What is Victory??

[Mike Carroll]

I have been trying to fleshout what would signify a Japanese Victory in my Great War Scenario. I want to try to establish at what point does Japan gain an auto-victory because the US loses the political will to finish the war. This auto-victory would of course be an optional honor rule.

I have modified VPs somewhat. I have added quite a bit to the value of Manchuria and Korea, I have reduced the PI abit. Basically the Japs start out with 6041 VP vs. the US 4915.

I am thinking it would be something like:

1 June 1927 - Japs are 3.5 to 1 VP's, Unless the US has 1000 Assault Points on Guam or in the PI and a stockpile of 20,000 supply.

1 June 1928 - Japs are 3.0 to 1 VPs, unless the US has 1000 Assualt Points on Guam or in the PI and a stockpile of 20,000 supply.

What is everyone's thoughts?

[Rysyonok]

I'd say it's a victory when one side loses all of its dreadnoughts. Everything else is minor.

Where are US's VPs? It makes a difference whether they are out west in PI or IJN will have to land on West Coast to get them.

[Mike Carroll]

My only concern with the losing all your Dreadnaught thing is that the US has twice as many as the Japanese. There is no Pearl Harbor to inflame the US to accept only victory. There was a sizeable portion of the population that did not believe we should be in the Philippines anyway (still even 25 years later) and a strong ANTI-WAR movement that only got stronger in the 20's and 30's. On the eve of Pearl Harbor something like 60% of the US did not believe we should go to war for any reason (idiots).

The only question is the Chinese question. They had the sympathy of the American people and the business community strongly believed they were the next big market. 70 years of foreign policy directed at opening the Chinese markets and later trying to help them develop a strong government (not very successful).

So I am looking for some level of war weariness and lack of success that would force the US to the bargaining table. Most of the VPs are in the PI. I think the Japs, taking the PI and Guam, protecting Manchuria and Korea and winning a major naval battle (In my Terrible Swift Sword Game I lost 6 Dreadnaughts and 3 Pre-Dreadnaughts to the Japs 3 Pre-Dreadnaughts and 2 Battlecruisers) might have enough to force a peace, as long as the US did not have a major success to offset.

[Rysyonok]

How about this:

For Japan victory will be based on bases held.
For US, units lost.

[Anthropoid]

I think the "victory" should reflect the societal will to fight.
Say for example a ratio of Japan:US=2:1 is U.S. agrees to an armistice with Japan (Japanese "victory") US cedes lost territory, and grants Japan 25-year "lease" on territory gained in China, Manchuria, and Korea;

1.5:1 is "U.S. must spend 6000 political points to stay in the war another six months" (protests, riots, and opposiition parties are having a field day and in order to regain public support, the President must sack several ministers, and make internal concessions to the other party)

1:1.5 could be something like "all Japanese fortification levels increased by one" (to represent the "fight to the last man, woman, and child" syndrome);

1:1.75 could be something like all Japanese commanders aggression levels +10%

2:1 "Japan must spend 6000 to stay in the war another six months" (Emperor begins to express his differences with Generals and Liason Council and a clique of Admirals start to push for negotiating terms with the U.S.; a series of assassinations, replacements, etc., are necessary to keep sufficient political balance to keep the war going)

and 2.25:1 Emperor finally over-rules Liason Council; agrees to U.S. terms of surrender

In terms of how the "victory values" (will to fight) are calculated, I don't think it should be strictly units lost for US. In the 1920s, it would have taken a long time to get word of friend or family member as a casualty. Thus, while finding out that someone has become a casualty would certainly have contributed to war weariness, and reduced support for the war effort, there would also (even short of knowing that a guy had been killed) be an effect for time.

US does not seem to be too good at waging wars for more than four or five years at a stretch (with Viet being the major exception), UNLESS, it is winning big time.

Thus, I'd suggest something that incorporated a gain/loss by time function. Based on this, victory would be a ratio between the Japanese victory level (wilingness to continue at any cost) versus the American victory level (willingness to continue to the last full measure), these values would be calculated differently for Japan than for US and the ratio that represented victory or defeat would have to be decided based on the math.

Basically, time should be either irrelevant, or of benefit to Japan (i.e., they get stronger the longer the war drags on, and actually get a bit stronger the more they lose!), whereas time should be a major issue for U.S. (probably allies in general too).

Thus, gaining kills (or perhaps also bases/resource points gained) should benefit the Japanese victory number, and taking losses should only have 50% as much of an effect as it has on US victory number.

For US, gaining kills should only partially offset the inexorable reduction of will to win for each day that passes (say 10 kill points in one day can offset the lost will to fight from that day, with specific Japanese troops, ships, aircraft, etc., all having specific kill points). Gaining control of new territory on the other hand should have a more substantial benefit to US.