:


If the claim is that the historical Allied victory would not be a "total victory" in WiTPAE is true, then I think the arbitrary system that was chosen to measure victory in the game does not adequately do what it claims to do. Of course, assuming that we, arbitrarily, use actual history as a litmus.

As always, players are free to play the game as they chose. It is, after all, a game. I can only tell you how I use victory points: I think they measure something, and I use them to gauge lots of things during game play, but "victory" is not one of them.

The fact is, I enjoy "re-playing" the war, but differently. Therefore, I ground the whole idea of victory in what I think would have been the war goals of the side I am playing. I never use auto victory, because in real Second World War, Japan was never going to get the Allies saying "uncle."

In reality, "victory" does not even matter to me. I am playing to "win the war," but not beat the other player. I am not competitive like that when it comes to games of this scope.

This does not mean other players should think like me, or are doing something wrong if they enjoy the competitive aspects of the game. That is fine; however, in regards to the original poster, I do not mind offering my viewpoint.

From my perspective, focusing on the game being "unfair" because you did "better" (by an arbitrary metric, because all metrics are arbitrary) than Japan did in World War Two, and you did not get a Japanese "victory" according to the victory point system, is not seeing the forest for the trees.

That is all.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

I hate to break it to you, but take it from a data scientist--me--every unit we use to measure is arbitrary by definition. You could chose to read that pejoratively, and maybe you should because there is some truth to the critque, but if you do so you are also making a pejorative statement about how we chose to measure length, temperature, speed, voting behavior, etc.

So when I say, the system is arbitrary, it is because all systems of measurement are. The people who designed the system might have what they think are "good reasons" to use points to represent "victory conditions" in the way they do, but in the end there are literally an infinite number of other ways one could have chosen to measure victory.

And I will double down on my statement, even in front of the newbies:


If the claim is that the historical Allied victory would not be a "total victory" in WiTPAE is true, then I think the arbitrary system that was chosen to measure victory in the game does not adequately do what it claims to do. Of course, assuming that we, arbitrarily, use actual history as a litmus.

As always, players are free to play the game as they chose. It is, after all, a game. I can only tell you how I use victory points: I think they measure something, and I use them to gauge lots of things during game play, but "victory" is not one of them.

The fact is, I enjoy "re-playing" the war, but differently. Therefore, I ground the whole idea of victory in what I think would have been the war goals of the side I am playing. I never use auto victory, because in real Second World War, Japan was never going to get the Allies saying "uncle."

In reality, "victory" does not even matter to me. I am playing to "win the war," but not beat the other player. I am not competitive like that when it comes to games of this scope.

This does not mean other players should think like me, or are doing something wrong if they enjoy the competitive aspects of the game. That is fine; however, in regards to the original poster, I do not mind offering my viewpoint.

From my perspective, focusing on the game being "unfair" because you did "better" (by an arbitrary metric, because all metrics are arbitrary) than Japan did in World War Two, and you did not get a Japanese "victory" according to the victory point system, is not seeing the forest for the trees.

That is all.

OK, newbies, pay attention.

ar·bi·trar·y

/ˈärbəˌtrerç/

adjective
adjective: arbitrary

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"

synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable; More

In your post above you conflate two ideas: the VP system and the victory level system. The VP system, which you say you use, is not arbitrary by the pure meaning of the word. It seems we agree on that.

But the victory level system is not "units" as you claim. Nor is it arbitrary by the definition of the word. Is it subjective? Yes. 2:1 is subjective. It could be 2.1:1 and still work. Does a VP ratio of 2:1 represent total Allied victory, with history as the metric? Yes, in practice. I think players who have achieved that in the game would agree that it's pretty close to the same thing as inability for Japan to resist further. So would 1.9: 1 be. or 2.1:1. 1.5:1? Maybe not, So subjective. But not whimsical, capricious, or unpredictable.

As for auto-victory, the game allows players to continue past that point. I, not a data scientist, but, on one of my degrees a History major, agree that losing Australia as I did in my AV game would not have caused the Allies to quit. But the objective position I found myself in that resulted in that 4:1 ratio on New Year's Day 1943 meant I had several real-time years of struggling back to battery ahead of me, and little chance of my own auto-victory by 1946. And I HAD to get to auto-victory under the design. There is no other way for the Allied player to win. The Japanese player does NOT have to achieve auto-victory to win under the design. Auto-victory is another tool for them, but it's optional. Auto-victory is not optional for an Allied player. It's mandatory to achieve a win under the design. Is that arbitrary? Not by the definition of the word. And not according to history. In fact it comports exactly with Japanese war aims on December 6, 1941.

You say that when you reject the victory levels built into the design that you play to "win the war" but not beat the other player. But how do you know? Isn't that the ultimate arbitrary measure if you reject the score? The "mercy rule" in Little League baseball whereby the game ends if one team is ten runs ahead has structure, but it uses the numerical score to operate. Why ten and not twelve runs? It's subjective. But it's not arbitrary.

Today I PMed a veteran player of AE who asked about some late-war topics. He knew I had played one GC to game engine shut-down in 1946 and wanted to know some things about that era. I told him that in my game, now over five years ago so a bit fuzzy, I had destroyed the Japanese down to six LCUs standing on two islands near Shikoku. Every other base Allied, every ship sunk, every plane destroyed. Those islands are rocks, and if we assume the LCUs had no women along with them, represented the last living Japanese humans, at least in game terms. No children. The utter end of Japan, Japanese culture, Japanese history going forward. Is it arbitrary to call that a victory? I'd say no; you might disagree.

But the fact that it's even a question pokes holes in your central tenet. If you reject the game's designed victory levels you have to substitute yours in, and in your argument that's exactly as "arbitrary" as GG's and Henderson's. Now I certainly don't begrudge you doing that--you paid your money same as I did--but don't claim it's a superior path. Or claim you're playing the game. You're not. You're pushing pieces.

[Lokasenna]

Rev, you're conflating arbitrary with abstract. The VP system is an abstraction, but it is not arbitrary.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

I hate to break it to you, but take it from a data scientist--me--every unit we use to measure is arbitrary by definition. You could chose to read that pejoratively, and maybe you should because there is some truth to the critque, but if you do so you are also making a pejorative statement about how we chose to measure length, temperature, speed, voting behavior, etc.

So when I say, the system is arbitrary, it is because all systems of measurement are. The people who designed the system might have what they think are "good reasons" to use points to represent "victory conditions" in the way they do, but in the end there are literally an infinite number of other ways one could have chosen to measure victory.

And I will double down on my statement, even in front of the newbies:


If the claim is that the historical Allied victory would not be a "total victory" in WiTPAE is true, then I think the arbitrary system that was chosen to measure victory in the game does not adequately do what it claims to do. Of course, assuming that we, arbitrarily, use actual history as a litmus.

As always, players are free to play the game as they chose. It is, after all, a game. I can only tell you how I use victory points: I think they measure something, and I use them to gauge lots of things during game play, but "victory" is not one of them.

The fact is, I enjoy "re-playing" the war, but differently. Therefore, I ground the whole idea of victory in what I think would have been the war goals of the side I am playing. I never use auto victory, because in real Second World War, Japan was never going to get the Allies saying "uncle."

In reality, "victory" does not even matter to me. I am playing to "win the war," but not beat the other player. I am not competitive like that when it comes to games of this scope.

This does not mean other players should think like me, or are doing something wrong if they enjoy the competitive aspects of the game. That is fine; however, in regards to the original poster, I do not mind offering my viewpoint.

From my perspective, focusing on the game being "unfair" because you did "better" (by an arbitrary metric, because all metrics are arbitrary) than Japan did in World War Two, and you did not get a Japanese "victory" according to the victory point system, is not seeing the forest for the trees.

That is all.

For a Japanese player in the endgame counting VPs and playing the game using the Victory scale is actually a reason to keep playing. I'm not sure if you've gotten to that point, but I have, and in 45 you're not winning anything on the Japanese side, you're getting your ass kicked. Even "wins" are losses, because the Allies will still be moving forward even if you sink some ships. If, though, you sink those ships and you win more points than your opponent gains, then you keep some hope alive.

If you scratch and claw, if you stick with it and take a tithe for the Allied moves forward, the Japanese can still win the game. Without VPs and the Victory conditions winning for Japan, or having a reason to play beyond 1/45, would be much more rare. It doesn't happen often now simply BECAUSE players don't buy into the GAME as designed.

There is a good chance the Japanese player can hold off the Allies in VPs and achieve a decent result. Until you've sat through 600 4E wiping your ass across the replay every turn for 6-12 months, you won't know how important it is to have something tangible to fight for, and to give the allies the opportunity to see a game out to the end.

[Cavalry Corp]

OK thanks for all the comments and observations I can see many of you have thought about it a lot. I will propose in future games that the allied player should agree to take Tokyo(or something similar)as that was the allied plan I think... and use 3 A bombs to give me one notch in my favour Failure to take Tokyo by Aug 45 would be another level off.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

OK thanks for all the comments and observations I can see many of you have thought about it a lot. I will propose in future games that the allied player should agree to take Tokyo(or something similar)as that was the allied plan I think... and use 3 A bombs to give me one notch in my favour Failure to take Tokyo by Aug 45 would be another level off.

The Allied plan was not to take Tokyo, but to invade the southwestern island of Kyushu.

[Cavalry Corp]

Thought I saw a map showing landings and encirclement on Tokyo?
Ok so maybe that is now out of the picture I suppose - bow to your knowledge.
How would Japan surrender by taking just part of it.

[LargeSlowTarget]

The Allied "Downfall" plan for the invasion of Japan consisted of two parts:

Operation Olympic: invasion of Southern Kyushu in November 1945, staging from Okinawa

Operation Coronet: invasion of the Kantō Plain near Tokyo in March 1946, covered by airpower based on bases in Southern Kyushu

[Hotei]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Coming to the thread late, as it's probably reached its lifespan, but this perennial topic is always worth a swing. For newbies who haven't been through the VP wars anyway. When players I respect, such as Lokasenna and obvert, weigh in I figure why not add some gasoline to the fire.

There's a great legal term of art: "engaged in a frolic." It's found in the law of torts in the doctrine of respondeat superior. When an employee who is performing duties in the course of his employment commits a tort, his employer may be found liable under the doctrine. But if the employee departs from his duty--if he "engages in a frolic"--at a certain point his employer is no longer liable. Some of the case law is absolutely hilarious.

The analogy I'm about to make has nothing to do with the law of torts. I just think it's a great phrase.

When players of AE ignore the VP system, when they ignore the defined victory conditions, they are not playing the game. They are engaged in a frolic. It may be fun. It may be satisfying. But it's not a game. Games have winners and losers.

Football without points is large men running around a pasture. Golf without a card may be a nice walk, it may be an agreeable time with friends, it may be practice with the clubs, but it's not golf. Baseball without runs, soccer without goals, basketball without points--not games. Each sport in the Olympics has three winners; all others are losers. Even hide-and-go-seek has a winner and loser.

The game AE is most commonly compared to is chess. Chess is built around the concept of check and checkmate. A winner, a loser. That the idea of a king being killed, even as his wife was expendable, was abhorrent to the inventors is interesting, but whether by checkmate or surrender there's a winner. Imagine playing chess without checkmate. Sure, chess fans play out problems without it, often playing both sides. They probe strategies. They develop skills. But it's not a game of chess. Now imagine doing that for four years. Imagine thousands of new chess pieces that flow onto the board across those years. But still no winner. It's not chess.

So when AE players sniff at the VP system and the victory conditions, especially when they use terms like "arbitrary", they really don't get it. And they really aren't playing the game.

Same as chess, AE is built around the victory conditions. And when you play under them and recognize VPs, you begin to see GG's and Henderson Field's genius. The OP asked if they are balanced. Yes. A thousand times yes. Unlike chess, AE is tremendously asymmetrical. "Japan can't win the war" has been said so many times here it's trite. (It's also not true if non-equally-matched players are involved.) But Japan can win the game. I know this as it happened to me. In stellar fashion. An auto-victory on 1/1/43. A great learning experience.

The victory conditions are genius because they are varied and also stratified. In many wargames territory is paramount. Stand on it on the last turn and you get victory progress. But AE expands well past that simple premise. By awarding VPs for many other activities the game allows for a range of game styles. It isn't mandatory that the Allies strat bomb the HI to win. It helps, but there are other ways. Japan can defend different vectors than historical. It can turtle. It can invade India. It can massively blow out its air force and roll the late-war dice. And inside that, the game also weights VPs. It's not an accident that a dead Japan device is worth only half the VPs of most Allied devices. It's not an accident that a dead Chinese device is worth half a Japanese. Or that a 4E bomber is worth twice what a 2E is worth. Or that a DD with a crew of 300 is worth only 5X what a 4E bomber is, with ten crew and lot less manufacturing. The OP asked about balance. There it is.

Beyond that, as Lokasenna pointed out, the bases are carefully weighted in stock to guide the balance objective. Look, for one example of hundreds, at Soerbaja and Batavia. Close to each other; same island even. Both large. But one has oil and the other resources. One has a big shipyard; the other does not. Now look at the VPs. Huge difference. With the "more attractive", to the Allies at least, less valuable. And the higher VP bag is "west" (in AE map terms), and not "north", toward the HI and the inner perimeter. So the Allied player has a decision to make. A trade-off analysis. Remove VPs though, and there's no incentive at all to go for Batavia.

Decisions like this are all over the VP system. Two more that frolickers miss. First, the decision to build up base infrastructure. Each base has escalators built into its VP total. They vary widely. For bases like Canberra or Noumea the base value when fully built out is multiples of its core VP value. Are these numbers accidents? Arbitrary? Not at all. For Japan they represent constant decisions. Build now and get the benefit of the port and AF? But also give the Allied player "free" VPs when he inevitably takes the base? Without VPs it's an easy decision.

Second, the victory system's provision that bases, to earn their full VPs, be in supply. In our game, I sometimes see Lokasenna's Japan VPs jump in Tracker, and I think "The train just got to Chungking." On one turn with no real fighting my VPs jumped about 200 points, and he said, "You just re-supplied Noumea." And he was right. Why does that matter? Well, the supply generated by LI and HI and refineries in stock is predicated on that mechanism. It really matters for Japan, especially late game. To stay afloat in VP terms, Japan has to position supply on bases that they may otherwise wish to leave as unsupplied shells. In a frolic "game" there's no pressure to do that. All of that supply is available to Japan to fight with. The intent of the designers is circumvented. The careful calibration is overturned.

There are a lot of other reasons to play the game with attention to VPs. And, despite claims otherwise, players who play the game and don't frolic are not all steely-eyed madmen obsessed with wringing out every VP available in the code, gaming the system and laughing maniacally as they do so. Same as with checkmate, VPs and the victory conditions are a discipline measure, the "spine" of the game as it were. Not the whole body.

As I said above, I offer this to newbies primarily. Those who read veteran players say, well, all the "stuff" they say about VPs and victory conditions and auto-victory and don't know what to think. I would say, try it. If you really don't like it, drop them. But don't frolic as a first pass. The VPs tick up and down no matter what. You can start paying attention in even long-established, in-progress games.

Well you convinced me with your arguments.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

The Allied "Downfall" plan for the invasion of Japan consisted of two parts:

Operation Olympic: invasion of Southern Kyushu in November 1945, staging from Okinawa

Operation Coronet: invasion of the Kantō Plain near Tokyo in March 1946, covered by airpower based on bases in Southern Kyushu

Ah, I was only thinking of Olympic and have never really taken Coronet that seriously as plans change often when doing something new for the second time after you've done it for the first time (invading Japan itself was going to be a mostly-new beast)... although with something of that scale, perhaps not.

[Sardaukar]

I have never thought much about Victory Points in AE. They are useful measurement of your performance, but should not be taken "too seriously".

Since I mainly play against AI and using AE as sort of "history tool", it is not big deal for me.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

The Allied "Downfall" plan for the invasion of Japan consisted of two parts:

Operation Olympic: invasion of Southern Kyushu in November 1945, staging from Okinawa

Operation Coronet: invasion of the Kantô Plain near Tokyo in March 1946, covered by airpower based on bases in Southern Kyushu

Ah, I was only thinking of Olympic and have never really taken Coronet that seriously as plans change often when doing something new for the second time after you've done it for the first time (invading Japan itself was going to be a mostly-new beast)... although with something of that scale, perhaps not.

Me too. Given the war-weariness in the US, the availability of more A-bombs toward the end of the Olympic timeline as well as incendiaries dropped by the re-deployed ETO air forces, and the vast ground casualties Olympic would have already caused to the Allies, I think that, failing a Japanese surrender, Japan would have been extinguished from a distance from the air, while the USN put a solid cordon around the HI. What the Soviets did in Asia is another matter, but I don't think Truman could have sold Coronet to the public.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

The Allied "Downfall" plan for the invasion of Japan consisted of two parts:

Operation Olympic: invasion of Southern Kyushu in November 1945, staging from Okinawa

Operation Coronet: invasion of the Kantô Plain near Tokyo in March 1946, covered by airpower based on bases in Southern Kyushu

Ah, I was only thinking of Olympic and have never really taken Coronet that seriously as plans change often when doing something new for the second time after you've done it for the first time (invading Japan itself was going to be a mostly-new beast)... although with something of that scale, perhaps not.

Me too. Given the war-weariness in the US, the availability of more A-bombs toward the end of the Olympic timeline as well as incendiaries dropped by the re-deployed ETO air forces, and the vast ground casualties Olympic would have already caused to the Allies, I think that, failing a Japanese surrender, Japan would have been extinguished from a distance from the air, while the USN put a solid cordon around the HI. What the Soviets did in Asia is another matter, but I don't think Truman could have sold Coronet to the public.

Not even considering the US side of things, the Japanese would likely have capitulated after Olympic brought home the futility of further resistance.

When you've expended 70% of your armaments stockpile and failed to hold the island, it takes a real degree of extremism to fight on.

IJ High Command had it's fair share of fanatics, but they were absolutely in the minority and the exceptionally dire circumstances of the Japanese position post-Olympic would be enough to motivate the otherwise indifferent moderates in to action.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




Ah, I was only thinking of Olympic and have never really taken Coronet that seriously as plans change often when doing something new for the second time after you've done it for the first time (invading Japan itself was going to be a mostly-new beast)... although with something of that scale, perhaps not.

Me too. Given the war-weariness in the US, the availability of more A-bombs toward the end of the Olympic timeline as well as incendiaries dropped by the re-deployed ETO air forces, and the vast ground casualties Olympic would have already caused to the Allies, I think that, failing a Japanese surrender, Japan would have been extinguished from a distance from the air, while the USN put a solid cordon around the HI. What the Soviets did in Asia is another matter, but I don't think Truman could have sold Coronet to the public.

Not even considering the US side of things, the Japanese would likely have capitulated after Olympic brought home the futility of further resistance.

When you've expended 70% of your armaments stockpile and failed to hold the island, it takes a real degree of extremism to fight on.

IJ High Command had it's fair share of fanatics, but they were absolutely in the minority and the exceptionally dire circumstances of the Japanese position post-Olympic would be enough to motivate the otherwise indifferent moderates in to action.

Not so sure about that - based on Western nation experience in Afghanistan over about two centuries, people whose homeland has been invaded will fight back in ways that render the invader's firepower mostly ineffective. If I were a WWII GI, I would have much trepidation about entering the narrow alleys of Japanese cities. Sharp sticks can kill too.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




Me too. Given the war-weariness in the US, the availability of more A-bombs toward the end of the Olympic timeline as well as incendiaries dropped by the re-deployed ETO air forces, and the vast ground casualties Olympic would have already caused to the Allies, I think that, failing a Japanese surrender, Japan would have been extinguished from a distance from the air, while the USN put a solid cordon around the HI. What the Soviets did in Asia is another matter, but I don't think Truman could have sold Coronet to the public.

Not even considering the US side of things, the Japanese would likely have capitulated after Olympic brought home the futility of further resistance.

When you've expended 70% of your armaments stockpile and failed to hold the island, it takes a real degree of extremism to fight on.

IJ High Command had it's fair share of fanatics, but they were absolutely in the minority and the exceptionally dire circumstances of the Japanese position post-Olympic would be enough to motivate the otherwise indifferent moderates in to action.

Not so sure about that - based on Western nation experience in Afghanistan over about two centuries, people whose homeland has been invaded will fight back in ways that render the invader's firepower mostly ineffective. If I were a WWII GI, I would have much trepidation about entering the narrow alleys of Japanese cities. Sharp sticks can kill too.

I have to disagree here.
This is falling into the trap of putting WW2 on the mindset of Vietnam era (and post Vietnam era...modern world) limited warfare.
Since the 2nd World War, we have fallen into an era of restrained warfare.
In WW2 - the dedication was the Total Annihilation of the enemy - no moral qualms there. That's why the Axis eventually surrendered.

Had we carried on with that mindset in Vietnam, and all the wars that followed - the Afghans (for example) and anyone else would have caved to the inevitable.... The Romans got an empire this way. Mankind hasn't changed.