RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

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 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 1:36:51 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

And if Japan had done a smash and grab in Jan '42, the US production would have ramped up even more than before.

No it wouldn't have. It was already ramping up, as fast as possible, for total war. Maybe the US war machine could have been a bit more efficient - but it didn't need to be, so it wasn't. Historically, it was already marvelously efficient (at least relative to the rest of the world). But lots of things took time to get set up, and once set up they were already (historically) pumping matierale out as fast as they could.

"He's already pulled over, he can't pull over any farther!"

or

"I'm givin' 'er all she's got, capt'n"

Kinda like that.

I totally disagree. We were no where close to having our economy in a despeate "total war" situation in WW2, unlike what was seen in Germany, Japan.

Of course we dramatically outproduced them in aggregate, but we weren't at capacity like they were.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

As far as defending the WC against Japanese invasion if an invasion happened... well I think that if the invasion does happen, tons and tons of permanently restricted, static "Militia" units should be created... to represent the "old cowboy with a hunting rifle" that would defend his home, that Japan was "so scared of" when the idea of a WC invasion was floated around the IJN/IJA.

The "militia" you're wanting to happen are supposed to be represented by the garrison requirements for bases. I'm not sure if all of the CONUS bases have garrison requirements, but I wouldn't be surprised if nearly all of them did and many of them would be substantial.

As for the rest, you have the emergency reinforcements package.

No, I'm not talking about government trained troops. I'm talking about the 60 year old wanna be cowboy with a lever action winchester. These guys. These guys are what Japan feared in an invasion of the US. That there'd be a "cowboy with a rifle behind every tree", and there would be.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Also, again, as far as defending the WC against the Japanese, or Germans for that matter, we did that anyway.

But the OP didn't. That's part of the point.

WOuldn't have mattered anyway.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

My grandfather spent most of 1942 tearing up golf courses and installing AA units.... in Chicago, Illinois. (later he got shipped and fought in Germany). Needless to say, my grandfather (much like myself) did not have any patience for stupidity (he refers to Roosevelt as the "king idiot surrounded by a cabal of idiots"... and calls Poland the "pariah of nations, that will sell themselves to whoever gives them a better deal").... railed time and time again about the idiocy of "digging up golf courses to defend against aircraft that don't exist, and would never be able to reach Chicago by flying over the north pole. Yet another example of the clueless idiots in Washington"...

Well that's just like, your opinion, man. And his.

I wonder how helpful those airfields were for training, beyond just security. One of those airfields in Chicago eventually became O'Hare International Airport. It sure was mighty stupid of us to build that airport, wasn't it?

He wasn't putting AA guns on airfields. He was putting them on golf courses. On the southwest side of Chicago. No where near anything of importance except some cornfields.

The man was a genius. Spent most of his post WW2 career in "special weapons." He started in the military as a private, retired as a brigadier general. And he was no "politican suck-up perfumed prince type.".

Eagles Don't Flock.

That was his saying.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

So we were defending the US, all of it, against threats, both real and imagined. And if Portland's shipyard was "destroyed", it would be rebuilt. Quickly.

Maybe. Probably. There would be intangibles and ramifications from an invasion like this one that would perhaps influence it being built somewhere else, like perhaps... I dunno, New Orleans or something. Gotta think about the logistics of it and all that steel. The big ol' river would be useful. *shrug* But see below....

The intangibles and ramifications would be that the US went into a "total war" economic setting, and every hill-billy-bobby-jack cowboy of any and every age would be marching to get them some Japs!

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

At best I think the Japanese could hope for small delays in the ships coming "online".... but for all those ships to magically go "poof"? I don't buy it.

This is the only part of the argument I agree with, but it's a game and there are abstractions. These abstractions are fine. Mitigating this consequence would be needlessly complicated (aside from Hans's suggestion of modifying the UI to make the player more aware, but I've already pointed out why that's not necessary and borderline impractical).

It may be impractical to patch a game that's 10 years old, yeah,.... but that still doesn't make the original choice a 'good decision'

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 181

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 1:38:49 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

I disagree. In UV, if you take Nomeua, that�s it game over. In reality, the US would have staged their forces a little more to the south and you get a few days delay before they would be �in-theater�.

Same goes for Portland in WITP. If you take it as the Japs in this game, that�s it, none of those ships get built, ever. In reality, they�d be built elsewhere, or built after a "factory rebuild delay" once the Japs get pushed out. Same goes for all the other factories on the West Coast.

The things you mention are not equivalent, and the loss of the ships at Portland is not "Game over, man!"

LOL you play the game with out all those ships, planes, etc. that come from the NorthWest, and see how well you handle the late game strategic bombing campaign :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 182

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 1:43:13 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

Sir Robin is a strategy that allows the Japs to get auto-victory and should never be used, and any JFB that encounters it should rejoice, as they will be able to win the war and not suffer through the "dark times" of '44 - '45. IMO.

Full aggressive action by the Allies is the best course of action. IMO.

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 183

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 2:12:22 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

And if Japan had done a smash and grab in Jan '42, the US production would have ramped up even more than before.

No it wouldn't have. It was already ramping up, as fast as possible, for total war. Maybe the US war machine could have been a bit more efficient - but it didn't need to be, so it wasn't. Historically, it was already marvelously efficient (at least relative to the rest of the world). But lots of things took time to get set up, and once set up they were already (historically) pumping matierale out as fast as they could.

"He's already pulled over, he can't pull over any farther!"

or

"I'm givin' 'er all she's got, capt'n"

Kinda like that.

I totally disagree. We were no where close to having our economy in a despeate "total war" situation in WW2, unlike what was seen in Germany, Japan.

Of course we dramatically outproduced them in aggregate, but we weren't at capacity like they were.

You've evidently not done much reading on the topic, if you're suggesting that Germany engaged in "total war". Germany didn't even properly mobilze women, instead using slave labour.

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 184

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 2:26:25 PM

zuluhour

Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

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

Now were talking

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 185

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 2:35:53 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Sir Robin is a strategy that allows the Japs to get auto-victory and should never be used, and any JFB that encounters it should rejoice, as they will be able to win the war and not suffer through the "dark times" of '44 - '45. IMO.

Full aggressive action by the Allies is the best course of action. IMO.

BullXXX! Obviously you've never played against someone who played the strategy competently. Many players have successfully used the strategy successfully. BUT, there is a point to end the strategy. Sir Robin should ALWAYS be a withdrawal to regroup forces. One the regrouping is done , THEN it's time for a counter attack. The allied players mission is not to die easily so that you can get off on an easy victory. It's to save and collect enough resources to turn around and kick the JFB's teeth so hard that they fly out his backside.

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 5/10/2018 2:37:33 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 186

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 3:06:08 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Hopefully, tactics like this will cause a slowdown in the tempo of the game.

+1

If you have to defend, more closely to the historical reality, that would be very true. Wait until we have an AAR with the allies landing Nagoya and destroying all those engine/AC/ships.
That will close the lid on a lot of Jan42 novelties ...

Except that the fantasy you envision is very unlikely. One side starts with a developed industrial complex and a huge concentrated army while the other starts with its pants down.

The Allies don't have a death star capable of steaming unmolested into the heart of the empire to deliver this fantasy invasion you envision.

A clever Allied player could do exactly as PaxMondo suggests. Many Japanese players, because the Japanese land OOB is nowhere near enough for what you need it to do, strip Japan of nearly all combat units very early in the war.

Bullwinkle attempted it against me, in fact. But I didn't leave my coastline without naval search, and he got spotted.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

It's somehow OK to defend the horrendous consequences of this "abstraction", but I don't see anyone offering an additional abstraction to mitigate it.

What you're asking is, essentially, that the game use a different abstraction for the Allied "production" system. But the one that's in the game is the best compromise there is between all relevant factors when you're making a game design decision (utility, ease of use, does it make enough sense, etc.).

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 187

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 3:08:43 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Yes, Sir Robin and Fortress Palembang are weasel tactics. Perhaps a lesser degree of weasel, but weasel nonetheless.

I have personally never utilized either against a human opponent so NOT GUILTY as charged.

Keep grasping at those straws until you can find an indictment you can make stick!

I'm not charging you with anything except having no argument beyond your knee-jerk response that basically boils down to "It's not faaaaaaaaair!" when in fact it is fair. Both players in this game play within the same constraints.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 188

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 3:11:52 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Except that the fantasy you envision is very unlikely. One side starts with a developed industrial complex and a huge concentrated army while the other starts with its pants down.

The Allies don't have a death star capable of steaming unmolested into the heart of the empire to deliver this fantasy invasion you envision.

Hans, the Allies don't need a DS. In my Lokasenna game I got US Army troops ashore on Honshu in the early months with no carrier support. You need to play an AI Japan game. The HI are pretty open in the first six months. Fighter production is low, Kate production is zero. There are not a lot of 2E units available unless the front lines are stripped and the perimeter-build sacrificed. IF the Allies want to, they can indeed send suicide forces onto the HI and fusk up aircraft production. It's possible. After doing it, or trying to do it, I don't think it's worth it, but that's what makes the game great. You can decide to try.

Having far less familiarity with the "other" side I was not aware of those vulnerabilities Mooses.

Thanks for delivering me from my ignorance. It puts paid to my argument that what Pax described was pure fantasy.

However, we differ on our take on what makes the game great.

I see an Allied player exploiting that weakness as being just as slimy and weasely as what the Japanese player did here.

I don't see facilitation of slimy weaseely play as a sign of greatness.

If you want to fight a gentleman's agreement game where you each agree not to attack each other's undefended rear areas, that's perfectly fine. Because that's the only way such tactics can be described as slimy or weasely.

This is a war game. You know what they say about love and war. If a player doesn't defend their soft spots, or even make the attempt, or at the very least set up recon/pickets/etc., they have no legs to stand on when their opponent hits them where they're weak.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 189

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 3:17:42 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

I totally disagree. We were no where close to having our economy in a despeate "total war" situation in WW2, unlike what was seen in Germany, Japan.

Of course we dramatically outproduced them in aggregate, but we weren't at capacity like they were.

You can disagree all you want, but please cite sources on the US being able to produce more substantively more armaments than it did in substantively less time, which is what you claimed. There are real-world constraints on production that you're ignoring.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

No, I'm not talking about government trained troops. I'm talking about the 60 year old wanna be cowboy with a lever action winchester. These guys. These guys are what Japan feared in an invasion of the US. That there'd be a "cowboy with a rifle behind every tree", and there would be.

Which is what garrison requirements are supposed to represent in the game...

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

WOuldn't have mattered anyway.

How do you know? How can you be sure that the Japanese player wouldn't have been spooked off the invasion if his forces were spotted a day and a half from landing, for example? You can't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

The intangibles and ramifications would be that the US went into a "total war" economic setting, and every hill-billy-bobby-jack cowboy of any and every age would be marching to get them some Japs!

So... what happened anyway? Because war fever ran very high, very quickly beginning on December 7.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

It may be impractical to patch a game that's 10 years old, yeah,.... but that still doesn't make the original choice a 'good decision'

You should go make a game, then.

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 190

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 3:20:26 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

I disagree. In UV, if you take Nomeua, that�s it game over. In reality, the US would have staged their forces a little more to the south and you get a few days delay before they would be �in-theater�.

Same goes for Portland in WITP. If you take it as the Japs in this game, that�s it, none of those ships get built, ever. In reality, they�d be built elsewhere, or built after a "factory rebuild delay" once the Japs get pushed out. Same goes for all the other factories on the West Coast.

The things you mention are not equivalent, and the loss of the ships at Portland is not "Game over, man!"

LOL you play the game with out all those ships, planes, etc. that come from the NorthWest, and see how well you handle the late game strategic bombing campaign :)

I'd find a way. I've lost comparable numbers of ships early in 1943 and still won out.

Even without all those ships, the Allies still have more than enough stuff. What they may not have enough of, without them, is time for enough stuff to arrive and get it into place. It's the same challenge as a "regular" game, it only changes the degree of challenge.

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 191

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 3:38:44 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Using magic move on turn 1 to do this - ultimate in cheese

After that? - its a failure of the allied player to play to combat the worst case scenario

Regarding the argument about whether the game mechanics regarding construction of vessels, probably a fair point but its a mute point if the allied player does his job properly in the first couple of months of the war.

_____________________________

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 192

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 3:42:06 PM

HansBolter

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Both players in this game play within the same constraints.

That is just about the biggest load of horse pucky anyone has ever tried to sell me.

So the Japanese are limited to the actual historical production of war material as the Allies are?

The Japanese can't accelerate ship or aircraft production the way the Allies can't?

The Japanese don't get 4 months of "no prep needed for invasions" like the Allies?

Do I really need to go on?

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 193

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 4:50:19 PM

HansBolter

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Except that the fantasy you envision is very unlikely. One side starts with a developed industrial complex and a huge concentrated army while the other starts with its pants down.

The Allies don't have a death star capable of steaming unmolested into the heart of the empire to deliver this fantasy invasion you envision.

Hans, the Allies don't need a DS. In my Lokasenna game I got US Army troops ashore on Honshu in the early months with no carrier support. You need to play an AI Japan game. The HI are pretty open in the first six months. Fighter production is low, Kate production is zero. There are not a lot of 2E units available unless the front lines are stripped and the perimeter-build sacrificed. IF the Allies want to, they can indeed send suicide forces onto the HI and fusk up aircraft production. It's possible. After doing it, or trying to do it, I don't think it's worth it, but that's what makes the game great. You can decide to try.

Having far less familiarity with the "other" side I was not aware of those vulnerabilities Mooses.

Thanks for delivering me from my ignorance. It puts paid to my argument that what Pax described was pure fantasy.

However, we differ on our take on what makes the game great.

I see an Allied player exploiting that weakness as being just as slimy and weasely as what the Japanese player did here.

I don't see facilitation of slimy weaseely play as a sign of greatness.

If you want to fight a gentleman's agreement game where you each agree not to attack each other's undefended rear areas, that's perfectly fine. Because that's the only way such tactics can be described as slimy or weasely.

This is a war game. You know what they say about love and war. If a player doesn't defend their soft spots, or even make the attempt, or at the very least set up recon/pickets/etc., they have no legs to stand on when their opponent hits them where they're weak.

So it's a game when you need to rationalize abstractions, but it's a war when you need to rationalize ungentlemanly and unfair game play.

Nice.

If it's a game it should ALWAYS be played gentlemanly and fairly.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 194

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 5:45:16 PM

zuluhour

Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

"If you want to fight a gentleman's agreement game where you each agree not to attack each other's undefended rear areas, that's perfectly fine. Because that's the only way such tactics can be described as slimy or weasely."
L

scary and messy

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 195

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 6:24:49 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Both players in this game play within the same constraints.

That is just about the biggest load of horse pucky anyone has ever tried to sell me.

So the Japanese are limited to the actual historical production of war material as the Allies are?

The Japanese can't accelerate ship or aircraft production the way the Allies can't?

The Japanese don't get 4 months of "no prep needed for invasions" like the Allies?

Do I really need to go on?

Even with all the love shown Japan, they still lose what...90% of games?

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 196

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 6:37:19 PM

HansBolter

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

In the real event they lost 100% of them...........

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 197

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 7:59:34 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

In the real event they lost 100% of them...........

Well, they lost one, actually.

We hear you Hans.

The game has kept evolving over all of these years, which is what I think is great about it. I've never seen this appear in the forums until now. How cool that new stuff is still being discovered.

I also think more payers on both sides are sticking it out when bad stuff happens. This idea that Japanese players drop games after 43 isn't really the case now, if it ever was. It seems like some games end, but it's not because someone had a major setback. It's just life, usually.

When you finally play the Japanese side and see how easy it is I'll listen more carefully to what you're saying. Until then ...

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 198

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 9:33:41 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

This old gem of a thread has a lot of meat in it. I recco it to all involved in this thread. It starts with a detailed rendition of my Lokasenna game HI landing, then moves into much broader strategic discussions. It's what this forum used to be like in Olden Times.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3555379&mpage=1&key=Lokasenna

Buried deep in the thread I posted this. FWIW:

"I understand the context of your comments, but I still take umbrage in general with the word "gamey." It has negative connotations. So does "gaming the game." I just play the game, as designed and coded.

I push back around here on "gamey" because I think too many players use it without thinking about its ramifications. If you use it I believe it is on you to then explain the exact parameters that would merit the withdrawal of the charge. It's a binary. If THIS is "gamey", then at what point is the thing "not-gamey"? And I mean exact parameters no matter into what uncomfortable circumstances they lead. So if landing an SST-worth of troops on the HI is "gamey", how many would not be? If the answer is "it's always gamey", then why? Even in the Fall of 1945 when Olympic was set to go? Or, if the HI is always off limits due to depot activation, how far away do the Allies have to stay? Why is depot division "gamey", but landing on one of the non-national Kuriles a couple of hexes from Sapporo isn't? In that case is an SST gamey, or an APD, or one xAP, or ten APs, or fifty APAs? What's the breakpoint? Justify your answer.

"Gamey" often substitutes for "it makes me uncomfortable" with no attendant analysis or "and so?" next step thinking. That's the problem with it. It doesn't have end-points, and players here usually fall back on the "well, just talk to your opponent" dodge. The problem with that is one player ALREADY "talked" through the action. He obviously thought it was fine else he wouldn't have done it. (Unless he's a sociopath and then you have other problems.) So the "discussion" begins as a zero-sum game. Somebody has to give in. They may smile and say "no problem", but it's a problem for most competitive people. When you golf with your boss and he asks for multiple mulligans, you smile, agree, but inside you think he's a jerk. After awhile you don't want to play with him anymore. We've all seen AARed games here collapse after one too many "discussions."

You may not like how the game works, but it's objective. It works the way it works. You can plan around it. You don't have zero-sum discussions. Or even non-zero-sum. You just play."

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 5/10/2018 9:34:01 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 199

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 9:59:24 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

In the real event they lost 100% of them...........

Priceless!

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 200

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 10:34:50 PM

pws1225

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

Here's a comment by Alfred contained in the above thread referenced by the moose. It concerns just such an invasion being contemplated by Allied forces in the HI early in the war.

"Japan starts with little in the Home Islands and most Japanese players do not reinforce the home front at the expense of the frontline. Therefore what you should do is:

(i) find out which production bases start off lightly defended on 7 December 1941
(ii) check through signit to see if they have subsequently been reinforced
(iii) send sufficient force (if necessary on xAP vessels) made up by "volunteers" of course (remember you can subsequently resurrect the destroyed unit). Travel silently
(iv) land and capture by coup de main the industrial centre. You just have to hold for one day to get the benefit

then hear the howls of protest from JFBs (but perhaps not from your opponent) at such a sneaky move. Have no sympathy for them for it will teach them rnot to play a soundly based military operations game using RTS tactics, forgetting all about rear area defence and all the non sexy things which they find to be boring.

Alfred"

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 201

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 10:40:51 PM

zuluhour

Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

BRAVO!!

(in reply to pws1225)

Post #: 202

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/11/2018 5:35:08 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

I think Lowpe hit the nail on the head: The Japanese player needs a proper inducement to invade CONUS. Although it might be unrealistic to say the CVEs couldn't be built elsewhere, or there with a delay, 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.

I like the story about Ace's grandfather putting AA units on golf courses in Chicago. From the level of a private, that would seem pretty stupid. However, from a politician's point of view, maybe it settles the masses a bit in publicly showing you're doing something to protect them, however futile. Maybe the movie "1941" wasn't far off the mark in terms of hysteria.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to zuluhour)

Post #: 203

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/11/2018 6:55:47 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 204

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/11/2018 6:59:32 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

"Assembling" ships is not like trying to assemble flat pack furniture bought from IKEA. Even in 2018 skilled labour is still required to "assemble" elsewhere pre fabricated ship modules.

Alfred

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 205

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/11/2018 10:06:30 AM

tarkalak

Posts: 289
Joined: 6/26/2017
From: Bulgaria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut
...

No, I'm not talking about government trained troops. I'm talking about the 60 year old wanna be cowboy with a lever action winchester. These guys. These guys are what Japan feared in an invasion of the US. That there'd be a "cowboy with a rifle behind every tree", and there would be.

...

AMERICAN Volkssturm.

I wonder if these guys will be more help than burden. I imagine millions of cowboy wannabees in Ford Model T clogging every highway from Florida to Portland. Then the roadrage.

_____________________________

I do not know what is scarier: that I do understand nothing of this demonic script or that I am starting to see the demons that it evokes.

Me, studying for a PHD entry exam in Applied Mathematics.

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 206

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/11/2018 11:54:35 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

"Assembling" ships is not like trying to assemble flat pack furniture bought from IKEA.� Even in 2018 skilled labour is still required to "assemble" elsewhere pre fabricated ship modules.

Alfred

My grandfather ran a riveting team at the Kaiser Shipyards in Vancouver. He was a lifetime mechanic and foreman before and after the war. A specialist on large machinery used in the gold dredging and sluicing mines in Alaska.

Fascinating stuff, this conjecturing about what the Japanese could have done.

Knowing the area, if they wanted to prevent the shipyards here from being built and used, and the area to be less capable as a wartime industrial center, there were certain pretty obvious targets for demolition. This area is hilly, difficult terrain with massive forests, large deep rivers and natural mountain boundaries. If they extended control to chokepoints in the South at around Salem, to the East to the Columbia River Gorge and held at near Longview along the Columbia NW of Portland, there could have been a lengthy siege.

1. Bridges. At the time there was only one major (road) bridge over the Columbia in the area. Blow it up. Also hit all of the ones over the Willamette in Portland and the others along the Columbia toward the coast, and hit the several railroad bridges. Knocking down the St Johns Bridge and the railroad bridge there would also likely have made the Willamette unnavigable to Portland for some period until cleaned up.

2. Railroads. Just stick some explosives in the major tunnels along the Columbia River Gorge and you've essentially shut down the two major E/W rail connections (either side of the river) for possibly several years. The gorge is not an easy place to construct transit paths, and if road tunnels are also knocked out, you have a big problem.

There are some spots where the N/S railroad also goes over rivers along the Columbia going toward Olympia and Seattle. Hit those too.

3. Dams. The Bonneville dam is just up from Portland Vancouver by 40 miles. Blow a big hole in that and not only do you take out a major source of power production but also cause severe flooding to the low lying areas along the rivers for many miles down stream, including the Vanport residential area created by Kaiser (in Aug 42, so after game date I realise) to house workers during the war. This did flood in '48 and my family lost everything and the area was never resettled.

4. Forests. The Japanese did try both early (sub based Glen dropped incindiaries) and later in the war (balloon launched devices sailing across the Pacific) to burn the forests of the west coast. This would have been much easier if 50-60k Japanese troops were able to systematically set the area ablaze. It could have been catastrophic, and also contributed to some difficulty in bringing military reinforcements to the area. Western Oregon is wet in the winter, but dry in the summer, and the East dry all year round. If they stayed around long enough, this wouldn't have been too hard to achieve.

I wouldn't underestimate the impact a military force could have on the infrastructure and future wartime contributions of the area based simply on the abstract environment of the game. The game designers possibly included this contingency realising that overall impact would have been horrific, and decided to make the player pay by putting that in terms of the game; lost production and VPs.

< Message edited by obvert -- 5/11/2018 12:00:06 PM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 207

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/11/2018 2:58:22 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

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

Very comprehensive and thorough. Saved me the time of checking this out, but I knew from previous experience that this was the case.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 208

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/11/2018 2:58:58 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
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. ... 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.

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.

Thanks above Alfred.. wonderful summary.

I have been very reluctant to enter this thread in fears of inflaming the issue.

So please understand I am not trying to inflame opinions further. Rather I would try to point out the debate is NOT one question nor simple answers.

There are actually 3 complex issues - not 1

The Game:

The game allows it.

Further as Admiral Alfred has posted there are sufficient tactics and resources (Land / Air / Naval) available to the Allied Supreme Commander to counter it.

It is not a design flaw of the game; it is about the allocation and strategic priorities of the player. Both Allied and Japanese.

Criticism of the game are not warranted given the design and mechanics accurately �reflect� history and the tools are available to cope; understand there is a broad difference between �what may have been possible� in a computer based simulation with abstract mechanisms to simplify millions of variables.

Its not a game / mechanics issue at all.

The Gamey

This is entirely subjective and in the eye of the beholder. There is no "one correct answer" it depends upon your perspective. No one individual is universally on the side of the righteous.

The Japanese Supreme Commander in choosing Portland as the target is aware/must be aware of the game mechanics and implications in the long run.

Portland specifically is a ship building hub and the consequences of the successful invasion is long lasting. Missing CVEs, Tankers and Cargo ships critical to the Allied effort in 43/44

The Japanese Supreme Commander could have chosen Vancouver Island, Dutch Harbor, Juneau or a number of other locations as a tactical launch pad to support a West Coast invasion; but did not. If the intention was to sustain and invasion of the Continental USA we should have probably seen evidence of multiple invasions supporting the Portland Invasion with mutually supporting bases.

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.

Invent or use house rules that exclude 'exploitative' invasions of Continental USA or Japanese Home Islands without multiple supporting bases for example. Or don't if you prefer.

The Historical

(1) Could have the IJN reasonably invaded the City of Portland and the Kaiser Steel Works to interrupt / destroy all port facilities and cripple the Allied War effort for months if not years? (2) Could have the IJN Navy evaded detection long enough to do so? Could have the IJN Navy actually made the trip with a full invasion fleet without incurring massive ship borne damage given the tempo of operations following Pearl Harbor? (3) Would have the Japanese Navy / Army been prepared to sacrifice thousands of soldiers and equipment in a suicide style mission in early 1942? (4) Would have the destruction of Portland facilities been compensated for by other facilities? (5) Could have the armed militia of Portland defended the city? Would have they dropped bridges? Would have the Japanese landed up river on a suitable beach? (6) Ad naseum...

I am unsure there are satisfactory and definitive answers to each question without healthy debate.

The most probable answer is no in my opinion - not fact - opinion.

Admiral Yamamoto sought to strike a decisive blow in December 1941 so as to prevent a long war of attrition. The success of Pearl Harbor, Luzon, and Hong Kong filled the Imperial Government with the first stages of Victory disease.

Further the Imperial Government and the Navy were devoted disciples of Alfred Mayer Mahan and still believed in the �decisive battle of Battleships� in or near Pacific Islands where the IJN would hold decisive tactical superiority.

Admiral Yamamoto could have planned such an operation being �somewhat knowledgeable� of the American Industrial might. However his ability to execute such a plan � with full Imperial Support � and with potentially the objections of the Army / other Mahan disciples is unlikely. Xreference Invasion of Australia / Ceylon

< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 5/11/2018 3:15:36 PM >

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 209

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/11/2018 3:09:27 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

I have strenuously avoided responding to this thread til now. Let me summarize the two questions regarding invading the West Coast.

Number 1: Are you crazy?

Number 2: Are you effing crazy?

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 210