Am I a Cry Baby????

[dr.hal]

Folks, I need your take on Japanese hunting CVs on turn one. Basically I want to know if I’m a crybaby or have legitimate concerns over this concept. I recently started a game with JFB that I will not identify. As usual in getting the boundaries of the game set up I clearly indicated that I wanted a realistic game but would welcome non-historical concepts that are within the bounds of “realism”. Few house rules were set up but to me the understanding of realistic was foundational and I thought understood by my opponent. I never even mentioned CV hunting on the first turn as a no no, as I thought it was long established that the Japanese player could not do this unless the Allied player purposely sent his two CVs north west looking for trouble!

In my opening move I had the Lexington heading straight west (the predisposition of the Lex in the DDB scenario set up has her going northwest which I saw as tempting fate and not needed to “deliver” the marine squadron on her to Midway). The Lex was struck by at least a one CV and one CVL Japanese TF on hex 151.107, being hit by both torpedoes and 250 kg bombs (thus Vals were involved in the attack). Given that the Val range is at best 7 hexes and given that the first move is only half a move (day only) that means that my opponent would have to place the Jap TF east of Wake and well south of Midway. Further my opponent’s TF had to end up on the hex line of 100, which means it was two hexes SOUTH of the Wake hex line and NINE below Midway! I find this placement and outcome to be totally unrealistic. The only reason that the Japanese were able to sneak up on Pearl is that they came directly from the NORTH of Hawaii so as to remain under the weather front that obscured their movements until December 6th. How would a Jap TF get to a position east of Wake and south of Midway? Impossible without being detected from Midway! No it doesn't even remotely ring true.

My opponent counters that I too could be considered gamey in my move of the Lexington in that I had her going to Wake to rescue the Marine squadron there. Yet if I wanted to protect Wake, northwest is the way to go. I was simply getting out of dodge (and heading in the historical direction that it was intended to head on the actual day of the attack). The Japs thought the US CVs were at Pearl, there was no need or intention to protect Wake. I certainly understand A-Historical approaches but in terms of the first turn my opponent knows where my CVs are and that the logical move for them to steam is away from the action. Which is what they did. My opponent states that he was placing his TF units to "protect" his invasion of Wake, a tiny sideshow that would play out a few days in the future. This action was at the expense of diminishing his attack on Pearl (or any port for that matter). This in my view is not even close to realistic. Wake was a backwater and will always be such. The only reason it made the history books is that the Marines actually defeated the first invasion. How much does one hear about the first battle of Guam? Nothing as there was nothing of historical importance there in '41. This is an example of where history and the game have problems. The Japanese player knows where the US CVs are and sent a force in their direction when in reality there was absolutely no reason for such a move. Wake was and remains a speck in the ocean. Japan’s whole philosophy was to destroy the Pacific fleet, and yet my opponent sent part of the KB to protect an invasion that amounts to a mouse biting on an elephant! I can understand his desire to split the KB to hit another port, but not protecting Wake! In truth if I were the Japanese player I doubt I would invade it to begin with, it does nothing more than provide safe target practice for the US later in the war! I certainly have no problems loosing the Lady Lex, but I would prefer to do so under conditions that somewhat reflect possible actions.

Clearly at the start both players know too much. That's why the first turn has restrictions. It simply has to have that or there is no initial balance. In my view, taking unfair advantage of that knowledge though CV hunting by the Japs on the first turn is a no no. Break up the KB (even by one CV, or even a CVL from another important operation) to protect a third rate side show when the whole "raison detre" of that KB was to destroy the Pacific Fleet doesn't seem to even remotely reflect reality. Hitting Manila does, trying to get to Singapore does (if that is allowed), but not Wake.

For this move to be needed my opponent had to use pre-event knowledge that his Wake invasion was in trouble, which only can be known after the invasion failed and that is many days in the future. For the strike in question to take place it means that my opponent would have had to have the Jap TF east of Wake and well south of Midway at the outset to attack ships in hex 151,107.

My opponent sites the move of the PoW and Repulse away from Singapore as also taking advantage of pre-event knowledge. I don't agree at all. If one looks at the game's Dec 8th start AFTER the attack of Pearl, both ships are in Singapore with NO move planned. So if one starts from that date the Allied player has every right to avoid the stupid decision to risk those ships in a dash up the Malaysian coast, and it would NOT be considered taking advantage of "pre-knowledge" or gamey but taking into account the effectiveness of the Japanese as demonstrated on Dec. 8th and 9th. So on the degree of "gamey" scale I would see this as almost zero compared to having a Jap CV TF south of Midway and east of Wake.

To me this move by my opponent is CV hunting. Am I being a first turn sore looser or is my objection realistic given my open desire to have a historical game with realistic a-historical moves as a possibility? I look forward to your views. Thanks. Hal

[Chickenboy]

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

[Encircled]

What Chickenboy said

Though anything other than Lex and Enterprise running for the hills on Turn 1 is asking for trouble.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

Absolutely not a crybaby, Dr Hal.

Agree with the quoted post completely.


I prefer to play the Japanese side and would consider this a breech of trust in anything but an anything goes match.

[kbfchicago]

+1 above comments.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

+1

Except for TF Z ... that was one TF whose position was publicized ... everyone knew where they were. The Brits wanted everyone to know as they thought it a deterrent. So hunting it is free game in my opinion.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

+1

Except for TF Z ... that was one TF whose position was publicized ... everyone knew where they were. The Brits wanted everyone to know as they thought it a deterrent. So hunting it is free game in my opinion.

PaxMondo, just a point of clarification, I didn't mean to suggest that Force Z should be off limits for attack, all I meant to convey was that I don't think it "gamey" to NOT send Force Z up the Malaysian peninsula. If you will recall if you start the game on Dec 7th, it has the PoW plotted to go up and intercept the Jap invasion. I had it move in the opposite direction, which was viewed as "gamey" akin to my opponent's CV TF defending Wake. Sorry for the confusion.

[Feltan]

dr. hal,

Your attitude and assumptions seem quite correct to me.

While it is not gamey for the JFB's to head to, say, Truk after the PH strike (and hence you can "run into" the KB if you head west) -- targeting the hapless US carriers only based on pre-game set-up knowledge is dirty pool.

You probably now have a good idea of what the rest of the game will be like with this opponent.[8|]

Regards,
Feltan

[witpqs]

Agree with all of the above and particularly with Feltan's post. You invested a lost in turn one, but will invest a ton more as things get worse. It looks like they surely will. [:(]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My opinion: The Japanese player should avoid all trappings of prescient knowledge of the location of Allied ships and their default orders for turn one. This includes "hunting" Boise, Chicago and certainly the American CVs. The 'no hunting American CVs on turn one' is a standard request and is, IMO, quite reasonable. The fact that it wasn't voiced in your game doesn't make it less worthy IMO.

Yes-you have cause for grievance. Were I in your position, I would request a redo of turn one or terminate the game with cause. Your choice. It should also put you on guard for 'shenanigans' in the future, dr. Hal.

+1

Except for TF Z ... that was one TF whose position was publicized ... everyone knew where they were. The Brits wanted everyone to know as they thought it a deterrent. So hunting it is free game in my opinion.

PaxMondo, just a point of clarification, I didn't mean to suggest that Force Z should be off limits for attack, all I meant to convey was that I don't think it "gamey" to NOT send Force Z up the Malaysian peninsula. If you will recall if you start the game on Dec 7th, it has the PoW plotted to go up and intercept the Jap invasion. I had it move in the opposite direction, which was viewed as "gamey" akin to my opponent's CV TF defending Wake. Sorry for the confusion.

Correct and thanks for clarifying. The allies can do whatever they want with Force Z ... But the IJ know it is starting in Singers and they can hunt it if they want. All other allied TF's, to my knowledge, were operating under normal wartime procedures on Dec 7 ... so the IJ's knowledge of their location was less precise.

[pws1225]

+1 to the above, and you were correct to 'cry' foul.

[setloz]

Hello,

Since Dr.Hal was gracious enough not to name his opponent, I will step up and explain my side of the story.

First - the set of rules agreed was minimal. DrHal mentioned liking historical play but inovation being a must. Only rule that was agreed was paying PPs to cross national boundaries.

Second - Turn one - I tried to have a balanced turn, with few a-historical things and a lot of the "historical" ones. That meant invasion of Khota Baru, not Mersing. On the a-historical side, I invaded Singkawang, Jolo and Manado. No hunting of Boise or Houston, or any other TFs with known starting points.

Third - KB disposition. Being a game with very few agreed rules, I tried to be prepared. I've seen on the forums here games where the allies send CVs to strike KB while it is striking the PH port. So I set-up one of the KB's kate squadrons on naval attack, while the rest were set to port strike.
I also made sure to have solid escorts for all my invasions.
KB placement was exactly as the scenario set-it, I didn't change the hex. Nor for the oiler fleet.

Fourth - The invasions plan. Since I don't belive my game against Dr Hal will continue, there is no need for opsec. I wanted to do 3 landings in two weeks: wake, midway and Johnston island.
For these to be successful, I thought it would be best to have the KB head north after day one to cover Midway and to have a mini-KB covering wake. The second TF would be composed of 1CVL and one CV split up from the KB.

Fifth - what happened. Lexington moved straight west and got into range of my two TFs (one with the CV, one with the CVL) and these reacted towards it.
So Lex will probably sink.

Sixth - what I belive.
I tested the same turn without changing orders for Lexington - there is no CV clash as Lex goes 3 hexes north then all the way southeast towards Johnston island.

So, to be clear: moving Lex on the historical course, or even on an a-historical one northwards, southwards or southeastwards would NOT result in a CV clash. Even a SW move would not result in the CV clash.
Moving LEX directly westwards will generate a reaction from IJN CVL and CV TFs and ensure a CV battle.


And since Dr. Hal never explained why Lex was moving westwards, I asked around: there is a VB Marine Squadron on Wake that gets destroyed when Wake is conquered. (It was destroyed in real life.) Some Allied players view moving Lex towards Wake as a low-risk move to rescue that VBF Marine Squadron by moving it onboard Lexington. This move can also be a springboard for a raid on Wake invasion in case the KB shows itself around Midway. (which I planned to do anyway like I said earlier).


Seventh - my offer. I explained in detail to Dr.Hal that it was not my intention to hunt his CV. I also offered a redo of the turn with him moving Lex anywhere else but westwards which would ensure that no CV clash ensues on day one.

I'm not trying to be "sneaky" and pull "shenanigans". If I did, I would have landed at Mersing or Singapore on turn one. Or I would have sent 3 TFs of 2CVs each in a search pattern west and southwest of PH, especially to hunt and destroy the allied CVs while also having TFs ready for Boise and Houston. I didn't do any of these.

As I told him, I belived that moving LEX westwards to recover the Wake airplanes or even raiding the invasion force is a risk vs reward mission. However, I also told him that we should settle this between ourselves, as two starting PBEM partners should.
I am willing to post my e-mails here as well as the savegame so that everyone can see that I was in no way offensive or categoric.


In the end, I belive that the expectations for this game were completely different for both of us and we failed to communicate about it.
To be precise - Dr.Hal expected no splitting KB and no a-historical positioning of any IJN CVs while a-historical positioning of allied CVs being allowed.
I expected him to position his CVs anywhere on the map, including within strike distance of KB and prepared for that.

It's all about expectations.

[dr.hal]

Setloz three quick points, at no point did I say you were "offensive" nor were you. Your correspondence was correct in all manner. The second point is that it's simply not possible for two (I didn't know you used two separate TFs), let alone one TF to get into the positions you describe without giving away the element of surprise which I pointed out to you was foundational to the whole Japanese plan. Thus my view of a "gamey" move. Your predisposition was simply not possible. A quick final point; as for where the Lex goes, as I pointed out to you in my PM, the DDB game has the Lex going NW, not west with the ultimate destination hex right off Wake! I dropped that and put in the direction going straight west. The VF partial squadron on Wake was expendable and the Lex in her current state couldn't have taken them on, she has the VB squadron on her as well as her whole air wing. Thus she was maxed out.

Your are correct, it's about expectations and ours was mismatched. You went to another forum for support of your views and actions. I went to this one. Hal

[setloz]

Re: second point - what is "the element of surprise" have to do with the japanese player splitting KB and sending half to bomb Manila? Or sending Kaga and Ryujo near Singapore as Greyjoy did?
I didn't think that I had to stay exactly within the historical strike. That's why I'm saying it's a miscomunication.


Also, regarding your explanation - I just opened the scenario, hit end turn and loaded the allied turn. Lexington starts at 156,107 and has a plotted course 2 hex NW, 2 hex east, 9 hexes south east. I don't know where you get the ultimate destination hex right off wake because it goes towards Johnston island where it also historically went (according to wikipedia Lex spent the time between dec 7th and dec 13th between Johnston and Hawaii).

But yes, if it did go directly towards Wake, on a straight west course or any course with that final destination I'd be completely guilty of what you say. Because I would know that the LEX TF goes to wake and my TFs would be exactly in the way.
Except that Lex TF doesn't go to Wake. Like I said, it goes southeastwards. Moving it towards wake is actually what caused my CVs to react and clash with Lex.

I'm just trying to set things straight. Please don't use incorrect facts as that would point to me as being a bad guy who knows Lex is going to Wake and sends Tfs to intercept it. I had no idea you would send it westwards. But I already admited my CV +CVL were sent near Wake in case you did send a CV towards wake, to raid the wake invasion when I sent KB north to help invade Midway.

Again, as the savegame is too large for the forum to accept, I will PM you it + pwd. You can see for yourself the dispositions and how not changing orders for Lexington to direction west would never have got us here.
I will also PM both of these to anyone interested. Or you could open DBB-C scen 28 hit end turn and check again for yourself.

[dr.hal]

This public display is at an end. You have your view, I've mine. I want to thank all that expressed a view in this thread and in many ways I'm sorry I ever brought this up.

[setloz]

Not my choice for a public display.
Like I said in my PM, I hope you find a partner more to your liking and I hope there are no hard feelings for this lack of communication.

best regards

[crsutton]

Did your opponent give you the OK to take this dispute public?

[Gaspote]

i'm playing a pretty interesting game with these settings :
-No CV hunt in first months of game.
-No major CV operations in first months(2 or 3) of game

I think it should be apply by everyone because it's historical. First CV raids are in february (Marshall-Gilbert and Darwin). Nothing before except PH. It keep balance because allies get nothing in first months of war to counter Japanese carriers. So it could be raid over PH again and again and midway japanese in december. Ask my AI opponents [:D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: crsutton



Did your opponent give you the OK to take this dispute public?

He kept his opponent anonymous, his opponent chose to speak up.

[btd64]

Oh boy,[8|]
I will say there are parts of both sides that are interesting. I'm not going to take sides, but I do like what Gaspote said.
cheers and like we say in Distant Worlds, pass the Romulian Ale.[:D]