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

HansBolter -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/11/2018 5:27:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Macclan5 If this is gamey in the opinion of some players / and not in the opinion of others - simply do not play opponents that do not share your perspective. And how exactly does one go about doing this? My only venture into PBEM was back in my Uncommon Valor days. I was new to the game engine and was looking for a Japanese opponent who would commit to going the distance and wasn't looking for an early AV. The player who offered me a game swore he was in it to go the distance. He duped me into agreeing to play the scenario with the enhanced Japanese side, claiming they needed the additional strength to be able to go the distance. He then used his enhanced KB, that he knew the Allied LBA couldn't stand up to, to come to Noumea looking to sunk the entire Allied navy. I had to scatter my fleet to the edges of the map to survive. He then made a full court press to take Espiritu Santo. I threw in the kitchen sink to stop him and after orchestrating a carrier ambush and sinking his carriers his next email was "oh well, you win". My response was, "what do you mean I win?, you committed to go the distance". His reply, "no point in playing on now". So, he lied to me to convince me to agree to be his patsy. When his all or nothing gambit failed he took his toys and went home. Learning the hard way that humans beings can't be trusted not to be POS excuses for human beings is why I live with cats and play against the AI. The Japanese player in this game had no intention of playing honorably, just like the excuse for a human being I had the displeasure of encountering all those years ago. So, I ask again, how does one go about ensuring that one isn't entering into a bargain with Satan when agreeing to a match? The last time I shared this story some POS excuse for a human said it was my fault for failing to find a good opponent. That's a fine example of just how unsupportive this "community' of gamers can be.

witpqs -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/11/2018 5:41:29 PM)
quote: The Japanese player in this game had no intention of playing honorably, just like the excuse for a human being I had the displeasure of encountering all those years ago. I am not seeing this the way you see it. The Allies get units to protect those areas. Do or don't their own fault.

Lecivius -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/11/2018 6:11:17 PM)
Wow, Hans. I'm an AFB to the max, but there is a LOT of vitriol in your last post. This is a game, man.

Macclan5 -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/11/2018 7:09:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter And how exactly does one go about doing this? Tough but honest question Ser Hans. I think one possibility I pointed out is to adopt sufficient house rules ; to address 'continental or home island invasions' adapt a house rule as I suggested that require multiple supporting base invasions - not simply targeting one hex for maximum disruption value. There are of course a plethora of other house rules (I have read of) that could be added to the list making the scenario as 'historically' close / accurate/non gamey as you desire to play. And the set up... PDU off among other choices. None of which can completely solve for mistrust from a bad experience; nor address unexpected turns of a game where the gamers ultimately disagree on gamey or not; or choose to simply walk away. Ultimately I think you have found your best solution; you choose not to participate in PBEM games. -- My experience within this community ~ limited as it is ~ is that the community is friendly and helpful ~ as you yourself have been to me. Minor instances may have caused me to be defensive or wonder about a response; or perhaps I have even ruffled a feather or two with a response that does not communicate my 'good intentions' fully. I remain optimistic that as I grow in the game I will continue to learn, benefit, and find appropriate opponents that play closer to the historic model I prefer and enjoy. When I have time to be a good dedicated partner in PBEM. I am trying to communicate that really this issue is not about the invasion of Portland; its more complicated being about (1) the game (2) the gamey and (3) the historical model and various perceptions and opinions of the last two... the game simply is. I will refrain from further extending this post; I am certain there are no answers /absolute facts to (2) and (3) Regards to all

HansBolter -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/11/2018 7:17:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius Wow, Hans. I'm an AFB to the max, but there is a LOT of vitriol in your last post. This is a game, man. My vitriol, that I still feel just as intently as when I first had the experience, is about human interaction, trust and betrayal and has NOTHING to do with the sides of AFB or JFB. I am glad that it still comes across as strongly as I feel it.

AW1Steve -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/11/2018 7:34:14 PM)
OK. Just my opinion. If someone did something that I considered "above the pale" , I'd re-examine the agreement we had at the start of the game. If like most of my games , I said minimum or no-rules, I'd consider it as if actual war opponent violated "the rules if war". If in actual war , someone violates the "rules" then the only countermeasure is reprisal and retaliation. He shoots 50 of My troops that he is holding as POW's , then I shoot AT LEAST 50 of his. Obviously retaliation in this game would be something else. Find out what you can do in reprisal, then DO IT! When your "worthy opponent" complains , let him know about how unhappy you are about the play , and remind them that two can play that way. In short , if your opponent ticks you off, either quit, or respond in kind. There is no other real answer. You obviously inquired into your opponent's background and he blind sided you. Not much else you can do. Either leave or kick him between the legs. Either be a gentleman , or if called to, don't. One thing you might not want to do is name names. A few years ago there was a player ( who will not be named). His behavior on the forum left something to be desired. Having alienated all the regular players , he started trolling for "newbies". I made the mistake of PMing the unsuspecting potential victims to warn them. One of them contacted him , a complaint was made to a moderator and , once again , I was "warned" of the possibility of expulsion. Don't do that. It doesn't pay. What is NCIS Agent Gibb's "rule 42"? Clean up your own mess? I'd do it with a vengeance. [:D]

zuluhour -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/12/2018 11:57:10 AM)
Hans, only one match, I have never quit unless you count April '46! Keep the faith man. I've had three walk away before I saw a P47 as allies. Lars is the only one to allow me to lose twice with grace in the same game by holding Japan to '46 and AV. You have been around long enough to know who will see it through.

zuluhour -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/12/2018 11:58:44 AM)
interesting....I almost did the same.

rustysi -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/12/2018 7:11:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna ... quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter The crux of the issue here is the lack of a garrison in Portland. If we are supposed to accept all of these "abstractions" like the complete loss of shipping that was not under construction hen the shipyard was destroyed, why should we also have to accept historical starting locations for the WC LCUs. Why shouldn't the Allies be entitled to an additional abstraction of an at start garrison for this most valuable and vulnerable of assets? Japan can't invade CONUS before the Allied player is able to shuffle units around. It's literally not possible. If you haven't moved units to put a garrison at your important bases, that's on you... You are still underplaying the game facts Lokasenna.[:)] In a scenario 1 game CONUS starts off on 7 December 1941 with: 1. No garrisons at all at the following coastal cities. Tillenook Coos Bay Eureka Santa Barbara Port Hueneme Santa Ana 2. Static only garrisons at the following coastal cities. Oak Harbor Astoria Mare Island The first two of three garrisons are CD units who primary purpose is to defend against an amphibious landing at the site and further up the navigable river. Their main weapons are therefore anti ship devices. They need to have the "replacements" toggle turned ON in order to fill up their anti LCU devices. It is very significant, and a point overlooked by all those who decry the game design, that the Allied player did not have "replacements" toggled ON for these units. Also of interest is that no information has been provided by the Allied player regarding the level of damage inflicted by the anti ship devices on the Japanese ships and at the beach on the invading Japanese troops. 3. Excluding the interior American bases which are a fair distance away from any coastal city (bases such as Salt Lake, Boise etc) there are a total of 12 inf LCU - total AV 1206 6 arm LCU - total AV 580 1 eng LCU - total AV 45 1 art LCU - total AV 25 None of these units are static and all are located on main railway lines. There are also many other units with zero AV but which are also able to be used to bolster defensive combat. 4. In addition to (3) above, in the month of December 1941 alone, the West Coast receives the following American reinforcements 9 inf LCU - total AV 1343 3 arm LCU - total AV 239 15 eng LCU - no AV 1 art LCU - total AV 20 5. Even with no LCU having "replacements" turned on, by 1 Jan 1942 (which predates this Japanese landing) the West Coast could have had a total of American 3458 AV. Canadian forces are not included. About 50% of the American LCUs are permanently restricted to the West Coast command and about 25% are temporarily restricted to that command, not many of these temporary restricted units able to have been reassigned to an unrestricted command in this time frame. It is very obvious to those who do not have an agenda to wield that Blackhorse, the AE dev responsible for the American OOB did not overlook any of the historical garrisons which existed in this period. Nor did he misplace their historical arrival locations. There is clearly sufficient force available to deal with any January 1942 Japanese landing. It is not a game design fault if players misallocate their assets. Nor is it a satisfactory excuse to claim that a player misallocated their assets because they are a newbie at AE. In fact a newbie is less likely to strip the West Coast of LCUs by dint of sending them overseas. 6. None of the above includes any of the substantial naval and air assets which are available on the West Coast by 1 January 1942. The best place to defeat any sea borne invasion is to sink the enemy fleet at sea. Clearly in this instance none of those sea and air assets were utilised to both spot and then attack the enemy fleet at sea. Alfred Again, I've not read the whole thread. Also again, thank you Alfred. You've said, with much more detail, what I've been thinking since the inception of this post.[;)] P.S. I'd like to say again, find something for all your units to do. No one gets to sit on their.... [:D]

rustysi -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/12/2018 7:15:33 PM)
quote: He shoots 50 of My troops that he is holding as POW's , then I shoot AT LEAST 50 of his. [sm=sad-1361.gif]

Lokasenna -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/14/2018 4:12:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Cody I think it's a reasonable abstraction to keep the AFB honest. The possibility of a hit and run raid on the home islands should also keep the JFB honest. This game can't possibly model every situation. Precisely. Thanks to Alfred, obvert, and Macclan5 for doing some heavy lifting in terms of bringing facts to bear.

HansBolter -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/15/2018 3:15:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Cody I think it's a reasonable abstraction to keep the AFB honest. The possibility of a hit and run raid on the home islands should also keep the JFB honest. This game can't possibly model every situation. Precisely. Thanks to Alfred, obvert, and Macclan5 for doing some heavy lifting in terms of bringing facts to bear. Facts are overrated Loka. You have done nothing BUT ram down my throat that my arguments are based on feelings rather than facts and that feelings are worthless in bringing to the table in an argument like this. You have made your position clear: You care only about facts. What you persist in demonstrating is that you lack an ability to see the importance of feelings. The simple reality is that people, more often than not, base their actions and reactions on feeling not facts. In a game where two people are interacting, feeling matter! The OP obviously took a hit to his feelings by what his opponent did. Caring for nothing but facts will lead you down an ascerbic path. Just wanted to point out that I don't deserve to be belittled and disparaged, by innuendo, that because I care about feelings, what I bring to the argument somehow has less value than those that bring facts.

Lokasenna -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/15/2018 3:55:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Cody I think it's a reasonable abstraction to keep the AFB honest. The possibility of a hit and run raid on the home islands should also keep the JFB honest. This game can't possibly model every situation. Precisely. Thanks to Alfred, obvert, and Macclan5 for doing some heavy lifting in terms of bringing facts to bear. Facts are overrated Loka. You have done nothing BUT ram down my throat that my arguments are based on feelings rather than facts and that feelings are worthless in bringing to the table in an argument like this. You have made your position clear: You care only about facts. What you persist in demonstrating is that you lack an ability to see the importance of feelings. The simple reality is that people, more often than not, base their actions and reactions on feeling not facts. In a game where two people are interacting, feeling matter! The OP obviously took a hit to his feelings by what his opponent did. Caring for nothing but facts will lead you down an ascerbic path. Just wanted to point out that I don't deserve to be belittled and disparaged, by innuendo, that because I care about feelings, what I bring to the argument somehow has less value than those that bring facts. Hans, I did not intend to besmirch your feelings. I'm sorry for that. Feelings do matter, and how a player feels about what's occurring (be that computerized or the actions of an opponent) is an important element of a gaming experience. I'm aware that people tend to make decisions based on their feelings more than on objective information (or at least the emotional response occurs first and faster). In addition to working in an organization that is made up of 80% mental health professionals providing direct service to clients, I do have some ground level knowledge of psychology. What I was trying to do was encourage you to acknowledge your emotional response to one aspect, but then to step back and examine the broader situation (in clinical terms, deescalate). I just didn't articulate all of that because this is the internet, we're all busy, and typing out step by step arguments (in the discursive sense, not antagonistic sense) takes a lot of time - and nobody wants to read a wall of text, so if people skip the wall of text then the post full of reasoned arguments ends up being essentially masturbatory and nothing else. That's why I didn't explicitly include anything more about feelings. Best, Your resident antagonist

patrickl -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/16/2018 12:06:55 AM)
It is good to chill guys. Life is too short to have unhappiness. [8D]

tarkalak -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/16/2018 2:29:03 PM)
Side A: quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: He shoots 50 of My troops that he is holding as POW's , then I shoot AT LEAST 50 of his. [sm=sad-1361.gif] Side B: quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: He shoots 50 of My troops that he is holding as POW's , then I shoot AT LEAST 50 of his. [sm=sad-1361.gif] Put the above on repeat for the duration. Then, after the war, a rigorous investigation will find out that the first 50 POWs shot was a gossip.

Kull -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/16/2018 10:24:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo 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. A few folks noted that a "Portland Invasion" using the "magic move" TFs is explicitly gamey. However, it is important to realize that magic move TFs were designed SPECIFICALLY to derive a "more historical" recreation of the December 7th events. They CANNOT be used in any other way, UNLESS both players agree to a "non-historical" start. In which case, frankly, buyer beware. Anyone willing to read the more fact-based posts in this thread should realize that while the game designers could not account for everything, they did ensure that non-historical game play features both risks and rewards. As this thread clearly demonstrates, every player (be they Allied or Japan) has the ability to deplete their rear areas (or ignore them altogether), but it's not "risk-free". Nor should it be.

tarkalak -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/17/2018 4:49:00 AM)
Considering that the Japanese managed to surprise attack Pearl Harber, wouldn't they be able to sneak to the West Coast if they so desired? I mean in real life.

BBfanboy -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/17/2018 5:43:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tarkalak Considering that the Japanese managed to surprise attack Pearl Harber, wouldn't they be able to sneak to the West Coast if they so desired? I mean in real life. Shipping lanes along the WC of the US are much busier than the central Pacific area that KB crossed getting to PH. There would have been lots of individual ships heading to/from China, Malaya, The Philippines and perhaps Japan (for non-embargoed goods). Bringing along an invasion fleet as well would have slowed everything down hugely, and raiding without a follow-up invasion would not achieve as much as the PH raid did because the fleet was most concentrated at PH.

witpqs -> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion (5/17/2018 2:37:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: tarkalak Considering that the Japanese managed to surprise attack Pearl Harber, wouldn't they be able to sneak to the West Coast if they so desired? I mean in real life. Shipping lanes along the WC of the US are much busier than the central Pacific area that KB crossed getting to PH. There would have been lots of individual ships heading to/from China, Malaya, The Philippines and perhaps Japan (for non-embargoed goods). Bringing along an invasion fleet as well would have slowed everything down hugely, and raiding without a follow-up invasion would not achieve as much as the PH raid did because the fleet was most concentrated at PH. Amplifying the part about the shipping lanes, the KB's course was chosen to minimize possibility of contact with merchants. Getting east of Hawaii would put them in a different world as far as that is concerned. The KB ran across one merchant, a Soviet ship. IIRC (unless it is lore) Stalin supposedly was told and elected not to pass the info along to the US. Whether that part is true or not the KB was sighted by that merchant and that fact might easily have resulted in loss of surprise. As BB mentions a much larger and likely slower invasion fleet would have been impossible to hide even as far as Hawaii, let alone the West Coast. In the game using the 'magic move' for a West Coast invasion (and various others on the map) is certainly out of reasonable bounds, but an invasion by ordinary movement gives the Allied player the time to use assets to guard against that. Or not. [:D]

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625