Play balance question

[STUCKER868]

Historically, the Japanese had virtually no chance to win the war (and Yamamoto knew this). It was a war of economics, (Japan could not replace her losses), intelligence,(the breaking of the Japanese codes won the Allies many battles), and technology (Japan had an early lead in SOME tech areas, as well as experience but these were rapidly overtaken).

Add to all of this the fact that Japan was fighting a war on several fronts, and was outnumbered in manpower by a huge margin (China alone had eight times as many people as Japan and history has shown almost every time that the side with the larger population base usually wins).

Ironically, Japan had the same issues Germany had, but in most cases, even more severe.

My question is why would anyone want to play Japan? Most of the historical wargames I have played in this theater eventually always end in a Japanese defeat and it all comes down
to if the end is before or after the historical ending of the war in '45 (Usually the Japanese player is awarded some type of victory if he can survive longer then Japan did historically).

Is this game somehow balanced in a way that gives Japan an equal chance to win from the start or is the engine designed to run with historical issues?

Thanks in advance. Either way, the game looks fun.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Few wars, if any, are "balanced." People go to war for a lot of reasons, most of which don't include getting a fair fight. Either you try to overmatch the other guy (ideal) or you are forced (by your own ideology, by circumstances, or whatever) into an asymmetrical fight. So unless you pick tactical engagements where the outcome doesn't affect the grand scheme of things, most wargames are unbalanced in the sense that even if you win the victory point calculations, nope, the Germans still ain't taking Antwerp or whatever, and even if they did, Hitler still dies in the bunker a few months either side of the historical date. Some folks might feel differently, but I've never cared much whether the side I'm playing could win in the big picture. I just play for the specific challenges of the game and its simulated scale. For grand strategy games, it's mostly about exceeding history. For operational games, it's that plus maybe getting a "win" that, while not changing the course of the war, might at least prove a point about what decisions were made or not made at the time. For tactical battles, it matters even less, as it's all about small unit actions which in the grand scheme of things mattered not a whit to the Roosevelts, Stalins, Churchills, et al. There, it's about the specifics of taking this bit of ground or destroying that force, and doing it well.

I agree that pretty much all Pacific War stuff is tough to make "balanced," because there's no way in hell the Japanese can "win" in a traditional sense, unless everyone else just packs up and goes home. But the battles themselves are still interesting and there is plenty of room I'd imagine for screw ups and bad decisions, enough to make it interesting. For me at least; YMMV.

[Lukas]

In the Japanese campaign it assumes that luck is always on the side of the Japanese. At Midway the first waves of US aircraft failed to score any hits. Had the Japanese had more luck and provided better CAP one could assume they might've won the battle or at least scored a tie. After all their airstrike against the US fleet managed to cripple a US carrier (later sunk by a submarine).

That said, even with all the luck in the world the Japanese would not be able to win the war. Simple mathematics of numbers. They counted on the US sueing for peace but had no backup plan if that didn't happen.

The game does not try to be such a detailed war simulator however. The later Japanese campaigns cover the fictional invasion of Australia and their victory is achieved with the capture of Melbourne. It gives an opportunity to feature some of the more advanced weapons and prototypes the Japanese were creating but didn't get ready before the war ended. The US campaign on the other hand follows the historical course of the war.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: Lukas

In the Japanese campaign it assumes that luck is always on the side of the Japanese. At Midway the first waves of US aircraft failed to score any hits. Had the Japanese had more luck and provided better CAP one could assume they might've won the battle or at least scored a tie. After all their airstrike against the US fleet managed to cripple a US carrier (later sunk by a submarine).

That said, even with all the luck in the world the Japanese would not be able to win the war. Simple mathematics of numbers. They counted on the US sueing for peace but had no backup plan if that didn't happen.

The game does not try to be such a detailed war simulator however. The later Japanese campaigns cover the fictional invasion of Australia and their victory is achieved with the capture of Melbourne. It gives an opportunity to feature some of the more advanced weapons and prototypes the Japanese were creating but didn't get ready before the war ended. The US campaign on the other hand follows the historical course of the war.

Exactly. This is what you can (and I think, should) do with what history has given you. Looking forward to it.