Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

I have not identified nor condemned my opponent in any way. Rather, I'm amazed and impressed that some people have enough time to find exploits like these. I could have moved units starting on turn 1 to garrison these towns, but I don't follow the forum closely and I would have never imagined that the temporary occupation of a city without major facilities would eliminate the production of hundreds of ships scheduled to appear 2, 3 or 4 years later. That is a serious game design flaw, and that's what I'm complaining about. In my previous PBEM (of WITE) a few months ago, I ran into an opponent that chose to mass every single Panzer division on a 20-hex frontage between Voronezh and Stalino in the Spring of 1942, and there was nothing I could do to stop the "Panzer Ball" tactic. It didn't matter that the Axis supply network would have never permitted such a tactic in reality. For some reason, my opponent decided to exploit the limitations of that game design to win at all costs.

It would be nice if there was a sticky that lists the exploitative maneuvers each side may encounter (and thus be prepared for). Such a thread may exist, but I'm not aware of it. After this event occurred, when I typed the search keyword "Portland" in this forum, I didn't get any records returned of this specific exploit being discussed previously in this forum.

Ultimately, my problem is that I have a real job and my free time is very limited. I had to invest over a hundred hours of it in each game (WITP-AE and WITE) only to discover that my opponent was taking advantage of game design flaws (and risking the whole game on them working). Like HansBolter, I'm ready to give up on PBEM for a long time again because the rewards don't seem to be worth the risks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

What this all basically boils down to is that there seem to be two types of PBEM players:

1. Those who share a love for the history of the Pacific War and feel themselves mutually bound, at least to a certain extent, by sportsmanship and the limits of history.
2. Those who feel it's ok to exploit every loophole in the game as long as "victory" is achieved and screw your opponent's feelings.

We just need to make sure that type 1's are always matched against type 1's and ditto for type 2's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

Rather, I'm amazed and impressed that some people have enough time to find exploits like these.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

What this all basically boils down to is that there seem to be two types of PBEM players:

1. Those who share a love for the history of the Pacific War and feel themselves mutually bound, at least to a certain extent, by sportsmanship and the limits of history.
2. Those who feel it's ok to exploit every loophole in the game as long as "victory" is achieved and screw your opponent's feelings.

We just need to make sure that type 1's are always matched against type 1's and ditto for type 2's.

There are few, if any, "loopholes."

quote:

ORIGINAL: L0ckAndL0ad

What an interesting discussion.

I'm yet to play a PBEM game of WITP AE, though this thread got me seriously thinking about how should I treat House Ruless in the future if/when I actually try PBEMing. So far, I'm sticking with "enemy is the greatest teacher" mentality and think about avoiding having any rules at all. This particular Portland attack taught me to 1) having formidable garrisons in production/arrival centers; 2) turn on strat mode for stand by QRF units.

But then again, being an adept of military history, I'm thinking about one rule that I actually might want to have - "no hindsight/out-of-game intel usage". How one, as Japanese player, does recon/gain intel on such a thing as CVEs being built in Portland without starting the game as the Allies and actually looking into arrival queue? There are no actual Allied shipbuilding facilities, so there's no way of recon-ing them, so... Yeah?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

Rather, I'm amazed and impressed that some people have enough time to find exploits like these.

This is neither a design flaw or an exploit. This was real possibility that the REAL commanders of the time defended against.
................................................

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

Rather, I'm amazed and impressed that some people have enough time to find exploits like these.

This is neither a design flaw or an exploit. This was real possibility that the REAL commanders of the time defended against.
................................................

Yep, none of those measures are in the game. It was impossible for an enemy to travel to Portland by river, you are talking about a 100 miles of river.
The measures in place in january 42' in Oregon; were 500 observation posts across the state manned 24 hrs a day, Civil Air patrol searches, mobilized State Guard; in Portland alone in jan 42' over 2000[ armed with WW1 era rifles], increasing to over 4500 by mid 42'; can't find how many in Astoria or Longview, but they had units. The sinking of ships in the river channel to stop movement was an obvious measure, and in the unlikely event that they got as far as the Lewis and Clark bridge, dropping it into the river. They did have measures, OBVIOUS ones that made an attempt impossible, none of which are in the game. You might as well have the USS Nimitz show up with F-14's, it is possible; saw a documentary on that, or Japanese paratroopers dropping into the Sonoma wheat fields

In the only other somewhat similar invasions:
In the assault on Palembang, the troops were unloaded onto barges that went up the river, the ships stayed at the mouth of the river.
The invasion of Canton, they took an island, took 10 months to build it up and then did an invasion of Canton.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

Rather, I'm amazed and impressed that some people have enough time to find exploits like these.

This is neither a design flaw or an exploit. This was real possibility that the REAL commanders of the time defended against.
................................................

Yep, none of those measures are in the game. It was impossible for an enemy to travel to Portland by river, you are talking about a 100 miles of river.
The measures in place in january 42' in Oregon; were 500 observation posts across the state manned 24 hrs a day, Civil Air patrol searches, mobilized State Guard; in Portland alone in jan 42' over 2000[ armed with WW1 era rifles], increasing to over 4500 by mid 42'; can't find how many in Astoria or Longview, but they had units. The sinking of ships in the river channel to stop movement was an obvious measure, and in the unlikely event that they got as far as the Lewis and Clark bridge, dropping it into the river. They did have measures, OBVIOUS ones that made an attempt impossible, none of which are in the game. You might as well have the USS Nimitz show up with F-14's, it is possible; saw a documentary on that, or Japanese paratroopers dropping into the Sonoma wheat fields

In the only other somewhat similar invasions:
In the assault on Palembang, the troops were unloaded onto barges that went up the river, the ships stayed at the mouth of the river.
The invasion of Canton, they took an island, took 10 months to build it up and then did an invasion of Canton.

But you failed to establish your op's by not garrisoning. You failed to establish the recon/NavSearch patrols. In your game, you had no op's, no NavSearch, the river was not protected and you will lose a major base as you should.

What should you do? If you want to earn admiration in the community, look at Lowpe's AAR for a good example. Or not.

You are earning green buttons ... moreso, you are also losing potential gaming partners ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

Rather, I'm amazed and impressed that some people have enough time to find exploits like these.

This is neither a design flaw or an exploit. This was real possibility that the REAL commanders of the time defended against.
................................................

Yep, none of those measures are in the game. It was impossible for an enemy to travel to Portland by river, you are talking about a 100 miles of river.
The measures in place in january 42' in Oregon; were 500 observation posts across the state manned 24 hrs a day, Civil Air patrol searches, mobilized State Guard; in Portland alone in jan 42' over 2000[ armed with WW1 era rifles], increasing to over 4500 by mid 42'; can't find how many in Astoria or Longview, but they had units. The sinking of ships in the river channel to stop movement was an obvious measure, and in the unlikely event that they got as far as the Lewis and Clark bridge, dropping it into the river. They did have measures, OBVIOUS ones that made an attempt impossible, none of which are in the game. You might as well have the USS Nimitz show up with F-14's, it is possible; saw a documentary on that, or Japanese paratroopers dropping into the Sonoma wheat fields

In the only other somewhat similar invasions:
In the assault on Palembang, the troops were unloaded onto barges that went up the river, the ships stayed at the mouth of the river.
The invasion of Canton, they took an island, took 10 months to build it up and then did an invasion of Canton.

But you failed to establish your op's by not garrisoning. You failed to establish the recon/NavSearch patrols. In your game, you had no op's, no NavSearch, the river was not protected and you will lose a major base as you should.

What should you do? If you want to earn admiration in the community, look at Lowpe's AAR for a good example. Or not.

You are earning green buttons ... moreso, you are also losing potential gaming partners ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: L0ckAndL0ad

What an interesting discussion.

I'm yet to play a PBEM game of WITP AE, though this thread got me seriously thinking about how should I treat House Ruless in the future if/when I actually try PBEMing. So far, I'm sticking with "enemy is the greatest teacher" mentality and think about avoiding having any rules at all. This particular Portland attack taught me to 1) having formidable garrisons in production/arrival centers; 2) turn on strat mode for stand by QRF units.

But then again, being an adept of military history, I'm thinking about one rule that I actually might want to have - "no hindsight/out-of-game intel usage". How one, as Japanese player, does recon/gain intel on such a thing as CVEs being built in Portland without starting the game as the Allies and actually looking into arrival queue? There are no actual Allied shipbuilding facilities, so there's no way of recon-ing them, so... Yeah?

Said I was done. I lied. This poster makes a HUGE point. There are NO shipnuilding facilities to be destroyed.

If the designers had the presence of mind to recognize that without a shipbuilding facility with a cue that can be examined to understand just how many ships are building at that locale the newbie Allied players has NOTHING to cue them to the need to defend that locale because there is NOTHING there to be lost.

NOT including the construction shipyards was a HUGE design flaw that newbie Allied players suffer because of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

Rather, I'm amazed and impressed that some people have enough time to find exploits like these.

This is neither a design flaw or an exploit. This was real possibility that the REAL commanders of the time defended against.
................................................

Yep, none of those measures are in the game. It was impossible for an enemy to travel to Portland by river, you are talking about a 100 miles of river.
The measures in place in january 42' in Oregon; were 500 observation posts across the state manned 24 hrs a day, Civil Air patrol searches, mobilized State Guard; in Portland alone in jan 42' over 2000[ armed with WW1 era rifles], increasing to over 4500 by mid 42'; can't find how many in Astoria or Longview, but they had units. The sinking of ships in the river channel to stop movement was an obvious measure, and in the unlikely event that they got as far as the Lewis and Clark bridge, dropping it into the river. They did have measures, OBVIOUS ones that made an attempt impossible, none of which are in the game. You might as well have the USS Nimitz show up with F-14's, it is possible; saw a documentary on that, or Japanese paratroopers dropping into the Sonoma wheat fields

In the only other somewhat similar invasions:
In the assault on Palembang, the troops were unloaded onto barges that went up the river, the ships stayed at the mouth of the river.
The invasion of Canton, they took an island, took 10 months to build it up and then did an invasion of Canton.

But you failed to establish your op's by not garrisoning. You failed to establish the recon/NavSearch patrols. In your game, you had no op's, no NavSearch, the river was not protected and you will lose a major base as you should.

What should you do? If you want to earn admiration in the community, look at Lowpe's AAR for a good example. Or not.

You are earning green buttons ... moreso, you are also losing potential gaming partners ...

My post was directed at "This was real possibility that the REAL commanders of the time defended against."
No, they didn't move troops to Portland to guard against a river amphibious assault, no one would be stupid enough to send ships 100 miles up a river knowing that all the enemy had to do was sink a sink a ship in front and one behind and your whole force is stranded in the middle of nowhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Pax, you are staring to make me wonder if this close minded community is worth working to gain the admiration of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The "you failed to defend" tact is extremely harsh when to a newbie Allied player there is NOTHING there that needs defending.

Is no one here besides me capable of seeing just how unfair this is to a newbie Allied player when he doesn't see any construction shipyards full of building ships he needs to protect?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Yes, I get the fact that Allied construction shipyards are an abstraction, what you all don't seem to be getting is that it is a bloody abstraction that puts newbie Allied players at a bloody disadvantage.

So you show no compassion for a newbie player who has been duped by a veteran and simply say "buck up and soldier on"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Again, you persist in inaccurate statements. Historically, garrison forces were nearby and reaction forces were absolutely formed. That is why army camps were built all along the coast within 100 miles of major urban centers. And then don't forget that everything that could fly was doing NavSearch. The KB was sighted almost daily because the pilots were so green, a fishing trawler was the Yamato.

Commanders of the time were quite concerned about an attack on the West Coast. I would suggest that you spend some time reading editions of the various west coast papers of the time. False invasion reports persisted until early summer '42. Bde's responded, divisions were put on full alert routinely, hundreads of air missions launched, TF's sortied. Hundreds of units were relegated to West Coast defense. A sizeable ortion of the Navy too, but that can't be modeled in the game, you are lucky or a good portion of your ships would NOT be available. Note the large West Coast Command and all of the units permanently assigned to the defense of the West Coast. That was the reality that you continue to overlook and/or marginalize.

To persist in stating that Portland is impregnable is to ignore the lessons that the allies learned early on: PH, HK, and Singers. Difficult? Sure. But with no garrison, no NavSearch, and no reaction force? Quite vulnerable to a smash and grab attack. In game and in reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Under your test, a lot of things that happen in the game qualify as gamey/exploitive. Just for one: cooperation between Japanese Army and Navy. Absolutely exploitive and gamey. But it's just part of the game.

A better test is this: (1) was it possible in the real war? (2) if not, is there a reasonable counter?

If either answer is "yes," then we live with it.

The game is nine years old. There are abstractions and warts. They aren't major, at least when we learn how to handle them.

quote:

I briefly looked at the list of ship arrivals in the game scheduled to arrive in Portland, and I would guesstimate I will lose over 200 Ak, over 100 TK, 80 SC, 20 LST, 10 APA in addition to about 60 CVE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie
If anyone is under the mistaken belief that the existing penalties are realistic, then why wouldn't the US have already had a massive garrison and defense network set up along the Columbia River before 1941, or at least a stronger garrison in the initial Allied setup?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Pax, you are staring to make me wonder if this close minded community is worth working to gain the admiration of.

The "you failed to defend" tact is extremely harsh when to a newbie Allied player there is NOTHING there that needs defending.

Is no one here besides me capable of seeing just how unfair this is to a newbie Allied player when he doesn't see any construction shipyards full of building ships he needs to protect?

Yes, I get the fact that Allied construction shipyards are an abstraction, what you all don't seem to be getting is that it is a bloody abstraction that puts newbie Allied players at a bloody disadvantage.

So you show no compassion for a newbie player who has been duped by a veteran and simply say "buck up and soldier on"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

AE's size and complexity means there is a steep learning curve. Some of the things we miss, whether new or experienced, can gut us. We learn those things, either through the school of hard knocks or by picking things up through the Forum.

As for the idea that impossibilities should be addressed, it's too late. The code is antiquated and pretty much set in stone. Lots of things in AE aren't rooted in reality. Lots of things are abstracted. It requires flexibility in thinking and our approach to the game. But it's possible and alot of fun.

You'll never again be caught unawares on this issue. So that's beneficial.

I'd encourage you to discuss this with your opponent, either seeking some way forward or exploring if there's a way to step back a few days or to the beginning. Good luck! I hope you'll be a Forumite playing the game for many years to come.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard1970

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

AE's size and complexity means there is a steep learning curve. Some of the things we miss, whether new or experienced, can gut us. We learn those things, either through the school of hard knocks or by picking things up through the Forum.

As for the idea that impossibilities should be addressed, it's too late. The code is antiquated and pretty much set in stone. Lots of things in AE aren't rooted in reality. Lots of things are abstracted. It requires flexibility in thinking and our approach to the game. But it's possible and alot of fun.

You'll never again be caught unawares on this issue. So that's beneficial.

I'd encourage you to discuss this with your opponent, either seeking some way forward or exploring if there's a way to step back a few days or to the beginning. Good luck! I hope you'll be a Forumite playing the game for many years to come.

+1 to Canoerebel

Nothing in this game ever seems to go the way I planned it or the way I thought things would happen. Even the AI can surprise or shock me. Most of the time, I wind up learning the hard way about elements of the game I did not know or did not understand or simply forgot to think about.

The Portland gambit is a neat trick I never anticipated. (I missed the previous discussions in the forum.) Had it happened to me, I would have been of two minds.

One path forward would be to smack myself on the forehead and shake my head ruefully as I contacted my opponent to salute him for a clever risk. I might suggest backing up to a proper point in the game's history to pick up the pieces and try again.

The other path would be to wonder if I could still prevail as the allies... (OK, I lost a bunch of resources I would have had if Portland had not fallen. We could pretend the Portland invasion stunned the USA and caused it to divert substantial resources into different purposes, thus "explaining" the loss of CVE's, the creation of emergency reinforcements, etc. Now what? Could I, as an AFB, still earn a victory or at least come close?)

Either path would work for me as the fun is in the playing.

I wish the OP and his opponent well.