Gamey Tactic?

[2ndACR]

Just want to know where alot of you stand on this tactic.

Manila instead of PH on turn 1.

Most of the "house rules" I have seen limit the number of port attacks to one only.
I have done alot of turn 1 starts attacking PH with low results.
With PH being a size 10 port with a repair facility it is dang near impossible to sink alot.
You can damage (heavily) most of the BB's. But sinking them is hard.

Now sending KB to Manila instead you devestate the forces there. In multiple starts I have sunk 20+ subs and the AS ships. We all know that the subs are mainly what the IJN player fears for the 1st year and half. We all know we play and plan with hindsight as our weapon.

I feel this is a valid tactic. If the allied player wants to send all them BB's to the PI (ala Plan Orange) I have no problem with that. It keeps KB within the main area of operations
for the 1st year or so. Speeds up the conquest of the DEI, Malaya, PI. The IJN player can always sink those BB's later when they appear away from PH. But we all know that the IJN player is shackled with POOR anti sub ratings and POOR ASW ships.

Looking for opinions here.

[brisd]

PH was attacked to knock out the US Fleet so the Japanese could 'run wild' for the next six months. If KB had caught the CV's as well as the battlefleet in PH, then it would have achieved that goal. IMHO, Japan should have bombed PI's port at same time as Clark Field, with the initial strikes. So I say go for both targets, the allies have lots more coming, what's a few dozen subs between friends? [;)] Having said that, I'd say no PI instead of PH is not historically viable. Might as well let Japan do anything if you take away the PH strike.

[myros]

Id say it isnt gamey at all as long as your opponent agrees to play a more free form game right from the start. Its the nice thing about scen 15 ... there are quite a few potential ways to get things going, some more historical than others. As long as both player agree ...kill em all!

Myros

[SunDevil_MatrixForum]

I agree that it depends on the other PBEM player. If playing single-player well that is why you paid $70 for this game, to play it as you like. Just remember that there is good and bad with every strategy and with a veteran player, giving them PH undamaged with all of its ships might cause unforseen results. Have fun.

[2ndACR]

My normal rule between PBEM players just stipulates ONE port attack only on turn 1.

It is very easy to go for both, but I feel it would be alittle too cheesy.

By just stipulating 1 port attack with a no movement for allied player except TF already at sea, I (personally) feel
it simulates the surprise attack. The allied player knows the attack is coming, just not where.

I know the history of why PH was attacked, but I am not playing to recreate history. I am playing to win or at least undo alot of the mistakes the IJN made. I have already seen some allied players do the "bunker in and wait until 43" method.
Makes playing the game very boring. By removing a big chunk of his offensive weapon and support (AS) I force him to come and play (if he wants to hurt me any) otherwise I have massive amounts of oil/resources stockpiled, most of my ships to haul it.

[UncleBuck]

I don't know about gamey but not realistic IMO. Remember at the beginning of the war the general consensus of BOTH Navies were that BB's were still Queens of the sea. I can see Reducing the number of carriers the KB has in a group and augmenting the PI force but they would have made the strike on PH just to keep them bottled up. At the time of PH no one was sure that Airpower could counter a Heavy battle fleet. A lone BB with a few escorts was one thing but the full weight of the 3rd Fleet was something else. On Dec. 7th 1941 Japan would not have risked the wrath of an un-damaged Pacific fleet going to sea out of PH. Now if you are playing it as the Japanese are planning that the US will not respond to the attacks on PI, and then you must modify the Japanese offensives somewhere. There are too many things that Hindsight gives the JP Player n this scenario. The Sub was thought of in ALL Navies as an Auxiliary ship and of no real threat. We all know now it was not true. Maybe if you do not attack PH you must not attack the Port at Manila in turn one but concentrate on what all thought were the TACTICAL threats, airfields. Just my opinion. If you do this instead of attacking PH and with no other restrictions on JP The war will be over in 1943 with a JP win for sure, the Allies cannot counter you.
UB

[RUPD3658]

I am going to do a Sundevil on you

fb.asp?m=662009

I tried this and have had great success. My AKs and Tankers only started getting harrassed in March thatnks to the 20 or so subs sank at Manilla on turn 1.

Alot of people said it was gamey and should only be used against the AI. My argument was that the original US warplan Orange expected a first strike in the PI.

I think it is a viable plan.

[SunDevil_MatrixForum]

I got to get a patent.... where was the damn phone number again..... [:D]

[Fallschirmjager]

Doesnt bother me. IJN player can make as many port attacks as they want on turn 1.
By doing so they forgot attacks on airfields so you have intact airforces to move away or use in CAP and naval strikes.
I dislike house rules and use as few of them as I can.

[CMDRMCTOAST]

Some people want to play historically and thats fine I will play both ways,
as I bought this game to pit my forces and strategies against my apponants
and to see who can come out on top in the end.
to play historically means the IJN losses every time so why not
change tactics to see if you can do a better job than they did. IMHO

[2ndACR]

That is basically the way I feel about it. I want to do better or win as the IJN. Like I have said before "we all play with hindsight". It is our most powerful weapon. I have seen the 2nd Marine Div on Guadalcanal with support by Feb 42.

Doing that makes little difference to me. I have been thinking of seeing if I can take India and knock the British etc out of the game. Would allow me to concentrate on the US from 1 front. China also. After the DEI, PI, Malaya are secure start moving alot of those Divisions towards India, Burma. I can move them back after I win. Smaller units (brigades, SNLF) begin digging in on the islands and fortifying them. Basically play a small advance and holding war against the allies.

[DrewMatrix]

I have seen the 2nd Marine Div on Guadalcanal with support by Feb 42.

In Scen 16, v1.21 the 2nd Marine starts at about 1/3 strength but worse (or better from the point of keeping one from using it too early) it starts as part of the West Coast restricted command. It costs an enormous number of PPs to convert it (enormous by early game standards).

[2ndACR]

Yeah I know it does in Scen 16, but then I miss out on turn 1. Scen 16 is great for those who want to take over on
Dec 8, 1941. I like planning my opening moves. Even by limiting my use of the warp move. In Scen 15 the 2nd Marine is a "uber" unit. I can still deal with it though in Scen 15. Anyone deploying it too soon may find it starved to death on some island somewhere. Early game pre 42 it just cannot be supported whereever the allied player happens to stick it.

At least not with my high exp pilots, and KB still intact.

[DrewMatrix]

Early game pre 42 it just cannot be supported whereever the allied player happens to stick it.

Hehehe. Unlike Real Life where they almost couldn't support a Marine Division on Guadalcanal in mid 1942!

[2ndACR]

Yeah.[:D]

[brisd]

Yes today I've been reading about Operation Watchtower, the invasion of Guadalcanal and Tulugi. Amazing how quickly the whole thing came about. I tend to agree with most of the posters here, I want to do better than history. I will tend to say do historical 1st turn, unhistorical 1st turn with no restrictions for both sides or scenario 16. Japan has enough airpower to strike Clark, Manila port and Singapore's airfield and port simulataneously. Knocking out the subs would be nice, Japan's ASW capabilities were/are sorely lacking.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
Just want to know where alot of you stand on this tactic.

Manila instead of PH on turn 1… I feel this is a valid tactic.

Interesting choice. At Pearl Harbor you can usually sink a couple of Battleships and damage a few more, what are you sinking in Manila?

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I don't know about gamey but not realistic IMO. Remember at the beginning of the war the general consensus of BOTH Navies were that BB's were still Queens of the sea…

I thought the primary targets at Pearl Harbor were the Carriers, because Yamamoto believed Carriers to be the “Queens of the sea”?

[2ndACR]

In 6 runs on PBEM turn 1 sending KB to Manila plus the baby carriers has netted an average of 21 subs, all 3 AS sunk with all the rest at over 50% damage at the end of the turn. And they are listed as sunk beginning of turn 2. About the same average against the AI in over 30 turn 1's.

I think in all the turn 1's I have run (both PBEM and vs AI) the PH raid gives me on average 1-2 BB's sunk and 4 hvy damage. But since I really do not fear the BB's if they want to come and party, I do fear the subs. A strike at Manila
basically wipes out the US's forward offensive weapon, the forward support ships (AS). Now new AS's and subs have to be moved either from PH direct to the DEI-SRA area or moved to Broome from there. I still have to worry about the deadly Dutch subs, but there are alot less of them. Allowing the allies to surge 20+ ships straight into the area from Manila on turn 2 basically sentences 20+ AK's, AP's, TK's to doom within 2 months.

But by removing them on turn 1 (you still have to deal with the subs at sea) now the allied player has to spend the time to move an AS forward (at least 2 weeks transit time to Broome from PH). Move the subs from PH, SF to Broome. I gain at least 2 months of fairly safe shipping lanes in one fell swoop.

Some argue that the IJN did not do that because of the thinking of the time. But we all know that the sub is the main killer in the SRA region. We all know that IJN ASW sucks. We all know that the allied player is going to get at least 15 top of the line CV's, greatly increased AA, a billion subs. We are all playing with hind sight. At least by taking out the fleet at Manila turn 1, I manage to reduce some of the early threat against me. I can easily counter the BB's from PH later if they come to party. But the subs will be the IJN players bane from day 1 til end game.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

In 6 runs on PBEM turn 1 sending KB to Manila plus the baby carriers has netted an average of 21 subs, all 3 AS sunk with all the rest at over 50% damage at the end of the turn. And they are listed as sunk beginning of turn 2. About the same average against the AI in over 30 turn 1's.

I think in all the turn 1's I have run (both PBEM and vs AI) the PH raid gives me on average 1-2 BB's sunk and 4 hvy damage. But since I really do not fear the BB's if they want to come and party, I do fear the subs. A strike at Manila
basically wipes out the US's forward offensive weapon, the forward support ships (AS). Now new AS's and subs have to be moved either from PH direct to the DEI-SRA area or moved to Broome from there. I still have to worry about the deadly Dutch subs, but there are alot less of them. Allowing the allies to surge 20+ ships straight into the area from Manila on turn 2 basically sentences 20+ AK's, AP's, TK's to doom within 2 months.

But by removing them on turn 1 (you still have to deal with the subs at sea) now the allied player has to spend the time to move an AS forward (at least 2 weeks transit time to Broome from PH). Move the subs from PH, SF to Broome. I gain at least 2 months of fairly safe shipping lanes in one fell swoop.

Some argue that the IJN did not do that because of the thinking of the time. But we all know that the sub is the main killer in the SRA region. We all know that IJN ASW sucks. We all know that the allied player is going to get at least 15 top of the line CV's, greatly increased AA, a billion subs. We are all playing with hind sight. At least by taking out the fleet at Manila turn 1, I manage to reduce some of the early threat against me. I can easily counter the BB's from PH later if they come to party. But the subs will be the IJN players bane from day 1 til end game.

If the choice is sinking 21 submarines or 2 battleships, the choice is easy as submarines were the bane of the Japanese Empire. Considering the US lost 48 submarines in the war zone during the entire war historically, that isn’t bad.



“Of the 8.1 million tons of Japanese merchant vessels lost during the war, U.S. submarines accounted for 4.9 million tons in 1,113 vessels, 60 percent of the total losses. In addition, U.S. submarines sank 540,192 tons of Japanese naval ships including 8 aircraft carriers, 1 battleship and 11 cruisers. Taken together, the two tonnage figures represent 54.6 percent of all Japanese naval and merchant vessel losses.”


“…Fifty-two submarines were lost with 48 destroyed in the war zones of the Pacific.”