Matrix Games Forums

No doubt about that, but it will also work against the baby KB. It does take a lot of intelegence gathering and possibley some deception and a good dose of luck but it can be done.

As long as the Allies can avoid an auto victory, they will have a chance to win. Fight on Comsolut and if you feel that you want to quit later, say something, I will take the game over if necessary.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

This question is one reason why I don't do PBEM. If you can't commit to your opponent to play the game to the end (IE March 46 or auto victory on points, whichever comes first), then don't start the game.

Just because your opponent is kicking your arse, or your plans don't go the way you want, don't quit. You gave your word that you'd play him the game. Who quits a game of chess just because you take one pawn and he takes your rook and knight? The game isn't over. Yeah, you're hurting more than him, but you committed to giving each other a full game.

I personally can't commit to a 4 year game. I wouldn't mind a short scenario, but the only two short ones are easy winners for Japan (Coral Sea) or allied (marianas). Neither have forces equal enough to be up in the air from the beginning. I think a September to October 42 scenario would be pretty good. (maybe)

Anyway, play your opponent until the end, or until both of you are bored to tears.

In Chess when you believe your can’t win or achieve a stalemate… you resign. I never complained when someone called it quits nor did anyone every complained when I admitted defeat; and the same has held true for the many board games I have played (SPI, AH, etc.).

In War in Europe if the Soviet defense has collapsed in 1942/43, then victory for the Allied player is near impossible… so a resignation on his part is neither surprising nor unwelcome. What is gained in forcing a player or group of players to struggle on when they don’t feel victory is possible?

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

This question is one reason why I don't do PBEM. If you can't commit to your opponent to play the game to the end (IE March 46 or auto victory on points, whichever comes first), then don't start the game.

Just because your opponent is kicking your arse, or your plans don't go the way you want, don't quit. You gave your word that you'd play him the game. Who quits a game of chess just because you take one pawn and he takes your rook and knight? The game isn't over. Yeah, you're hurting more than him, but you committed to giving each other a full game.

I personally can't commit to a 4 year game. I wouldn't mind a short scenario, but the only two short ones are easy winners for Japan (Coral Sea) or allied (marianas). Neither have forces equal enough to be up in the air from the beginning. I think a September to October 42 scenario would be pretty good. (maybe)

Anyway, play your opponent until the end, or until both of you are bored to tears.

In Chess when you believe your can’t win or achieve a stalemate… you resign. I never complained when someone called it quits nor did anyone every complained when I admitted defeat; and the same has held true for the many board games I have played (SPI, AH, etc.).

In War in Europe if the Soviet defense has collapsed in 1942/43, then victory for the Allied player is near impossible… so a resignation on his part is neither surprising nor unwelcome. What is gained in forcing a player or group of players to struggle on when they don’t feel victory is possible?

Why did you buy WITP then? Japan can't win. Wargames are different from chess. I would be pissed if I invested months, maybe a year getting bitch slapped by the Japanese player and then have the Japanese player resign when the tables inevitably turn. As Japan, I will commit to playing until the very end.

ORIGINAL: comsolut

Allied Player. June 42. Score Approx 22000 Japan 5500 Allies. 2 1/2 carriers sunk. Western Australia soon to be lost (Derby, Darwin etc). Noumea soon to go. Suva, Canton, Fiji, Baker Is. etc All Japan controlled. Troop losses considerable. So my question based on the experience of other Allied Players - can you come back from this or is it time to learn from mistakes and start over? Any thoughts appreciated.

I haven’t played the Allied side yet, but…

All of this is just my opinion.

Winning the game or losing it isn’t that important. I first noticed a year ago from the AAR that play testers seemed to get enormous satisfaction from the simplest of things: a group of Nells sinking a couple of AK. The lost of these Allied AKs had absolutely no effect on who won or lost the game, yet the Japanese player was satisfied. If you don’t enjoy this game on the operational level then it can get tedious. Just my opinion.

From the Japanese view.

It is June 1942, that is fairly early. You should receive massive reinforcements in ships and aircraft so that by the end of 1943 the Japanese Carrier fleet will be either sunk or reduce to impotence; and this should be followed by the reduction of Japanese land based air power in 1944: the Americans get too much equipment of very good quality for the Japanese to resist. The tide will turn… at least operationally.

Long term: the strength of the Allies lies in their Submarine Fleet, Carrier Groups, Superior Aircraft design, and Long Range Bombers.

My worries are

1. The destruction or disrupt the Japanese Merchant Fleet.

The oil from the DEI is vital to the Japanese economy (more than 50% imported). A well executed submarine campaign in this area would/will be devastating.

2. The destruction of the Japanese Carrier Fleet.

Once this happens supplying or reinforcing those garrisons spread all over the map become very difficult and costly. Perhaps worse, the Allied player can just side step any he doesn’t really need… turning them in to large prison camps: Fiji garrisoned with a full division and level ‘9’ fort is a strong defense if the Allies try to retake it, but if they bypass it… the Japanese have lost a full division that could be defending some place vital and with no Carrier Fleet to protect the redeployment of this unit… it is basically lost.

3. The loss of Japanese experienced pilots.

Long term the Japan pilot experience will decline and this process will accelerate dramatically as the Allies get better aircraft. I have nursed some groups (with some considerable effort) so that by 1944 I can have a few fighter units that aren’t outright slaughtered if Allied fighter tangle with them, but they are the acceptation.

4. The bombing of Japan.

Other than trying to stop the Allies from capturing the critical bases they need to start this part of the air war, there is little that can be done: Japanese AA and fighters seem to have little effect in disputing the B-29s. Once the inter shell of the Japanese defense is cracked, the Allies can bomb with virtual impunity.



The goal for the Japanese player in defending the outer shell is not to stop the Allied player, but to delay and ‘bleed’ him. Three Divisions at Rabaul is impressive, but the smart Allied player will simply bypass it.

If you can avoid the Japanese player getting an automatic victory, you have a Japanese military spread out over a large section of the map in areas that are not critical to the defense of the Empire; and once you establish Carrier dominance much of it will be isolated and in many cases unsupplied. If he diverts you from your main goals of achieving Sea/Air dominance, sinking the Japanese merchant fleet, and acquiring bases to bomb Japan, then a major commitment of troops to the South Pacific is a good strategy, but if it doesn’t divert you… then he has weakened the Japanese defense.

It is your call, but you will be getting a lot of good equipment in a year or so… and then things will get real interesting.


PS. I don’t like the automatic victories in WiTP as it can lead to completely ahistorical strategies.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why did you buy WITP then? Japan can't win.

Japan could not win the war.

WiTP gives victory points based on a number of factors, but it is just the designers and playtesters way of balancing the game for the ‘players’. Unfortunately, this often distorts the games by rewarding ahistorical strategies: players invade Australia and the South Pacific because it can lead to automatic victory, yet historically it would have done no such thing.

Does the US and Great Britain call it quits in 1943 because Australia has fallen along with some Islands in the South Pacific? Hell no. They probably make a large commitment of men and equipment to the Pacific than was done historically, yet in the game that isn’t what we see. In this case ‘comsolut’ is looking at the game points (‘Score Approx 22000 Japan 5500 Allies’) and wonder whether it is hopeless. Not the overall strategic situation…but game points.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Wargames are different from chess. I would be pissed if I invested months, maybe a year getting bitch slapped by the Japanese player and then have the Japanese player resign when the tables inevitably turn. As Japan, I will commit to playing until the very end.

When game points become the dominating feature in ones strategy, then it become very much like Chess.

PS. I could understand why the Allied player would be upset if in June 1942 after having a nice run the Japanese player tossed in the towel, but that isn’t the case here. Although ‘comsolut’ hasn’t decide, isn’t this a case where the Allied player is saying that he made some mistakes in strategy and/or tactics and admits he will lose regardless of his own action. I often find in war games that a player, especially a new one, will make critical mistakes that he can not recover from; and this usually lead to an acknowledgment of defeat and a new game. The other option is to ‘force’ them to continue playing a game they are not enjoying.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why did you buy WITP then? Japan can't win

I enjoy the fight.

I know Japan will lose the war, but I have the ability to alter the course of history somewhat.

I enjoy the short term planning.

Not just assigning 4th Division to invade this location, but also allocating the ships, aircraft, and supplies to support the operation.

I enjoy the long term planning.

I pre-plan before the game starts that Tarawa will be part of the outer shell and that they following units will be assigned to defend it: a Naval Guard unit, Base Unit, a Construction Bn, and a float plane unit for patrol. Construction of fortifications will begin in early 1942 once two AKs (7,000) with supply arrive from Japan. [Each island in the Marshals and Gilbert have similar long term plans for there defense] Not that this matters in how the game will be decided as the Allied player can crush any of these bases at will 1943/44.

I enjoy the operations as they unfold… small scale.

I like to see my submarine torpedo Allied merchant vessels. I like to see my Nells strike Allied shipping, from strategically capture base in the DEI, that try to either reinforce or evacuate the region. I like to ‘nurse’ my high quality pilots so that I always have a few very good fighter units that can be committed to critical areas where they can temporarily alter the course of the operation flow.

I enjoy operations that unfold on a large scale.

When I finally move into the South West Pacific (Rabaul, New Guinea, the Solomons) it is actually one large operation broken down into numerous smaller operations. The staging of the naval, air, and land combat units along with the supplies and support they need is laid out well a head of time. I enjoy seeing a plan work and take note when an operation fails and try to learn from my mistakes.

Do any of these things matter when it comes to the outcome of the game? Not really, because the Allies have a near endless supply of ships and aircraft. The outcome is inevitable, but the way that it is arrived at could be significantly different.


I didn’t buy WitP for the outcome, but for the journey. Does that make sense?

I think that there is a point of no return where games can be so lost that they are beyond "salvation" .. that being said I think of time playing Witp as a journey, like re-reading good book... and will stop playing only be mutual consent and probably restart at a new place... for instance Zeta 16 and I have a suspending dec 7 start full campiegn at feb42, while we try to finish our other Dec 7th full campiegn which is in 06 44.. just finished last of may... If in the next few game months things turn so terrible for Zeta that he is going through the motions and wanted to change.. not that big a deal... but he is still kicking the heck out of me in points so I think he wants to play till the very end!

It is hard to toss in the towel when simulated characters continue to put up a fight against almost hopeless odds as follows:

6/27/42 2LT Harper C. flying a P40E was the only pilot able to scramble to intercept a large Japanese raid over Ledo. The raid consisting of over 40 Jap fighters and 60 Jap bombers was disrupted by this lone crusader for Allied air supremacy. In a heated dogfight he managed to damage one Zero while shooting down another. His plane was untouched. Bombers dropped their loads prematurely in an effort to escape the madman over the skies of Ledo and have yet to repeat the raid. For his gallantry he was awarded the DFC.

So, who am I to throw in the towel when faced with such incredible results!!!

In WiTP, I think that one needs a somewhat different notion of a victory.

In general, there seem to be two different types of games here, depending on two different sets of victory conditions. I would say that you should find an opponent who shares your perspective on victory.

Game 1: The Japanese goal is to obtain autovictory. The Allied objective is to prevent autovictory. The game is over when either the Japanese player obtains autovictory or reaches a point at which obtaining autovictory is not possible. In the latter case, declare the game won by the allies and start over.

Game 2: The goal is for Japan to survive as long as possible. The Allied objective is to wipe out Japan as quickly as possible. The best Japanese player is the one who lasts the longest. The best Allied player is the one who forces Japan to surrender the fastest. A game-2 type game does not end until Japan surrenders.

Of course, there are other ways of playing.

I have a whole different set of victory conditions in my PBEM with SeaWolF K. I win if I get a really good AAR out of it that people will be reading until the end of time. I lose if the AAR gets boring and nobody wants to look at it.

Each person has their own sense of what would be rewarding. I would simply suggest making sure that your interests harmonize with the interests of your opponent.

(In the case of my PBEM, I do not think that SeaWolF K has the same interests that I do. He is interested in playing a game with an opponent where he does not have to worry about gamey tactics. I tend to avoid any tactics that I cannot comfortably fit into a realistic-sounding AAR. So, our interests are compatible, even though they are not the same.)

Judge accordingly.

Ultimately, on the question of when to bail, ask your opponent. He or she is the only true authority on this matter -- not the rest of us.

You have to ask yourself this question:

When in your next game you do much better, do you want your Japanese opponent to quit because they are not doing too well?

Play on.