Matrix Games Forums

New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A)

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) Page: <<   < prev  38 39 [40] 41 42   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/5/2012 4:22:39 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1171
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/5/2012 4:24:06 PM   
Lomri

 

Posts: 227
Joined: 2/6/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
If you use US troops to take a 1000 VP base, but lose 4000 men doing it, you've moved closer to losing by auto-vic. Consult the Victory conditions portion of the manual; the Japanese have a large VP advantage in device casualty effects over US, British, Indian, Aussie, etc. forces. The only place they don't is in Chinese and Filipino forces. The Sovets are equal to Japanese rules.


Ok, I'm just an AI player so I don't tend to worry about auto-vic and VP stuff, but I thought VPs for bases accrued over time. So losing 4000 men to take a 1000VP base might be bad on day one, over time it would pay off. In addition a 1000 VP base is a "swing" of points as opposed to straight up losing 4000 men. Am I off base?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1172
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/5/2012 4:27:45 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
You're right.

For instance, say the Allies lose 4,000 squads (4,000 points) to take a base that's worth 1,000 points to Japan and 150 points to the Allies. Thus, the relative change in VP for the operation is 4,000 to 1,150. (Bullwinkle, was just making a point, but it's worth explaining in detail for those, like Lomri, that might want to really mull it over).

(in reply to Lomri)
Post #: 1173
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/5/2012 4:38:21 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right.

For instance, say the Allies lose 4,000 squads (4,000 points) to take a base that's worth 1,000 points to Japan and 150 points to the Allies. Thus, the relative change in VP for the operation is 4,000 to 1,150. (Bullwinkle, was just making a point, but it's worth explaining in detail for those, like Lomri, that might want to really mull it over).


It's a good point which emphasizes just how complex the VP/auto-vic game can get.

As another POV, a Japanese player looking to auto-vic could also time his "spring" just so (1/1/43?) in order to grab bases good for him in VP terms, bad for the Allies to lose in VP terms, while also springing on bases with low infantry but high device ratios (the Allies have a much richer "stuff versus men" ratio in their LCUs.) Thus making ground gains pay while also using the device rules to exert greater leverage on the VP ratio. If he grabs early he might get longer-term base-hold points by being able to build out the base, but also might have to defend the base several times in the interim before 1943.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/5/2012 4:46:40 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1174
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/5/2012 4:41:13 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Good point; meaning even if a place like Fiji or Noumea seemed pretty secure and "to the rear" in late 1942, a clever auto vic gamble might lead an IJ player to invade purely for auto vic consideration and even though it wouldn't make sense outside of that narrow consideration.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1175
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/5/2012 4:45:49 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lomri

Ok, I'm just an AI player so I don't tend to worry about auto-vic and VP stuff, but I thought VPs for bases accrued over time. So losing 4000 men to take a 1000VP base might be bad on day one, over time it would pay off. In addition a 1000 VP base is a "swing" of points as opposed to straight up losing 4000 men. Am I off base?


VPs for bases don't accrue over time; the VPs are a snapshot each turn. You don't get any credit today for holding the base yesterday. You only get credit today.

That said there are advantages to taking a base earlier rather than later. Huge VP advantages are gained if the capturing player has time, engineers, and supply to build up the base's port and/or airfield. (No VPs for building forts.) Also, a base at VP calculation time with less than needed supplies is penalized, all the way down to 25% of its potential VP worth if it has zero supplies on hand.

Trade-offs, always with the trade-offs . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lomri)
Post #: 1176
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/5/2012 4:47:33 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Good point; meaning even if a place like Fiji or Noumea seemed pretty secure and "to the rear" in late 1942, a clever auto vic gamble might lead an IJ player to invade purely for auto vic consideration and even though it wouldn't make sense outside of that narrow consideration.


Right. If he wins on 1/2/43 he never has to worry about defending on 1/3/43.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1177
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/5/2012 6:54:23 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
For LCUs, VPs are awarded on the basis of destroyed devices, not men. A single VP is awarded for each


  • 12 Chinese or Filipino devices
  • 6 Soviet or Japanese devices
  • 3 for all other Allied devices


Losing 4000 Allied men in capturing a base worth 1000 VPs does not mean the Allies lost 1333 VPs in army losses. 4000 lost men is somewhere in the vicinity of 300-320 destroyed devices, thus if the casualties were American the lost army VPs is about 100. So in that instance the transaction would be quite profitable for the Allies. However the bases in question will be worth a lot more than 1000 VPs and the casualties will be much higher.

Alfred

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1178
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/5/2012 7:39:58 PM   
Lomri

 

Posts: 227
Joined: 2/6/2009
Status: offline

So, in straight combat you need to take 50% the losses of the enemy to make it a VP wash. But then enters the the math of swing VPs on the base. A base worth 100 VP to you and 900 VP to Japan is a 1000VP swing. You'd have to lose 333 devices MORE than that 1:2 ratio to make it a wash. I guess I see where BW58 is coming from that you have to be careful of pyrrhic victories.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1179
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/5/2012 7:58:37 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Add this to the mix: I am not specifically playing to avoid auto victory. The heaviest factor in my decision-making is whether a move or battle makes sense long-term. I don't want Steve to achieve auto victory, but I am not going to employ the "let's take Noumea on December 31 even if we can't hold it three days" kind of strategy. Perhaps I should, but I won't. I want Steve to shoot for auto victory because it's fun and challenging to oppose it. But that's not my main focus.

(in reply to Lomri)
Post #: 1180
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/5/2012 8:41:53 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
5/12/42 and 5/13/42

Steve and I got in another turn yesterday afternoon and one this afternoon, so we're making a bit of progress.

North America: The lone-wolf USN DD raided Cold Bay without incident, following yesterday's raid at Kodiak. Steve doesn't have effective patrols up here nor any activity at either port. I'll try Dutch Harbor tomorrow. Base building continues, especially at Prince Rupert, with the expectation that the Allies will begin a major air campaign to suppress Alliford Bay and other IJ bases during the summer months.

Pacific: The Tarawa invasion force is 60 hexes NE of the island. A US Army battalion has landed at Ndeni without opposition or detection. Another TF carrying a battalion for Tabituea is close to that island, but I don't want to go in and stir things up right now, what with a major invasion in bound.

Australia: What seems to be the KB is approaching Perth from the NE. I don't detect any sign of an amphibious force, but we'll see.

India: The Allies have about 2,500 AV split between Ranchi and Panta. I'm considering a move on Jamesdspur. Still no sign of an enemy move on Socatra. If nothing breaks in the next week or so, I may begin to slowly draw down the garrison and move it forward to Ceylon. Diego already has 435 AV, so I think it's secure enough.

China: Lanchow should fall tomorrow. I small Chinese army in the forests behind Sian has held out gamely against a much larger IJA force. I don't think they can hold out much longer, so I'm facing the prospect of a retreat with the usual large losses. Overall, though, the Chinese MLR remains intact at the moment.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1181
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/6/2012 12:02:13 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

For LCUs, VPs are awarded on the basis of destroyed devices, not men. A single VP is awarded for each


  • 12 Chinese or Filipino devices
  • 6 Soviet or Japanese devices
  • 3 for all other Allied devices


Losing 4000 Allied men in capturing a base worth 1000 VPs does not mean the Allies lost 1333 VPs in army losses. 4000 lost men is somewhere in the vicinity of 300-320 destroyed devices, thus if the casualties were American the lost army VPs is about 100. So in that instance the transaction would be quite profitable for the Allies. However the bases in question will be worth a lot more than 1000 VPs and the casualties will be much higher.

Alfred


Math nag.

The point remains that the device rules are very (properly) skewed and can be taken advantage of by the wily Japanese player. Also, I continue to maintain that fully-destroyed Allied LCUs typically have more non-human devices than Japanese LCUs, and it's easier to grease an American AA gun than a squad of IJA infantry who shoot back. A device is a device is a device.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1182
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/6/2012 12:03:42 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lomri


So, in straight combat you need to take 50% the losses of the enemy to make it a VP wash. But then enters the the math of swing VPs on the base. A base worth 100 VP to you and 900 VP to Japan is a 1000VP swing. You'd have to lose 333 devices MORE than that 1:2 ratio to make it a wash. I guess I see where BW58 is coming from that you have to be careful of pyrrhic victories.


And if you're short on supplies the VP prize can erode down to 25% of list if you aren't careful, or can't get supplies delivered for some reason.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lomri)
Post #: 1183
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/6/2012 12:08:48 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Add this to the mix: I am not specifically playing to avoid auto victory. The heaviest factor in my decision-making is whether a move or battle makes sense long-term. I don't want Steve to achieve auto victory, but I am not going to employ the "let's take Noumea on December 31 even if we can't hold it three days" kind of strategy. Perhaps I should, but I won't. I want Steve to shoot for auto victory because it's fun and challenging to oppose it. But that's not my main focus.


Your Noumea example only applies in his direction, unless you have a cunning strategy to massively flip the VP accounts in the next seven months. If you take it and can't hold it he just takes it back. If he takes it you might have game over, in your example.

And if you're skating near the ratio's edge after 1/1/43 he could try to tip it over on any given day. It's not just a January 1 check. It's the rest of the game, with different ratios every January.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1184
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/6/2012 1:24:12 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5119
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: online
Using Tracker,

Can you get a list of all bases sorted by VP and start ticking off the valuable ones you hold which are at risk, as well as look at any PJH held bases which might be available.

Plus, are there any "clumps" of VP bases such as SW Australia where there are 5-6 bases close together?

Reading all of this, I hate VP games of any type!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1185
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/6/2012 11:09:09 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12261
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right.

For instance, say the Allies lose 4,000 squads (4,000 points) to take a base that's worth 1,000 points to Japan and 150 points to the Allies. Thus, the relative change in VP for the operation is 4,000 to 1,150. (Bullwinkle, was just making a point, but it's worth explaining in detail for those, like Lomri, that might want to really mull it over).



now the question is how does someone lose 4000 Allied squads taking a base that would be worth 1000 points. Pretty theoretical IMO. If you actually win battles then it's pretty much impossible to lose on the vp side because the winnner usually isn't destroyed, the loser is though. So as long as you win battles and he loses them you should be safe pretty much all the time.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 9/6/2012 11:11:23 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1186
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/6/2012 1:49:00 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right.

For instance, say the Allies lose 4,000 squads (4,000 points) to take a base that's worth 1,000 points to Japan and 150 points to the Allies. Thus, the relative change in VP for the operation is 4,000 to 1,150. (Bullwinkle, was just making a point, but it's worth explaining in detail for those, like Lomri, that might want to really mull it over).



now the question is how does someone lose 4000 Allied squads taking a base that would be worth 1000 points. Pretty theoretical IMO. If you actually win battles then it's pretty much impossible to lose on the vp side because the winnner usually isn't destroyed, the loser is though. So as long as you win battles and he loses them you should be safe pretty much all the time.


As Alfred helpfuly pointed out, it's devices, not squads. Squads are devices, but not all devices are squads. It's not hard to lose 4000 devices taking an urban hex.

In my haste to devise an example to make the point I was making I engaged in that fine old Internet tradition of doing one's research after one posts. JeffK's helpful suggestion to look in Tracker and rank order VP totals for each side under the Base tab showed how in error I was in using 1000 VPs as any sort of basis for my argument. Almost no hexes are worth 1000 VPs to the Japanese, and those which are should be safe from a late 1942 assault in any kind of evenly-matched opponent set as we have in this AAR.

Something in the 250-400 VP range better makes my point. Luganville-esque if you will. Bases which "hang out" geographically and can be apporached without deep continental penetrations, but which still, if combined, could give an auto-victory-seeking Japanese player a nice run in very late 1942 or early 1943. That is not to say that ten of these could be engineered to all trigger on New Year's Eve, but they don't have to be. Distance and Allied response times would make a mini-campaign to reap VPs--say, six weeks to two months--feasible if the Japanese player were less interested in the map status post-mini-campaign. IOW, a roll of the dice for auto-vic. It might be fatal to the game, but it would be a wild ride for both players for those six weeks.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/6/2012 1:51:03 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1187
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/6/2012 2:51:33 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
It is very much possible to come out on the negative side in terms of casualties and attendant VPs but yet still win the battle. Much depends on the quality of the respective firepower deployed. In practical terms this is unlikely to be the case where USA/USMC LCUs with their great superiority in firepower are involved in late war combat. However early war combat, particularly combat involving non American/AIF units, where the firepower disparity is not really present, the phyric victory is definitely a possibility.

Also bear in mind that a defeated Allied force is quite prone to retreat. Being forced to retreat results in additional losses. However a defeated Japanese force is not necessarily forced to retreat. A defeated Japanese force may be able to make its exit out of the hex before it is forced to do so and thereby avoid incurring the losses from a forced retreat.

Alfred

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1188
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 12:47:14 AM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

As Alfred helpfuly pointed out, it's devices, not squads. Squads are devices, but not all devices are squads. It's not hard to lose 4000 devices taking an urban hex.

In my haste to devise an example to make the point I was making I engaged in that fine old Internet tradition of doing one's research after one posts. JeffK's helpful suggestion to look in Tracker and rank order VP totals for each side under the Base tab showed how in error I was in using 1000 VPs as any sort of basis for my argument. Almost no hexes are worth 1000 VPs to the Japanese, and those which are should be safe from a late 1942 assault in any kind of evenly-matched opponent set as we have in this AAR.

Something in the 250-400 VP range better makes my point. Luganville-esque if you will. Bases which "hang out" geographically and can be apporached without deep continental penetrations, but which still, if combined, could give an auto-victory-seeking Japanese player a nice run in very late 1942 or early 1943. That is not to say that ten of these could be engineered to all trigger on New Year's Eve, but they don't have to be. Distance and Allied response times would make a mini-campaign to reap VPs--say, six weeks to two months--feasible if the Japanese player were less interested in the map status post-mini-campaign. IOW, a roll of the dice for auto-vic. It might be fatal to the game, but it would be a wild ride for both players for those six weeks.


There are the places where Japan can accumulate points but I might suggest that auto-victory not only requires point accumulation but denying the Allies easy bases to build up. Also taking these bases subtracts points which has the same effect as critical "plus" bases like Luganville ..

The device discussion is extermly interesting because as it is pointed out the bases must be taken at the least costs because every IJ device lost has to be made up by 4 points somehow .. devices, aircraft, and/or base points. The IJ tend to lose 2:1 or something like that in aircraft .. it's going to be very close in my opinion ..

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1189
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 1:39:16 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

There are the places where Japan can accumulate points but I might suggest that auto-victory not only requires point accumulation but denying the Allies easy bases to build up. Also taking these bases subtracts points which has the same effect as critical "plus" bases like Luganville ..



Base development is the Allied golden goose designed into the rules and inherent in the OOBs. The Allies are awash in engineers from the start of the game, the Seabees worth several infantry divisions in the game's balance. In my one attempt to play as Japan I was shocked at how sparse are Japanese engineer resources. Developing already held, and major-sized, bases is an excellent Allied hedge against auto-vic. This idea is also a great argument, if yet another were needed, against a Sir Robin. A 1942 Allied expansion strategy is better, as it proivides more time to build up new, safe acquisitions preceeding that critical 1/1/1943 auto-vic line.

Your point about Allied "easy bases" is a good one. To that point I would (gently) re-point out how this idea meshes with the NorPac strategy in this particular game.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 1190
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 2:50:14 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12261
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right.

For instance, say the Allies lose 4,000 squads (4,000 points) to take a base that's worth 1,000 points to Japan and 150 points to the Allies. Thus, the relative change in VP for the operation is 4,000 to 1,150. (Bullwinkle, was just making a point, but it's worth explaining in detail for those, like Lomri, that might want to really mull it over).



now the question is how does someone lose 4000 Allied squads taking a base that would be worth 1000 points. Pretty theoretical IMO. If you actually win battles then it's pretty much impossible to lose on the vp side because the winnner usually isn't destroyed, the loser is though. So as long as you win battles and he loses them you should be safe pretty much all the time.


As Alfred helpfuly pointed out, it's devices, not squads. Squads are devices, but not all devices are squads. It's not hard to lose 4000 devices taking an urban hex.

In my haste to devise an example to make the point I was making I engaged in that fine old Internet tradition of doing one's research after one posts. JeffK's helpful suggestion to look in Tracker and rank order VP totals for each side under the Base tab showed how in error I was in using 1000 VPs as any sort of basis for my argument. Almost no hexes are worth 1000 VPs to the Japanese, and those which are should be safe from a late 1942 assault in any kind of evenly-matched opponent set as we have in this AAR.

Something in the 250-400 VP range better makes my point. Luganville-esque if you will. Bases which "hang out" geographically and can be apporached without deep continental penetrations, but which still, if combined, could give an auto-victory-seeking Japanese player a nice run in very late 1942 or early 1943. That is not to say that ten of these could be engineered to all trigger on New Year's Eve, but they don't have to be. Distance and Allied response times would make a mini-campaign to reap VPs--say, six weeks to two months--feasible if the Japanese player were less interested in the map status post-mini-campaign. IOW, a roll of the dice for auto-vic. It might be fatal to the game, but it would be a wild ride for both players for those six weeks.




squads or devices, if you lose 4000 devices (aka any other thing as squads) you have done something seriously wrong when being on the offense. You are not awarded points for disablements, so actually having 4000 (or any other number in the thousands) would be quite ludicrous for me when attacking a target. This would look like the AI has taken over control. Talking about a normal sized, usual battle in the game, not hundreds of thousands of Allied troops landing on Japan in 45 facing halve a million dug in Japanese.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 9/7/2012 3:04:26 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1191
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 2:55:44 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12261
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It is very much possible to come out on the negative side in terms of casualties and attendant VPs but yet still win the battle. Much depends on the quality of the respective firepower deployed. In practical terms this is unlikely to be the case where USA/USMC LCUs with their great superiority in firepower are involved in late war combat. However early war combat, particularly combat involving non American/AIF units, where the firepower disparity is not really present, the phyric victory is definitely a possibility.

Also bear in mind that a defeated Allied force is quite prone to retreat. Being forced to retreat results in additional losses. However a defeated Japanese force is not necessarily forced to retreat. A defeated Japanese force may be able to make its exit out of the hex before it is forced to do so and thereby avoid incurring the losses from a forced retreat.

Alfred




I am not denying that it is possible to come out losing on the point ratio when winning a battle but I am more than certain that this would not happen more than perhaps a couple of times in a whole campaign of mine and I would expect the same from any halve decent player, independent of the side he plays. You win a ground battle, you take 90% (or more) disablements of your total losses, if the enemy is sitting on an island or is cut off, the enemy takes 100% destroyed squads/devices of his losses (or can retreat and horrible suffers from doing so), plus the base changes it's owner. The chance to come out on the negative side is more than small (even though there might be a chance) and if so happening, then probably because the player was more than careless because on the offensive, you can keep your units from attacking when they are mostly disabled already, means mostly avoiding actually destroyed squads/devices.

I probably can count the times on one hand when a defeated Japanese force (means having just lost a base to an at least 2:1 attack) was then able to march out of the base when it would have to first get a way to move out (means someone has to open a path to retreat), I can't even remember having seen that at all in my games. And if there is a retreat path, then the units are kicked out, horrible suffering from the retreat.

Again, coming out on a negative ratio may be possible, but happens so rarely that I would put that in the spheres of theoretical happenings, just like that it could be possible that the AI would win a campaign against me.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 9/7/2012 3:05:45 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1192
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 4:19:48 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
squads or devices, if you lose 4000 devices (aka any other thing as squads) you have done something seriously wrong when being on the offense. You are not awarded points for disablements, so actually having 4000 (or any other number in the thousands) would be quite ludicrous for me when attacking a target. This would look like the AI has taken over control. Talking about a normal sized, usual battle in the game, not hundreds of thousands of Allied troops landing on Japan in 45 facing halve a million dug in Japanese.


Look at the bases actually worth 1000 Japanese VPs. Tell me you could take them without losing 4000 devices. (Canberra, Calcutta, Spokane, Perth, Sacramento?)

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1193
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 5:57:57 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6817
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
About the whole VP discussion. It would be really informative for newer players like myself if the vets locking horns on abstracts took this particular game and used it as an example for possible ways to achieve auto-victory. It's pretty obvious that PH will not be taking the afore-mentioned large point value bases. So based on the current VP tally, what would he need to do to achieve auto-vic by the beginning of 43 in real terms?

Does he need to go further into India? Does he need to mount a strategic bombing campaign in OZ somehow? Can he get to auto-victory by slugging away in China and picking up random bases worth less than 500 points, the Luganvilles and such? What is the path if we know he is not on track to take all of India or OZ?

EDIT - Here is CR's recent post on the actual points for reference. As it seems to me, this is still quite far from a VP win possibility. The Allies will be able to increase value of their bases more quickly than the Japanese and CR doesn't have to expose any major shipping to attack if he's worried about losing points. The only area he's really forced to fight in is China. He can hit bases, troops and infrastructure hard with 4Es and should gain points i the air through the rest of 42 as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Here's the Victory Point breakdown as of the current turn (5/12/42):

IJ Points: 23,397
Allied pts: 7,836


3.349:1

quote:


IJ Bases: 10,218
Allied bs: 4,217

IJ Air Pts: 1,979
Allied Pts: 1,410

IJ Army Pts: 9,002
Allied Pts: 711

IJ Ship Pts: 1,883
Allied Pts: 1,156

Only in manpower does Japan have anything close to or above the necessary 4:1 ratio for auto victory. Over the coming seven months, I think the margins should become increasingly positive for the Allies in aircraft and shipping. For manpower and bases, it probably won't change a whole bunch.


< Message edited by obvert -- 9/7/2012 10:12:30 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1194
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 7:25:41 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

... EDIT - ... The Allies will be able to increase value of their bases more quickly than the Japanese ...


Actually, from a VP perspective that is not correct. In fact in this match it is Japan which can increase the value of the captured bases much more quickly than can the Allied player.

The secret is in knowing the differing ratios and how VPs for bases are determined.


(A). The basic VPs for a properly supplied base is:

(port size) + (2 x airfield size)


Thus the basic VPs for a base with a port sized 2 and an airfield sized 2 is:

(2) + (2 x 2) = 6



(B). The basic VPs are then modified by a weighted value which varies considerably between bases.

In this game Japan has already captured, and remains capable of capturing additional, very favourably weighted to it bases. Look at NoPac. Every Aleutian island chain base is weighted 5:1 to Japan. Anchorage is weighted 25:10, Juneau is weighted 100:1. To take Juneau, which admittedly is an extreme example, Allied engineers would have to work at 100 times the speed of japanese engineers just to keep up with the increase in value resulting from base infrastructure building.


(C). Areas which still promise a huge return to Japan and which very much remain vulnerable to capture before 1943 include:


  • Lanchow and the base immediately to its north (50:1 ratio) and every base further north which are very weakly held have a 10:1 ratio
  • a breakthrough onto the Chungking plain would see the Japanese player head directly to Chengtu, not Chungking because the former base is a 100:1 ratio
  • Perth is a 50:1 ratio and every other WA base is on a 10:1 ratio
  • both Colombo and Trincomalee are 25:2 ratios



(D). A long time ago, in Q-Ball's AAR of his match against Canoerebel I pointed out the VPs possibilities.


(E). Go back almost to the start of this AAR and you can see a post of mine regarding strategic VPs.

Alfred

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1195
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 8:02:43 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7038
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Using Tracker,

Can you get a list of all bases sorted by VP and start ticking off the valuable ones you hold which are at risk, as well as look at any PJH held bases which might be available.

Plus, are there any "clumps" of VP bases such as SW Australia where there are 5-6 bases close together?

Reading all of this, I hate VP games of any type!



Yep, don't even look at them. I will know when I get whipped....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 1196
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 8:23:35 PM   
gmoney

 

Posts: 134
Joined: 11/22/2009
Status: offline
just to join in on the fun, and due to a lack of real action currently, I'd like to point out that any VP swing for the Allies receives a 4x multiplier in Auto-victory considerations. Given the above example, a base that was worth 150 to the allies and 1000 to the Japanese, if retaken nets 1150 VP for the allies. However since Japan needs 4:1 to win an auto victory, in reality the swing is 4600 VP for the allies to avoid an auto loss. This of course before you factor in army losses, but it is unlikely that a competent player will lose 4000 more devices than the defender and still win the battle. But for arguments sake, lets say you did lose 4000 more chinese squads than the japs, that still nets you roughly 4250 vp 'swing' in terms of avoiding an auto loss.

That said, I hate VPs and when i make the jump to PBEM I would find an opponent that wanted to play the war to it's end and ignore VPs

Gmoney


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 1197
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 10:53:04 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8306
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmoney

That said, I hate VPs and when i make the jump to PBEM I would find an opponent that wanted to play the war to it's end and ignore VPs

Gmoney


No sense in re-hashing the "sim vs. game" ideas once more. People play both ways.

But I would suggest that players who abandon VPs are often those who don't finish a PBEM game. VPs and the hope of coming back through clever play vis a vis VPs can be what keeps a Japanese player in for the long haul when a true "war win" is impossible. The VP system and Victory conditions were very carefully designed and balanced to allow Japan to win the game all the way through, including the penalties in summer 1945 and after for A-bomb over-use. Just staying alive past certain historical dates can win the game for Japan. If you stick with VPs and Victory conditions you have a game; without them you often have a slog which ends early.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to gmoney)
Post #: 1198
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 11:34:07 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3579
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
Implied in these posts is the reality that decreasing the Allied VP denominator is as important as increasing the Japanese numerator. Taking key bases that are worth high point values to the Allies (eg Singapore) depresses the Allied total and makes it easier for Japan to achieve 4:1. Taking a base worth 1000 and dropping the Allied point total from 10K to 9K, for example, drops Japanese victory requirements from 40K to 36K.

_____________________________

Follow my latest AAR as I do battle with our resident author Cuttlefish at: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2742735

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1199
RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) - 9/7/2012 11:39:11 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2607
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

To that point I would (gently) re-point out how this idea meshes with the NorPac strategy in this particular game


I might gently point out on page 10 of this AAR ..

quote:


Something that I had not read in the AAR yet .. might be covered and I missed it . but are victory conditions based on points or like porn .. we will know victory when we see it?

If it is points .. the Alaska Northwest offers an interesting problem. As Rangoon as a value of 100 multiplied by airfield and port to achieve victory value for the Allies Juneau offers a multiplier of 100 max port 6, max airfield 3 1800 victory points .. Skagway 25 5/3; 275; Ancororage 25 4/9 900 ...and in fact there are plenty of 10, 20, 25 multipliers concentrated in the area. In terms of auto-victory it might be a gold mine in terms of minimal investment with a
maximum gain in VP's ... add on the other stuff that IJ usually takes might just be the plan to take things over the top ..


Actually I got this wrong .. since it is Base value * [(2Xairfield) + (Port)] so Skagway is 25 * [10+3] or 325. [ignorantly I multiplied port and airfield in the above post ..But my eyes were immediately drawn to the density of points in NorPac and the ability to hold these points in the winter of 42 - 43 ...However, the devices discussion has me really intriged since device loss points early on usually goes toward the IJ but airplane losses goes the Allies way .. could the IJ get enough base points to overcome this and achieve instant victory?

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1200
Page:   <<   < prev  38 39 [40] 41 42   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: War and Peas - Hortlund (J) vs. Canoe (A) Page: <<   < prev  38 39 [40] 41 42   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