Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 3:05:25 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Just FYI:
"On March 29, 1930, the Longview Bridge (later renamed Lewis and Clark Bridge) opens. The bridge crosses the Columbia River between Longview (Cowlitz County) and Rainier, Oregon. It is a cantilever bridge, at the time the longest and highest in the country. It is 8,192 feet long, including approaches. The roadway spans the river 210 feet above the water, and the top steel spans it at 340 feet. The designers claim that any vessel then in existence, including a fully rigged clipper ship, can pass under it."

http://www.historylink.org/File/5411

I suspected this was the case, else the Kaiser shipyards could not have been where they were ... the ships produced had to be able to transit.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 91
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 3:36:31 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		The ships at Portland (and Tacoma) and the VPs for them are just about the only thing that could get me to invade CONUS as Japan, and I'm about as aggressive as they come.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 92
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 4:53:34 AM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Just FYI:
"On March 29, 1930, the Longview Bridge (later renamed Lewis and Clark Bridge) opens. The bridge crosses the Columbia River between Longview (Cowlitz County) and Rainier, Oregon. It is a cantilever bridge, at the time the longest and highest in the country. It is 8,192 feet long, including approaches. The roadway spans the river 210 feet above the water, and the top steel spans it at 340 feet. The designers claim that any vessel then in existence, including a fully rigged clipper ship, can pass under it."

http://www.historylink.org/File/5411

I suspected this was the case, else the Kaiser shipyards could not have been where they were ... the ships produced had to be able to transit.



You drop the bridge into the river.



_____________________________

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 93
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 8:41:10 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

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.



How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 5/4/2018 8:42:50 AM >

(in reply to dwesolick)
Post #: 94
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 11:20:55 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Beanie,

Are you planning to continue playing this game?
If not, please PM me and/or ask for a replacement player.
This is such an unique situation for an Allied player, that I think somebody would like to see how it plays out.
Maybe start an AAR to give brief updates on what happens as you go forward.
Good luck and happy hunting!!

M

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 95
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 11:45:02 AM   
DRF99


Posts: 90
Joined: 9/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?


I think the "loophole" is the automatic destruction of hundreds of ships that haven't even been constructed yet, and won't be launched for 2 or 3 years in the future, even if the city is taken for a single day.

If the outcome of loosing Portland was that the shipyard was damaged or destroyed and had to be repaired, destroying or delaying ships under construction and potentially delaying future builds, I doubt anyone would be complaining.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 96
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 12:25:23 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

Beanie,

Are you planning to continue playing this game?
If not, please PM me and/or ask for a replacement player.
This is such an unique situation for an Allied player, that I think somebody would like to see how it plays out.
Maybe start an AAR to give brief updates on what happens as you go forward.
Good luck and happy hunting!!

M


+1 !

I could not agree more !

Hartwig

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 97
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 12:30:24 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Just FYI:
"On March 29, 1930, the Longview Bridge (later renamed Lewis and Clark Bridge) opens. The bridge crosses the Columbia River between Longview (Cowlitz County) and Rainier, Oregon. It is a cantilever bridge, at the time the longest and highest in the country. It is 8,192 feet long, including approaches. The roadway spans the river 210 feet above the water, and the top steel spans it at 340 feet. The designers claim that any vessel then in existence, including a fully rigged clipper ship, can pass under it."

http://www.historylink.org/File/5411

I suspected this was the case, else the Kaiser shipyards could not have been where they were ... the ships produced had to be able to transit.



You drop the bridge into the river.



Yes, thank you. You had mentioned that. But of course that requires you have troops standing by to do and a plan and enough time. The OP had none of this ... so bridge was never blown. ;)
Instead, the IJ do this on their way out, closing the Kaiser shipyards for the war, eliminating all of that production from the war effort. After the war, the resources are finally allocated, the river is finally cleared and made navigable again.

Thank you for the segue.


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 98
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 2:05:37 PM   
dwesolick


Posts: 593
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		Well, I have to concede that a possible Japanese invasion of Portland, Oregon was realistic and historical as others have contended. I've been re-reading Parshall and Tully's "Shattered Sword" and I came across an exchange I've missed in the past:

Yamamoto: Genda, I want you to plan a one-regiment invasion of Portland, Oregon.
Genda: Yes Admiral! But, may I ask why?
Yamamoto: Because, Genda-san, if we seize the vital city of Portland, even for a SINGLE DAY, it will wreck American production for the remainder of the war!
Genda: But Admiral, why would that be??
Yamamoto: Only the gods know Genda-san, only the gods know.

However, this plan was later shot down by the Imperial Army, who refused to provide the regiment on the grounds that this operation would be "chee-zee" and "gaim-eee" (Japanese words). They then compromised on Midway instead.


< Message edited by dwesolick -- 5/4/2018 2:18:44 PM >

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 99
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 2:56:26 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Admiral King: We need to strip most of our search aircraft and garrison troops from the West Coast.
President Roosevelt: Don't we need something for defense?
King: Not really. The Line Islands and Noumea are far more important.
Roosevelt: What if the worst should happen and they destroyed a Boeing factory or took out the Bremerton Naval Yard?
King: Get it through your thick skull. My long-range offensive plans are more important than basic security of vital installations on the West Coast.

(in reply to dwesolick)
Post #: 100
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 3:22:11 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 1166
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 101
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 3:52:11 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

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.



How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.


The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

I seriously can't understand how the lot of you can't grasp this.


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 102
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 4:34:03 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

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.



How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.


The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

I seriously can't understand how the lot of you can't grasp this.



How in the world is it invisible?

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 103
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 4:58:28 PM   
wegman58

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 12/28/2013
From: Edina, MN (FROM the Bronx)
Status: offline 		I've done the Sea and Anchor detail to Portland (on a KNOX class frigate). I'd be interested in seeing a number of ships trying that - especially without good charts.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 104
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 5:21:57 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wegman58

I've done the Sea and Anchor detail to Portland (on a KNOX class frigate). I'd be interested in seeing a number of ships trying that - especially without good charts.

No problem! The Japanese transported their 10,000+ troops in open barges all the way from Japan, refuelling the barges from larger ships and dropping a tablecloth sack full of food and water to the troops each day. What more need they do?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to wegman58)
Post #: 105
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 5:26:34 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

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.



How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.


The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

I seriously can't understand how the lot of you can't grasp this.



How in the world is it invisible?




So you're telling me there is a visible construction ship yard full of ships in its cue on your map?

Can I get a copy of that?


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 106
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 5:29:58 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 1166
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?


My stock map shows a size 70 Repair Shipyard at Portland. I think Hans' point is that it should be called a 'Construction' shipyard since it builds ships. However, no Allied port anywhere on the map has a 'construction' shipyard as far as I can see. It simply isn't modeled that way in the game. For the Allied side, a shipyard is a shipyard is a shipyard. They build and repair all forms of shipping.

I think Hans just enjoys twisting JFB tails.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 107
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 5:31:55 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

How in the world is it invisible?



To be fair, it's not that it's invisible, but more that it's different than how the Japan side is done. As Loka pointed out, the devs did not give the Allies a full production system on purpose, not by accident, so their ships are always "in production" from the code's POV, and thus destroyable. Those calling for a system whereby the long-range production be moved elsewhere, or restored to Portland itself, are asking for a huge can of theoretical worms. Moved where? Arguments ensue. Moved how many? Arguments ensue. If restored at Portland, by when? Arguments ensue. Not to mention a large new code base to be written, not only for Portland, but for every Allied base with ship production.

Ditto those who want rivers to be bridge-droppable or hulk-sinkable. Fine. Code that. There are navigable rivers in the pwhex, and non-navigable. Navigable, such as Rangoon, have tonnage limits imposed. Argue at their quantity if you like, but they're there. If you make it possible for me to sink a hulk in the Colombia River to protect Portland, you also make it possible for Japan to sink a hulk (sourced from where? Any limits on size there? Code that.) in the Irrawaddy so I can't land at Rangoon. And as an Allied veteran of half-a-dozen GCs, I would prefer 50x to be able to land at Rangoon than to have Japan not be able to land at Portland. And if you add bridges, I sure want the ability to CAS their butts out of existence, to stop supplies from flowing across rivers. Totally historic. Everybody good with that? Couple of thousand lines of code, but who cares?

It's a GAME of abstractions. I was playing a mind game yesterday while driving: what are the 20 biggest abstractions in AE? Not having bridges wasn't even in the top-20. People are bitching about a fully-preventable invasion of Portland, but have no problem with seven shiny, new Wildcats teleporting across 4000 miles of open ocean, arriving on an island ready to fly the next day, all because there were 20,000 points of corn flakes under a nearby tarp. Please.

And finally, putting on my schoolmarm suit, the game is finished. Done. Complete. It works like it works. Like it, don't like it, it doesn't matter. It's not going to change. So you either accept that and adapt, or you don't. Canoerebel did the best summary of the options open to the OP. That's just the way it is.

I've been playing this game system since 2005. A month ago I learned that I have been setting LRCAP incorrectly for 13 years. So it goes.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 108
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 5:33:16 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

quote:

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?


My stock map shows a size 70 Repair Shipyard at Portland. I think Hans' point is that it should be called a 'Construction' shipyard since it builds ships. However, no Allied port anywhere on the map has a 'construction' shipyard as far as I can see. It simply isn't modeled that way in the game. For the Allied side, a shipyard is a shipyard is a shipyard. They build and repair all forms of shipping.




But they all don't. There are yards that are repair only. It's just the way the design works. Japan and the Allies are presented differently.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 109
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 5:38:10 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		I've never advocated for an Allied ability to manage or effect ship production, nor have I called for shiyards to be able to be moved.

You are all reading into what I post what you want to hear.

The shipyard doesn't have to be accessible to the player to manipulate, but DOES need to BE there for the player to realize he has an invaluable asset that needs protecting.

Would you all please stop putting words in my mouth?

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 110
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 5:40:56 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

quote:

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?


My stock map shows a size 70 Repair Shipyard at Portland. I think Hans' point is that it should be called a 'Construction' shipyard since it builds ships. However, no Allied port anywhere on the map has a 'construction' shipyard as far as I can see. It simply isn't modeled that way in the game. For the Allied side, a shipyard is a shipyard is a shipyard. They build and repair all forms of shipping.

I think Hans just enjoys twisting JFB tails.



Close, my point is that there should be a Construction shipyard there in addition to the Repair shipyard.

The repair shipyard is accessible. The construction shipyard is not, but the cue of building ships can be examined.

That way the player has huge heads up of the presence of an asset that needs protecting.


ps. I won't deny the last accusation is often true, but it is not the source of my passion on this point.


< Message edited by HansBolter -- 5/4/2018 5:45:11 PM >

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 111
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 5:42:05 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

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.



How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.


The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

I seriously can't understand how the lot of you can't grasp this.



How in the world is it invisible?




So you're telling me there is a visible construction ship yard full of ships in its cue on your map?

Can I get a copy of that?




How bout this. IF there is an asterisk the ship appears there from somewhere else, if no asterisk, then the ship is built there. Am I wrong?








Attachment (1)

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 112
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 5:45:53 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I've never advocated for an Allied ability to manage or effect ship production, nor have I called for shiyards to be able to be moved.

You are all reading into what I post what you want to hear.

The shipyard doesn't have to be accessible to the player to manipulate, but DOES need to BE there for the player to realize he has an invaluable asset that needs protecting.

Would you all please stop putting words in my mouth?


It IS there. It's visible under the 'I' key in Ship Availability.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 113
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 5:49:09 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Really, not that different than Japan's screen...the addition of the build rate and four buttons on the bottom.

Cam Ranh Bay has no construction yards and yet builds ships.

To me it is very evident and not invisible.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 114
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 6:21:53 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Come on guys, you're grasping at straws.

The ship availability interface is a report interface that is independent of the map.

It doesn't tell you ships are building at a given location it tells you the ARRIVE at that locations.

Yes, perhaps the asterisk does have the meaning Lowpe speculates, but like much of the appendage documentation where the heck is it ever explained.

So, yea, you've made the point that if a player goes digging deeply enough into the data base they CAN glean the fact the ships are being built at these shipyards that are invisible on the map.

However, none of that satisfies my point that a GRAPHIC ON THE MAP is what is needed to give the player a proper heads up regarding his assets and the need to protect them.

Its a huge design shortfall.


I'm a designer. Its what I do for a living. Trust me to know when a design falls short of the mark.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 5/4/2018 6:24:01 PM >

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 115
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 6:31:29 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline 		The asterik means it is an OFF MAP port where the ships arrive - these are eg. Aden for the British, these ships are probably build in the UK and are transfered from the ETO to the PTO. Same for the panama ports these ships are transfered from the east coast. If there is no "*" then the ships are build at the base in question. Just filter for the base eg. Portland and see what is build there.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 116
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/4/2018 9:04:10 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
However, none of that satisfies my point that a GRAPHIC ON THE MAP is what is needed to give the player a proper heads up regarding his assets and the need to protect them.

Its a huge design shortfall.

I'm a designer. Its what I do for a living. Trust me to know when a design falls short of the mark.

No need really, because it is a one time information, already available in the game by sorting/filtering the list of ships. You look it once, you know it forever

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 117
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/5/2018 5:13:45 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Beanie (Norm) sent me a PM so I'm trying to get word back from his opponent to continue as new Allied High Command.
I'll try to do an AAR as this game will be different from others.

Please stand by,
Michael

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 118
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/5/2018 5:31:53 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DRF99

quote:

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?


I think the "loophole" is the automatic destruction of hundreds of ships that haven't even been constructed yet, and won't be launched for 2 or 3 years in the future, even if the city is taken for a single day.



Abstractions are necessary for the game to function.

That said, determined sappers can cause a LOT of havoc in a single day.

(in reply to DRF99)
Post #: 119
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/5/2018 5:34:51 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Come on guys, you're grasping at straws.

The ship availability interface is a report interface that is independent of the map.

It doesn't tell you ships are building at a given location it tells you the ARRIVE at that locations.

Yes, perhaps the asterisk does have the meaning Lowpe speculates, but like much of the appendage documentation where the heck is it ever explained.

So, yea, you've made the point that if a player goes digging deeply enough into the data base they CAN glean the fact the ships are being built at these shipyards that are invisible on the map.

However, none of that satisfies my point that a GRAPHIC ON THE MAP is what is needed to give the player a proper heads up regarding his assets and the need to protect them.

Its a huge design shortfall.


I'm a designer. Its what I do for a living. Trust me to know when a design falls short of the mark.


Hans, by your logic, everything is independent of the map. Everything non-map is somehow a strawman argument...

The map doesn't tell you whether or not your bombers at that base (which you may not be able to see if you have too many groups there, because the mouse-over on the map is limited) are at a large enough airfield to fly at their normal ranges/payloads. It doesn't tell you whether or not you have torpedoes. It doesn't tell you whether or not the airfield is overstacked.

The map doesn't tell you if your TFs have fuel.

The map doesn't tell you how far that CV TF that you detected can move and then strike at you.

You need to open up other screens for all of these things,

I could go on and on and on and on and on...

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.297