Victory Conditions

[vettim89]

This post is an offshoot of a discussion in the Forlorn Hopes AAR regarding victory conditions. It was discussed how it is virtually impossible for the Japanese player to win the game without achieving an autovictory in 1942 or 1943. Beyond that it is just the slow grind to the end with the Japanese player just trying to make the final victory as costly as possible for the Allied player. Being as this is a game not RL, why should that be so? In RL, the Allies were not going to stop until they finished the job. In a game, why keep playing if you knwo you have no choice of victory. On that vein some thoughts were posted and I thought I might expand a little here. Some of this is for possible inclusion in AE/AE patches and some are just food for thought.

1. Auto victory promotes overly aggressive play by the Japanese player. Trying to achieve that elusive 4 to1 or 3 to 1 margin forces the Japanese player to try to expand beyond historical limits. Territory is grabbed with full knowledge that it can't be held but with the hope that it will rack up enough points.

2. The current points system and victory levels do not reward the Japanese player for outperforming the RL model. If at least some if not most of the reason for playing a strategic game like WITP is to see if the players can employ better strategies to achieve superior results than the historical outcome, then present WITP fails to reward the Japanese player for beating history. Part of the reason for this is autovictory. The Japanese player gets far fewer points for taking and holding important strategic goals than the Allies. If this were not true, autovictory would be the norm vice the exception.

3. As the war progresses, certain losses by the Japanese become less significant. Losing four CV's in June 1942 was far more costly to the Japanese war effort (ie, it should be worth more points) than losing four CV's in October 1944. Likewise as the Allied war effort ground on through 1944 and 1945, losses were becoming more and more painful in the public's eye (ie, army points lost in those years should be worth more points).

Some ideas. Perhaps these could be an alternative scenario for AE or some one could mod it. I doubt the variable victory points thing could be accomplished without altering the code (which is officially an offensive phrase as we get nearer to AE's release)

1. Crunch the numbers to determine what the historical losses were in terms of men and material by wars end for both sides. Using this value as the base for where points should be by 1 September 1945 to establish a baseline. Then, any deviation above or below that line would determine victory. Just equalizing base points for both sides might bring this very close as the Japanese still held large portions of SEAC, China, and the NEI at war's end. So for example say the RL numbers yield a margin of victory of 10 k for the Allies. If the margin is less than 10 k at game's end, Japan wins. If it si more, the Allies win. Keep in mind the Allies will still win the war in almost every case but in this example, the Japanese can still win the game.

2. Alternative: From time to time, reference has been made to SPI's WITP board game. That game ended when Japan surrendered. This happened only after Japan's economy collapsed. That was defined in the game largely by how much resources were delivered to Japan. Failure to meet the game's requirements meant the economy shrunk. Successfully meeting the requirements meant the economy grew (Note: shrinking/growing was not automatic and was based on a die roll). Any turn the Japanese economy was 0, a six sided die roll was made with a "6" meaning Japan surrendered. This roll was modified by +1 for each of the following: Russians active, atomic bomb dropped, Kamikaze's initiated, Japan occupied (any hex), and any Allied unit in any TWO of the following: Formosa, Marianas, Okinawa, PI, Borneo, Malaya, or Java. The Allies had until the end of September 1945 to accomplish this or Japan won the game. AHHHHH, but there is a catch! Japan could shorten the war by doing one of four things: 1. Every week beyond the 72nd consecutive week Japan occupied any Aleutian Island hex (no SLOC necessary) the war was shortened by two weeks. 2. Every week after 4/42 that the Allied player did not have a valid SLOC from WC USA to Oz (SLOC is defined in the rules) the war was shortened by two weeks. 3. Every week a Japanese unit with a SLOC (same as above) occupied any hex in India or Ceylon, the war was shortened by two weeks. 4. Every week in 1942 only the Allied player failed to meet game defined West Africa capital ships garrison requirement, the war was shortened by two weeks (think RN withdraw requirments). So you can see these rules gave the Japanese a legitimate chance at winning especially if they could shorten the war. Even if the Allies mopped the floor with Japan in 1944 and 1945, there was no gurantee they would win the game.

Obviously, option 2 would require a complete rewrite of the code but does make for an interesting game. Option one would be much easier to accomplish especially if autovictory could be disabled (or simply ignored, I guess)

[Yamato hugger]

I dont subscribe to the "Japanese cant win" philosophy. I won a game in Mar 44. The allied player surrendered when I sank his 4th or 5th Essex carrier. I was leading somewhere close to 2:1 at the time. I would not have held that ratio until 1945 to get the auto-victory. But its extremely unlikely the allies could have won that game either because ship losses from 1944 on arent replaced.

I actually play a very conservative game really.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I dont subscribe to the "Japanese cant win" philosophy. I won a game in Mar 44. The allied player surrendered when I sank his 4th or 5th Essex carrier. I was leading somewhere close to 2:1 at the time. I would not have held that ratio until 1945 to get the auto-victory. But its extremely unlikely the allies could have won that game either because ship losses from 1944 on arent replaced.

I actually play a very conservative game really.

Yes, you won the game by default but you did not win the game according to the code. By you own admission, you would not have met the game's requirments for victory. I am not saying the Japanese player can't conclude a game victorious rather the game fails to recognize it. Lets say your opponent did not resign and you played on through 1945. It is conceivable that you may have lost your points lead or it may have drawn close to to a draw. But by your defintion and your opponents you had won. That was the point I was making - not that the Japanese can't win but that the game doesn't recognize it

[bradfordkay]

vettim89 wrote: " By you own admission, you would not have met the game's requirments for victory."

Actually, he did not so admit. He admitted that he would not get the 1945 auto-victory, but he hadn't given up hope of holding at least a marginal victory.


This brings a observation about victory conditions in WITP. I just re-read them in order to check on the above question and in doing so I seems that I have learned that the allies can only win by auto-victory.

If the game ends when the scenario time expires in 1946, the victory level shifts two levels in the Japanese player's favor. So if you haven't achieved auto-victory, the best you can hope for is a draw, since that is what a an allied decisive victory would shift to. In other words, according to the manual there really is no marginal or decisive victory for the allies - it's auto victory or nothing. Is this correct?

[Fletcher]

I think japanese can get enough victory points to avoid allied automatic victory. Allied player needs 1,75 : 1 to win at 1945 (1 to 1:25 for a marginal), moreover if the game ends in 1946 the victory level moves two levels in the japanese player´s favor ... Like Confederates in the American Civil War, the japanese knows from the beginning will be very, very difficult a military victory, but don´t forget that you can get enough victory points to avoid or complicate the allied victory. What a lot of time like japanese you can get more VP that allied, more easily you can win the game like japanese (at 1945-6). For the other hand like japanese player its mandatory keep your bases in range of metropolitan industries as time as possible. Before or after will be in american hands, but delay in months could be decisive.
Allied needs to change the wave as soon as possible to get time if the japanese players gets a 2:1 ratio in VP.
That´s my humble oppinion, of course.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Fletcher

I think japanese can get enough victory points to avoid allied automatic victory. Allied player needs 1,75 : 1 to win at 1945 (1 to 1:25 for a marginal), moreover if the game ends in 1946 the victory level moves two levels in the japanese player´s favor ... Like Confederates in the American Civil War, the japanese knows from the beginning will be very, very difficult a military victory, but don´t forget that you can get enough victory points to avoid or complicate the allied victory. What a lot of time like japanese you can get more VP that allied, more easily you can win the game like japanese (at 1945-6). For the other hand like japanese player its mandatory keep your bases in range of metropolitan industries as time as possible. Before or after will be in american hands, but delay in months could be decisive.
Allied needs to change the wave as soon as possible to get time if the japanese players gets a 2:1 ratio in VP.
That´s my humble oppinion, of course.

I know this will be addressed in AE but playing into 1946 in present WITP does not make much sense as the reinforcements for both sides dry up in 1945 - especially for Japan. Politically, I don't think the US public would have the stomach for another year of war beyond the end of VE day. I think the US would have used the atomic bomb to eliminate Japan as a nation. The long term implications of that are a frightening thing to contemplate. I am not saying that Japan cannot win WITP but that the game code does not reward a well played game by the Japanese player enough

[Bogo Mil]

Who cares if the game code finally says "major victory", "draw" or "blabla blubb"? If Japan is still in good shape in late '45, every human spectator will say the Japanese player has won the game. Don't ask some computer hard- and software about it's opinion.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: Fletcher

I think japanese can get enough victory points to avoid allied automatic victory. Allied player needs 1,75 : 1 to win at 1945 (1 to 1:25 for a marginal), moreover if the game ends in 1946 the victory level moves two levels in the japanese player´s favor ... Like Confederates in the American Civil War, the japanese knows from the beginning will be very, very difficult a military victory, but don´t forget that you can get enough victory points to avoid or complicate the allied victory. What a lot of time like japanese you can get more VP that allied, more easily you can win the game like japanese (at 1945-6). For the other hand like japanese player its mandatory keep your bases in range of metropolitan industries as time as possible. Before or after will be in american hands, but delay in months could be decisive.
Allied needs to change the wave as soon as possible to get time if the japanese players gets a 2:1 ratio in VP.
That´s my humble oppinion, of course.

I know this will be addressed in AE but playing into 1946 in present WITP does not make much sense as the reinforcements for both sides dry up in 1945 - especially for Japan. Politically, I don't think the US public would have the stomach for another year of war beyond the end of VE day. I think the US would have used the atomic bomb to eliminate Japan as a nation. The long term implications of that are a frightening thing to contemplate. I am not saying that Japan cannot win WITP but that the game code does not reward a well played game by the Japanese player enough

I understand the game engine goes off the rails in late 1944.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I understand the game engine goes off the rails in late 1944.

Not sure what you mean by off the rails, but having played a campaign into 46 it's true that the existing game becomes tedious and almost unplayable (but you slog on because you've come so far...)

However, some of the biggest problems (some table size issues, UberCAP, and the overly fast pace of operations come to mind) I recall are addressed in AE. It would be a fallacy to say that means AE will be playable to the end, but it might.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I know this will be addressed in AE but playing into 1946 in present WITP does not make much sense as the reinforcements for both sides dry up in 1945 - especially for Japan. Politically, I don't think the US public would have the stomach for another year of war beyond the end of VE day. I think the US would have used the atomic bomb to eliminate Japan as a nation. The long term implications of that are a frightening thing to contemplate. I am not saying that Japan cannot win WITP but that the game code does not reward a well played game by the Japanese player enough

Regardless of the state of Japan as a nation in any sense, including infrastructure, the Soviet Union would have rolled in and snapped up all of Japan if the US & Western Allies had called it quits for any reason after VE day. Talk about frightening long term implications...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I know this will be addressed in AE but playing into 1946 in present WITP does not make much sense as the reinforcements for both sides dry up in 1945 - especially for Japan. Politically, I don't think the US public would have the stomach for another year of war beyond the end of VE day. I think the US would have used the atomic bomb to eliminate Japan as a nation. The long term implications of that are a frightening thing to contemplate. I am not saying that Japan cannot win WITP but that the game code does not reward a well played game by the Japanese player enough

Regardless of the state of Japan as a nation in any sense, including infrastructure, the Soviet Union would have rolled in and snapped up all of Japan if the US & Western Allies had called it quits for any reason after VE day. Talk about frightening long term implications...

Rolled in where? [:D]

China and Korea sure thing... but Japan consists of islands and there is lot of sea to fare to get to it... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Andy Mac]

Both sides get option into 45/46

[witpqs]

They seemed to get some northern islands just fine. Once in control of Korea crossing the strait would be easier with their air-power, although certainly non-trivial.

SU moving into Japan was certainly a concern of US leadership at the time, why were they concerned?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They seemed to get some northern islands just fine. Once in control of Korea crossing the strait would be easier with their air-power, although certainly non-trivial.

SU moving into Japan was certainly a concern of US leadership at the time, why were they concerned?

IMHO Russia amphibiously invading Japan in 1945 is as impossible as Germany invading England in 1940... without Navy and large number of merchant ships you can't supply huge army...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Yamato hugger]

From what I hear from the naval guys, the vast majority of the Russian pacific fleet is subs.

[Dutch_slith]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

If the game ends when the scenario time expires in 1946, the victory level shifts two levels in the Japanese player's favor. So if you haven't achieved auto-victory, the best you can hope for is a draw, since that is what a an allied decisive victory would shift to. In other words, according to the manual there really is no marginal or decisive victory for the allies - it's auto victory or nothing. Is this correct?

IIRC win by auto-victory but dropping more than 2 A-bombs = marginal victory

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
From what I hear from the naval guys, the vast majority of the Russian pacific fleet is subs.

Oh, my goodness .. we got lots of this & that. Tons of merchies convertable to transports, billions and billions of LSI/LST building away in a "port to be named later". Oh no, if the Sovs want to invade, late war, they got the means. Sov PacFlt will be as it was on any given day. It does have a nice stable of subs available from 12/6/41 on. Activate at your own risk.

[jwilkerson]

Two ways to "win" ... beat the opponent in such a way that he resigns ... or win on points.

For me, when I play WITP PBEM as Japanese (which is mostly all I've done) my only "victories" have been of the first type - and I have several.

In stock, there is, in theory, a way to win on points, for the Japanese this means trying to achieve 4:1 by 1 Jan 43 ... I'm not positive this has been done in PBEM ... but I suspect it is possible with the right combination of players.

But a 1-day turn PBEM game of WITP will take a couple of years to play, unless the opponent resigns early, so when I'm playing a game that will last 2 years, I'm not sure a victory on points means much. At least to me.

Early in the project we definitely discussed major revamps of the victory point system and certainly such is possible - but - given finite resources and finite time - the major rework of the VP system did not make the cut. We did tweak the ratios a bit - this is all documented in the manual. The base VP are adjustable in the editor. But substantially, you have the same system as in stock.

[bradfordkay]

To me, if my game goes into late 1945 or 1946 it won't matter if I win, lose or draw. It's the journey that has me addicted...

My point was that the original post seemed to say that unless the Japanese win an auto-victory early on then that player has no chance whatsoever - but the victory conditions as listed in the WITP manual (v1.0) tell us the opposite: unless the allied player manages an auto-victory he cannot win, but the Japanese player does have a chance to win should the game time out.

[jwilkerson]

Right, the journey is cool - I think that's why most of us are here.
[:)]