AutoVic closer than I thought

[HexHead]

t occurred to me: in a Scen1 PbeM, I as an AFB, have about 7000 some odd VPs in mid-March 42. The IJs have 14,100+, so, basically 2:1 right now.

It's a zero sum game, though, right? Arithmetically, there's some 'leakage', but it's essentially zero-sum for VPs and AV, correct? IOW, his VPs come out of my pocket.

If Japan gets about 2K more VPs, it'll be 16K/5K, or 3:1; and another 1000 (perhaps 600+) VPs for him on top of that gets him to 4:1 for 1/1/43. And he has nine months to do this.

How tough is the sledding for Japan at this point? Are the next 2500 VPs harder to get than the initial haul? How worried should an AFB be?

[heibernt@hotmail.com]

Its not a zero sum game. For instance you get more vp the more you build up your bases.
In my pbem game we have reached august 42, and the allies have around 16k, the japs have 22,5k.

[Quixote]

ORIGINAL: HexHead

t occurred to me: in a Scen1 PbeM, I as an AFB, have about 7000 some odd VPs in mid-March 42. The IJs have 14,100+, so, basically 2:1 right now.

It's a zero sum game, though, right? Arithmetically, there's some 'leakage', but it's essentially zero-sum for VPs and AV, correct? IOW, his VPs come out of my pocket.
If Japan gets about 2K more VPs, it'll be 16K/5K, or 3:1; and another 1000 (perhaps 600+) VPs for him on top of that gets him to 4:1 for 1/1/43. And he has nine months to do this.

How tough is the sledding for Japan at this point? Are the next 2500 VPs harder to get than the initial haul? How worried should an AFB be?

The bolded part is where you're having problems. It's not a zero sum game at all. Both sides get VPs from five different areas: Air, Ground, Naval, Strat Bombing, and Bases, and not a single one of them is zero sum. Shoot down 3 enemy planes, you get 3 VPs - they don't come out of his VP pool, though. Sink a 35-point ship, same thing - they are new VPs for your side, not points taken away from him. Ground, same thing. Strat bombing, same thing. The only category you might think is zero sum is Bases, but even here that's not right. Base points will change as they are built up or damaged - not zero sum. Even for bases that don't change, VPs won't be the same for both sides depending on who controls the base. Look at Noumea for example. This base can swing Allied VPs massively when it's fully built up, but won't affect Japanese VPs much at all, regardless of size or construction. And there are bases like this all over the map. Bottom line, you may want to look at VPs a different way going forward.

[HexHead]

thx for the clarifications

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: HexHead

thx for the clarifications

One addition to Q's list above. Bases not in supply don't return the full VPs when AV is toted up. Keeping Japanese supply TFs at bay on the islands helps the Allies too.

Manual sez:

"This full amount of the final VP value is only scored at the end of the game if the base has
supplies at least equal to its needed supplies. If supplies are lower than the required amount,
the VP’s scored will be less than this maximum, (the lower the supplies the lower the scored
VP’s). Bases with 0 supplies would score 25% of the full final points.
Example: Rabaul has a Basic Japanese VP level of 3. Assuming the size of the airfield is 8, and
the size of the port is 7, the Final VP level for Japanese ownership of Rabaul is 3 x [ (7) + (8 x
2) ] or 69. As long as Rabaul had more than its supplies needed, the Japanese player would
score 69. If Rabaul’s supplies were only equal to 30% of its needs, the Japanese player would
score only 33 VP’s."

[Lokasenna]

I won't be getting auto victory in this game, I can tell you that much [;)]. It just looks bad right now. And I already have Singapore and Rangoon, which are the big VP swingers.

The "sledding" is pretty tough after that, as for every VP the Allies get, Japan has to get 4 or more. That's hard to do, unless some really lopsided naval battles occur. It would mean 4:1 air-to-air kill ratios, 4:1 on the ground...even early war and against the Chinese/Dutch/Burmese, it's more like 2:1 or 3:1.

[JocMeister]

Yeah, I wouldn´t worry about AV. You look to be in good shape. [:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I won't be getting auto victory in this game, I can tell you that much [;)]. It just looks bad right now. And I already have Singapore and Rangoon, which are the big VP swingers.

The "sledding" is pretty tough after that, as for every VP the Allies get, Japan has to get 4 or more. That's hard to do, unless some really lopsided naval battles occur. It would mean 4:1 air-to-air kill ratios, 4:1 on the ground...even early war and against the Chinese/Dutch/Burmese, it's more like 2:1 or 3:1.

Bataan is big. Soerbaja is medium big. But yeah, those two are hurtful to the Allies. Air losses can sneak up on Japan. It's so easy to bomb-a-rama with light or no CAP they sometimes don't notice what AA is doing to them ops loss-wise.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I won't be getting auto victory in this game, I can tell you that much [;)]. It just looks bad right now. And I already have Singapore and Rangoon, which are the big VP swingers.

The "sledding" is pretty tough after that, as for every VP the Allies get, Japan has to get 4 or more. That's hard to do, unless some really lopsided naval battles occur. It would mean 4:1 air-to-air kill ratios, 4:1 on the ground...even early war and against the Chinese/Dutch/Burmese, it's more like 2:1 or 3:1.

Bataan is big. Soerbaja is medium big. But yeah, those two are hurtful to the Allies. Air losses can sneak up on Japan. It's so easy to bomb-a-rama with light or no CAP they sometimes don't notice what AA is doing to them ops loss-wise.

Are you hinting that I'm back to within 100 air losses of you in our game? Unfortunately, gotta keep up the bombing.

VP-wise, Bataan itself actually isn't worth much (the LCUs are another matter). Clark is, but I've got that in both cases. Batavia is a little less. Soerabaja is worth a little less still. That's it, though, after the big cities of Singapore, Manila, and Rangoon.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I won't be getting auto victory in this game, I can tell you that much [;)]. It just looks bad right now. And I already have Singapore and Rangoon, which are the big VP swingers.

The "sledding" is pretty tough after that, as for every VP the Allies get, Japan has to get 4 or more. That's hard to do, unless some really lopsided naval battles occur. It would mean 4:1 air-to-air kill ratios, 4:1 on the ground...even early war and against the Chinese/Dutch/Burmese, it's more like 2:1 or 3:1.

Bataan is big. Soerbaja is medium big. But yeah, those two are hurtful to the Allies. Air losses can sneak up on Japan. It's so easy to bomb-a-rama with light or no CAP they sometimes don't notice what AA is doing to them ops loss-wise.

Are you hinting that I'm back to within 100 air losses of you in our game? Unfortunately, gotta keep up the bombing.

VP-wise, Bataan itself actually isn't worth much (the LCUs are another matter). Clark is, but I've got that in both cases. Batavia is a little less. Soerabaja is worth a little less still. That's it, though, after the big cities of Singapore, Manila, and Rangoon.

Yeah, I mean the troops.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I won't be getting auto victory in this game, I can tell you that much [;)]. It just looks bad right now. And I already have Singapore and Rangoon, which are the big VP swingers.

The "sledding" is pretty tough after that, as for every VP the Allies get, Japan has to get 4 or more. That's hard to do, unless some really lopsided naval battles occur. It would mean 4:1 air-to-air kill ratios, 4:1 on the ground...even early war and against the Chinese/Dutch/Burmese, it's more like 2:1 or 3:1.

Getting auto victory is not an easy thing. I've only done it once when I played Lew and took ALL of Australia by the Fall of 1942. Very tough to do and in PBEM Games we've seen Allied players come back from something terrible (like losing Australia) and still win a resounding victory in 1945.

[leehunt27@bloomberg.net]

I wonder what the percentage of victory between Japanese & Allied players is? If the Victory Points are structured properly, it should be about 50/50. But I have a feeling the Allies still win more?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net

I wonder what the percentage of victory between Japanese & Allied players is? If the Victory Points are structured properly, it should be about 50/50. But I have a feeling the Allies still win more?

Poor experimental design. [:)]

I'd be more interested in the ratio for games where Japan does not invade India, Oz, or Hawaii.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net

I wonder what the percentage of victory between Japanese & Allied players is? If the Victory Points are structured properly, it should be about 50/50. But I have a feeling the Allies still win more?

Poor experimental design. [:)]

I'd be more interested in the ratio for games where Japan does not invade India, Oz, or Hawaii.

Does Darwin/NW coast count as Oz? I'd need some convincing on why it's not more similar to just another island than it is to Oz Proper.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net

I wonder what the percentage of victory between Japanese & Allied players is? If the Victory Points are structured properly, it should be about 50/50. But I have a feeling the Allies still win more?

Poor experimental design. [:)]

I'd be more interested in the ratio for games where Japan does not invade India, Oz, or Hawaii.

Does Darwin/NW coast count as Oz? I'd need some convincing on why it's not more similar to just another island than it is to Oz Proper.

It is like an island. But few stop there.

[crsutton]

Unless you are getting your Allied butt handed to you in a suitcase, you have no need to worry about autovictory. Play on...[;)]

[Numdydar]

I find an AV pretty easy as Japan in a PBEM game. Just concentrate on China [:)]. I could have easily gotten one in the last PBEM game I did but stopped just to keep the game going.

And I did not do anything in India. I did take over northern OZ, but nothing on the east coast like Townsville, etc.

However, the Allies are so powerful, I do not see how Japan could ever last to the historical date (or beyond). Unless the Allies get REALLY unlucky and keep making mistakes into '44. Matter of fact the Allies in the PBEM game above got an AV in Jan '45 [:(].

So based on my experience, Japan has a good chance of an AV in '43. Once that is missed, then the Allies should get an AV in '45. Obviously against people of very different skill levels, this may not hold true.

[Yaab]

Yep, unlike Australia and India, where you have abundant supplies, emergency reinforcements and relative ease of bringing fresh troops from the outside, China has none of the above. China is under-supplied, landlocked and has no emergency reinforecements. Her only hope is stacking limits.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Yep, unlike Australia and India, where you have abundant supplies, emergency reinforcements and relative ease of bringing fresh troops from the outside, China has none of the above. China is under-supplied, landlocked and has no emergency reinforecements. Her only hope is stacking limits.

And taking all of China doesn't get you an AV. Plus, Japan gets to garrison it.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Yep, unlike Australia and India, where you have abundant supplies, emergency reinforcements and relative ease of bringing fresh troops from the outside, China has none of the above. China is under-supplied, landlocked and has no emergency reinforecements. Her only hope is stacking limits.

And taking all of China doesn't get you an AV. Plus, Japan gets to garrison it.

The garrisons are cheap [;)]. There are plenty of combat-useless NGC brigades to garrison the smaller ones, and there are some less-useful-than-others regiments and brigades for the bigger locations.

But yes, it doesn't get AV on its own. Need more than that.