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  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 3:46:35 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 15801
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

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


You say you're not condemning your opponent, but "exploit" is a loaded word that implies condemnation.

I don't think you necessarily mean to condemn, but what we're trying to tell you is, "This isn't an exploit." It's a well-known feature of the game, but one that it often takes experience (playing and/or reading the forum) to become aware of.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 5/2/2018 3:49:09 PM >

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 31
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 3:51:21 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


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.



It is only an abstraction because the game has to allow for shipping from Portland to the Pacific; and the game mechanics can't prevent the other side from exploiting it. It is a river, not a 40 mile wide avenue.

_____________________________

"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 Lokasenna)
Post #: 32
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 3:52:52 PM   
DanSez


Posts: 890
Joined: 2/5/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

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

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

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


I understand the frustration. But don't give up hope on finding a good opponent. They do exist. Not everyone is a min/maxer out for digital blood at every turn.

Don't let one bad experience color your view entirely.
Did you find better opponents after your WiTE encounter?

If you feel 'wronged' by your opponent, then speak plainly to your feelings and see if you can salvage the game, or end it and maybe look for a small scenario opponent as a method to find a good game partner.


(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 33
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 3:55:59 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7823
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

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

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

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


I understand feeling demoralized, and I hope you're not beating yourself up over this.

I also hope that you stick with the game and play it to its conclusion, and if it doesn't end in a victory for you I hope that you play another. The game allows for immense "what if" creativity - but on the flip side, extreme moves like this often (always?) leave extreme vulnerabilities elsewhere. Since he invaded in January 1942, his closest bases that are beyond minimal size would have to be in the Marshall Islands (which are themselves, arguably, minimal). Beyond that, Japan itself. That's a very, very long ways. He almost certainly has no planes here, unless he captured a base already and flew some off of carriers (leaving those carriers more vulnerable).

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 34
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:00:12 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

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


You say you're not condemning your opponent, but "exploit" is a loaded word that implies condemnation.

I don't think you necessarily mean to condemn, but what we're trying to tell you is, "This isn't an exploit." It's a well-known feature of the game, but one that it often takes experience (playing and/or reading the forum) to become aware of.


Of course it is an exploit; it is there so the US can move ships from Portland to the sea and wasn't worth the time or effort to stop an enemy from going up 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 Canoerebel)
Post #: 35
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:07:24 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7823
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

Of course it is an exploit; it is there so the US can move ships from Portland to the sea and wasn't worth the time or effort to stop an enemy from going up the river.



I don't follow.

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 36
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:09:41 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

Of course it is an exploit; it is there so the US can move ships from Portland to the sea and wasn't worth the time or effort to stop an enemy from going up the river.



I don't follow.



The programmers did not see the need to write the code to prevent it, probably because it might have caused problems elsewhere.

_____________________________

"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 Lokasenna)
Post #: 37
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:20:26 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6047
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
Its definitely an exploit and demonstrative of just how ungrateful so many Japanese players seem to be.

Japanese players need to be grateful for all of the gimme's the designers handed them in "upgrading" Japan to make the side viable for competitive play.

Instead, why do so many of them demonstrate ingratitude by looking for ways to take the Japanese side even further over the top?


Give an inch......

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 38
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:24:39 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 15801
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: online
Hans, I'm the ultimate AFB. My DNA prevents me from playing as Japan. But this is not an exploit - it's just part of the game, similar to a zillion other abstractions. And Japanese players are not ungrateful. Getting hysterical over small things, drawing lines in the sand, and maligning half (or more) of the community without justification is counterproductive.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 39
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:35:18 PM   
pontiouspilot


Posts: 915
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline
relax...your opponent will get stuck on the bloody I-5 bridge in a traffic jam and will go nowhere!

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 40
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:41:24 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11124
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

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

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

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


As explained, it's not a flaw or an exploit.

The Search function is what it is, and I agree it's difficult to use. But Portland has been discussed here in the last two years several times.

If you're playing the Allies in 1941/42 you need to be paranoid. If you're playing an excellent player you need to be paranoid to 1946.

100 hours is not much time invested. A PBEM will be thousands. But playing the AI has certain advantages and disadvantages. Or you could advertise for a less-experienced PBEM opponent. Several ways to go.


< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 5/2/2018 5:00:57 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 41
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:42:52 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11124
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

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?



In RL, with combat engineers. In the game, there are no bridges per se. Abstractions.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 42
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:48:25 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11124
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


+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 Stock 1 I think Portland is 46 CVEs. About ten arrive at Tacoma before the first Portland. Many of them have the Replacement squadrons on board. Later, a few arrive at Balboa. The RN CVEs are mostly Aden, and late 1944 and into 1945. Too late to help with a lot of necessary amphib ops. The Portland CVEs are critical to 1943 for sure.

Without 46 CVEs every op in 1943 and most of 1944 HAS to have CVs. They can't be elsewhere, and they can't get seriously hurt. If they do, with transit and repair, the Allies are out of the island business for 3-6 months. The timetable to auto-vic for the Allies does not allow them waiting until 1944 to begin moving on the defense perimeter. Not with the prep rules the game has.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 5/2/2018 5:02:24 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 43
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:55:02 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11124
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

It is only an abstraction because the game has to allow for shipping from Portland to the Pacific; and the game mechanics can't prevent the other side from exploiting it. It is a river, not a 40 mile wide avenue.


Astoria has a very good fixed CD unit in stock. 6in guns and big mortars. It's not a narrow hex by the narrow-hex rules though.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 44
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:58:17 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1441
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
Here is a thread that discusses a West Coast invasion

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3039678&mpage=2&key=Portland-

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 45
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 4:59:52 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11124
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

Of course it is an exploit; it is there so the US can move ships from Portland to the sea and wasn't worth the time or effort to stop an enemy from going up the river.



I don't follow.



The programmers did not see the need to write the code to prevent it, probably because it might have caused problems elsewhere.


Like preventing bombardment of Rangoon. Palembang. Saigon, others on big rivers. Naval use of several key bases in China such an Anking.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 46
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 5:10:32 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11124
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Here is a thread that discusses a West Coast invasion

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3039678&mpage=2&key=Portland-


Ah, the good old days.

Blackhorse, here and in a couple of other threads, goes deep into the dev discussion of all ahistoric, continental and NZ invasions, their ER packages, and potential responses. It was not a trivial discussion in the development process. It's not an accident or an oversight. Disagree if you like with their conclusions and subsequent game code, but the way it works wasn't an accident or oversight.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 47
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 5:13:01 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6047
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Hans, I'm the ultimate AFB. My DNA prevents me from playing as Japan. But this is not an exploit - it's just part of the game, similar to a zillion other abstractions. And Japanese players are not ungrateful. Getting hysterical over small things, drawing lines in the sand, and maligning half (or more) of the community without justification is counterproductive.


We will simply have to agree to disagree.
You might want to take a step back and consider if labeling me as hysterical qualified as maligning.

I do appreciate your attempt to calm my hysteria.
It is not always my intent to be productive.
Some things in life just deserve being slammed.

Since my devil's advocate position doesn't seem to be contributing anything productive I'll bow out.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 48
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 5:44:07 PM   
rsallen64


Posts: 113
Joined: 6/15/2009
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I get this can be done in game terms, but in looking at the map, I see two hexes between Portland and the Pacific, and one of them is the Astoria hex. I have been to Portland many, many times. the Columbia river between Astoria and Portland may be deep enough for ocean going vessels, but it is not that wide. When you get to Longview, it's not wide at all.

My point is that I fail to see how a Japanese invasion CONVOY could ever sail all the way up the Columbia to land at Portland. Not gonna happen. And landing at Astoria, as apparently happened here, raises it's own problems, because you can only get to Portland by either going down the Columbia, going over the Coastal Mountain range, which while not very high is very rugged and wooded, or taking the very limited road network through or around the Coastal Range to Portland. The roads aren't that prolific today: I can't imagine how bad they were in the 1940's.

Abstraction is one thing. But a Japanese invasion force would take quite a while to move from Astoria to Portland. Not to mention the tide/river conditions at the mouth of the Columbia at Astoria are famous for how tricky they are.

_____________________________

Desert War 1940-1942 Beta Tester
Agressors: Ancient Rome Beta Tester

"The greatest and noblest pleasure which men can have in this world is to discover new truths; and the next is to shake off old prejudices." Frederick the Great

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 49
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 5:55:48 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 15801
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: online
Abstraction is a significant part of the game. It's pervasive and necessary. It results in all kinds of oddities that affect one side or the other or both. For instance, tanks can rumble across trackless Australia without any real fuel concerns; for that matter, so can armies; life happens in one-second increments (well, actually, it's simply continuous) while the game happens in 24-hour intervals (HUGE abstraction); all ships basically draw identical ammo and can thus replenish from the same port; sub and ship crews never show fatigue; winter in the Arctic is December 1 to March 1 every year, without fail; and 27 zillion other things.

Bottom line: Allied player wishes to avoid Japan taking Portland? Build some forts, have a modest garrison, have some mobile reserve troops in strat mode in a central location to respond to nefarious Japanese operations on West Coast.


< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 5/2/2018 5:56:27 PM >

(in reply to rsallen64)
Post #: 50
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 5:58:21 PM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2063
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline
Whether by design or exploit, a Japanese move of this sort is obviously intended for a short term quick miracle victory at the expense of long term viability. It's fun to see as a spectator, and maybe even fun to experience -- once -- as a player on the receiving end. But IMHO it is fair to say this is not the sort of game most players have in mind when they start, and that is certainly the case for the OP. My advice to the OP is simply to concede graciously and start again with a fresh game.

(in reply to rsallen64)
Post #: 51
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 6:38:06 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7823
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Its definitely an exploit and demonstrative of just how ungrateful so many Japanese players seem to be.

Japanese players need to be grateful for all of the gimme's the designers handed them in "upgrading" Japan to make the side viable for competitive play.

Instead, why do so many of them demonstrate ingratitude by looking for ways to take the Japanese side even further over the top?


Give an inch......


Hans, you're getting off-base with your vitriol here.

By the same logic, players playing as the Allied should be grateful for even having an opponent, be it the AI or a human. Among other things.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 52
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 6:39:52 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7823
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


+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 Stock 1 I think Portland is 46 CVEs. About ten arrive at Tacoma before the first Portland. Many of them have the Replacement squadrons on board. Later, a few arrive at Balboa. The RN CVEs are mostly Aden, and late 1944 and into 1945. Too late to help with a lot of necessary amphib ops. The Portland CVEs are critical to 1943 for sure.

Without 46 CVEs every op in 1943 and most of 1944 HAS to have CVs. They can't be elsewhere, and they can't get seriously hurt. If they do, with transit and repair, the Allies are out of the island business for 3-6 months. The timetable to auto-vic for the Allies does not allow them waiting until 1944 to begin moving on the defense perimeter. Not with the prep rules the game has.


Right, but it's not impossible

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 53
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 7:15:00 PM   
dwesolick


Posts: 511
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Man, this thread has made me paranoid. I just sent some reinforcements to Portland in my AI game... just in case
As for the controversy, my understanding of a gamey/exploit move is one that is technically doable in a game but that is grossly a-historical. How would Japan invading Portland in early 42 (or anytime) not qualify?

_____________________________

"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 Lokasenna)
Post #: 54
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 7:21:24 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 15801
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: online
Under your test, a lot of things that happen in the game qualify as gamey/exploitive. Just for one: cooperation between Japanese Army and Navy. Absolutely exploitive and gamey. But it's just part of the game.

A better test is this: (1) was it possible in the real war? (2) if not, is there a reasonable counter?

If either answer is "yes," then we live with it.

The game is nine years old. There are abstractions and warts. They aren't major, at least when we learn how to handle them.

(in reply to dwesolick)
Post #: 55
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 7:54:35 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11124
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Under your test, a lot of things that happen in the game qualify as gamey/exploitive. Just for one: cooperation between Japanese Army and Navy. Absolutely exploitive and gamey. But it's just part of the game.

A better test is this: (1) was it possible in the real war? (2) if not, is there a reasonable counter?

If either answer is "yes," then we live with it.

The game is nine years old. There are abstractions and warts. They aren't major, at least when we learn how to handle them.



Almost to Page 3 and no one has mentioned the Owen Stanley Range and marching IDs over it. Come on Page 3!

(These kids today. No respect for a good mountain range . . .)

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 56
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 8:03:12 PM   
dwesolick


Posts: 511
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Under your test, a lot of things that happen in the game qualify as gamey/exploitive. Just for one: cooperation between Japanese Army and Navy. Absolutely exploitive and gamey. But it's just part of the game.

A better test is this: (1) was it possible in the real war? (2) if not, is there a reasonable counter?

If either answer is "yes," then we live with it.



I wasn't suggesting we commit mass suicide (BANZAI!) just suggesting that launching a throw-away invasion of Portland just to ruin the production there for the rest of the game is an exploit and is by definition gamey.
Best way to live with it is to either stick to AI or play against opponents who don't go in for such nonsense.

_____________________________

"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 Canoerebel)
Post #: 57
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 8:06:27 PM   
dontra85

 

Posts: 131
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
I find a called gamey when the allies don't properly protect their bases yet see no problem attacking shaklin and hokkaido when the south Pacific is strongly defended. Despite the fact that the allies lost over 1000 planes to fog in the aluetiens alone. Even with the loss of the 31 cves the allies get so much equipment that is far superior so it may actually take them into 1945 to invade japan. It just won't be a pushover in 44 as they anticipated. They will have to work for a game.

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 58
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 8:56:40 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7823
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Under your test, a lot of things that happen in the game qualify as gamey/exploitive. Just for one: cooperation between Japanese Army and Navy. Absolutely exploitive and gamey. But it's just part of the game.

A better test is this: (1) was it possible in the real war? (2) if not, is there a reasonable counter?

If either answer is "yes," then we live with it.



I wasn't suggesting we commit mass suicide (BANZAI!) just suggesting that launching a throw-away invasion of Portland just to ruin the production there for the rest of the game is an exploit and is by definition gamey.
Best way to live with it is to either stick to AI or play against opponents who don't go in for such nonsense.


It's still:

1) Resources committed at the expense of something else
2) Fully counter-able or able to be mitigated

(in reply to dwesolick)
Post #: 59
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/2/2018 9:16:46 PM   
dontra85

 

Posts: 131
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
So I guess itake ok to invade the NE with two corps on 43 when the allies are strong but gamey to attack the nw usa and Canada with 2 corps when they are weak. Nice stategery

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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  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

0.176