Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/3/2019 3:07:22 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
I know that for some, the question of where the Japanese land their first "surprise" blow has been discussed however I've looked for a dedicated thread on this topic and didn't find it. So my question to old and, for their edification, new players, what is the best move for the Japanese, to hit Pearl as they actually did or to hit a more "at home" target, Manila (notice I don't include Singapore here, as I believe that a "surprise" attack there would not be possible given the war footing the British were on and thus no surprise would be possible). I've long been of the opinion that hitting Manila would be the more lucrative option for a number of reasons. Those subs need to go (yes even with their piss poor torps, getting them out of the picture in the long run is healthy). Also it keeps the Japanese CVs "in theater" so they can support a more aggressive drive on Singapore on turn 3 or 4. It also keeps the CVs closer to their rearming bases thus a far greater turn around time. As a final thought, it allows the US to venture forth with their BBs with a HOST of Japanese subs waiting for them. If they take substantial damage at sea, they SINK, not in the mud of Pearl but in the deep blue sea, a far better and more decisive end than the year or two of repairs needed at Pearl or the West Coast. Just some basic points to start the discussion. I'd be interested in alternative views! Thanks.
Post #: 1
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/3/2019 3:29:37 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7179
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
From my point of view and experience, hitting the base at Manila and losing a bunch of subs sucks. The torpedoes may not work well but there loss delays the blockade of Japan. Slow Battleships can be sunk by aircraft later on. My two cents....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 2
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/3/2019 3:41:33 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25212
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
Differing opinions abound.

For all of my PBEMs (where I had control that is), I've opted to blast Manila instead of PH.

Advantages:

1. Liquidate USN Far East command, including submarines. I can usually get all or near all the subs in Manila in the opening day. That's 25 of 'em for you keeping track at home. In my current game versus AcePylut, the Allies are down 32 subs (FOW of course) in August 1942. That effectively removes enemy submarines' direct action in the DEI, limiting their ability to reconnoiter, resupply, interfere with landings in the DEI and take direct action.

2. Puts KB in a position to either support additional actions in the DEI *or* escort Guam, Rabaul and SoPac landings immediately. KB's 'mispositioning' at PH will cost another 2 weeks before they can lend similar support.

3. Eliminates any possibility of damage to scarce fleet oilers in the Pacific (the ones supporting the PH raid) or to a 'Hail Mary' PH surface sortie against KB. Also reduces normal KB plane losses from flying into a dense AAA port attack like PH.

4. Allows for air wing reinforcement of KB immediately. KB is low on fighters at war start. I'll frequently reinforce them from 'carrier capable' air units from Formosa or the Home Islands.

5. More predictable damage wrought on the target port in question. Manila is reduced 100% of the time with a KB-infused strike there. I've seen some PH attacks where *no* BBs were sunk in exchange for the usual wear and tear on the KB. What a disappointment that would be!

Disadvantages:

1. PH is 'open for business' on day one. No port damage to slow it down for a few months. No big ships clogging its repair yards. Odds are that the Japanese will *never* reduce it. For a "Hawaii takedown" Japanese approach, *not* striking PH is a non-starter.

2. Assuming a historical number of BBs sunk in game terms (2), the VPs wrought from an average PH strike are probably higher than a Manila strike. But not overwhelmingly so, IMO.

3. (The biggy IMO) American aircraft at Pearl are not wiped out like they were historically. This allows American PBY and fighter pools-with woefully deficient replacement pools-to hold up and perform better than historically the first 6 months of the war. Subsequent deep raids by the KB are less likely to be surprises due to NavSearch detection.

_____________________________


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 3
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/3/2019 4:24:09 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14026
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
I still like PH. For many of the reasons listed above. If though, the KB is split and does a bit of both, that could be an interesting option. I do like the support some of the KB can offer to the SRA invasions. I've seen just Kaga have a big effect in terms of limited and hitting Allied responses to the SRA campaign, speeding everything up.

So I guess I'd say ideally, a bit of both!

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 4
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/3/2019 4:24:29 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4087
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Could you imagine a TMTSNBN named "Manila" instead of "Pearl Harbor"? "Manila" just doesn't cut it...

Hitting Manila might in fact be the more lucrative option, but it smells a bit of "taking full advantage of hindsight".

Now, if you are a "anything goes" type of player, go ahead.

If you tend to be the "historic" type, you may still prefer hitting Pearl just because historically the war started there (well, actually it started with the landings on the the Thai and Malay coast).

Note that in a PBEM, no Allied player worth his salt will venture forth with his BBs as long as the Japanese subs are hanging around PH.

And the Allied subs at Manila are not that important - subs are nerfed in AE due to the inability to fire a spread at multiple targets in the same attack. Plus the old boats at Manila will be retired anyway and replaced by scores of Gatos and Balaos by the time the torps do work.

Finally, KB could be useful to cover in turn the landings at Wake, the Gilberts, Rabaul, Port Moresby and Darwin against enterprising Allied CVs and SAGs - establishing a defensive perimeter is as important as taking Singers IMO.

_____________________________


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 5
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/3/2019 7:50:21 PM   
engineer

 

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline
The subs in Manila, in my experience, don't seem to be that effective with the historical USN torpedoes, so killing them only eliminates a nuisance. A typical strike on Pearl Harbor takes most of the battleships off the board until 1943 if not sunk outright and cripples the fighter/patrol strength for the USA in the opening months. Having the KB available to support faster action in SE Asia seems to me to the big plus.


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 6
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/3/2019 8:05:59 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
I like your reasoning Chickenboy! I agree with much of what you say. However, in terms of wiping out aircraft, one thing I've noticed in my opening moves using the PH option is that the air attacks on Manila do NOT wipe out Mac's air force, as it is somewhat spread out. It takes a while, so I don't think you gain that much from hitting Pearl aircraft wise. But I could be wrong here. Just based upon my own experience.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 7
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/3/2019 8:08:04 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
Engineer, once the subs at Manila escape and get upgraded with radar, even with ineffective torpedoes they DO constitute an effective set of eyes on Japanese movements especially in choke points.

(in reply to engineer)
Post #: 8
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/3/2019 9:24:59 PM   
tolsdorff

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 12/12/2016
From: Breda, Holland
Status: offline
in my current first turn. My enemy launched a first day amphibious assault on Singapore, Palembang, Balikpapan, Rabaul, midway and Bataan. He cleared some mines the hard way, but losses were overall very light. All these bases fell to the empire on 8th december. KB also struck Manila. wiping out a lot including all the subs. Also, all damaged ships were lost in Manila when Bataan fell. He lost some shipping, msotly AK's but overall his losses were surprsingly light. Knew about the Mersing Gambit, but the Singapore/Palembang gambit is a new one for me.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 9
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/3/2019 11:40:25 PM   
jagsdomain

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 7/4/2019
Status: offline
Its a sound plan.
My problem is without the attack on Pearl there is no war.

(in reply to tolsdorff)
Post #: 10
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 12:02:44 AM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jagsdomain
My problem is without the attack on Pearl there is no war.


I'm not sure I understand the statement. I suspect an attack on a US fleet instillation anywhere in the world would have been seen as an attack on the USA. Certainly due to timing and other things, the surprise at Pearl exacerbated the impact of the attack, but I would suspect that an attack on Manila would be seen as an act of war even back in 1941! So there would be a war. In the game, such a move by the Japanese player starts the game and thus the war! Or am I missing something (many folk would say I'm missing a lot, but that's a different thread)? Do you mean the USA would NOT see it as a hostile act or that it would not be hostile enough to precipitate an immediate declaration of war?

(in reply to jagsdomain)
Post #: 11
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 12:03:53 AM   
scout1


Posts: 2724
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline
Kill pigboats whenever you can ….. plus keeps your flat tops local for other ops ….

(in reply to jagsdomain)
Post #: 12
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 12:13:11 AM   
scout1


Posts: 2724
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline
PH would only be a good target if I could order the flyboys to ignore the oil guzzling battlewagons and focus on the fuel farms and drydocks …..

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 13
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 12:27:05 AM   
RADM.Yamaguchi


Posts: 492
Joined: 6/30/2019
Status: online
Interesting discussion. In my current PBEM I split off the Kaga to join the CVLs from Babeldaob and Hiroshima near Singapore so I only hit PH with 5 CVs. Only got 1 BB. But i did pool all my Nells/Betties for a Manila strike that eliminated 12 subs. Kinda 1/2 and 1/2. Fog of war though.

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 14
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 1:31:50 AM   
scout1


Posts: 2724
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

PH would only be a good target if I could order the flyboys to ignore the oil guzzling battlewagons and focus on the fuel farms and drydocks …..


Is there the additional for air units to strike infrastructure ? ie, not naval strike, not airfield strike ….. I want the fuel farms …. the drydocks …. the machine shops ….

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 15
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 2:02:11 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6092
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
For AE non Pearl Harbor first turn strikes, read these threads:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4155947&mpage=1&key=Pearl&#4156482

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3893160&mpage=1&key=Pearl

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2272554&mpage=1&key=Pearl

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2363907&mpage=1&key=Pearl&#2364072

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2198291&mpage=1&key=Manila&#2199538

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3065045&mpage=1&key=Manila&#3065660

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2748999&mpage=1&key=Manila&#2751544


Some of these threads are very big.

Alfred

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 16
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 2:13:37 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5282
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
For some reason I thought the Japanese Player was limited to one port attack on the 1st Turn. I'm mistaken? Maybe that was a house rule?


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 17
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 2:21:36 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

For some reason I thought the Japanese Player was limited to one port attack on the 1st Turn. I'm mistaken? Maybe that was a house rule?




House rule, and I have mostly seen it as only one CV based port attack.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 18
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 2:57:14 AM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Some of these threads are very big.

Alfred

As is the topic! Nice to see your post Alfred, hope all is well down under!

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 19
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 8:26:40 AM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
My opinion.


To me Manila is a no-brain over PH.


Now, if you start thinking at the entire opening on PH you have that:
1) You sink few BBs.
2) In mid-43 damaged BBs will be back online.
3) Undamaged BBs are not a threat in the first months.
4) KB is very far from DEI.


Manila:
1) The Allies receive almost 300 subs over the war (282 if I am not wrong).
2) US subs have faulty torpedoes but those torpedoes will become efficient at certain point
3) Even with faulty torpedoes, it's possible to make US subs work somehow: plenty of day/night NavS, close supply bases, very good positioning.
4) A strike on Manila kills most of the stuff there. No "wounded" ships: they get killed outright.
5) KB is immediately in the most important and delicate theater of operations.


Let's say you kill outright in Manila 25 subs. And you total 5 more in the first weeks (easily achievable) killing pesky dutch boats and co.
You arrive at 01/01/1942 with 30 subs killed with not much effort. If you approximate the total amount of allied subs in the war to 300 and you estimate you need to kill half of them to substantially eliminate the threat, you have already killed 20% of your target before even seeing 1942. Not bad at all.
It's a lot of fuel you can save through more direct routes and less escorts. Over the time, it's a great advantage, especially if you consider that many IJN escort ships are awfully fuel-inefficient.
And you have KB there ready to smash DEI, secure key positions and then free to go in the Pacific.



Now consider the disadvantages... Those BBs in PH won't be much useful before 1943 since their primary role is in naval bombardament. They are slow, consuming a lot of fuel. Not much use for them in the beginning.
When they'll come back online, they'll be a threat of course. And here it's the entire point: they would be online in any case even with PH since it's generally hard to sink many of them (2-3 seems the average).

To summarize, you trade 20% of your war ASW effort (with good KB positioning) for 2-3 old BBs sunk (with bad KB positioning). Again, Manila is quite a straightforward choice.

< Message edited by ITAKLinus -- 12/4/2019 8:27:03 AM >


_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 20
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 10:42:37 AM   
Hanzberger


Posts: 918
Joined: 4/26/2006
From: SE Pennsylvania
Status: offline
I agree with Obvert, a bit of both. In my current AI game (with some minor mistakes) I took out 11 subs with just the LBA at Manila in Dec. If I redid the turn that figure could be a few higher. I also screwed up attacking PH twice, which hasn't been mentioned here, and something to consider. Turn 1 took out 6 BB's eventually in December. FOW to be consider of course.

_____________________________

Planning for #17 Ironman Tier2

Japan AC wire chart here
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2769286&mpage=1&key=?

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 21
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 11:02:31 AM   
Trugrit


Posts: 790
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Differing opinions abound.

For all of my PBEMs (where I had control that is), I've opted to blast Manila instead of PH.

Advantages:

1. Liquidate USN Far East command, including submarines. I can usually get all or near all the subs in Manila in the opening day. That's 25 of 'em for you keeping track at home. In my current game versus AcePylut, the Allies are down 32 subs (FOW of course) in August 1942. That effectively removes enemy submarines' direct action in the DEI, limiting their ability to reconnoiter, resupply, interfere with landings in the DEI and take direct action.

2. Puts KB in a position to either support additional actions in the DEI *or* escort Guam, Rabaul and SoPac landings immediately. KB's 'mispositioning' at PH will cost another 2 weeks before they can lend similar support.

3. Eliminates any possibility of damage to scarce fleet oilers in the Pacific (the ones supporting the PH raid) or to a 'Hail Mary' PH surface sortie against KB. Also reduces normal KB plane losses from flying into a dense AAA port attack like PH.

4. Allows for air wing reinforcement of KB immediately. KB is low on fighters at war start. I'll frequently reinforce them from 'carrier capable' air units from Formosa or the Home Islands.

5. More predictable damage wrought on the target port in question. Manila is reduced 100% of the time with a KB-infused strike there. I've seen some PH attacks where *no* BBs were sunk in exchange for the usual wear and tear on the KB. What a disappointment that would be!

Disadvantages:

1. PH is 'open for business' on day one. No port damage to slow it down for a few months. No big ships clogging its repair yards. Odds are that the Japanese will *never* reduce it. For a "Hawaii takedown" Japanese approach, *not* striking PH is a non-starter.

2. Assuming a historical number of BBs sunk in game terms (2), the VPs wrought from an average PH strike are probably higher than a Manila strike. But not overwhelmingly so, IMO.

3. (The biggy IMO) American aircraft at Pearl are not wiped out like they were historically. This allows American PBY and fighter pools-with woefully deficient replacement pools-to hold up and perform better than historically the first 6 months of the war. Subsequent deep raids by the KB are less likely to be surprises due to NavSearch detection.


Gamey.

The reason the Japanese attacked Pearl was not just the battleships but the carriers.

The Japanese thought the carriers were in port at Pearl.

In this game the players have what the Japanese did not have; knowledge that the carriers are not there.

Of course Manila looks better if you know that in advance with God like certainty.

So, I’m going to turn this question around.

We have the editor available to modify the scenario.

Lets put the Lexington and Enterprise in port at Pearl with a lot of their CA escorts.
Maybe the Saratoga as well? She was close by on the west coast, and could have been there.

Now that you know for sure the carriers are at Pearl what is your decision?

Pearl or Manila?


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 22
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 12:44:42 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

Gamey.


You are absolutely correct Trugrit you've turned the question on it's head. But that's what this is, a game. Certainly Pearl would be more attractive if the CVs (both) were there and the Japanese player knows it. However I would like to point out that there was serious objection to Yamamoto's plan about the attack for the same reasons that have been pointed out in this thread. So it still is a question to be investigated. Do you need six CVs to take out two sitting ducks? Even if the US CVs were in "local" waters, would you need all six to nail them given the "surprise" that is "expected"? If they are in Pearl would they actually sink (remember its only 40 feet deep)? So many questions, so little time!

(in reply to Trugrit)
Post #: 23
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 12:45:55 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Differing opinions abound.

For all of my PBEMs (where I had control that is), I've opted to blast Manila instead of PH.

Advantages:

1. Liquidate USN Far East command, including submarines. I can usually get all or near all the subs in Manila in the opening day. That's 25 of 'em for you keeping track at home. In my current game versus AcePylut, the Allies are down 32 subs (FOW of course) in August 1942. That effectively removes enemy submarines' direct action in the DEI, limiting their ability to reconnoiter, resupply, interfere with landings in the DEI and take direct action.

2. Puts KB in a position to either support additional actions in the DEI *or* escort Guam, Rabaul and SoPac landings immediately. KB's 'mispositioning' at PH will cost another 2 weeks before they can lend similar support.

3. Eliminates any possibility of damage to scarce fleet oilers in the Pacific (the ones supporting the PH raid) or to a 'Hail Mary' PH surface sortie against KB. Also reduces normal KB plane losses from flying into a dense AAA port attack like PH.

4. Allows for air wing reinforcement of KB immediately. KB is low on fighters at war start. I'll frequently reinforce them from 'carrier capable' air units from Formosa or the Home Islands.

5. More predictable damage wrought on the target port in question. Manila is reduced 100% of the time with a KB-infused strike there. I've seen some PH attacks where *no* BBs were sunk in exchange for the usual wear and tear on the KB. What a disappointment that would be!

Disadvantages:

1. PH is 'open for business' on day one. No port damage to slow it down for a few months. No big ships clogging its repair yards. Odds are that the Japanese will *never* reduce it. For a "Hawaii takedown" Japanese approach, *not* striking PH is a non-starter.

2. Assuming a historical number of BBs sunk in game terms (2), the VPs wrought from an average PH strike are probably higher than a Manila strike. But not overwhelmingly so, IMO.

3. (The biggy IMO) American aircraft at Pearl are not wiped out like they were historically. This allows American PBY and fighter pools-with woefully deficient replacement pools-to hold up and perform better than historically the first 6 months of the war. Subsequent deep raids by the KB are less likely to be surprises due to NavSearch detection.


Gamey.

The reason the Japanese attacked Pearl was not just the battleships but the carriers.

The Japanese thought the carriers were in port at Pearl.

In this game the players have what the Japanese did not have; knowledge that the carriers are not there.

Of course Manila looks better if you know that in advance with God like certainty.

So, I’m going to turn this question around.

We have the editor available to modify the scenario.

Lets put the Lexington and Enterprise in port at Pearl with a lot of their CA escorts.
Maybe the Saratoga as well? She was close by on the west coast, and could have been there.

Now that you know for sure the carriers are at Pearl what is your decision?

Pearl or Manila?






Ahahahahahah sometimes people's reasonings are so bizarre...

"Gamey".


Because in history bla bla bla bla bla



To put it simple:

- As Allies, do you invade Tarawa on the precise date Americans did with insufficient troops and preparations? I know already the answer.

GAMEY!


- As Japanese, you sink you CVs autonomously at say 8th of June because in history they lost Midway?

GAMEY!



Of course I suppose you run your forces precisely as they did in WWII for more than a thousand turns.




It's evident that with CVs in PH everybody would sink them. We know they're not there. We don't strike PH.

I mean, for what it matters they can be disbanded in the wonderful dot of Sangi and at that point we would strike Sangi without thinking. It's obvious.

Since they are not in PH and therefore we cannot sink them, we strike Manila for the subs and we are happy with that. Things being different, we would do something different. But things are in they way they are.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Trugrit)
Post #: 24
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 12:52:24 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1893
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
You can easily do both as has already been mentioned.

Add Kaga to the DEI and you've got more than enough to damage both Manila based subs and PH based units and aircraft.



_____________________________


(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 25
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 1:21:04 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7179
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
As soon as the first bomb is dropped, Historical outcomes are out the window. For that matter the first orders....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 26
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 2:31:44 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

You can easily do both as has already been mentioned.

Add Kaga to the DEI and you've got more than enough to damage both Manila based subs and PH based units and aircraft.





Oh sure you're right.


In general I play with the HR of "max 1 port strike on 7-dec", so for me it's not an option but in line of principle is very good.


In the last PBEM as Jap I did something almost the other way round: strike on Manila with all the KB except the Shokaku which went to Noumea to give some kind of cover to an early (8-DEC) landing, but my results on Manila havn't been wonderful. Still, more than 20 ss sunk.



My preference for a massive assault in the early days in the DEI makes Manila quite obliged.




In general, I think that every single opening move is good if it is done with a specific strategic (and thus operational) reasoning behind.



Also, it depends on players' preferences and attitudes. For example: I prefer Manila and subs because I want to lower as much as I can the assets devoted to ASW and I am very scared by subs, so I do it. People who are more concerned with the power of BBs in bombardament, would probably prefer PH over Manila. I have my motivations, coming from logical reasoning and experience, they have theirs.

Striking PH without thinking at other options, it's just superficial, though. The eventual lack of imagination and mental flexibility makes PH a weak move. If it is a deliberately done move after careful strategic and operational thought, it's kosher whichever are the reasons for that move.

Broadly speaking, that's my opinion on the subject, together with the reasons I exposed above in a previous post.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 27
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 2:55:57 PM   
Trugrit


Posts: 790
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Differing opinions abound.

For all of my PBEMs (where I had control that is), I've opted to blast Manila instead of PH.

Advantages:

1. Liquidate USN Far East command, including submarines. I can usually get all or near all the subs in Manila in the opening day. That's 25 of 'em for you keeping track at home. In my current game versus AcePylut, the Allies are down 32 subs (FOW of course) in August 1942. That effectively removes enemy submarines' direct action in the DEI, limiting their ability to reconnoiter, resupply, interfere with landings in the DEI and take direct action.

2. Puts KB in a position to either support additional actions in the DEI *or* escort Guam, Rabaul and SoPac landings immediately. KB's 'mispositioning' at PH will cost another 2 weeks before they can lend similar support.

3. Eliminates any possibility of damage to scarce fleet oilers in the Pacific (the ones supporting the PH raid) or to a 'Hail Mary' PH surface sortie against KB. Also reduces normal KB plane losses from flying into a dense AAA port attack like PH.

4. Allows for air wing reinforcement of KB immediately. KB is low on fighters at war start. I'll frequently reinforce them from 'carrier capable' air units from Formosa or the Home Islands.

5. More predictable damage wrought on the target port in question. Manila is reduced 100% of the time with a KB-infused strike there. I've seen some PH attacks where *no* BBs were sunk in exchange for the usual wear and tear on the KB. What a disappointment that would be!

Disadvantages:

1. PH is 'open for business' on day one. No port damage to slow it down for a few months. No big ships clogging its repair yards. Odds are that the Japanese will *never* reduce it. For a "Hawaii takedown" Japanese approach, *not* striking PH is a non-starter.

2. Assuming a historical number of BBs sunk in game terms (2), the VPs wrought from an average PH strike are probably higher than a Manila strike. But not overwhelmingly so, IMO.

3. (The biggy IMO) American aircraft at Pearl are not wiped out like they were historically. This allows American PBY and fighter pools-with woefully deficient replacement pools-to hold up and perform better than historically the first 6 months of the war. Subsequent deep raids by the KB are less likely to be surprises due to NavSearch detection.


Gamey.

The reason the Japanese attacked Pearl was not just the battleships but the carriers.

The Japanese thought the carriers were in port at Pearl.

In this game the players have what the Japanese did not have; knowledge that the carriers are not there.

Of course Manila looks better if you know that in advance with God like certainty.

So, I’m going to turn this question around.

We have the editor available to modify the scenario.

Lets put the Lexington and Enterprise in port at Pearl with a lot of their CA escorts.
Maybe the Saratoga as well? She was close by on the west coast, and could have been there.

Now that you know for sure the carriers are at Pearl what is your decision?

Pearl or Manila?






Ahahahahahah sometimes people's reasonings are so bizarre...

"Gamey".


Because in history bla bla bla bla bla



To put it simple:

- As Allies, do you invade Tarawa on the precise date Americans did with insufficient troops and preparations? I know already the answer.

GAMEY!


- As Japanese, you sink you CVs autonomously at say 8th of June because in history they lost Midway?

GAMEY!



Of course I suppose you run your forces precisely as they did in WWII for more than a thousand turns.




It's evident that with CVs in PH everybody would sink them. We know they're not there. We don't strike PH.

I mean, for what it matters they can be disbanded in the wonderful dot of Sangi and at that point we would strike Sangi without thinking. It's obvious.

Since they are not in PH and therefore we cannot sink them, we strike Manila for the subs and we are happy with that. Things being different, we would do something different. But things are in they way they are.

This is nonsense.

What we are talking about here is the first turn.

We are not talking about Tarawa, Singapore or China.

The first tun is special. Both players know exactly where all the forces are located.
The Japanese get special movement.

I’m going to say that again: We are talking about the first turn.

You can play the first turn historically or non-historically, your choice.

You should do one or the other but not both.
What is gamey is to do both.

The Japanese player plays the first turn with a non-historical first move and then expects
the Allied player to play the turn historically, sit still and take it up the wazoo.

You should do one or the other on the first turn not both.

If the Japanese is going to move non-historically then the Allied player should be able
to set up non-historically.

Things are the way they are. BS!


(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 28
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 3:19:03 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25212
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

You can easily do both as has already been mentioned.

Add Kaga to the DEI and you've got more than enough to damage both Manila based subs and PH based units and aircraft.




I've 'sandboxed' adding Kaga to the mKB/Nell/Betty/Sally bombardment mix on Manila. The tricky bit with the subs is that you've got to overpower them and sink them on turn one or it's no go. Merely damaged ones that aren't sunk will scatter and limp to Singapore or Soerbaja and frequently live to fight another day. IMO merely adding Kaga won't produce sufficient overkill to sink the subs.

_____________________________


(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 29
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 3:24:48 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25212
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Differing opinions abound.

For all of my PBEMs (where I had control that is), I've opted to blast Manila instead of PH.

Advantages:

1. Liquidate USN Far East command, including submarines. I can usually get all or near all the subs in Manila in the opening day. That's 25 of 'em for you keeping track at home. In my current game versus AcePylut, the Allies are down 32 subs (FOW of course) in August 1942. That effectively removes enemy submarines' direct action in the DEI, limiting their ability to reconnoiter, resupply, interfere with landings in the DEI and take direct action.

2. Puts KB in a position to either support additional actions in the DEI *or* escort Guam, Rabaul and SoPac landings immediately. KB's 'mispositioning' at PH will cost another 2 weeks before they can lend similar support.

3. Eliminates any possibility of damage to scarce fleet oilers in the Pacific (the ones supporting the PH raid) or to a 'Hail Mary' PH surface sortie against KB. Also reduces normal KB plane losses from flying into a dense AAA port attack like PH.

4. Allows for air wing reinforcement of KB immediately. KB is low on fighters at war start. I'll frequently reinforce them from 'carrier capable' air units from Formosa or the Home Islands.

5. More predictable damage wrought on the target port in question. Manila is reduced 100% of the time with a KB-infused strike there. I've seen some PH attacks where *no* BBs were sunk in exchange for the usual wear and tear on the KB. What a disappointment that would be!

Disadvantages:

1. PH is 'open for business' on day one. No port damage to slow it down for a few months. No big ships clogging its repair yards. Odds are that the Japanese will *never* reduce it. For a "Hawaii takedown" Japanese approach, *not* striking PH is a non-starter.

2. Assuming a historical number of BBs sunk in game terms (2), the VPs wrought from an average PH strike are probably higher than a Manila strike. But not overwhelmingly so, IMO.

3. (The biggy IMO) American aircraft at Pearl are not wiped out like they were historically. This allows American PBY and fighter pools-with woefully deficient replacement pools-to hold up and perform better than historically the first 6 months of the war. Subsequent deep raids by the KB are less likely to be surprises due to NavSearch detection.


Gamey.

The reason the Japanese attacked Pearl was not just the battleships but the carriers.

The Japanese thought the carriers were in port at Pearl.

In this game the players have what the Japanese did not have; knowledge that the carriers are not there.

Of course Manila looks better if you know that in advance with God like certainty.

So, I’m going to turn this question around.

We have the editor available to modify the scenario.

Lets put the Lexington and Enterprise in port at Pearl with a lot of their CA escorts.
Maybe the Saratoga as well? She was close by on the west coast, and could have been there.

Now that you know for sure the carriers are at Pearl what is your decision?

Pearl or Manila?




Sidestepping the inflamatory language used to start your reply, I'll just ask you a counter question instead.

Do you start all your games with "December 8 start"? If so, why? If not, why not?

_____________________________


(in reply to Trugrit)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.250