Victory Conditions???

[Toby42]

I played the Tarawa Scenario as the Americans. I sank 4 CV's, 1 CVL and 1 CA. 566 Japanese planes were shot down. Bombardment and Invasion missions were met for Tarawa and Makin. I lost the Essex and 303 planes. Guess what, I lost ??? The Axis scored a "Marginal" Victory. Give me a break.

If SSG was scoring WWII, the Allies would have lost that too!!!! [&:]

[Rebel Yell]

Strategically, you won, but with a CV and 303 aircraft lost, tactically, you got hammered.

[Toby42]

Well, As far as I'm concerned, it was a Slam-Dunk by the Americans!!!!! Victory Points are screwed up....

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Treale

I played the Tarawa Scenario as the Americans. I sank 4 CV's, 1 CVL and 1 CA. 566 Japanese planes were shot down. Bombardment and Invasion missions were met for Tarawa and Makin. I lost the Essex and 303 planes. Guess what, I lost ??? The Axis scored a "Marginal" Victory ...

I also played that scenario as the USN; sank all IJN CVs, did a number on its surface vessels, accomplished all missions, but lost a CV and a CVL to LBA; got only a Marginal Victory, but after your experience I now consider myself fortunate.

Great scenario, though, and I really like what SSG is doing to this game; it's getting significantly better w/each new patch!

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: Treale

I played the Tarawa Scenario as the Americans. I sank 4 CV's, 1 CVL and 1 CA. 566 Japanese planes were shot down. Bombardment and Invasion missions were met for Tarawa and Makin. I lost the Essex and 303 planes. Guess what, I lost ??? The Axis scored a "Marginal" Victory. Give me a break.

If SSG was scoring WWII, the Allies would have lost that too!!!! [&:]

I've sent your query to the scenario designer, Ian Trout, for his comments.

Gregor

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Treale

I played the Tarawa Scenario as the Americans. I sank 4 CV's, 1 CVL and 1 CA. 566 Japanese planes were shot down. Bombardment and Invasion missions were met for Tarawa and Makin. I lost the Essex and 303 planes. Guess what, I lost ??? The Axis scored a "Marginal" Victory ...

I also played that scenario as the USN; sank all IJN CVs, did a number on its surface vessels, accomplished all missions, but lost a CV and a CVL to LBA; got only a Marginal Victory, but after your experience I now consider myself fortunate.

Great scenario, though, and I really like what SSG is doing to this game; it's getting significantly better w/each new patch!

I agree, it is a great game! I would only be really upset if I was playing for money. SSG is doing a good job...

[Koakahiko]

I just played Tarawa as the U.S. in a random variant, sank all IJN CV's, a half-dozen CA's, one DD, wiped out almost all of their land-based aviation on the nearby islands (Jaluit, Wotje, Mili, etc) lost 283 a/c (which did not seem to reflect the combat results of my air strikes and defense over my TF's) successfully bombarded and occupied Tarawa and Makin, lost not a warship nor suffered any heavy damage to any fleet units - and eked out a draw!! Guess I was lucky.

Oh, and by the way, all the a/c in the task group which contained the Enterprise and two other flattops mysteriously disappeared for a couple of hours - then just as mysteriously reappeared. Guess they were with Kirk Douglas and the Nimitiz defending Pearl Harbor during "The Final Countdown"...

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: Treale

I played the Tarawa Scenario as the Americans. I sank 4 CV's, 1 CVL and 1 CA. 566 Japanese planes were shot down. Bombardment and Invasion missions were met for Tarawa and Makin. I lost the Essex and 303 planes. Guess what, I lost ??? The Axis scored a "Marginal" Victory. Give me a break.

If SSG was scoring WWII, the Allies would have lost that too!!!! [&:]

I talked to Ian and here is the official reasoning. Let me begin by stating that the Victory Points have to do a number of jobs. They have to reflect tactical imperatives, like invading Tarawa, and more strategic concerns, such as not losing too many men and ships in achieving tactical objectives.

In CAW, the VPs also have to reflect, in some way, the differing military and social philosophies. The Americans like to accumulate overwhelming force and apply it scientifically to get the best possible military result consistent with an acceptable (read low) casualty rate. Not are only are civilians ultimately in charge of the US military, but peering over the shoulder of every high level US commander is a Senate committee or an influential newspaper.

The Japanese on the other hand are expected to win an overwhelming victory with the forces at hand, simply because they are Japanese, and cost is not really an issue. Also, nobody in Japan gets to write to their congressman about excessive casualties.

So in the Tarawa scenario you have overwhelming force. But you lost a real CV and a very large number of planes in defeating a much inferior force. Please try playing the other side and then see how you feel about VP balance.

Gregor

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Koa Kahiko

... Oh, and by the way, all the a/c in the task group which contained the Enterprise and two other flattops mysteriously disappeared for a couple of hours - then just as mysteriously reappeared. Guess they were with Kirk Douglas and the Nimitiz defending Pearl Harbor during "The Final Countdown"...

A "wormhole" as a random event; Harpoon players will be envious of us!

[Ophion]

Having played predominantly as the japs, I think the VPs are ok. The US is so vastly superior in these scenarios that the default outcome is basically a US victory in real terms. So a US victory should basically count as a draw. If the Japs actually manage to kill something, they have done really well. To take down an Essex class CV is a major achievment, even if you lose everything on the board in the process!

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ophion

... If the Japs actually manage to kill something, they have done really well. To take down an Essex class CV is a major achievment, even if you lose everything on the board in the process!

Interesting that CaW's victory conditions are mirroring the IJN "battleship" mentality, i.e., IJ pilots would instinctively go after high-value tagets -- CVs and BBs -- and skip over the troop transports, even during Allied invasions of their territory! The result was they lost "everything," but they sank their ship!

So is this a coincidence, or by SSG design?

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Ophion

... If the Japs actually manage to kill something, they have done really well. To take down an Essex class CV is a major achievment, even if you lose everything on the board in the process!

Interesting that CaW's victory conditions are mirroring the IJN "battleship" mentality, i.e., IJ pilots would instinctively go after high-value tagets -- CVs and BBs -- and skip over the troop transports, even during Allied invasions of their territory! The result was they lost "everything," but they sank their ship!

So is this a coincidence, or by SSG design?

Well, the best result the US can get if they fail to deliver their 35 CPs to Tarawa is an Axis Decisive victory! So if the Japanese player somehow manages to clobber the transports they will be well rewarded.

Gregor

[Ophion]

Just on that, I've noticed in both Phillipene Sea and Tarawa the japanese navy starts so far away from the combat zone that it is a physical impossibility to stop the landings (the land based air is usually as effective as the australian rugby forward pack) - the best you can do is engage the covering forces, and if you do manage to catch the transports they are already empty.

[Toby42]

I guess that Victory Conditions can be a very "Subjective" thing. To mirror history in a game might be considered a "Draw". To do better than what was actually accompished should be a Victory? I guess it all boils down to what makes you happy. To do as well as was done historically would make some people happy. To do better and how much better is what the level of Victory the player has acheived!
 
I mostly play to enjoy the experience and try to do better than what was acheived in real life!!!  Of course the CAW battle of Tarawa never happened like the scenario is written...

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: Ophion

Just on that, I've noticed in both Phillipene Sea and Tarawa the japanese navy starts so far away from the combat zone that it is a physical impossibility to stop the landings (the land based air is usually as effective as the australian rugby forward pack) - the best you can do is engage the covering forces, and if you do manage to catch the transports they are already empty.

The reason for that is that the US was not in the business of mounting 50/50 invasions. It had the economic and military power to overwhelm invasion targets with carrier based air before taking transports anywhere near a beachhead.

This was in complete contravention of pre-war thinking that held that carrier based air would always be inferior to land based air, since the land based air did not have to pay the penalties associated with making a plane carrier capable.

The US showed that all penalties could be overcome by building an immensely powerful engine, and then designing an airframe to use that power. This excess of power not only rendered any carrier plane costs, such as heavier undercarriage, folding wing mechanisms and tailhooks and associated structures more or less irrelevant, but the same plane could now carry a substantial bomb load and be very effective as a fighter bomber. This is an amazing turn around when you consider that the US was only just withdrawing the last of their biplane naval fighters at the start of the war.

Gregor

[Ophion]

Ok, so the transports would not be in the area (and hence the scenario) if any jap surface forces were still alive anywhere near them. Sounds reasonable enough!

[decaro]

For the record, I recently won as the Allies in this scenario, although my strategy was not by choice.

W/all the available IJ LBA, I have learned the hard way to keep my fleets near Tarawa and Makin while under clouds cover, making it harder for the Bettys to hit my CVs; my fleets stay under the clouds while launching against various airfields until the objectives are taken and the IJ LBA is exhausted, after which I had intended to go north in search of IJN.

But instead, the IJN came to me (!) w/powerful surface fleets followed by 2 CV TGs; the latter caught me by surprise and I lost the Enterprise and a CVL, which would usu. cause me to lose the scenario. But in its aggressive head-on attack, the AI lost every ship save 4 destroyers and a lt. cruiser.

Decisive Allied Victory: go figure.