Pearl Harbour?

Share your best strategies and tactics with other players by posting them here.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

Pearl Harbour?

Post by AlbertN »

Greetings everyone,

Twice I tried out a Pearl Harbour - over half a dozen of matches on Matrix WiF.

I am somehow sceptical it is an effective strategy though ...

The first problem is the massive USA AA - which despite being halved can still inflict 1 if not 2 planes shot down to the Japanese (which is a heavy impact on their meager BPs). My USA opponent also tends to bring the AA they start with to Pearl Harbour.

The second point is that the damage seems quite minimal. In the first occasion we were playing with CLs and there were plenty of ships in Pearl Harbour (SCS) and I spent surprise points to lower the AA to avoid airplane losses; and the damage inflicted was rather lousy (4X and 1D or so - having used 8 CVPs!)
The other attempt only saw 6 BBs and 3 CPs parked in Pearl Harbour (Still using 8 CVPs). This time I went to max damage out with most of the surprise points - and neated a 6X 3D and some A. Japan ended up to lose 2 CVPs due to AA (5 BPs erased, one of them was a 0 cost CVP brought on purpose to soak the expected hit). Then the BBs have such a save the often require a double X to get destroyed (in many cases just bottomed).
The 6X 3D turned out in 1 BB destroyed, 3 bottomed and 1 damaged. (15ish BPs dare say "lost" for USA).

I am far from sure Pearl Harbour is a viable tactic at the present.
The USA strike forces are pratically kept intact (Cruisers and CVs) and the only thing Japan gets are either few cruisers if present; and to hurt some slow BBs.

That on top of all the complications to get Pearl Harbour done has (Get outside of the base, with the USA not able to DoW Japan or to relocate the fleet rapidly - which also means they should not be able to DoW Germany / Italy; or they just flee)
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by warspite1 »

On the other hand what did Pearl Harbor actually achieve in real life? It cheesed off the biggest industrial power in the world at a cost of only two battleships that never sailed again (Arizona and Oklahoma). It forced the US to use a successful carrier group strategy built around carriers with a cruiser/destroyer screen and not having to rely upon the old, slow battle-wagons.

I would suggest if you are looking for tons of X's in a Pearl strike - then you are looking for something way too ahistorical.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

As the Japanese, I never bother with Pearl Harbor. I have too many other things to do with my CV's/fleet. I'm usually at war with CW before the US. I DOW the US just before I think they can DOW Japan to go after the Philippines...and maybe Midway.
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Centuur »

BB's are not important in the game, especially not the slow BB's. CV's are. US players will move the CV's out of Pearl Harbor the moment the Japanese fleet arrives in an adjacent sea area, except when the US wants to give the Japanese a juicy target to make sure war starts.

The Japanese on average gets about 2 to 3 kills in Pearl Harbor. And that's it. As Jagdtiger and Warspite say: Pearl Harbor wasn't the devastating attack everyone thinks it was...

Peter
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by brian brian »

The game design does leave the Japanese a potentially risky way to go for a shot at those juicy USN CVs ... by leaving their own CVs at sea at the end of the turn in hopes of moving first the next turn. In the mean-time, the US will add an entry chit and/or possibly manipulate tension levels, and then the Initiative dice are rolled ...

The Japanese have another option as well, aside from a Port Strike on Pearl - they can straight invade the place.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by paulderynck »

Pearl should be garrisoned asap with a white print corps and either an Eng or the 2 AA gun or the 3 arty. A successful surprise invasion is much more devastating than an air attack, plus some naval units may even be captured. All surrounding sea zones need a CP too so that it is very hard for it to be placed OoS.

Another thought with leaving the JP CVs out (even when not wanting to do the attack if initiative is won) is the USA will respond by moving their CVs out which means they give up the +3 roll adjustments for the Fleet to Pearl US entry option. But done to excess and it may be Japan that gets surprised and loses several good CVs.
Paul
User avatar
GaPete_slith
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:42 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by GaPete_slith »

I might be mistaken but, if you attack in the same pulse that you declare war, the enemy AA isn't as effective is it? Do they even get AA in the first pulse? In other words move your fleet in range, then declare war when you're ready to hit them. You should get at least a little better results.
If I am to be damned then let it be for who I am and not what I think you want me to be.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by paulderynck »

Yes surprised AA is halved. The usual question is if you move out and sit there waiting to port strike, then what are the USA's chances of a preemptive DoW and even if slight, he'll usually try it since it looks likely he'll be at war the next impulse anyway.

If successful then the party waiting to port strike will be the one getting slaughtered.

Paul
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Centuur »

I wouldn't even try to DoW the Japanese (except when I have a high possibility of success with the US). I simply move the precious CV's out of port back to the US, together with the best BB and that's it folks. The Japanese are invited to bomb the remaining BB's in Pearl. The US can stand to lose two or three slow BB's...

Peter
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4369
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Courtenay »

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I wouldn't even try to DoW the Japanese (except when I have a high possibility of success with the US). I simply move the precious CV's out of port back to the US, together with the best BB and that's it folks. The Japanese are invited to bomb the remaining BB's in Pearl. The US can stand to lose two or three slow BB's...

Yes, but you don't really return the CVs to the US, do you? You go to a sea area the Japanese can't possibly reach, so you can return to Pearl (or possibly some port to the south) during the return to base step, right?
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Centuur »

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I wouldn't even try to DoW the Japanese (except when I have a high possibility of success with the US). I simply move the precious CV's out of port back to the US, together with the best BB and that's it folks. The Japanese are invited to bomb the remaining BB's in Pearl. The US can stand to lose two or three slow BB's...

Yes, but you don't really return the CVs to the US, do you? You go to a sea area the Japanese can't possibly reach, so you can return to Pearl (or possibly some port to the south) during the return to base step, right?

Right. I should have said into US waters...
Peter
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by AlbertN »

If I was in the USA boots with highest chances I would as well save the CVs and bits eventually; the main hindrance of the USA DoW'ing Japan is that you do not get the unlimited gearing ups for production; which depending on what you had produced earlier - can turn into quite a limit.
User avatar
GaPete_slith
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:42 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by GaPete_slith »

Just remember, as you guys noted, it would be logical for the US to first try a preemptive DOW and then move some ships out to avoid the attack. As you noted, the chance of a DOW is an iffy thing and, you're still stuck using the combined option for movement. This limits what you can move. If you think about it, that's pretty much what really did happen. As it was pointed out earlier in the thread, the real attack was not as devastating as it first looked and the game simulates the probabilities quite well. I think the essence of the problem here is not really with the US, it's with Japan. The more I am learning about this game, the more I am finding it pretty good as far as simulating the basic positions of the nations involved. Japan simply did not have any good choices. The Pearl Harbor raid was an act of desperation on their part and, in the game, such an attack would be pretty much the same.
If I am to be damned then let it be for who I am and not what I think you want me to be.
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 27449
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: GaPete

Just remember, as you guys noted, it would be logical for the US to first try a preemptive DOW and then move some ships out to avoid the attack. As you noted, the chance of a DOW is an iffy thing and, you're still stuck using the combined option for movement. This limits what you can move. If you think about it, that's pretty much what really did happen. As it was pointed out earlier in the thread, the real attack was not as devastating as it first looked and the game simulates the probabilities quite well. I think the essence of the problem here is not really with the US, it's with Japan. The more I am learning about this game, the more I am finding it pretty good as far as simulating the basic positions of the nations involved. Japan simply did not have any good choices. The Pearl Harbor raid was an act of desperation on their part and, in the game, such an attack would be pretty much the same.
I don't agree that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was out of desperation. My understanding was that it was motivated by the desire to cripple the USN Pacific fleet in order to allow Japan a free hand at the oil and raw resources in the Dutch East Indies. Now, it's true that Japan was lacking these resources because of the embargo imposed by the USA on Japan. But this embargo was put in place because of Japan's war of aggression again China. Japan had already "acquired" Manchuria and Korea for their raw resources that were now feeding Japanese factories. I do agree that MWiF represents all this, and the associated tensions, extremely well.
Ronnie
User avatar
GaPete_slith
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:42 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by GaPete_slith »

I think you pretty much stated my own reply rkr. The Japanese chose war because they estimated they had six months of oil left. Now you can have all the other resources you want and it doesn't matter without oil. Their economy would have collapsed, their Navy would have been worthless, and they were already stuck in a quagmire in China, that if something did not change, they knew they could not win. If that is not desperation then I don't know what is. They hit Pearl because out of all the bad options they had, that was least problematic, not because it was a good one.
If I am to be damned then let it be for who I am and not what I think you want me to be.
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 27449
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: GaPete

I think you pretty much stated my own reply rkr. The Japanese chose war because they estimated they had six months of oil left. Now you can have all the other resources you want and it doesn't matter without oil. Their economy would have collapsed, their Navy would have been worthless, and they were already stuck in a quagmire in China, that if something did not change, they knew they could not win. If that is not desperation then I don't know what is. They hit Pearl because out of all the bad options they had, that was least problematic, not because it was a good one.
Our difference is probably semantics. The point I was trying to make was that the survival and well being of the Japanese nation could have been accomplished if they had ceased their war in China and given back some, but not all, of their conquered territories. Then I believe the USA would have lifted their embargo on oil and raw materials which would have started flowing against from the USA and elsewhere. Now, for the Japanese Militarist who wanted to continue their war with China, I would concede the attack on Pearl Harbor was an act desperation. So what I think I'm saying is that the attack was an act of desperation for the Japanese Militarist but not for Japan itself.
Ronnie
AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by AlbertN »

USA asked to Japan non acceptable demands. That would be to evacuate the whole of China.
USA did not gave specifics, but Japan gov. took it at the most litteral and technical level - as per Manchuria is part of China (as it is of the historical China, and as today Manchuria is in fact part of China).
Which for Japan, to forfeit their conquers in order to get the embargo lifted, would have set them in a corner of weakness and relate them of eternal dependancy from other nations.

But in the end this is the sum of WW2. The clash of the small and tiny "big countries" who do not have enough, against the giants who have pretty much everything, in terms of being economically more self sufficient.



brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by brian brian »

Well, it is worth remembering that in late 1941, the "Battle Fleet" was still considered of prime importance. Sure the IJN was hoping the Pacific Fleet's CVs would be in port. But though their Intell was of varying report on that idea, they launched the attack anyway.

They did learn from the British strike on Taranto of course, but that hadn't shown much strategic result either way yet. No one knew the Italians would be too low on oil to ever use their Battleships, not to mention the amount of political capital / pride their Supreme Leaderissimo would tie up in the safe existence of those BBs.

The Royal Navy was still super worried about Kriegsmarine capital ships getting loose on the convoy lines at the time as well.

Also the Japanese didn't know that they could "sink" a US BB in Pearl Harbor, but it wasn't truly "sunk." We of course know with hindsight that the USA might be able to call on the Bottomed Ships optional rule and the BPs involved are nothing to the USA - the real lesson the Japanese couldn't quite absorb (except, famously, by Yamamoto).


But what if they had hit that Tank Farm ... might connections to Australia have been severed and the Pacific War taken another year to complete? We will never know in this game at least.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: brian brian

No one knew the Italians would be too low on oil to ever use their Battleships.....

But what if they had hit that Tank Farm ...
warspite1

Sorry but the idea that the Italians had insufficient oil to ever use their battleships is simply not true. Not even close. If it were then Calabria, Spartivento, Matapan, Second Battle of Sirte, Operations M41 and M42 plus numerous operations to attack British convoys such as Halberd and Mincemeat could not have happened - but they did.

Re the Tank Farm. I assume that means the oil reserves. There was a thread in the WITP-AE thread which explored this a while back and some very knowledgeable people there confirmed that the Japanese Navy had no capability in 1941 to penetrate those tanks. They may have been wrong of course, but given the detail of the posts in response, I know where my money would be [;)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: Pearl Harbour?

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

I'll put my money on Red Hill. Concern over the tank farm being out in the open and potentially bombed is why 4,000 labored to build the Red Hill facility.

The Japanese had the 800kg converted naval shells dropped from high altitude (delivered by Kate's). If the Japs had no chance of penetrating the tank farm, the US Navy would not have spent time and money on Red Hill. The project began in 1940.

Fall of '42 to surrender '43?: "The fatal and final blow to the Italian Navy was a shortage of fuel, which forced its main units to remain at anchor for most of the last year of the Italian alliance with Germany."[11]
footnote: Garibaldi 'Century of War'(2001) Page 151.

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”