Can an Allied Player Win the Game?

[moses]

Reply to Jnier:

I have already demonstrated it. Read the thread Invasion Russia II. What you have to realize is that there is nothing the Russian can do about it since he is not allowed to move anything prior to activation. The very first time he gets to move I already have 15 divisions at B. He doesn't even have time to retreat.

In the game I had russia digging in from turn one while Japan redeployed. As soon as activation occured I move every Russian unit I could toward B. B fell easily before any of the russians could get there. So everything was moved into the best blocking position available. The 15 division Japanese horde just marched to that location and crushed the russian force within days. From there it is just mopping up.

You can be the greatest allied player in the world but it just won't matter. Russia will fall quickly and the rest of asia is just a matter of time.

Because of the speed with which Russia falls I don't think I will even sacrifice much in the SRA. The PI invasion is delayed for three months. So what. The airpowere from there can be easily suppressed and they can dig all they want when Japan shows up with five divisions in March or so the allies will be slowly crushed. The rest of the SRA will be taken in-line with the historical scheduale.

[Feinder]

I hate to say "house rules", because frankly, I'm of the opinion that "anything goes, beat me any way you can". But sorry, that goes in the "Yeah ok, whatever. Find yourself another 12-year old to play with." I think it's ridiculous that you can't even move the Russian units. I should be able to run recons, cap, whatever as the russian, just not attack IJA. Don't you think it's just a little stupid that you can move 15 divs into a jump point, and destroy Russia piecmail. Sorry, that has nothing even remotely to do with strategy. I should be able to observe the fact that you've moved quarter of million men somewhere, and react accordingly. Even the most obtuse Allied player would put it together, hm. maybe I should do something about that...

-F-

[jnier]

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this. But show me that the Russia first strategy can be used to defeat a competant allied player. Remember this thread is titled "Can the allied player win the game?" IMHO, the answer is a resounding YES. Some people have implied that the imprefections in the land model lead to an inevitable Japanese victory. This has not been demonstrated and I'm skeptical. You can have Russia, can you win the game?

[moses]

So we agree??? There is a problem with land combat in general and the russian theater in particular.

Simple fix:

1.) Allow russian units to move within theater. If nothing else allow them to plot movement to russian base hexes.

2.) Rule for combat in non-island hexes. (or non-atoll hexes if that is easier.)
A. Blizzard or thunderstorm---25% chance of combat occuring.
B. Overcast or rain-------------50% chance of combat occuring.
C. Other-------------------------95% chance of combat occuring.

This will slow things down a bit and on the way make weather seem a bit more real.

Simple solutions and now Russia/China/India/Austrailia will work in a much more realistic
way.

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: moses

So we agree??? There is a problem with land combat in general and the russian theater in particular.

Simple fix:

1.) Allow russian units to move within theater. If nothing else allow them to plot movement to russian base hexes.

2.) Rule for combat in non-island hexes. (or non-atoll hexes if that is easier.)
A. Blizzard or thunderstorm---25% chance of combat occuring.
B. Overcast or rain-------------50% chance of combat occuring.
C. Other-------------------------95% chance of combat occuring.

This will slow things down a bit and on the way make weather seem a bit more real.

Simple solutions and now Russia/China/India/Austrailia will work in a much more realistic
way.

Wow! That is a great suggestion and should be very doable. And that will make land combat better everywhere. Right now land combat still occurs too easily.

Any here left from Matrix or 2x3 who wants to consider this fix?

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

[WiTP_Dude]

Yes, of course the Allies can win. They just have to play a very smart game. Don't begin fights you can't win. Be dynamic and reactive. The Japanese player calls the shots for the first year of the war. Don't buy into the "change the momentum by doing something risky" nonsense. Let the Japanese player take the risk and mold your strategy around the decisions they make. By the middle of 1943 you will have the tools necessary to change the momentum without taking risk.

[Scona]

Some information on the Red Army in the far east area can be found in the magazine game "North Wind Rain" which covers the hypothetical Japanese plans for attacks into Siberia in 1941 & 42; this is in the Vol. 2 No. 1 issue of "Against the Odds", published July 2003. The impression that the articles leave is that any Japanese offensive, even after much of the regular Siberian Army had been taken west to face the Germans, would not have had a very great chance of success. The Soviets went to great lenghts to have a large number of locally raised reserve units in the area to cover for the units taken out, and Red Army units were also better armed in the areas of artillery and armour compared to their Japanese opponents.

A thought regarding the "Left Hook" strategy for the American west coast. In an effort to keep the forces needed for Southeast Asia and the DEI concentrated, yet also give the Americans something to be distracted over, does it make sense to only seize a number
of island bases along the Alaskan and Canadian coasts to support a "uboat" campaign in the waters off of the major ports of Seattle and San Francisco? This could be achieved largely in the first months of 1942 with minimal land forces, and then act as a magnet for the first US offensives, which gives the main Japanes defensive position in the Central and South Pacific up to 6 extra months of preparation time.

[pasternakski]

It's not just the weather that needs to be changed. This is merely a band-aid on a compound fracture. The ability of the Japanese to concentrate en masse has to be curtailed severely if this game is to achieve the status of "historical simulation." The same applies, but to a lesser degree, to the Allies, who demonstrated (particularly in Europe, but also in the Pacific) competence with handling large offensive land operations.

It is, in my opinion, an immense flaw in the land combat design. I am very tired of seeing huge piles of Japanese armored units in support of huge piles of infantry units attacking day after day after day until well-prepared and supported defensive positions just melt away. It's sort of a "death star on land" effect. When and where did Allied arms face such mass? To what degree were Japanese armored forces superior in combat to anything fielded by any of the Allied forces?

As I have stated before, I blame the design planning process for this. When WitP was just a glimmer in GG's eye, someone needed to take advantage of all the work that has been done by boardgame simulation designers in creating games that present the players with the situations and capabilities the historical commanders faced.

What did we get instead? War in the South Pacific on steroids. Can it be fixed (and will it be fixed)? No way. Too late now. The design has dead-ended for this and any number of other reasons, and nothing of significant substance will ever be done with it.

By the way, I am also disappointed with the way v. 1.3 has made B-17s so vulnerable to attack by Japanese fighter aircraft. One of the many examples of how the basic design idea "present the historical situation and level the playing field with victory conditions" has been tossed in favor of "let's jazz up the Japs and screw the Allies so that the fanboys can have their little victory party."

I have to confess that, as the games I am involved in work their way through 1942 toward 1943, I am getting closer and closer to pulling the plug on this thing and just chalking it up as another game that was on my hard drive for awhile, then revealed its faults on extended playing.

[moses]

I don't think this will ever be a great land warfare game but it is a great game overall and I think my suggestion above would fix land warfare at least as far as play balance is concerned.

[BPRE]

Hi,

Shouldn't there be a requirement for a garrison in Russia also? In case Russia is attacked that would have been the case if no peace agreement was reached. A possibility but then they would have to guard against a possible future attack anyway.
Since this will affect and be affected a lot by the war in the western part it must be extremely difficult to model. It's easy to see why we have the rules and limitations there is today. It definitely made the design of the game a lot easier.

Regards
BPRE

[worr]

ORIGINAL: jnier

My point is that Japan probably must win early by auto-victory, and the allies will probably win if they avoid a japanese auto-victory. And I have seen in several PBEM games where Japan clearly has no chance for auto-victory and will likely lose by 44-45.

Japan wins early or not at all.

The game just came out this summer. It would take a couple months to play an PBEM game out to 1945 I would bet. So any victories you hear about in an AAR must by necessity be about Japanese victory.

The trick is playing the US role it played in 1941-43. That isn't a glamours role. The IJN role is far more attractive in those years. And too many players get too anxious to do something offensively early on in the war.

But if you keep your head there is NO reason the IJN player should win. Men and material will be like a steam roler in 1944. Also there is most certainly a limit to IJN supply. You cannot go for China and the SE Co prosperity shpere....let alone make a push on India. You do have to choose or run out of supply and supply ships.

Worr, out

[Farfarer61]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

It looks like the developers missed this little fact.

The Russians should get the same 180 day increase in reinforcements if invaded. The same as the US.[;)]

The problem is that Stalin has already taken the troops west to save Moscow from Op Typhoon as Richard Sorge has told him that the Japanese will not invade Russia. This probably nees to be locked in or made a selectable ( or not ) option. Then it needs to be decided if the Mongolian divisions which defended Moscow 'stay' east.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

ORIGINAL: Halsey

It looks like the developers missed this little fact.

The Russians should get the same 180 day increase in reinforcements if invaded. The same as the US.[;)]

The problem is that Stalin has already taken the troops west to save Moscow from Op Typhoon as Richard Sorge has told him that the Japanese will not invade Russia. This probably nees to be locked in or made a selectable ( or not ) option. Then it needs to be decided if the Mongolian divisions which defended Moscow 'stay' east.

Seeing as this is a major political reversal of direction, a major PP penalty fee should be required if Russia is to be attacked. Every unit should be made to pay this fee.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

It's not just the weather that needs to be changed. This is merely a band-aid on a compound fracture. The ability of the Japanese to concentrate en masse has to be curtailed severely if this game is to achieve the status of "historical simulation." The same applies, but to a lesser degree, to the Allies, who demonstrated (particularly in Europe, but also in the Pacific) competence with handling large offensive land operations.

It is, in my opinion, an immense flaw in the land combat design. I am very tired of seeing huge piles of Japanese armored units in support of huge piles of infantry units attacking day after day after day until well-prepared and supported defensive positions just melt away. It's sort of a "death star on land" effect. When and where did Allied arms face such mass? To what degree were Japanese armored forces superior in combat to anything fielded by any of the Allied forces?

As I have stated before, I blame the design planning process for this. When WitP was just a glimmer in GG's eye, someone needed to take advantage of all the work that has been done by boardgame simulation designers in creating games that present the players with the situations and capabilities the historical commanders faced.

What did we get instead? War in the South Pacific on steroids. Can it be fixed (and will it be fixed)? No way. Too late now. The design has dead-ended for this and any number of other reasons, and nothing of significant substance will ever be done with it.

By the way, I am also disappointed with the way v. 1.3 has made B-17s so vulnerable to attack by Japanese fighter aircraft. One of the many examples of how the basic design idea "present the historical situation and level the playing field with victory conditions" has been tossed in favor of "let's jazz up the Japs and screw the Allies so that the fanboys can have their little victory party."

I have to confess that, as the games I am involved in work their way through 1942 toward 1943, I am getting closer and closer to pulling the plug on this thing and just chalking it up as another game that was on my hard drive for awhile, then revealed its faults on extended playing.

I agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments. What upsets me the most about this is that not only did GG just design (regurgitate?) the game based on his own past games on the subject, but almost entirely so and was so far along when the outside help was invited, it was already too late to affect needed change. Basically there is little real difference between WITP and PACWAR except technology and breadth of detail. With little improvement in the interface and design, the game stumbles over this extra detail and repeated mistakes with design.

I too am worried about how the game will play out past 42. Land combat has completely spoiled the time and effort put into the PBEM games I had going, and the ability to marshall forces and move them about with impunity is completely skewing the pace. The absolutely inadequate TF management system is going to glaringly show its' limitations as the forces get larger into 1943.

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: worr

The trick is playing the US role it played in 1941-43. That isn't a glamours role. The IJN role is far more attractive in those years. And too many players get too anxious to do something offensively early on in the war.

Eh??? The allies were making counter moves by May '42 (Coral Sea) and strikes on the outer Japanese bases months before. By the end of '42 the US forces were on the march forward and did not stop until the Atom bombs fell. I don't know what makes you think that the allies were on the defensive until the end of '43. That's just the problem - in this game it looks like they might have to be.

I believe most of us wanted to play a game that would recreate the struggles around Guadalcanal and Midway but this time change the outcome. For both sides. A game where as the allies I shouldn't do a lot for 24 months (!) is just not a game I want to play. Nor one in any grounding in history. Nor does digging the Japanese out of India, China and Russia in order to get the necessary victory ratio sound like a lot of fun. Even if by mid '45 it's easy.

I wouldn't want to play the game as the Japanese like that either. I want to fight the US navy. Not have it so out matched that no sensible allied player risks more than a minesweeper until late '43. Whether or not the game is winable for the allies from there or not - who wants to play such a game? I stopped enjoying kicking sand in the helpless kid's face when I was a kid. I don't really want to relive the experience of either in WitP from either side.

[denisonh]

The Allies did not go on the offensive historically until late 42 until AFTER they deep sixed the KB near Midway.

Given an IJN player who does not do this, and the way the KB a.k.a. "Death Star" can roam and sink Allied ships with impunity, the Allied player must execute some patience and prudence.

Mounting major offensive operation outside LBA range such as Kwajelien, Tarawa and Lunga can have catastrophic reults in 42 if the KB is intact and waiting for you.

The IJN CV force intact in late 42 changes the dynamic significantly from historical. A smart Allied player must realize and adapt.

Time is on the Allied player side, and there is no need to "force" a decisive engagement. That is up to the IJN to do.

Historically, that is what the Allies did at COral Sea and Midway, and subsequently went on the offensive. That is historical and somewhat indicative of what the Allies must do to transition to the offense.

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

ORIGINAL: worr

The trick is playing the US role it played in 1941-43. That isn't a glamours role. The IJN role is far more attractive in those years. And too many players get too anxious to do something offensively early on in the war.

Eh??? The allies were making counter moves by May '42 (Coral Sea) and strikes on the outer Japanese bases months before. By the end of '42 the US forces were on the march forward and did not stop until the Atom bombs fell. I don't know what makes you think that the allies were on the defensive until the end of '43. That's just the problem - in this game it looks like they might have to be.

I believe most of us wanted to play a game that would recreate the struggles around Guadalcanal and Midway but this time change the outcome. For both sides. A game where as the allies I shouldn't do a lot for 24 months (!) is just not a game I want to play. Nor one in any grounding in history. Nor does digging the Japanese out of India, China and Russia in order to get the necessary victory ratio sound like a lot of fun. Even if by mid '45 it's easy.

I wouldn't want to play the game as the Japanese like that either. I want to fight the US navy. Not have it so out matched that no sensible allied player risks more than a minesweeper until late '43. Whether or not the game is winable for the allies from there or not - who wants to play such a game? I stopped enjoying kicking sand in the helpless kid's face when I was a kid. I don't really want to relive the experience of either in WitP from either side.

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

Eh??? The allies were making counter moves by May '42 (Coral Sea) and strikes on the outer Japanese bases months before. By the end of '42 the US forces were on the march forward and did not stop until the Atom bombs fell. I don't know what makes you think that the allies were on the defensive until the end of '43. That's just the problem - in this game it looks like they might have to be.

I believe most of us wanted to play a game that would recreate the struggles around Guadalcanal and Midway but this time change the outcome. For both sides. A game where as the allies I shouldn't do a lot for 24 months (!) is just not a game I want to play. Nor one in any grounding in history. Nor does digging the Japanese out of India, China and Russia in order to get the necessary victory ratio sound like a lot of fun. Even if by mid '45 it's easy.

I wouldn't want to play the game as the Japanese like that either. I want to fight the US navy. Not have it so out matched that no sensible allied player risks more than a minesweeper until late '43. Whether or not the game is winable for the allies from there or not - who wants to play such a game? I stopped enjoying kicking sand in the helpless kid's face when I was a kid. I don't really want to relive the experience of either in WitP from either side.

The Allies weren't really on the offensive much in 1942. They had a fight at Guadalcanal but didn't do much more. The real "problem" is that the Japanese could have done more if they had so desired. The fact that they didn't isn't going to stop most gamers from doing so however.

Why the Japanese were so cautious is hard to explain. They seemed to of had the idea this was going to be some kind of "limited war" where the Allies would agree to give the Japanese concessions in exchange for lost territory. Gamers don't have this flawed thinking; they know right from the beginning this is going to be total war.

WiTP uses the victory level system to "bribe" the Japanese player not to be too aggressive. A high rate of losses will pretty much prevent Japan from winning in 1943 no matter how much they end up capturing. The only way to get the automatic victory as the Japanese is to inflict a lot of damage on the Allies without suffering much yourself.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

ORIGINAL: worr

The trick is playing the US role it played in 1941-43. That isn't a glamours role. The IJN role is far more attractive in those years. And too many players get too anxious to do something offensively early on in the war.

Eh??? The allies were making counter moves by May '42 (Coral Sea) and strikes on the outer Japanese bases months before. By the end of '42 the US forces were on the march forward and did not stop until the Atom bombs fell. I don't know what makes you think that the allies were on the defensive until the end of '43. That's just the problem - in this game it looks like they might have to be.

I believe most of us wanted to play a game that would recreate the struggles around Guadalcanal and Midway but this time change the outcome. For both sides. A game where as the allies I shouldn't do a lot for 24 months (!) is just not a game I want to play. Nor one in any grounding in history. Nor does digging the Japanese out of India, China and Russia in order to get the necessary victory ratio sound like a lot of fun. Even if by mid '45 it's easy.

I wouldn't want to play the game as the Japanese like that either. I want to fight the US navy. Not have it so out matched that no sensible allied player risks more than a minesweeper until late '43. Whether or not the game is winable for the allies from there or not - who wants to play such a game? I stopped enjoying kicking sand in the helpless kid's face when I was a kid. I don't really want to relive the experience of either in WitP from either side.

I think enough USN players have had their asses fed to them from STAR TREK LBA which can transport to any threatend base in the Pacific and participate in attacks the very same day. Can't raid like historically, and why bother? Nothing gained. At the very least Political Points should be gained or something, but this does not even matter as PPs do nothing much anyway. All HQs should be restricted, naval units should be attached to HQs, there should be physically mapped out theatres for Allies and Japan...list goes on.

Here we have a game supposedly designed for grognards but I don't know of too many grognards who are happy with it. It is too complicated for the average gamer and too historically bogus for the hardcore.

[denisonh]

I am happy with WitP so far despite it's shortcomings.

It is simply without compare in the wargaming world as simulation of warfare in the Pacific.

I want a game of this this detail, can you direct me to another if this one is "unworthy" for us grognards?

I am like many who would like to see improvements and additions, but will not suggest "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" in a petulant fit.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

ORIGINAL: worr

The trick is playing the US role it played in 1941-43. That isn't a glamours role. The IJN role is far more attractive in those years. And too many players get too anxious to do something offensively early on in the war.

Eh??? The allies were making counter moves by May '42 (Coral Sea) and strikes on the outer Japanese bases months before. By the end of '42 the US forces were on the march forward and did not stop until the Atom bombs fell. I don't know what makes you think that the allies were on the defensive until the end of '43. That's just the problem - in this game it looks like they might have to be.

I believe most of us wanted to play a game that would recreate the struggles around Guadalcanal and Midway but this time change the outcome. For both sides. A game where as the allies I shouldn't do a lot for 24 months (!) is just not a game I want to play. Nor one in any grounding in history. Nor does digging the Japanese out of India, China and Russia in order to get the necessary victory ratio sound like a lot of fun. Even if by mid '45 it's easy.

I wouldn't want to play the game as the Japanese like that either. I want to fight the US navy. Not have it so out matched that no sensible allied player risks more than a minesweeper until late '43. Whether or not the game is winable for the allies from there or not - who wants to play such a game? I stopped enjoying kicking sand in the helpless kid's face when I was a kid. I don't really want to relive the experience of either in WitP from either side.

I think enough USN players have had their asses fed to them from STAR TREK LBA which can transport to any threatend base in the Pacific and participate in attacks the very same day. Can't raid like historically, and why bother? Nothing gained. At the very least Political Points should be gained or something, but this does not even matter as PPs do nothing much anyway. All HQs should be restricted, naval units should be attached to HQs, there should be physically mapped out theatres for Allies and Japan...list goes on.

Here we have a game supposedly designed for grognards but I don't know of too many grognards who are happy with it. It is too complicated for the average gamer and too historically bogus for the hardcore.

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

Eh??? The allies were making counter moves by May '42

Countering the IJN offensive.

A counter is defensive in nature.

Worr, out