Two questions about a West Coast invasion

[pws1225]

Here's a comment by Alfred contained in the above thread referenced by the moose. It concerns just such an invasion being contemplated by Allied forces in the HI early in the war.

"Japan starts with little in the Home Islands and most Japanese players do not reinforce the home front at the expense of the frontline. Therefore what you should do is:

(i) find out which production bases start off lightly defended on 7 December 1941
(ii) check through signit to see if they have subsequently been reinforced
(iii) send sufficient force (if necessary on xAP vessels) made up by "volunteers" of course (remember you can subsequently resurrect the destroyed unit). Travel silently
(iv) land and capture by coup de main the industrial centre. You just have to hold for one day to get the benefit

then hear the howls of protest from JFBs (but perhaps not from your opponent) at such a sneaky move. Have no sympathy for them for it will teach them rnot to play a soundly based military operations game using RTS tactics, forgetting all about rear area defence and all the non sexy things which they find to be boring.

Alfred"

[zuluhour]

BRAVO!!

[CaptBeefheart]

I think Lowpe hit the nail on the head: The Japanese player needs a proper inducement to invade CONUS. Although it might be unrealistic to say the CVEs couldn't be built elsewhere, or there with a delay, I think it's a reasonable abstraction to keep the AFB honest. The possibility of a hit and run raid on the home islands should also keep the JFB honest. This game can't possibly model every situation.

I like the story about Ace's grandfather putting AA units on golf courses in Chicago. From the level of a private, that would seem pretty stupid. However, from a politician's point of view, maybe it settles the masses a bit in publicly showing you're doing something to protect them, however futile. Maybe the movie "1941" wasn't far off the mark in terms of hysteria.

Cheers,
CC

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

...

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

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?

Japan can't invade CONUS before the Allied player is able to shuffle units around. It's literally not possible. If you haven't moved units to put a garrison at your important bases, that's on you...

You are still underplaying the game facts Lokasenna.[:)]

In a scenario 1 game CONUS starts off on 7 December 1941 with:

1. No garrisons at all at the following coastal cities.

Tillenook
Coos Bay
Eureka
Santa Barbara
Port Hueneme
Santa Ana

2. Static only garrisons at the following coastal cities.

Oak Harbor
Astoria
Mare Island

The first two of three garrisons are CD units who primary purpose is to defend against an amphibious landing at the site and further up the navigable river. Their main weapons are therefore anti ship devices. They need to have the "replacements" toggle turned ON in order to fill up their anti LCU devices. It is very significant, and a point overlooked by all those who decry the game design, that the Allied player did not have "replacements" toggled ON for these units. Also of interest is that no information has been provided by the Allied player regarding the level of damage inflicted by the anti ship devices on the Japanese ships and at the beach on the invading Japanese troops.

3. Excluding the interior American bases which are a fair distance away from any coastal city (bases such as Salt Lake, Boise etc) there are a total of

12 inf LCU - total AV 1206
6 arm LCU - total AV 580
1 eng LCU - total AV 45
1 art LCU - total AV 25

None of these units are static and all are located on main railway lines. There are also many other units with zero AV but which are also able to be used to bolster defensive combat.

4. In addition to (3) above, in the month of December 1941 alone, the West Coast receives the following American reinforcements

9 inf LCU - total AV 1343
3 arm LCU - total AV 239
15 eng LCU - no AV
1 art LCU - total AV 20

5. Even with no LCU having "replacements" turned on, by 1 Jan 1942 (which predates this Japanese landing) the West Coast could have had a total of American 3458 AV. Canadian forces are not included. About 50% of the American LCUs are permanently restricted to the West Coast command and about 25% are temporarily restricted to that command, not many of these temporary restricted units able to have been reassigned to an unrestricted command in this time frame.

It is very obvious to those who do not have an agenda to wield that Blackhorse, the AE dev responsible for the American OOB did not overlook any of the historical garrisons which existed in this period. Nor did he misplace their historical arrival locations. There is clearly sufficient force available to deal with any January 1942 Japanese landing. It is not a game design fault if players misallocate their assets. Nor is it a satisfactory excuse to claim that a player misallocated their assets because they are a newbie at AE. In fact a newbie is less likely to strip the West Coast of LCUs by dint of sending them overseas.

6. None of the above includes any of the substantial naval and air assets which are available on the West Coast by 1 January 1942. The best place to defeat any sea borne invasion is to sink the enemy fleet at sea. Clearly in this instance none of those sea and air assets were utilised to both spot and then attack the enemy fleet at sea.

Alfred

[Alfred]

"Assembling" ships is not like trying to assemble flat pack furniture bought from IKEA.  Even in 2018 skilled labour is still required to "assemble" elsewhere pre fabricated ship modules.
 
Alfred

[tarkalak]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut
...

No, I'm not talking about government trained troops. I'm talking about the 60 year old wanna be cowboy with a lever action winchester. These guys. These guys are what Japan feared in an invasion of the US. That there'd be a "cowboy with a rifle behind every tree", and there would be.

...

AMERICAN Volkssturm.



I wonder if these guys will be more help than burden. I imagine millions of cowboy wannabees in Ford Model T clogging every highway from Florida to Portland. Then the roadrage. [:D]

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

"Assembling" ships is not like trying to assemble flat pack furniture bought from IKEA.  Even in 2018 skilled labour is still required to "assemble" elsewhere pre fabricated ship modules.

Alfred

My grandfather ran a riveting team at the Kaiser Shipyards in Vancouver. He was a lifetime mechanic and foreman before and after the war. A specialist on large machinery used in the gold dredging and sluicing mines in Alaska.

Fascinating stuff, this conjecturing about what the Japanese could have done.

Knowing the area, if they wanted to prevent the shipyards here from being built and used, and the area to be less capable as a wartime industrial center, there were certain pretty obvious targets for demolition. This area is hilly, difficult terrain with massive forests, large deep rivers and natural mountain boundaries. If they extended control to chokepoints in the South at around Salem, to the East to the Columbia River Gorge and held at near Longview along the Columbia NW of Portland, there could have been a lengthy siege.

1. Bridges. At the time there was only one major (road) bridge over the Columbia in the area. Blow it up. Also hit all of the ones over the Willamette in Portland and the others along the Columbia toward the coast, and hit the several railroad bridges. Knocking down the St Johns Bridge and the railroad bridge there would also likely have made the Willamette unnavigable to Portland for some period until cleaned up.

2. Railroads. Just stick some explosives in the major tunnels along the Columbia River Gorge and you've essentially shut down the two major E/W rail connections (either side of the river) for possibly several years. The gorge is not an easy place to construct transit paths, and if road tunnels are also knocked out, you have a big problem.

There are some spots where the N/S railroad also goes over rivers along the Columbia going toward Olympia and Seattle. Hit those too.

3. Dams. The Bonneville dam is just up from Portland Vancouver by 40 miles. Blow a big hole in that and not only do you take out a major source of power production but also cause severe flooding to the low lying areas along the rivers for many miles down stream, including the Vanport residential area created by Kaiser (in Aug 42, so after game date I realise) to house workers during the war. This did flood in '48 and my family lost everything and the area was never resettled.

4. Forests. The Japanese did try both early (sub based Glen dropped incindiaries) and later in the war (balloon launched devices sailing across the Pacific) to burn the forests of the west coast. This would have been much easier if 50-60k Japanese troops were able to systematically set the area ablaze. It could have been catastrophic, and also contributed to some difficulty in bringing military reinforcements to the area. Western Oregon is wet in the winter, but dry in the summer, and the East dry all year round. If they stayed around long enough, this wouldn't have been too hard to achieve.

I wouldn't underestimate the impact a military force could have on the infrastructure and future wartime contributions of the area based simply on the abstract environment of the game. The game designers possibly included this contingency realising that overall impact would have been horrific, and decided to make the player pay by putting that in terms of the game; lost production and VPs.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Alfred


In a scenario 1 game CONUS starts off on 7 December 1941 with:

1. No garrisons at all at the following coastal cities.

Tillenook
Coos Bay
Eureka
Santa Barbara
Port Hueneme
Santa Ana

2. Static only garrisons at the following coastal cities.

Oak Harbor
Astoria
Mare Island

The first two of three garrisons are CD units who primary purpose is to defend against an amphibious landing at the site and further up the navigable river. Their main weapons are therefore anti ship devices. They need to have the "replacements" toggle turned ON in order to fill up their anti LCU devices. It is very significant, and a point overlooked by all those who decry the game design, that the Allied player did not have "replacements" toggled ON for these units. Also of interest is that no information has been provided by the Allied player regarding the level of damage inflicted by the anti ship devices on the Japanese ships and at the beach on the invading Japanese troops.

3. Excluding the interior American bases which are a fair distance away from any coastal city (bases such as Salt Lake, Boise etc) there are a total of

12 inf LCU - total AV 1206
6 arm LCU - total AV 580
1 eng LCU - total AV 45
1 art LCU - total AV 25

None of these units are static and all are located on main railway lines. There are also many other units with zero AV but which are also able to be used to bolster defensive combat.

4. In addition to (3) above, in the month of December 1941 alone, the West Coast receives the following American reinforcements

9 inf LCU - total AV 1343
3 arm LCU - total AV 239
15 eng LCU - no AV
1 art LCU - total AV 20

5. Even with no LCU having "replacements" turned on, by 1 Jan 1942 (which predates this Japanese landing) the West Coast could have had a total of American 3458 AV. Canadian forces are not included. About 50% of the American LCUs are permanently restricted to the West Coast command and about 25% are temporarily restricted to that command, not many of these temporary restricted units able to have been reassigned to an unrestricted command in this time frame.

It is very obvious to those who do not have an agenda to wield that Blackhorse, the AE dev responsible for the American OOB did not overlook any of the historical garrisons which existed in this period. Nor did he misplace their historical arrival locations. There is clearly sufficient force available to deal with any January 1942 Japanese landing. It is not a game design fault if players misallocate their assets. Nor is it a satisfactory excuse to claim that a player misallocated their assets because they are a newbie at AE. In fact a newbie is less likely to strip the West Coast of LCUs by dint of sending them overseas.

6. None of the above includes any of the substantial naval and air assets which are available on the West Coast by 1 January 1942. The best place to defeat any sea borne invasion is to sink the enemy fleet at sea. Clearly in this instance none of those sea and air assets were utilised to both spot and then attack the enemy fleet at sea.

Alfred

Very comprehensive and thorough. Saved me the time of checking this out, but I knew from previous experience that this was the case.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
5. Even with no LCU having "replacements" turned on, by 1 Jan 1942 (which predates this Japanese landing) the West Coast could have had a total of American 3458 AV. ... There is clearly sufficient force available to deal with any January 1942 Japanese landing. It is not a game design fault if players misallocate their assets.

6. None of the above includes any of the substantial naval and air assets which are available on the West Coast by 1 January 1942. The best place to defeat any sea borne invasion is to sink the enemy fleet at sea. Clearly in this instance none of those sea and air assets were utilised to both spot and then attack the enemy fleet at sea.

Thanks above Alfred.. wonderful summary.

I have been very reluctant to enter this thread in fears of inflaming the issue.

So please understand I am not trying to inflame opinions further. Rather I would try to point out the debate is NOT one question nor simple answers.

There are actually 3 complex issues - not 1

The Game:

The game allows it.

Further as Admiral Alfred has posted there are sufficient tactics and resources (Land / Air / Naval) available to the Allied Supreme Commander to counter it.

It is not a design flaw of the game; it is about the allocation and strategic priorities of the player. Both Allied and Japanese.

Criticism of the game are not warranted given the design and mechanics accurately ‘reflect’ history and the tools are available to cope; understand there is a broad difference between “what may have been possible” in a computer based simulation with abstract mechanisms to simplify millions of variables.

Its not a game / mechanics issue at all.

The Gamey

This is entirely subjective and in the eye of the beholder. There is no "one correct answer" it depends upon your perspective. No one individual is universally on the side of the righteous.

The Japanese Supreme Commander in choosing Portland as the target is aware/must be aware of the game mechanics and implications in the long run.

Portland specifically is a ship building hub and the consequences of the successful invasion is long lasting. Missing CVEs, Tankers and Cargo ships critical to the Allied effort in 43/44

The Japanese Supreme Commander could have chosen Vancouver Island, Dutch Harbor, Juneau or a number of other locations as a tactical launch pad to support a West Coast invasion; but did not. If the intention was to sustain and invasion of the Continental USA we should have probably seen evidence of multiple invasions supporting the Portland Invasion with mutually supporting bases.

If this is gamey in the opinion of some players / and not in the opinion of others - simply do not play opponents that do not share your perspective.

Invent or use house rules that exclude 'exploitative' invasions of Continental USA or Japanese Home Islands without multiple supporting bases for example. Or don't if you prefer.

The Historical

(1) Could have the IJN reasonably invaded the City of Portland and the Kaiser Steel Works to interrupt / destroy all port facilities and cripple the Allied War effort for months if not years? (2) Could have the IJN Navy evaded detection long enough to do so? Could have the IJN Navy actually made the trip with a full invasion fleet without incurring massive ship borne damage given the tempo of operations following Pearl Harbor? (3) Would have the Japanese Navy / Army been prepared to sacrifice thousands of soldiers and equipment in a suicide style mission in early 1942? (4) Would have the destruction of Portland facilities been compensated for by other facilities? (5) Could have the armed militia of Portland defended the city? Would have they dropped bridges? Would have the Japanese landed up river on a suitable beach? (6) Ad naseum...

I am unsure there are satisfactory and definitive answers to each question without healthy debate.

The most probable answer is no in my opinion - not fact - opinion.

Admiral Yamamoto sought to strike a decisive blow in December 1941 so as to prevent a long war of attrition. The success of Pearl Harbor, Luzon, and Hong Kong filled the Imperial Government with the first stages of Victory disease.

Further the Imperial Government and the Navy were devoted disciples of Alfred Mayer Mahan and still believed in the “decisive battle of Battleships” in or near Pacific Islands where the IJN would hold decisive tactical superiority.

Admiral Yamamoto could have planned such an operation being “somewhat knowledgeable” of the American Industrial might. However his ability to execute such a plan – with full Imperial Support – and with potentially the objections of the Army / other Mahan disciples is unlikely. Xreference Invasion of Australia / Ceylon

[geofflambert]

I have strenuously avoided responding to this thread til now. Let me summarize the two questions regarding invading the West Coast.

Number 1: Are you crazy?

Number 2: Are you effing crazy?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5


If this is gamey in the opinion of some players / and not in the opinion of others - simply do not play opponents that do not share your perspective.

And how exactly does one go about doing this?

My only venture into PBEM was back in my Uncommon Valor days.
I was new to the game engine and was looking for a Japanese opponent who would commit to going the distance and wasn't looking for an early AV.

The player who offered me a game swore he was in it to go the distance. He duped me into agreeing to play the scenario with the enhanced Japanese side, claiming they needed the additional strength to be able to go the distance.

He then used his enhanced KB, that he knew the Allied LBA couldn't stand up to, to come to Noumea looking to sunk the entire Allied navy.
I had to scatter my fleet to the edges of the map to survive.
He then made a full court press to take Espiritu Santo. I threw in the kitchen sink to stop him and after orchestrating a carrier ambush and sinking his carriers his next email was "oh well, you win".

My response was, "what do you mean I win?, you committed to go the distance". His reply, "no point in playing on now".

So, he lied to me to convince me to agree to be his patsy. When his all or nothing gambit failed he took his toys and went home.
Learning the hard way that humans beings can't be trusted not to be POS excuses for human beings is why I live with cats and play against the AI.

The Japanese player in this game had no intention of playing honorably, just like the excuse for a human being I had the displeasure of encountering all those years ago.

So, I ask again, how does one go about ensuring that one isn't entering into a bargain with Satan when agreeing to a match?

The last time I shared this story some POS excuse for a human said it was my fault for failing to find a good opponent.

That's a fine example of just how unsupportive this "community' of gamers can be.

[witpqs]

The Japanese player in this game had no intention of playing honorably, just like the excuse for a human being I had the displeasure of encountering all those years ago.

I am not seeing this the way you see it. The Allies get units to protect those areas. Do or don't their own fault.

[Lecivius]

Wow, Hans. I'm an AFB to the max, but there is a LOT of vitriol in your last post. This is a game, man.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

And how exactly does one go about doing this?

Tough but honest question Ser Hans.

I think one possibility I pointed out is to adopt sufficient house rules ; to address 'continental or home island invasions' adapt a house rule as I suggested that require multiple supporting base invasions - not simply targeting one hex for maximum disruption value. There are of course a plethora of other house rules (I have read of) that could be added to the list making the scenario as 'historically' close / accurate/non gamey as you desire to play. And the set up... PDU off among other choices.

None of which can completely solve for mistrust from a bad experience; nor address unexpected turns of a game where the gamers ultimately disagree on gamey or not; or choose to simply walk away.

Ultimately I think you have found your best solution; you choose not to participate in PBEM games.

--

My experience within this community ~ limited as it is ~ is that the community is friendly and helpful ~ as you yourself have been to me.

Minor instances may have caused me to be defensive or wonder about a response; or perhaps I have even ruffled a feather or two with a response that does not communicate my 'good intentions' fully.

I remain optimistic that as I grow in the game I will continue to learn, benefit, and find appropriate opponents that play closer to the historic model I prefer and enjoy. When I have time to be a good dedicated partner in PBEM.

I am trying to communicate that really this issue is not about the invasion of Portland; its more complicated being about (1) the game (2) the gamey and (3) the historical model and various perceptions and opinions of the last two... the game simply is.

I will refrain from further extending this post; I am certain there are no answers /absolute facts to (2) and (3)

Regards to all

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Wow, Hans. I'm an AFB to the max, but there is a LOT of vitriol in your last post. This is a game, man.

My vitriol, that I still feel just as intently as when I first had the experience, is about human interaction, trust and betrayal and has NOTHING to do with the sides of AFB or JFB.

I am glad that it still comes across as strongly as I feel it.

[AW1Steve]

OK. Just my opinion. If someone did something that I considered "above the pale" , I'd re-examine the agreement we had at the start of the game. If like most of my games , I said minimum or no-rules, I'd consider it as if actual war opponent violated "the rules if war". If in actual war , someone violates the "rules" then the only countermeasure is reprisal and retaliation. He shoots 50 of My troops that he is holding as POW's , then I shoot AT LEAST 50 of his. Obviously retaliation in this game would be something else. Find out what you can do in reprisal, then DO IT! When your "worthy opponent" complains , let him know about how unhappy you are about the play , and remind them that two can play that way.

In short , if your opponent ticks you off, either quit, or respond in kind. There is no other real answer. You obviously inquired into your opponent's background and he blind sided you. Not much else you can do. Either leave or kick him between the legs. Either be a gentleman , or if called to, don't.

One thing you might not want to do is name names. A few years ago there was a player ( who will not be named). His behavior on the forum left something to be desired. Having alienated all the regular players , he started trolling for "newbies". I made the mistake of PMing the unsuspecting potential victims to warn them. One of them contacted him , a complaint was made to a moderator and , once again , I was "warned" of the possibility of expulsion. Don't do that. It doesn't pay.


What is NCIS Agent Gibb's "rule 42"? Clean up your own mess? I'd do it with a vengeance. [:D]

[zuluhour]

Hans, only one match, I have never quit unless you count April '46! Keep the faith man. I've had three walk away before I saw a P47 as allies.
Lars is the only one to allow me to lose twice with grace in the same game by holding Japan to '46 and AV. You have been around long enough
to know who will see it through.

[zuluhour]

interesting....I almost did the same.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

...

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

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?

Japan can't invade CONUS before the Allied player is able to shuffle units around. It's literally not possible. If you haven't moved units to put a garrison at your important bases, that's on you...

You are still underplaying the game facts Lokasenna.[:)]

In a scenario 1 game CONUS starts off on 7 December 1941 with:

1. No garrisons at all at the following coastal cities.

Tillenook
Coos Bay
Eureka
Santa Barbara
Port Hueneme
Santa Ana

2. Static only garrisons at the following coastal cities.

Oak Harbor
Astoria
Mare Island

The first two of three garrisons are CD units who primary purpose is to defend against an amphibious landing at the site and further up the navigable river. Their main weapons are therefore anti ship devices. They need to have the "replacements" toggle turned ON in order to fill up their anti LCU devices. It is very significant, and a point overlooked by all those who decry the game design, that the Allied player did not have "replacements" toggled ON for these units. Also of interest is that no information has been provided by the Allied player regarding the level of damage inflicted by the anti ship devices on the Japanese ships and at the beach on the invading Japanese troops.

3. Excluding the interior American bases which are a fair distance away from any coastal city (bases such as Salt Lake, Boise etc) there are a total of

12 inf LCU - total AV 1206
6 arm LCU - total AV 580
1 eng LCU - total AV 45
1 art LCU - total AV 25

None of these units are static and all are located on main railway lines. There are also many other units with zero AV but which are also able to be used to bolster defensive combat.

4. In addition to (3) above, in the month of December 1941 alone, the West Coast receives the following American reinforcements

9 inf LCU - total AV 1343
3 arm LCU - total AV 239
15 eng LCU - no AV
1 art LCU - total AV 20

5. Even with no LCU having "replacements" turned on, by 1 Jan 1942 (which predates this Japanese landing) the West Coast could have had a total of American 3458 AV. Canadian forces are not included. About 50% of the American LCUs are permanently restricted to the West Coast command and about 25% are temporarily restricted to that command, not many of these temporary restricted units able to have been reassigned to an unrestricted command in this time frame.

It is very obvious to those who do not have an agenda to wield that Blackhorse, the AE dev responsible for the American OOB did not overlook any of the historical garrisons which existed in this period. Nor did he misplace their historical arrival locations. There is clearly sufficient force available to deal with any January 1942 Japanese landing. It is not a game design fault if players misallocate their assets. Nor is it a satisfactory excuse to claim that a player misallocated their assets because they are a newbie at AE. In fact a newbie is less likely to strip the West Coast of LCUs by dint of sending them overseas.

6. None of the above includes any of the substantial naval and air assets which are available on the West Coast by 1 January 1942. The best place to defeat any sea borne invasion is to sink the enemy fleet at sea. Clearly in this instance none of those sea and air assets were utilised to both spot and then attack the enemy fleet at sea.

Alfred

Again, I've not read the whole thread.

Also again, thank you Alfred.

You've said, with much more detail, what I've been thinking since the inception of this post.[;)]

P.S. I'd like to say again, find something for all your units to do. No one gets to sit on their.... [:D]

[rustysi]

He shoots 50 of My troops that he is holding as POW's , then I shoot AT LEAST 50 of his.