From: James Bailey Subject: Strategy analysis Since this list is to end very shortly, I figured I'd better post this reflection on a particular strategy used in PBJ6. Call it the Franco-Nippon Gambit. This post will *not* re-count the details of PBJ6 as that has already been done both here and in the PBJ6 post-game discussion. Upon reading Jeff Janoska's conclusion posted to this list that Japan and France had little chance of winning (based on the games in the database), it occurred to me that (since I was playing Japan) an alliance with France to ambush Britain might be the only hope for victory for either power. I explained the reasoning to France and we set about to do that. The idea was simple: 1) secret treaty between France and Japan that allowed Japan to DoW Britain *during* a Franco-British war, 2) have France pick a fight with Britain, 3) isolate/neutralize the other powers to prevent added DoWs from triggering the GW, 4) when GB moved to attack France, Japan would issue its "surprise" DoW and catch the British off-guard, 5) after a successful naval campaign, take India and split the spoils to assure a 1st and 2nd place finish for France and Japan, 6) complete the war quickly so that there'd be enough ETI cushion left to continue the game for a few turns. In short, the strategy worked as planned but only due to incredibly good luck in our favor. Repeatedly, crucial die rolls went our way. We started the war at ETI 64 and barely managed to complete the war at ETI 98. We did not anticipate the possibility of the ETI rising that high. The existence of a British ally (the US with a Panama Canal) was the reason for the unavoidable rise. The tiny US fleet was able to dodge the Franco-Nippon forces and prolong the war (which of course was intentional and reasonable). (Italy was an ally of France and Japan and was crucial in many small ways, most importantly keeping a 4th Euro-power from coming in on Britain's side.) But even without the US, the ETI would have easily been in the mid-to-high 80's at war's end -- even that kind of a rise was unanticipated. My assessment of the strategy is that it can only work in a very limited set of circumstances: the ETI must be *very* low and there is no Panama Canal (unless the US is not a British ally). Also critical is the inclusion of Italy or Germany as an ally. Both have their pluses: Italy is in a better position regarding linking up with the French fleet and Egypt, Germany has more ships. Here's why I think the strategy ultimately won't work. 1) The luck of the die rolls. The combat system in the game has many elements that make war a very uncertain affair. Two are worth mentioning: first, the 50/50 initiative roll. This roll determines whether forces in adjecent zones will have combat. If one power is seeking to prolong the war by avoiding combat, getting the initiative is crucial. The effect is that as long as the losing side has 1F1, having 8F10s isn't going to help you to a quick victory: you will have to spread out and trap him... unless you get the 50/50 die roll. Second, the CRT percentages allowing "DR" are high. Even at 10-1, there's a 33% chance that the superior force will not destroy a 5 factor enemy force. Those two elements alone so randomize the possible outcomes in a war that there really is no way to anticipate how long a war such as this one will last. In short: if you plan a big war like this one, the odds are very good that you will ultimately incur GW blame. 2) The second reason the strategy probably won't work is that France is limited in its control markers. France has to grab a HUGE amount of territory to win this game. In PBJ6 France won by holding all of India, Cape Colony, Transvaal, Maylay, a CoD in Egypt and many other scattered holdings. Yet if the game had continued one or two turns as we had originally hoped, France would probably have been overtaken by Italy as a result of the VP divisor difference. That means France has to grab even more area than listed here and that means that Japan has to agree to that, which means Japan will gain nothing from the war. 3) Even if Japan is given good gains, Japan's limited merchant ability severely restricts what Japan can make use of. Japan has 2 merchants until the 4th turn which means that Japan cannot benefit from the conquest of India or even Australia until then. For Japan to use its merchants to such benefit, they'd have to be in NCS, SCS and the Indian, but a war in turn 4 will not be possible because the ETI will be too high to start one. Even if Australia and Canada are conquered, that means that Japan would still need 3 merchants (NCS [for Korea and Formosa], NPac and SPac) to benefit from the war. No arrangement of 2 mechants can make the war profitable for Japan reagrdless of the success of the campaign. All of this means that even with a fantastically successful war, Japan still has little to no chance of winning the game. 4) the final reason the strategy shouldn't work is that at some point Germany can announce that it will sign a traety with GB and DoW the Franco-Nippon alliance unless they a) stop fighting and return large portions of the British Empire or b) give Germany large chunks. (Germany can also force their reaction by having AH extend coaling rights in the Med to GB -- this would increase GB's option.) Essentially, Germany will rarely sit back and watch 2 or 3 other powers steal Germany's chances of winning by taking the British Empire apart. This is consistent with how you would expect Germany to react under those circumstances. So finally, I have a few conclusions about PaxB in general. 1) wars just don't work. A general war will almost certainly lead to the GW. This is logical in the framework of the game -- a war involving France, Italy, Japan, the US and Britain that ranged all over the world for years (there is no indication how long war phases are in real time, but the events in the PBJ6 war would have taken at the very least 2 years) would have eventually drawn Russia and Germany in even if only against each other. So if general wars don't work, what about small wars? Well, why have a war unless the area in question is significant? If it's not significant, why DoW over it? And if it's significant, then you are looking at a prolonged war because presumably the powers are at war because the area *is* critical to their success. The only exception being wars in which the powers ultimately cannot reach each other within 3 turns and a stalemate is imposed (a silly rule, BTW: why should the war end when the powers are making every effort to get at each other but can't do so in 3 turns -- a stalemate when the sides don't want to stop fighting??). 2) Japan and France really don't have much chance of winning the game except under very unusual circumstances. A lower VP divisor would help both, but Japan would really be an interesting power if it received a 3rd merchant fleet one turn earlier. The advance on the merchant fleet would make for a very interesting RE if combined with the Japnese war party event. 3) India shouldn't be part of the game, really. Losing it requires Britain to strive for the GW (which GB will almost certainly be able to achieve). Even if Russia were to have the chance to invade India by land, Britain would cause the GW by sending an amphibious attack at a Russian area every 3 turns. India serves as a lure to other nations and gives Britain a huge VP total (and initial lead) which must be chopped by the VP divisor. Alas, this can't be changed, though, without re-designing the game. So the strategy worked once, but barely. Was it worth it? In terms of learning about the mechanics of war and the ETI in PaxB: yes. In all other ways: no. Finally, the really big drawback to an extended war like this, is that it takes all the air out of the game and reduces the non-participants to total boredom. PaxB isn't a wargame and it's really no fun playing it like one. I post all of this here more as a caution against such strategies than anything else. They aren't much fun and rarely work. Jim Bailey From: jj51@umailsrv0.umd.edu (Jeff Janoska) Subject: Re: Strategy analysis
> Here's why I think the strategy ultimately won't work. > 1) The luck of the die rolls. The combat system in the game has >many elements that make war a very uncertain affair. Two are worth >mentioning: first, the 50/50 initiative roll. This roll determines >whether forces in adjecent zones will have combat. If one power is >seeking to prolong the war by avoiding combat, getting the initiative is >crucial. The effect is that as long as the losing side has 1F1, having >8F10s isn't going to help you to a quick victory: you will have to spread >out and trap him... unless you get the 50/50 die roll. Second, the CRT >percentages allowing "DR" are high. Even at 10-1, there's a 33% chance >that the superior force will not destroy a 5 factor enemy force. Those >two elements alone so randomize the possible outcomes in a war that there >really is no way to anticipate how long a war such as this one will last. >In short: if you plan a big war like this one, the odds are very good >that you will ultimately incur GW blame. Agree. Though, if there are no retreat routes, that makes the 10:1 attack a 100% chance of eliminating the smaller force. > 2) The second reason the strategy probably won't work is that >France is limited in its control markers. France has to grab a HUGE >amount of territory to win this game. In PBJ6 France won by holding all >of India, Cape Colony, Transvaal, Maylay, a CoD in Egypt and many other >scattered holdings. Yet if the game had continued one or two turns as we >had originally hoped, France would probably have been overtaken by Italy >as a result of the VP divisor difference. That means France has to grab >even more area than listed here and that means that Japan has to agree to >that, which means Japan will gain nothing from the war. Agree. Had the game lasted until the movement phase, Italy and Japan would have finished ahead of France. Of course, that gives France an incentive to run the ETI near 100 and the allies an incentive to end the war short. This gives the other alliance some bargining room, which is what the game is about. > 3) Even if Japan is given good gains, Japan's limited merchant >ability severely restricts what Japan can make use of. Japan has 2 >merchants until the 4th turn which means that Japan cannot benefit from >the conquest of India or even Australia until then. For Japan >to use its merchants to such benefit, they'd have to be in NCS, SCS and >the Indian, but a war in turn 4 will not be possible because the ETI will >be too high to start one. Even if Australia and Canada are conquered, that >means that Japan would still need 3 merchants (NCS [for Korea and >Formosa], NPac and SPac) to benefit from the war. No arrangement of 2 >mechants can make the war profitable for Japan reagrdless of the success >of the campaign. All of this means that even with a fantastically >successful war, Japan still has little to no chance of winning the game. Agree. Japan is more limited than Russia in that Russia has access to nearly all the Areas that Japan has access _and_ Russia has access to Anatolia. Japan's divisor is too high. > 4) the final reason the strategy shouldn't work is that at some >point Germany can announce that it will sign a traety with GB and DoW the >Franco-Nippon alliance unless they a) stop fighting and return large >portions of the British Empire or b) give Germany large chunks. (Germany >can also force their reaction by having AH extend coaling rights in the >Med to GB -- this would increase GB's option.) Essentially, Germany will >rarely sit back and watch 2 or 3 other powers steal Germany's chances >of winning by taking the British Empire apart. This is consistent with >how you would expect Germany to react under those circumstances. This is probably more of a product of the House Rules allowing entry into the War at any time. Of course, without this rule, the other 2 Europeans could simply demand that a "reasonable" peace settlement be reached before the war begins or they will enter the war at the outset. > So finally, I have a few conclusions about PaxB in general. > 1) wars just don't work. A general war will almost certainly lead >to the GW. This is logical in the framework of the game -- a war >involving France, Italy, Japan, the US and Britain that ranged all over >the world for years (there is no indication how long war phases are in >real time, but the events in the PBJ6 war would have taken at the very >least 2 years) would have eventually drawn Russia and Germany in even if >only against each other. So if general wars don't work, what about small >wars? Well, why have a war unless the area in question is significant? If >it's not significant, why DoW over it? And if it's significant, then you >are looking at a prolonged war because presumably the powers are at war >because the area *is* critical to their success. The only exception >being wars in which the powers ultimately cannot reach each other within >3 turns and a stalemate is imposed (a silly rule, BTW: why should the war >end when the powers are making every effort to get at each other but >can't do so in 3 turns -- a stalemate when the sides don't want to stop >fighting??). I put the Powers in 2 categories: Dominant (Britain/France) and sub-Dominant (the rest). A particular Area mught not be important to a Dominant Power _unless_ one of the sub-D's takes it. Example: Eriteria is not-so important to Britain _unless_ Italy takes it, in which case its importance increases dramatically. In a Britain-Italy War, the war ends PDF, if the other Powers stay-out. However, if France were to take Eriteria, Britain shouldn't be as quick to go to war. Any war involving the 2 Dominants _should_ last a long-time and make things very tense, simply because the 2 Powers are so strong. A war between two sub-dominants won't last particularly long since they don't have the staying power. > 3) India shouldn't be part of the game, really. Losing it >requires Britain to strive for the GW (which GB will almost certainly be >able to achieve). Even if Russia were to have the chance to invade India >by land, Britain would cause the GW by sending an amphibious attack at a >Russian area every 3 turns. India serves as a lure to other nations and >gives Britain a huge VP total (and initial lead) which must be chopped by >the VP divisor. Alas, this can't be changed, though, without re-designing >the game. Ah, but what if France had turned to Britain and said: "Make a separate Peace with me. I will take 2 Areas in Africa and CoDs in some of the Indian Areas. My allies can go pound sand." This moves France up in the VP race _without_ the usual A-Bomb strike on Britain's VP total because GB won't lose the 50VPs ($500!!) for loss of India if Britian gives away CoDs. True, a Russian invasion of India won't work because Britain can make an indefinite number of invasions into Russian-held Areas, keeping the 3-round lapse from occuring. I think HERE is the major weakness of the combat system - a power determined to run-up the ETI can do so for a very looooong time. However, one could argue that this is a failure of diplomacy since the Power that started the War should be willing to make a compromise to avoid the GW penalty. I think Jim points out a serious weakness in the combat system. PROPOSED SOLUTION:: If no Area is conquered/re-conquered within 3 rounds, the war ends following the next round - even if the final round ends in an Area changing hands. This keeps things from dragging on in a chance the rabbit around the world fashion and it stops the suicide-continue the war attacks. BTW: I still think the French divisor is too darn high. NOTE to JOHN: Is a list server function standard among mailing software? if it is, I can see about starting things here. Also, check out web-grognards under Pacific War. The Lynne& harte people support a large number of consim lists. This might be a general service or it could be because someone on their staff plays these games. Don't know. Jeff From: James Bailey Subject: Re: Strategy analysis On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Jeff Janoska wrote: > I put the Powers in 2 categories: Dominant (Britain/France) and sub-Dominant > (the rest). > Any war involving the 2 Dominants _should_ last a long-time and make things > very tense, simply because the 2 Powers are so strong. > > A war between two sub-dominants won't last particularly long since they > don't have the staying power. This is a very good point. It comes down to this: France and Britain cannot afford to get into a war with each other. Any strategy by either side that attempts to obtain a naval advantage sufficient to win such a war quickly, is very likely foolhardy. In fact, when one puts the numbers together, the only alliance that can stand up to GB militarily is France + Japan and that will usually lead to disaster in game terms. France exists to keep GB from stomping everyone else whenever GB wants to, and GB serves a somewhat less urgent purpose regarding France. > > > 3) India shouldn't be part of the game, really. Losing it > >requires Britain to strive for the GW (which GB will almost certainly be > >able to achieve). Even if Russia were to have the chance to invade India > >by land, Britain would cause the GW by sending an amphibious attack at a > >Russian area every 3 turns. India serves as a lure to other nations and > >gives Britain a huge VP total (and initial lead) which must be chopped by > >the VP divisor. Alas, this can't be changed, though, without re-designing > >the game. > > > Ah, but what if France had turned to Britain and said: "Make a separate > Peace with me. I will take 2 Areas in Africa and CoDs in some of the Indian > Areas. My allies can go pound sand." This moves France up in the VP race > _without_ the usual A-Bomb strike on Britain's VP total because GB won't > lose the 50VPs ($500!!) for loss of India if Britian gives away CoDs. That probably wouldn't work for France, since it wouldn't be enough to win the game. The three goals of the Franco-Nippn strategy are to 1) knock off GB, 2) get France into first, 3) get Japan into 2nd with a shot at first in later turns. If France doesn't go for it all when it has the chance, there's not much point in running the risk. Also, Britain would probably not agree to such terms unless the loss of India were assured or had already happened, in which case the only reason for France to agree to less than the entire bundle is to avoid the ETI -> GW, but that would require the separate peace to be made when the ETI is around 86 (the increases for separate peace and possible retaliatory DoW by French ally must be accounted for) and that requires a nice bit of foresight by France. > True, a Russian invasion of India won't work because Britain can make an > indefinite number of invasions into Russian-held Areas, keeping the 3-round > lapse from occuring. I think HERE is the major weakness of the combat > system - a power determined to run-up the ETI can do so for a very looooong > time. However, one could argue that this is a failure of diplomacy since > the Power that started the War should be willing to make a compromise to > avoid the GW penalty. I think Jim points out a serious weakness in the > combat system. > > PROPOSED SOLUTION:: If no Area is conquered/re-conquered within 3 rounds, > the war ends following the next round - even if the final round ends in an > Area changing hands. > > This keeps things from dragging on in a chase the rabbit around the world > fashion and it stops the suicide-continue the war attacks. I agree that this is a real problem. Even a Russo-Japanese conflict can drag on for an unrealistically long time using the "suicide attack every 3 turns" tactic. In fact, in one game the Japanese fought GB and France, lost the war handily, lost two territories and intentionally ran the ETI *way* up -- all without losing their fleet! After the first war phase Japan had no chance of taking territories or re-conquering those it lost, but the ETI was pushed up anyway. (Note that I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with *doing* this, my complaint is that the game allows a power *to* do it.) I like Jeff's solution but would also like to add that the war should be deemed over as soon as it is clear that no such re-conquest is possible. There should not be an additional 6 increase in ETI to account for the 3 turns that wouldn't make any difference anyway. If it is not possible for the war to continue, there should not be an increase in ETI as though the war could continue. Jim Bailey