Influence Wars - Japan 1936 HPP Interactive AAR - COMMENT THREAD

[Holy.Death]

I have some objections regarding this:

*Since 1944-1945 is getting nearer, I will introduce a new rule with the aim of removing some potential gamey exploits of VCs:

Any non-Chinese enemy VP will count towards our victory only if it has been taken at least 6 months before the end date (Jan 1946) and was not lost during that period (July-December 1945).

Therefore, it will not be possible to do some invasions e.g. 1 month before the end date and jump in the victory scale.

The real war (at least against the Axis) was over with the capture of Berlin in 1945. By this logic we should have what we'll conquer. No matter if we'll capture it one day before timeline or one year. The course of action you propose can even turn players into the defensive as our faction will gain nothing 6 months before the end date. I can't fully agree with that. We already are hard pressed on many fronts and have enough rules as it is, I don't think we would willingly use flaws in the AI or act "gamey".

 

[Cybvep]

By this logic we should have what we'll conquer. No matter if we'll capture it one day before timeline or one year.

I disagree. There was no arbitrary end date IRL, but we have to end the AAR at one point or another and the game becomes more or less unplayable post-1945 (even the lag alone is bad). The point is that it shouldn't be possible to capture a VP point one day before the end of the game and increase one's victory scale or reduce the scale of one's defeat that way. I should have introduced a bit different VCs (VP generation instead of VP capture), but it's too late for that.

The course of action you propose can even turn players into the defensive as our faction will gain nothing 6 months before the end date. I can't fully agree with that. We already are hard pressed on many fronts and have enough rules as it is, I don't think we would willingly use flaws in the AI or act "gamey".

This point is more legitimate, but TBH I don't expect us to be on the offensive during the last 6 months of 1945... Anyway, if you have a better idea, I'm open to suggestions.

Also, it should be noted that our in-game "victory" and "defeat" are not connected with the epilogue per se, as it will describe the future of Japan in general. Depending on our situation in Jan 1946, we can win the GAME, but we do not necessarily have to win the WAR or even gain a favourable conditional peace outcome. If the Americans drop nukes on Japan in December 1946, it will hardly be a victory for the nation, but it's not part of the in-game VCs, because it's outside of the AAR's timeline. Things like that will be covered in the epilogue.

The point of VCs is to motivate the players to do X or Y and give us a way of determining an in-game victory or defeat and their scale. That's it.

EDIT: When I think about it, the rule could be softened a bit, i.e. we would get only a part of the VP's worth for taking X and exactly how much would be determined by the closeness of the end date. 1 month to the end date - 1/6 of VP, 3 months to the end date - 1/2 of VP etc. That way VPs would be always worth sth.

I think that this is the last moment during which I can create new rules, as doing that in 1944-1945 would be rather unfair to the players.

 

[robw963]

Despite my allegiance to your adversary I regret seeing the loss of Yamato...truly one of my favorite ships. Your last update was impressive! A big, meaty, detailed breakdown of the action right on down to logistical analysis. I appreciate the detail and effort you put into this AAR. Great work.

 

[Cybvep]

Despite my allegiance to your adversary I regret seeing the loss of Yamato...truly one of my favorite ships. Your last update was impressive! A big, meaty, detailed breakdown of the action right on down to logistical analysis. I appreciate the detail and effort you put into this AAR. Great work.

Thanks. I welcome praise with open hands, even if it comes from American spies .

 

[Holy.Death]

I disagree. There was no arbitrary end date IRL, but we have to end the AAR at one point or another and the game becomes more or less unplayable post-1945 (even the lag alone is bad).

End dates are arbitrary and depending on each participant separately - Russia has different day marked as capitulation of Germany than the Allies, USA has ended the war in different timeline than Europe, etc. That's understandable and we follow the general course of events (names, start dates, end dates, etc.) for simplicity's sake. It's the game revolving around World War 2 after all. I wasn't contesting the end date itself.

The point is that it shouldn't be possible to capture a VP point one day before the end of the game and increase one's victory scale or reduce the scale of one's defeat that way. I should have introduced a bit different VCs (VP generation instead of VP capture), but it's too late for that.

In next AAR it'll be much easier to change rules, I agree. But I also think we - both as players and as a nation - aren't in a position to make such drastic changes on the global map to influence the overall outcome six months before the end of all things. If we'll have successes on our fronts it'll be because of our planning and strategy rather than anything else, which is justifiable by itself. That's why I view such limits as inaccurate. Basically - we don't cheat, so all our gains are legitimate and should be treated as of full value. To me it's just matter of principles. If situation would arise that you'd think we start forgetting ourselves in some matters then you can remind us and the last word belongs to the Emperor.

As always.

 

[Cybvep]

The point is that if you take the VP now, then the enemy has a chance to recapture it and we have a chance to defend it or lose it. It's fair. If we take it 1 month before the end of the game, it's much less "fair", because there is not much time to respond.

What do you think about this - "the rule could be softened a bit, i.e. we would get only a part of the VP's worth for taking X and exactly how much would be determined by the closeness of the end date. 1 month to the end date - 1/6 of VP, 3 months to the end date - 1/2 of VP etc. That way VPs would be always worth sth."?

End dates are always artificial, because there is no such thing IRL. If you do sth that will harm your country 2 years later or 20 years later, then that time will eventually come. In HOI3 you don't have to worry about the future that much (hopefully, the epilogue will change our approach to this in this AAR).

---

I think that I will post this here, too:

*f you like this AAR, then feel free to vote for it in the AARland Choice AwAARds 2012 (Round 2). Even if you don't want to vote for the Influence Wars, at least vote for other AARs! You have up to four votes in the HOI(2-3) category - make sure that you use them!

 

[Baltasar]

Whatever the outcome, the tale about the IJN wracking havoc in the Pacific is already legendary by itself!

 

[Holy.Death]

The point is that if you take the VP now, then the enemy has a chance to recapture it and we have a chance to defend it or lose it. It's fair. If we take it 1 month before the end of the game, it's much less "fair", because there is not much time to respond.

I understand, but still can't agree with that logic. We aren't ordinary players playing some typical multiplayer game who could send paratroopers as far as possible to distant VPs and splinter the fleet into many transport fleets just to get as much VPs as possible before the end. I will go as far to state that none of us is even thinking about VPs and rather react to the events the game throws at us (correct me if I am mistaken).

What do you think about this - "the rule could be softened a bit, i.e. we would get only a part of the VP's worth for taking X and exactly how much would be determined by the closeness of the end date. 1 month to the end date - 1/6 of VP, 3 months to the end date - 1/2 of VP etc. That way VPs would be always worth sth."?

Much better - make performing actions (both offensive and defensive) viable choice.

 

[Cybvep]

The newest version of the rule says:

Any non-Chinese enemy VP will count towards our victory only partially if it has been taken during the last 6 months of gameplay (July-December 1945). The closer the date is to the end date, the lower the value, e.g. when 3 months to the end date remains, the VP's value will be divided by half. If we lose the VP and recapture it later, only the date of the recapture will count.

Note that the other rules still apply, i.e. we will lose the game no matter what if we do not control Manchuria, Korea or Japanese core territory. Naturally, we will also lose if Japan surrenders earlier.

I understand, but still can't agree with that logic. We aren't ordinary players playing some typical multiplayer game who could send paratroopers as far as possible to distant VPs and splinter the fleet into many transport fleets just to get as much VPs as possible before the end. I will go as far to state that none of us is even thinking about VPs and rather react to the events the game throws at us (correct me if I am mistaken).

This is a just-in-case rule. I don't want you to get stupid ideas .

Whatever the outcome, the tale about the IJN wracking havoc in the Pacific is already legendary by itself!

Indeed.

 

[Surt]

Well with losing 4 Islands in 3 month, I think we got other problems than VP grabbing at the end of the game

 

[Cybvep]

Well with losing 4 Islands in 3 month, I think we got other problems than VP grabbing at the end of the game

It's 1943. 1945 is a long way off and I must predict potential problems in order to avoid adding ad hoc rules during the endgame.

 

[Surt]

It's 1943. 1945 is a long way off and I must predict potential problems in order to avoid adding ad hoc rules during the endgame.

With 15 US CVL alone its a problem not to have a stroke of unluck where half our fleet sinks, but I fear the US might have produced a 10+ CV + 10+ BB too which will make it certain that we will have an accident at sometime

 

[Cybvep]

I don't know, building capital ships takes time and if you use too many of them, your positioning suffers greatly. Now the USA needs to support the UK in Europe, too. We've done well naval-wise so far and if we don't do anything rash or stupid, we have a chance to achieve more victories.

Losing islands is both bad and good for us. It's bad, because it gives the Allies more naval bases and air fields and gives them the ability to strike at many of our poorly defended islands inside the defence perimeter. It's good, because we need fewer convoys and the number of targets for the Allied subs decreases. Obviously, losing Honolulu is a big blow, as we are now blind (no radars in the area) and it may be hard to retake it.

Force disposition will be the key in the Pacific. If we concentrate too much in one place, the enemy may regain the ground in the region which lacks adequate forces, which is what is happening right now in the Central Pacific (and it could still happen with 1/5th of the forces the USA used). There is also a higher chance that Midway happens and I don't need to tell you how disastrous losing 4-5 capital ships would have been. On the other hand, if we spread our forces too thinly, then we may also fail everywhere, which gets us nothing and we may be defeated piecemeal.

The USA is not our only worry, though. Just look at Europe - the Axis will probably lose in 1944 and I don't think that we are ready to face the SU...

Here is the worst-case scenario - the Axis is defeated by the end of 1943, the SU attacks us in 1944 while we are still fighting in China, we engage the American fleets in the Central Pacific and suffer a crushing defeat, losing several capital ships and many screening ships and the Commonwealth forces recapture Borneo and the Malaya, stranding our forces on Sumatra... The good thing is that worst-case scenarios rarely happen .

BTW I could provide the stats of all ships at our disposal, if the IJN needs it in order to form new fleets.

 

[Baltasar]

In case somebody didn't quite follow the naval war, here's a summary. Note that these are only confirmed sinkings.

 

[Cybvep]

I think that naval-wise this is one of the most successful HOI3 AARs ever .

 

[Baltasar]

I suspect that what remained of the French fleet was inherited by the British, eg several of their DD groups showed as British. If we're lucky, another three UK BBs will be sunk soonish.


Edit:

 

[misterbean]

63 to 213. I guess you're winning in that department.

 

[Baltasar]

For Japan it's actually 36 ships lost and 213 sunk.
For Japan and the Axis it's 96 to 302.

 

[Cybvep]

Yeah, but I wouldn't count TPs... They can't fight and most of them probably had no troops on board, anyway.

The problem with decisive battles is that they are good for the weaker side only when you actually win them . We cannot defeat the Allies totally, we can only delay them long enough and cause high enough losses to gain a sensible CONDITIONAL peace treaty (which means that negotiations will be involved). On the other hand, one lost decisive battle for Japan means that we are pretty much dead and can only delay the inevitable unconditional surrender. Early battles with the RN shows that we can both be surprised at sea and be unlucky. That's why it's important to pick our battles wisely.

 

[Baltasar]

Those transports do force the enemies to build new ones, so in itself they're as good as any other sunken vessel. Plus I fully expect the occasional division being lost along with the ships, further making things that bit easier for us.