RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

btd64 -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/2/2018 9:30:11 PM)
[8\|][8\|]....GP

dwesolick -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/2/2018 9:44:58 PM)
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. [:'(]

Canoerebel -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/2/2018 9:49:33 PM)
That's incorrect. Every forumite feels the need to be bound by sportsmanship. There are two camps: (1) those who approach this as an imperfect but tremendously fun game; and (2) those who approach it historically, wishing it more closely modeled reality, and who are willing to sacrifice some playability (via imposing the constraints of house rules) to accommodate their preference for history. Neither side is "wrong."

MBF -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/2/2018 10:18:40 PM)
You assume a lot for forumites and I suspect you do NOT speak for all - even if that is your wish and would probably be a good thing

Canoerebel -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/2/2018 10:23:29 PM)
I've been hanging around here for 16 years. I know the Forum pretty well. It's populated by good people. To the extent there are exceptions, they are few and simply offer some contrast to the overall quality of this place.

MBF -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/2/2018 10:26:20 PM)
I've been around just as long (had to change accounts at one point) - your opinion is just that but a nice idea like I said

Rusty1961 -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/2/2018 10:32:44 PM)
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. VB...it isn't the end of the world. You will still win as the allies, it will just be harder. Not hard, just harder. Think outside the box and look for ways to repay him in like.

Lokasenna -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 12:30:28 AM)
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."

PaxMondo -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 3:45:24 AM)
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. You chose not to. If this was a Dec 7th magic move invasion, that would be an exploit. This was/is a possibility that you failed to plan for.

PaxMondo -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 3:49:03 AM)
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." +1 Most "loopholes" revolve around the first few turns; either the magic moves the IJ get or the absolute knowledge of all starting assets for both sides.* After those first few turns, there are very, very few loopholes and the OP has not made mention of any of them. * I have to add, I don't consider these to be loopholes at all, they are intrisinc to any game of this sort start. If the forces must start at their historical location and players know these locations as opposed to what was known by commanders of the time, then many units become quite vulnerable that historically were not.

L0ckAndL0ad -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 8:14:19 AM)
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?

HansBolter -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 11:04:58 AM)
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.

Bearcat2 -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 11:48:43 AM)
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.

PaxMondo -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 12:43:08 PM)
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 ...

Bearcat2 -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 12:58:21 PM)
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.

PaxMondo -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 1:18:59 PM)
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.

HansBolter -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 1:31:42 PM)
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 ... 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"?

Lowpe -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 2:52:49 PM)
Is the Japanese an experienced player? I am curious on the invasion...how much force and shipping was allocated to it? Was this a fast transport raid with naval guard units for example, or a full blown multi division invasion? Did Iboats/float planes recon Portland prior? Was this a scenario 1 or 2 style game? What did the cd guns at Astoria do?

Lokasenna -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 2:54:11 PM)
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. ...that's merely the lack of production system for the Allies, which the design team explicitly did not include because it would be way too overpowering to be able to control the production of the US war machine. It already gets massive surpluses; being able to manipulate those excesses for even greater efficiency would be ridiculous. The reason why the production exists for Japan is that, in real life, Japan made (or was forced into) questionable or bad production decisions. There are many economic abstractions made, but they're still there. But the ability to change production plans is part of the "what if" nature that is the core of this entire game. By the way, the same interface that the Japanese player uses to see which ships are building and where is the exact same screen the the Allied player uses to see which ships arrive and where. It's the same thing. Your statement is incorrect. And I'm sorry, but there were absolutely shipyards in Portland that predate the start of the Pacific War: "In 1940, Henry J. Kaiser signed an agreement with the British government to build 31 cargo ships to aid that country in their war effort. After scouting several sites, Kaiser chose to construct a new shipbuilding yard in Portland, Oregon, and on May 19, 1941, his Oregon Shipbuilding Corporation launched the first Liberty ship". Source. 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. Pax was referring to general fears that Japan was going to attack the West Coast in a broader sense. Having rapid response units and fortifying important bases was done by the historical command. quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Pax, you are staring to make me wonder if this close minded community is worth working to gain the admiration of. I find the magnitude of your belief that you're some kind of martyr to be admirable, in a sense. 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? Except for all of the ships that arrive there, and whatever else is at the base in terms of industry - information that is freely accessible. The "ships destroyed while building" thing is right there on the victory conditions page. If you start a game without knowing what the victory conditions are (and I don't think the OP did so, but he did miss this clearly visible part of it), that's not anybody else's problem and it's not a problem with the game. Also, if a player has played as the Allies through at least the fall of Singapore, they should have noticed a "destroyed while building" for the various small craft that are "built" there. Even if previously ignorant of the effect, that should have been a first clue. 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"? It sounds harsh, but ignorance of this really is a case of RTM or figure it out the hard way. Plenty of compassion has been shown: "that sucks buddy, here's what you can do to try to dig yourself out of the mess, but if it's too late here are your other options."

Bearcat2 -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 3:06:46 PM)
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. Portland is not impregnable,from troops moving overland, or paratroopers as an ex. Your post about paranoia is a perfect example, would find it likely that they had plans to blowup the Lewis and Clark bridge, that would stop them 50 miles from Portland. I keep bringing up the bridge because that is an impossible hurdle to cross. I have worked on a towboat on a river; IMHO practically, no way in hell moving a 100 miles up a river for a myriad of reasons [ex, to get there in a day, would have to move at night and also hope for no fog- it would be possible with radar, without, you tie up and wait for light]

traskott -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 3:54:42 PM)
Well, if the Japanese is invading USA at jan42, they are not at DEI nor CENPAC nor Burma, so the allied has a good chance to stall the japanese advance in other zones, leaving Portland to the E.R. All those marines, CVs and such should be shuttled to Java, or Sumatra, entrenched and supplied with all the air groups the allied can muster. Portland is touch and go, the japanese can't afford a big campaign here ( the 4th reserve div plus the 7th Mot div put like 3,5 armoured divisions on the field and it's MUCH from a defensive perspective ). All the unrestricted units are now free to deploy at Java, and build it as a jump to Philipines... U don't need CVEs if u are defending DEI at christmas 1942....

pws1225 -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 4:27:25 PM)
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. +1

von Beanie -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 4:54:28 PM)
I want to clarify some points. First, I'm not a newbie. I started with UV and have played this basic game system for at least 20 years. In all that time I have never experienced a West Coast invasion. What really surprised me is the extreme (and unrealistic) penalty for what is, in my mind, a gamey move only made possible by perfect intelligence of the initial US set up, and the hope it wouldn't change (as it probably hasn't in most games). In the initial post I asked if the penalties of losing Portland should result in a huge loss of future ship production, mostly in 1944 and 45. Later I discovered: 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. So this isn't just about the CVEs. In the real world the 1944-45 Kaiser production would have simply moved to other locations if Portland had been devastated. In fact, if you read my original post, my reading of the e-manual suggested to me that those ships would just appear at East-USA. In hindsight, I should have garrisoned Portland, but I never imagined the penalties for not doing so would be so severe. 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? In the game I had successfully defended a Midway invasion, and from a sacrificial picket ship I knew his CV fleet was moving towards the West Coast in the search gap between Hawaii and the Aleutians. The only practical way I could have learned it was escorting a suicide landing force was if I committed the Allied CVs to investigate the situation, and this is never a smart thing to do in Jan, 1942. I did have a few search planes based on the west coast searching for the arrival of his CV fleet, but they didn't discover the small landing force until it was already in Portland. Rather, I set up my defense to protect Seattle, Tacoma and other locations with ships-in-port from an air attack. I never imagined that the temporary loss of a town like Portland would be so critical to the game. In my opinion, its extreme importance is an artifact of a bad game design because it greatly rewards such a suicide mission. As long as potential Allied players are aware of this exploit, then it is their fault if they don't take preventative measures on Turn 1. I certainly will in the future, but I was completely unawarof the extreme effect of its loss until after it happened. That is why I also suggested that a sticky be created that points out, in addition to other exploits often resolved by house rules, the need to garrison Portland because of the extreme effects that result if it is taken.

Canoerebel -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 5:45:17 PM)
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.

rsallen64 -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/3/2018 11:51:44 PM)
Again, one of the best parts of this game is the varying viewpoints and experiences of all the people that play it, and the fact that so many are willing to share on this forum. That's why I read it every day. I have not yet played a PBEM game. I hope to have the time someday. But I think the suggestion listed above that you find someone that agrees with your playing style, and goals, would work with me. I would want to play more "realistically" so that what happened to the OP could not happen in any of my future games. That's just my taste, and it apparently is not for everyone. I feel that way because a Japanese player willing to make that move would only do so, in any semblance of reality, knowing far more intelligence than the real life commander would ever have, and it does seem like a "gamey" exploit to me. That being said, there are similar things an AFB would do that I would not try either. But again, that's me. I have learned an incredible amount from the experienced players on this forum over the years, long before I ever started my own campaign against the AI, and I hope to continue to do so for many years to come. This is, simply, the best computer war-game I have ever come across, and is not likely to be duplicated. And the people on this forum are some of the best, and most courteous and helpful, I have ever seen in almost 30 years of being on the internet. Thanks to all for that!

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/4/2018 1:10:27 AM)
Von Beanie: I always thought the CD unit at Astoria would shred an invasion force. What happened in your case? EDIT: Any chance of seeing the relevant combat report? Cheers, CC

Lowpe -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/4/2018 2:14:54 AM)
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? I think the penalties are realistic, game wise. And this is a game. Allies get, I recall from first hand experience, 2 Tank Divisions that can be bought out, plus a Canadian Tank unit that is already unrestricted. Plus a zillion planes & squadrons, and really good planes, very early. Plus a ton of devices to the pools. It is, again from first hand experience, incredibly hard as Japan to fight against this and if it doesn't trigger auto victory focuses Allied tactics in a slightly different but no less satisfying direction.

PaxMondo -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/4/2018 2:23:15 AM)
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"? Hans, 2004 login sig ... he ain't a newbie to these types of games.

Oldguard1970 -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/4/2018 2:32:03 AM)
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.

PaxMondo -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/4/2018 2:48:35 AM)
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. And truthfully, it is a tight balance. The loss of the CVE's is measurable, but the reinforcements are scary. 1 ARM div, 2 MOT Div, 1 INF Div, 2 Tank Bde ... and then almost 2000 devices of GOOD stuff ... 240 M3 Lee + 240 M3 Stuart tanks. Yeah they are not Shermans, but they are better than anything the IJ will have until mid 43 ... and getting all of that in Jan42 ... and then the planes While Portland is a good target in terms of unexpected location, I'm not sure it is enough for me to trigger all of that. Maybe. Gutsy move on the IJ part in any case. Likely to lose most, if not all, of the committed forces.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875