Two questions about a West Coast invasion

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

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.

Precisely.

Thanks to Alfred, obvert, and Macclan5 for doing some heavy lifting in terms of bringing facts to bear.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

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.

Precisely.

Thanks to Alfred, obvert, and Macclan5 for doing some heavy lifting in terms of bringing facts to bear.

Facts are overrated Loka.

You have done nothing BUT ram down my throat that my arguments are based on feelings rather than facts and that feelings are worthless in bringing to the table in an argument like this.

You have made your position clear: You care only about facts.

What you persist in demonstrating is that you lack an ability to see the importance of feelings.

The simple reality is that people, more often than not, base their actions and reactions on feeling not facts.

In a game where two people are interacting, feeling matter!

The OP obviously took a hit to his feelings by what his opponent did.

Caring for nothing but facts will lead you down an ascerbic path.

Just wanted to point out that I don't deserve to be belittled and disparaged, by innuendo, that because I care about feelings, what I bring to the argument somehow has less value than those that bring facts.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

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.

Precisely.

Thanks to Alfred, obvert, and Macclan5 for doing some heavy lifting in terms of bringing facts to bear.

Facts are overrated Loka.

You have done nothing BUT ram down my throat that my arguments are based on feelings rather than facts and that feelings are worthless in bringing to the table in an argument like this.

You have made your position clear: You care only about facts.

What you persist in demonstrating is that you lack an ability to see the importance of feelings.

The simple reality is that people, more often than not, base their actions and reactions on feeling not facts.

In a game where two people are interacting, feeling matter!

The OP obviously took a hit to his feelings by what his opponent did.

Caring for nothing but facts will lead you down an ascerbic path.

Just wanted to point out that I don't deserve to be belittled and disparaged, by innuendo, that because I care about feelings, what I bring to the argument somehow has less value than those that bring facts.

Hans,

I did not intend to besmirch your feelings. I'm sorry for that. Feelings do matter, and how a player feels about what's occurring (be that computerized or the actions of an opponent) is an important element of a gaming experience.

I'm aware that people tend to make decisions based on their feelings more than on objective information (or at least the emotional response occurs first and faster). In addition to working in an organization that is made up of 80% mental health professionals providing direct service to clients, I do have some ground level knowledge of psychology.

What I was trying to do was encourage you to acknowledge your emotional response to one aspect, but then to step back and examine the broader situation (in clinical terms, deescalate). I just didn't articulate all of that because this is the internet, we're all busy, and typing out step by step arguments (in the discursive sense, not antagonistic sense) takes a lot of time - and nobody wants to read a wall of text, so if people skip the wall of text then the post full of reasoned arguments ends up being essentially masturbatory and nothing else. That's why I didn't explicitly include anything more about feelings.

Best,
Your resident antagonist

[patrickl]

It is good to chill guys. Life is too short to have unhappiness. [8D]

[tarkalak]

Side A:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

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

Side B:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

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

Put the above on repeat for the duration.

Then, after the war, a rigorous investigation will find out that the first 50 POWs shot was a gossip.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

If this was a Dec 7th magic move invasion, that would be an exploit. This was/is a possibility that you failed to plan for.

A few folks noted that a "Portland Invasion" using the "magic move" TFs is explicitly gamey. However, it is important to realize that magic move TFs were designed SPECIFICALLY to derive a "more historical" recreation of the December 7th events. They CANNOT be used in any other way, UNLESS both players agree to a "non-historical" start. In which case, frankly, buyer beware.

Anyone willing to read the more fact-based posts in this thread should realize that while the game designers could not account for everything, they did ensure that non-historical game play features both risks and rewards. As this thread clearly demonstrates, every player (be they Allied or Japan) has the ability to deplete their rear areas (or ignore them altogether), but it's not "risk-free". Nor should it be.

[tarkalak]

Considering that the Japanese managed to surprise attack Pearl Harber, wouldn't they be able to sneak to the West Coast if they so desired?

I mean in real life.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

Considering that the Japanese managed to surprise attack Pearl Harber, wouldn't they be able to sneak to the West Coast if they so desired?

I mean in real life.

Shipping lanes along the WC of the US are much busier than the central Pacific area that KB crossed getting to PH. There would have been lots of individual ships heading to/from China, Malaya, The Philippines and perhaps Japan (for non-embargoed goods).
Bringing along an invasion fleet as well would have slowed everything down hugely, and raiding without a follow-up invasion would not achieve as much as the PH raid did because the fleet was most concentrated at PH.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

Considering that the Japanese managed to surprise attack Pearl Harber, wouldn't they be able to sneak to the West Coast if they so desired?

I mean in real life.

Shipping lanes along the WC of the US are much busier than the central Pacific area that KB crossed getting to PH. There would have been lots of individual ships heading to/from China, Malaya, The Philippines and perhaps Japan (for non-embargoed goods).
Bringing along an invasion fleet as well would have slowed everything down hugely, and raiding without a follow-up invasion would not achieve as much as the PH raid did because the fleet was most concentrated at PH.

Amplifying the part about the shipping lanes, the KB's course was chosen to minimize possibility of contact with merchants. Getting east of Hawaii would put them in a different world as far as that is concerned.

The KB ran across one merchant, a Soviet ship. IIRC (unless it is lore) Stalin supposedly was told and elected not to pass the info along to the US. Whether that part is true or not the KB was sighted by that merchant and that fact might easily have resulted in loss of surprise. As BB mentions a much larger and likely slower invasion fleet would have been impossible to hide even as far as Hawaii, let alone the West Coast.

In the game using the 'magic move' for a West Coast invasion (and various others on the map) is certainly out of reasonable bounds, but an invasion by ordinary movement gives the Allied player the time to use assets to guard against that. Or not. [:D]