Two questions about a West Coast invasion

[pws1225]

[:D]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

2. Those who feel it's ok to exploit every loophole in the game as long as "victory" is achieved and screw your opponent's feelings.

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" [;)] Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

I seriously can't understand how the lot of you can't grasp this.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

2. Those who feel it's ok to exploit every loophole in the game as long as "victory" is achieved and screw your opponent's feelings.

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" [;)] Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

I seriously can't understand how the lot of you can't grasp this.

How in the world is it invisible? [&:]

[wegman58]

I've done the Sea and Anchor detail to Portland (on a KNOX class frigate). I'd be interested in seeing a number of ships trying that - especially without good charts.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: wegman58

I've done the Sea and Anchor detail to Portland (on a KNOX class frigate). I'd be interested in seeing a number of ships trying that - especially without good charts.

No problem! The Japanese transported their 10,000+ troops in open barges all the way from Japan, refuelling the barges from larger ships and dropping a tablecloth sack full of food and water to the troops each day. What more need they do? [8|]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Alpha77



How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" [;)] Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

I seriously can't understand how the lot of you can't grasp this.

How in the world is it invisible? [&:]

So you're telling me there is a visible construction ship yard full of ships in its cue on your map?

Can I get a copy of that?

[pws1225]

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

My stock map shows a size 70 Repair Shipyard at Portland. I think Hans' point is that it should be called a 'Construction' shipyard since it builds ships. However, no Allied port anywhere on the map has a 'construction' shipyard as far as I can see. It simply isn't modeled that way in the game. For the Allied side, a shipyard is a shipyard is a shipyard. They build and repair all forms of shipping.

I think Hans just enjoys twisting JFB tails.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

How in the world is it invisible? [&:]

To be fair, it's not that it's invisible, but more that it's different than how the Japan side is done. As Loka pointed out, the devs did not give the Allies a full production system on purpose, not by accident, so their ships are always "in production" from the code's POV, and thus destroyable. Those calling for a system whereby the long-range production be moved elsewhere, or restored to Portland itself, are asking for a huge can of theoretical worms. Moved where? Arguments ensue. Moved how many? Arguments ensue. If restored at Portland, by when? Arguments ensue. Not to mention a large new code base to be written, not only for Portland, but for every Allied base with ship production.

Ditto those who want rivers to be bridge-droppable or hulk-sinkable. Fine. Code that. There are navigable rivers in the pwhex, and non-navigable. Navigable, such as Rangoon, have tonnage limits imposed. Argue at their quantity if you like, but they're there. If you make it possible for me to sink a hulk in the Colombia River to protect Portland, you also make it possible for Japan to sink a hulk (sourced from where? Any limits on size there? Code that.) in the Irrawaddy so I can't land at Rangoon. And as an Allied veteran of half-a-dozen GCs, I would prefer 50x to be able to land at Rangoon than to have Japan not be able to land at Portland. And if you add bridges, I sure want the ability to CAS their butts out of existence, to stop supplies from flowing across rivers. Totally historic. Everybody good with that? Couple of thousand lines of code, but who cares?

It's a GAME of abstractions. I was playing a mind game yesterday while driving: what are the 20 biggest abstractions in AE? Not having bridges wasn't even in the top-20. People are bitching about a fully-preventable invasion of Portland, but have no problem with seven shiny, new Wildcats teleporting across 4000 miles of open ocean, arriving on an island ready to fly the next day, all because there were 20,000 points of corn flakes under a nearby tarp. Please.

And finally, putting on my schoolmarm suit, the game is finished. Done. Complete. It works like it works. Like it, don't like it, it doesn't matter. It's not going to change. So you either accept that and adapt, or you don't. Canoerebel did the best summary of the options open to the OP. That's just the way it is.

I've been playing this game system since 2005. A month ago I learned that I have been setting LRCAP incorrectly for 13 years. So it goes.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: pws1225

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

My stock map shows a size 70 Repair Shipyard at Portland. I think Hans' point is that it should be called a 'Construction' shipyard since it builds ships. However, no Allied port anywhere on the map has a 'construction' shipyard as far as I can see. It simply isn't modeled that way in the game. For the Allied side, a shipyard is a shipyard is a shipyard. They build and repair all forms of shipping.

But they all don't. There are yards that are repair only. It's just the way the design works. Japan and the Allies are presented differently.

[HansBolter]

I've never advocated for an Allied ability to manage or effect ship production, nor have I called for shiyards to be able to be moved.

You are all reading into what I post what you want to hear.

The shipyard doesn't have to be accessible to the player to manipulate, but DOES need to BE there for the player to realize he has an invaluable asset that needs protecting.

Would you all please stop putting words in my mouth?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: pws1225

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

My stock map shows a size 70 Repair Shipyard at Portland. I think Hans' point is that it should be called a 'Construction' shipyard since it builds ships. However, no Allied port anywhere on the map has a 'construction' shipyard as far as I can see. It simply isn't modeled that way in the game. For the Allied side, a shipyard is a shipyard is a shipyard. They build and repair all forms of shipping.

I think Hans just enjoys twisting JFB tails.

Close, my point is that there should be a Construction shipyard there in addition to the Repair shipyard.

The repair shipyard is accessible. The construction shipyard is not, but the cue of building ships can be examined.

That way the player has huge heads up of the presence of an asset that needs protecting.


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

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: HansBolter




The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

I seriously can't understand how the lot of you can't grasp this.

How in the world is it invisible? [&:]

So you're telling me there is a visible construction ship yard full of ships in its cue on your map?

Can I get a copy of that?

How bout this. IF there is an asterisk the ship appears there from somewhere else, if no asterisk, then the ship is built there. Am I wrong?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I've never advocated for an Allied ability to manage or effect ship production, nor have I called for shiyards to be able to be moved.

You are all reading into what I post what you want to hear.

The shipyard doesn't have to be accessible to the player to manipulate, but DOES need to BE there for the player to realize he has an invaluable asset that needs protecting.

Would you all please stop putting words in my mouth?

It IS there. It's visible under the 'I' key in Ship Availability.

[Lowpe]

Really, not that different than Japan's screen...the addition of the build rate and four buttons on the bottom.

Cam Ranh Bay has no construction yards and yet builds ships.

To me it is very evident and not invisible.

[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.

[Alpha77]

The asterik means it is an OFF MAP port where the ships arrive - these are eg. Aden for the British, these ships are probably build in the UK and are transfered from the ETO to the PTO. Same for the panama ports these ships are transfered from the east coast. If there is no "*" then the ships are build at the base in question. Just filter for the base eg. Portland and see what is build there.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
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.

No need really, because it is a one time information, already available in the game by sorting/filtering the list of ships. You look it once, you know it forever

[ny59giants]

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

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: DRF99

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

I think the "loophole" is the automatic destruction of hundreds of ships that haven't even been constructed yet, and won't be launched for 2 or 3 years in the future, even if the city is taken for a single day.

Abstractions are necessary for the game to function.

That said, determined sappers can cause a LOT of havoc in a single day.

[Lokasenna]

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... [8|]

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...