Alternative Single Port Attack HR

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

Post Reply
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by Icedawg »

Generally, PBEMs have a HR that limits the 1st turn surprise rule to a single port attack, the rationale being that at most other targets besides PH, it would have been night at 7am PH time. By the time the sun had come up, most other installations around the Pacific would have been alerted. This makes perfect sense, but I have been considering an alternative 1st turn rule and was hoping to get some input. (Actually, I had previously proposed this in another thread about 6 months ago, but got very little feedback.)

Here goes (again).

Imagine that on Dec 7th the Japanese air units on Formosa launch a night raid on the port at Manila. Now, in game terms, this is impossible to implement as there is no night phase on turn 1. However, a player could mimic a night attack for the first turn by setting the Netties in Formosa to port attack, but at 50% rest. (The rest would simulate the reduced effectiveness of night attacks compared to day attacks.) In theory, it seems as though this would have been possible. Flight times could have been estimated and planes on Formosa could have been launched such that they arrived at Manila at the same time the bombs fell on PH.

If this possibility is accepted, it seems as though the Japanese player should be able to launch other port attacks as long as they are set up as I have described to simulate a 1st turn night attack.

Any thoughts?
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by Barb »

While a nice idea you should consider few things:
You are going to land troops in Philippines - for this you need air superiority - and to win this you have to kill enemy planes or keep them at ground.

So every real commander around would be focused on getting those enemy planes. It is however unfortunate that a couple of Zeros can sweep 90% of allied fighters in 2 days and that allied bombers aren't going to hit anything because of their low NavSkill. But as real commander you didn't know this. You can't calculate that you will kill your enemy fighters in 10:1 ratio, nor that enemy pilots can't bomb ships effectively. This kind of inteligence isn't available.

On the other hand had Japanese tried this. They would certainly have 30 B-17s over their Formosa airfields in the morning - while some fighter protection could help - they would probably blast Japanese airfields. So IRL in the firts day - Japan would damage few ships and base equipment in Manila (how could you hit a submarine in night at 10-15.000 ft) and then lost their offensive capabilities for another day or two as their airfields and planes would be out of action because of B-17 strike.

IMHO
Image
CT Grognard
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by CT Grognard »

I agree with Barb.
 
It was much more important to attack Clark Field and try to remove Allied offensive air capability.
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: Barb

While a nice idea you should consider few things:
You are going to land troops in Philippines - for this you need air superiority - and to win this you have to kill enemy planes or keep them at ground.

So every real commander around would be focused on getting those enemy planes. It is however unfortunate that a couple of Zeros can sweep 90% of allied fighters in 2 days and that allied bombers aren't going to hit anything because of their low NavSkill. But as real commander you didn't know this. You can't calculate that you will kill your enemy fighters in 10:1 ratio, nor that enemy pilots can't bomb ships effectively. This kind of inteligence isn't available.

On the other hand had Japanese tried this. They would certainly have 30 B-17s over their Formosa airfields in the morning - while some fighter protection could help - they would probably blast Japanese airfields. So IRL in the firts day - Japan would damage few ships and base equipment in Manila (how could you hit a submarine in night at 10-15.000 ft) and then lost their offensive capabilities for another day or two as their airfields and planes would be out of action because of B-17 strike.

IMHO

Thanks for the input.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that it would be technically possible for the Japanese to do this, but unlikely given the prewar philosophy of the Japanese high command.

However, I think the same could be said of many other common strategies used by players on both sides - Japan invading Port Moresby in mid January 42; US carriers patroling NW Australia in February 42; "fortress Palembang/Java"; US invading Kuriles in spring of 42. All of these are possible options, but in real life they would have been considered foolhardy.

Regarding the difficulty of hitting targets in port at night, that's what the 50% rest was about. Perhaps upping that to 70% rest might be more like it?

As for the B-17s, I think you're exaggerating a bit. There are only 8 B-17s in Luzon at start, so 30 is a bit much. Besides, the Japanese have 90 Zeros stationed in Takao at start. They should be sufficient to deal with the figure of 30 B-17s that you suggest.
CT Grognard
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by CT Grognard »

The issue is that had a night attack of Manila taken place, all US air assets in the Philippines would have been on high alert by dawn.
 
This means Warhawks at Clark, Manila and Iba would have been up and ready on CAP to intercept any Japanese raids.
 
With December 7 Surprise on, this is definitely not featured. It's highly likely that no fighters will be up (remember, 50% chance of not flying any aircraft, and even if they do, reduced by 75%) and there will be no airstrikes in the morning phase. Also, Allied aircraft suffer increased damage. All of this assumes strategic surprise during the morning phase.
 
So a "night-time" port strike on Manila coupled with sweeps etc. of Allied airbases in Luzon would be unrealistic in their results.
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

The issue is that had a night attack of Manila taken place, all US air assets in the Philippines would have been on high alert by dawn.

This means Warhawks at Clark, Manila and Iba would have been up and ready on CAP to intercept any Japanese raids.

With December 7 Surprise on, this is definitely not featured. It's highly likely that no fighters will be up (remember, 50% chance of not flying any aircraft, and even if they do, reduced by 75%) and there will be no airstrikes in the morning phase. Also, Allied aircraft suffer increased damage. All of this assumes strategic surprise during the morning phase.

So a "night-time" port strike on Manila coupled with sweeps etc. of Allied airbases in Luzon would be unrealistic in their results.

How would it be unrealistic? Night port raids are allowed the other 1000+ turns of the game, why not on turn 1? In real life, all the Japanese would have to have done is correct for time zone differences and launch the Netties at a local time that would allow them to arrive at Manila at the same time KB started dropping bombs on PH. Any 9th grade Earth Science student in NY state (where I teach) should be able to do such a calculation.

By the way, it is assumed that this would be the only air attack allowed in the Philippines on turn 1.
CT Grognard
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by CT Grognard »

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

By the way, it is assumed that this would be the only air attack allowed in the Philippines on turn 1.


There's the difference.
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by Puhis »

I think there is no night phase in turn 1 anyway.
User avatar
Miller
Posts: 2226
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:14 am
Location: Ashington, England.

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by Miller »

They would have to be set to 90% rest to emulate the results of a night raid in the game.
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I think there is no night phase in turn 1 anyway.


Icedawg's point is that you "simulate" a night attack by setting the attacking air unit at 70% rest.

As to the rest - the Clark Field Disaster may still have happened. IIRC, in spite of being war ready Clark Field was caught much like the Japanese at Midway, in the midst of refueling and waiting for word that the fog over Formosa had lifted.

As to the liklihood that the Japanese would have devoted any air assets to the manilla Port Attack prior to achieving relative air superiority I find unlikely.

Unfortunately Stock AE, although better than vanilla WitP, does not provide a completely accurate simulation of what the real life commanders faced.
However, I think the same could be said of many other common strategies used by players on both sides - Japan invading Port Moresby in mid January 42; US carriers patroling NW Australia in February 42; "fortress Palembang/Java"; US invading Kuriles in spring of 42. All of these are possible options, but in real life they would have been considered foolhardy.

All of these are the result of insufficent game design and 20/20 hindsight. Unfortunately the stock game does not represent well at all some of the historic logistic realities faced by both sides.

For example - the US need to build military bases in Australia to support the war effort. One of the reasons the game drives hotter and faster than real life is because an Allied player can lift a US Division and US air units from the West Coast drop them Australia and then have them launch on a major operation the next day.

Historically the US devoted much time, supplies, equipment and shipping to expanding the existing Australian facilities to support a major war effort prior to launching any major counter attacks. This is unnecessary in Stock-AE.

Another example - neither side knew exactly where the major bases in the Solomons were going to be built because time and energy had to be spent on ground surveys etc. If I were "God Game Designer for a day" I would make the SPS of a base hidden to one side or the other and variable by +/-2 until they have an engineer unit in the base for at least a full day.

Oh well...enough ranting for now.

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
CT Grognard
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by CT Grognard »

Try playing DaBigBabes "C"...it takes a LONG time to build up bases...
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Try playing DaBigBabes "C"...it takes a LONG time to build up bases...
Yep, I know about DaBabes C. Da Babes C was developed alongside my mod which used Da Babes as its basis My mod is even more restrictive than C, but it is in need of an overhaul to bring it up to speed with the latest code changes etc.


Even with the changes in c and my mod there are still facets that the current code over simplifies for the player.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by treespider »

I've been here longer than you think Grog. C came about due to a discuSsion / in conjunction with my mod.... Which is C+
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
CT Grognard
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by CT Grognard »

Awesome, I'd love to know more about your mod!
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by treespider »

tm.asp?m=2276192

Although the mod has not been updated in some time...I was away from AE for a while. I do plan on updating the beasty once i get all of my ducks in a row.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Alternative Single Port Attack HR

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: Miller

They would have to be set to 90% rest to emulate the results of a night raid in the game.

This, I guess was the main point of my post. What percentage should be set to rest? I threw the 50% out there as a starting point hoping to get the discussion going.

Do you really think night bombing would be that ineffective that the rest percentage would have to be increased to 90? Seems a bit extreme.

I guess some testing may be in order.
Post Reply

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