Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: castor troy


[I can't see anything in AE that keeps a Japanese player from winning an autovictory that wasn't already there in WITP. I've won several autovictories in WITP and as a so far Allied AE player I'm sure I could do the same in AE as the IJ player. In fact, playing as the Allied player, I have seen so many weak points for the Allied that I have pretty much a clear plan how to more or less easily win an autovictory as the IJ, at least not any harder than in WITP.

Referring to a Dec 42 AV, correct?

42 or 43, I've actually won more victories in 43 than 42. Usually happens when the IJN loses no or very few carriers while the Allied lose a lot carriers. Coupled with losing carriers is then losing big ground formations, this gives you a hell a lot of points as the IJ player. That´s the goal if you want to go for autovictory which I usually am trying to do, doesn't mean though that I would take huge risks doing so, usually quite the opposite to be honest. Going for autovictory not to end the game, just to have a very nice feeling and something to tell your enemy when he tries to bomb you to hell in 45. [:D] You don't have to go for India, you don't have to go for Australia but if you take a lot of Allied held islands you kill a lot of Allied ground units and that's usually what you can if the Allied lost carriers.

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: castor troy


[I can't see anything in AE that keeps a Japanese player from winning an autovictory that wasn't already there in WITP. I've won several autovictories in WITP and as a so far Allied AE player I'm sure I could do the same in AE as the IJ player. In fact, playing as the Allied player, I have seen so many weak points for the Allied that I have pretty much a clear plan how to more or less easily win an autovictory as the IJ, at least not any harder than in WITP.

Referring to a Dec 42 AV, correct?

42 or 43, I've actually won more victories in 43 than 42. Usually happens when the IJN loses no or very few carriers while the Allied lose a lot carriers. Coupled with losing carriers is then losing big ground formations, this gives you a hell a lot of points as the IJ player. That´s the goal if you want to go for autovictory which I usually am trying to do, doesn't mean though that I would take huge risks doing so, usually quite the opposite to be honest. Going for autovictory not to end the game, just to have a very nice feeling and something to tell your enemy when he tries to bomb you to hell in 45. [:D] You don't have to go for India, you don't have to go for Australia but if you take a lot of Allied held islands you kill a lot of Allied ground units and that's usually what you can if the Allied lost carriers.

What scenario is the context of this discussion?

In my game scenario #1 IJ stopped cold at Burma/India border, DEI/Northern Oz, Gilberts going east about 12K vs 6k for 2:1 July '42. What sort of point ratios are you proposing for the 4:1? 20K vs. 5K? All 6 USN CV's and 3 Brit CV's is about 2.5K in points .. where does the extra 5K in points come from?

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo



Referring to a Dec 42 AV, correct?

42 or 43, I've actually won more victories in 43 than 42. Usually happens when the IJN loses no or very few carriers while the Allied lose a lot carriers. Coupled with losing carriers is then losing big ground formations, this gives you a hell a lot of points as the IJ player. That´s the goal if you want to go for autovictory which I usually am trying to do, doesn't mean though that I would take huge risks doing so, usually quite the opposite to be honest. Going for autovictory not to end the game, just to have a very nice feeling and something to tell your enemy when he tries to bomb you to hell in 45. [:D] You don't have to go for India, you don't have to go for Australia but if you take a lot of Allied held islands you kill a lot of Allied ground units and that's usually what you can if the Allied lost carriers.

What scenario is the context of this discussion?

In my game scenario #1 IJ stopped cold at Burma/India border, DEI/Northern Oz, Gilberts going east about 12K vs 6k for 2:1 July '42. What sort of point ratios are you proposing for the 4:1? 20K vs. 5K? All 6 USN CV's and 3 Brit CV's is about 2.5K in points .. where does the extra 5K in points come from?

Did he take the major islands in Hew Hebrides, New Caledonia, Fiji, and Samoa? The islands themselves are worth a lot of points and there are some LCUs that can be killed.

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo



Referring to a Dec 42 AV, correct?

42 or 43, I've actually won more victories in 43 than 42. Usually happens when the IJN loses no or very few carriers while the Allied lose a lot carriers. Coupled with losing carriers is then losing big ground formations, this gives you a hell a lot of points as the IJ player. That´s the goal if you want to go for autovictory which I usually am trying to do, doesn't mean though that I would take huge risks doing so, usually quite the opposite to be honest. Going for autovictory not to end the game, just to have a very nice feeling and something to tell your enemy when he tries to bomb you to hell in 45. [:D] You don't have to go for India, you don't have to go for Australia but if you take a lot of Allied held islands you kill a lot of Allied ground units and that's usually what you can if the Allied lost carriers.

What scenario is the context of this discussion?

In my game scenario #1 IJ stopped cold at Burma/India border, DEI/Northern Oz, Gilberts going east about 12K vs 6k for 2:1 July '42. What sort of point ratios are you proposing for the 4:1? 20K vs. 5K? All 6 USN CV's and 3 Brit CV's is about 2.5K in points .. where does the extra 5K in points come from?

Vanilla and Nikmod in WITP and scen 2 in AE. You may want to take bases that give the Allied a lot of points because if the Allied loses a base worth 500 or 1000 points you don't have to score 2000 or 4000 more to increase the point ratio to the same level. [;)] So by taking vital bases and at the same time killing major Allied LCU formations (China anyone?) you can rack up 10000 points difference faster than you might expect it. And the key of course is not to be stalled somewhere with your assault Armies being exhausted. You better give up on a target (or don't go for it) if you aren't sure you will take it at an acceptable time frame and at acceptable losses to your LCUs. Doesn't make sense to completely wreck (disable) 5 or 6 IJA divs when you then have to wait 4-5 months to use them again. At least that's how I usually go forward, better use a hammer for each major target one by one than trying to go for more major targets with smaller force at the same time. For me, that goes for both sides. And as the Japanese, if there isn't the one important major defeat then you will be amazed how long you can actually advance, especially if the Allied keeps throwing in his forces one by one trying to defend where he can't against the steamroller.

ORIGINAL: castor troy

... At least that's how I usually go forward, better use a hammer for each major target one by one than trying to go for more major targets with smaller force at the same time. ...

+1

So, it seems to me that the take home message here is that after all of the kerfuffle and various people claiming others were looking for changes only to benefit themselves what we've actually got is a bug in the code which has been fixed. Interesting.