Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 6:23:23 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8462
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence


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.


This is what the emergency reinforcements package is supposed to represent, to a degree if not in full.

Many of the LCUs that show up are those initial units that were sent to "Europe" (in actuality Africa) instead of the Pacific. I don't know about the planes.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 151
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 10:00:58 AM   
tarkalak

 

Posts: 202
Joined: 6/26/2017
From: Bulgaria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo




+1

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 152
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 11:53:39 AM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/14/2004
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


You are being a tad disingenuous, Kaiser's shipyards were not like the shipyards for building the capital ships. Other shipyards built ships, Kaiser assembled ships. When Kaiser couldn't get steel , he built the largest steel mill in the western US in 9 months during the war. When he told the Navy that he could build 50 CVE's, the Navy told him no; he went to Roosevelt and got the ok, so the resources and labor were there. His shipyards were built in 5 to 9 months, most built during the war. He built a city[ complete with schools, hospitals and a college-now Portland State] of 10,000 in months to house workers imported from across the country, utilized women and African -Americans for labor, he was not dependent upon local labor. Kaiser was a industrial genius, when the WPB during the war asked him to oversee the Brewster Aircraft facilities, with the same plant and workforce; they went from 12 planes a month to over a 120 a month.
IMHO A Ballpark figure for the disruption to production would be 9-12 months.


IMHO a fantasy is moving a 100 miles up the Columbia River to invade Portland



_____________________________

"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 Alfred)
Post #: 153
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 1:01:19 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
Considering the hysteria present in the US immediately following Pearl Harbor, I wonder if the VP reflections for a CONUS invasion are too low...




/s

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 154
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 3:00:45 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 4808
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

You are being a tad disingenuous, Kaiser's shipyards were not like the shipyards for building the capital ships. Other shipyards built ships, Kaiser assembled ships. When Kaiser couldn't get steel , he built the largest steel mill in the western US in 9 months during the war. When he told the Navy that he could build 50 CVE's, the Navy told him no; he went to Roosevelt and got the ok, so the resources and labor were there. His shipyards were built in 5 to 9 months, most built during the war. He built a city[ complete with schools, hospitals and a college-now Portland State] of 10,000 in months to house workers imported from across the country, utilized women and African -Americans for labor, he was not dependent upon local labor. Kaiser was a industrial genius, when the WPB during the war asked him to oversee the Brewster Aircraft facilities, with the same plant and workforce; they went from 12 planes a month to over a 120 a month.
IMHO A Ballpark figure for the disruption to production would be 9-12 months.


Thus it is likely that the same shipyard/city may well have appeared in some other place in roughly the same time period and produced all of those ships elsewhere.


quote:

Considering the hysteria present in the US immediately following Pearl Harbor, I wonder if the VP reflections for a CONUS invasion are too low...


However my point was that once committed to repelling an actual Japanese invasion of the homeland there is little likelihood that Roosevelt was going to turn the entire US around to take on the Germans. Lend Lease would have probably continued and the Atlantic Fleet would have fought the U-boats but no great increase in force allocation to a European War could have occurred. Quite likely the exact outcome of the war in Europe would have changed but that is not the concern of this forum.

BTW - How would the Japanese supply an invasion of CONUS?
How fit would two divisions of IJA troops be after sailing 8000 miles across a stormy North Pacific?


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 155
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 3:22:58 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23752
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2


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


You are being a tad disingenuous, Kaiser's shipyards were not like the shipyards for building the capital ships. Other shipyards built ships, Kaiser assembled ships. When Kaiser couldn't get steel , he built the largest steel mill in the western US in 9 months during the war. When he told the Navy that he could build 50 CVE's, the Navy told him no; he went to Roosevelt and got the ok, so the resources and labor were there. His shipyards were built in 5 to 9 months, most built during the war. He built a city[ complete with schools, hospitals and a college-now Portland State] of 10,000 in months to house workers imported from across the country, utilized women and African -Americans for labor, he was not dependent upon local labor. Kaiser was a industrial genius, when the WPB during the war asked him to oversee the Brewster Aircraft facilities, with the same plant and workforce; they went from 12 planes a month to over a 120 a month.
IMHO A Ballpark figure for the disruption to production would be 9-12 months.


IMHO a fantasy is moving a 100 miles up the Columbia River to invade Portland



"disingenuous" is uncalled for. You might well correct what Alfred said if he is mistaken, but dishonest he is not.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 156
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 3:45:42 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 17611
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: online
Yeah, this is one of the few times I've seen some Forumites fail to act with civility. I hope it's the exception and we'll soon revert to normal.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 157
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 4:20:25 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
?? Dishonest ?? That was not my intent; as used in the context of the paragraph, I was trying to say that his comparison of shipyards was not "apples to apples", or "apples to oranges" it is something in between.

I humbly apologize if I gave the impression that I was accusing anyone of being dishonest.

_____________________________

"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 #: 158
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 6:26:44 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8534
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Wow.




_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 159
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 7:14:43 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1352
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: online
And if Japan had done a smash and grab in Jan '42, the US production would have ramped up even more than before.


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

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

So we were defending the US, all of it, against threats, both real and imagined. And if Portland's shipyard was "destroyed", it would be rebuilt. Quickly. At best I think the Japanese could hope for small delays in the ships coming "online".... but for all those ships to magically go "poof"? I don't buy it.

_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 160
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 7:22:53 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 17611
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: online
This is an abstraction representing the utter mayhem that would ensue if the American military had been so grossly negligent as to allow two Japanese divisions to come ashore on the West Coast. The abstraction represents the U.S. government and military being supremely negligent. The cost paid for their negligence is high - another abstraction, in this case the loss of so many valuable ships. A key component of this is the Allied player not having attended to preparations adequately - he is and should be punished for that, whether he foresaw it or not. In real life, the U.S. military didn't correctly foresee the possiblity of a largescale attack on Pearl Harbor. Mayhem ensued, including the ruining of careers, often without real justification. Mayhem.

Did the original poster leave the West Coast ungarrisoned? Was he caught without search planes in position? Then he played non-historically and paid for it. The penalty was non-historic but proportionate.


(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 161
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 7:49:33 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1352
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: online
I disagree. In UV, if you take Nomeua, that’s it game over. In reality, the US would have staged their forces a little more to the south and you get a few days delay before they would be “in-theater”.

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


_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 162
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 7:55:37 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 17611
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: online
In reality, the US military and government would never have stripped the West Coast of patrols, garrisons, etc. It was beyond possibility. In the game it did happen - the OP did something unthinkable, taking chances because he thought the risk was low. It turned out the risk was high and he got bit by it. The biting is proportionate to the magnitude of his negligence. Neither thing could have happened in the real war.

The loss of ships does not represent what would have happened in real life, because what happened couldn't have happened in real life. This is an abstraction. It's easy enough to learn about this and to then guard against it, so no big deal.

But beware the Allied player who does the unthinkable and shifts everything forward as soon as he can (as we all tend to do in our earliest days playing the game). A clever Japanese player can spank you beyond comprehension.

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 163
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 8:59:39 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6277
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
"clever" is far, far too generous.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 164
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 9:22:56 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 1162
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline
True Hans, a more appropriate description would be 'crever'.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 165
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 10:53:33 PM   
Alpha77

 

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

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Wow.





Most funny thing in thread, making this an AFB vs. JFB thingie... as IF not both sides suffer the same consequences. If Yokohama is taken, the ships there are cancelled too, or not ?

I had also read from one of the so called AFBs (I find these terms silly but as most use them here I do too)... in another thread, "muhh overpowered IJN.. the Netties are so deadly totally unrealistic". However by reading AARs and playing the game, this is not true at all, they miss often enough, right? And more often fly into CAP Perhaps this was the case still in an earlier patch version, but with curent version this seems a myth.

But I also wrote above, YES this rule is unrealistic, but it is there, we have to deal with it.

Also on a related real world action did not the British/Canadians made a commando raid on n important port in France.... sinking a ship there and blocking the harbour basically rendering it useless? Not Dunkerque, cant remember right now which port it was.

Aha here: "The obsolete destroyer HMS Campbeltown, accompanied by 18 smaller craft, crossed the English Channel to the Atlantic coast of France and was rammed into the Normandie dock gates. The ship had been packed with delayed-action explosives, well hidden within a steel and concrete case, that detonated later that day, putting the dock out of service for the remainder of the war and up to five years after."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 5/9/2018 11:16:11 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 166
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 11:15:39 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23752
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

?? Dishonest ?? That was not my intent; as used in the context of the paragraph, I was trying to say that his comparison of shipyards was not "apples to apples", or "apples to oranges" it is something in between.

I humbly apologize if I gave the impression that I was accusing anyone of being dishonest.

I misunderstood, just FYI that is the basic meaning of the word.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 167
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/9/2018 11:40:57 PM   
Alpha77

 

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

ORIGINAL: spence


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.


I agree, I say make a new beta / patch to correct this, the US should do the "Japan first" strategy. Hence 90% of the stuff which went to Europe in the real world, should in the game come as reeinforcements against the Japanese. And also the US gets it ealier lets say in 42-43.

Also the Japanese at least "on paper" were Allies of the Germans, right? Lets also put in the patch that 50% of the IJN ships were send to Europe as support for the Germans. Should then be more realistic at last.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 5/9/2018 11:44:40 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 168
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 1:53:13 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8462
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

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



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

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

or

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

Kinda like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

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



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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

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



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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

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



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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

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



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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

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



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

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 169
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 1:54:27 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8462
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

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

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



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

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 170
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 1:55:45 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8462
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

"clever" is far, far too generous.


I'd like to know what word you'd use to describe a player who doesn't properly defend his important assets.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 171
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 2:13:30 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16175
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

"clever" is far, far too generous.


It was clever and calculated. We don't know the recon Japan put into this effort, in fact we know pretty much know a bare minimum -- but I am all the signs were missed by the Allies. I for one would love to see the sigint for the previous week.

It will be real clever if it allows Japan to achieve autovictory.

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



(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 172
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 3:05:41 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8534
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


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





+1

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


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 173
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 10:44:45 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6277
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


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





+1

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




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

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


The crux of the issue here is the lack of a garrison in Portland. If we are supposed to accept all of these "abstractions" like the complete loss of shipping that was not under construction hen the shipyard was destroyed, why should we also have to accept historical starting locations for the WC LCUs.
Why shouldn't the Allies be entitled to an additional abstraction of an at start garrison for this most valuable and vulnerable of assets?

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

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 174
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 10:47:58 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6277
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


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.



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

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

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

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 175
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 11:07:11 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16175
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


One side starts with a developed industrial complex and a huge concentrated army while the other starts with its pants down.



Is that serious? You only need to look at vehicle & plane production to know this ain't true.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 176
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 12:05:15 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
In this particular game, there is no difference in the regular forces that were in Portland and what player had. What is missing is the real defenses for the Columbia that would preclude an invasion up the river. Where is the controlled minefield that was laid by civilian contractors using mines from storage in Astoria for that exact purpose? as an ex There were no regular Army units in Portland other than what started there, the AA unit was reinforced with men taken from the Atlantic sector, but no combat units. There were over 2000 militia in Portland armed with Enfield rifles at the time of the game invasion[the rifles were taken back by the Army later in 42']

For a invasion fleet to go up the river to Portland, a thousand things had to go right, for them to fail, only 1 thing. Just chopping down trees, something people in Oregon were good at, would stop river movement The idea of it being successful is fantasy. The invading fleet in single file on it's 4mph journey 100 miles up the river would suffer a Lexington and Concord type harassment from hundreds, if not thousands of "patriots"; not particularly militarily effective, but would have been epic.

_____________________________

"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 Lowpe)
Post #: 177
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 12:40:39 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16175
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
You know this is a game, right?

For Japan to invade the US there has to be a payoff, otherwise it would be done even less than it is. The game goes too fast as it is, and here is a balance to that.

I can think of at least 6 current AARs that have seen Allied air bombing of Hokkaido and even the Ominato area in early 1942. It has become something that needs to be countered by Japan, and this does slow down Japan's torrid start somewhat.

I have seen strategies ranging from extreme early concentration of force and fighting to the last, to Sir Robin, to everywhere in between.


(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 178
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 1:13:03 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


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

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



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

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 179
RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion - 5/10/2018 1:27:32 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6277
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.242