Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Has anyone won playing IJ?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Has anyone won playing IJ? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/4/2011 6:54:49 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
If yes, was it against AI or human, and what were the help settings?
Post #: 1
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/6/2011 4:51:51 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
No one? How about a draw. Any draws?

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 2
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/6/2011 6:14:07 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 353
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
I once dragged on until 1946 as Jap against a human player, does this count

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 3
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/6/2011 4:11:58 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zeke99

I once dragged on until 1946 as Jap against a human player, does this count


A superb performance. But the game still called in an IJ loss, right?

I suspect if you can't even tie as IJ, no one can.

In SSI, IJ had a slight chance of a win or tie. In general terms, if IJ could keep maybe 60% of the bases it captured and sink 12 - 15 CVs while keeping its own losses low, it could win or tie Jan 45.

Concerning the possibility of an IJ win or tie, in the original manual, Gribsby said "I sacrificed some realism for a better game".


(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 4
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/9/2011 1:49:04 AM   
Skipjack_


Posts: 208
Joined: 12/7/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zeke99

I once dragged on until 1946 as Jap against a human player, does this count


Oh, sure, you had to bring THAT game up

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 5
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/13/2011 11:30:33 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 353
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
LOL skip

Hi Brad,

One possibility to win as Jap is in 1942 to land in LA from Hawaii. Thus killing US supply and reinforcements.
Usually this is not allowed by house rules and a bit unrealistic.

(in reply to Skipjack_)
Post #: 6
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/13/2011 10:02:17 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

One possibility to win as Jap is in 1942 to land in LA from Hawaii. Thus killing US supply and reinforcements.


Actually, the Japanese player must take San Francisco if he wants to cut off reinforcements. Taking Los Angeles will, however, mess up the Routine Convoys. (There will still be some supply in the western areas from Calcutta.)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 7
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/15/2011 5:00:42 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
I once thought that IJ could win by taking some US west coast bases very early. However, my conclusion now is that the ponts obtained are not sufficient to win and IJ will be unable to hold the bases.

Due to my experiences with some new PBEM players, and some things I did myself when first playing PBEM, I'd say the following to any player regardless of which side he is playing: You will not be able to devise some fantastic never thought of before plan to win the game in 1942. If you try as IJ you will end up losing sooner, and if you try as Allies you will end up winning later.

Which brings me to what I think is the real problem with the Matrix version. We know what the result will be, and it doesn't matter how good the IJ player is or how bad the Allied player is. If the game goes on long enough, Allies will win.

Now, its argued that historically the Allies never would have quit no matter how hard it was, but is that really the historical evidence? UK never would have quit as long as Churchill was PM, but the Conservatives lost the May (?) 1945 election and Churchill was out after Germany was defeated but before IJ was defeated. Less than a decade later, the US decided three years in Korea was enough. And Eisenhower ran for President on a pledge to end the war in Korea, and did it.

The SSI version is a multi dimensional game. It is more than going out to see how much you can destroy. IJ has to be concerned about resources, not just oil, if Allies have a lot of ships under repair they might not have enough construction points to activate new ships on time, and both players have to look at operations from the standpoint of getting good value for their losses. These are not features in Matrix and its a mono dimensional game.

Isolated aircraft shortages can occur in SSI, and so better players look for the highest value use of their best aircraft, knowing they don't have enough of their favorite aircraft to assign them to every airgroup, even if that airgroup is only keeping an AZOC over a bypassed base. In Matrix, the supply of aircraft for IJ is functionally infinite. For the Allies, the supply of the best aircraft is functionally infinite.

It could be argued forever with no resolution possible whether IJ historically had a chance of getting the ALlies to quit. But I think the relevant statement is one made in the original manual concerning IJ having a slight chance to draw and a remote chance to win in SSI.

Based on his statements, Gary Grigsby believes it historically was impossible for IJ to get the Allies to quit without complete victory. But even with that view, he created a game in which an Allied victory was not a sure thing not matter what either player did, and said "...I sacrificed some realism to improve the game".

With all the improved realism of the Matrix Edition in aircraft and ship performance and availability, it is not a better game, because there is no uncertainty concerning who will win. That is a basic requirement for a good game. And while moving the kill multipier from 1944 to 1946 is sometimes identified as the problem, it is not the whole problem. Even resinstating the SSI kill multiplier system does not create uncertainty about who will win.

Anyway, this central issue can be addressed by modifying some Matrix obc values to the SSI values and by manually calculating the score using the SSI system. I can (and am) editing an obc. It would be nice if someone had the skill to modify the exe (I don't) so the SSI kill multipier is reinstated. But that's not completely necessary as the score can be calculated manually with ease.

However, this only really works with PBEM. I can't see anything that can be done to significantly improve an AI game. Removal of the AI "cheats", which qualify as a game design "best practices", makes an AI game trivially easy. Which means that the problem I've encountered, how stunned new PBEM players are at how different and how much more difficult a PBEM is, cannot be addressed.



< Message edited by bradk -- 3/15/2011 5:06:08 PM >

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 8
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/15/2011 8:47:00 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Now, its argued that historically the Allies never would have quit no matter how hard it was, but is that really the historical evidence? UK never would have quit as long as Churchill was PM, but the Conservatives lost the May (?) 1945 election and Churchill was out after Germany was defeated but before IJ was defeated. Less than a decade later, the US decided three years in Korea was enough.


Let me haul out my soapbox once more: the only, repeat only, way for the Japanese to pull out a marginal victory was *not* to do the Pearl Harbor raid. Instead, they should have invaded only the DEI at first. This would have triggered a declaration of war from Great Britain and the United States, but with much less popular support. The amazing feats of production the U.S. achieved would not have been politically possible, and the U.S. at least would have been more willing to settle for a negotiated peace.

I continue to be amazed that no one seems to include this scenario in Pacific wargames.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 9
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/15/2011 11:26:18 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

Now, its argued that historically the Allies never would have quit no matter how hard it was, but is that really the historical evidence? UK never would have quit as long as Churchill was PM, but the Conservatives lost the May (?) 1945 election and Churchill was out after Germany was defeated but before IJ was defeated. Less than a decade later, the US decided three years in Korea was enough.


Let me haul out my soapbox once more: the only, repeat only, way for the Japanese to pull out a marginal victory was *not* to do the Pearl Harbor raid. Instead, they should have invaded only the DEI at first. This would have triggered a declaration of war from Great Britain and the United States, but with much less popular support. The amazing feats of production the U.S. achieved would not have been politically possible, and the U.S. at least would have been more willing to settle for a negotiated peace.

I continue to be amazed that no one seems to include this scenario in Pacific wargames.



Well, we're on the same page on popular support. I agree your scnenario is the most likely way IJ could have made sure of lack of popular support in the US.

That aside, I think having some uncertainty about the outcome, even if only a slight amount, even if not completely realistic, would make this a better game.

In the past we've talked about the delay in the kill multiplier. Well, you know, reverting it to 1944 doesn't introduce uncertainty about the outcome either. Because kills don't matter.

Bold statement I know, but look at these numbers. Back when Grigsby wrote that the kill multiplier gave IJ a slim chance of a draw, and he did it for a better game, total control points in the game on the first turn were 35,450.

Now, first turn control points are 79,780. But kill points have the same numerical value as before, meaning that the relative value of kill points decreased 55%. Well below the point where they have any meaning.

Which provides more incentive for an unrealistic extra agressive my own losses don't matter strategy. Because the fact is no ones losses matter. Only retaining enough relative power to be able to take bases matters.

Which I think is why we see AARs where IJ has lost most of its major ships by 1944 and the Allies have lost 15 CVs, a dozen BBs, and complete distruction of half a dozen Divisions more than historical. There is no incentive for anything other than conquest at any cost.

Anyway, I'll shortly have a scenario where IJ resources matter, putting expensive aircraft to their highest value use matters, and getting a good value for ship and LCU losses matters. And where the Allied player at least has in the back of his mind that he might not win if he doesn't get a good value for his losses and the IJ player has in the back of his mind he might not lose if in inflicts a lot more damage than he sustains. Even if victory conditions aren't completely realistic. Because for me, there's no use playing now that I've realized there is no uncertainty in the outcome, not even a shadow of one, with the Matrix scenarios.

Any I'm not saying that because I prefer playing one side of the other. From my posts here, its known my standard want a game post includes "will play either side".

< Message edited by bradk -- 3/15/2011 11:30:06 PM >

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 10
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/15/2011 11:45:00 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Let me haul out my soapbox once more: the only, repeat only, way for the Japanese to pull out a marginal victory was *not* to do the Pearl Harbor raid...

...I continue to be amazed that no one seems to include this scenario in Pacific wargames.


I agree with you. Start the game sometime during the pre-war politicing. Let IJ decide when the shooting starts and who gets attacked. Put in some randomization of which countries not attacked decide to jump in.


(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 11
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/19/2011 4:15:54 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zeke99

LOL skip

Hi Brad,

One possibility to win as Jap is in 1942 to land in LA from Hawaii. Thus killing US supply and reinforcements.
Usually this is not allowed by house rules and a bit unrealistic.



Y'know... maybe someone could test that. It could be done fairly quickly with Allies set to AI and IJ set to human but with HQs on computer op control. I bet IJ can't get enough points to make it happen in 42.

I'd curious enough to test it but I'm testing the revised Tora right now. So if its me, its several weeks away before we find out what's behind door #1.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 12
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/21/2011 6:26:45 PM   
Eno67

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline
When I saw this thread I started a japanese campaign with the Allies getting a little bit of help. I took India, and most of China and Australia. In January 1943 I got a message the war was over. Something to the effect the allies drop their demand for an unconditional surrender and the japanese withdraw to their pre-war territory. If their pre-war territory would include what they held in China on Dec 1941 I would consider this japanese victory.


(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 13
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/21/2011 8:24:02 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eno67

When I saw this thread I started a japanese campaign with the Allies getting a little bit of help. I took India, and most of China and Australia. In January 1943 I got a message the war was over. Something to the effect the allies drop their demand for an unconditional surrender and the japanese withdraw to their pre-war territory. If their pre-war territory would include what they held in China on Dec 1941 I would consider this japanese victory.




That's the erroneous "its a draw" message, a bug that dates back to the beginning with SSI V 1.0. Continue playing! You're not done! <G> (The message will go away after a few turns, maybe come back, maybe not.)

Actual victory conditions are if starting Jan 1944 one side doubles the score of the other, that side wins. If by Jan 1946 no one has doubled, its a draw.


(in reply to Eno67)
Post #: 14
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/21/2011 8:39:25 PM   
Tebok

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/21/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eno67

When I saw this thread I started a japanese campaign with the Allies getting a little bit of help. I took India, and most of China and Australia. In January 1943 I got a message the war was over. Something to the effect the allies drop their demand for an unconditional surrender and the japanese withdraw to their pre-war territory. If their pre-war territory would include what they held in China on Dec 1941 I would consider this japanese victory.





There is a patch you can use called 'NoEndWar' It will keep that message from appearing. You may still be able to find it online, if not I can put it up for download.

(in reply to Eno67)
Post #: 15
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/21/2011 9:43:20 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tebok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Eno67

When I saw this thread I started a japanese campaign with the Allies getting a little bit of help. I took India, and most of China and Australia. In January 1943 I got a message the war was over. Something to the effect the allies drop their demand for an unconditional surrender and the japanese withdraw to their pre-war territory. If their pre-war territory would include what they held in China on Dec 1941 I would consider this japanese victory.





There is a patch you can use called 'NoEndWar' It will keep that message from appearing. You may still be able to find it online, if not I can put it up for download.



I'm sure people would appreciate it if you would post it. I wonder if ot works on PBEM games?

You wouldnt' happen to have any other old files would you? I'd like to get the file that sends all IJN TKs back to Nagoya. I think it is called tanker.exe.

I'm not playing against AI anymore but having it would make my scenario test games a lot easier. Combined Fleet grabls a bunch of TKs any time its doing something and uses them for Replenishment TFs. Out of Nagoya, it kills IJs oil. Hey, guys, you have AOs for Replenishment TFs, you know! <G>

(in reply to Tebok)
Post #: 16
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 3/31/2011 7:06:22 AM   
Tebok

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/21/2011
Status: offline
I edited a game starting in 1941. I gave all Japanese Units 99 experience with 250/250/250 vehicles/squads/artillery. Maxed out the cargo capacity on all the destroyers transports, tankers and cargo ships, plus I gave them a speed of 50 knots. All the Japanese ships classes had AA triple that of the average US ships in 1945 along with max armor and durability. Finally, I made the Japanese aircraft more durability and firepower. At the same time, I made all the Allied aircraft basically useless.


I won that game as the Japanese. >:D

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 17
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 9/8/2011 6:26:17 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Here you go.  I have three games here for comparison.

1) AI/AI game using SSI.
2) PBEM gamem using Matrix.
3) PBEM game using my revised Tora scenario.

Game 3) is the basis.  Date is August 15, 1943.  IJ (not me, unfortunately) is kicking butt.  Holds the map except for parts of Aus, Hawaiian Islands, US West Coast, and a couple of atolls.

Games 1) and 2) establish production and provide the basis for control points for those scenarios.  Control points adjusted as if controlled areas matched game 3). Kill points from game 3) used.

Game 1), SSI, adjusted
IJ 79003. Allies 54234.  IJ needs 29,465 points to double the score and win.

Game 2), Matrix, adjusted
IJ 106,049, Allies  87,344, IJ needs 68,639 points to double the score and win.

Game 3) Tora revised, actual game, no adjustments
IJ 79,775, Allies 50,899, IJ needs 22,023 points to double the score and win.

I think its pretty clear from the Game 2) numbers why no one reported winning as IJ.

Player performance is the same in all three games. But the IJ victory situation is far different.

In game 1), if IJ can keep oil and resource over 10,000, the 50% kill multipler applies in 4.5 months, Jan 44, and if IJ can take one US West Coast base IJ wins.

In game 3), if IJ can keep oil and resournce over 10,000, the 50% kill multiplier applies (by house rules agreement, calcualted manually) in 4.5 months, Jan 44, and IJ wins. No additional conquests needed.

In game 2) IJ doesn't get the kill multiplier for another 28.5 months. To win, IJ needs to hold on to current territory for over two years with a 1:1 loss ratio while keeping oil and resource or can possibly win without the multiplier by taking a few more Aus and/or some Hawaiian Island bases and probably at least three US West Coast bases.

I think this is a better game when IJ has a slim chance of a victory, not an implausibly remote one.

< Message edited by bradk -- 9/8/2011 6:15:41 PM >

(in reply to Tebok)
Post #: 18
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 9/8/2011 8:23:53 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Game 1), SSI, adjusted
IJ 79003. Allies 54234. IJ needs 29,465 points to double the score and win.

Game 2), Matrix, adjusted
IJ 106,049, Allies 87,344, IJ needs 68,639 points to double the score and win.


Wow -- that much of a difference? I assume this is using the OBC41 scenario?

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 19
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 9/9/2011 6:38:23 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Wow -- that much of a difference? I assume this is using the OBC41 scenario?


SSI was obc41. Matrix was Tora, Tora, Tora. Howver, any scenario starting Dec 7 in either SSI or Matrix would produce the same results.


(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 20
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 9/11/2011 3:56:06 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Looking back, think this isn't completely clear.  Kill points are the same in all comparisons.  Bases held are the same in all comparisons.  The difference is completely in points given for bases held and for production.

IJ Control Points

53040 Matrix
25900 SSI
27190 Revised Tora


Allied Control Points

39320 Matrix
12530 SSI
11830 Revised Tora


IJ Production (Gross, subject to low oil or resource penalty)

6440 Matrix
6630 SSI *
5594 Revised Tora

* IJ needs higher aircraft production due to SSI including more airgroups in China and Manchuria which are not in other versions.

Allied Production

22630 Matrix
16130 SSI
13675 Revised Tora


(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 21
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 9/11/2011 6:52:47 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

IJ Production (Gross, subject to low oil or resource penalty)

6440 Matrix
6630 SSI *
5594 Revised Tora

* IJ needs higher aircraft production due to SSI including more airgroups in China and Manchuria which are not in other versions.

Allied Production

22630 Matrix
16130 SSI
13675 Revised Tora


Hmm. It looks like both sides need to manage their resources more carefully under the Tora scenario. Is some of this because higher aircraft costs lead to lower production?

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 22
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 9/12/2011 3:02:53 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

IJ Production (Gross, subject to low oil or resource penalty)

6440 Matrix
6630 SSI *
5594 Revised Tora

* IJ needs higher aircraft production due to SSI including more airgroups in China and Manchuria which are not in other versions.

Allied Production

22630 Matrix
16130 SSI
13675 Revised Tora


Hmm. It looks like both sides need to manage their resources more carefully under the Tora scenario. Is some of this because higher aircraft costs lead to lower production?



Most of the reduction in produciton and control points is caused not by aircraft produciton reductions but by returning oil, heavy industry, shipyard, artillery, and tanks to SSI values. These values are known to work because of years of people playing ths SSI version.

Aircraft production reductions compared to Matrix have several causes, not just cost. There are fewer aircraft factories. For starters, no factories for C47s or any patrol aircraft. These are low loss aircraft. Providing a factory results in many thousands being produced.

The game produces one per turn of every active aircraft even without a factory. That produciton, and a small initial pool, has proven sufficient even when losses are atypically high, although grossly high losses (such as losing complete airgroups on three or four occasions in a year when bases are lost) can cause shortages.

Aircraft are created four ways: factory, automatic one per turn produciton, aircraft placed in pools at scenario creation, aircraft placed in airgroups at scenario creation. The idea "I have an aircraft, I need a factory" doesn't always apply.

Both SSI and Matrix aircraft production are designed to work for non-thinking AI. Since I intended the scenario only for PBEM play, I didn't have to compromise to make it work for AI, to the detriment of a PBEM game. So, between reductions in heavy industry, etc, to SSI values which are known to work, and remoral of factories for non-combat aircraft, combat aircraft produciton capability isn't reduced as much as might be implied from the total production numbers.

Some comparisons

Average aircraft cost, A6M2, Ki43, Ki43II, Ki45

Matrix 2.75, SSI 3.25, revised Tora 3.25


Average aircraft cost, A6M5, Ki44, Ki61, Ki84, N1K

Matrix 2.4. SSI 3.8, revised Tora 4.4


Average aircraft cost, P38F/G, P39, P40, P47, F6F, F4U

Matrix 3.17, SSI 3.17, revised Tora 4.67


Number of IJ fighter factories

Turn 45
Matrix 7, SSI 7, revised Tora 6

Turn 90
Matrix 12, SSI 11, revised Tora 10

Final
Matrix 16, SSI 13, revised Tora 12.

Note: SSI has more IJ airgroujps in China and Manchuria to support and so needs more production.


US fighter factories

Turn 1
Matrix 3, SSI 5, revised Tora 3

Note: SSI overproduces P39/P40 with two initial factories for each. In revised Tora, there are also two factories producing export versions of P39/P40 so non-US airgroups can use this aircraft, which they can in Matrix AI, but can't in Matrix PBEM. Not counted in the factory total above since they're for non-US use.

Turn 91
Matrix 12, SSI 8, revised Tora 9

Note: By this turn factories producing export versions of P39/P40 are no longer needed. Those airgroups have access to Corsairs and Thunderbolts, plus some better British fighters. So those factories are counted in the US total here since they'd be converted to produce US aircraft.


Total production capacity, combination of cost and number of factories, percent of SSI, front line fighters for the turn.

IJ fighters
Turn 45
Matrix 119% of SSI, revised Tora 86% of SSI

Turn 130
Matrix 160% of SSI, revised Tora 79% of SSI

Final
Matrix 181% of SSI, revised Tora 80% of SSI


US fighters

Turn 50
Matrix 120% of SSI, revised Tora 80% of SSI

Turn 91
Matrix 116% of SSI, revised Tora 70% of SSI


US tac bombers

Through turn 150
Matrix 250% of SSI, revised Tora 83% of SSI

Note: This is what prompted me to start this project. An Allied opponent asked early 1944 exactly what was he supposed to do with 15,000 A20s, B25s, and B26s in the pool.

Allies are short of aircraft early and IJ short of front line aircraft late, both historical. Rest of game, reasonable numbers can be producted for a typical game. Even a somewhat atypical game. But the functionally infinite supply of aircraft is gone and production and use decisions matter in the scenario.

Numerous test games run AI/AI with human production control, and one complete PBEM game plus another through Oct 43.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 23
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 11/5/2011 8:45:00 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 353
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
Going back to the question started this: "can the Japs win"

YES they can

The easiest way is to take Frisco before 1943

The harder way is to inflict high losses to the Allies, when kill multiplier kicks in 1944 they are toast.

Not just theory, done both

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 24
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 11/5/2011 9:33:25 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4203
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

The harder way is to inflict high losses to the Allies, when kill multiplier kicks in 1944 they are toast.

Not just theory


That approach is now a no-go, and I'm exceedingly unhappy about it. The latest version of the game does not have the Kill Multiplier until 1946, IIRC.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 25
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 11/11/2011 1:45:39 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

The harder way is to inflict high losses to the Allies, when kill multiplier kicks in 1944 they are toast.

Not just theory


That approach is now a no-go, and I'm exceedingly unhappy about it. The latest version of the game does not have the Kill Multiplier until 1946, IIRC.



I was able to edit he exe for my new scenario and return the kill multiplier to Jan 44 as in SSI. The exe is compatible with the Matrix version as the kill multiplier date is the only change to it(all other scenario changes are in the obc file). If you'd like a copy, please PM me with your e mail address.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 26
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 11/15/2011 12:59:39 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Capt Harlock... file sent.  Thank you for your interest.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 27
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 12/12/2011 3:53:23 AM   
MXB2001

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 12/12/2011
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

If yes, was it against AI or human, and what were the help settings?


SSI version ;-) Against the computer neutral help setting. Took all bases except the west coast US which I'd invaded. Lost interest then, game's technically unfinished but hey. :)

v 3.2 sounds like more of a challenge.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 28
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 12/15/2011 4:43:22 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MXB2001


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

If yes, was it against AI or human, and what were the help settings?


SSI version ;-) Against the computer neutral help setting. Took all bases except the west coast US which I'd invaded. Lost interest then, game's technically unfinished but hey. :)

v 3.2 sounds like more of a challenge.



The game is finished if the exe called a win. Which in the situaiton you describe, it should of its Jan 44 or later.

I wouldn't necessarily call Matrix more of a challenge. AI capability is significantly reduced versis AI in SSI. But Allied produciton is so much higher, which counts as points, you have to take more of the map to win. Destroying the entire USN and RN isn't enough. Yet that should be an IJ win.

(in reply to MXB2001)
Post #: 29
RE: Has anyone won playing IJ? - 12/15/2011 4:53:00 PM   
MXB2001

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 12/12/2011
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk


quote:

ORIGINAL: MXB2001


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

If yes, was it against AI or human, and what were the help settings?


SSI version ;-) Against the computer neutral help setting. Took all bases except the west coast US which I'd invaded. Lost interest then, game's technically unfinished but hey. :)

v 3.2 sounds like more of a challenge.



The game is finished if the exe called a win. Which in the situaiton you describe, it should of its Jan 44 or later.

I wouldn't necessarily call Matrix more of a challenge. AI capability is significantly reduced versis AI in SSI. But Allied produciton is so much higher, which counts as points, you have to take more of the map to win. Destroying the entire USN and RN isn't enough. Yet that should be an IJ win.


I agree. Although if you do that it's not difficult to take the whole map. At least in the older version.

I suppose the point imbalance is not so bad in the short scenarios? I always had the habit of wanting to play the long campaigns (WIR too) but never finished them. My interest is really only in the 1939-1942 period so I've decided only to play short early war scenarios from now on.

I've been running CP vs CP games of the SSI v 1.1 x22 on another computer and it seems the points are pretty balanced there. Draw without help and decisive victory with help so far.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Has anyone won playing IJ? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.139