An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
I never ever captured Palembang as the Japanese for VP Points.
Key bases always depend on something other then VPs. Sadly , in computer wargames this neglected and a VP System is there to "guide" players the right way.
As Japanese I have a few bases which I consider important and they give me always no VPs
Key bases always depend on something other then VPs. Sadly , in computer wargames this neglected and a VP System is there to "guide" players the right way.
As Japanese I have a few bases which I consider important and they give me always no VPs
- Canoerebel
- Posts: 21099
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
- Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
- Contact:
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
Here's what I've taken from this thread and related comments from other threads:
1. The VP system, despite its shortcomings, is rich and gives Japan something to play for deeply into the game (even "winning the game"), long after any hope of "winning the war" is over.
2. Japanese players would appreciate a VP system that was fairer, allowing the Referee (the Game AI) to more accurately declare a winner.
3. There seems to be a consensus that the Victory Points system is somewhat askew - at least arguably or hypothetically - in favor of the Allies.
4. A lot of good thoughts have been expressed here but it would take a great deal more thinking before anything could be done.
5. There is not a strong desire to pursue this further at this time. It'll take time for a movement to develop (or this might be stillborn).
Thanks for chiming in. I learned a lot.
1. The VP system, despite its shortcomings, is rich and gives Japan something to play for deeply into the game (even "winning the game"), long after any hope of "winning the war" is over.
2. Japanese players would appreciate a VP system that was fairer, allowing the Referee (the Game AI) to more accurately declare a winner.
3. There seems to be a consensus that the Victory Points system is somewhat askew - at least arguably or hypothetically - in favor of the Allies.
4. A lot of good thoughts have been expressed here but it would take a great deal more thinking before anything could be done.
5. There is not a strong desire to pursue this further at this time. It'll take time for a movement to develop (or this might be stillborn).
Thanks for chiming in. I learned a lot.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
- MakeeLearn
- Posts: 4274
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
What constitutes winning and losing will vary from person to person, so instead of one new victory mod it may be more beneficial to develop several new victory mods, allowing the contestants to decide which to play under.
Modding-wise It would probably be better to make several new victory mods in parallel rather than one at at time over time. This will also aid in fine tuning.
Modding-wise It would probably be better to make several new victory mods in parallel rather than one at at time over time. This will also aid in fine tuning.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Since only bases can be adjusted without code changes, which would be HUGE code changes (not in terms of difficulty, but in terms of ramifications)... I've kept any thinking about what could possibly be changed to base VP adjustments.
Hence, my conclusions have been that bases closer to Japan (or even in Japan) need an upward adjustment for the Japanese side. And probably some of the major bases that the Allies take need a downward adjustment on the multiplier since strat bombing has been and always will be the way the Allies win. Has there been a game where strat bombing (or at least a-bombs) weren't the thing that won the game for the Allies in 1944 or 1945?
Very interesting thread, but the bolded is the crux of the matter. It's the only solution that works within the parameters of the existing game code. While there are interesting ideas for altering other types of VPs, that would require an external calculation system, which seems problematic. Barring that, the only thing worth discussing is a revision to base VPs. Which ones, and by how much?
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Kull
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Since only bases can be adjusted without code changes
Very interesting thread, but the bolded is the crux of the matter. It's the only solution that works within the parameters of the existing game code. While there are interesting ideas for altering other types of VPs, that would require an external calculation system, which seems problematic. Barring that, the only thing worth discussing is a revision to base VPs. Which ones, and by how much?
Since it's about late-game adjustments, it should be bases. There are essentially 3 options:
1) Maintain same overall number of VPs available to each side, but: reduce the Japan VPs for various bases not in the "inner core" (Manchuria/Korea, E/NE China, Taiwan, Okinawa, Bonins) that Japan can expect to hold onto until at least the middle of 1945 in a "historically comparable performance" (or close to it) game - this means reducing Manila, Singapore, Rangoon, etc. They're the big ones and you need a big change. In exchange, you then increase the points of the "inner core" areas I just mentioned.
2) Maintain same overall number of VPs available to each side, but: reduce Allied VPs for various bases not in that "inner core".
3) Increase the number of base VPs available to Japan by increasing the "inner core" value without reducing any points elsewhere. In order to counterbalance this increased ability to reach an AV in 1943 or 1944, you would also need to add about 50% of this increase to the Allied side in other semi-safe locations that are safe from all but the most aggressive/successful Japanese player (Hawaii, Alaska, CONUS, India, etc.). In doing this, remember that you are balancing base VPs that Japan would lose in the late game if an Allied player were more successful than history vs. base VPs that an Allied player would lose in the early to mid game if a Japanese player were more successful than history.
The number of VPs that you would need to move around is probably more than 5K, if not somewhere in the low 10K's, so to me the best solution is a combination of all 3. Or, you know, we could all just continue to use our opinions to award victory or defeat instead of having a neutral arbiter in the VP/victory conditions system.
FWIW, my hunch is that I think strategic bombing is worth about 2x as many points as it should be to be properly balanced.
I've also been thinking about what I think is going on in LST's Bottlenecks mod (which I think adds many more bases). Adding more bases helps the Allies (in the Pacific anyway) in 2 ways: 1) it adds more potential invasion spots so it's harder for Japan to defend overall, and 2) it adds more Allied late-game base VPs (unless other bases were adjusted downwards). I've got that thread open to look through it in more detail today. Just an example of how certain mod/map changes also change the VP calculus.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
A few thoughts on Base VPs and Strat bombing VPs:
1) Base VPs: The starting VP level is multiplied by (Port level + Airbase level). So changes to the overall base VP mix should be concentrated (if possible) in locations already at or near the max level of port and airfield. Otherwise there's too much variation and possible gaminess associated with the ability to massively change the revised VP levels by dumping a ton of engineers on a newly captured "key base" and building it up.
2) Strat Bombing VPs (i.e damaging and/or destroying industry): Since the only industry destruction that grants VPs (at least according to the manual) is that in Japan itself, couldn't we reduce the impact of strat bombing by moving a sizable amount out of Japan and into a nearby location? Admittedly this is kind of gamey, but if "strategic bombing is worth about 2x as many points as it should be", than removing half of all industry from Japan proper would solve the problem (albeit with other side effects that would have to be analyzed). I only bring it up because industry levels ARE moddable, and that's the only way (outside of coding) to alter the impact of strat bombing points.
1) Base VPs: The starting VP level is multiplied by (Port level + Airbase level). So changes to the overall base VP mix should be concentrated (if possible) in locations already at or near the max level of port and airfield. Otherwise there's too much variation and possible gaminess associated with the ability to massively change the revised VP levels by dumping a ton of engineers on a newly captured "key base" and building it up.
2) Strat Bombing VPs (i.e damaging and/or destroying industry): Since the only industry destruction that grants VPs (at least according to the manual) is that in Japan itself, couldn't we reduce the impact of strat bombing by moving a sizable amount out of Japan and into a nearby location? Admittedly this is kind of gamey, but if "strategic bombing is worth about 2x as many points as it should be", than removing half of all industry from Japan proper would solve the problem (albeit with other side effects that would have to be analyzed). I only bring it up because industry levels ARE moddable, and that's the only way (outside of coding) to alter the impact of strat bombing points.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
Moving the industry would not really change strat VPs that much - they would become harder to hit if the hypothesis that "smaller" factories are harder to hit, which would slow things if that's true... but other than that, you'd have to most almost everything out and that would fundamentally change the game so is off the table, IMO.
I had the thought about it already with regards to simply removing Light Industry in favor of auto-generated supply, but nixed that as an idea after thoughts on the consequences and degree of balancing vis-a-vis Resources that would need to be done.
I had the thought about it already with regards to simply removing Light Industry in favor of auto-generated supply, but nixed that as an idea after thoughts on the consequences and degree of balancing vis-a-vis Resources that would need to be done.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Since it's about late-game adjustments, it should be bases. There are essentially 3 options:
1) Maintain same overall number of VPs available to each side, but: reduce the Japan VPs for various bases not in the "inner core" (Manchuria/Korea, E/NE China, Taiwan, Okinawa, Bonins) that Japan can expect to hold onto until at least the middle of 1945 in a "historically comparable performance" (or close to it) game - this means reducing Manila, Singapore, Rangoon, etc. They're the big ones and you need a big change. In exchange, you then increase the points of the "inner core" areas I just mentioned.
2) Maintain same overall number of VPs available to each side, but: reduce Allied VPs for various bases not in that "inner core".
3) Increase the number of base VPs available to Japan by increasing the "inner core" value without reducing any points elsewhere. In order to counterbalance this increased ability to reach an AV in 1943 or 1944, you would also need to add about 50% of this increase to the Allied side in other semi-safe locations that are safe from all but the most aggressive/successful Japanese player (Hawaii, Alaska, CONUS, India, etc.). In doing this, remember that you are balancing base VPs that Japan would lose in the late game if an Allied player were more successful than history vs. base VPs that an Allied player would lose in the early to mid game if a Japanese player were more successful than history.
The number of VPs that you would need to move around is probably more than 5K, if not somewhere in the low 10K's, so to me the best solution is a combination of all 3. Or, you know, we could all just continue to use our opinions to award victory or defeat instead of having a neutral arbiter in the VP/victory conditions system.
If we assume that an allied decisive victory would be unconditional Japanese surrender, including allowing U.S. forces to occupy the Home Islands at the conclusion of the war (whether the Home Islands had been invaded or not), the value of Home Island bases to Japan (and possibly to the allies as well) should be higher. I would be reluctant to reduce the value of Singapore, Bangkok, or Saigon, for either side, if we want some historical and post-war geo-strategic basis for the victory conditions. Control of these regional capitals would have been the basis for any peace nedotiations that did not include unconditional surrender (i.e. an allied marginal victory or a draw).
In real historical terms, an allied marginal victory would have been a peace that allowed Japan to retain control of all her "home soil:" Formosa, Sakhalin, Honshu, Hokkaidu, and so forth, including possibly Manchuria, depending upon the situation on the ground.
In real terms, a draw would have been a peace that acknowledged the situation on the ground at the end of hostilities: an armistice more than a surrender. Such a peace would have allowed Japan to retain most of her colonial possessions, including Thailand, Manchuria, and possibly even Hong Kong and Shanghai.
In real terms, a Japanese marginal victory would have been a victory that extended the empire, even slightly, which may be as little as adding Hong Kong to Japan's possessions.
As such, I think that the VP values of Singapore, Bangkok, and Saigon should remain mostly unchanged (or even possibly increased for both players). It seems to make more sense, if we wish to use history as the guide, to reduce the VP value of Manila and Rangoon (for both sides), and reduce the value of bases such as Noumea, Luganville, Moresby, and Chungking for Japan to offset increases in the Home Islands. The value of these same bases could be increased for the allies to offset the possibility of Japanese auto-victory in 1943 if the allied player is able to restrain the Japanese advance to its historical limits. Also bases that allow for the strategic bombing of the Home Islands, such as Okinawa, should be reduced for the allies, because the VPs associated with having these bases will come from the strategic bombing, not the base itself.
These are my thoughts on the matter, and my intent is to induce discussion, not provide any definitive guide.
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7191
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
Question:
Will all of the efforts to nerf VPs for Allied strategic bombing of Japan in late game to make Japan more competitive in the late game only result in a common strategy implementation of Japanese players exploiting VP gains by strategic bombing Australia early when the Allies have no effective countermeasure?
Scenario:
Unscrupulous Japanese player mercilessly exploits VP gains strategic bombing Auatralia in '42 and then thumbs his nose up at his opponent going "na, na, na, na you'll never overcome this VP deficit because we nerfed your ability to harvest them through strategic bombing".
p.s. I have no vested interest here as I don't play PBEM and would never play a mod that nerfs the Allies to make playing Japan more enjoyable. I'm just acting as devil's advocate since I perceive you may find yourselves investing considerable time in gaming mods that may be headed off the rails.
Will all of the efforts to nerf VPs for Allied strategic bombing of Japan in late game to make Japan more competitive in the late game only result in a common strategy implementation of Japanese players exploiting VP gains by strategic bombing Australia early when the Allies have no effective countermeasure?
Scenario:
Unscrupulous Japanese player mercilessly exploits VP gains strategic bombing Auatralia in '42 and then thumbs his nose up at his opponent going "na, na, na, na you'll never overcome this VP deficit because we nerfed your ability to harvest them through strategic bombing".
p.s. I have no vested interest here as I don't play PBEM and would never play a mod that nerfs the Allies to make playing Japan more enjoyable. I'm just acting as devil's advocate since I perceive you may find yourselves investing considerable time in gaming mods that may be headed off the rails.
Hans
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
I think we all agree that the Allies should have a number of viable routes to victory, including one similar to the historical model, which did rely heavily on strategic bombing and the atomic bomb.
The Japanese Player is already handed a solution to the historical stalemate in China which prompted the whole war in the first place: attack and the Chinese will fold up by mid 1943 or so.
The Japanese Player doesn't have to feed any of its workers. Apparently the grass recipes featured in the Tokyo Times were adequate nourishment to keep the wheels of war turning without interruption.
These advantages won't go away in the early part of the game or the late part of the game.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
1) Maintain same overall number of VPs available to each side, but: reduce the Japan VPs for various bases not in the "inner core" (Manchuria/Korea, E/NE China, Taiwan, Okinawa, Bonins) that Japan can expect to hold onto until at least the middle of 1945 in a "historically comparable performance" (or close to it) game - this means reducing Manila, Singapore, Rangoon, etc. They're the big ones and you need a big change. In exchange, you then increase the points of the "inner core" areas I just mentioned.
As such, I think that the VP values of Singapore, Bangkok, and Saigon should remain mostly unchanged (or even possibly increased for both players). It seems to make more sense, if we wish to use history as the guide, to reduce the VP value of Manila and Rangoon (for both sides), and reduce the value of bases such as Noumea, Luganville, Moresby, and Chungking for Japan to offset increases in the Home Islands.
One other thought on the value of Singapore, Bangkok, and Saigon. Removing value from these bases may have the opposite effect of that intended. If we wish to reduce the overwhelming influence of strategic bombing on the final victory calculations or at least increase the amount of strategic bombing necessary for victory, lowering the value of these western bases may serve only to increase the allied desire to ignore most of these now secondary objectives and move directly through CentPac or the DEI to the Phillipines and Okinawa and to the bombing of Honshu as quickly as possible.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Question:
Will all of the efforts to nerf VPs for Allied strategic bombing of Japan in late game to make Japan more competitive in the late game only result in a common strategy implementation of Japanese players exploiting VP gains by strategic bombing Australia early when the Allies have no effective countermeasure?
This happens anyway and is largely inconsequential. There is only one example of MrKane doing it with any measure of success, and I'd argue that Jocke was already well on his way to getting AV'd in that one because MrKane played him perfectly. The raw number of VPs available is nowhere near as many as the Allies can gain.
It is also extremely important to note that Japan can't really conduct a strategic bombing campaign of Australia that can't be countered - if it comes via LBA, there are ways to defend against that (plus it takes time); if it comes via KB, then the KB is ripe to be pounced upon by USN CVs as the carrier air groups can't be set to naval attack at all if they are set to city attack. City attack can only be a primary mission, so you can't naval primary/city secondary.
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Scenario:
Unscrupulous Japanese player mercilessly exploits VP gains strategic bombing Auatralia in '42 and then thumbs his nose up at his opponent going "na, na, na, na you'll never overcome this VP deficit because we nerfed your ability to harvest them through strategic bombing".
p.s. I have no vested interest here as I don't play PBEM and would never play a mod that nerfs the Allies to make playing Japan more enjoyable. I'm just acting as devil's advocate since I perceive you may find yourselves investing considerable time in gaming mods that may be headed off the rails.
As I already mentioned, for various reasons the amount of industry in Japan shouldn't be reduced. It would require an immense amount of time to modify all of the centers, it would require modifying in-Japan Resources even if you only touched LI, removing demand for Resources would change the calculus of ship movement/fuel used for xAKs and escorts, and so on and so on.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: spence
I think we all agree that the Allies should have a number of viable routes to victory, including one similar to the historical model, which did rely heavily on strategic bombing and the atomic bomb.
The Japanese Player is already handed a solution to the historical stalemate in China which prompted the whole war in the first place: attack and the Chinese will fold up by mid 1943 or so.
The Japanese Player doesn't have to feed any of its workers. Apparently the grass recipes featured in the Tokyo Times were adequate nourishment to keep the wheels of war turning without interruption.
These advantages won't go away in the early part of the game or the late part of the game.
It took me until November 1943 to eliminate China, that's not exactly "mid 1943" and it requires more than simply attacking. It requires the commitment of forces that would otherwise be used elsewhere and a substantial supply commitment.
These are not idle concerns.
Also, your "grass recipes" bit is nonsense - the game does not in any way model non-military supplies or food for civilians. For either side - which includes non-home territory for the Allies at any point in the war.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
It took me until November 1943 to eliminate China, that's not exactly "mid 1943" and it requires more than simply attacking. It requires the commitment of forces that would otherwise be used elsewhere and a substantial supply commitment.
The idea that what the Japanese needed to do to conquer China was to start a new war against the US and UK (+Commonwealth) is ridiculous. If anything a conquest of China at all constitutes more proof that the Japanese are not bound by realistic supply constraints
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
When Japanese wanted - with troops from Kwantung - in 1944 they advanced in China. And this was done in 1944 when fortune wasn't favoring them.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: spence
It took me until November 1943 to eliminate China, that's not exactly "mid 1943" and it requires more than simply attacking. It requires the commitment of forces that would otherwise be used elsewhere and a substantial supply commitment.
The idea that what the Japanese needed to do to conquer China was to start a new war against the US and UK (+Commonwealth) is ridiculous. If anything a conquest of China at all constitutes more proof that the Japanese are not bound by realistic supply constraints
Prior to Dec. 7th 1941, the Japanese were hoarding war materials, conquering Thailand and preparing 12 divisions for operations in the DEI, Luzon, and Malaysia. I doubt that you have ever played Japan and have no idea what you are saying. In scenario 1, Japan is absolutely limited by supply and significantly so. The supply use to conquer China is enormous and a full-scale offensive in China that lasts through 1943 nearly precludes any 2nd tier Japanese movements into India or Australia, unless the allied player is very careless and somehow allows Japan to capture enormous amounts of supply in India with a limited Indian offensive, which would be bad play by the allied player.
The game was carefully designed to allow the Japanese player sufficient flexibility to choose 1 2nd-tier attack and no more. This is based upon historical parameters. That many Japanese players choose China is a strategic decision, not a game-design flaw. In the actual war, Yamamoto proposed, in March 1942, 2nd-tier landings in Ceylon and CentPac, with the objective of capturing the Hawaiian islands. The High Command rejected his proposals as too bold and risky. The Midway operation was a reduced version of Yamamoto's original plan. Japan's 2nd tier offensive never occurred in the real war because of Midway and because Yamamoto's plan was rejected by an overly cautious Japanese High Command.
What is more, Japan did launch an offensive in China in 1944. The historical name of this operation was Ichi-go. By then, however, Chiang Kai Shek's army was in mcuh better condition than in 1942, having received training, equipment, and supplies from British and U.S. forces in India. So, the idea that Japan was so constrained by supply that they could not launch a Chinese offensive is counter-factual.
If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
ORIGINAL: spence
It took me until November 1943 to eliminate China, that's not exactly "mid 1943" and it requires more than simply attacking. It requires the commitment of forces that would otherwise be used elsewhere and a substantial supply commitment.
The idea that what the Japanese needed to do to conquer China was to start a new war against the US and UK (+Commonwealth) is ridiculous. If anything a conquest of China at all constitutes more proof that the Japanese are not bound by realistic supply constraints
Prior to Dec. 7th 1941, the Japanese were hoarding war materials, conquering Thailand and preparing 12 divisions for operations in the DEI, Luzon, and Malaysia. I doubt that you have ever played Japan and have no idea what you are saying. In scenario 1, Japan is absolutely limited by supply and significantly so. The supply use to conquer China is enormous and a full-scale offensive in China that lasts through 1943 nearly precludes any 2nd tier Japanese movements into India or Australia, unless the allied player is very careless and somehow allows Japan to capture enormous amounts of supply in India with a limited Indian offensive, which would be bad play by the allied player.
The game was carefully designed to allow the Japanese player sufficient flexibility to choose 1 2nd-tier attack and no more. This is based upon historical parameters. That many Japanese players choose China is a strategic decision, not a game-design flaw. In the actual war, Yamamoto proposed, in March 1942, 2nd-tier landings in Ceylon and CentPac, with the objective of capturing the Hawaiian islands. The High Command rejected his proposals as too bold and risky. The Midway operation was a reduced version of Yamamoto's original plan. Japan's 2nd tier offensive never occurred in the real war because of Midway and because Yamamoto's plan was rejected by an overly cautious Japanese High Command.
What is more, Japan did launch an offensive in China in 1944. The historical name of this operation was Ichi-go. By then, however, Chiang Kai Shek's army was in mcuh better condition than in 1942, having received training, equipment, and supplies from British and U.S. forces in India. So, the idea that Japan was so constrained by supply that they could not launch a Chinese offensive is counter-factual.
If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan.
Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.
The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.
In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India. The gpace of a non-SL game allows this. Playing DBB it's much harder.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
- HansBolter
- Posts: 7191
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China.
Its an apples and oranges argument.
The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer.
Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments.
Its an apples and oranges argument.
The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer.
Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments.
Hans
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan.
Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.
The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.
In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India. The gpace of a non-SL game allows this. Playing DBB it's much harder.
Rader vs. Greyjoy was scenario 2. I do not think stacking limits are nearly as important as most people think, but that is the subject for another discussion. Comparing scenario 2 games and scenario 1 games is comparing 2 things that are not alike.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
My point is not about rader v Greyjoy.
I don’t think the IJA could have taken all of China historically.
Also, I do think the Japanese in game can take it quickly enough without SL (which make a massive difference defending China as the Allies) to then have a chance to still move on India, Russia or Australia if they would want to extend that far and burn that supply/fuel.
I don’t think the IJA could have taken all of China historically.
Also, I do think the Japanese in game can take it quickly enough without SL (which make a massive difference defending China as the Allies) to then have a chance to still move on India, Russia or Australia if they would want to extend that far and burn that supply/fuel.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill