comments on alternative allied starting strategy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message


camonroe -> comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/23/2012 7:09:35 PM)

Hi all,

after playing Japan extensively against the AI and an aborted PBEM campaign, I'm going to start my first PBEM as Allies.

In setting up my first turn I am thinking of doing something very radical which goes against the common thinking in this forum. Basically I am thinking of consolidating the 2 CVTFs in the Pacific and try to meet KB head on and give battle as it returns from Pearl Harbour.

My reasoning is that at the beginning (before the 7/42 resizing) KB suffers from a lack of fighters (only 108 total) and that weakness could also be exacerbated by eventual losses in the PH attack. Moreover, after the first turn attack, KB would probably be either out or very short of torpedoes, thus lessening the potential damage that it could cause.

I have run a lot of tests to try it and the common result is that I usually (but not always) lose both Carriers while being able to damage in various degree (sometime very severely)a variable number of Japan CVs.

Given the above mentioned situation and considering that Japan CVs are very fragile and a few bomb hits could prove fatal to them, especially since KB is very far from a friendly port, do you think it is worthwhile to take the risk of losing 2 CVs for potentially strike an early blow to Japan's early expansions?

Thanks for your comments,

Carl




JocMeister -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/23/2012 7:20:09 PM)

I wouldn´t do it. If you loose two carriers you more or less give you opponent a free reign in the pacific. Even the KB has do be wary of 5 (6 with Wasp) US carriers combined. Three carriers not so much... That being said I´m far, far from being an expert! [:)]





hkbhsi -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/23/2012 7:21:58 PM)

Hi Carl,

I am mostly a Japanese player and I have to tell you that before the 7/42 resizing of air groups, KB is not nearly as good as most people think it is.

In fact I think it is so weak that I usually try to commit it only if I'm positive that US carriers are not in the area.

I'm not sure about a "2 against 6 battle" but if you are willing to sacrifice your 2 CVs I would suggest to put most of your fighters to escort duty while almost totally neglecting CAP. If I remember correctly those 2 CVs have a fair amount of DBs and if you can protect them in the strike to go through a very weak KB CAP, they have the potential to cause a lot of damage. As you correctly said Japan's carriers are very fragile and you need just a few bomb hits to severely damage them. Moreover you would give battle very far from a Japanese port, greatly increasing the chance of the damaged ships sinking on their way home giving the poor Japanese damage control.

All in all I think it is a roll of the dice, but probably you can gain much more that you can lose.

Alex.




Historiker -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/23/2012 7:25:32 PM)

You also risk that your PBEM lasts much shorter than anticipated [;)]




Dan Nichols -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/23/2012 8:19:24 PM)

If you are going to do this, move far enough West to be able to load the Marine detachment of fighters at Wake. 10 more fighters can make a difference.




Gräfin Zeppelin -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/23/2012 8:36:31 PM)

If the Japanese player splits the KB you might hit the jackpot. Otherwise its a huge gamble which will most likely backfire.




JeffroK -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/23/2012 9:15:15 PM)

It against the AI,

Give it a bash, if it fails you can choose to start again.

I have lost both CV within the first week and it isnt fatal, just slows you down a bit.

"Only 108" IJN fighters, against half that number of USN VF whiah sre split Wildcats and Buffalos.




dr.hal -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/23/2012 9:38:52 PM)

If you want a serious game in which you want to win the fastest way possible, do not do this. You need to train you carrier pilots and the carriers themselves. You need to do some safe hit and runs (much like the real USN did in '42) in order to get combat experience. In short I believe you would be throwing away your carriers for a very small possibility of a decent return. You COULD get lucky, but in terms of dice rolling, with two six sided ones, you would have a one in thirty two chance of doing real harm to your enemy while not shooting yourself in the webbed foot. The KB may not be as strong in numbers as some Japanese side players would like but their training is great which makes up for a LOT of low numbers (witness what one carrier counterstrike did at Midway!). Hal




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/23/2012 9:55:26 PM)


If you want a perfect allied PBEM, look at my *Bore in the Pacific* [8D]

WITP vanilla may 42 scenario..

sink 80% of the entire IJN carriers in two battles

sink 80% of japanese battleships with a few CL, DD, and PT boats [:D]

and take Paramushiro Jima by about september 1942

allied carriers lost = 0
allied battleships lost = 0

japanese navy trashed
japanese air force butchered

opponent quits [:'(]

the secret? he was bored [;)]

a nice example of sir robin strategy..

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1924134&mpage=1&key=school




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/23/2012 9:57:06 PM)


[:D]

[image]local://upfiles/28382/7CE5BFD99BD6429E9009917DAC45A0E0.jpg[/image]




khyberbill -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/23/2012 10:36:06 PM)

I did this once after KB had struck PH three days in a row and lost most of both TF's. My thinking was the same as yours as well as some hope that sortie count might be low. I will never do this again. ymmv




Alfred -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/24/2012 9:40:21 AM)

1. KB available sorties will be more than enough to obliterate both USN CV TF.

2. Even without torpedoes, Kates will still launch to deliver bombs. Combined with the Vals, there is more than enough firepower to sink the American CVs.

3. The American survivors will themselves not be that close to a friendly. It will be very difficult to save severely wounded American ships.

4. Loss of the American carriers in the first week will speed up the Japanese conquest timetable.

5. A good human Japanese opponent can overcome the loss of any CVs by appropriately adjusting his operations. The AI can't so don't assume your prior testing of this tactic against the AI is an indicator of what you will experience in your forthcoming PBEM game.

Alfred




Chickenboy -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/24/2012 1:37:41 PM)

Also,

American carrier airwings are understrength until the deployment of the TBF series and widespread deployment of the F4F.

The SBD-3 Dauntless are good aircraft, but that's not the only DB in place on the Allied carriers. The others are less capable.

It's unlikely that you will get within torpedo range of the Devastator TB (2 hexes?!?) before the Allied CVs are perforated in kind.

So, to summarize: you would be outnumbered, outranged, outskilled, outgunned and outmatched. I agree with the others-it's really drawing to an inside straight. You're quite likely to lose.




USSAmerica -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/24/2012 2:04:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

You also risk that your PBEM lasts much shorter than anticipated [;)]


[:D]




Miller -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/24/2012 3:28:26 PM)

Well it is almost certain you will lose both CVs. As someone has said you may as well set all your fighters to escort, that way most of your DBs should get through. Then, if they attack in good weather and if they concentrate on only 2 or 3 targets it could be a good day.......lots of "Ifs" in that scentence........

Even if you are succesful there is then the risk that your opponent will quit if they lose half the KB in December 41...............





Chickenboy -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/24/2012 3:43:20 PM)

I find it equally likely that an Allied player (not the OP of course) would quit the game if they lost 2 CVs so early in the game. Quitting after failed gambits is not the exclusive purview of the IJ players.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/24/2012 3:43:56 PM)

quote:

there is then the risk that your opponent will quit if they lose half the KB in December 41...............


Need an Ebay style feedback system for PBEM [;)]




kbfchicago -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/24/2012 8:59:01 PM)

Am in my first PBEM, Scn #2 - Reinforced IJ, played as I did in my two successful AI games vs IJ (Scen #1), very aggressively.  Have humbly learned my lesson.  Don't do it.  Not on 8 Dec, nor in early '42.  It's a very long shot at best.




derhexer -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (3/26/2012 4:11:02 AM)

quote:

In setting up my first turn I am thinking of doing something very radical which goes against the common thinking in this forum. Basically I am thinking of consolidating the 2 CVTFs in the Pacific and try to meet KB head on and give battle as it returns from Pearl Harbour.

My reasoning is that at the beginning (before the 7/42 resizing) KB suffers from a lack of fighters (only 108 total) and that weakness could also be exacerbated by eventual losses in the PH attack. Moreover, after the first turn attack, KB would probably be either out or very short of torpedoes, thus lessening the potential damage that it could cause.


I recommend against this. The KB has much better trained pilots than the US does. If you as American insist, I suggest you combine your operation with your subs. Try to get an idea where you expect the KB to apear and flood that area with US, Australian and Dutch subs. That can cause the KB to break off attacks and give you a better chance to sink a few KB carriers.

But, the wiser heads are sayinmg conserve your carriers until you have enough to hold a decisive battle. Sugest you listen to them




Rusty1961 -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (4/1/2012 9:06:49 PM)

Frankly, I find the typical American strategy of "Sir Robin" to be the sign of a very weak American player.

The Japanese in Scen #1 are at a distinct disadvantage that is borders on poor-sportsmanship to engage in such defensive play.

Just my two-cents.




Icedawg -> RE: comments on alternative allied starting strategy (4/2/2012 2:11:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: camonroe

Hi all,

after playing Japan extensively against the AI and an aborted PBEM campaign, I'm going to start my first PBEM as Allies.

In setting up my first turn I am thinking of doing something very radical which goes against the common thinking in this forum. Basically I am thinking of consolidating the 2 CVTFs in the Pacific and try to meet KB head on and give battle as it returns from Pearl Harbour.

My reasoning is that at the beginning (before the 7/42 resizing) KB suffers from a lack of fighters (only 108 total) and that weakness could also be exacerbated by eventual losses in the PH attack. Moreover, after the first turn attack, KB would probably be either out or very short of torpedoes, thus lessening the potential damage that it could cause.

I have run a lot of tests to try it and the common result is that I usually (but not always) lose both Carriers while being able to damage in various degree (sometime very severely)a variable number of Japan CVs.

Given the above mentioned situation and considering that Japan CVs are very fragile and a few bomb hits could prove fatal to them, especially since KB is very far from a friendly port, do you think it is worthwhile to take the risk of losing 2 CVs for potentially strike an early blow to Japan's early expansions?

Thanks for your comments,

Carl


I would love it if an allied player did this against me! Pretty good odds that I'd have complete free reign for 12 months or so rather than the usual 5 to 6.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125