Two questions about a West Coast invasion

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

Thank you for all of the information. The landing forces arrived in Astoria and Portland on the first day I discovered there were enemy troops nearby. I can't rail troops in there because I would have to spend a couple of days putting them in strategic mode first. Although I won't lose the cities until next turn, dozens of air unit shells have suddenly appeared along with numerous army divisions in places like Salt Lake City. However, I also learned that I would have to spend political points to use any of them, and many of the new air units, outside of the U.S.

The Kaiser shipyard post is interesting. I briefly looked at the list of ship arrivals in the game scheduled to arrive in Portland, and I would guesstimate I will lose over 200 Ak, over 100 TK, 80 SC, 20 LST, 10 APA in addition to about 60 CVE. Thus I'm inclined to just let the Japanese try to run their new US colony like they are trying to run China.

In the future I will garrison all west coast cities starting on Turn 1. A more practical solution might be for the game designers to create reasonable garrisons for these super-vital national security locations when designing the basic scenarios. In reality, the loss of Astoria and Portland would not have led to the demise of the US Navy and such a surrender, but I'm impressed my opponent was able to surprise me with a decisive move I didn't even know was possible.

I wasn't going to weigh in here since I exhausted my interest in the Emergency Reinforcement system seven years ago. But some things have been said that can't just sit there for newbies to read.

As you have seen, Japan landing anywhere in CONUS, and a few offshore islands (country code determined), will trigger the ER package. The trigger mechanism is hard-coded in the EXE. However, the package(s) (OZ, NZ, India, and yes, Japan's as well) are exposed in the editor and can be altered. The CONUS ER package is immense, as you have also seen. The air units are not all fully filled out, but some are. In total they are a massive infusion of air power onto North America to counter a Japan effort at the end of a tenuous thread. The land forces are also a Thor's hammer. While restricted, they can be used now and later with PPs and some planning. And the SLC "convoy dump," which takes three days, has a huge shopping list of free devices, including 300 1942 US Army infantry squads, a couple hundred new tanks, huge stores of 57mm AT guns (a bottleneck all the way through on ID upgrades), and much more.

In January 1942 this boon is immense and can catapult the Allied work in 1942 ahead by many months, or more. The air units are pulled forward by six months, yes. It is an error to state that the entire Allied air OOB is moved forward by six months. I don't know where that idea came from.

Is any of this enough to stop a decapitation at Portland if nothing has been done in the month you were granted? Nope.

You can argue that taking out Portland for a day would not have sacrificed Portland's future production unto 1946, but them's the breaks of the code. Ships in the queue go bye-bye. Since the Allies can't stop, accelerate, or alter ship arrivals at all, the code sees 100% as in the queue and destructible. It's a game of abstractions.

Is landing at Portland "gamey"? No. It is in the game design for good reasons, as described in detail by dev Blackhorse, who did much or all of the land OOB research. Andy Mac did the packages, and has also weighed in. All ancient threads, but they're still there. The risk of both a CONUS thrust as well as the same at Japan are part of the what-if design decision. In my Lokasenna game I tried to hit the HI with a regiment to destroy key aviation factories in the very early game. I didn't quite bring enough oomph, but if it had worked it would have been painful.

Is it inevitable that Portland be lost? In your case here it is probable it will happen, yes, but it didn't have to. You had a month. There are more than enough white-restricted LCUs on the WC on 12/8/41 to get Portland a garrison. I do it; most Allied players who read the forum do it too. And build forts. Everything with engineers needs to be digging from Day 1. I don't begin WC AF or ports until that base has Forts 3 or better. Portland could easily have Forts 3 right now, and an ID-plus in residence. That would give you plenty of time to get the ER package on trains in SLC and move them to engage. Japan's landing force would be wiped out to a man while also NOT doing whatever jobs they should have been doing way over to the west.

Defend CONUS. It's pretty simple and is something that can be done right away.

For me, if I lost Portland at the date you're at, I'd send congrats to my opponent and resign. As others have said, in the game models the CVEs are vital to conduct mid- and late-war ops. LBA is too overpowered in the game to conduct landings without them. Rather than spend 3-4 real-time years playing this thing out to its inevitable, I'd take the lesson and re-start. Maybe with a different opponent, maybe not. That's your call. But if you lose Portland you're probably toast. I don't know the Japanese equivalent. Maybe losing all engine production for the Zero line? Anyway, it's very, very bad.
The Moose
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7374
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by HansBolter »

deleted
Hans

User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Canoerebel »

+1 to what the Moose said.

There is no reason to tar and feather the Japanese player. If he had triggered the reinforcement package against a prepared opponent, he'd be kicking himself the rest of the game. His was a high-stakes gamble that worked, possibly because he knew or suspected his opponent might not be familiar with the intricacies of a West Coast gambit. There shouldn't be any presumptions about his sportsmanship.

All of us, as new or fairly new players, had terrible things happen. Some were counterintuitive or wacky. Those debacles were some of the best learning experiences. Later, we always laugh at them.

If I were the Allied player, I'd probably soldier on. The loss of all those ships is paintful but not necessarily fatal. There's also the option of conceding and inviting the opponent to back up a week, if he wants to explore what might happen against a garrisoned West Coast, or to start over if both sides prefer a mulligan.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
btd64
Posts: 13948
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Lancaster, OHIO

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by btd64 »

PLUS ONE to Moose and Canoerebel. I move the land locked units to the important Ports/bases and setup 2 strategic reserves inland, north and south. Just in case. Can't use those troops anywhere else....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
SCW Manual Lead & Beta Support Team

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
Bearcat2
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:53 pm

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Bearcat2 »

How did he invade Portland? amphibious assault up the Columbia river? that would be gamey? If someone got by the forts at the mouth of the Columbia, all they had to do to stop a move up the Columbia was sink a ship in the channel or drop the Lewis and Clark bridge in Ranier.
"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

How did he invade Portland? amphibious assault up the Columbia river? that would be gamey? If someone got by the forts at the mouth of the Columbia, all they had to do to stop a move up the Columbia was sink a ship in the channel or drop the Lewis and Clark bridge in Ranier.

The game doesn't model all eventualities. But it does have narrow- and wide-strait rules as described in the manual. In one of my long-ago threads on the ER packages I tested sailing by the Puget Sound CD installations to try to get to Seattle. It was a glorious demonstration of the fragility of the Japanese merchant marine. SF the same. Portland is a little easier, but there is still warning of the coming base assault if one is prepared.
The Moose
User avatar
von Beanie
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Oak Hills, S. California

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by von Beanie »

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

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

Ultimately, my problem is that I have a real job and my free time is very limited. I had to invest over a hundred hours of it in each game (WITP-AE and WITE) only to discover that my opponent was taking advantage of game design flaws (and risking the whole game on them working). Like HansBolter, I'm ready to give up on PBEM for a long time again because the rewards don't seem to be worth the risks.
"Military operations are drastically affected by many considerations, one of the most important of which is the geography of the area" Dwight D. Eisenhower
Bearcat2
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:53 pm

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Bearcat2 »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

How did he invade Portland? amphibious assault up the Columbia river? that would be gamey? If someone got by the forts at the mouth of the Columbia, all they had to do to stop a move up the Columbia was sink a ship in the channel or drop the Lewis and Clark bridge in Ranier.

The game doesn't model all eventualities. But it does have narrow- and wide-strait rules as described in the manual. In one of my long-ago threads on the ER packages I tested sailing by the Puget Sound CD installations to try to get to Seattle. It was a glorious demonstration of the fragility of the Japanese merchant marine. SF the same. Portland is a little easier, but there is still warning of the coming base assault if one is prepared.


Seriously, how do you invade past a bridge? Your TF is going single file [43ft depth, 600 ft channel] at 4kts for around 100 miles without a pilot[just move the navigation buoys, see what happens], 1 ship sunk in the channel will stop it, the bridge Lewis and Clark is 50 miles from Portland, have at least 12 hour advance notice from Astoria to the bridge.
There are tons of shipping on the river, not to mention the barges or towboats in 1941, what do you do going up river and having a merchant ship coming down river?



"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

+1 to what the Moose said.

There is no reason to tar and feather the Japanese player. If he had triggered the reinforcement package against a prepared opponent, he'd be kicking himself the rest of the game. His was a high-stakes gamble that worked, possibly because he knew or suspected his opponent might not be familiar with the intricacies of a West Coast gambit. There shouldn't be any presumptions about his sportsmanship.

All of us, as new or fairly new players, had terrible things happen. Some were counterintuitive or wacky. Those debacles were some of the best learning experiences. Later, we always laugh at them.

If I were the Allied player, I'd probably soldier on. The loss of all those ships is paintful but not necessarily fatal. There's also the option of conceding and inviting the opponent to back up a week, if he wants to explore what might happen against a garrisoned West Coast, or to start over if both sides prefer a mulligan.

+1

Without being able to check, I don't think all of the CVEs arrive at Portland. You get 90-some of them (including Brits). IIRC about 30 arrive at Portland. That's a lot, yes - but there are still 60 more.

And as I posted, I believe to one of CR's AARs, I think you can still win the war without CVEs. I don't think you can win without CVs.


You should have time to get a large garrison to Takoma. Do so. Many, many merchant/assault shipping assets arrive at that base. Large, fast tankers and lots of your large, fast APA/AKA types.

You should also be able to use Transport aircraft to fly pieces of units into Portland. Fly in everything you can and set everything else to arrive via railroad. You never know - maybe you hold out long enough. And don't forget to bomb his troops with everything you have - including fighters strafing at 100 ft. You want to burn the supplies in his units and cause as much disruption/fatigue as possible to reduce the odds he can take the base. And all that still might not work...

But I don't think it would necessarily be the end of the game. Just an enormous hurdle.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

How did he invade Portland? amphibious assault up the Columbia river? that would be gamey? If someone got by the forts at the mouth of the Columbia, all they had to do to stop a move up the Columbia was sink a ship in the channel or drop the Lewis and Clark bridge in Ranier.

The game doesn't model all eventualities. But it does have narrow- and wide-strait rules as described in the manual. In one of my long-ago threads on the ER packages I tested sailing by the Puget Sound CD installations to try to get to Seattle. It was a glorious demonstration of the fragility of the Japanese merchant marine. SF the same. Portland is a little easier, but there is still warning of the coming base assault if one is prepared.


Seriously, how do you invade past a bridge? Your TF is going single file [43ft depth, 600 ft channel] at 4kts for around 100 miles without a pilot[just move the navigation buoys, see what happens], 1 ship sunk in the channel will stop it, the bridge Lewis and Clark is 50 miles from Portland, have at least 12 hour advance notice from Astoria to the bridge.
There are tons of shipping on the river, not to mention the barges or towboats in 1941, what do you do going up river and having a merchant ship coming down river?

While this is perhaps an extreme case as it involves a river, it's important to keep in mind that each hex is not a single point - it is 40-some nautical miles wide. That's a lot of real estate and lots of options to "go around". Again, perhaps in this particular case the abstraction doesn't work that well... but that's what happens with abstractions.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Canoerebel »

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

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

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

I don't think you necessarily mean to condemn, but what we're trying to tell you is, "This isn't an exploit." It's a well-known feature of the game, but one that it often takes experience (playing and/or reading the forum) to become aware of.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
Bearcat2
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:53 pm

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Bearcat2 »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




The game doesn't model all eventualities. But it does have narrow- and wide-strait rules as described in the manual. In one of my long-ago threads on the ER packages I tested sailing by the Puget Sound CD installations to try to get to Seattle. It was a glorious demonstration of the fragility of the Japanese merchant marine. SF the same. Portland is a little easier, but there is still warning of the coming base assault if one is prepared.


Seriously, how do you invade past a bridge? Your TF is going single file [43ft depth, 600 ft channel] at 4kts for around 100 miles without a pilot[just move the navigation buoys, see what happens], 1 ship sunk in the channel will stop it, the bridge Lewis and Clark is 50 miles from Portland, have at least 12 hour advance notice from Astoria to the bridge.
There are tons of shipping on the river, not to mention the barges or towboats in 1941, what do you do going up river and having a merchant ship coming down river?

While this is perhaps an extreme case as it involves a river, it's important to keep in mind that each hex is not a single point - it is 40-some nautical miles wide. That's a lot of real estate and lots of options to "go around". Again, perhaps in this particular case the abstraction doesn't work that well... but that's what happens with abstractions.


It is only an abstraction because the game has to allow for shipping from Portland to the Pacific; and the game mechanics can't prevent the other side from exploiting it. It is a river, not a 40 mile wide avenue.
"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837
User avatar
DanSez
Posts: 1023
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:02 pm

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by DanSez »

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Commander's job is to orchestrate and direct the three major dimensions of combat - space, time and force. Shattered Sword, the Untold Story of the Battle of Midway
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

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

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

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

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

I also hope that you stick with the game and play it to its conclusion, and if it doesn't end in a victory for you I hope that you play another. The game allows for immense "what if" creativity - but on the flip side, extreme moves like this often (always?) leave extreme vulnerabilities elsewhere. Since he invaded in January 1942, his closest bases that are beyond minimal size would have to be in the Marshall Islands (which are themselves, arguably, minimal). Beyond that, Japan itself. That's a very, very long ways. He almost certainly has no planes here, unless he captured a base already and flew some off of carriers (leaving those carriers more vulnerable).
Bearcat2
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:53 pm

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Bearcat2 »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
ORIGINAL: von Beanie

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

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

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

Of course it is an exploit; it is there so the US can move ships from Portland to the sea and wasn't worth the time or effort to stop an enemy from going up the river.
"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

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

I don't follow.
Bearcat2
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:53 pm

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Bearcat2 »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

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

I don't follow.


The programmers did not see the need to write the code to prevent it, probably because it might have caused problems elsewhere.
"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7374
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by HansBolter »

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

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

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


Give an inch......
Hans

User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by Canoerebel »

Hans, I'm the ultimate AFB. My DNA prevents me from playing as Japan. But this is not an exploit - it's just part of the game, similar to a zillion other abstractions. And Japanese players are not ungrateful. Getting hysterical over small things, drawing lines in the sand, and maligning half (or more) of the community without justification is counterproductive.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
pontiouspilot
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:09 pm

RE: Two questions about a West Coast invasion

Post by pontiouspilot »

relax...your opponent will get stuck on the bloody I-5 bridge in a traffic jam and will go nowhere!
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”