Old Subject: Japanese need their own victory conditions

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

We've discussed this in the past, the Victory Conditions are all about Russia. Thus, the players just abandon Pacific. Been there, done that.

The Axis cannot regain their Morale after losing key cities. Thus swarm Italy strategy at all costs. In reverse, the Japanese have no means to win. I stated it probably about a year ago, the Japanese need a way to win. Capturing Hawaii is a waste of time. Costs 3+ ground units + HQ + fleet support. What do they get in return, not much. USA can just bypass or better yet, leave. India is the new Capital for Yanks.

We all know, the United State entered World War II based on the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7th, 1941. Half the country enlisted that week. Soon, war with Germany. Since the morale was so high, causing the DOW soon on Germany, any losses or failure of victory in the Pacific was critical for the United States. This translates, the United States should have to do something in the Pacific and/or the Japanese should get huge morale for holding key citys (Hawaii, some Islands, name it).

What is the "What If" scenario in real life? If the Japanese were not touched by the USA, could they build some Super Weapons? Some funky Jet Planes, Nukes, etc. They certainly should have more income.

Ideas:
1) Japanese get huge Morale for Capturing something cool. Hawaii is a joke now. Nothing.
2) Japanese can begin massive Chemical Weapons. With no battles with USA, Japanese had Chemicals vs. Chinese. More time to develop
3) Japanese should get some Ports that are greater than strength 5.
4) Japanese should be allowed to store Oil. No USA around, they would be building more than Pokémon games.
5) Japanese should get something special, more than bland units.

Needs design work.

[taffjones]

A interesting topic Elvis

I don't remember seeing your last thread on this, but I agree if the USA abandon's the Pacific there should be bonuses for Japan.

At the moment the Axis throw everything at Russia, and the Allies throw everything at Italy and Germany.

So I agree if either side throws everything into one pot there should be some penalty for them or bonus for the other side.

Hope you are keeping well [:)]

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo


5) Japs should get something special, more than bland units.

Intercontinental weapons. Fu-Go balloon bombs shaped like the Death Star.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

The question would be this: If USA does absolutely nothing to the Japanese, the Japanese would have all kinds of resources for factories, oil, new tech, etc.

The USA morale would drop big time. Millions enlisted to fight the Japanese, and then are sent to Europe instead? Massive morale drop.

[taffjones]

So what are you thinking Elvis?

1 The USA has to deploy x% of units to the Pacific v Atlantic Theatre of operations

2 IF Hawaii/ Pearl Harbour is Jap controlled, Us morale drops by x% per turn

3 The USA has to retake certain objectives within a timeframe of them being taken by Japan or suffer a big morale drop/ increase of something for Japan.

[Marcinos1985]

I don't believe victory conditions will be changed in this iteration of the game (SC 3). It's a fundamental matter, not something you can change via one patch, and additionally needs serious testing.
Don't get me wrong, you are probably right about the issue, but there is a reason. Namely, US in-game is much weaker than IRL. Industrial output of US vs JAP was like what, 10x? In game it is 3x at most. This means US can't fight at 2 fronts effectively, also because it is behind in tech in early game and must research like mad, instead of building ships. Therefore Allied player is forced basically to focus on one Axis Power and GER is a much fruitful target. This is how the game is designed, with its pros and cons.
Somewhere in the forums there was an opinion, that SC:WaW is essentailly a race. You get to Paris before Russia dies or you (probably) lose. And at high level, with optimized opening turns, it's essentially this. Is it bad? Well, I have more than 1k hours in game, so ... [:)]

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

Namely, US in-game is much weaker than IRL. Industrial output of US vs JAP was like what, 10x? In game it is 3x at most. This means US can't fight at 2 fronts effectively, also because it is behind in tech in early game and must research like mad, instead of building ships. Therefore Allied player is forced basically to focus on one Axis Power and GER is a much fruitful target. This is how the game is designed, with its pros and cons.

Yeah, it's probably a game-balance issue. People clamor for a game where both sides have a shot to win, and then are puzzled why the game has unhistorical issues.

The "Germany First" policy was unquestionably correct and tends to work in the game, but it was certainly controversial at the time with the American public, who were rather hacked off by the sucker-punch nature of the Pearl Harbor attack and inclined to give higher priority to the Pacific theater. Eventually a formula was settled on in which 30% of Allied resources would go to the Pacific and 70% to Europe until Germany was defeated.

The U.S. Air Force under Hap Arnold was rather scrupulous about this agreement, allocating almost precisely 30% of its squadrons to the Pacific. However, the latest model aircraft almost always went to Europe first. The U.S. Army was a little more flexible. In the early days of the war, when Japan was still on the rampage in the Pacific, more Army troops went to the Pacific than to Europe. Later the allocation of divisions approached the 70/30 ratio.

However, under Admiral Ernest King, the U.S. Navy never took the 70/30 formula very seriously, partly because the Army adamantly refused to accept Marine divisions for service in Europe, and partly because the Pacific was a naval theater while Europe was a continental theater, apart from the U-boat war (which required a far different force mix than the Pacific campaigns.) The naval allocation of manpower to the Pacific was never less than 50%.

Overall, even with the lion's share of US resources going to Europe this was enough to crush Japan which was over committed in Asia to begin with.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

The Pacific Theater needs something, but I'm not sure of what.

1) Maritime Bombers are more important & powerful than Carriers. Balance off?
2) The long range assault transports are more of a fear/weapon than a fleet
3) No decent Air Battles
4) Single Island combat needs some new rules. Maybe have units lock in close combat. Require US Navy to stand together
5) Supply ships might be necessary
6) Allow the building of Air Strips.
7) Allow the building (well, upgrading) of Ports, don't give the Yanks Navy (or any Navy) instant supply up without some type of convoy. Just because you find a port, doesn't mean supply, fuel, parts are there with out Yankee supply ships.
8) Since supply ships are how Munitions, Oil, Parts, Soldiers traveled, there needs to be some realistic Ports in successive order. If the Yanks or whoever fail to a train, at least let the enemy have a way to disrupt phantom supply ships.

Need new pieces in the Pacific

a) Supply Ships.
b) Scout planes
c) Fighter "garrisons", small Units of Air that can be set to intercept
d) Supply counters
e) Mini-subs, Submarine "garrisons"
f) Partisans are needed in Philippines/Burma & more Chinese
g) Kamikazes can intercept & launch on defensive turn

New ideas:

I) Compounding of MMPs interest year by year w/o tech. Say the Japanese are saying up MMPs, raise their next year's base MMP like 3R
II) Japanese need huge morale for holding Islands (thus being ignored). Or at least as time goes by, let them have some more rat tunnels.
III) Hawaii being bombed, strafed, or harasser should give Japanese some type of morale boast or vice-versa loss for USA
IV) Sinking of Carriers or famous ships need bigger morale boast. Same could be said of leaders. Yamamota, Great Turkey Shoots (sinking the Bismarck for that matter of the Nazis)
V) American troops loss should have a bigger effect on morale.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Another idea for Yanks/Brits:

1) Once they've lost a certain amount of troops, the gun-ho morale would drop significantly of British/Yanks. Americans/British troops aren't gonna do suicide long range attacks on Italy/Pacific. How many games have you played with the "swarm Italy non-stop suicide troops". When an American unit is dusted, the morale in the States would be "F- this". There's needs to be a penalty. Makes the whole Italy surrender is weird.
2) How about adding some prisoners? Yanks fly over German territory, having dudes captured ain't good. "I don't like my heroes captured".
3) Make Patton better.

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

The Pacific Theater needs something, but I'm not sure of what.

1) Maritime Bombers are more important & powerful than Carriers. Balance off?
2) The long range assault transports are more of a fear/weapon than a fleet
3) No decent Air Battles
4) Single Island combat needs some new rules. Maybe have units lock in close combat. Require US Navy to stand together
5) Supply ships might be necessary
6) Allow the building of Air Strips.
7) Allow the building (well, upgrading) of Ports, don't give the Yanks Navy (or any Navy) instant supply up without some type of convoy. Just because you find a port, doesn't mean supply, fuel, parts are there with out Yankee supply ships.
8) Since supply ships are how Munitions, Oil, Parts, Soldiers traveled, there needs to be some realistic Ports in successive order. If the Yanks or whoever fail to a train, at least let the enemy have a way to disrupt phantom supply ships.

Need new pieces in the Pacific

a) Supply Ships.
b) Scout planes
c) Fighter "garrisons", small Units of Air that can be set to intercept
d) Supply counters
e) Mini-subs, Submarine "garrisons"
f) Partisans are needed in Philippines/Burma & more Chinese
g) Kamikazes can intercept & launch on defensive turn

This is starting to sound like War in the Pacific/Admiral's Edition. A great game if you have years of your life to devote to playing a campaign out. However, I'm not sure where all these items are gonna fit in a game with a one unit per hexagon stacking limit.

To paraphrase Jaws, you're gonna need a bigger map.[:D] Which I would not mind.

[Elessar2]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

5) Supply ships might be necessary

Been meaning to ask-are Mulberries enabled? They are available in the editor...

7) Allow the building (well, upgrading) of Ports, don't give the Yanks Navy (or any Navy) instant supply up without some type of convoy. Just because you find a port, doesn't mean supply, fuel, parts are there with out Yankee supply ships.

8) Since supply ships are how Munitions, Oil, Parts, Soldiers traveled, there needs to be some realistic Ports in successive order. If the Yanks or whoever fail to a train, at least let the enemy have a way to disrupt phantom supply ships.

We have 5 tiers of population centers, thus should have more than 2 tiers of ports I'd say.

[LoneRunner]

I think the Pacific Theater is ignored due to two factors, gamer perception and harsh Japanese surrender conditions.

Most of us start the 1939 campaign with the mindset that Germany must be defeated first. Just about every Allied effort is targeted at Germany. North Africa, Scandinavia, Turkey, North Atlantic, France, Russia. It's all Germany. Some players even shift the entire USA fleet from the Pacific to the Mediterranean to knock Italy out of the war. Japan is pretty much ignored while China is pounded into dust. I even noticed a thread where someone complained that it wasn't fair to declare war on Japan before the Japanese declared war. Seriously?

What if the USA directed all of their resources to knocking Japan out of the war before Russia was defeated. What if the UK declared war on Japan early and started harassing them so they couldn't focus on China. Ouch, then the Japanese would have China and India at their back while they contended with the USA. Could the Allies win if the war came down to: UK and USA versus Germany and Italy? Yes, definitely. Not only would the Allies have a huge production advantage, but their navies would control the seas.

The other factor causing lack of interest in a Pacific Campaign is the harsh Japanese surrender conditions. If Tokyo is captured, the Japanese capital relocates to Seoul. Ouch. Not only does the USA have to fight their way across the Pacific and through the Japanese homeland, they then have to invade Korea and grind through a large land campaign. Unlikely that the USA will finish that campaign before Germany conquers the rest of the world.

Relocating the Japanese capital to Seoul is not historically accurate. And it's not good for the game. Yes, Korea was important to the Japanese war effort. But would the Japanese continue the war if they lost Honshu? At the end of World War II before the Soviets invaded, Japan still held Manchuria, most of China, and a lot of Southeast Asia. Most of their army was available. But they seriously considered surrender because the home islands were being devastated. Also, no way would the Emperor have agreed to move to Seoul!

I recommend that the Japanese surrender conditions be changed so that when Honshu falls, Japan surrenders. Doing that would make a Japanese campaign viable. Suddenly the game would become a true world war and a lot more exciting.

[Elessar2]

Aye. For my mod I actually deleted Seoul as the 2nd alt. capital, but am keeping Osaka, thus giving them one last chance to hang in there before the final capitulation.

[IIo4Tu]

This is the problem of all online games: sooner or later there is a game meta, as the best way to win and that this was not the game must be constantly rebalance.
Now, when the axis is played by professionals, it is not possible to allocate America's resources for the war in the Pacific, because by the time the United States enters the war, China is usually sitting in its last capital, where it is also impossible for them to last more than a year. Meanwhile, Japan captures Vladivostok, which further reduces the supply of the USSR, so the United States must help England protect the northern convoy and hurry to land in France otherwise the USSR will not live to see 1944.

I.e., by and large, the game does not encourage the development of any variable scenarios of victory except for the decisive battle for the USSR and does not penalize for unhistorical actions. For some reason, no one has any questions about the fact that the players for the axis immediately attack France, and do not survive the historical pause of the "strange war".

For professional players, everything is calculated within the same strategic line, and the introduction of a new balance for Japan will require a complete rebalancing in other places, because otherwise there will not be enough resources to support the USSR. For example, Japan should receive such large fines for violations of the treaty on non-aggression against the USSR, so that it was not at all profitable for it, Japan should receive scars for the unhistorically rapid defeat of China, etc.

And in general, the problem now is that on the contrary, Japan is quite strong, because the best players completely capture China already in 1942, then quickly capture Australia and New Zealand without much resistance, which gives a huge amount of morale and a lot of resources. The allies simply do not have the resources to resist Japan, because Germany is already destroying the USSR with all its might, and if the USSR is destroyed, then there is no point in playing further.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

My opinions:

1) Everyone fabricates these Germans to be military geniuses, because they defeated bunch of B-Ladder countries. Too much effort gaming concern is given to Nazis & not enough to the Americans.
2) The United States is taken for granted, we're just a factory.
==================================================================
A) Week after Pearl Harbor, how many hundreds of thousands of people enlisted immediately to fight the Japanese. The morale was of enragement, payback & justice. Doing the right thing, drove the country. The people wanted to be isolationists up to December 7th. Nobody wanted to die because the Germans were drinking beer, eating pretzels & rolling their tanks through Poland, Low Countries. Franklin Roosevelt may or may not known of the pending Pearl Harbor attack, I'll leave that to the conspiracy channels; really doesn't matter, because people believed in the cause. 500,000 people wanted to kill Japanese by January 1st, 1942, but instead they're all sent to North Africa/Italy/England to some podunk location. Totally ignoring the Japanese. If we're going to worship all the acts of Nazi commanders, how about some due diligence to the Americans. Nobody in Detroit, Michigan cared about some bank failure in Hitler's Germany breadlines. Nobody in rust belt Ohio (Akron, Cleveland), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania cared about some French dude's Treat of Versailles. Nobody wanted to interrupt their lives to build thousands of ships/planes in a sweat box factory because some cultist douchebag in Austria was waiving a flag for Adolf.

B) Patton should be ranked with the Top commanders. No doubt. George was badass in 1916 chasing down Mexicans, Pancho Villa. This is before Dietrich Peltz could walk, and Corporal Hitler delivered his first WW1 message, let alone given a speech.

C) The Yanks were "getting it on" early & often in the Pacific. Battle of Coral Sea, Midway, Doolittle's Raid. There's needs to be some design scripts for morale, unit minimums, objectives in the Pacific. Turn up the steroids.

I Shall Return is a big deal,
-Elvis

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

***** BREAKING NEWS *****

From: Augusta Georgia

Could Hideki Matsuyama be the first Jap to ever win a Major Golf Championship?
Is the Green Jacket been sized for him?

I've got $200 says, 'Yes', time will tell. Please don't pull a Choke Norman.

-Legend

[Platoonist]

I think for a variety of reasons the Pacific Theater sadly, is always going to play second or even third fiddle in a global ww2 game environment. I recall in the World in Flames forum we had two or three posters regularly coming in to ask if the one-map option had been implemented yet. In other words, they simply didn't want the hassle of having to play Japan as half of the Axis or even having to deal with Japan as the Allies...just the European half, please.

There's the perception that Japan with its ox-driven, wheel-barrow economy is just gonna get crushed like a porcelain tea cup under the wheels of Uncle Sam's production machine sooner or later, so what's the point and where's the challenge?

I recall even in my tank miniature days, there were players in our group who's sole interest was in the Ostfront battles. Avalon Hill's Squad Leader was the same way, the Pacific modules showed up virtually last, after the the European theater had gotten its full billing.

Just look at how things are booming over in the War in the East 2 forum now. With few exceptions, Europe and the mighty Eastern Front in particular always seems to rule in WW2 war-gaming circles. It was that way in my board gaming days and not much has changed. I certainly can see the allure of the Eastern Front with it's epic size and dramatic ebb and flow, but even I get weary of just the same old clash of armor at Kursk and Stalingrad.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

I think for a variety of reasons the Pacific Theater sadly, is always going to play second or even third fiddle in a global ww2 game environment. I recall in the World in Flames forum we had two or three posters regularly coming in to ask if the one-map option had been implemented yet. In other words, they simply didn't want the hassle of having to play Japan as half of the Axis or even having to deal with Japan as the Allies...just the European half, please.

There's the perception that Japan with its ox-driven, wheel-barrow economy is just gonna get crushed like a porcelain tea cup under the wheels of Uncle Sam's production machine sooner or later, so what's the point and where's the challenge?

I recall even in my tank miniature days, there were players in our group who's sole interest was in the Ostfront battles. Avalon Hill's Squad Leader was the same way, the Pacific modules showed up virtually last, after the the European theater had gotten its full billing.

Just look at how things are booming over in the War in the East 2 forum now. With few exceptions, Europe and the mighty Eastern Front in particular always seems to rule in WW2 war-gaming circles. It was that way in my board gaming days and not much has changed. I certainly can see the allure of the Eastern Front with it's epic size and dramatic ebb and flow, but even I get weary of just the same old clash of armor at Kursk and Stalingrad.

Ha! Did I just see Squad Leader? I played Advanced Squad Leader yesterday, Face-2-Face. (No mask either). Played the scenario "Blood on the Timbers"; firefight near Leningrad between Russians v Germans (of course) battle for 1 of 2 hills. I lost, put the Russians in Foxholes like an idiot, intending on using a skirmish line to delay. Took nasty damage on my first movement trying to get out the foxholes back to a woods line.

The reason the wargamers love German/Russian front, 70% of the dudes playing the games are in Europe, grandsons of the dudes who were there. Why would some Bunta in East Germany want play Americans vs. Japanese at Guadalcanal. For that matter, how about the Battle of Gettysburg, that us Yanks love. Vicksburg, Shiloh, Bull Run.

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo


The reason the wargamers love German/Russian front, 70% of the dudes playing the games are in Europe, grandsons of the dudes who were there. Why would some Bunta in East Germany want play Americans vs. Japs at Guadalcanal. For that matter, how about the Battle of Gettysburg, that us Yanks love. Vicksburg, Shiloh, Bull Run.

Well, back in my 1970s boardgaming days, there was no internet yet and it was all Yank gamers. Yet, even then I noticed a strong obsession with the Eastern Front. Yeah, there some interest in the ACW. But I recall in the gaming room where the tank minatures were played, it was all T-34s, Panthers and Tigers. Not a even a Sherman or Cromwell in sight.

It still beat Dungeons & Dragons in my eyes though. That was my particular brand of snobbery. [:D]

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

@Platoonist --- The hot games in my hood went in this order: RISK, D&D, Squad Leader, 3R & then Axis/Allies.

RISK --- For the less intelligent crowd, always a game brewing somehwere
D&D --- Weird dudes, just depends who you played with, very subjective game.
SL --- My cup of tea
3R --- game was a bore. 4-turns per year, took opponent an hour to move his pieces (and rightfully so). One combination of bad rolls (even in 2-1 attack on Warsaw), think was roll a 4, then second 5, you lost the game.
Axis/Allies --- If you wanted to roll dice for 6+ hours.