Matrix Games Forums

As japan, in a late war period, what do you do when the allies start taking chunks out of your industry? First question: do you repair it or let it die? second question: how fast does it tend to go? Fast enough so that in 1 month you are not producing anything anymore, or a bit slower than this?

thanks!

The war is basically lost at this point. If you are behind on points, surrender and start a new game. [:)]

ORIGINAL: BlackSunshine

The war is basically lost at this point. If you are behind on points, surrender and start a new game. [:)]

Yep, your pretty much sunk at that point

Hey! Not fair! If you've actually reached the late war period as the Japanese, then your opponent was nice enough let you beat the *bleep* out of him for a year without quitting. The least you could do is let him bomb your factories for a few months.

do you repair it or let it die

It is pointless to repair anything when it is at that stage. 1000 supply points would mean far more than anything that one factory could produce.

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Hey! Not fair! If you've actually reached the late war period as the Japanese, then your opponent was nice enough let you beat the *bleep* out of him for a year without quitting. The least you could do is let him bomb your factories for a few months.

Hi, If he is bombing industry he has been pounding Japan longer then Japan pounded him. when I begin a game as Japan I state I will surrender when
1. Japan is no longer producing supply
2. Heavy bombers are in range of Home Islands.

By the time the above is occuring the game has been a one player game for quite sometime. All that is now happening is Allied player needing hours per turn to manage his great Catherds and bombers. The Japanese turn takes 30 seconds.

30 secs to do a turn, well in that case, I would have no problem continuing to play the game, just to see how long it would take for the Allies to truly finish me off.

Heck, if I could convince the Allied player to do it, I wouldn't mind trying to defeat his Downfall.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Hey! Not fair! If you've actually reached the late war period as the Japanese, then your opponent was nice enough let you beat the *bleep* out of him for a year without quitting. The least you could do is let him bomb your factories for a few months.

Hi, If he is bombing industry he has been pounding Japan longer then Japan pounded him. when I begin a game as Japan I state I will surrender when
1. Japan is no longer producing supply
2. Heavy bombers are in range of Home Islands.

By the time the above is occuring the game has been a one player game for quite sometime. All that is now happening is Allied player needing hours per turn to manage his great Catherds and bombers. The Japanese turn takes 30 seconds.

So you quit as soon as the Allies have a base in the Marianas or the Philippines? That's ... disappointing.

yeah i mean... what about okinawa? Iwo jima? plus, kamikazes only come into play AFTER the allied player would normally have taken the marianas...and stopping a game as japan without even having used Kamikazes is just plain...wrong! And you know, the marianas were taken in mid 44, but the war lasted over a year after that! is there nothing worth playing for the japanese in that whole year? Of course, the goals the japanese player sets himself should be smaller: not "repulse the allied invasion" but "sink at least 1 allied battleship" or "try to damage an allied CV" or such. I would be tempted to keep playing just to see if I could beat the historical japanese surrender date...

and besides, you DO know that from chungking, allied LBA can bomb pretty much all of kyushu in the late war period...

ORIGINAL: dtravel

So you quit as soon as the Allies have a base in the Marianas or the Philippines? That's ... disappointing.

Hi, No Japan has to be running out of supply. To place Japan out of supply the Allies need to either capture the resource/oil centers or have them under air control. As long as Japan is producing supply it is also producing aircraft and training pilots and able to fight on the ground and refuel the IJN (It can still fight) However with no supply no replacement aircraft or pilots and the IJN (whats left of it by then) becomes immobile. It's not easy to force me into surrender but there is no point wasting time in hopeless casue that I could spend on a new game (or sleeping) The hard part for the Allies is getting Japan to run out of supply. VP are easy once that occurs.

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: BlackSunshine

The war is basically lost at this point. If you are behind on points, surrender and start a new game. [:)]

Yep, your pretty much sunk at that point

This brings up an interesting point. At what point as a Japanese player do you surrender.
Should this be brought up at the start of a PBEM. I can see the point in not continuing a game that is a for-gone conclusion not wanting to waste valuable time that could be spent on other pursuits. How many players would start a PBEM if the plan was to surrender at a certain point in the game. Maybe we should have a winners thread or score board. Something like, look I can`t continue with this game you have me on the mat. I will post you as the winner on the scoreboard and we can get on to other pursuits. It could look like this.

Capt Ed ALLIEs, versus MarkVII Japanese.
Capt Ed 2500 points
MarkVII 35000 Points

Mark VII surrenders [:D]

Maybe the Moderators could come up with a template we could use. It would allow us our moment in the limelight.

well mog has a point....while its interesting to fight the good fight....a basic reality is that in PBEM, alot of real time (vs. game time) has to be expended on it. Ai play or head to head can be fun where one can at least accelerate the turns.

In the end, depends on what both players want to agree to

Always fight to the end!
Never surender!

Hi, I always fight to the end. Only my definition of "the end" is when it is no longer of any use what so ever to continue. Perhaps if I could accept the fact it is only a game......

I play tourny chess and nothing is as sad as playing a game when the other players position is so hopeless even major blunders could not result in a win for him or even a draw. I call these situations "inertia" the player continues to make moves because that is what he thinks is expected of him. He is not putting up a fight only delaying what is going to occur.

Now if in WITP I thought I could delay till time ran out I would because thats a draw and a draw in WITP for Japan is just as good in my mind as a win. (A draw as Allies is like kissing your sister) But if it is 1944 (or 1943 as against Brady) And I am cut off from supply and the Allied player is hitting the Home Islands with heavies I'm not doing anything but moving under inertia. I'm not going to be around till March 1946 and really since the war is lost beyond recall I should spare my people any further suffering.

Learning to admit defeat is not the same as thinking you have lost just because things have been going badly. When you no longer have the means to alter the outcome and too much time remains for the Allied player to get his 2-1 VP ratio you've lost.
When you lose CV in 1943 but your defense ring remains unbroken and Japanese industry is still producing you fight on. In the game with Brady Japan still had more VP then the Allies. But I did not have the means to inflict damage on him enough to maintain the lead or prevent his eventuall 2-1 ratio. I could have fought on till some time in 1944.
For what reason?

This brings up an interesting point. At what point as a Japanese player do you surrender.

Like Mogami said, surrender when you no longer have the means of sustaining an effective defence. That doesn't mean surrender if your perimeter is breached, especially if a good portion of your navy and air force is intact.

But if your navy is on the bottom and your air force consists mainly of smoking holes in the ground, you no longer have the means of defending against allied moves. The war is over and nothing can be done to stop the carnage. To play on from this point is futile.

As far as VPs go, I don't really care who has how many. It's the strategic situation that determines whether a player should surrender.

In the game I picked up with Ian (theElf), the allies have successfully captured or neutralized Manchuria and Burma is being pressed hard with Rangoon and Moulmein under constant land attack. Korea is slowly being compressed towards Pusan. China is a sewer pit with his land forces attacking Canton. I have over 200k troops is full retreat towards Buna from PM and little hope of recovering them due to his powerful air forces there.

However my Navy is still reasonably intact and his is hurting (for the moment). My air forces are understrength and inexperienced but can still be effective at times. So surrender for me is not an option even though the outcome is preordained. I believe I can hold him off until late 43 unless he brings in heavies to Korea and pounds the home islands. Then I'll have a decision to make. Until then, BANZAI!

Chez

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

As japan, in a late war period, what do you do when the allies start taking chunks out of your industry? First question: do you repair it or let it die? second question: how fast does it tend to go? Fast enough so that in 1 month you are not producing anything anymore, or a bit slower than this?

thanks!

My tactic is not to repair factories in Japan but rebuild them in Korea/Manchuria, where they will give no more points for the Allied player.

Without escort the B-29 may have a hard time if you concentrate hundred of fighters above your main cities. B-29 will spend 4-6 months before destroying half of Japanese industry, and then will take longer to destroy the other half.

29 may have a hard time if you concentrate hundred of fighters above your main cities. B-29 will spend 4-6 months before destroying half of Japanese industry, and then will take longer to destroy the other half.

Yes fight to the last brave yellow men[:D][:D][:D] Banzai[:D][:D][:D]

Not really![8|]

ORIGINAL: hawker

Always fight to the end!
Never surender!

Some interesting insights into the difference between "winning/losing the war" and "winning/losing the game" here.