A-bombs and victory levels

[erstad]

Our favorite member of the species alces twincitiesus and I had some brief comments on victory conditions and a-bombs in another thread, but I wanted to pen a small novella without hijacking the other thread (any further [8|]) so I'm continuing the discussion here:

And A-bombs are a huge liability for Allied victory if more than two are used. It's easy for the Allies to move from a win to a draw, or a draw to a loss, by using more than two. See Victory Conditions section of the manual.

True, but they are a huge VP generator for the allies.

For example, in my game with aztez (literally within days of reaching the end), I have ~97K points and he has 170K points, we've been oscillating around the 1.75 threshold for a couple week. (although I'm not sure aztez cares much about the points). Of that 170K, approximately 65K are a-bomb (roughly added from tracker on the days when things went really south). So with the a-bombs, we will either end at Jap marginal (if the ratio goes back above 1.75, so allied decisive + 2 shifts + 1 shift) or Jap decisive (if the ratio stays below 1.75).

without the abombs, we would easily be inside the 1.24 range for a draw, and it would be for sure a Jap decisive (draw + 2 shifts). So the abombs are giving a fighting chance for a Jap marginal. (And if my opponent really cared about points instead of scrapping to the end there's a couple of things that could have been avoided that would have pretty much guarantee only a jap marginal victory.)

If he had "merely" another 25K points, which seems in the realm of possibility for someone in fighter range of the home islands, then with abombs the game would end early with allied autovictory, adjusted down one to allied marginal; whereas without abombs the clock would run out and it would be a draw at best, and more likely a japanese marginal.

So there are definitely cases where the abombs actually tip the scale a level, or even two, in the allied favor.

Of course, if the allies are on track to autovictory without the third abomb, then they should refrain, because then it hurts. I won an allied autovictory in AE before abombs became available, so it can happen.

So my thoughts are that the third (and following) bombs are dropped if
- They are expected to push the allies over autovictory, and autovictory won't be achieved without them, OR
- Things are headed to a draw (pre-shift), and the a-bombs can push up to an allied decisive (pre-shift)

They would not be dropped if
- Allied autovictory is in the cards without them

It theoretically wouldn't matter much if
- Things are headed for an allied marginal victory (pre-shift). the abombs would presumably shift to an allied decisive which would then shift back.

The good news is you have several years before being faced with that decision vs. 1EyedJacks!

And of course, the overarching question is whether the victory conditions are properly balanced. They aren't, of course, it's only a question of degree (and direction). A game of this scope and breadth could never be playtested adequately to ensure the victory conditions are "fair." (not to mention constant changes since release, think about all the unit data and gameplay changes since the first release)

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: erstad

Our favorite member of the species alces twincitiesus and I had some brief comments on victory conditions and a-bombs in another thread, but I wanted to pen a small novella without hijacking the other thread (any further [8|]) so I'm continuing the discussion here:

And A-bombs are a huge liability for Allied victory if more than two are used. It's easy for the Allies to move from a win to a draw, or a draw to a loss, by using more than two. See Victory Conditions section of the manual.

True, but they are a huge VP generator for the allies.

I've only dropped them in AI GCs. In three GCs I dropped at minimum two, and at max, with a GC I allowed to go to engine shut-down in 1946 even though the Allies had AV earlier, I dropped six. I've never seen them be huge VP generators. The engine doesn't have code to treat them as A-bombs, with radiation and flash. It treats them as simply huge chemical bombs with immense penetration (30,000 I think from memory.) They take out large amounts of random industry, similar to a very large Manpower attack, but they don't take out LCUs or planes on the ground.

I don't have the old combat reports any more, but I've never gotten anything remotely like the VP levels you report. Couple of thousand each, maybe. Not 65k in total, even with six. If someone has live combat reports I'd like to see them. Maybe I picked the wrong targets. Although Tokyo was hit in each game at least once.

For example, in my game with aztez (literally within days of reaching the end), I have ~97K points and he has 170K points, we've been oscillating around the 1.75 threshold for a couple week. (although I'm not sure aztez cares much about the points). Of that 170K, approximately 65K are a-bomb (roughly added from tracker on the days when things went really south).

If this is true then this acts as a driver for what you say below. I don't disagree with what you say below IF you get these kinds of VP results from A-bombs. I just never have.

So with the a-bombs, we will either end at Jap marginal (if the ratio goes back above 1.75, so allied decisive + 2 shifts + 1 shift) or Jap decisive (if the ratio stays below 1.75).

without the abombs, we would easily be inside the 1.24 range for a draw, and it would be for sure a Jap decisive (draw + 2 shifts).

This also may be true. I can't say without knowing what he did with conventional start bombing in the HI.

So the abombs are giving a fighting chance for a Jap marginal. (And if my opponent really cared about points instead of scrapping to the end there's a couple of things that could have been avoided that would have pretty much guarantee only a jap marginal victory.)

This is also hard to parse without more. I play for VPs. I understand that others don't, although I find it hard to understand how there's a middle ground.

If he had "merely" another 25K points, which seems in the realm of possibility for someone in fighter range of the home islands, then with abombs the game would end early with allied autovictory, adjusted down one to allied marginal; whereas without abombs the clock would run out and it would be a draw at best, and more likely a japanese marginal.

OK, I get that. But if an Allied player doesn't drive for AV, but instead backs off to let things ride without winning "just to see", that's not really an A-bomb or a victory conditions issue. The victory conditions seem to assume--correctly I think--that a player will seek to win as soon as it's feasible. I can see a player, in this case the Allies, waiting to force AV until the correlation of forces allow him to drive for a decisive rather than a marginal, but the conditions don't assume the Allies will wait forever just to see 1946. I don't think any set of V. conditions could handle both of those cases well.

So there are definitely cases where the abombs actually tip the scale a level, or even two, in the allied favor.

If, a big if in my experience, the A-bomb allows the Allied VP total to leapfrog then yes, it could happen that way. As I said, I've never seen these sorts of VP numbers accrue from their use.

Of course, if the allies are on track to autovictory without the third abomb, then they should refrain, because then it hurts. I won an allied autovictory in AE before abombs became available, so it can happen.

So my thoughts are that the third (and following) bombs are dropped if
- They are expected to push the allies over autovictory, and autovictory won't be achieved without them, OR
- Things are headed to a draw (pre-shift), and the a-bombs can push up to an allied decisive (pre-shift)

They would not be dropped if
- Allied autovictory is in the cards without them

It theoretically wouldn't matter much if
- Things are headed for an allied marginal victory (pre-shift). the abombs would presumably shift to an allied decisive which would then shift back.

Or, if my experience is more normal, they could fail to jump to decisive but still impose the penalty, in which case the Allied player just stepped in a big pile of "uh oh."

The good news is you have several years before being faced with that decision vs. 1EyedJacks!

I fully expect the Japanese to run away like little girls long before Oppenheimer gets to recite the famous phrase. [8D]

And of course, the overarching question is whether the victory conditions are properly balanced. They aren't, of course, it's only a question of degree (and direction). A game of this scope and breadth could never be playtested adequately to ensure the victory conditions are "fair." (not to mention constant changes since release, think about all the unit data and gameplay changes since the first release)

Here I disagree too. I don't think anything in the patches or OOB changes has fundamentally altered the game balance. I think the Victory Conditions are extremely fair IF, a big if, both players observe their assumptions. For the most part that means playing the game as a game and not starting o9ut saying things like "I play for the experience, not VPs." If you want to play for the experience fine, but don't blame the victory conditions if you never get to the destination. Not saying you personally, but in general.

[Bullwinkle58]

OK, second cup of coffee onboard. Delete some of what I said above. 17.2 says (mind fart by me) that an Allied AV is automatically a Decisive and can only be hurt by excessive A-bombs. No two ways about it.

So . . .

[geofflambert]

When I'm playing the Allies, I don't want to use A-bombs. Where's the fun in that? I'll do some fire-bombing, but decisive actions mean the game ends, and whom among us fools ever wants the game to end?[;)]

[erstad]

And of course, the overarching question is whether the victory conditions are properly balanced. They aren't, of course, it's only a question of degree (and direction). A game of this scope and breadth could never be playtested adequately to ensure the victory conditions are "fair." (not to mention constant changes since release, think about all the unit data and gameplay changes since the first release)

Here I disagree too. I don't think anything in the patches or OOB changes has fundamentally altered the game balance. I think the Victory Conditions are extremely fair IF, a big if, both players observe their assumptions.

What I mean by this is that in a game the size of Witp, there can't possibly have been sufficient PBEM playtesting to ensure that the victory point ratio thresholds are fair. (By fair, I mean that two competent opponents of equal skill would over an infinite number of games get a balanced set of results, e.g., all draws, or an equal number of allied/japanese victories of the same magnitudes). Is 1.75x the right threshhold? Does the autovictory rule of 4x, 3x, 2x by year plus the "run-out" rules give the allies and japanese an equal chance of achieving a decisive victory? etc.

I'm not arguing that the bias is necessarily to Japan or to the Allies (I have my suspicion, but no real data), just that it is incredibly unlikely that it's spot on given that it's impossible to PBEM playtest. (And, since my experience is that VPs are dominated by losses, it doesn't seem like AI to AI autoplays are going to mimic human play well).

You might be right that the subsequent updates haven't changed the victory levels much, although a few things that can be pretty significant (versus the initial release) are the toned down artillery and increased IJA China garrisons, both of which make it (appropriately) harder for Japan to steamroll China; and the loss of drop tanks on Judys (which makes a huge difference when IJN is lucky enough to get a 8 hex air exchange). But in the grand scheme of things maybe these are small potatoes.

I'll dig up some representative a-bomb results for comparison. Have any of yours still? given the dramatic differences we see, and given we are both competent observers, I almost wonder if the AI difficulty settings modulate a-bomb results (or perhaps strat bombing more generally and it just carries over to the abombs)

By the way, i do agree the military effects are not that severe.

[erstad]

Here's a before/after industry screen from the first abomb attack in a PBEM.

Manpower - 4 damaged, 9 destroyed: 188 VP
HI - 39 damaged, 61 destroyed: 1298 VP
Naval shipyard - 45 damaged, 55 destroyed: 1190 VP
Vehicle - 28 damaged, 14 destroyed: 336 VP
Kawasaki Ha-60 - 47 damaged, 53 destroyed: 1154 VP

total of about 4100 VP from one Abomb. Did all the math in my head so might not be 100% accurate but should be close.

Been hit by 12 abombs total. For two of them, tracker showed over 11K loss for the day almost all of which has to be abomb related, more typically it's in the 5-7K range (which would largely, but not necessarily all, be abomb)

[geofflambert]

I don't even bother to pay attention to the game's victory point tallies, if you know what you're doing, you know whether you're winning or not.  The game vps are worse than irrelevant.  Ignore.

[Quixote]

I don't even bother to pay attention to the game's victory point tallies, if you know what you're doing, you know whether you're winning or not. The game vps are worse than irrelevant. Ignore.

The truth is out there somewhere...

Both Erstad and the Moose have valid points. As most players (and posters) haven't gotten as far as both of these gentlemen have in actual games, (vs the AI (Bullwinkle) or in PBEM (Erstad)), I'd reserve my judgement on this unless you feel you also have a solid feel for the endgame.

[aztez]

Yeah. I can confirm that I do not care much about the VP totals/levels in the game [:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: erstad

And of course, the overarching question is whether the victory conditions are properly balanced. They aren't, of course, it's only a question of degree (and direction). A game of this scope and breadth could never be playtested adequately to ensure the victory conditions are "fair." (not to mention constant changes since release, think about all the unit data and gameplay changes since the first release)

Here I disagree too. I don't think anything in the patches or OOB changes has fundamentally altered the game balance. I think the Victory Conditions are extremely fair IF, a big if, both players observe their assumptions.

What I mean by this is that in a game the size of Witp, there can't possibly have been sufficient PBEM playtesting to ensure that the victory point ratio thresholds are fair. (By fair, I mean that two competent opponents of equal skill would over an infinite number of games get a balanced set of results, e.g., all draws, or an equal number of allied/japanese victories of the same magnitudes). Is 1.75x the right threshhold? Does the autovictory rule of 4x, 3x, 2x by year plus the "run-out" rules give the allies and japanese an equal chance of achieving a decisive victory? etc.

I'm not arguing that the bias is necessarily to Japan or to the Allies (I have my suspicion, but no real data), just that it is incredibly unlikely that it's spot on given that it's impossible to PBEM playtest. (And, since my experience is that VPs are dominated by losses, it doesn't seem like AI to AI autoplays are going to mimic human play well).

You might be right that the subsequent updates haven't changed the victory levels much, although a few things that can be pretty significant (versus the initial release) are the toned down artillery and increased IJA China garrisons, both of which make it (appropriately) harder for Japan to steamroll China; and the loss of drop tanks on Judys (which makes a huge difference when IJN is lucky enough to get a 8 hex air exchange). But in the grand scheme of things maybe these are small potatoes.

I'll dig up some representative a-bomb results for comparison. Have any of yours still? given the dramatic differences we see, and given we are both competent observers, I almost wonder if the AI difficulty settings modulate a-bomb results (or perhaps strat bombing more generally and it just carries over to the abombs)

By the way, i do agree the military effects are not that severe.

I'll answer the above post more fully in awhile, but I found an old archive from an AI game on an external backup HD. I'm looking for some A-bomb days. But in the meantime you might enjoy, and JFBs hate, a combat report from a battle on the last day of the war.

Ground combat at Wakayama (109,60)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 655658 troops, 14662 guns, 11411 vehicles, Assault Value = 23247

Defending force 41199 troops, 243 guns, 1 vehicles, Assault Value = 925

Allied adjusted assault: 4849

Japanese adjusted defense: 175

Allied assault odds: 27 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), preparation(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
6919 casualties reported
Squads: 153 destroyed, 248 disabled
Non Combat: 44 destroyed, 109 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 53 (11 destroyed, 42 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 3


Allied ground losses:
7069 casualties reported
Squads: 199 destroyed, 635 disabled
Non Combat: 16 destroyed, 397 disabled
Engineers: 14 destroyed, 215 disabled
Guns lost 223 (32 destroyed, 191 disabled)
Vehicles lost 240 (8 destroyed, 232 disabled)


Assaulting units:
710th Tank Battalion
1st Royal Marine Division
76th Tank Brigade
210th Tank Brigade
144th Rifle Division
187th Rifle Division
22nd Rifle Division
226th Rifle Brigade
203rd Rifle Division
IV Corps Engineer Battalion
22nd Engr-Sapper Brigade
393rd Rifle Brigade
111th Tank Division
39th Rifle Brigade
927th SU Regiment
333rd Guards SU Regiment
210th Rifle Division
3rd NKVD Division
262nd Rifle Division
192nd Rifle Division
7th Mongolian Cavalry Division
1012th SU Regiment
231st Rifle Division
257th Tank Brigade
259th Rifle Brigade
41st Rifle Brigade
103rd Rifle Division
72nd Mechanized Brigade
775th Tank Battalion
209th Rifle Division
3rd Australian Brigade
190th Rifle Division
96th Infantry Division
52nd Rifle Division
4th Marine Division
218th Tank Brigade
206th Tank Brigade
1207th SU Regiment
124th Rifle Division
77th Tank Brigade
614th Rifle Regiment
74th Tank Brigade
378th Guards SU Regiment
42nd Mechanized Brigade
4th Armoured Bde /3
40th Rifle Division
6th Rifle Brigade
258th Tank Brigade
335th Guards SU Regiment
368th Mtn Rifle Regiment
204th Tank Brigade
159th Rifle Division
2/4th Armoured Rgt /4
109th Guards Rifle Division
3rd Rifle Division
45th Engr-Sapper Brigade
221st Rifle Division
1419th SU Regiment
98th Infantry Division
110th Guards Rifle Division
228th Rifle Division
1st/102nd Infantry Battalion
184th Rifle Division
261st Rifle Brigade
6th Rifle Division
11th (East African) Division
208th Tank Brigade
19th Guards Rifle Division
5th Guards Tank Corps
6th Mongolian Cavalry Division
95th Rifle Brigade
258th Rifle Brigade
480th Guards SU Regiment
358th Rifle Division
243rd Rifle Division
55th Motorcycle Battalion
59th Rifle Division
41st PA Infantry Division
7th Guards Mechanized Corps
292nd Rifle Division
247th Rifle Brigade
8th Rifle Brigade
17th Rifle Brigade
259th Tank Brigade
277th Rifle Division
113th Rifle Brigade
94th Rifle Division
75th Tank Brigade
262nd Rifle Brigade
8th Gd.Motorcycle Regiment
293rd Rifle Division
3rd USMC Tank Battalion
258th Rifle Division
371st Rifle Division
735th SU Regiment
72nd Tank Brigade
21st Rifle Brigade
37th (Sep) Infantry Regiment
689th Naval Inf. Battalion
395th Guards SU Regiment
56th NKVD Regiment
157th Rifle Division
25th Infantry Division
111th(Sep) Infantry Regiment
1st Guards Airborne Division
300th Rifle Division
1197th SU Regiment
39th Rifle Division
XIV Corps Combat Engineer Regiment
277th Engineer Battalion
5th Mongolian Cavalry Division
713th Flame Tank Bn /4
28th USN Naval Construction Regiment
3rd Gd.Breakthrough Artillery Division
3rd Motorized Rifle Regiment
390th Cannon Regiment
9th VVS Air Rgt
147th Howitzer Regiment
Trans Baikal Front
106th/1146th How. Regiment
119th Hvy.Howitzer Brigade
5202nd Eng Con Bde /3
54th Guards Mortar Regiment
1140th Cannon Regiment
42nd Cannon Regiment
45th USN Naval Construction Battalion
Eighth USAAF 2nd Division
III US Amphib Corps
189th USAAF Base Force /1
4th Field Artillery Battalion
53rd Guards Mortar Regiment
267th Cannon Regiment
2nd Guards Mortar Battalion
3rd Eng Amph Bde /2
1125th Cannon Regiment
192nd OM Gun Battalion
6th USN Naval Construction Regiment
1912th TD Regiment
12th USN Naval Construction Regiment
RAF 5 Group Base Force
16th USN Naval Construction Regiment
48th Aviation Base Force
32nd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
255th USN Base Force /2
12th VVS Air Rgt
53rd Mortar Brigade
157th USA Base Force /2
190th USAAF Base Force /1
4th Eng Amph Bde
196th USAAF Base Force
33rd Guards Mortar Regiment
1129th Hvy Howitzer Regiment
1127th Cannon Regiment
273rd Cannon Regiment
1233rd Cannon Regiment
1120th Cannon Regiment
39th Army
197th USAAF Base Force
1133rd Howitzer Regiment
107th Hvy.Howitzer Brigade
855/868th EAB /2
461st Mortar Regiment
1139th Cannon Regiment
177th Mortar Regiment
15th Guards Cannon Brigade
Seventh USAAF Engineer Aviation Battalion
33rd AA Division
5th Indian Div /7
898th Artillery Regiment
182nd Howitzer Regiment
204th USAAF Base Force
858th EAB /2
847th Artillery Regiment
205th Field Artillery Battalion
61st Anti-Tank Brigade
8th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
32nd Guards Mortar Regiment
VVS Outpost Base Force
31st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
10th/132nd PVO AA Battalion
1192nd BM Howitzer Regiment
52nd Marine Defense Battalion
202nd Lt.Artillery Brigade
1316th Anti-Tank Brigade
1st Far East Front
36th Army
10th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
12th Air Army
925th Artillery Regiment
610th AT Gun Regiment
283rd Guards Mortar Regiment
VVS Outpost Base Force
807th Artillery Regiment
2nd/307th Gd.Mortar Regiment
282nd Cannon Regiment
17th Guards Mortar Brigade
45th Howitzer Regiment
248th USN Base Force
1st Parachute Battalion
Cavite USN Base Force /2
967th Artillery Regiment
947th Artillery Regiment
57th Hvy.Mortar Brigade
48th USN Naval Construction Battalion
26th Guards Mortar Brigade
200th USAAF Base Force
2nd Far East Front
550th BM Howitzer Regiment
6th Gd.Breakthrough Artillery Division
60th Anti-Tank Brigade
20th Guards Mortar Brigade
9th Air Army
V US Corps
8th USN Naval Construction Regiment
152nd Cannon Brigade
72nd/74th Gd.Mortar Regiment
56th Hvy.Mortar Brigade
6th Guards Tank Army
2nd USN Naval Construction Regiment
47th Construction Regiment
235th USN Base Force /2
1122nd Cannon Regiment
134th USA Base Force /2
52nd Guards Mortar Regiment
192nd USAAF Base Force /2
1628th AT Gun Regiment
922nd Artillery Regiment
548th Cannon Regiment
2/6th Armoured Rgt /1
14th Anti-Tank Brigade
938th Artillery Regiment
100th OM Howitzer Battalion
6th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
27th USN Naval Construction Regiment
199th BM Howitzer Regiment
26th/42nd Gd.Mortar Regiment
805/1878th EAB /1

Defending units:
144th Division
4th Depot Division
70th Ind.Mixed Brigade
96th Ind.Mixed Brigade
56th Ind.Mixed Brigade
155th Division
205th Division
344th Division
5th Depot Division
94th Division
6th Depot Division
104th Machine Canno AA Battalion
55th Army
114th AA Regiment
121st Ind.Mixed Brigade
115th AA Regiment
13th Area Army
Suzuka JNAF Base Force

[Bullwinkle58]

This is a fairly "light" raid showing what can be achieved if you get closer than Saipan. This is autumn 1945.

Morning Air attack on Akita , at 117,55

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 74 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 32 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-17G Fortress x 174
B-24J Liberator x 18
PB4Y-2 Privateer x 39


Allied aircraft losses
B-17G Fortress: 61 damaged
B-17G Fortress: 2 destroyed by flak
B-24J Liberator: 5 damaged
B-24J Liberator: 1 destroyed by flak
PB4Y-2 Privateer: 17 damaged



Manpower hits 533
Fires 608942

[Bullwinkle58]

OK, after more searching than I wanted to do, I found one A-bomb mission.

It was on Tokyo on 8/31/45. 37,000 feet. This is the city read from the Japanese side the next morning.





Some Manpower hits, some HI, some LI, some Resources, Oscar plant, Helen plant. I may have bombed Tokyo before this; I had been bombing the HI in increasing volume since autumn 1944. The AI might have repaired too. I don't know. But this is roughly a typical A-bomb mission I've seen playing the AI. I doubt the code is any different for PBEM, but I can't say for sure.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: erstad

And of course, the overarching question is whether the victory conditions are properly balanced. They aren't, of course, it's only a question of degree (and direction). A game of this scope and breadth could never be playtested adequately to ensure the victory conditions are "fair." (not to mention constant changes since release, think about all the unit data and gameplay changes since the first release)

Here I disagree too. I don't think anything in the patches or OOB changes has fundamentally altered the game balance. I think the Victory Conditions are extremely fair IF, a big if, both players observe their assumptions.

What I mean by this is that in a game the size of Witp, there can't possibly have been sufficient PBEM playtesting to ensure that the victory point ratio thresholds are fair.

You may be right, but in an asymmetric game like this I'm always suspicious of words like "fair." A subjective word. What is fair is that in every game the OOBs and the map don't change in the same scenario. The victory conditions don't change. The time limits, same. The phasing, same. Both sides know these things up front, or can easily look them up. Should a Japanese fighter be worth 1.276x as many VPs as a destroyed Allied? I think that's what you're asking. And I don't know. I also don't think many PBEM trials will tell you. There are no equally matched PBEM players, or any way to really define what that means. They're humans, not widgets. You could accumulate a large statistical DB of PBEM games, but that doesn't mean two newbies fit. Or that two vets, getting advantageous rolls in the areas of the game they're better at one time, and not in the next game, have the same outcomes.

(By fair, I mean that two competent opponents of equal skill would over an infinite number of games get a balanced set of results, e.g., all draws, or an equal number of allied/japanese victories of the same magnitudes).

Yeah, but you can never achieve this test in RL, even in infinite trials. "Competent opponents" and "equal skill" are fairly meaningless phrases in this context. Is Nemo more competent than jrcar? Is CR more than Greyjoy? What are the criteria?

Is 1.75x the right threshhold? Does the autovictory rule of 4x, 3x, 2x by year plus the "run-out" rules give the allies and japanese an equal chance of achieving a decisive victory? etc.

OK, those are very fair questions. When setting t hem I assume GG and Co. had to somehow weigh the advantages Japanese production control gave to that side, as well as a host of other things. It's long been commented on that planes are way, way too valuable versus ships if the manhours and resources invested in production are the measures. A pretty large merchant ship versus a fighter? Look at the VPs. Nuts. But it's equal between the sides, so the absolutes wash out. It's the relative that matters.

I'm not arguing that the bias is necessarily to Japan or to the Allies (I have my suspicion, but no real data), just that it is incredibly unlikely that it's spot on given that it's impossible to PBEM playtest. (And, since my experience is that VPs are dominated by losses, it doesn't seem like AI to AI autoplays are going to mimic human play well).

I think a lot of it was simply GG's decades of experience designing.

I'd disagree a bit on VPs and splits. In many games you're right, but in the design it doesn't have to be the case that losses dominate VPs. We see a lot of bash-a-thon games with little maneuver or subtlety. A lot of players don't play for territory and PTO WWII was perhaps the greatest territory-centric modern war ever. There are key bases that, when combined with the construction multipliers, are vast storehouses of VPs. But a lot of players don't take and build them.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: erstad

Here's a before/after industry screen from the first abomb attack in a PBEM.

Manpower - 4 damaged, 9 destroyed: 188 VP
HI - 39 damaged, 61 destroyed: 1298 VP
Naval shipyard - 45 damaged, 55 destroyed: 1190 VP
Vehicle - 28 damaged, 14 destroyed: 336 VP
Kawasaki Ha-60 - 47 damaged, 53 destroyed: 1154 VP

total of about 4100 VP from one Abomb. Did all the math in my head so might not be 100% accurate but should be close.

Been hit by 12 abombs total. For two of them, tracker showed over 11K loss for the day almost all of which has to be abomb related, more typically it's in the 5-7K range (which would largely, but not necessarily all, be abomb)

I posted one of my turns and it's less than this. I've had results greater then the one I posted. I figure an A-bomb is going to provide 2000-4000 or so VPs. When I reacted as I did I did not know you were talking 65,000 VPs for TWELVE bombs. (!!!!!) I've never had more than six, playing out to shut-down in 1946. Long ago Michael outlined how the code works to provide A-bombs. I don't remember the details, but I think there's random chances every month after 8/45 of getting one. To get 12 you have to be very deep into 1946 as well as have the Allied player get lucky.

I took a look into your opponents' AAR (last few pages) and it's, if I may, a very odd game in where you guys are when you are. If you want to discuss in PM I'm game. It should run out the clock in a couple of turns I think.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't even bother to pay attention to the game's victory point tallies, if you know what you're doing, you know whether you're winning or not. The game vps are worse than irrelevant. Ignore.

I hear this all the time. I still don't know what it means.

What do you call the manager of the St. L. Cards when he tells the media "We stole four bases tonight, got some good hits, tried out our new bonus baby on the mound, and nobody got hurt. So we lost 12-3. We had fun. I never pay attention to the score anyway." What do you call that guy? I'll tell you--unemployed.

I've had friends who told me they like to tramp around a links and whack balls. A lot of fun. Hey, I've even done it. But it's not golf. It's walking and whacking.

You take Singers. You take Manila. In one case are you "winning" and the other not? How do you know? Is Manila worth more than Hong Kong? How do you know?

It's fine in AE if both players want to walk and whack, but it's a problem if only one does. And walking and whacking for 3-4 years, daily? Pretty rare.

But if it makes you happy, whack away, dude. [:)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
What do you call the manager of the St. L. Cards when he tells the media "We stole four bases tonight, got some good hits, tried out our new bonus baby on the mound, and nobody got hurt. So we lost 12-3. We had fun. I never pay attention to the score anyway." What do you call that guy? I'll tell you--unemployed.

No. You call him a manager for the University of Minnesota baseball (or football) team. The Vikings or Twins will do to in a pinch. I hear more about 'moral victories' up here than anywhere else I've followed sports. Is this some Upper Midwest 'Minnesota nice' claptrap. 'Cuz it nauseates me.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

OK, after more searching than I wanted to do, I found one A-bomb mission.

Some Manpower hits, some HI, some LI, some Resources, Oscar plant, Helen plant. I may have bombed Tokyo before this; I had been bombing the HI in increasing volume since autumn 1944. The AI might have repaired too. I don't know. But this is roughly a typical A-bomb mission I've seen playing the AI. I doubt the code is any different for PBEM, but I can't say for sure.

I vaguely recall this. If memory suits, the display (image) doesn't show the destroyed units, just the total remaining and the number that are damaged. The destroyed units are 'where it's at' for VP generation of an atomic bomb hit.

Generally agree with those that say that A-bomb effects on ships, units and all factories are underpowered / underwhelming.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Long ago Michael outlined how the code works to provide A-bombs. I don't remember the details, but I think there's random chances every month after 8/45 of getting one. To get 12 you have to be very deep into 1946 as well as have the Allied player get lucky.

I was curious about this and it wasn't hard to find.

"There is usually a build rate of 1 per 30 days - that is, a chance of getting a bomb of 1 in 30.
A roll of bad dice could mean none in a month.

I have a save game dated Jul 27,1945 and it has 2 atomic bombs in the pool.

_____________________________

Michael "

fb.asp?m=3255077

[jcjordan]

I'm playing until the bitter end, until my pc quits or hell freezes over so I'm into Apr46 & have gotten 12 ABombs so I consider myself lucky in many production rolls on them. I've used about 8 just to see some random results of attacks - all have been less than desired so they really aren't worth using at all as well as the 509th CG is as well since it can only do atomic missions (can't really even train new pilots) [:(]

[erstad]

I vaguely recall this. If memory suits, the display (image) doesn't show the destroyed units, just the total remaining and the number that are damaged. The destroyed units are 'where it's at' for VP generation of an atomic bomb hit.

Yes, that's absolutely correct. You can't see destroyed industry on the base screen, it's simply not there. So to figure out the destroyed you have to find the "before" and compute
Destroyed = old_undamaged + old_damaged - new_undamaged - new_damaged