AAR - PBEM Game 3

[a19999577]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Nope - Japan only has what it brings to the party (no party favors for them)....they are short of everything - production, resources, manpower.....it was foolish for them to go to war in the first place (historically) & it will probably prove out here too.

I don't have any production figures, but I'd think it'd make sense that Japan's war machine go up a gear when total war begins [they are already at war with China when the game begins], even if it is just a tiny notch.

[paullus99]

Japan's other HUGE problem is that they have been on a war-footing since the early 1930's - there were neither the resources or the manpower available to expand the Japanese war economy....if the Japanese player can keep their industry feed with resources - they will continue to produce units, but since everything is dependent on shipping it from the frontiers to Japan itself - an agressive naval campaign by the allies is going to make this extremely difficult.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Japan's other HUGE problem is that they have been on a war-footing since the early 1930's - there were neither the resources or the manpower available to expand the Japanese war economy....if the Japanese player can keep their industry feed with resources - they will continue to produce units, but since everything is dependent on shipping it from the frontiers to Japan itself - an agressive naval campaign by the allies is going to make this extremely difficult.

What Allies? [:D] US don't give jack about me attacking Russians. I'll have almost 2,5 years to fight Ruskies without any naval menace. Besides - it's MUCH easier to ship resources and armies to and from Russian Far East than it is from DEI. Trip is way shorter. I'm thinking of scrapping any huge naval units I have in building queue to free up resources and factories as well.

Of course if this war is not over by Jan 43 when US automatically joins the WA, then I'm toast by mid-43 for sure [:D]

But what other options do I have?? Attack China? Endless quagmire and guerilla nightmare, with no practical gains. Preempt the attack on US a la PH? I am dead by mid 42 at most. Russia is the only option for me, and things being as they are, I might as well start the war ASAP (as I did) - I have more time to fight before the US jumps in.

Also, if this war is to be won by Axis - Germany must win it. I am there only to help them (even if they are not willing to accept our help as in our negotiations in Manchuria here [:D]). Will I help Germany more by continuing China mud-fight, by attacking US, or by back-stabbing Russians? Hmmmm....

Oleg

[Hanal]

From the AAR's, it seems the best two sides to play are Germany and Western Allies....China doesn't have much to do, Japan is severly limited, and Russia..uh...SOVIET UNION... sits on its kiester until '43 unless invaded early....this could cause some problems when playing PBEM games if everyone wants to choose the two most active and interesting sides...I think the best set up for PBEM will be a two player game...Player 1: Germany, Japan Player 2: Western Allies, China, and Russia...uh...SOVIET UNION......

[siRkid]

We are starting another player PBEM game, and we'll post after action reports as we go again.

this time the opponents are:

Germany : MButtazoni (Maurice)
Japan : Oleg Mastruko
Russia : j campbell (John)
Western Allies & China : paullus99 (Lawrence)

You can have more than 2 PBEM opponents? How does this work?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

From the AAR's, it seems the best two sides to play are Germany and Western Allies....China doesn't have much to do, Japan is severly limited, and Russia..uh...SOVIET UNION... sits on its kiester until '43 unless invaded early....this could cause some problems when playing PBEM games if everyone wants to choose the two most active and interesting sides...I think the best set up for PBEM will be a two player game...Player 1: Germany, Japan Player 2: Western Allies, China, and Russia...uh...SOVIET UNION......

Russia is fun to play, and will be even more fun when (if?) the Far Eastern weaknesses are corrected. Germans seem like much fun but they walk a very fine line, and are not allowed a single mistake in this game. WA shows you why it's good to have unbeatable navy and total command of the seas. The only side I find utterly frustrating to play is Japan. Not even the piss poor China is as frustrating as Japan.

Also, IMO, 4-player PBEMs are more fun than 2-player ones at this point. Frankly I could not say *why* is it so. I consider myself hardcore PBEM player. No game is too grognardy, no turn is too long, no opponent is too intimidating for me when I play PBEMs. In other PBEM games I played intensively, like TOAW or UV, there were occassional ideas to divide up the command. Like, "this game is too complicated, so let's invent a system that will allow 2-3 players per side, where every player will command only a part of available forces per side".

Actually personally I always hated such "inventions", and always preferred to be the single commander of my side, no matter how time consuming it might be.

WAW is totally different, here I am willing to play the "team" play 4-player games, ie 2 vs 2. IMO this is the way this game is meant to be played, and I find 4-player games more enjoyable than 2-player ones, at least for now.

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Kid

We are starting another player PBEM game, and we'll post after action reports as we go again.

this time the opponents are:

Germany : MButtazoni (Maurice)
Japan : Oleg Mastruko
Russia : j campbell (John)
Western Allies & China : paullus99 (Lawrence)

You can have more than 2 PBEM opponents? How does this work?

You can have 1 to 5 opponents, but 2-player and 4-player games are and will be most common I guess. Read the huge AAR ("PBEM game 2") on this board to get the idea how it works.

In 4-player games, which I personally find the most enjoyable, Player 1 is Germany, he sends his turn to his Axis buddy Japan, who is Plyaer 2; then Japan player sends the PBEM file to Player 3 (Russia), and Russia player sends the file to Player 4, who usually covers both Western Allies and China. Although China can be set up as separate playable side (optional Player 5) China is considered too weak to be played on its own, so usually the WA player is set to control the China as well.

(Hopefully this last detail will change, and China will be placed between Russia and WA, thus enabling either Allied player to take control of China.)

Only Axis, or Allies may *win* the game. So even if Russia is completely eliminated, but WA wins the war on its own, Allied team won the game. Same goes for Germany and Japan. In our PBEM game 2 - German player almost managed to get the victory (or draw) for his side even though the Japan was completely eliminated.

So in this game where I am Japan, I always receive turns from Maurice, play my part, and forward them to Russia player (not J. Campbell, but actually Matt Normal View, as he stepped into his place.)

Oleg

[SeaMonkey]

I like the idea of putting China on the "fence", seems fitting although not historically accurate. Can any of you Testers disclose information regarding a game editor? How extensive will it be? Similar to TOAW or more mundane as SC?

[Oleg Mastruko]

AFAIK no editor is planned, but the game is very moddable. All the info is stored within the text files, and whoever feels the need to make his own scenario, say, giving more production capabilities to Germany, may do so with a couple of keystrokes.

Oleg

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

Thinking about the japanese invasion of Siberia, I think that good supply rules should make this very difficult for a japanese player, after all they were vast regions with very long land supply lines (that should be much less efective than sea supply lines) and very little transport infrastructure. For the same reasons, an invasion of SE European colonies should be easier to Japanese player.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Unfortunatelly (for the poor Japanese player) not only that. I think historic Russians were simply too strong *militarily* for Japanese to try anything serious in the Far East - as proved by Nomonhan and Lake Halha (spelling?) incidents in 1939. Nomonhan wasn't a small battle at all - I'd say in WAW terms (where single unit is comparable to corps) there were 2-3 units involved for each side.

Japs were thoroughly trashed, and in view of that it's hard to imagine them kicking Russian a*s as easy as they did in this AAR.

O.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Unfortunatelly (for the poor Japanese player) not only that. I think historic Russians were simply too strong *militarily* for Japanese to try anything serious in the Far East - as proved by Nomonhan and Lake Halha (spelling?) incidents in 1939. Nomonhan wasn't a small battle at all - I'd say in WAW terms (where single unit is comparable to corps) there were 2-3 units involved for each side.

Japs were thoroughly trashed, and in view of that it's hard to imagine them kicking Russian a*s as easy as they did in this AAR.

O.

Yes, there should be some important Soviet forces in the Manchukuo border

[SeaMonkey]

I'm concluding here, and I know this is just an alpha, but it seems the Japanese and Chinese players are simply faced with the inevitable, being relegated to the "stepchild". Now I understand this is historical, as we all know what happened, what's the use in rehashing it on a strategic scale? This is a game, a simulation to explore the "what ifs" of WW2, not simply to go through the motions of inevitability, "what fun" is that, to know the outcome. Historically this is accurate and I'm not advocating a fantastic deviation from reality, but I do believe, for game appeal, that there should be some avenue, a ray of hope, some circumstance of game parameters that would allow these two players to become a primary contributer to the alliance. Maybe not the leader, but perhaps "the straw that breaks the camel's back".

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

I'm concluding here, and I know this is just an alpha, but it seems the Japanese and Chinese players are simply faced with the inevitable, being relegated to the "stepchild". Now I understand this is historical, as we all know what happened, what's the use in rehashing it on a strategic scale? This is a game, a simulation to explore the "what ifs" of WW2, not simply to go through the motions of inevitability, "what fun" is that, to know the outcome. Historically this is accurate and I'm not advocating a fantastic deviation from reality, but I do believe, for game appeal, that there should be some avenue, a ray of hope, some circumstance of game parameters that would allow these two players to become a primary contributer to the alliance. Maybe not the leader, but perhaps "the straw that breaks the camel's back".

I certainly have to agree, especially for Japan. If Matrix actually anticipates multi-player PBEM you have to give each player a decent game. It can't be just "OK its your turn to play Japan, take one for the team." China as a major is pretty silly anyway. They really should be controlled by the WA player, maybe with an event option to be taken over by SU.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

I'm concluding here, and I know this is just an alpha, but it seems the Japanese and Chinese players are simply faced with the inevitable, being relegated to the "stepchild". Now I understand this is historical, as we all know what happened, what's the use in rehashing it on a strategic scale? This is a game, a simulation to explore the "what ifs" of WW2, not simply to go through the motions of inevitability, "what fun" is that, to know the outcome. Historically this is accurate and I'm not advocating a fantastic deviation from reality, but I do believe, for game appeal, that there should be some avenue, a ray of hope, some circumstance of game parameters that would allow these two players to become a primary contributer to the alliance. Maybe not the leader, but perhaps "the straw that breaks the camel's back".

Japan will likely always have less potential than Germany in WaW. What you have seen so far I feel is not fair to the Japanese position. Most testers so far have made moves that are bad ones with regards to their resource position. They have attacked Siam to gain 1 resource point, however they then lose 3 free points per turn from USA (and they would have gotten the 1 point from Siam on most turns anwyay through free trade). This is a bad move. They have left Indochina open to be taken by China. That is a bad move. They have used airpower to attack infrastructure in China instead of using it to weaken their ground forces. That's a horrible move. Until we see some Japanese player's using valid strategies, it's way too early to say what changes are desirable. I've been able to have Japan do well, taking out China and/or India, although without a strong German player, the Axis are destined to eventually be forced back (although they might win on VPs). Don't give up on them yet. As the testers have pointed out, each player in WaW is very different (makes for great replayability), and must use very different strategies. The players are still getting used to this.

Since WaW is more "historically" accurate than some of the other simpler global war games, it only stands to reason that Japan will not be a production dynamo. However, I find playing Japan a lot of fun. Hopefully others will too (if they aren't already) by the time we release the game. Getting Japan up to a production level of 25-30 with the resources to match is very rewarding, even if it is dwarfed by Germany's 50 or the Western Allies eventual 75.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Yohan

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

I'm concluding here, and I know this is just an alpha, but it seems the Japanese and Chinese players are simply faced with the inevitable, being relegated to the "stepchild". Now I understand this is historical, as we all know what happened, what's the use in rehashing it on a strategic scale? This is a game, a simulation to explore the "what ifs" of WW2, not simply to go through the motions of inevitability, "what fun" is that, to know the outcome. Historically this is accurate and I'm not advocating a fantastic deviation from reality, but I do believe, for game appeal, that there should be some avenue, a ray of hope, some circumstance of game parameters that would allow these two players to become a primary contributer to the alliance. Maybe not the leader, but perhaps "the straw that breaks the camel's back".

I certainly have to agree, especially for Japan. If Matrix actually anticipates multi-player PBEM you have to give each player a decent game. It can't be just "OK its your turn to play Japan, take one for the team." China as a major is pretty silly anyway. They really should be controlled by the WA player, maybe with an event option to be taken over by SU.

In most games China will be played by someone else, which is not a problem. We will likely sandwhich it between SU and WA for ease of PBEM play so either side can play it without an extra step. The game system requires China to be a unique player, but there's no reason someone else can't play it. I expect it would be good for a relative beginner wanting into a 5 player game, but otherwise the game will be played just fine as a 4 player game (or 2 or 3 for that matter).

[MButtazoni]

Winter 42

Well my timetable was thrown out the window and it was time to out together an ad hoc attack into SU. Who attacsk into the SU during Winter? i guess i do. I wasn't to worried about how many units i had going into SU, but if you think the game is all about aty of units, you haven't been reading the other AARs. [:D] I was anticipating another 50-60 supply going into SU, that would have repaired a lot more rail so i could strat move rear area units to the front for dfense during the next SU turn and to be in attack position for the next turn (Spring 41). Another side effect of attacking 1 turn early is that i would have completed 3 more research projects in Winter that would have been available for my initial attack (yes, i actually plan some of this stuff).

I still had plenty of success pushing inot the SU. My priority was to destroy his factories. I rolled over 4 Factories and 5 Reources this turn. Leningrad fell which convinced the Finns to join the fight. The Finns recaptured Norway and ventured into Karrelia (Murmansk).

Here is Europe in Winter 1942 (beginning of 1942):

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: Yohan

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

I'm concluding here, and I know this is just an alpha, but it seems the Japanese and Chinese players are simply faced with the inevitable, being relegated to the "stepchild". Now I understand this is historical, as we all know what happened, what's the use in rehashing it on a strategic scale? This is a game, a simulation to explore the "what ifs" of WW2, not simply to go through the motions of inevitability, "what fun" is that, to know the outcome. Historically this is accurate and I'm not advocating a fantastic deviation from reality, but I do believe, for game appeal, that there should be some avenue, a ray of hope, some circumstance of game parameters that would allow these two players to become a primary contributer to the alliance. Maybe not the leader, but perhaps "the straw that breaks the camel's back".

I certainly have to agree, especially for Japan. If Matrix actually anticipates multi-player PBEM you have to give each player a decent game. It can't be just "OK its your turn to play Japan, take one for the team." China as a major is pretty silly anyway. They really should be controlled by the WA player, maybe with an event option to be taken over by SU.

In most games China will be played by someone else, which is not a problem. We will likely sandwhich it between SU and WA for ease of PBEM play so either side can play it without an extra step. The game system requires China to be a unique player, but there's no reason someone else can't play it. I expect it would be good for a relative beginner wanting into a 5 player game, but otherwise the game will be played just fine as a 4 player game (or 2 or 3 for that matter).

Thanks Joel, read your notes on Japan in the prior post and sounds like it will flesh out.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Banzai! We took Vladivostok (renaming it to New Sasebo to reflect the traditional Japanese nature of the region) and took more chunks of territory in Siberia... I mean in West Yamato.

We even managed to repair resources in Irkutsk and Vladivostok regions, and repair Vlad... I mean New Sasebo factories.

O.

[MButtazoni]

quick math on SU factories and resources:

Japan: 1 Fac, 5 Res captured
Germany: 4 Fac, 5 Res captured
Soviets: 7 Factories, 20 Resources remaining (this does not count any Factories SU "might" be building)