From: barnettr@dg-rtp.dg.com (Richard Barnette) Subject: Re: Tokyo Express Brian Sommers (brians@ris.net) wrote: : > r-grossman@nwu.edu (Robert D. Grossman) wrote in article : <5c6l2t$fs_001@GROSSMAN.nwu.edu>... : > Is there anyone out there who has an opinion about whether or not Tokyo : > Express is a good game? I've heard allusions to Tokyo Express several : times ... : > Robert D. Grossman : > Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA : > r-grossman@nwu.edu : > : I bought it and turned right around and sold it. To me it seemed to : exhausting to get into. To complicated for me. Please understand though ... : Bman. : brians@ris.net Bman is right about the complexity. Tokyo Express does require someone willing to invest time and brainpower in learning the game. However, if you don't mind (or thrive on) the complexity, there are some things to recommend it. First off, Tokyo Express was designed as a solitaire game. The rules are written from the perspective of the solitaire player. There are two-player rules; they occupy the final chapter of the rulebook, and aren't much acknowledged anywhere else. As a solitaire game, Tokyo Express does very well; the Japanese (controlled by the game system) make rational decisions, and are hard to beat. And I found the game to be a very interesting simulation of surface actions at night. The most critical aspect in winning is successfully detecting the enemy. The game has a very interesting way of assigning your chance to attempt detection by drawing chits. Six times each turn, you draw three chits. Most of the chits are blank. There are three chits, one each for the Japanese detection, American detection, and combat. Each activity (two detections and combat) happen when the corresponding chit is drawn. The solo system is challenging. The one flaw I've seen in the system is that luck can play a very large part in determining the outcome. Everything hinges on your ability to detect the enemy. Each side gets one chance a turn to detect the enemy. If your chance is ill-placed relative to the positions of units and your opponent's detection opportunity, you can lose big. The worst luck scenario is this: you get your chance to detect early in the critical turn when you and the enemy will be in dectection range, but before you're in range for detection. Your opponent gets his chance late, after your formations have become very close. Your enemy may spot you, launch torpedoes, and cripple several ships, and you will get no chance to respond. The Japanese are particularly adept at doing this to the Americans. I believe this sort of incident is historical, but it can be frustrating to lose big to factors so beyond your control. -- Richard Barnette | This space | White's Chappaquidick Theorem: Data General/RTP | intentionally | barnettr@dg-rtp.dg.com | left blank | The sooner and in more detail you (919) 248-6225 | | announce the bad news, the better. From: Markus Stumptner Subject: Re: Tokyo Express Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:57:38 +0100 Richard Barnette wrote: [Rest of good review deleted] > The solo system is challenging. The one flaw I've seen in the > system is that luck can play a very large part in determining the > outcome. Everything hinges on your ability to detect the enemy.. > Each side gets one chance a turn to detect the enemy. If your > chance is ill-placed relative to the positions of units and your > opponent's detection opportunity, you can lose big. I'd like to make some comments with this paragraph. First, the formulation may mislead to believe one only has one detection attempt per turn. Instead, you get two attempts *per formation*, but the time when they happen during the turn is fixed. Second, the timing of the chit draw is not as all-important as you make it out to be (although it certainly is a strong influence). Since detection is not automatic and happens per formation, careful positioning of your formations will give you a chance (not certainty, of course) of weathering the worst. I have played games where I had no radar and my destroyers were virtually wiped out (if the game has a flaw, it's that combat is too bloody), but the information gained allowed my cruisers to get into firing position without being detected and annihilate two DD formations. Fourth, I think the luck factor is fairly crucial as it was in the historical campaign. Leaving it out would give a wrong impression and lead to incorrect player's strategies. Granted that you may have bad luck with the chit draw, but if you do not want to take the chance, you should fight a cautious battle where you do not get into closer range until the conditions are clear. Striving for calculated risk is the basis of the game, and it is only by reproducing something that is at least remotely similar to the historical circumstances that you can make historical tactics successful. Yes, the luck factor is there, but it can work both ways, and even with the factor, it is eventually possible to beat the Japanese, not always, but fairly consistently through careful tactics. Of course, an Early 42 battle with SC or No Radar and US Surprised will always be a formidable challenge. If you were always guaranteed a win, the game would become boring, I fear. Finally, note that one should also consider the game from a storytelling rather than exclusively from a competitive point of view. In the game, finding Kirishima at short range from four undetected destroyers, but having combat or US detection happen on the last segment after they have lost their firing position may be absolutely frustrating, but it is exactly the type of event you will find illustrated in many books, where the firing solution (or firing order!) came after the target had left the launching arc. If simply cannot consider historical conditions brought to life as a flaw in a simulation. -- Markus Stumptner mst@dbai.tuwien.ac.at "A scientist transforms a cat into a sabre-toothed tiger and himself into a neanderthal man; he is then eaten by the tiger. By no means as amusing as it sounds." -- Halliwell's Film Guide