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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

How did he invade Portland? amphibious assault up the Columbia river? that would be gamey? If someone got by the forts at the mouth of the Columbia, all they had to do to stop a move up the Columbia was sink a ship in the channel or drop the Lewis and Clark bridge in Ranier.

The game doesn't model all eventualities. But it does have narrow- and wide-strait rules as described in the manual. In one of my long-ago threads on the ER packages I tested sailing by the Puget Sound CD installations to try to get to Seattle. It was a glorious demonstration of the fragility of the Japanese merchant marine. SF the same. Portland is a little easier, but there is still warning of the coming base assault if one is prepared.

Seriously, how do you invade past a bridge? Your TF is going single file [43ft depth, 600 ft channel] at 4kts for around 100 miles without a pilot[just move the navigation buoys, see what happens], 1 ship sunk in the channel will stop it, the bridge Lewis and Clark is 50 miles from Portland, have at least 12 hour advance notice from Astoria to the bridge.
There are tons of shipping on the river, not to mention the barges or towboats in 1941, what do you do going up river and having a merchant ship coming down river?

While this is perhaps an extreme case as it involves a river, it's important to keep in mind that each hex is not a single point - it is 40-some nautical miles wide. That's a lot of real estate and lots of options to "go around". Again, perhaps in this particular case the abstraction doesn't work that well... but that's what happens with abstractions.

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: 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: Canoerebel

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.

You say you're not condemning your opponent, but "exploit" is a loaded word that implies condemnation.

I don't think you necessarily mean to condemn, but what we're trying to tell you is, "This isn't an exploit." It's a well-known feature of the game, but one that it often takes experience (playing and/or reading the forum) to become aware of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

Of course it is an exploit; it is there so the US can move ships from Portland to the sea and wasn't worth the time or effort to stop an enemy from going up the river.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

Of course it is an exploit; it is there so the US can move ships from Portland to the sea and wasn't worth the time or effort to stop an enemy from going up the river.

I don't follow.

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: Bearcat2

Seriously, how do you invade past a bridge? Your TF is going single file [43ft depth, 600 ft channel] at 4kts for around 100 miles without a pilot[just move the navigation buoys, see what happens], 1 ship sunk in the channel will stop it, the bridge Lewis and Clark is 50 miles from Portland, have at least 12 hour advance notice from Astoria to the bridge.
There are tons of shipping on the river, not to mention the barges or towboats in 1941, what do you do going up river and having a merchant ship coming down river?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


+1

Without being able to check, I don't think all of the CVEs arrive at Portland. You get 90-some of them (including Brits). IIRC about 30 arrive at Portland. That's a lot, yes - but there are still 60 more.

And as I posted, I believe to one of CR's AARs, I think you can still win the war without CVEs. I don't think you can win without CVs.


You should have time to get a large garrison to Takoma. Do so. Many, many merchant/assault shipping assets arrive at that base. Large, fast tankers and lots of your large, fast APA/AKA types.

You should also be able to use Transport aircraft to fly pieces of units into Portland. Fly in everything you can and set everything else to arrive via railroad. You never know - maybe you hold out long enough. And don't forget to bomb his troops with everything you have - including fighters strafing at 100 ft. You want to burn the supplies in his units and cause as much disruption/fatigue as possible to reduce the odds he can take the base. And all that still might not work...

But I don't think it would necessarily be the end of the game. Just an enormous hurdle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

It is only an abstraction because the game has to allow for shipping from Portland to the Pacific; and the game mechanics can't prevent the other side from exploiting it. It is a river, not a 40 mile wide avenue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

Of course it is an exploit; it is there so the US can move ships from Portland to the sea and wasn't worth the time or effort to stop an enemy from going up the river.

I don't follow.

The programmers did not see the need to write the code to prevent it, probably because it might have caused problems elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Here is a thread that discusses a West Coast invasion

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3039678&mpage=2&key=Portland-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Hans, I'm the ultimate AFB. My DNA prevents me from playing as Japan. But this is not an exploit - it's just part of the game, similar to a zillion other abstractions. And Japanese players are not ungrateful. Getting hysterical over small things, drawing lines in the sand, and maligning half (or more) of the community without justification is counterproductive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Its definitely an exploit and demonstrative of just how ungrateful so many Japanese players seem to be.

Japanese players need to be grateful for all of the gimme's the designers handed them in "upgrading" Japan to make the side viable for competitive play.

Instead, why do so many of them demonstrate ingratitude by looking for ways to take the Japanese side even further over the top?


Give an inch......

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


+1

Without being able to check, I don't think all of the CVEs arrive at Portland. You get 90-some of them (including Brits). IIRC about 30 arrive at Portland. That's a lot, yes - but there are still 60 more.

And as I posted, I believe to one of CR's AARs, I think you can still win the war without CVEs. I don't think you can win without CVs.


You should have time to get a large garrison to Takoma. Do so. Many, many merchant/assault shipping assets arrive at that base. Large, fast tankers and lots of your large, fast APA/AKA types.

You should also be able to use Transport aircraft to fly pieces of units into Portland. Fly in everything you can and set everything else to arrive via railroad. You never know - maybe you hold out long enough. And don't forget to bomb his troops with everything you have - including fighters strafing at 100 ft. You want to burn the supplies in his units and cause as much disruption/fatigue as possible to reduce the odds he can take the base. And all that still might not work...

But I don't think it would necessarily be the end of the game. Just an enormous hurdle.

In Stock 1 I think Portland is 46 CVEs. About ten arrive at Tacoma before the first Portland. Many of them have the Replacement squadrons on board. Later, a few arrive at Balboa. The RN CVEs are mostly Aden, and late 1944 and into 1945. Too late to help with a lot of necessary amphib ops. The Portland CVEs are critical to 1943 for sure.

Without 46 CVEs every op in 1943 and most of 1944 HAS to have CVs. They can't be elsewhere, and they can't get seriously hurt. If they do, with transit and repair, the Allies are out of the island business for 3-6 months. The timetable to auto-vic for the Allies does not allow them waiting until 1944 to begin moving on the defense perimeter. Not with the prep rules the game has.

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:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

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.

I wasn't suggesting we commit mass suicide (BANZAI!) just suggesting that launching a throw-away invasion of Portland just to ruin the production there for the rest of the game is an exploit and is by definition gamey.
Best way to live with it is to either stick to AI or play against opponents who don't go in for such nonsense.