Pacific: Victory Points (posted by Sinister)

Apparently The Axis & Allies site over at Avalon Hill is going to be phased out soon. A new one will replace it. If you have something over there that you don’t want to be evaporated into thin air then cut and paste it, and bring it over here so that it is not lost forever.
User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:12 pm

Posted by Sinister:

Were the americans lucky at pearl? YES! a second strike was NOT ordered by the Japanese.

Were the Americans lucky at the Phillipeans? No. they Mac was dumb for not centralizing his defences and a supplies. This was one of the worst things he's ever done. His whole Dug-out-dougy defence of these Islands was crap.

Let's talk about luck at leyte. How bout when the squall hit protecting Sprague's ships? A rainstorm in the middle of a key japanese strike. Pretty unlucky to me.

Although this fleet was impressive at leyte it was no "death star fleet", the planes were impressive and I would conceed a "death star airforce".

As far as economic victory, yes this is why we will never agree. I think blitzing a tank through africa to win is cheap and you think that, despite if the entire war went differently, an invasion of britian would never be possible.

Thus we disagree on what could and couldn't be accomplished and that's ok.

Because what I CAN convince people of is the fact that the VP system does NOT reflect the actions of the pacific. It may explore the "political possiblities" but it does NOT reflect the real actions of the pacific.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:15 pm

Posted by Drax Kramer:
Originally Posted by Sinister
Were the americans lucky at pearl? YES! a second strike was NOT ordered by the Japanese.
The only thing this second strike was going to accomplish was to have more unreplacable Japanese pilots killed for no gain.
Were the Americans lucky at the Phillipeans? No. they Mac was dumb for not centralizing his defences and a supplies. This was one of the worst things he's ever done. His whole Dug-out-dougy defence of these Islands was crap.

Mac has much to answer for, but I was meaning on the destruction of half of his bombers on the ground. It was simply bad luck.
Let's talk about luck at leyte. How bout when the squall hit protecting Sprague's ships? A rainstorm in the middle of a key japanese strike. Pretty unlucky to me.
Although this fleet was impressive at leyte it was no "death star fleet", the planes were impressive and I would conceed a "death star airforce".
This was the most powerful fleet that ever sailed to fight a naval battle.
As far as economic victory, yes this is why we will never agree. I think blitzing a tank through africa to win is cheap and you think that, despite if the entire war went differently, an invasion of britian would never be possible.
You're throwing the baby (economic victory concept) with the water (unnecessary piece of playable real estate in the game). Economic victory allows Axis to win using variable strategies, rather than to force them to go for Moscow or lose. In a game with such high level of abstraction, most of the Africa should have been unplayable or its territories should have been separated by nonpassable borders (except for North Africa). Victory cities are nothing but a variant of economic victory.

As far as invasion of Britain is concerned, no, there was no way Axis could amphibiously invade Britain in 1942 short of inventing A-bomb before Allies. If you try, you'll find a sizeable ammount of historians and WW2 buffs in firm agreement with my position.
Because what I CAN convince people of is the fact that the VP system does NOT reflect the actions of the pacific. It may explore the "political possiblities" but it does NOT reflect the real actions of the pacific.

If you don't understand the reasons why this or that took or didn't take place during the war in the Pacific, you'd have more difficulties in getting the desired effect in the game.


Drax
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:16 pm

Posted by Sinister:

A second strike on peral SHOULD have been ordered it's well documented the additional damage it could have caused ,including the destruction of more supply dumps that were grouped together because it was felt the people of Hawaii were helping the japanese. In fact, Anti-air was pointed at ground level. Lots of historians agree that a second strike would have been a success for the Japanese. I was in class listening to two of them, and the documented evidence they brought, a few years back.

I can argue more of this but I'd rather get back to the impact on the game.

1. US IPCs must be decreased
2. The game's victory conditions must allow the game to continue past 8-10 rounds.
3. The game must force more US-Japanese combats early on that are more equal in size and force.
4. LATER in the game, Japan should be allowed desperate measures (such as VPs that allow victory)

Ideas on how to reflect this?

The US needs time to activate is economy. Therefore the US starts with 20 IPCs on the first turn and adds 5 IPCs to its total each turn until it reaches 75 IPCs. Japan must gain 40 VPs to win. Winning any engagment against the Americans counts for 2 VPs.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:22 pm

Posted by Krieghund:
Originally Posted by Sinister
I just think that strategically the continued attack of military Units by the Japanese is a more realistic approach than taking the philliepeans, hong kong, and a couple of unstrategic islands and proclaiming an abstract truce (what did they US lose about 50 IPCs or less?

The argument I hear is "This system allows for Japan to win the way they would have in real life. A truce favorable to Japan"

but look what the game DOESN'T accomplish

1. No battles with the US besides Peral and the Phillipeans if the Japanese can cash out early.
My rule that victory points are counted at the end of the US' turn (#1) addresses this. Since Japan must take and hold territory to get VPs, it gives the Allies incentive to fight more small battles to recapture territories quickly before Japan can earn VPs for them.
Originally Posted by Sinister
2. Unrealstic and unimportant strategic places taken for victory.
This is a problem in many games - places of only strategic importance given economic value to artificially make them important to the game.
Originally Posted by Sinister
3. A timetable that is incredibly "speed up" for what the real war was.
My house rule #1 addresses this also, since Japan gains VP more slowly.
Originally Posted by Sinister
4. Unbalancing IPCs rules that make the Americans unstoppable. Despite a resource advantage the americans couldn't produce ships fast enough unless of course each turn represents close to a year of real time but how is that fair to japan?

I just think that maybe IPCs weren't the way to go for figuring victory conditions for Japan. Maybe the allies should have a counter and when 350 IPCs of equipment is destroyed they sue for peace, but for god's sake let's make Japan make some ballsey moves and strikes, lower the stupid death star fleet by reducing Americas IPCs. Yes A&A is abstract but why does it have to be so abstract I can throw down 3-4 BBs a turn as America. Yes they had a hell of alot more resources but this should be reflected in a longer game. The clock? Well both fronts lasted about the same amount of time but yet every turn in AAP is like 8 months to maybe 2 months in revised. Has anyone had a game last longer than 8 turns? I never have.
The Americans were unstoppable. The problem here lies in the basic A&A mechanics of how units are produced. You can't really address it without changing those basic rules (multi-turn requirements for building capital ships, limits on percentage of IPCs by unit type, etc.)
Originally Posted by Sinister
In conclusion,

I don't have a problem with the "truce" idea and that idea being explored in some mechanic. I just think that to cover a historical "possibility" the game gave up alot of real history. I like my varient but perhaps the real decision here is to tie japanese victory with the destruction of Allied equipment considered "unreplaceable" because of European concerns. Thus set a IPCs damage counter out and when japan has caused enough harm, the allies give up. The game should also be slowed down to allow more historic and more strategic attacks. Make turns much reflective of a month than a year. That give the japanese some chances against the resources of the US
There are two problems with a destruction-based approach to victory points. The first is record-keeping - no one wants to count how many pieces are destroyed in each battle. The second is that this approach does not count the cost of the destruction. If Japan is losing more than the Allies to inflict the losses, it may have the effect of increasing American resolve, so the damage count must be relative. For this reason, the simplest and easiest measure of Allied progress is ground acquisition, which is reflected inversely in the current VP rules - if Japan has it, the Allies don't.

While income seems on the surface a "cheap" way of reflecting victory, it really represents a nation's ability to wage war. The building of new units and protecting the source of income for this purpose abstractly represents the supply and logistics necessary to gain and keep territories containing natural resources and strategic locations vital to the war effort. By increasing her income, Japan makes herself stronger militarily. Conversely, by reducing Japan's income, the US destroys her ability to make war. So, the control of territories (and their IPCs) represents more than just income.

I understand what you are saying about having a problem with a "false" victory for Japan, though. I don't like the idea of Japan barely hanging on until the clock runs out when one more turn would see her fall, either. I guess that's just the price you pay for the simplicity of the VP system. Perhaps there should be more ways for the US to take VPs back from Japan?
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:23 pm

Posted by Krieghund:
Originally Posted by Sinister
I can argue more of this but I'd rather get back to the impact on the game.

1. US IPCs must be decreased
2. The game's victory conditions must allow the game to continue past 8-10 rounds.
3. The game must force more US-Japanese combats early on that are more equal in size and force.
4. LATER in the game, Japan should be allowed desperate measures (such as VPs that allow victory)

Ideas on how to reflect this?

The US needs time to activate is economy. Therefore the US starts with 20 IPCs on the first turn and adds 5 IPCs to its total each turn until it reaches 75 IPCs. Japan must gain 40 VPs to win. Winning any engagment against the Americans counts for 2 VPs.
As I've said before, I really think that counting VPs at the end of the US' turn goes a long way toward sparking earlier conflicts. This also makes the game last longer, since Japan gains VPs more slowly.

I like the idea of the US economy building over the course of the game, but I'm afraid that might slow down the early game conflict you desire. Perhaps the starting forces of the US need to be increased as well. There was early experimentation by the designers with placing the Sea Zone 11 fleet secretly and revealing its location at the beginning of the US' first turn. Maybe something along these lines with extra forces would work.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:25 pm

Posted by Sinister:

I'll try your way kevin, you do some good work on the rules.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:25 pm

Posted by Krieghund:

Thanks! Let me know how it turns out.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:26 pm

Posted by Admiral_Yamoto:

im going to go on sinister's side for this. I think it is stupid that the allies would suddenly surrender because the japanese get a good economy. Thats why i made my variation (which needs a lot of revision, if you have ideas post in A&A house rules). cause the japanese were really just killing american forces to try to kill enough guys that the US would settle for peace.
japan's only way of winning is to get the allies tired of war, how can that happend because the gain ten IPCs each turn? In my variation, it encourages japan to attack the US more. Drax, the japanese arent as inferior as you think. They were like the 40s version of al qeada (but not as secretive)
also a "death star" fleet isnt possible because there were a lot of ships in the atlantic too.

P.S. sinister, have you thought any ways to make my variation a bit more balanced? thanks :)
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest