From: Iowan in MD/DC
What an interesting discussion.
I'm yet to play a PBEM game of WITP AE, though this thread got me seriously thinking about how should I treat House Ruless in the future if/when I actually try PBEMing. So far, I'm sticking with "enemy is the greatest teacher" mentality and think about avoiding having any rules at all. This particular Portland attack taught me to 1) having formidable garrisons in production/arrival centers; 2) turn on strat mode for stand by QRF units.
But then again, being an adept of military history, I'm thinking about one rule that I actually might want to have - "no hindsight/out-of-game intel usage". How one, as Japanese player, does recon/gain intel on such a thing as CVEs being built in Portland without starting the game as the Allies and actually looking into arrival queue? There are no actual Allied shipbuilding facilities, so there's no way of recon-ing them, so... Yeah?
Said I was done. I lied. This poster makes a HUGE point. There are NO shipnuilding facilities to be destroyed.
If the designers had the presence of mind to recognize that without a shipbuilding facility with a cue that can be examined to understand just how many ships are building at that locale the newbie Allied players has NOTHING to cue them to the need to defend that locale because there is NOTHING there to be lost.
NOT including the construction shipyards was a HUGE design flaw that newbie Allied players suffer because of.
...that's merely the lack of production system for the Allies, which the design team explicitly did not include because it would be way too overpowering to be able to control the production of the US war machine. It already gets massive surpluses; being able to manipulate those excesses for even greater efficiency would be ridiculous.
The reason why the production exists for Japan is that, in real life, Japan made (or was forced into) questionable or bad production decisions. There are many economic abstractions made, but they're still there. But the ability to change production plans is part of the "what if" nature that is the core of this entire game.
By the way, the same interface that the Japanese player uses to see which ships are building and where is the exact same screen the the Allied player uses to see which ships arrive and where. It's the same thing. Your statement is incorrect.
And I'm sorry, but there were absolutely shipyards in Portland that predate the start of the Pacific War: "In 1940, Henry J. Kaiser signed an agreement with the British government to build 31 cargo ships to aid that country in their war effort. After scouting several sites, Kaiser chose to construct a new shipbuilding yard in Portland, Oregon, and on May 19, 1941, his Oregon Shipbuilding Corporation launched the first Liberty ship". Source.
ORIGINAL: von Beanie
Rather, I'm amazed and impressed that some people have enough time to find exploits like these.
This is neither a design flaw or an exploit. This was real possibility that the REAL commanders of the time defended against.
Yep, none of those measures are in the game. It was impossible for an enemy to travel to Portland by river, you are talking about a 100 miles of river.
The measures in place in january 42' in Oregon; were 500 observation posts across the state manned 24 hrs a day, Civil Air patrol searches, mobilized State Guard; in Portland alone in jan 42' over 2000[ armed with WW1 era rifles], increasing to over 4500 by mid 42'; can't find how many in Astoria or Longview, but they had units. The sinking of ships in the river channel to stop movement was an obvious measure, and in the unlikely event that they got as far as the Lewis and Clark bridge, dropping it into the river. They did have measures, OBVIOUS ones that made an attempt impossible, none of which are in the game. You might as well have the USS Nimitz show up with F-14's, it is possible; saw a documentary on that, or Japanese paratroopers dropping into the Sonoma wheat fields
In the only other somewhat similar invasions:
In the assault on Palembang, the troops were unloaded onto barges that went up the river, the ships stayed at the mouth of the river.
The invasion of Canton, they took an island, took 10 months to build it up and then did an invasion of Canton.
But you failed to establish your op's by not garrisoning. You failed to establish the recon/NavSearch patrols. In your game, you had no op's, no NavSearch, the river was not protected and you will lose a major base as you should.
What should you do? If you want to earn admiration in the community, look at Lowpe's AAR for a good example. Or not.
You are earning green buttons ... moreso, you are also losing potential gaming partners ...
My post was directed at "This was real possibility that the REAL commanders of the time defended against."
No, they didn't move troops to Portland to guard against a river amphibious assault, no one would be stupid enough to send ships 100 miles up a river knowing that all the enemy had to do was sink a sink a ship in front and one behind and your whole force is stranded in the middle of nowhere.
Pax was referring to general fears that Japan was going to attack the West Coast in a broader sense. Having rapid response units and fortifying important bases was done by the historical command.
Pax, you are staring to make me wonder if this close minded community is worth working to gain the admiration of.
I find the magnitude of your belief that you're some kind of martyr to be admirable, in a sense.
The "you failed to defend" tact is extremely harsh when to a newbie Allied player there is NOTHING there that needs defending.
Is no one here besides me capable of seeing just how unfair this is to a newbie Allied player when he doesn't see any construction shipyards full of building ships he needs to protect?
Except for all of the ships that arrive there, and whatever else is at the base in terms of industry - information that is freely accessible.
The "ships destroyed while building" thing is right there on the victory conditions page. If you start a game without knowing what the victory conditions are (and I don't think the OP did so, but he did miss this clearly visible part of it), that's not anybody else's problem and it's not a problem with the game.
Also, if a player has played as the Allies through at least the fall of Singapore, they should have noticed a "destroyed while building" for the various small craft that are "built" there. Even if previously ignorant of the effect, that should have been a first clue.
Yes, I get the fact that Allied construction shipyards are an abstraction, what you all don't seem to be getting is that it is a bloody abstraction that puts newbie Allied players at a bloody disadvantage.
So you show no compassion for a newbie player who has been duped by a veteran and simply say "buck up and soldier on"?
It sounds harsh, but ignorance of this really is a case of RTM or figure it out the hard way.
Plenty of compassion has been shown: "that sucks buddy, here's what you can do to try to dig yourself out of the mess, but if it's too late here are your other options."