Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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 >> Two questions about a West Coast invasion Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/1/2018 2:17:27 AM   
von Beanie


Posts: 288
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Oak Hills, S. California
Status: offline
My Japanese opponent has just invaded Oregon in January, 1942, and will likely take Portland by surprise. He claims that the fall of Portland will eliminate the many CVEs that are scheduled to appear there later in the game. My reading of the e-manual suggests that in the unlikely event he should still control the city in 1943 and later, those CVEs would appear at the East US base. In any case, I'm presuming that the future production of anything is not eliminated by the temporary enemy occupation of the arrival city. Which interpretation, if any, is valid?

Way back in the WITP days, I vaguely recall that a Japanese invasion of western Canada or the US would result in a major acceleration of Allied production (because the Europe-first strategy would be obsolete). I can't find anything to that effect in the WITP-AE manual. Were those penalties changed when the game was revised, or is my memory faulty?

Norm

Post #: 1
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/1/2018 2:55:34 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8332
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
If he captures the base (not Portland, but Takoma IIRC) - any ships in the queue will be destroyed in situ and he will gain some portion (I forget how much, but I think 1/3) of the normal VPs for sinking them as they are destroyed in their docks. This applies to any bases he would capture.

You should have received an emergency reinforcement package from his invasion, as well.

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 2
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/1/2018 8:27:47 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1346
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
1. All ships qued to arrive in a captured city get destroyed forever, and the opponent will get 1/2 VPs
2. Several division size LCUs appear, plus US gets all its airgroups arrivals accelerated half a year

Meaning you should fight for Portland tooth and nail. Terrain and railroads will help

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/1/2018 2:25:54 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3268
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: online
Nothing to worry, folks - the Japs will die on the Oregon Trail trying to find the way to the off-map.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 5/1/2018 2:26:12 PM >

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 4
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/1/2018 4:32:16 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 11423
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Nothing to worry, folks - the Japs will die on the Oregon Trail trying to find the way to the off-map.

Right - drop some propaganda leaflets describing what happened to the Donner Party ... that should spook them pretty good!

_____________________________

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 Yaab)
Post #: 5
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/1/2018 5:13:45 PM   
von Beanie


Posts: 288
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Oak Hills, S. California
Status: offline
Can anyone identify exactly where the points made by "GetAssista" can be found in the WITP-AE game e-manual? I've looked using the index, and I can't find them. I've played this game (and UV and WITP) for years and I've never moved around land units on Turn 1 to garrison all U.S. and Canadian port cities. Unfortunately, all there is at Portland is a base force, and so I will undoubtedly lose it temporarily. What I don't understand is why ships that appear in 1945 that haven't even been designed in 1942 will disappear forever. This seems like a serious exploit that Allied players need to know about. My reading of the e-manual reinforcement section suggests they should appear at the east-USA port.

On the other hand, I look forward to having lots of Corsairs in late 1942 and B-29s a half year early.




(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 6
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/1/2018 5:54:23 PM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2223
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline
quote:

On the other hand, I look forward to having lots of Corsairs in late 1942 and B-29s a half year early.


Compared to losing all those CVEs, it's a lousy trade.

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 7
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/1/2018 6:37:50 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8487
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

My reading of the e-manual reinforcement section suggests they should appear at the east-USA port.

That is correct for both ground and air units.

For ships, I know they get destroyed ... at least in part. When you take HK as the IJ, there are some MTB's in production that you get points for.
I've never actually tested some place like SD or SF ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 8
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/1/2018 7:33:50 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8332
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

Can anyone identify exactly where the points made by "GetAssista" can be found in the WITP-AE game e-manual? I've looked using the index, and I can't find them. I've played this game (and UV and WITP) for years and I've never moved around land units on Turn 1 to garrison all U.S. and Canadian port cities. Unfortunately, all there is at Portland is a base force, and so I will undoubtedly lose it temporarily. What I don't understand is why ships that appear in 1945 that haven't even been designed in 1942 will disappear forever. This seems like a serious exploit that Allied players need to know about. My reading of the e-manual reinforcement section suggests they should appear at the east-USA port.

On the other hand, I look forward to having lots of Corsairs in late 1942 and B-29s a half year early.






Page 263 - "Ships that are destroyed while under construction will score one half of the standard VPs."

I can't find something that references how ships are destroyed while under construction, but it occurs when the base in question is captured by the enemy and the ship is still in the reinforcement queue (i.e., being built). The assumption is that the enemy captured the ships while they were still in progress, and even if you recapture the base the enemy sabotaged the construction facilities such that they are not useful for the duration of the war and the ships are lost.

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 9
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/1/2018 9:29:06 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 741
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

quote:

On the other hand, I look forward to having lots of Corsairs in late 1942 and B-29s a half year early.


Compared to losing all those CVEs, it's a lousy trade.


The war isn't won with CVEs...it is won with B29s and Mustangs.

(in reply to jwolf)
Post #: 10
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/1/2018 10:12:32 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 11423
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

Can anyone identify exactly where the points made by "GetAssista" can be found in the WITP-AE game e-manual? I've looked using the index, and I can't find them. I've played this game (and UV and WITP) for years and I've never moved around land units on Turn 1 to garrison all U.S. and Canadian port cities. Unfortunately, all there is at Portland is a base force, and so I will undoubtedly lose it temporarily. What I don't understand is why ships that appear in 1945 that haven't even been designed in 1942 will disappear forever. This seems like a serious exploit that Allied players need to know about. My reading of the e-manual reinforcement section suggests they should appear at the east-USA port.

On the other hand, I look forward to having lots of Corsairs in late 1942 and B-29s a half year early.






Page 263 - "Ships that are destroyed while under construction will score one half of the standard VPs."

I can't find something that references how ships are destroyed while under construction, but it occurs when the base in question is captured by the enemy and the ship is still in the reinforcement queue (i.e., being built). The assumption is that the enemy captured the ships while they were still in progress, and even if you recapture the base the enemy sabotaged the construction facilities such that they are not useful for the duration of the war and the ships are lost.


Having taken a few large shipyards in Japan, I can say that some ships are shown as "destroyed on the ways" or "destroyed while building" but there can also be a long list of ships that are "Cancelled". I presume the difference is in the time frame between when they were due to appear vs when the port was taken; i.e. up to a certain number of months the ship is considered to have started construction and after that period it was just in the planning stage and got cancelled.

As for the tactic of destroying vital industry with a suicide invasion, two can play that game ...

_____________________________

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 Lokasenna)
Post #: 11
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 12:07:18 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8487
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

As for the tactic of destroying vital industry with a suicide invasion, two can play that game ...

IRL, both sides prepared exactly that ... they kept significant reserves 'on the beaches back home' ... most players leave home relatively unprotected.

My opponent (Andy AI) knows this and there is a variant that can punish an impetuous IJ player ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 12
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 1:19:14 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 4749
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

If he captures the base (not Portland, but Takoma IIRC)


Kaiser Shipyards in Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA (across the Columbia R from Portland) produced:

Kaiser Shipyard By the Numbers

The World War II-era Vancouver shipyard launched:

50

escort carriers

31

attack transports

30

landing craft

12

C-4 troopships

10

Liberty ships

8

C-4 cargo vessels

2

floating drydocks

quote:

The war isn't won with CVEs...it is won with B29s and Mustangs.


Didn't check the APAs etc mentioned above but getting B-29s and P-51s within range of the Home Islands without those CVEs and APAs is likely to be a good deal more difficult if not impossible.
:

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 13
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 2:45:40 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 1546
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
I can confirm exactly BBFanboy says. You lose Portland for even a day, you lose its production forever. You might want to fly or rail in as much as possible. Watch your aircraft production centers as it applies to them as well.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 14
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 6:42:49 AM   
von Beanie


Posts: 288
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Oak Hills, S. California
Status: offline
Thank you for all of the information. The landing forces arrived in Astoria and Portland on the first day I discovered there were enemy troops nearby. I can't rail troops in there because I would have to spend a couple of days putting them in strategic mode first. Although I won't lose the cities until next turn, dozens of air unit shells have suddenly appeared along with numerous army divisions in places like Salt Lake City. However, I also learned that I would have to spend political points to use any of them, and many of the new air units, outside of the U.S.

The Kaiser shipyard post is interesting. I briefly looked at the list of ship arrivals in the game scheduled to arrive in Portland, and I would guesstimate I will lose over 200 Ak, over 100 TK, 80 SC, 20 LST, 10 APA in addition to about 60 CVE. Thus I'm inclined to just let the Japanese try to run their new US colony like they are trying to run China.

In the future I will garrison all west coast cities starting on Turn 1. A more practical solution might be for the game designers to create reasonable garrisons for these super-vital national security locations when designing the basic scenarios. In reality, the loss of Astoria and Portland would not have led to the demise of the US Navy and such a surrender, but I'm impressed my opponent was able to surprise me with a decisive move I didn't even know was possible.

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 15
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 10:02:33 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6246
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
They start undefended and Japanese players know this. It takes three days to get a division into strat mode and Japanese players know this.

What your excuse for an opponent has done is mercilessly exploit this knowledge in as GAMEY a manner as possible.

This is far worse than hunting the American carriers on day one.

Any player who would exploit this obvious design flaw should be blackballed.

This why I don't do PBEM. Had a similar experience once and swore never again.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 5/2/2018 10:04:50 AM >


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 16
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 10:56:09 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1346
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
They start undefended and Japanese players know this. It takes three days to get a division into strat mode and Japanese players know this.

What your excuse for an opponent has done is mercilessly exploit this knowledge in as GAMEY a manner as possible.

This is far worse than hunting the American carriers on day one.

Any player who would exploit this obvious design flaw should be blackballed.

This why I don't do PBEM. Had a similar experience once and swore never again.

quote:


Original: von Beanie
My Japanese opponent has just invaded Oregon in January, 1942...

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 17
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 11:00:14 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6246
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
They start undefended and Japanese players know this. It takes three days to get a division into strat mode and Japanese players know this.

What your excuse for an opponent has done is mercilessly exploit this knowledge in as GAMEY a manner as possible.

This is far worse than hunting the American carriers on day one.

Any player who would exploit this obvious design flaw should be blackballed.

This why I don't do PBEM. Had a similar experience once and swore never again.

quote:


Original: von Beanie
My Japanese opponent has just invaded Oregon in January, 1942...




Your opponent is playing a fantasy game, not one based on World war II. Unfortunately the designers facilitated this kind of JFB wet dream and AFB nightmare.

Funny isn't it, how the Japanese player can simply quit before he has to face this kind of "caught you with your pants down" kind of nightmare, while the Allied player has to agree to face it to even get a game started.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 18
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 11:56:55 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1346
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Your opponent is playing a fantasy game, not one based on World war II. Unfortunately the designers facilitated this kind of JFB wet dream and AFB nightmare.

Your mentioning Strat mode packing time hints at you misreading the initial post and thinking about Dec 8,41 invasion of Portland. No, it is not the warp invasion. Au contraire, quite legit one. And Allied player should be ready by January, keeping his landlocked armored divisions on the trains.

Apparently real US command was also delusional and playing a fantasy war with their fears of Japanese land invasion throughout 41-42. But what would you expect from those JFBs...

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 19
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 12:08:28 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6246
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
Your points are valid. Any Allied player who hasn't gotten divisions into the major ports for defense and who doesn't a reaction force on the rails is leaving himself open and inviting an invasion.

It's exploiting the warp movement bonus to invade an ungarrisoned major base, exploiting the clearly not well thought through rule that all reinforcements at that base get destroyed, that is a firing squad offense

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 20
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 12:14:17 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11243
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

Thank you for all of the information. The landing forces arrived in Astoria and Portland on the first day I discovered there were enemy troops nearby. I can't rail troops in there because I would have to spend a couple of days putting them in strategic mode first. Although I won't lose the cities until next turn, dozens of air unit shells have suddenly appeared along with numerous army divisions in places like Salt Lake City. However, I also learned that I would have to spend political points to use any of them, and many of the new air units, outside of the U.S.

The Kaiser shipyard post is interesting. I briefly looked at the list of ship arrivals in the game scheduled to arrive in Portland, and I would guesstimate I will lose over 200 Ak, over 100 TK, 80 SC, 20 LST, 10 APA in addition to about 60 CVE. Thus I'm inclined to just let the Japanese try to run their new US colony like they are trying to run China.

In the future I will garrison all west coast cities starting on Turn 1. A more practical solution might be for the game designers to create reasonable garrisons for these super-vital national security locations when designing the basic scenarios. In reality, the loss of Astoria and Portland would not have led to the demise of the US Navy and such a surrender, but I'm impressed my opponent was able to surprise me with a decisive move I didn't even know was possible.


I wasn't going to weigh in here since I exhausted my interest in the Emergency Reinforcement system seven years ago. But some things have been said that can't just sit there for newbies to read.

As you have seen, Japan landing anywhere in CONUS, and a few offshore islands (country code determined), will trigger the ER package. The trigger mechanism is hard-coded in the EXE. However, the package(s) (OZ, NZ, India, and yes, Japan's as well) are exposed in the editor and can be altered. The CONUS ER package is immense, as you have also seen. The air units are not all fully filled out, but some are. In total they are a massive infusion of air power onto North America to counter a Japan effort at the end of a tenuous thread. The land forces are also a Thor's hammer. While restricted, they can be used now and later with PPs and some planning. And the SLC "convoy dump," which takes three days, has a huge shopping list of free devices, including 300 1942 US Army infantry squads, a couple hundred new tanks, huge stores of 57mm AT guns (a bottleneck all the way through on ID upgrades), and much more.

In January 1942 this boon is immense and can catapult the Allied work in 1942 ahead by many months, or more. The air units are pulled forward by six months, yes. It is an error to state that the entire Allied air OOB is moved forward by six months. I don't know where that idea came from.

Is any of this enough to stop a decapitation at Portland if nothing has been done in the month you were granted? Nope.

You can argue that taking out Portland for a day would not have sacrificed Portland's future production unto 1946, but them's the breaks of the code. Ships in the queue go bye-bye. Since the Allies can't stop, accelerate, or alter ship arrivals at all, the code sees 100% as in the queue and destructible. It's a game of abstractions.

Is landing at Portland "gamey"? No. It is in the game design for good reasons, as described in detail by dev Blackhorse, who did much or all of the land OOB research. Andy Mac did the packages, and has also weighed in. All ancient threads, but they're still there. The risk of both a CONUS thrust as well as the same at Japan are part of the what-if design decision. In my Lokasenna game I tried to hit the HI with a regiment to destroy key aviation factories in the very early game. I didn't quite bring enough oomph, but if it had worked it would have been painful.

Is it inevitable that Portland be lost? In your case here it is probable it will happen, yes, but it didn't have to. You had a month. There are more than enough white-restricted LCUs on the WC on 12/8/41 to get Portland a garrison. I do it; most Allied players who read the forum do it too. And build forts. Everything with engineers needs to be digging from Day 1. I don't begin WC AF or ports until that base has Forts 3 or better. Portland could easily have Forts 3 right now, and an ID-plus in residence. That would give you plenty of time to get the ER package on trains in SLC and move them to engage. Japan's landing force would be wiped out to a man while also NOT doing whatever jobs they should have been doing way over to the west.

Defend CONUS. It's pretty simple and is something that can be done right away.

For me, if I lost Portland at the date you're at, I'd send congrats to my opponent and resign. As others have said, in the game models the CVEs are vital to conduct mid- and late-war ops. LBA is too overpowered in the game to conduct landings without them. Rather than spend 3-4 real-time years playing this thing out to its inevitable, I'd take the lesson and re-start. Maybe with a different opponent, maybe not. That's your call. But if you lose Portland you're probably toast. I don't know the Japanese equivalent. Maybe losing all engine production for the Zero line? Anyway, it's very, very bad.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 5/2/2018 2:32:22 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 21
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 12:37:58 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6246
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
deleted

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 5/2/2018 12:38:34 PM >


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 22
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 12:39:04 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 17169
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
+1 to what the Moose said.

There is no reason to tar and feather the Japanese player. If he had triggered the reinforcement package against a prepared opponent, he'd be kicking himself the rest of the game. His was a high-stakes gamble that worked, possibly because he knew or suspected his opponent might not be familiar with the intricacies of a West Coast gambit. There shouldn't be any presumptions about his sportsmanship.

All of us, as new or fairly new players, had terrible things happen. Some were counterintuitive or wacky. Those debacles were some of the best learning experiences. Later, we always laugh at them.

If I were the Allied player, I'd probably soldier on. The loss of all those ships is paintful but not necessarily fatal. There's also the option of conceding and inviting the opponent to back up a week, if he wants to explore what might happen against a garrisoned West Coast, or to start over if both sides prefer a mulligan.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 23
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 1:22:28 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5276
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
PLUS ONE to Moose and Canoerebel. I move the land locked units to the important Ports/bases and setup 2 strategic reserves inland, north and south. Just in case. Can't use those troops anywhere else....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TotS-Alpha Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 24
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 1:22:57 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 462
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
How did he invade Portland? amphibious assault up the Columbia river? that would be gamey? If someone got by the forts at the mouth of the Columbia, all they had to do to stop a move up the Columbia was sink a ship in the channel or drop the Lewis and Clark bridge in Ranier.

_____________________________

"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 Canoerebel)
Post #: 25
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 2:37:44 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11243
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

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


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

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 26
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 3:10:33 PM   
von Beanie


Posts: 288
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Oak Hills, S. California
Status: offline
I have not identified nor condemned my opponent in any way. Rather, I'm amazed and impressed that some people have enough time to find exploits like these. I could have moved units starting on turn 1 to garrison these towns, but I don't follow the forum closely and I would have never imagined that the temporary occupation of a city without major facilities would eliminate the production of hundreds of ships scheduled to appear 2, 3 or 4 years later. That is a serious game design flaw, and that's what I'm complaining about. In my previous PBEM (of WITE) a few months ago, I ran into an opponent that chose to mass every single Panzer division on a 20-hex frontage between Voronezh and Stalino in the Spring of 1942, and there was nothing I could do to stop the "Panzer Ball" tactic. It didn't matter that the Axis supply network would have never permitted such a tactic in reality. For some reason, my opponent decided to exploit the limitations of that game design to win at all costs.

It would be nice if there was a sticky that lists the exploitative maneuvers each side may encounter (and thus be prepared for). Such a thread may exist, but I'm not aware of it. After this event occurred, when I typed the search keyword "Portland" in this forum, I didn't get any records returned of this specific exploit being discussed previously in this forum.

Ultimately, my problem is that I have a real job and my free time is very limited. I had to invest over a hundred hours of it in each game (WITP-AE and WITE) only to discover that my opponent was taking advantage of game design flaws (and risking the whole game on them working). Like HansBolter, I'm ready to give up on PBEM for a long time again because the rewards don't seem to be worth the risks.

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 27
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 3:21:49 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 462
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

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


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



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





_____________________________

"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 Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 28
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 3:29:36 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8332
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

+1 to what the Moose said.

There is no reason to tar and feather the Japanese player. If he had triggered the reinforcement package against a prepared opponent, he'd be kicking himself the rest of the game. His was a high-stakes gamble that worked, possibly because he knew or suspected his opponent might not be familiar with the intricacies of a West Coast gambit. There shouldn't be any presumptions about his sportsmanship.

All of us, as new or fairly new players, had terrible things happen. Some were counterintuitive or wacky. Those debacles were some of the best learning experiences. Later, we always laugh at them.

If I were the Allied player, I'd probably soldier on. The loss of all those ships is paintful but not necessarily fatal. There's also the option of conceding and inviting the opponent to back up a week, if he wants to explore what might happen against a garrisoned West Coast, or to start over if both sides prefer a mulligan.



+1

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

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


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

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

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 29
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 3:31:28 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8332
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

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


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



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



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

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Two questions about a West Coast invasion Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

0.148