Matrix Games Forums

I'm asking this question because several players have stated they have never lost to the Japs. (playing the GC) and unless you are a total idiot you should never ever lose to the IJN. Is this true that it's impossible to win as the IJN player if the Allie player knows what he is doing. And if it's true then what is the point of ever playing the side of the IJN. For that matter has anyone ever lost to the IJN AI in the GC.

edit:
my fault, I understood something different [;)]

You can "win" if you believe in VP based auto-victory, or if your opponent gets discouraged and gives up, which happens on occasion. Other than that, victory for Japan often means doing better than the historical result. As to the other question, I would turn it around - What's the point of playing as the Allies when you know the sheer weight of numbers will eventually grant you victory? This is a tongue in cheek question, but I think the point is that most JFBs enjoy the challenge of the "unwinnable war." Finally, early on you have a big advantage in strength and have so many cool toys.

Cribtop's analysis is pretty much why I'm a JFB.

It's fun to be the underdog!

That being said, I will still hold no mercy on him once I start getting Essex-class flattops.

I have lost several automatic 1942 victory games as the Allies with IJ invasions of India and/or Oz, spread out so thin I'm drooling in anticipation for 1943, and then when the auto victory kicks in they say "good game" and I never hear from them again. I've learned to demand a long term commitment at the beginning, but it doesn't always work.

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

Cribtop's analysis is pretty much why I'm a JFB.

It's fun to be the underdog!

That being said, I will still hold no mercy on him once I start getting Essex-class flattops.

Pretty much why I became a JFB, although I must be the least smartest one of the bunch, nothing gives me more pride in enjoying the fact I gave an allied player one hell of a game. So far I have two identical Japanese games going, I am sticking to my plans and see how they turn out. I figure best way to learn is by failure, and I am hoping to last longer then I should (so far 8/42 and I am proud!).

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

Cribtop's analysis is pretty much why I'm a JFB.

It's fun to be the underdog!

That being said, I will still hold no mercy on him once I start getting Essex-class flattops.

Pretty much why I became a JFB, although I must be the least smartest one of the bunch, nothing gives me more pride in enjoying the fact I gave an allied player one hell of a game. So far I have two identical Japanese games going, I am sticking to my plans and see how they turn out. I figure best way to learn is by failure, and I am hoping to last longer then I should (so far 8/42 and I am proud!).

One of the reasons I decided to play Cribtop as the Allies, other than my respect for him as an opponent, is to get myself used to the capabilities of the Allies for my first PBEM as Japan.

Thus far in December of '41, I see no reason why Japan cannot paint the world red. [:D]

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

Cribtop's analysis is pretty much why I'm a JFB.

It's fun to be the underdog!

That being said, I will still hold no mercy on him once I start getting Essex-class flattops.

Pretty much why I became a JFB, although I must be the least smartest one of the bunch, nothing gives me more pride in enjoying the fact I gave an allied player one hell of a game. So far I have two identical Japanese games going, I am sticking to my plans and see how they turn out. I figure best way to learn is by failure, and I am hoping to last longer then I should (so far 8/42 and I am proud!).

One of the reasons I decided to play Cribtop as the Allies, other than my respect for him as an opponent, is to get myself used to the capabilities of the Allies for my first PBEM as Japan.

Thus far in December of '41, I see no reason why Japan cannot paint the world red. [:D]

You soon find out later, when you have to defend on two fronts. Especially when you get some ships wounded in action, and have to be sent home for repairs. For example I am down both Musashi and Yammato, they are heading home to repair, along with 3-4 cruisers from run in's from "hit and run" groups.

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

ORIGINAL: Misconduct




Pretty much why I became a JFB, although I must be the least smartest one of the bunch, nothing gives me more pride in enjoying the fact I gave an allied player one hell of a game. So far I have two identical Japanese games going, I am sticking to my plans and see how they turn out. I figure best way to learn is by failure, and I am hoping to last longer then I should (so far 8/42 and I am proud!).

One of the reasons I decided to play Cribtop as the Allies, other than my respect for him as an opponent, is to get myself used to the capabilities of the Allies for my first PBEM as Japan.

Thus far in December of '41, I see no reason why Japan cannot paint the world red. [:D]

You soon find out later, when you have to defend on two fronts. Especially when you get some ships wounded in action, and have to be sent home for repairs. For example I am down both Musashi and Yammato, they are heading home to repair, along with 3-4 cruisers from run in's from "hit and run" groups.

Oh I'm sure. I was speaking mostly in jest, but I think with good solid planning right from the onset of the war, the Japanese can give the Allies quite a hard time, even in Scenario 1.

Thanks for the kind words, LG. If I'm not winning on Dec 10, '41, I must be really in trouble! Not looking forward to those Essexes either!

I did lose a game to Warspite by autovictory on Jan 1 45 (WITP)
Maybe it is because I don't know what I'm doing as my current game with him looks like it may end up the same way.
Our second game ended up in a draw when his computer crashed before my massive vistory.

(That's my story and I'm sticking to it)[8|]

Its my View the Japanese should have a 50% chance to get a auto win in 43 based on points but its more like 5%-10% now...and i will say its a hard were so set the line in the sand.

ORIGINAL: tigercub

Its my View the Japanese should have a 50% chance to get a auto win in 43 based on points but its more like 5%-10% now...

+1

ORIGINAL: tigercub

Its my View the Japanese should have a 50% chance to get a auto win in 43 based on points but its more like 5%-10% now...and i will say its a hard were so set the line in the sand.

Even if it's only a 1 in 20 chance (5%), it's a 100% greater chance than the had in real life of getting a negotiated peace. [8|]

In my mind, a Japanese player who makes it into 1945 and can still "bite his opponent in the butt" on occasion is a real winner..., and will get my respect no matter what the "VP's" say.

Negotiated peace idea is a pipe dream anyone whos put that forward as an Argument is a fool...and in my mind after not winning in 43...the best u can ask for is hurting the allied player all they way back home to Japan but unforgivably Japanese player is forced to that option.

ORIGINAL: tigercub

Negotiated peace idea is a pipe dream anyone whos put that forward as an Argument is a fool...and in my mind after not winning in 43...the best u can ask for is hurting the allied player all they way back home to Japan. But unforgivably the Japanese player is forced to that option.

UNFORGIVABLY??? Isn't that the actual, historical, course of the war the game simulates and portrays? It would only be "unforgivable" if that were NOT the common outcome of play. [:(]

ITs a game Mike 2 sides should have balanced chance to Win as best as can put into wargame such as what we have...the UNFORGIVABLY part is the have to put with players that only think that only one side should win...[8|]

The developers had two different ways to approach "victory" in the game:

1) Model actual capabilities in the war and adjust victory point allocation so that a Japanese player who performed "better" than Japan did in the real war would win on points;

or:

2) Give Japan a chance to win by granting Japan non-historical forces and capabilities.

AE took a big step in the direction of #2. Though it's still nearly impossible for Japan to win on points, it can remain competitive much deeper into the game.

ORIGINAL: tigercub

ITs a game Mike

It is NOT a game! It is a SIMULATION game. You want a game, try "Chutes & Ladders", "Candyland", or "Checkers". They are designed for all players to have an equal chance of "winning" (as you define it).

To "win" a simulation game, you have to perform better than your historical counterparts in the situation given. Japan can't "win" World War Two, but you can win the game by doing better than Yamamoto & company at making your opponent's life a misery to him.

Before we all get too passionate here, I think we need to keep in mind that Japan's original war goal was, in fact, a negotiated peace. Their calculus was that if they smacked around the Allies enough early on, dug in and made it (too) painful to recapture territory, and were able to sustain their industrial base -- the Allies would eventually cave and seek a negotiated settlement. They never embraced the notion of "conquering" the Allied powers.

This turned out to be a terribly misguided strategy; however, it is not beyond the pale to think it might indeed have played out that way. In late '41 and early '42 the conventional wisdom had Germany defeating Russia -- the Allied powers were indeed more concerned with the threat of Germany, hence the "Germany First" strategic decision. Although it is not easy to envision, but consider the tone and tempo of Allied operations had the German 6th Army captured Stalingrad and pushed eastward while the battle of Midway was a reverse of the historical outcome. I am not sure at what point the Allies would have signed a treaty with Japan, but I am confident that given some Axis mega-victories in '42 (and not discounting the shock that was Pearl Harbor) that it was at least plausible. Not likely mind you, but it could have happened. I can assure you that if Russia had gone under and the bulk of the German army had been relocated to North Africa, Italy and France that the history we now take for granted would not have come to pass. Absent an Axis victory in Russia, German defeat was possible in the Allied eyes -- and there would be no respite for Japan unless Germany was a continuing threat to the Allies.

So, WITP-AE can't and doesn't model the ETO, but it can measure if Japan lived up to its end of the bargin in the above scenario. The mechanism offered is based on Victory Points. And the real question is does the Victory Point system accurately model what Japan would have to do to force a negotiated settlement.

As near as I can tell, if Japan follows a historical or nearly historical path with similar results then a negotiated settlement based on Victory Points is not going to happen. It simply isn't in the cards. This is how it should be.

How much better of a performance (than historical) does Japan have to do to trigger an auto-victory? I can't say for sure, but my hunch is that the bar has been set a bit too high. I am operating at a bit of a disadvantage because in my "sample" of WITP-AE game playing I have never seen an auto victory. However, given some of the romping our JFB collegues have turned in, I would expect to hear about more Japanese auto-victories.

The problem you have here is that the margin of ass-kicking Japan has to do to warrant an auto-victory is absolutely, entirely subjective. Any reasoned argument justifying the margin needed is essentially of equal value to another similarly valid argument. No one knows for sure -- and you can't model an unknown in a computer simulation. The designers made a call, and I am in no position to really argue that their call isn't the best solution.

However, I do think it would be productive to discuss that margin (quantitatively and in some detail) if you want to see a lower threshold for a Japanese auto-victory. I don't think this should result in 50/50 Japan/Allied win-loss ratio. But there are sure to be some reasonable, quantitative, objectives that would trigger such an outcome.

Regards,
Feltan