Early-game Allied Gamey Tactics

[Icedawg]

The issue of "gameyness" is pretty big to me as I don't like the idea of doing things, even though allowed by the game engine, that would not have been feasible or reasonable in real life. Most issues of gamey tactics center around the Japanese player using the * TFs and paratroopers to exploit weaknesses in the Allied defenses. These weaknesses would not have necessarily been known by the Japanese at the start of the war, but in the game, we are gifted with absolute knowledge of the oppossing side's initial deployment. As a result, many players institue house rules to limit such exploitation.

However, to my knowledge, there has been little discussion of the potential gamey tactics the Allied player may use as a result of his knowledge of the Japanese initial deployment. For example, the Allied player knows that the Japanese start with a TF loaded up with troops prepped for Miri. As a result, he can anticipate the probable invasion of Miri taking place on or about Dec 10 and send Force Z (or the more-feared Boise) to intercept. This is just one of many potential cases. My point is, the Allied player can almost perfectly predict where the Japanese will land in the first few days based on his knowledge of the Japanese LCUs prepped for specific objectives. To counter this, all the Japanese player can do is change objectives (and waste those valuable prep points), delay invasions and/or land unprepped troops on alternate objectives.

Any thoughts? House rule suggestions?

[Andy Mac]

As the Jap amphib bonus means they dont suffer losses in the same way from landing under prepped then I dont think its huge issue

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

As the Jap amphib bonus means they dont suffer losses in the same way from landing under prepped then I dont think its huge issue

Good point - it probably won't really have an effect on disruption caused by amphibious landing. However, on the next turn when it attacks the defending Allied units, it won't get the same AV bonus due to the prep points. As a result, the Japanese player has to bring more troops to get the job done, troops that could have been bound for some other destination. Consequently, the Japanese advance will be significantly slowed.

[Nemo121]

Hmm, that needing more troops would slow the offensive is an assumption which may be true but which also isn't necessarily true.

Focus on points of strategic importance can allow the bypassing of non-essential points, keeping the operational tempo high and increasing the pace of advance. Don't forget the Japanese were actually pretty slow in quite a few areas in real life.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hmm, that needing more troops would slow the offensive is an assumption which may be true but which also isn't necessarily true.

Focus on points of strategic importance can allow the bypassing of non-essential points, keeping the operational tempo high and increasing the pace of advance. Don't forget the Japanese were actually pretty slow in quite a few areas in real life.

True, but the more troops commited to one "point of strategic importance" means fewer troops devoted to the next "point of strategic importance". So, to an extent, the advance will be slowed.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

The issue of "gameyness" is pretty big to me as I don't like the idea of doing things, even though allowed by the game engine, that would not have been feasible or reasonable in real life. Most issues of gamey tactics center around the Japanese player using the * TFs and paratroopers to exploit weaknesses in the Allied defenses. These weaknesses would not have necessarily been known by the Japanese at the start of the war, but in the game, we are gifted with absolute knowledge of the oppossing side's initial deployment. As a result, many players institue house rules to limit such exploitation.

However, to my knowledge, there has been little discussion of the potential gamey tactics the Allied player may use as a result of his knowledge of the Japanese initial deployment. For example, the Allied player knows that the Japanese start with a TF loaded up with troops prepped for Miri. As a result, he can anticipate the probable invasion of Miri taking place on or about Dec 10 and send Force Z (or the more-feared Boise) to intercept. This is just one of many potential cases. My point is, the Allied player can almost perfectly predict where the Japanese will land in the first few days based on his knowledge of the Japanese LCUs prepped for specific objectives. To counter this, all the Japanese player can do is change objectives (and waste those valuable prep points), delay invasions and/or land unprepped troops on alternate objectives.

Any thoughts? House rule suggestions?

Best way to get around issues like this is to pick your opponents carefully to ensure that the "kind" of game you want to play is in sync. Some players prefer no holds barred type games where there are few to no house rules whilst others want a game that makes them feel more like they are playing closer to history. It's a thorny topic and good communication and flexability after game start (if an issue comes up) is essential.

Ultimatley the game is indeed a game and there's no way to prevent some tactics that while perfectly valid can be seen as benefiting from hindsight if not gamey. Since Japan starts the game on the offensive, and because well.....its JAPAN.....much of the attention on gameyness and hindsight gets focused on the Player one side but if anything, Player 2 has the better benefit as they can afford to make mistakes.....player one can't. Its the price we pay for virtual complete and instant control...the staple and hallmark of Grigsby style Operational games. The contrast to real life military ops has been made particularily stark to me in recent days as i'm reading the latest Battle of Britian book, which actually is more a book about the Allies war against Germany up too and including the Battle of Britian. Its supposed to be an air book but goes into great detail on the Blitzkreig into France and really helps explain why an army as massive and potentially powerful as France's seemed to do virtually NOTHING even during the most critical and vulnerable moments of Gremany's armored offensive. Were this battle to play out using WitP AE or stock..........such paralysis that was caused by poor communiations, top heavy chains of command and lack of intel would be non-existant and the Germans would never reach the channel....at least not without alot more delays and bloody losses.

Multi day turns help reduce this Hand of God type command ability. I recommend 2 days as the optimal balance. If you REALLY want a challenge do 3 day turns. Most frown severely at 3 days, but I played a 3day campaign back in Stock days......it was difficult but it WAS dooable and i never had a WitP game go faster (in real time terms) Within several weeks myself and my opponent were in the third quarter of 1942. As most players know.....most Grand Campaign games, due to size and scope, rarely get past 1942 before someone resigns. 1943 is more rare.......44 still more. VERY FEW have actually completed a full PBEM grand campaign from start to finish (1941-45) You can probably count them on one hand (1 finger per pair of players)

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Multi day turns help reduce this Hand of God type command ability. I recommend 2 days as the optimal balance. If you REALLY want a challenge do 3 day turns. Most frown severely at 3 days, but I played a 3day campaign back in Stock days......it was difficult but it WAS dooable and i never had a WitP game go faster (in real time terms) Within several weeks myself and my opponent were in the third quarter of 1942. As most players know.....most Grand Campaign games, due to size and scope, rarely get past 1942 before someone resigns. 1943 is more rare.......44 still more. VERY FEW have actually completed a full PBEM grand campaign from start to finish (1941-45) You can probably count them on one hand (1 finger per pair of players)

This point isn't made often enough. So much forum bandwidth going over and over and OVER the percieved sins of 1942 on the gaminess spectrum, when so few players ever see much beyond that. A shame.

As an Allied player who has gotten to late 1944 twice, and August 1945 once, I say let the Japanese do player do ANYTHING he wants in 1942. Every decision he makes has a counter and unless there's an auto-vic nothing, absolutley nothing, the Japanese side can do in 1942 will matter by mid-1945. The Allied whiners just need to play long enough to get there and see what a Thor's Hammer they will wield.

[pws1225]

"Best way to get around issues like this is to pick your opponents carefully to ensure that the "kind" of game you want to play is in sync." - Nikademus

Yep, I think it's just that simple. In my PBEM game with Dr.Hal, we talked a bit about what we wanted the game to be. For us, a game closer to 'historical' capabilities would be better than a game that allowed ahistorical capabilities to either side. That allowed us to establish a minimal set of house rules that reflected that goal. Had one of us wanted to play a game of 'anything goes', we would have simply found another opponent that matched our playing styles. Finding a likeminded opponent is, IMHO, better than any set of house rules.

[Canoerebel]

Up until recently I thought two house rules were necessary in the game:  (1) no movement of units across national borders without paying PP, and (2) no strategic bombing in China until 1944.
 
I am now pretty sure that the first of these isn't necessary, and an argument can be made that the second isn't necessary either, though I'm not positive on that one yet.
 
All the other house rules can be dismissed, as there are direct counters and indirect counters that can negate the "abuse" or the abuse really isn't that big a deal.
 
I would certainly consider playing a no house rules game against any decent opponent, with only strat bombing in China giving me any real concern.

[pws1225]

"Up until recently I thought two house rules were necessary in the game: (1) no movement of units across national borders without paying PP, and (2) no strategic bombing in China until 1944.

I am now pretty sure that the first of these isn't necessary, and an argument can be made that the second isn't necessary either, though I'm not positive on that one yet." - Canoerebel

CR - I'm curious, why no PP payments for crossing national boundries? As a JFB, I could unload Manchuria of its 'extra divisions' and strip the rest of China as well to a bare minimum. With that extra force, I would think that a Japanese auto-victory in 1942 would be fairly easy to pull off even in Scenario 1. Is there an effective counter-measure to this that my 'newbie-brain' has not grasped?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Multi day turns help reduce this Hand of God type command ability. I recommend 2 days as the optimal balance. If you REALLY want a challenge do 3 day turns. Most frown severely at 3 days, but I played a 3day campaign back in Stock days......it was difficult but it WAS dooable and i never had a WitP game go faster (in real time terms) Within several weeks myself and my opponent were in the third quarter of 1942. As most players know.....most Grand Campaign games, due to size and scope, rarely get past 1942 before someone resigns. 1943 is more rare.......44 still more. VERY FEW have actually completed a full PBEM grand campaign from start to finish (1941-45) You can probably count them on one hand (1 finger per pair of players)

This point isn't made often enough. So much forum bandwidth going over and over and OVER the percieved sins of 1942 on the gaminess spectrum, when so few players ever see much beyond that. A shame.

As an Allied player who has gotten to late 1944 twice, and August 1945 once, I say let the Japanese do player do ANYTHING he wants in 1942. Every decision he makes has a counter and unless there's an auto-vic nothing, absolutley nothing, the Japanese side can do in 1942 will matter by mid-1945. The Allied whiners just need to play long enough to get there and see what a Thor's Hammer they will wield.

However, if you give the Japanese player too much a free hand they can 'win' the game and thus there will be no Thor's hammer.

[dr.hal]

I have to agree with Paul (pws1225) my opponent, having a forearmed intelligence concept AND EXPLOITING THAT EXCESSIVELY takes the "fun" out of the system for us. As the allied player I know force Z is walking into a death trap if history is repeated and that Wake is going to fall, but for the first turn at least, one has to hold on to that course. Why you might ask? Well if you play the historical game (not Ironman et.al.) then you are trying to compliment history, although not repeat it. I elected to get my fighters out of Wake, but not on the first few turns, only after the "situation" developed and it was reasonable to assume that SOME commanders were aware that Wake, like Guam, was a lost cause (so why throw away a good squadron?). The pre-knowledge is an advantage on both sides, but for us that doesn't cancel out things and allow for "anything goes" as, simply put, that take the "fun" out of it. As Nikademus rightly points out, the house rules are usually pre-established by the opponent you choose to do battle with, not really by any subsequent discussions. That's not to throw stones at those that choose to play with no holes barred, its just not for me, or for Paul if I understand him correctly.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: pws1225
CR - I'm curious, why no PP payments for crossing national boundries? As a JFB, I could unload Manchuria of its 'extra divisions' and strip the rest of China as well to a bare minimum. With that extra force, I would think that a Japanese auto-victory in 1942 would be fairly easy to pull off even in Scenario 1. Is there an effective counter-measure to this that my 'newbie-brain' has not grasped?

For each punch there is a counter-punch and then a counter-counter-punch and so on.

If we dispense with the "No Restricted Units Across Borders" house rule, Japan will shift the Manchuria garrison to China. The Allies can counter effectively by shifting the India garrison into Burma and possibly thence into southern China, giving Japan fits. Japan can counter that move in certain ways, but the Allies may be able to thwart Japan's counter effectively. It's a complicated equation not subject to easy analysis, and a better player can beat the lesser player whichever side he fights from in these situations, but the Allies are by no means defenseless when facing such a strategim.

See Nemo's "Salutations and Solicitations" AAR for an example of an Allied player doing this.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: pws1225
CR - I'm curious, why no PP payments for crossing national boundries? As a JFB, I could unload Manchuria of its 'extra divisions' and strip the rest of China as well to a bare minimum. With that extra force, I would think that a Japanese auto-victory in 1942 would be fairly easy to pull off even in Scenario 1. Is there an effective counter-measure to this that my 'newbie-brain' has not grasped?

For each punch there is a counter-punch and then a counter-counter-punch and so on.

If we dispense with the "No Restricted Units Across Borders" house rule, Japan will shift the Manchuria garrison to China. The Allies can counter effectively by shifting the India garrison into Burma and possibly thence into southern China, giving Japan fits. Japan can counter that move in certain ways, but the Allies may be able to thwart Japan's counter effectively. It's a complicated equation not subject to easy analysis, and a better player can beat the lesser player whichever side he fights from in these situations, but the Allies are by no means defenseless when facing such a strategim.

See Nemo's "Salutations and Solicitations" AAR for an example of an Allied player doing this.

Not a good example. Too many factors are no longer relevant.

1. Great disparity in player strength
2. Change to supply movement through Burma
3. Manchukuo was not gutted
4. Japanese player based all his China dispositions all power of artillery which was neutered before he could take advantage, leaving him greatly behind the curve in term or reprioritising
5. Japan never pursued an integrated strategy, its actions in China were not coordinated with overall offensive
6. Japan approached entire game as a test bed for disparate game features
7. Too much free intel given by Japan (see point 6)

Alfred

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Best way to get around issues like this is to pick your opponents carefully to ensure that the "kind" of game you want to play is in sync. Some players prefer no holds barred type games where there are few to no house rules whilst others want a game that makes them feel more like they are playing closer to history. It's a thorny topic and good communication and flexability after game start (if an issue comes up) is essential.

Agree with Nick 100% on this..., it's the "key" to enjoying a 1500+ turn experiance. Different players want different things from the experiance, and your best bet to find someone who wants the same things you do is to communicate with them extensively BEFORE you start. No way of playing is wrong against the right opponant..., but you need to be sure that you are both on the same page as to "what goes" and "what blows".

[Alfred]

It is all well and good to advise picking a compatible opponent but some of the regulars are quite competitive. I can well envisage a player wanting very much to test their skills against a strong player even though they are not really compatible in terms of both sharing the same outlook about what is OK in the game.

Alfred

[nashvillen]

You also need to be prepared to adjust when something goes screwy. My worthy opponent in one of my Grand Campaign games found he had a large number of convoys coming from Aden to Karachi and I had some Subs in the area that would, automatically, attack each convoy as they entered the map. He hadn't adjusted with waypoints the entrance location of each convoy. I just stumbled onto this, and was very surprised that I was sinking a large xAK or TK every day, some days more than one! Talk about happy hunting grounds.
 
After being made aware of this, I adjusted my patrol areas to give him a little breathing room from the arbitrary entry point for his convoys, but not too far that I didn't have a chance to detect and attack a convoy. This was a gentleman's agreement and I am suffering from it on the India/Burma border, but the game is much more fun this way.
 
I am one of those players that is in it for the long haul, after all I play Federation & Empire, so I plan on getting to the end of my game with rjopel as the Japanese regardless of my condition at the time. It will be interesting to see us get there. We are just now finishing up 1942 and about to start 1943. I shudder at the coming increase of his torpedo effectiveness.
 

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: nashvillen

You also need to be prepared to adjust when something goes screwy. My worthy opponent in one of my Grand Campaign games found he had a large number of convoys coming from Aden to Karachi and I had some Subs in the area that would, automatically, attack each convoy as they entered the map. He hadn't adjusted with waypoints the entrance location of each convoy. I just stumbled onto this, and was very surprised that I was sinking a large xAK or TK every day, some days more than one! Talk about happy hunting grounds.

After being made aware of this, I adjusted my patrol areas to give him a little breathing room from the arbitrary entry point for his convoys, but not too far that I didn't have a chance to detect and attack a convoy. This was a gentleman's agreement and I am suffering from it on the India/Burma border, but the game is much more fun this way.

I am one of those players that is in it for the long haul, after all I play Federation & Empire, so I plan on getting to the end of my game with rjopel as the Japanese regardless of my condition at the time. It will be interesting to see us get there. We are just now finishing up 1942 and about to start 1943. I shudder at the coming increase of his torpedo effectiveness.

Why did you have to change your dispositions just because your opponent made an error?[8|]

Alfred

[witpqs]

I don't personally like the notion of repeating the Force-Z mistake and others. I do aim toward the realistic concerns that the Allies had. I still make what IRL would be 'hard' decisions about how much resources to use defending where, but I do burden myself with things. One example is that anything on the coast of US gets a bunch of forts before base facilities get expanded.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior


However, if you give the Japanese player too much a free hand they can 'win' the game and thus there will be no Thor's hammer.

I have yet to see an auto-vic between fairly even opponents where the Allies vigorously defended themselves. If you know of one please point me to it.

That said, an Allied player who Sir Robins with no HRs and otherwise generally will n ot take risks could meet with an auto-vic.