Play Balance

[dicedtomato]

Operation Z is tilted against Japan. It's not simply the number of MMPs. It's also the tech advantages that the overwhelming number of U.S. (augmented by British and Dutch, especially ships) can bring to bear. Japan conquering China will not compensate for that.

It also helps that the Allies that the scenario extends beyond August '45 into January '46. Given how easily ground troops in SC:PT can be pounded into oblivion by multiple carrier/land-based air/battleship attacks, the Allies can pretty much take what they want.

I suspect there will be a lot more enthusiasm for playing the Allies rather than Japan in PBEM.

[AZGungHo]

The imbalance of forces is pretty much the nature of the beast. From what I can see the design actually cuts back the US quite a bit from what happened historically, and yet the Allies still end up dominating Japan.

Given everyone knew Japan couldn't actually defeat the US, only hope they'd quit after suffering casualties, I think Z does a pretty good job making things as balanced as possible.

[cubby]

You're right! In real life Japan never had a chance. US industry was just too much for the Axis. Why skew history to make a game. Why skew a game to change history. Let the victory conditions be the equalizer....

[Blashy]

SC2 ETO Fall Weiss has the fault of making the game balance... as if Germany ever had a chance to DEFEAT the Allies. This was corrected in PTO something I am VERY happy about.

And playing Japan can be quite fun once you figure out how to make life for the advancing allies miserable. The harder it is for them the more they will press hastily and make mistakes.

[Timskorn]

It's all about understanding the victory conditions. As others have pointed out before, playing Japan is about knowing when to switch from offense to defense and where to prioritize your MPP's and military in order to achieve the minor victory. Against the lower level AI, good players can probably pull out Major Victories as Japan, but in PBEM that is going to be tougher.

I enjoy balanced games too, but I tend to side with historical victory conditions when it comes to games like this. I'd rather face, in general, the same problems and situations as Germany or Japan did historically and do my best to exceed their historical counterparts, not alter it completely by invading the US or taking over the entire USSR.

And as always, the editor is there to freely boost Japan to be equally competitive with the Allies.

[rich12545]

In real life Japan would have had it easier for a while if they had won the battle of Midway.

Same in Europe if Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then successfully invaded England.

History can be changed with two battles for the most part.

[dicedtomato]

Why is it historical to give the Allies four extra months beyond August '45 to compel a surrender?

Why is it historical for Japanese warships to start with neither experience nor naval warfare upgrades (even though Japan starts with Naval Tech 1)? Why does Japan start with Heavy Tanks 1 but their armor begins the game with no upgrades? Is it more realistic to force Japan to spend time and several hundred scarce MMP to upgrade?

A game that allows Japan to capture California is poor history. But a game where we shrug our shoulders and say, "oh, well, Japan is going to lose anyway. Have fun" is a poor design.

[DEVILS ADJUTANT]

I think the attack on Pearl harbor is out of whack,the damage the jap carriers take is bull,i've had 1 knocked down to 4.When in reality the japs only lost 29 planes,Me's think this needs to be changed.

[scottsmm]

The Japs only carried out two assaults though, and they didn't do as much damage as you probably do in you campagin. So I think it's rather fair, and if they did change it carrier's aircraft would become practically impervious to anything but another aircraft strike.

[DEVILS ADJUTANT]

Maybe change it just for that battle?if its possible

[jon_j_rambo]

For those who say it was a slam dunk for the Allies to win the war both in Europe & the Pacific.......I disagree! In the words of Yogi Berra,"It ain't over, tell it's over." Goliath thought the same thing. You never know what can happen in a fight.

Far as this game. I'm not really sure who has the edge, well, when it comes to playing H2H.

[Bill101]

Why is it historical to give the Allies four extra months beyond August '45 to compel a surrender?

Why is it historical for Japanese warships to start with neither experience nor naval warfare upgrades (even though Japan starts with Naval Tech 1)? Why does Japan start with Heavy Tanks 1 but their armor begins the game with no upgrades? Is it more realistic to force Japan to spend time and several hundred scarce MMP to upgrade?

A game that allows Japan to capture California is poor history. But a game where we shrug our shoulders and say, "oh, well, Japan is going to lose anyway. Have fun" is a poor design.

Hi Dicedtomato

In answer to your questions:

1) The reason is because the allies have to invade and conquer Japan, so a little extra time is required. If the allies fail to conquer Japan by the end of 1945, then Japan wins. Thus the game can be a race against the clock at the end.

When I first sat down to design this scenario the hardest problem I faced was the fact that the Japanese themselves knew when they went to war that they could not win. Their only hope was to wear the allies down so that the latter would be willing to come to the table and do a deal.

The problem therefore was to work out some reasonable victory conditions that weren't too far removed from reality, and after innumerable discussions and trials, having Japan hold out until 1946 seems the best solution.

2) Many of the Japanese ships and 2/3 of their armoured units do start with upgrades. A number also have experience, including the carriers that attack Pearl Harbor.

Not all of their naval units start with upgrades or experience and that is largely a representation of their class, i.e. older battleships don't, whereas their more modern counterparts do.

As to their one tank group that starts on level 0, I guess it's not much of an issue either way whether it starts upgraded or not, but given that Japanese armour wasn't exactly the bees knees in 1941, I decided to have that one start at level 0. It's representative of their overall poor quality.

[Blashy]

I think the attack on Pearl harbor is out of whack,the damage the jap carriers take is bull,i've had 1 knocked down to 4.When in reality the japs only lost 29 planes,Me's think this needs to be changed.

As stated above me, you do ALLOT more damage to PH in this game than how it was historically. You make 4 carrier attacks compared to 2.

[xwormwood]

If there will ever be a campaign which combines the Fall Weiss & Plan Z campaigns (and this would include both maps, not a midget map where england is 3 tiles long and the atlantic is 7 tiles wide) than the Russian war entry would be solved, because the russian player would have to withdraw his units for real from the european theater into asia, making the live of the germans easier, the live of the americans and british much harder there.

[DEVILS ADJUTANT]

All i'm saying is that the japs can loose up to 40% of there aircraft and that puts them on the backfoot straight away.I thought this was a surprise attack?

[Retributar]

I too like historical games,...But!,...within those historical boundaries/parameter's are alway's the 'What-If' variable's.

Just because history has worked out in a particular fashion,...it does not iron-out other alternative possibilities or outcome's that may have resulted from a 'rich-matrix' of events!.

So,...i do not believe in a 'One & Only One Outcome',...i believe in alternate outcome's in an event,...dependent on the choices/decisions made, and of course...resulting outcomes that then derive new direction's in a game,...with perhap's different ending's!.

That's why im 'not convinced' that 'Germany or Japan' could have...'not won?',...even though that end-result was perhap's 'Slim to Non!'.

[scottsmm]

Devils adjutant,

Please tell me your not doing this, because of a game where playing right now. In which your Japan. By the way just do two aircraft strikes, and see what the casualties. I'm sure chances are that it will turn out rather historical. Besides that I'm in full agreement with Blashy, on this issue.

[Rocko1]

I do agree that the Japanese should have a higher level of aircraft capability for their carriers. The fact is that the US had nothing that could take them on in the beginning of the war. Also I positioned a large fleet outside of Pearl Harbor and mysteriously a couple of US battleships appeared that were retrieved from being sunk. The fact is that in reality I would have blown them up again if they started to raise them.

[dicedtomato]

Hi, Bill,

I appreciate your hard work on this. Operation Z is a good scenario. But like a lot of other strategic games, there is no reason why the Allies just can't avoid combat until they've built up an overwhelming advantage, and then whomp Japan. Japanese automatic victory is practically impossible against non-comatose humans, so the Allies have no incentive to fight in 1942-43. At the same time, the game exacerbates Allied military and economic preponderance. For example, there is no reason why the Allies can't transfer all the British/Dutch/Australian ships to Hawaii or California. It takes a while for Britain to save enough MMPs to repair them, but it seems funny to start old Japanese battleships at reduced strength when the Allies can double the size of their non-carrier fleet.

One solution is to make Japanese automatic victory easier. Give the Allies a reason to fight under less-than-ideal conditions.

Hi Dicedtomato

In answer to your questions:

1) The reason is because the allies have to invade and conquer Japan, so a little extra time is required. If the allies fail to conquer Japan by the end of 1945, then Japan wins. Thus the game can be a race against the clock at the end.

When I first sat down to design this scenario the hardest problem I faced was the fact that the Japanese themselves knew when they went to war that they could not win. Their only hope was to wear the allies down so that the latter would be willing to come to the table and do a deal.

The problem therefore was to work out some reasonable victory conditions that weren't too far removed from reality, and after innumerable discussions and trials, having Japan hold out until 1946 seems the best solution.

2) Many of the Japanese ships and 2/3 of their armoured units do start with upgrades. A number also have experience, including the carriers that attack Pearl Harbor.

Not all of their naval units start with upgrades or experience and that is largely a representation of their class, i.e. older battleships don't, whereas their more modern counterparts do.

As to their one tank group that starts on level 0, I guess it's not much of an issue either way whether it starts upgraded or not, but given that Japanese armour wasn't exactly the bees knees in 1941, I decided to have that one start at level 0. It's representative of their overall poor quality.

[DEVILS ADJUTANT]

Scott,have been able to play the turn yet?

[SeaMonkey]

Actually I believe the attack on PH should be a decision event. You, as Japan. say "yea" you get historical results. Japan says "nay" then the victory conditions change to a different set of variables.

Think of it in simple terms as with a PH attack the antagonism of "sneak" inflicts unconditional victory resolve from USA, otherwise perhaps a more limited approach from the Allies for conflict resolution.

[abukede]

I am playing a multiplayer email game as the allies right now and I can tell you for a fact... if Japan moves quickly enough they can roll up and push the british and chinese back. I am getting my ass kicked in the east... Japan if played right can be a powerful beast to break.

[scottsmm]

Key word for Japan is QUICK. Everybody knew that Japan only had a limited ammount of time to win the war, and after that it was crapshoot.

[Blashy]

Key word for Japan is QUICK. Everybody knew that Japan only had a limited ammount of time to win the war, and after that it was crapshoot.

Yep, even Germany was in the same situation. Although it could have sued for peace in a better position and probably held on to some lands.

[scottsmm]

Germany, to a point was in the position your talking about, but not until 43', 44'. Before that Germany was capable of doing whatever she wanted, and unlike Japan, Germany had the privilege of deciding who of her enemies she could attack and how while Japan was limited in how, and who she could attack.