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  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/5/2018 6:43:52 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8345
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

Beanie (Norm) sent me a PM so I'm trying to get word back from his opponent to continue as new Allied High Command.
I'll try to do an AAR as this game will be different from others.

Please stand by,
Michael

Wow. Congrats. I will actually read the allied side on this one as it is intriguing.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 121
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/5/2018 7:36:01 PM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9517
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
It's the Allied turn, so I'll treat it like turn 2 and go through the whole map.
Lot's of stuff to do...click, click, click, etc.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 122
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/5/2018 8:31:18 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 3862
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
To start with I've not read the whole thread, so if I'm repeating something please forgive.

Also don't take what I'm saying too literally, or as being too harsh.

quote:

when I typed the search keyword "Portland" in this forum, I didn't get any records returned


Using the 'Search' here is a bit of an art more than science. Next time I recommend using different keywords. Also I find checking the 'less precise' (or whatever it says) box useful.

quote:

I'm ready to give up on PBEM for a long time again because the rewards don't seem to be worth the risks.


Please don't you'll be missing a great game once you've learned the lessons.

I believe you've also said you invested ~100 hours. Well I think I did that on my last first turn as Japan. Yeah, since I retired I spend ~100 hours every two weeks between the game and forum. Used to get that about every month when I was working. Not that you have to invest that much to this "time vampire" of game. The quote is from a player quite some time ago, but is very descriptive. The game is not for the weak of heart.

OK, that said, what happened to you is that you learned the hard way to take nothing for granted with this beast. If you think something is impossible you will quickly find an opponent here who will prove you wrong. As you will hear you need to keep as many of your units busy doing something more so than nothing. At the very least you need to keep all those home bound units building to help avoid an AV in '43. What this means is that you'll need the points for all those bases you can build up to offset your losses so as to compensate for the early point differentials that you'll experience. Now fort building doesn't count for the point offset, but its the first thing you'll need to do. As soon as the coast is secure build the ports/airfields to the max. As the Allies the supply costs to do this are inconsequential.

The layers of this game are immense and I learn something new almost every day, and I've been at it for more time than I care to admit. You know what, I'll never know it all, and I don't really expect to. Now I'm dying to do a PBEM, but I'm 'listening' to what I'm 'hearing' on the forum. So in order to not screw-up a game and waste time I keep at the AI. I expect to finally get there by the end of the year.

Now we are two different people so your way obviously doesn't have to be mine, nor would I expect it to be. You though will have to accept some more trial and error through PBEM than I. Not that I expect that I'll just breeze through when the time comes. Au contraire I fully expect to have my head handed to me on a platter once I go up against one of the real 'gurus' of this game. So like myself I suggest you pick and choose a player of your own experience level next time you delve into the 'deep end'. In addition send some e-mails back and forth describing what you want/expect. You and your opponent must choose each other to hopefully find a compatible experience.

OK, so I didn't notice whether you're playing stock or a 'mod'. If stock and you haven't read any AAR's (or maybe even if you have) I'd suggest you read Mike Solli's which is on scenario 1. It's the only one I've read all the way through so far. The game isn't for everyone, but if its your cup of tea don't give up too easily as it'll be your loss.

Remember its just a game and the only real thing you have to loose is time. So keep on running turns, reading the forum, and don't be afraid to ask questions as you can see there are many still here who are willing to help. This also applies while your in a game. Such as 'Early game as Allies what do I need to do first?' You'll get a bunch of responses. One you already know is to fortify and occupy west coast cities. Hey, just for fun watch the movie 1941.

Anyway hope you're not too discouraged and continue to 'soldier' on. Ciao.



_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 123
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/5/2018 8:35:36 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 3862
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I think Hans just enjoys twisting JFB tails.


quote:

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


Oh, Hans what would we do without you????

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 124
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/6/2018 11:33:58 AM   
HansBolter


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

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Come on guys, you're grasping at straws.

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

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

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

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

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

Its a huge design shortfall.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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



The point I am endeavoring to make and you are doing everything you can to avoid acknowledging is that an icon on the map with information about what is building in that shipyard would have gone a long way toward giving players a heads heads up about an asset that needs protecting.

The map gives me a heads up that there are aircraft factories at a given locale that needs protecting, but completely ignores alerting me to the presence of the construction shipyard.

How can anyone with functional gray matter between their ears fail to see that the presence of the icon would have been helpful?

How can you keep arguing against this?

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 5/6/2018 11:34:16 AM >


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 125
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/6/2018 12:08:51 PM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The point I am endeavoring to make and you are doing everything you can to avoid acknowledging is that an icon on the map with information about what is building in that shipyard would have gone a long way toward giving players a heads heads up about an asset that needs protecting.

The map gives me a heads up that there are aircraft factories at a given locale that needs protecting, but completely ignores alerting me to the presence of the construction shipyard.

How can anyone with functional gray matter between their ears fail to see that the presence of the icon would have been helpful?

How can you keep arguing against this?


I'm not avoiding it.

How can you, a self-proclaimed designer, not understand that what you're suggesting is:

1) Not possible to the degree you're suggesting it

2) Even if it were just the addition of a line on the base information mouse-over ("Ships arriving from queue: 210"), that would be a) atypical and b) where the hell do you draw the line at that point? The mouse-over can't display everything.

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be helpful. I'm arguing that it's not necessary and is not practical, from a design perspective.

You see, I've done plenty of UI and game design, too, and I still do information visualization. What kind of designer are you again? You didn't specify in your previous post.


My gray matter functions perfectly fine, thank you. I don't really need to ask how you can continue to belabor this point - everything about your objections screams that your response is more emotional than rational, and tied to feelings of "JAPAN BAD AND JAPAN PLAYERS WHINE A BUNCH."

Which is fine, you're allowed to do that. But don't pretend that your arguments aren't asinine, please.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 5/6/2018 12:09:05 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 126
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/6/2018 1:59:07 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
The US Army plan[ AR 380-5 Feb 26th, 1938] for defending the Columbia river:



. [1] From the standpoint of national defense the importance of the Columbia River lies in it's possible use as a route of access to the important north and south roads and the railroads in the vicinity of Longview Washington, approximately 50 nautical miles from the mouth of the river. With the exception of Astoria Oregon, the cities of importance are so far inland that they can be subjected to naval attack only after the enemy has proceeded well up the river. The water off Astoria would be of much value as an anchorage for enemy vessels during some of the heavy storms of frequent occurrance during the winter months.

[2] An approved project provides for the maintenance of a 35-foot channel 500 feet wide from the mouth of the Columbia River to Portland Oregon. While this will permit navigation of the river by almost all classes of ships, they will compelled to move at a comparatively slow speed, and there will be practically no maneuver room. Ships proceeding up the river would be vulnerable to the fire of the railway or tractor drawn artillery on the railway and highway on the south bank of the river. Ships would have to proceed in column and once committed it would be impossible for large ships to turn until one of the turning basins in the river was reached. The threat to enemy ships is so great that it appears improbable that it will ever be undertaken.


c. A controlled mine field is provided for the mouth of the river. As long as this is maintained enemy ships can be denied entrance to the river. This minefield is covered by three batteries, Allen, Pratt and Murphy, each of two 6-inch guns.



5. UNDERWATER DEFENSE.



seven groups of controlled mines.
two fixed listening posts


In mid december [17th] 1941 there are some changes, there are 3 lines of controlled mines[ 156 mines, these are Army mines, they are maintained by Army boats] across the Columbia, not 7 groups. Defense command did not even entertain the notion that an enemy could get to Portland, they didn't think it was probable to get to Longview. In mid december 1941, the Army took AA troops from the Atlantic area and moved them to the Pacific theater to man AA units. Portland was one of first 4 to get AA. The Army did consider it possible that a TF could approach the coast under cover of storms and launch a air attack on Portland. There were no railway guns available for the defense of the Columbia. There were also 2 Eng Bn's [29th & 30th; actually companies] in Portland. There were by Jan 42' 2000 militia in Portland and 500+] in Astoria and 300+ in Longview


_____________________________

"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 #: 127
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/6/2018 5:41:38 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8345
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2


In mid december [17th] 1941 there are some changes, there are 3 lines of controlled mines[ 156 mines, these are Army mines, they are maintained by Army boats] across the Columbia, not 7 groups. Defense command did not even entertain the notion that an enemy could get to Portland, they didn't think it was probable to get to Longview. In mid december 1941, the Army took AA troops from the Atlantic area and moved them to the Pacific theater to man AA units. Portland was one of first 4 to get AA. The Army did consider it possible that a TF could approach the coast under cover of storms and launch a air attack on Portland. There were no railway guns available for the defense of the Columbia. There were also 2 Eng Bn's [29th & 30th; actually companies] in Portland. There were by Jan 42' 2000 militia in Portland and 500+] in Astoria and 300+ in Longview


Very rationale, and Which the OP failed to do ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 128
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/6/2018 10:09:45 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 15475
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
I know the few times I have played the Allies I always garrison west coast bases with AA pronto and base some fighters up and down the coast.

Given Portland's industry they always would get a fair chunk of aerial defenses, plus it has to be in the top ten of naval repair yards the Allies have...meaning it might have some naval squads there and be converting/repairing ships.

However, my biggest fear is a naval air attack on the Warspite/Colorado in drydock...so there are pickets and naval search a plenty up in this neck of the woods.


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 129
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/7/2018 5:24:15 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3836
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2


In mid december [17th] 1941 there are some changes, there are 3 lines of controlled mines[ 156 mines, these are Army mines, they are maintained by Army boats] across the Columbia, not 7 groups. Defense command did not even entertain the notion that an enemy could get to Portland, they didn't think it was probable to get to Longview. In mid december 1941, the Army took AA troops from the Atlantic area and moved them to the Pacific theater to man AA units. Portland was one of first 4 to get AA. The Army did consider it possible that a TF could approach the coast under cover of storms and launch a air attack on Portland. There were no railway guns available for the defense of the Columbia. There were also 2 Eng Bn's [29th & 30th; actually companies] in Portland. There were by Jan 42' 2000 militia in Portland and 500+] in Astoria and 300+ in Longview


Very rationale, and Which the OP failed to do ...


The OP had a base force in Portland. I don't recall the number of personnel in a base force but active duty forces would be more effective than the 2k militia mentioned above.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 130
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/7/2018 8:37:02 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6170
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Planning the end of the world, well out to 2023!
Status: offline
The only saving grace to this is that it wasnt a "commando" raid on Portland.

2+ Divisions is a sizable attack and is probably there for a substantial stay.

Its a JFB taking full advantage of knowing exactly how the AFB economy works and sending forces to take them out, keep your eyes open for more attacks on vital points.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 131
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/7/2018 9:01:14 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1374
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

It's the Allied turn, so I'll treat it like turn 2 and go through the whole map.
Lot's of stuff to do...click, click, click, etc.


edit: Nevermind.

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 132
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 7:46:00 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1560
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: PRUSSIA (not "Germany")
Status: offline
Last time I checked the US has enough forces to protect the major coastal cities and the Canadians can also help they have bomber and search assets which can look out for invasions. At least the Seattle area can be covered only using Canadian planes. That should leave enough for good cover for the rest of the west coast.

Here an idea lets just give the US 30 more Catalinas at the beginning and 3 more armor divisions as fire brigade...

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 133
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 7:57:41 AM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1374
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
West Coast can be reasonabily well defended since january 1942. A good handle of the assets can make an USA invasion very difficult. 1 division per city plus 1 inf regt in coastal minor citys and end of the threat. The 7th Div which protects SF can be used as fire brigade too as it's armored and it make an initial assault VERY rough.

Obviously the allied must devote part of 8th December turn in turning ON all forts at WC/CDN

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 134
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 8:39:36 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1560
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: PRUSSIA (not "Germany")
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

West Coast can be reasonabily well defended since january 1942. A good handle of the assets can make an USA invasion very difficult. 1 division per city plus 1 inf regt in coastal minor citys and end of the threat. The 7th Div which protects SF can be used as fire brigade too as it's armored and it make an initial assault VERY rough.

Obviously the allied must devote part of 8th December turn in turning ON all forts at WC/CDN


I even turn forts on vs. the AI, the US has enough supplies (and fuel), even in my scen27 where I reduced the levels a bit. I never felt any lack of supplies or fuel nonetheless. (needs further reduction obviously as most know the early war allied supply problems do not exist in game). But I have never heard of the AI doing that move, I would be more careful in a PBM obviously :)

I was kind of surprised that also so many tankers appear at Portland - I knew the CVE buildings there of course.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 5/8/2018 8:40:30 AM >

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 135
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 11:58:02 AM   
patrickl


Posts: 1516
Joined: 6/20/2002
From: Singapore
Status: offline
In real life 40,000 Japanese soldiers cannot stand in the way of US Army wanting to take Portland back. So Portland shipbuilding facilities should survive after the IJA got wipe out.

_____________________________


Banner designed by rogueusmc

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 136
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 2:34:06 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3136
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Just throw a Donner Party for the invaders and everything will be mental as anything.

(in reply to patrickl)
Post #: 137
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 7:33:08 PM   
Lokasenna


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: patrickl

In real life 40,000 Japanese soldiers cannot stand in the way of US Army wanting to take Portland back. So Portland shipbuilding facilities should survive after the IJA got wipe out.


Except for the whole sabotage thing they could do.

(in reply to patrickl)
Post #: 138
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 7:34:40 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23039
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: patrickl

In real life 40,000 Japanese soldiers cannot stand in the way of US Army wanting to take Portland back. So Portland shipbuilding facilities should survive after the IJA got wipe out.


Except for the whole sabotage thing they could do.

They could at least blow up all the facilities. How long to recover? Wow!

_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 139
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 8:19:12 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1148
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
Silly that taking out Portland for one day, in Jan '42, somehow "kills" all the CVE's and tankers for the rest of the war.

As if the US couldn't build these ships elsewhere, as if they were planned to be built on Jan 1 '42. Like we'd be building liberty ships at 1x per hour (or whatever) in the Gulf coast.

Or "omg, Portland got invaded in Jan 1942, I guess that means we can't build a B17s in, idk, Omaha, or anywhere else. Them damn sneaky Japs ruining our unbuilt airplane factories!!!"

It's just a silly design decision. I'd say at best, give all those ships and planes a 1 month delay and have them come in on the East Coast.



Going for the West Coast on a "raid and destroy" mission is akin to loading up all the troops and making a beeline for Nomuea in the first week of game of UV.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 140
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 8:21:33 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1148
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
The Japs invaded Portland. I guess that means we can't build B29's anywhere else in the US. Ever.

_____________________________


(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 141
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 8:53:30 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 10517
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Silly that taking out Portland for one day, in Jan '42, somehow "kills" all the CVE's and tankers for the rest of the war.

As if the US couldn't build these ships elsewhere, as if they were planned to be built on Jan 1 '42. Like we'd be building liberty ships at 1x per hour (or whatever) in the Gulf coast.

Or "omg, Portland got invaded in Jan 1942, I guess that means we can't build a B17s in, idk, Omaha, or anywhere else. Them damn sneaky Japs ruining our unbuilt airplane factories!!!"

It's just a silly design decision. I'd say at best, give all those ships and planes a 1 month delay and have them come in on the East Coast.

Going for the West Coast on a "raid and destroy" mission is akin to loading up all the troops and making a beeline for Nomuea in the first week of game of UV.

Well, Michael M and Alfred made it clear that the design was for a GAME, not a historical simulator. Once that decision was made, and the one that says Japan needs some help to stay in the game until 1944 or later, it was logical to say that failure to defend the WCUSA should be punished severely. As it is, the Allies can still win the game, just as they could with loss of all their carriers in 1942. It just gets slower and demands more creative thinking about vectors for the pushback.
Having said that, I do not fault a new player for conceding and restarting because the handicap is just too great for an inexperienced player.

_____________________________

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 AcePylut)
Post #: 142
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 9:11:56 PM   
HansBolter


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Silly that taking out Portland for one day, in Jan '42, somehow "kills" all the CVE's and tankers for the rest of the war.

As if the US couldn't build these ships elsewhere, as if they were planned to be built on Jan 1 '42. Like we'd be building liberty ships at 1x per hour (or whatever) in the Gulf coast.

Or "omg, Portland got invaded in Jan 1942, I guess that means we can't build a B17s in, idk, Omaha, or anywhere else. Them damn sneaky Japs ruining our unbuilt airplane factories!!!"

It's just a silly design decision. I'd say at best, give all those ships and planes a 1 month delay and have them come in on the East Coast.



Going for the West Coast on a "raid and destroy" mission is akin to loading up all the troops and making a beeline for Nomuea in the first week of game of UV.



Thank you. It refreshing to get a corroborating opinion on juts how much of a weasel tactic this is.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 143
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 9:35:13 PM   
Lokasenna


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Silly that taking out Portland for one day, in Jan '42, somehow "kills" all the CVE's and tankers for the rest of the war.

As if the US couldn't build these ships elsewhere, as if they were planned to be built on Jan 1 '42. Like we'd be building liberty ships at 1x per hour (or whatever) in the Gulf coast.

Or "omg, Portland got invaded in Jan 1942, I guess that means we can't build a B17s in, idk, Omaha, or anywhere else. Them damn sneaky Japs ruining our unbuilt airplane factories!!!"

It's just a silly design decision. I'd say at best, give all those ships and planes a 1 month delay and have them come in on the East Coast.



Going for the West Coast on a "raid and destroy" mission is akin to loading up all the troops and making a beeline for Nomuea in the first week of game of UV.



Thank you. It refreshing to get a corroborating opinion on juts how much of a weasel tactic this is.




This isn't a historical simulation. It's a game, and game designs that are based on history require abstractions.

Funny how you don't see many people calling "Sir Robin" a "weasel tactic", or Fortress Palembang a "weasel tactic", isn't it? The Allies would never have done either of those in the real world, yet there's barely anything but crickets on the forum when these things occur.



If Japan had landed in force in the PNW on sabotage missions and managed to "capture" what is the Portland hex in the game, even if only for a day... fine, I'll grant that the steel and other materials used to build those CVEs (and other ships) would have been diverted to other shipyards and the CVEs (and other ships) probably still would have been produced. But such an action would have had a lasting impact on the war, which is precisely what VPs are supposed to be an abstraction of. The psychological effect of a successful (even if only momentarily) hit-and-run mission by the Japanese in the war would have been immense. If the shipyards at Portland had been sabotaged, regardless of whether they'd been repaired, who knows what resources would have been devoted to protected CONUS deep into the war against any more end-run sabotage missions by Japan? Or the aircraft factories in Seattle? And the destruction of industrial assets is not an inconsequential matter, in any case - it would take months to retool or build additional factories to replace those lost, particularly aircraft factories.

On a related note, funny how neglecting any/much rear area security tactics (such as pickets and coastal defense patrols) is never seen as a "weasel tactic", eh? But when the Japanese player exploits such weaknesses, it is of course unfair advantages just baked into the game, or some such.

Such entitlement.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 144
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 10:01:37 PM   
DRF99


Posts: 89
Joined: 9/3/2009
Status: offline
I see this as an oversight or at least something that didn't make the cut in the design of the game, fair enough.

Using picket ships, "Sir Robin", Fortress Palembang, though they may not have been done in real life, could have been done given the political and military will. I see these as abstractions. Universal supply, off map movement file consumption, and aircraft replacements I see as a similar abstractions.

However, the capture of a port destroying ships that won't be built for years I see as an oversight. It's not something that would or could happen in real life.

If the game is ever updated, I would like to see construction shipyards. Capture would cause any ships under construction to be delayed by some amount for each day the city was captured and the construction shipyard could be damaged. At the same time, I can see political points being subtracted each day for certain events such as a Japanese invasion of the continental US, an allied invasion of Hokkaido, and similar events that would have been catastrophic politically in real life.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 145
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 10:11:13 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5202
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DRF99

I see this as an oversight or at least something that didn't make the cut in the design of the game, fair enough.

Using picket ships, "Sir Robin", Fortress Palembang, though they may not have been done in real life, could have been done given the political and military will. I see these as abstractions. Universal supply, off map movement file consumption, and aircraft replacements I see as a similar abstractions.

However, the capture of a port destroying ships that won't be built for years I see as an oversight. It's not something that would or could happen in real life.

If the game is ever updated, I would like to see construction shipyards. Capture would cause any ships under construction to be delayed by some amount for each day the city was captured and the construction shipyard could be damaged. At the same time, I can see political points being subtracted each day for certain events such as a Japanese invasion of the continental US, an allied invasion of Hokkaido, and similar events that would have been catastrophic politically in real life.


It was not an oversight. It is a very deliberate design feature whose rationale has been clearly explained in the past. Plus it is based on real world considerations of how economies operate, and how ships are actually built.

Alfred

(in reply to DRF99)
Post #: 146
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 10:44:00 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5202
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


...If Japan had landed in force in the PNW on sabotage missions and managed to "capture" what is the Portland hex in the game, even if only for a day... fine, I'll grant that the steel and other materials used to build those CVEs (and other ships) would have been diverted to other shipyards and the CVEs (and other ships) probably still would have been produced. But such an action would have had a lasting impact on the war, which is precisely what VPs are supposed to be an abstraction of. The psychological effect of a successful (even if only momentarily) hit-and-run mission by the Japanese in the war would have been immense. If the shipyards at Portland had been sabotaged, regardless of whether they'd been repaired, who knows what resources would have been devoted to protected CONUS deep into the war against any more end-run sabotage missions by Japan? Or the aircraft factories in Seattle? And the destruction of industrial assets is not an inconsequential matter, in any case - it would take months to retool or build additional factories to replace those lost, particularly aircraft factories...



You are greatly underplaying the dramatic real world economic disruption which would have occurred. There was no industrial slack elsewhere in the USA to simply allow relocation of this ship production easily with only a relatively small delay in production.

1. There was a reason why only 6 new automobiles were built during the war in the USA. The steel, aluminium, labour etc was needed for war production. Civilian demand for automobiles was still present. So what other suitable civilian or wartime production could be further curtailed to provide the resources to fully accommodate the loss of Portland.

2. Yes, even the USA economy was limited as to the number of suitable sites for construction of capital class ships. If there were so many virgin green sites available for plonking down these shipyards, why were they not built at the time? Why wait until well into 1943 and later to lay down these keels when these virgin sites apparently could have been built starting on 8 December 1941. Why build ships sequentially in a shipyard if they could all be built simultaneously; 1 capital ship per shipyard would have seen all Essex class carriers operational in April 1943, all Iowa class battleships operational in late 1943, all the Montana class battleships completed and operational in 1944. Then of course why wait for all the smaller fry such as the Fletchers, the landing ships, the Gato and Balao class subs to come in dribs, when with all this implied virgin green sites available for building shipyards they could have come in all at once the lead vessel of the class had been completed.

3. Labour is a critical input into the construction of ships. Forget for a moment the immense difficulties which surround constructing the construction facilities elsewhere, obtaining the necessary skilled labour would be a huge obstacles. Japan capturing Portland not only entails the destruction of the shipyards but also the loss of all the skilled workers employed in the shipyards. Unless someone is going to put forward the fantasy argument that any American territory which was captured had the entire population evacuated simultaneously as the territory was lost thereby maintaining full industrial production literally up to the last minute and making the skilled labour immediately available to work elsewhere.

Alfred

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 147
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/8/2018 11:33:46 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 4703
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Roosevelt could NEVER have sold "Europe First" to anyone if the United States actually had enemy troops on its soil. As it stands the Allied Player has this "Europe First" political decision as a given. With enemy troops on US soil the flow of reinforcements would have been 90% against Japan as would all the upgrades to modern aircraft (even the remaining 10% might be in dispute).

The United States reached some 90+% mobilization sometime in 1944 and then stopped converting industries to war production. The Japanese were at 100% on day 1. The idea that the US would be publishing recipes for grass in one of its major newspapers (such as the Tokyo Times) at any point prior to the fall of England and Russia to the Germans is absurd. So the idea that, armed with the foreknowledge that a bunch of US reinforcements will appear in a certain place and will be wiped out permanently by some sacrificial invasion of the US right after the declaration of war is beyond the pale.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 148
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 3:39:26 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8345
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 149
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 6:20:48 AM   
Lokasenna


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


...If Japan had landed in force in the PNW on sabotage missions and managed to "capture" what is the Portland hex in the game, even if only for a day... fine, I'll grant that the steel and other materials used to build those CVEs (and other ships) would have been diverted to other shipyards and the CVEs (and other ships) probably still would have been produced. But such an action would have had a lasting impact on the war, which is precisely what VPs are supposed to be an abstraction of. The psychological effect of a successful (even if only momentarily) hit-and-run mission by the Japanese in the war would have been immense. If the shipyards at Portland had been sabotaged, regardless of whether they'd been repaired, who knows what resources would have been devoted to protected CONUS deep into the war against any more end-run sabotage missions by Japan? Or the aircraft factories in Seattle? And the destruction of industrial assets is not an inconsequential matter, in any case - it would take months to retool or build additional factories to replace those lost, particularly aircraft factories...



You are greatly underplaying the dramatic real world economic disruption which would have occurred. There was no industrial slack elsewhere in the USA to simply allow relocation of this ship production easily with only a relatively small delay in production.

1. There was a reason why only 6 new automobiles were built during the war in the USA. The steel, aluminium, labour etc was needed for war production. Civilian demand for automobiles was still present. So what other suitable civilian or wartime production could be further curtailed to provide the resources to fully accommodate the loss of Portland.

2. Yes, even the USA economy was limited as to the number of suitable sites for construction of capital class ships. If there were so many virgin green sites available for plonking down these shipyards, why were they not built at the time? Why wait until well into 1943 and later to lay down these keels when these virgin sites apparently could have been built starting on 8 December 1941. Why build ships sequentially in a shipyard if they could all be built simultaneously; 1 capital ship per shipyard would have seen all Essex class carriers operational in April 1943, all Iowa class battleships operational in late 1943, all the Montana class battleships completed and operational in 1944. Then of course why wait for all the smaller fry such as the Fletchers, the landing ships, the Gato and Balao class subs to come in dribs, when with all this implied virgin green sites available for building shipyards they could have come in all at once the lead vessel of the class had been completed.

3. Labour is a critical input into the construction of ships. Forget for a moment the immense difficulties which surround constructing the construction facilities elsewhere, obtaining the necessary skilled labour would be a huge obstacles. Japan capturing Portland not only entails the destruction of the shipyards but also the loss of all the skilled workers employed in the shipyards. Unless someone is going to put forward the fantasy argument that any American territory which was captured had the entire population evacuated simultaneously as the territory was lost thereby maintaining full industrial production literally up to the last minute and making the skilled labour immediately available to work elsewhere.

Alfred


I was indeed, because abstractions and because estimating the impact on all of the things you mention gets really hard and into unknown territory.

I think the gain of the VPs by Japan of all the ships that would be destroyed in the queue is a "good enough" estimate of what the real-world impact of a "smash and grab" invasion would have done.

And the same glaring weaknesses of the Japanese move would have been present in the real world, just as they are in the game with such a move. Diverting forces to invade CONUS in January 1942 has lots of consequences.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.172