Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Revthought
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Revthought »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
But it's still accounted for. Your stated goals, which are highly subjective (e.g., Japan can't lose if it controls any oil centers) are better suited for a custom map that greatly inflates the VP value of those oil centers for Japan (make Palembang worth *500 VPs for Japan but keep it at *2 for the Allies, for example).

I stick by my original statement. I ignore victory points altogether, and insist on doing so with any opponent before starting a PBEM.

If I am speaking frankly, victory points, as with any measurement scale are completely arbitrary; and in this case, if I am reading you right, and what you're saying is that the historical outcome of the war would not rate a "Total Victory" for the Allies in the game, then the victory point system in the game, then the already arbitrary scale does a very poor job of categorizing victory.

All the more reason to ignore the system altogether, or use it just a scale for an individual player to measure the progress of the war without assigning any sort of "end game" value to them.
Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
But it's still accounted for. Your stated goals, which are highly subjective (e.g., Japan can't lose if it controls any oil centers) are better suited for a custom map that greatly inflates the VP value of those oil centers for Japan (make Palembang worth *500 VPs for Japan but keep it at *2 for the Allies, for example).

I stick by my original statement. I ignore victory points altogether, and insist on doing so with any opponent before starting a PBEM.

If I am speaking frankly, victory points, as with any measurement scale are completely arbitrary; and in this case, if I am reading you right, and what you're saying is that the historical outcome of the war would not rate a "Total Victory" for the Allies in the game, then the victory point system in the game, then the already arbitrary scale does a very poor job of categorizing victory.

All the more reason to ignore the system altogether, or use it just a scale for an individual player to measure the progress of the war without assigning any sort of "end game" value to them.

If you ignore victory points altogether, why are you trying to say that a VP-system-driven outcome is some personally arbitrary outcome instead? After saying that any rating/scoring system is arbitrary, no less.

And no, you're not reading me correctly. The 2:1 VP ratio before 9/1/1945 is an approximation of the essentially total victory that the US & Allies had achieved by that date.
bradfordkay
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by bradfordkay »

ORIGINAL: cavalry

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: cavalry



no I was not saying that - I was saying that even a beefed up Japan that has done better than historical does not get to be ahead in the long term despite good play unless its by some auto victory in 42 I suppose. Not sure I have ever seen a post mentioning auto victory in 43 but I maybe wrong.
And anyway the scn 2 seems loaded with trouble with the economy oif you ant to build the stuff because the HI points you are starved of.

Let me just say, by any real measure reality, in game terms, ended in a Total Allied victory. So again, relatively speaking, a minor Allied victory is a huge win for a Japanese player.

agree but its such a shame the games run with hindsight of both sides. The allies have the advantage in that as they can wait and there is no loss of will to continue to fight if say India is lost or Australia?


Japanese auto-victory rules simulate the "loss of will to continue the fight" on the allied side, so that is already in the game.
fair winds,
Brad
szmike
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:21 am

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by szmike »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Except it's not, given how thoroughly and totally Japan was defeated IRL. If things had broken Japan's way just a few times IRL, they would still have lost but it might have taken a little longer. That's a minor Allied victory in the game.

I concur. Had Midway ended with all American carriers lost, it would take quite some time to recover. Probably a year or two longer war.
User avatar
Pilsator
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:11 am
Location: Berlin

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Pilsator »

it also always depends on the play style. Are you playing more a role playing game or are you playing the game with squeezing everything out what the game engine allows you, eg. freeing troops from Mandchuko, deep invasion without securing the rear, infos on arrival and withdrawal times of units and AGs, maybe realistic R&D off etc.

So if you playing in a "realistic" way it is not that bad, but using every "exploit" surely leads to unbalanced VP conditions.
Cavalry Corp
Posts: 3637
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:28 pm
Location: Sampford Spiney Devon UK

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Cavalry Corp »

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Should the allied player have to drop the bombs? Is that just one level of victory or two?


Oh thanks forgot that - I thought there were 3 bombs only as well.
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by rustysi »

I think ignoring the VP system changes the tone and type of game that will be played. Without the possibility of a Japanese auto-victory what is to stop the Allies from contesting every approach of Japan in order to draw things out regardless of losses, thus possibly preventing Japan from even historical gains. By contesting every little thing the Allies would probably lose many of the assets and their associated VP's, but who cares as long as its not too much to overcome later. Without the constraint of a Japanese AV the Allies could do whatever they choose and know they will still win later on when all the toys start to arrive.

I understand that stopping the initial expansion may still not be possible, but still contend that an AV type of situation gives the Allied player something else to consider. Its why I believe the Allies must have some kind of approach between an all out defense and a 'Sir Robbin'.

Its why I intend to have some kind of 'final protective line' when I get to the Allied side of the game. Delay, delay, delay... Fall back to here, dig in deeper than a tic on a dog and hold.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by geofflambert »

Who was adjudicating the victory point system? The Hague? Who cares? If you don't know whether you're winning or not I don't know what to say. If you choose to play the Japanese you are losing and the longer you play the more badly you are losing. What's the fun in that? The Japanese made a Uuuuuge mistake starting the thing. The point of playing is to cause your opponent as much consternation as possible. If you can count coup, do so. Pay attention to VPs? The coin of this realm ain't worth a nickle.

User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Barb »

Yup, Victory conditions or Victory points are just one kind of measure... Take an example of my PBEM as Japan:
Victory points in May 1943 are about 2:1 for Japan in scenario 1.
China still allied.
Burma is slowly lost (Currently holding Rangoon-Chiang Mai line).
DEI still secure in Japanese hands.
Solomon islands recently occupied by allies up to and including Bougainville.
Gilberts mostly in allied hands.
Allies in Onnekotan-Jima, and recently evicted from Paramushiro Jima with a full division + support lost.

From reading just the map, it doesn't seem to be very bright for the Imperial side, does it?

- On the other hand, the air losses are about 7360 allied planes vs 5280 lost on the Japanese side. Considering the allies got a total about 11800 planes in replacements (excluding planes arriving in units and already on map), that is increase of about 4400 planes from the start of the game. Part of it is for restricted units (Canada, ConUS) or specific Nations (like RN/USN), that is a further limitation of useful strength on hand.
- The Japanese lost 11 of their 16 original heavy cruisers, coupled with 1 BB and 3 CVs and 2 CVLs, plus some CLs and DDs. On the other hand Allies lost most of their BBs (modern ones included) and cruisers, plus a lot of DDs. One CV and almost every available CVE were sunk too.

I know the allies will eventually crush me, but so far I am still considering myself to having the upper hand (or still winning), even on the defensive. [:D]

- The allies lost almost every B-17s, B-24Ds, B-26s, P-40B/Es, F4F-3s, Blenheims, older Hurricanes, Chinese Air force is non existant ...
- What will eventually kill me is about 740 Lancasters, 450 Lincolns, 1600 Spitfires, 1180 Thunderbolts, 2970 A-26s, 3700 B-17Gs, 2670 B-24Js, 2050 B-25s, 3180 B-29s, 2500 P-38s, 3550 P-47s, 6300 P-51s, 3400 FM Wildcats, 6100 F4Us, 7260 F6Fs, 1300 PB4Ys, 4200 SB2Cs, 2600 SBDs, 8000 TBF/TBMs ... not counting Soviets and all the minor stuff to yet to arrive [X(] Allies will get almost 102 000 planes between 6.1943 and 7.1946. Making total reinforcements of some 130 000 planes for the whole war (still not counting units already on map and arriving in units before May 1943).
- The allies will get more than 3000 planes planes in just production and replacements monthly after 2.1945 and more than 4000 planes after 9.45... [X(]
Image
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Macclan5 »

Succinctly (if possible) [8D]

The Victory Point system is fine / great / designed and unalterable and can be used "to measure progress during a game"; verses the AI or verses an opponent in PBEM.

I do not recommend ignoring or abandoning it all together. Its one tool of many.

In my opinion it is or should not be the "only measure" of success for the Allies or Japanese.

I would recommend that there are/should be qualitative factors as well; verses the AI or agreed upon with an opponent in AI.

They will vary depending upon "strong opinion". [:D]

Two examples I mentioned are merely examples but something I would / could live with.

1) The ability of the Empire of Japan to maintain colonial co-prosperity sphere possessions and further ship raw resources and oil from them to the home islands by traditional VJ date.

2) The ability of the Allies to invade / hold / control either Tokyo or some significant portion (measured by bases or points or some such thing) of the home islands by VJ date.

I think you can argue that either one of these likely represent a major victory given the historical and real gaps in population, industrial might, activation of the Soviets, the Allied imposition of unconditional surrender on all Axis powers, etc, etc , etc.

Cheers

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Lokasenna »

I mean, again... those things are accounted for in an abstract way by the VP system. They aren't the only considerations, but there's a reason why bases key to denying Japan access to the SRA (in addition to being high-value targets for the populace back home, hence their VP multipliers) have high VP multipliers. Saigon, Luzon, etc. Granted, most of the other bases only have a multiplier of *2, but there's no reason why a person who wanted to place more emphasis on the SRA access aspect of the game couldn't change those multipliers for bases they consider to be key to victory considerations.
Cavalry Corp
Posts: 3637
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:28 pm
Location: Sampford Spiney Devon UK

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Cavalry Corp »

So do we have a league showing the victory levels in points if we like of games played - that would be interesting.

And if you play in a league maybe not on this site...the result in pts does matter. As if unbalanced with no hope for good play not talking about historical outcomes for a moment - some people will not play one side. Most of you guys are going though the long experience as an end in itself I guess - nothing wrong with that. My original question was around play balance in terms of it being a game.

I prefer not to play a scenario where its chess where one side has two queens who would play against that. that is why I hope some modders have generally made anything less than a historical outcome in Japans favour.
bradfordkay
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by bradfordkay »

I think that there are players who are playing a game as competitively as possible - and for that the VP system as created works well. There are also players of this game who are playing for the love of the subject matter - and to them they pretty much ignore the VP system and look at the way the war is progressing in order to obtain their feeling of satisfaction.

Neither is right or wrong - as long as both -players understand from where their opponent is coming.
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: cavalry

So do we have a league showing the victory levels in points if we like of games played - that would be interesting.

And if you play in a league maybe not on this site...the result in pts does matter. As if unbalanced with no hope for good play not talking about historical outcomes for a moment - some people will not play one side. Most of you guys are going though the long experience as an end in itself I guess - nothing wrong with that. My original question was around play balance in terms of it being a game.

I prefer not to play a scenario where its chess where one side has two queens who would play against that. that is why I hope some modders have generally made anything less than a historical outcome in Japans favour.

So you're asking a question but making a statement on your answer to that question as well. [;)]

YOU don't think it's balanced. Then you ask if we think it's balanced.

If you want any feedback on whether the game is or is not fairly balanced in VP terms you need a lot more than a one game sample size, and if you want feedback on your experience of that game, then we need more particulars.

I've come to think the VP system is the ONLY objective way to see how I'm doing against my opponent. I now play the VP system. I do things that earn more VPs or strategically hope will keep more of my VPs to the end. I also try to fight my aggressive tendency in order to conserve my own VP losses while picking spots where the Allies have known valuable assets in range in order to launch strikes. You can't really do this your first time through as Japan because you have no idea what 44-45 i'll look like.


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

Coming to the thread late, as it's probably reached its lifespan, but this perennial topic is always worth a swing. For newbies who haven't been through the VP wars anyway. When players I respect, such as Lokasenna and obvert, weigh in I figure why not add some gasoline to the fire.

There's a great legal term of art: "engaged in a frolic." It's found in the law of torts in the doctrine of respondeat superior. When an employee who is performing duties in the course of his employment commits a tort, his employer may be found liable under the doctrine. But if the employee departs from his duty--if he "engages in a frolic"--at a certain point his employer is no longer liable. Some of the case law is absolutely hilarious.

The analogy I'm about to make has nothing to do with the law of torts. I just think it's a great phrase.

When players of AE ignore the VP system, when they ignore the defined victory conditions, they are not playing the game. They are engaged in a frolic. It may be fun. It may be satisfying. But it's not a game. Games have winners and losers.

Football without points is large men running around a pasture. Golf without a card may be a nice walk, it may be an agreeable time with friends, it may be practice with the clubs, but it's not golf. Baseball without runs, soccer without goals, basketball without points--not games. Each sport in the Olympics has three winners; all others are losers. Even hide-and-go-seek has a winner and loser.

The game AE is most commonly compared to is chess. Chess is built around the concept of check and checkmate. A winner, a loser. That the idea of a king being killed, even as his wife was expendable, was abhorrent to the inventors is interesting, but whether by checkmate or surrender there's a winner. Imagine playing chess without checkmate. Sure, chess fans play out problems without it, often playing both sides. They probe strategies. They develop skills. But it's not a game of chess. Now imagine doing that for four years. Imagine thousands of new chess pieces that flow onto the board across those years. But still no winner. It's not chess.

So when AE players sniff at the VP system and the victory conditions, especially when they use terms like "arbitrary", they really don't get it. And they really aren't playing the game.

Same as chess, AE is built around the victory conditions. And when you play under them and recognize VPs, you begin to see GG's and Henderson Field's genius. The OP asked if they are balanced. Yes. A thousand times yes. Unlike chess, AE is tremendously asymmetrical. "Japan can't win the war" has been said so many times here it's trite. (It's also not true if non-equally-matched players are involved.) But Japan can win the game. I know this as it happened to me. In stellar fashion. An auto-victory on 1/1/43. A great learning experience.

The victory conditions are genius because they are varied and also stratified. In many wargames territory is paramount. Stand on it on the last turn and you get victory progress. But AE expands well past that simple premise. By awarding VPs for many other activities the game allows for a range of game styles. It isn't mandatory that the Allies strat bomb the HI to win. It helps, but there are other ways. Japan can defend different vectors than historical. It can turtle. It can invade India. It can massively blow out its air force and roll the late-war dice. And inside that, the game also weights VPs. It's not an accident that a dead Japan device is worth only half the VPs of most Allied devices. It's not an accident that a dead Chinese device is worth half a Japanese. Or that a 4E bomber is worth twice what a 2E is worth. Or that a DD with a crew of 300 is worth only 5X what a 4E bomber is, with ten crew and lot less manufacturing. The OP asked about balance. There it is.

Beyond that, as Lokasenna pointed out, the bases are carefully weighted in stock to guide the balance objective. Look, for one example of hundreds, at Soerbaja and Batavia. Close to each other; same island even. Both large. But one has oil and the other resources. One has a big shipyard; the other does not. Now look at the VPs. Huge difference. With the "more attractive", to the Allies at least, less valuable. And the higher VP bag is "west" (in AE map terms), and not "north", toward the HI and the inner perimeter. So the Allied player has a decision to make. A trade-off analysis. Remove VPs though, and there's no incentive at all to go for Batavia.

Decisions like this are all over the VP system. Two more that frolickers miss. First, the decision to build up base infrastructure. Each base has escalators built into its VP total. They vary widely. For bases like Canberra or Noumea the base value when fully built out is multiples of its core VP value. Are these numbers accidents? Arbitrary? Not at all. For Japan they represent constant decisions. Build now and get the benefit of the port and AF? But also give the Allied player "free" VPs when he inevitably takes the base? Without VPs it's an easy decision.

Second, the victory system's provision that bases, to earn their full VPs, be in supply. In our game, I sometimes see Lokasenna's Japan VPs jump in Tracker, and I think "The train just got to Chungking." On one turn with no real fighting my VPs jumped about 200 points, and he said, "You just re-supplied Noumea." And he was right. Why does that matter? Well, the supply generated by LI and HI and refineries in stock is predicated on that mechanism. It really matters for Japan, especially late game. To stay afloat in VP terms, Japan has to position supply on bases that they may otherwise wish to leave as unsupplied shells. In a frolic "game" there's no pressure to do that. All of that supply is available to Japan to fight with. The intent of the designers is circumvented. The careful calibration is overturned.

There are a lot of other reasons to play the game with attention to VPs. And, despite claims otherwise, players who play the game and don't frolic are not all steely-eyed madmen obsessed with wringing out every VP available in the code, gaming the system and laughing maniacally as they do so. Same as with checkmate, VPs and the victory conditions are a discipline measure, the "spine" of the game as it were. Not the whole body.

As I said above, I offer this to newbies primarily. Those who read veteran players say, well, all the "stuff" they say about VPs and victory conditions and auto-victory and don't know what to think. I would say, try it. If you really don't like it, drop them. But don't frolic as a first pass. The VPs tick up and down no matter what. You can start paying attention in even long-established, in-progress games.


The Moose
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Macclan5 »

Nicely stated.
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Yaab »

I sometimes have nightmares that I publish some controversial WiTP:AE post and then get quickly quashed by a dual answer of Alfred and Bullwinkle. The horror, the horror!
dave sindel
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Millersburg, OH

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by dave sindel »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Coming to the thread late, as it's probably reached its lifespan, but this perennial topic is always worth a swing. For newbies who haven't been through the VP wars anyway. When players I respect, such as Lokasenna and obvert, weigh in I figure why not add some gasoline to the fire.

There's a great legal term of art: "engaged in a frolic." It's found in the law of torts in the doctrine of respondeat superior. When an employee who is performing duties in the course of his employment commits a tort, his employer may be found liable under the doctrine. But if the employee departs from his duty--if he "engages in a frolic"--at a certain point his employer is no longer liable. Some of the case law is absolutely hilarious.

The analogy I'm about to make has nothing to do with the law of torts. I just think it's a great phrase.

When players of AE ignore the VP system, when they ignore the defined victory conditions, they are not playing the game. They are engaged in a frolic. It may be fun. It may be satisfying. But it's not a game. Games have winners and losers.

Football without points is large men running around a pasture. Golf without a card may be a nice walk, it may be an agreeable time with friends, it may be practice with the clubs, but it's not golf. Baseball without runs, soccer without goals, basketball without points--not games. Each sport in the Olympics has three winners; all others are losers. Even hide-and-go-seek has a winner and loser.

The game AE is most commonly compared to is chess. Chess is built around the concept of check and checkmate. A winner, a loser. That the idea of a king being killed, even as his wife was expendable, was abhorrent to the inventors is interesting, but whether by checkmate or surrender there's a winner. Imagine playing chess without checkmate. Sure, chess fans play out problems without it, often playing both sides. They probe strategies. They develop skills. But it's not a game of chess. Now imagine doing that for four years. Imagine thousands of new chess pieces that flow onto the board across those years. But still no winner. It's not chess.

So when AE players sniff at the VP system and the victory conditions, especially when they use terms like "arbitrary", they really don't get it. And they really aren't playing the game.

Same as chess, AE is built around the victory conditions. And when you play under them and recognize VPs, you begin to see GG's and Henderson Field's genius. The OP asked if they are balanced. Yes. A thousand times yes. Unlike chess, AE is tremendously asymmetrical. "Japan can't win the war" has been said so many times here it's trite. (It's also not true if non-equally-matched players are involved.) But Japan can win the game. I know this as it happened to me. In stellar fashion. An auto-victory on 1/1/43. A great learning experience.

The victory conditions are genius because they are varied and also stratified. In many wargames territory is paramount. Stand on it on the last turn and you get victory progress. But AE expands well past that simple premise. By awarding VPs for many other activities the game allows for a range of game styles. It isn't mandatory that the Allies strat bomb the HI to win. It helps, but there are other ways. Japan can defend different vectors than historical. It can turtle. It can invade India. It can massively blow out its air force and roll the late-war dice. And inside that, the game also weights VPs. It's not an accident that a dead Japan device is worth only half the VPs of most Allied devices. It's not an accident that a dead Chinese device is worth half a Japanese. Or that a 4E bomber is worth twice what a 2E is worth. Or that a DD with a crew of 300 is worth only 5X what a 4E bomber is, with ten crew and lot less manufacturing. The OP asked about balance. There it is.

Beyond that, as Lokasenna pointed out, the bases are carefully weighted in stock to guide the balance objective. Look, for one example of hundreds, at Soerbaja and Batavia. Close to each other; same island even. Both large. But one has oil and the other resources. One has a big shipyard; the other does not. Now look at the VPs. Huge difference. With the "more attractive", to the Allies at least, less valuable. And the higher VP bag is "west" (in AE map terms), and not "north", toward the HI and the inner perimeter. So the Allied player has a decision to make. A trade-off analysis. Remove VPs though, and there's no incentive at all to go for Batavia.

Decisions like this are all over the VP system. Two more that frolickers miss. First, the decision to build up base infrastructure. Each base has escalators built into its VP total. They vary widely. For bases like Canberra or Noumea the base value when fully built out is multiples of its core VP value. Are these numbers accidents? Arbitrary? Not at all. For Japan they represent constant decisions. Build now and get the benefit of the port and AF? But also give the Allied player "free" VPs when he inevitably takes the base? Without VPs it's an easy decision.

Second, the victory system's provision that bases, to earn their full VPs, be in supply. In our game, I sometimes see Lokasenna's Japan VPs jump in Tracker, and I think "The train just got to Chungking." On one turn with no real fighting my VPs jumped about 200 points, and he said, "You just re-supplied Noumea." And he was right. Why does that matter? Well, the supply generated by LI and HI and refineries in stock is predicated on that mechanism. It really matters for Japan, especially late game. To stay afloat in VP terms, Japan has to position supply on bases that they may otherwise wish to leave as unsupplied shells. In a frolic "game" there's no pressure to do that. All of that supply is available to Japan to fight with. The intent of the designers is circumvented. The careful calibration is overturned.

There are a lot of other reasons to play the game with attention to VPs. And, despite claims otherwise, players who play the game and don't frolic are not all steely-eyed madmen obsessed with wringing out every VP available in the code, gaming the system and laughing maniacally as they do so. Same as with checkmate, VPs and the victory conditions are a discipline measure, the "spine" of the game as it were. Not the whole body.

As I said above, I offer this to newbies primarily. Those who read veteran players say, well, all the "stuff" they say about VPs and victory conditions and auto-victory and don't know what to think. I would say, try it. If you really don't like it, drop them. But don't frolic as a first pass. The VPs tick up and down no matter what. You can start paying attention in even long-established, in-progress games.


This was extremely well stated, logical and quite entertaining. Nice job Moose....
szmike
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:21 am

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by szmike »

[&o] to Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Victory conditions in scn? Is any one really balanced?

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

[blush]
The Moose
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”