Two questions about a West Coast invasion

[traskott]

Well, if the Japanese is invading USA at jan42, they are not at DEI nor CENPAC nor Burma, so the allied has a good chance to stall the japanese advance in other zones, leaving Portland to the E.R.

All those marines, CVs and such should be shuttled to Java, or Sumatra, entrenched and supplied with all the air groups the allied can muster. Portland is touch and go, the japanese can't afford a big campaign here ( the 4th reserve div plus the 7th Mot div put like 3,5 armoured divisions on the field and it's MUCH from a defensive perspective ). All the unrestricted units are now free to deploy at Java, and build it as a jump to Philipines...

U don't need CVEs if u are defending DEI at christmas 1942....

[pws1225]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Under your test, a lot of things that happen in the game qualify as gamey/exploitive. Just for one: cooperation between Japanese Army and Navy. Absolutely exploitive and gamey. But it's just part of the game.

A better test is this: (1) was it possible in the real war? (2) if not, is there a reasonable counter?

If either answer is "yes," then we live with it.

The game is nine years old. There are abstractions and warts. They aren't major, at least when we learn how to handle them.

+1

[von Beanie]

I want to clarify some points. First, I'm not a newbie. I started with UV and have played this basic game system for at least 20 years. In all that time I have never experienced a West Coast invasion. What really surprised me is the extreme (and unrealistic) penalty for what is, in my mind, a gamey move only made possible by perfect intelligence of the initial US set up, and the hope it wouldn't change (as it probably hasn't in most games). In the initial post I asked if the penalties of losing Portland should result in a huge loss of future ship production, mostly in 1944 and 45. Later I discovered:

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.

So this isn't just about the CVEs. In the real world the 1944-45 Kaiser production would have simply moved to other locations if Portland had been devastated. In fact, if you read my original post, my reading of the e-manual suggested to me that those ships would just appear at East-USA. In hindsight, I should have garrisoned Portland, but I never imagined the penalties for not doing so would be so severe.

If anyone is under the mistaken belief that the existing penalties are realistic, then why wouldn't the US have already had a massive garrison and defense network set up along the Columbia River before 1941, or at least a stronger garrison in the initial Allied setup?

In the game I had successfully defended a Midway invasion, and from a sacrificial picket ship I knew his CV fleet was moving towards the West Coast in the search gap between Hawaii and the Aleutians. The only practical way I could have learned it was escorting a suicide landing force was if I committed the Allied CVs to investigate the situation, and this is never a smart thing to do in Jan, 1942. I did have a few search planes based on the west coast searching for the arrival of his CV fleet, but they didn't discover the small landing force until it was already in Portland. Rather, I set up my defense to protect Seattle, Tacoma and other locations with ships-in-port from an air attack. I never imagined that the temporary loss of a town like Portland would be so critical to the game. In my opinion, its extreme importance is an artifact of a bad game design because it greatly rewards such a suicide mission. As long as potential Allied players are aware of this exploit, then it is their fault if they don't take preventative measures on Turn 1. I certainly will in the future, but I was completely unawarof the extreme effect of its loss until after it happened. That is why I also suggested that a sticky be created that points out, in addition to other exploits often resolved by house rules, the need to garrison Portland because of the extreme effects that result if it is taken.

[Canoerebel]

AE's size and complexity means there is a steep learning curve. Some of the things we miss, whether new or experienced, can gut us. We learn those things, either through the school of hard knocks or by picking things up through the Forum.

As for the idea that impossibilities should be addressed, it's too late. The code is antiquated and pretty much set in stone. Lots of things in AE aren't rooted in reality. Lots of things are abstracted. It requires flexibility in thinking and our approach to the game. But it's possible and alot of fun.

You'll never again be caught unawares on this issue. So that's beneficial.

I'd encourage you to discuss this with your opponent, either seeking some way forward or exploring if there's a way to step back a few days or to the beginning. Good luck! I hope you'll be a Forumite playing the game for many years to come.

[rsallen64]

Again, one of the best parts of this game is the varying viewpoints and experiences of all the people that play it, and the fact that so many are willing to share on this forum. That's why I read it every day. I have not yet played a PBEM game. I hope to have the time someday. But I think the suggestion listed above that you find someone that agrees with your playing style, and goals, would work with me. I would want to play more "realistically" so that what happened to the OP could not happen in any of my future games. That's just my taste, and it apparently is not for everyone. I feel that way because a Japanese player willing to make that move would only do so, in any semblance of reality, knowing far more intelligence than the real life commander would ever have, and it does seem like a "gamey" exploit to me.

That being said, there are similar things an AFB would do that I would not try either. But again, that's me. I have learned an incredible amount from the experienced players on this forum over the years, long before I ever started my own campaign against the AI, and I hope to continue to do so for many years to come. This is, simply, the best computer war-game I have ever come across, and is not likely to be duplicated. And the people on this forum are some of the best, and most courteous and helpful, I have ever seen in almost 30 years of being on the internet.

Thanks to all for that!

[CaptBeefheart]

Von Beanie: I always thought the CD unit at Astoria would shred an invasion force. What happened in your case?

EDIT: Any chance of seeing the relevant combat report?

Cheers,
CC

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: von Beanie
If anyone is under the mistaken belief that the existing penalties are realistic, then why wouldn't the US have already had a massive garrison and defense network set up along the Columbia River before 1941, or at least a stronger garrison in the initial Allied setup?

I think the penalties are realistic, game wise. And this is a game.

Allies get, I recall from first hand experience, 2 Tank Divisions that can be bought out, plus a Canadian Tank unit that is already unrestricted. Plus a zillion planes & squadrons, and really good planes, very early.

Plus a ton of devices to the pools.

It is, again from first hand experience, incredibly hard as Japan to fight against this and if it doesn't trigger auto victory focuses Allied tactics in a slightly different but no less satisfying direction.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Pax, you are staring to make me wonder if this close minded community is worth working to gain the admiration of.

The "you failed to defend" tact is extremely harsh when to a newbie Allied player there is NOTHING there that needs defending.

Is no one here besides me capable of seeing just how unfair this is to a newbie Allied player when he doesn't see any construction shipyards full of building ships he needs to protect?

Yes, I get the fact that Allied construction shipyards are an abstraction, what you all don't seem to be getting is that it is a bloody abstraction that puts newbie Allied players at a bloody disadvantage.

So you show no compassion for a newbie player who has been duped by a veteran and simply say "buck up and soldier on"?

Hans,

2004 login sig ... he ain't a newbie to these types of games.

[Oldguard1970]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

AE's size and complexity means there is a steep learning curve. Some of the things we miss, whether new or experienced, can gut us. We learn those things, either through the school of hard knocks or by picking things up through the Forum.

As for the idea that impossibilities should be addressed, it's too late. The code is antiquated and pretty much set in stone. Lots of things in AE aren't rooted in reality. Lots of things are abstracted. It requires flexibility in thinking and our approach to the game. But it's possible and alot of fun.

You'll never again be caught unawares on this issue. So that's beneficial.

I'd encourage you to discuss this with your opponent, either seeking some way forward or exploring if there's a way to step back a few days or to the beginning. Good luck! I hope you'll be a Forumite playing the game for many years to come.

+1 to Canoerebel

Nothing in this game ever seems to go the way I planned it or the way I thought things would happen. Even the AI can surprise or shock me. Most of the time, I wind up learning the hard way about elements of the game I did not know or did not understand or simply forgot to think about.

The Portland gambit is a neat trick I never anticipated. (I missed the previous discussions in the forum.) Had it happened to me, I would have been of two minds.

One path forward would be to smack myself on the forehead and shake my head ruefully as I contacted my opponent to salute him for a clever risk. I might suggest backing up to a proper point in the game's history to pick up the pieces and try again.

The other path would be to wonder if I could still prevail as the allies... (OK, I lost a bunch of resources I would have had if Portland had not fallen. We could pretend the Portland invasion stunned the USA and caused it to divert substantial resources into different purposes, thus "explaining" the loss of CVE's, the creation of emergency reinforcements, etc. Now what? Could I, as an AFB, still earn a victory or at least come close?)

Either path would work for me as the fun is in the playing.

I wish the OP and his opponent well.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Oldguard1970

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

AE's size and complexity means there is a steep learning curve. Some of the things we miss, whether new or experienced, can gut us. We learn those things, either through the school of hard knocks or by picking things up through the Forum.

As for the idea that impossibilities should be addressed, it's too late. The code is antiquated and pretty much set in stone. Lots of things in AE aren't rooted in reality. Lots of things are abstracted. It requires flexibility in thinking and our approach to the game. But it's possible and alot of fun.

You'll never again be caught unawares on this issue. So that's beneficial.

I'd encourage you to discuss this with your opponent, either seeking some way forward or exploring if there's a way to step back a few days or to the beginning. Good luck! I hope you'll be a Forumite playing the game for many years to come.

+1 to Canoerebel

Nothing in this game ever seems to go the way I planned it or the way I thought things would happen. Even the AI can surprise or shock me. Most of the time, I wind up learning the hard way about elements of the game I did not know or did not understand or simply forgot to think about.

The Portland gambit is a neat trick I never anticipated. (I missed the previous discussions in the forum.) Had it happened to me, I would have been of two minds.

One path forward would be to smack myself on the forehead and shake my head ruefully as I contacted my opponent to salute him for a clever risk. I might suggest backing up to a proper point in the game's history to pick up the pieces and try again.

The other path would be to wonder if I could still prevail as the allies... (OK, I lost a bunch of resources I would have had if Portland had not fallen. We could pretend the Portland invasion stunned the USA and caused it to divert substantial resources into different purposes, thus "explaining" the loss of CVE's, the creation of emergency reinforcements, etc. Now what? Could I, as an AFB, still earn a victory or at least come close?)

Either path would work for me as the fun is in the playing.

I wish the OP and his opponent well.

And truthfully, it is a tight balance. The loss of the CVE's is measurable, but the reinforcements are scary.
1 ARM div, 2 MOT Div, 1 INF Div, 2 Tank Bde ... and then almost 2000 devices of GOOD stuff ... 240 M3 Lee + 240 M3 Stuart tanks. Yeah they are not Shermans, but they are better than anything the IJ will have until mid 43 ... and getting all of that in Jan42 ... and then the planes

While Portland is a good target in terms of unexpected location, I'm not sure it is enough for me to trigger all of that. Maybe. Gutsy move on the IJ part in any case. Likely to lose most, if not all, of the committed forces.

[PaxMondo]

Just FYI:
"On March 29, 1930, the Longview Bridge (later renamed Lewis and Clark Bridge) opens. The bridge crosses the Columbia River between Longview (Cowlitz County) and Rainier, Oregon. It is a cantilever bridge, at the time the longest and highest in the country. It is 8,192 feet long, including approaches. The roadway spans the river 210 feet above the water, and the top steel spans it at 340 feet. The designers claim that any vessel then in existence, including a fully rigged clipper ship, can pass under it."

http://www.historylink.org/File/5411

I suspected this was the case, else the Kaiser shipyards could not have been where they were ... the ships produced had to be able to transit.

[Lokasenna]

The ships at Portland (and Tacoma) and the VPs for them are just about the only thing that could get me to invade CONUS as Japan, and I'm about as aggressive as they come.

[Bearcat2]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Just FYI:
"On March 29, 1930, the Longview Bridge (later renamed Lewis and Clark Bridge) opens. The bridge crosses the Columbia River between Longview (Cowlitz County) and Rainier, Oregon. It is a cantilever bridge, at the time the longest and highest in the country. It is 8,192 feet long, including approaches. The roadway spans the river 210 feet above the water, and the top steel spans it at 340 feet. The designers claim that any vessel then in existence, including a fully rigged clipper ship, can pass under it."

http://www.historylink.org/File/5411

I suspected this was the case, else the Kaiser shipyards could not have been where they were ... the ships produced had to be able to transit.

You drop the bridge into the river.

[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.

[ny59giants]

Beanie,

Are you planning to continue playing this game?
If not, please PM me and/or ask for a replacement player.
This is such an unique situation for an Allied player, that I think somebody would like to see how it plays out.
Maybe start an AAR to give brief updates on what happens as you go forward.
Good luck and happy hunting!!

M

[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.

If the outcome of loosing Portland was that the shipyard was damaged or destroyed and had to be repaired, destroying or delaying ships under construction and potentially delaying future builds, I doubt anyone would be complaining.

[modrow]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

Beanie,

Are you planning to continue playing this game?
If not, please PM me and/or ask for a replacement player.
This is such an unique situation for an Allied player, that I think somebody would like to see how it plays out.
Maybe start an AAR to give brief updates on what happens as you go forward.
Good luck and happy hunting!!

M

+1 !

I could not agree more !

Hartwig

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Just FYI:
"On March 29, 1930, the Longview Bridge (later renamed Lewis and Clark Bridge) opens. The bridge crosses the Columbia River between Longview (Cowlitz County) and Rainier, Oregon. It is a cantilever bridge, at the time the longest and highest in the country. It is 8,192 feet long, including approaches. The roadway spans the river 210 feet above the water, and the top steel spans it at 340 feet. The designers claim that any vessel then in existence, including a fully rigged clipper ship, can pass under it."

http://www.historylink.org/File/5411

I suspected this was the case, else the Kaiser shipyards could not have been where they were ... the ships produced had to be able to transit.

You drop the bridge into the river.

Yes, thank you. You had mentioned that. But of course that requires you have troops standing by to do and a plan and enough time. The OP had none of this ... so bridge was never blown.
Instead, the IJ do this on their way out, closing the Kaiser shipyards for the war, eliminating all of that production from the war effort. After the war, the resources are finally allocated, the river is finally cleared and made navigable again.

Thank you for the segue. [;)]

[dwesolick]

Well, I have to concede that a possible Japanese invasion of Portland, Oregon was realistic and historical as others have contended. I've been re-reading Parshall and Tully's "Shattered Sword" and I came across an exchange I've missed in the past:

Yamamoto: Genda, I want you to plan a one-regiment invasion of Portland, Oregon.
Genda: Yes Admiral! But, may I ask why?
Yamamoto: Because, Genda-san, if we seize the vital city of Portland, even for a SINGLE DAY, it will wreck American production for the remainder of the war!
Genda: But Admiral, why would that be??
Yamamoto: Only the gods know Genda-san, only the gods know.

However, this plan was later shot down by the Imperial Army, who refused to provide the regiment on the grounds that this operation would be "chee-zee" and "gaim-eee" (Japanese words). They then compromised on Midway instead.
[:'(]

[Canoerebel]

Admiral King: We need to strip most of our search aircraft and garrison troops from the West Coast.
President Roosevelt: Don't we need something for defense?
King: Not really. The Line Islands and Noumea are far more important.
Roosevelt: What if the worst should happen and they destroyed a Boeing factory or took out the Bremerton Naval Yard?
King: Get it through your thick skull. My long-range offensive plans are more important than basic security of vital installations on the West Coast.