Matrix Games Forums

When I do Player Two (Allied), I always approach it with a sense of obligation in the sense that its ultimatley easier to be that side vs. Player One. You have the resources that allow mistakes to be made, and further.....enjoy a level of control that would have made the real life ABDA coalition weep with joy. As such, I try to play a type of game closer to the spirit of the real life situation there. It also makes it more fun for both sides. Sir Robin is of course a solid strategum but boring as hell for both sides. I like to muck it up and fight for the SRA as if it were not a forgone conclusion that Player One will capture this prize. Further, I try not to rely too much on the safety triggers put in place to protect Allied rear areas, so instead of rushing troops to forward bases you know from hindsight will be contention points, I conservatively send units/troops to protect/garrison bases closer to home first and work my way forward. AE's improved logistics support and reward such play.....unfortunate a holdover loophole from Stock WitP can still make a mockery of it...that being the Turn 2 onward "Bug Out" of resources from the SRA and it's Million+ fuel point resevuoir.

As Player One, I try to resist the strategy that most rewards that side as a result of hindsight and detail control...that strategy being that its best to first capture the outer bases of your line and then work your way back, vs. the other way around which all the history books i've read say was the core reason behind Japan's success. (advancing under cover of air.....with your logistics in place......mostly) Its a catch-22 though.....If you don't employ the reverse logic strategy, in all likely hood once you've secured the SRA/inner network, you'll find Telephone pole stacks waiting for you at bases in the outer reaches.

On topic to the Thread......no....i've never come close to winning as Player One. It's pretty much impossible against a competent Player Two opponent. I'd even go so far as to say, based on experience that its extremely hard just to do as well as Japan did historically against a competant Player two.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


Going for autovictory and assuring long time survival is a contradiction IMHO.

+1

I also think it generally means a short game either way. IJ player is likely going to either autovic or resign Jan 1, 1943. Allied player should consider this ....

Good points, guys.

I lost as allies [8|]  Of course, I really am "a total idiot".
 
Lost everything up to and including the line islands.
Lost my carriers.
Lost everything down to Noumea
Lost every stinking AK in the game bar 7
Had PH down to 20 or so in supply.  Same with Oz.
 
Of course, this happens if you start as a newb, and play against a fiendishly clever opponent.  But I still feel like "a total idiot" a year later.

People like to talk about uber Japanese airplane production, but, IIRC, even in Canoerebel's game Japanese lost less planes by the end that they produced in RL (as about the scarcity of ops losses outside of contact with the enemy, allowing that, Allies have the same benefit - and the number of planes they can concentrate on frontlines is, consequently, ridiculous by RL standards, at least for 1942). Talk to me about uber air production, when a Japanese player successfully manages to make at least 100k planes during a PBEM. Quality of produced planes can be significantly better, with PDU ON, but, well, if the player must manage production, there should be some rewards for doing it well.
The same goes for ASW. Japanese ASW is not any more powerful that in RL. The players concentrate on its improvement from Day 1, unlike RL. Also, it benefits from the simplified logistics model in the game, which actually allows you to (mostly) ship everything in large convoys. But as the same model allows for the faster operational tempo, which mostly plays in the hands of Allies (as they are on the offensive for 3/4ths of the game, AFBs really should not complain about this.

It's not the numbers that are off - it's the quality of the production and the maintenence. Japanese industry just wasn't up to the quality control to produce large numbers of powerful airplane engines and keep them maintained in the tropics. Fire in the Sky goes into this in great depth - serious maintenence and engine replacement were largely out of the question south of Truk.
Once kamikazes developed, things got more challenging for the Allies as the bases were closer to Japan and the planes didn't have to keep flying. Probably all Japanese planes should have their maintenence level increased by 2 or more if you want a better simulation and a worse game.