Strange Port Loading

[HansBolter]

When I load the Marines at San Francisco onto transports the ship appears in the Oakland port adjacent to San Diego instead of in one of the two open ports adjacent to San Francisco.

Does anyone have an explanation or even a rationalization for this?

[Bo Rearguard]

Yeah, I've seen that before. Why it happens I don't know. Usually, on my first turn I pull one of the damaged BBs at Pearl back to the port of Oakland in order to force the 1st Marine Division to deploy forward outside of San Francisco Bay and I pump the 1st Marine up to full strength while waiting. But you lose a turn of course, because it takes the BB two turns to reach Oakland. I suppose you could use a closer ship like the Saratoga to block the port of Oakland but then it's losing a march as well.

It's the special forces amphibious transports that are really weird. When embarking from a land hex, especially a non-port hex they often depart in random and sometimes awkward spots. Like the back side of the departure island or infamously (as in the SC War in Europe game) into a nearby lake instead of the ocean. You don't have a say in the matter of where they go.

[HansBolter]

Thanks for the heads up.

[Tanaka]

Yeah, I've seen that before. Why it happens I don't know. Usually, on my first turn I pull one of the damaged BBs at Pearl back to the port of Oakland in order to force the 1st Marine Division to deploy forward outside of San Francisco Bay and I pump the 1st Marine up to full strength while waiting. But you lose a turn of course, because it takes the BB two turns to reach Oakland. I suppose you could use a closer ship like the Saratoga to block the port of Oakland but then it's losing a march as well.

It's the special forces amphibious transports that are really weird. When embarking from a land hex, especially a non-port hex they often depart in random and sometimes awkward spots. Like the back side of the departure island or infamously (as in the SC War in Europe game) into a nearby lake instead of the ocean. You don't have a say in the matter of where they go.

Yeah it's random and frustrating. Been an issue that has not been improved in the series unfortunately...

[HansBolter]

So loading/unloading from transports really appears completely wonky.

I just witnessed an enemy transport unload troops into my controlled terrain.

Unloading into enemy controlled terrain should require an amphib.

[Tanaka]

So loading/unloading from transports really appears completely wonky.

I just witnessed an enemy transport unload troops into my controlled terrain.

Unloading into enemy controlled terrain should require an amphib.

It does require ampib yes transports can only unload into friendly ports.

[HansBolter]

The port was friendly to the transport.

The hex the unit unloaded into was not.

Of the two hexes adjacent to the port, one was friendly controlled, one was enemy controlled.

The unit should only have been allowed to unload into the friendly controlled hex.

[BillRunacre]

If there is no enemy unit in the hex, then the landing unit can advance unopposed into that hex.

[HansBolter]

They didn't advance into the hex after landing in a different hex.

They LANDED in the enemy controlled hex.

That should only be possible thru amphibious assault.

Both ZOCs and control of terrain seem to count for little in this game design.

[BillRunacre]

Indeed, but they are landing via the port before proceeding inland.

[Umeu]

Both ZOCs and control of terrain seem to count for little in this game design.

Actually both work as designed. Just not as you would have designed them. So unless you are the definitive authority on game design globally, I think there’s no reason to make any changes since nobody else is having issues with it except you.

[HansBolter]

Where exactly along the line did you succeed in deluding yourself into believing I am trying to get anything "changed"?

What I am here for is to expose the flaws.

I really couldn't care less what those in control of the game do with the revelations I deliver.

The Lord blessed (or cursed) me with a keen ability to spot the flaws in complex systems with little more than a casual glance. It has proven to be a boondoggle for me as it has led to a lifetime of making enemies of those who can't handle the harsh criticisms I deliver.

So your mantra is that as long as only one person is capable of spotting the flaw its OK to leave it as it is?

[Umeu]

I’d say it’s neither blessing nor curse, but more of a farce.

The thing with the Lord is that if you choose to believe in him, he is the definitive authority on right or wrong, and he has laid out his rules in his manual(s).

Hence I asked you if consider yourself such a definitive authority? If not, then it’s no longer a matter of fact, or right and wrong, but it’s simply your opinion that something you perceive to be working differently than you believe it should, or would like it to, is in fact, flawed. Unless you have read the manual(s) of the Creator, and have spotted a flaw in the game which contradicts the manual. However, considering the kind of questions you keep spamming, I doubt you read and understood them. But maybe I am wrong.

But it’s good that you don’t care what will be done with your revelations. Because, while I am no prophet, I have a gut-feeling nothing will be done with them.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Both ZOCs and control of terrain seem to count for little in this game design.

ZOCs and control of terrain is everything. However, how about you and I play a Multi-player full campaign match of SC-War in the Pacific or SC-WW1 and we can test your above stated presumption that it seems to count little in this game design?
I will even put the match on YouTube.
I'm sure it would be a very, very, very popular series.

btw I mentioned WW1 since you had inquiries in that forum on certain issues , as you well know. https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=411164
With that issue, well the raiding mechanic works concerning AH ships is well documented but we are still hoping that you could send a saved game file via WeTransfer or some other File sharing app. Its possible you simply have a corrupted file on your end, as everybody else that has tested with the latest version of SC-WW1 has had no problems raiding with Austro-Hungarian ships, even on the France-Morocco Line, as long as those ships have the supply to do it, and no other Entente vessels sink the MPP tonnage first.

Of course, since this is here in the Pacific forum, I would love playing that.
I'll let you pick either side with either of the games.

Mechanics, if flawed (as you say) will be the same for both sides...so its even-steven.
So what about it there, Panzer Ace? Enough fighting with pens....lets get the swords!!!!

[HansBolter]

Dude,

Grow up and get off the playground!

I'm not impressed by your childish taunts.

And by the way, you have been reported for stalking me for the sole purpose of insulting me with your derogatory "Panzer Ace" moniker.

Grow up.

[Unfortunate Son]

Dude,

Grow up and get off the playground!

I'm not impressed by your childish taunts.

And by the way, you have been reported for stalking me for the sole purpose of insulting me with your derogatory "Panzer Ace" moniker.

Grow up.

OCB is derogatory, who's calling a spade a spade here!!! I been reading your posts and dude YOU are very condescending and hide under the cloak of righteousness by bringing the "Lord" into the conversation. Yet the Lord I know is the exact opposite of a condescending figure as you portray yourself to be.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Dude,

Grow up and get off the playground!

I'm not impressed by your childish taunts.

And by the way, you have been reported for stalking me for the sole purpose of insulting me with your derogatory "Panzer Ace" moniker.

Grow up.

Haha report away! You use the avatar of Hans Bolter, who was known as 'Panzer Ace' on the Eastern Front, and whom I admired as a warrior. Also, I have been a Matrix member since 2006 and was known as Velonei Vinnitsa. My profile OldCrowBalthazor reads that I joined in 2019 or so. Well I had to merge my Matrix account with my Slitherine account...and chose OCB. Point is I played WitP and WitE 1 and 2, and perused the forums to find out answers that I needed to learn how to play those games better. So...when I saw you posting on the SC-WW1 forum with an issue, I thought oh, I seen him over there...and have for years. So if that's stalking by reading your posts through the years, and remembering you, by the goddess so be it!

I tried to help ferret that problem via testing that you were having in the WW1 game. Tried to carefully explain other issues. Again some points you have made are valid observations. Others not.
You say you are 'direct' and can call a spade a spade when you see one. So so am I here. So why is it ok for you to do so but not others that adapt the same posture?

Anyways, I figured your an old school war-gamer that probably remembers the days of playing against other humans in games like Fire in the East or Europa and maybe longed for a match.
Come on now, how about it?
The experience is far better dancing with a human then dancing with a programmed opponent.

Edit: Also you say your a keen observer. We could use the game match to log 'anomalies' and other possible design issues. Treat it like a MP Beta test. I find things all the time (as have others) and bring it to the attention of the devs. We sometimes are quite adamant about certain issues. Other times we do not know if its WAD (Working as designed), a bug, or something we do not understand. Having a more people to play these things out is desirable. Multiplayer matches really can push the envelope of a game. We also look for eXploits that certain players may use against opponents, and bring those to light to the devs so they can eliminate them or moderate in some way.

[HansBolter]

Well, now that you seem interested on civil discourse , I'll return the favor.

You guessed correctly that I am an old school gamer who harkens back to the glory days of Avalon Hill.

I started wargaming in 1973 at the age of 16 with Blitzkrieg being my introduction to the hobby. I invested nearly 20 years in Avalon Hill's classic Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. If you happen to have a copy of the final iteration, Advanced Third Reich, you'll find my name in the playtesters list.

Recently, after retiring and moving to the country, I sold my boardgame collection of over 150 games that included every game in the Europa series.

If you are interested in digging into the archives on this site, you can find an AAR I produced of a playtest of a Race to the Meuse scenario in the Command Ops game series. The AAR was the only one I have ever done and was very well received. I had just finished reading a series of books by Michael Reynolds on the SS and was able to provide names of many commanders of the units in the game. It added some flavor to the AAR.

The reason I'm presenting this resume is to refute the claim made here by someone else that I can't possibly be an "authority" on this subject and establish bonifides.

Unfortunately, I have little to no interest in playing games remotely over the internet. I'm very fickle and moody and don't want to be beholding to anyone, nor be responsible for a regular exchange of turns. I dislike the discontinuity. When I sit down to game, I binge for hours, making considerable progress each time. The interminable wait between turns in a competitive game over the internet is something I just can't tolerate. Also, at 68 years of age my short term memory isn't what it used to be. Too long between turns risks completely forgetting everything I had planned to do on the next turn.

And I'll add another response to the guy who scoffed at my claim. I'm a retired architect who spent a lifetime analyzing and finding flaws in building designs. I've spent about a week playing this game and quickly uncovered problems none of you had uncovered yet. How long have all of you been playing this game? It took me just as little time to uncover problems in the WWI game and even less time to uncover multiple design flaws in WItE2. Farce....I don't think so. 52 years of wargaming experience speaks for itself.

Back at Balthazor.....OK...I get the Panzer Ace reference now. HansBolter has been my avatar here for so long I had completely forgotten about it. He had 168 confirmed tank kills. A true Panzer Ace!

[HansBolter]

I may have mixed Hans up with Michael Whittman on that 168 tank kills number.

[Bo Rearguard]

I've spent about a week playing this game and quickly uncovered problems none of you had uncovered yet. How long have all of you been playing this game? It took me just as little time to uncover problems in the WWI game and even less time to uncover multiple design flaws in WItE2. Farce....I don't think so. 52 years of wargaming experience speaks for itself.

I think most here are aware of the game system's issues. For example, at this game scale there is really no place for separate units like artillery, engineers or anti-tank, these should all be part of divisions, corps and armies. And that every type of unit, except garrisons, gets the standard ten step size the main effect of that is that, regardless of differences in firepower per level, they all have rather similar resilience. Then there is of course the one-unit stacking limits, the aforementioned wonkiness of transports and amphibs, the geographical oddities. I guess after years of playing the monster games like War in the Pacific and War in the East/West it's just fun to play a game you can finish in about a week, keep most of the rules in your head and you don't have to break out the spreadsheets. The designers have stated in the past that Strategic Command has always tried to take that middle ground between realism and playability, with the emphasis on the latter. I guess I would compare this game roughly to the "beer and pretzels" titles Avalon Hill and other game companies used to print back in the day.

But then I played a lot of War at Sea long ago regardless of its glaring flaws. Yahtzee at Sea some called it for all the dice rolling.