Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 3:29:32 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24196
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

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

Pearl or Manila?


Wasn't there an 'infield' or 'outfield' setup options in vanilla WiTP back in the day? Or a random generator of said fleet disposition? That would make PH a more tantalizing option if there was a chance that the carriers really-o truly-o were there.

_____________________________


(in reply to Trugrit)
Post #: 31
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 3:38:00 PM   
Trugrit


Posts: 742
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

I don't know. I've never played WITP.

I think the first turn can be worked out in this game.

You just want to let your opponent know exactly what
all the options are before the game starts.


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 32
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 3:44:42 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24196
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit
I think the first turn can be worked out in this game.


Not sure what you mean by this. I've yet to hear an Allied player agreeing to move two CVs to the vicinity of PH for first turn 'infield' setup. That would be an interesting setup.

_____________________________


(in reply to Trugrit)
Post #: 33
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 3:55:36 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


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!





Yours is nonsense.

Dubbing as "gamey" somebody just because he simply does precisely what he wants with his assets, it's just mean.


As allied player you know at day-1 what the japanese R&D would look like, meaning that you know he won't come with a super-advanced plane in 2-3 months. You know Manhattan Project will succeed at a certain date. You know you don't have to write letters in case of massive casualties. You know you have messy torpedoes and even their improvement rate over the years. You know precisely you won't have any kind of protest in the homeland whatever you do. You know you won't have troubles with Indian independence movement. You know Chinese leadership won't fall apart. Etcetcetc

I could continue for long.


These are advantages coming from knowing what's on the other side of the hill and how the future will look like.

Extremely impacting.


Either you accept it's a game and cannot replicate your perception of "how things shold look like" or I guess you won't have many satisfactions from it, since by definition nothing is ever identical to history. Not even 7-DEC.


Hell, once I have even inherited a match in which the Jap landed in Singapore at day-1 and got it at day-2. It has been quite brutal. And then?
Should have I cried because the japs bla bla bla? Nope. Or, at least, I couldn't cry over that and then have a very different approach because I perfectly know Japanese situation.


It's not 7-DEC. It's always. Both players always think with hindsight. It's obvious and natural and it goes on for the whole game. Unavoidable, also. 7-DEC is totally irrelevant under this point of view because the magnitude of even just few of the examples above is much higher than the eventual presence of carriers at PH.



Moreover, nobody has ever said the Allied player has to play historically. For example, I generally allow the Allied player either to move already created TFs which starts out of the co-prosperity sphere or even move already created TFs wherever they are at 7-DEC.



Last but not least, you haven't stated in your first post you were referring to the 7-dec only. It doesn't matter, as shown: hindsight works all along the match.

< Message edited by ITAKLinus -- 12/4/2019 4:02:45 PM >


_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Trugrit)
Post #: 34
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 4:49:29 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 960
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline
These conversations are contentious

Historically

The attack on Pearl was important to sink the Battleships (not the Carriers as opined in hindsight).

Battleships were deemed the core of Naval power and doctrine in the late 1930s.

Carriers were secondary. It was through the war - belatedly recognized - that Carriers would become the new masters of the sea with newer planes and new tactics

The Allies had opportunity and historical lessons to be on alert at both Pearl and Manila - but in both instances Leadership Intelegence and communication failed.

The Game

The game allows either or to a limited degree both.

I might opine for a non historical start that the Allied Commander at least be allowed the opportunity to get his CAP up - be more on alert status than historical reality.

However the effectiveness of this would still be questionable as the planes/skills of pilots would largely be insufficient to accomplish much. Perhaps the Allied Commander only ends up saving some Catalina's and B17s.

The game has mechanics to allow a fair and balanced approach if both PBEM players agree.

The Gamey

This as always is subject to pure opinion / speculation.

Frankly one should not call out "Axis or Allied Favoritism" - moves as being absolute - favoring to one side or the other.

Simply - the game cannot / does not model "Japanese Naval doctrine" nor "American Naval doctrine". Or politics. Or supply / production / economics such as GDP except in an abstract sense. It does not model that Great Britain and the US controlled 75% + of the worlds oil production on Dec 6 - or that some oil from Brunei could run directly in ships tanks at high risk.

(Some) Players throw away electron lives in a manner that even MacArthur would not have.

So accept that gamey is in the eye of the viewer and different views are legitimate. Dont play against someone you disagree with



< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 12/4/2019 4:50:54 PM >


_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 35
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 4:51:02 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7178
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
US subs with better-working torpedoes are in Manila. They are S-boats with Mk10 torpedoes which work perfectly from start.

US fleet boats have Mk14 (80% duds) which become better in Jan 1943 (60% duds) and to same reliability level as Mk10 in Sept 1943 (10% duds).

So, taking out those US subs will potentially save Japan lot of grief, considering that later when based in Australia, S-boats are perfect for operations in DEI and Salomons.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 36
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 5:21:45 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
Ok. Little OT. I am throwing lives away not like MacArthur... My model is Stalin.



Now, I see what you mean and I even agree under some points of view.


Here is the problem: I have seen billions of players boasting to be "historical" and going against whatever the opponent was doing.
But I have never seen one of those player renounce to the most amadantine defences of their a-historical gameplay, saying that under that circumstance it was feasable and so on.

I have seen that from both sides, it's not an AFB problem of course. I belive that AFBs tend to be more "problematic" under this point of view for the very simple reason that, you know... When you play Japan you do want to go a-historical not to end up with a couple of musrhooms clouds on Onshu (we'll have them in any case but hope is a powerful thing).


Now, I can even list you some things I came across. Such as "skipping Philippines is a-historical!" and then one million opinions on why it was impossible to do so. Same person who landed on 7-DEC inside Singapore and conquered it on 8-DEC and defending that it was super historical and feasable and so on. A very good player and person, I highlight that. Took him as an example just to show that every single person I met defending the "historical gameplay" were indeed prone to justify whatever they did under the historical point of view.


It's a strange behaviour.


From my perspective, I think people defend the "historical" gameplay only to the extent a supposedly a-historical course of action hurts them. When they aren't on the receiving side, being instead on the giving one, everything can find some justification. Everything.

And they are also quite zealous in sending you documents stating that somehow it was possible under some interpretations and so on. I generally reply with the story of Alan Magee ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Magee ) to show that in line of principle a lot of bizarre stuff happened and can happen. But, and that's the point, everybody cannot complain when I do find quite imaginative historical justifications for my actions as well.



Most of the people with a strong feelig for "historical gameplay" I met were people who quits often saying " you go against the spirit of the game!!! " while they are doing precisely the same but with a negative outcome.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 37
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 8:28:01 PM   
Trugrit


Posts: 742
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

I'm back, had to do yard work.

I play both sides. I don’t have a favorite.
I’ve been here a long time and I don’t think anyone who knows me would describe me as mean.

As the Japanese I’m not going to sucker punch the Allied player because I have inside
information and I have a magic move in my back pocket to do it. That is not how I play.

I consider that gamey. You can play the way you want.

Generally there is a house rule that the Japanese won’t hunt Allied carriers on turn one.
Why? Because the Japanese know exactly where they are on turn one.

The Japanese also know everything in port at Manila and every other port on the map.
So do the Allies but they are not in a position to hurt the Japanese on turn one.

If you play non-historic you can say that we are going to pretend that the Japanese had a
whole bunch of moves prior to the start of the game that were not historical, towards Manila,
because they had inside information that there were no carriers at Pearl and that there were
lots of subs at Manila, and that the Allies did not discover the move.

I’m fine with that. Except…..

I say also lets pretend that, as the Allies, I had a whole bunch of moves that were not historical,
towards New Zealand with all my carriers, battleships and subs prior to the start of the game
because I had inside information that the Japanese were going to start a fight.

Are you fine with that as well?



(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 38
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 10:01:38 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3121
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

I say also lets pretend that, as the Allies, I had a whole bunch of moves that were not historical,
towards New Zealand with all my carriers, battleships and subs prior to the start of the game
because I had inside information that the Japanese were going to start a fight.

Are you fine with that as well?


Hi Trugrit, I trust that your yard is doing well.

As for the above suggestion, I don't agree with it. I'm not trying to be contrary, however I do believe that any mod of the original moves should be within the realm of consideration by the actual planning participants in 1941. Moving the US fleet to NZ or Auz is simply not in the cards as the infrastructure to support such a move was not there and would not be for years (late '43 or so). But of course as you say, given that it's a game, one can do anything.

However what I was driving at was to allow those options that were actually "on the table" at the planning stages of the actual war. If there is anything the US fleet can do, it would be to return to the West Coast, as that was always under consideration given some folks thoughts concerning the vulnerability of Pearl AND the fact that the earlier move to Pearl could be viewed as aggressive by Japan (which it was) and thus to defuse a tense situation, planners considered moving the fleet back. The reason I don't believe the Japanese can consider a first strike against Singapore is a reflection of British readiness (they were already tracking the troop convoys headed to the Malaysian Peninsular) and sighting 6 CVs headed toward their eastern Gibraltar would certainly have raised lots of red flags. So, in short, I was suggesting that any mods would have to be within a relatively narrow band of reality given the actual tactical and strategic situation in early December 1941. Thus my limits placed in my first post to this thread concerning the Japanese attacking Manila rather than Pearl.... but not any other place. I trust this helps you makes sense of the intent for this thread.

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 12/4/2019 10:03:16 PM >

(in reply to Trugrit)
Post #: 39
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 10:46:23 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2294
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
Some really good discussion on the pros and cons....but ultimately, this is exactly why I prefer the 8 Dec start!

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 40
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/4/2019 11:09:01 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16593
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I like to PUNCH Pearl simply because of History. Taking a swipe at Manila is always fun but THE BIG SHOW is at PH.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 41
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 1:26:14 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24196
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Some really good discussion on the pros and cons....but ultimately, this is exactly why I prefer the 8 Dec start!


Don't POW and Repulse get Nettied to death on December 8th start? Ahistoric too. There's no getting away from it!

_____________________________


(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 42
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 1:51:48 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5173
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

The game allows either or to a limited degree both.


Not so sure you are correct. I have sand-boxed 4 times (today) the attack on Pearl Harbor when a non-historic 1st turn was chosen with 1st Turn Surprise turned off at Head-to-Head. Previously I had tried the same sandbox many times however I think I always used Japanese Computer mode Essentially it makes very little difference.

In today's run thrus all Japanese planes were assigned to port attack or airfield attack except for the 10% of the fighters assigned to CAP (on each of 6 carriers). Roughly 80% of the available US fighters at Pearl Harbor were assigned as a stacked CAP at 70% each. The maximum number of Japanese aircraft destroyed by 50+ American fighters was 11 (4 fighters). Meanwhile for reasons unknown the Enterprise Air Group which attacked the KB (with all fighters assigned to Escort) encountered 65 IJN fighters. They got wiped out and scored no hits. Further they attacked before any land based a/c which attacked subsequently, lost heavily and scored no hits even though they attacked at 2000 ft. When the US Fleet sortied it did so in two surface action TFs (one with no slow BBs). The BB Kirishima was sunk once along with 1 DD. And although some of the IJN carriers suffered as many as 6 hits and were left on fire the initial raid on PH was not reduced by a single bomber. No Japanese carriers were sunk in any of the 4 run thrus.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 43
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 2:12:29 AM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2294
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Some really good discussion on the pros and cons....but ultimately, this is exactly why I prefer the 8 Dec start!


Don't POW and Repulse get Nettied to death on December 8th start? Ahistoric too. There's no getting away from it!


Only if you do the historical turn option - why would they get crushed with the Ahistorical? Unless of course the Allied player decides to run up the Malayan coast....not likely!

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 44
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 7:55:06 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 13858
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

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.


I did it at Singapore. Force Z didn't escape.

And I captured the oil fields at Palembang intact.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 12/5/2019 7:56:19 AM >

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 45
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 9:06:48 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 1775
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
I think what is more important to be honest is that the starting knowledge that the Japanese have

- They know that China can be taken out completely

- They know how weak the Allies are in certain sectors

- They have the invasion bonus till April 1st

Those are massive advantages that a vaguely competent Japanese player (ie me!) can go way further than what was possible

So you do need to have some house rules to counter balance that (IMHO of course)

Basically though that should be restricted to No carrier hunting, allowing existing TFs to move and no unrealistic invasions (the post above in which the Japanese invaded Singapore on Turn 0 is a case in point. That just wasn't going to happen under any circumstances without the allies getting at least a couple of days warning)

But just want to echo what has been said above.

As long as you are clear at the start about what sort of game you want to play, then you should have no problem finding an opponent that shares your view.

_____________________________


(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 46
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 12:05:09 PM   
Trugrit


Posts: 742
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

I say also lets pretend that, as the Allies, I had a whole bunch of moves that were not historical,
towards New Zealand with all my carriers, battleships and subs prior to the start of the game
because I had inside information that the Japanese were going to start a fight.

Are you fine with that as well?


Hi Trugrit, I trust that your yard is doing well.

As for the above suggestion, I don't agree with it. I'm not trying to be contrary, however I do believe that any mod of the original moves should be within the realm of consideration by the actual planning participants in 1941. Moving the US fleet to NZ or Auz is simply not in the cards as the infrastructure to support such a move was not there and would not be for years (late '43 or so). But of course as you say, given that it's a game, one can do anything.

However what I was driving at was to allow those options that were actually "on the table" at the planning stages of the actual war. If there is anything the US fleet can do, it would be to return to the West Coast, as that was always under consideration given some folks thoughts concerning the vulnerability of Pearl AND the fact that the earlier move to Pearl could be viewed as aggressive by Japan (which it was) and thus to defuse a tense situation, planners considered moving the fleet back. The reason I don't believe the Japanese can consider a first strike against Singapore is a reflection of British readiness (they were already tracking the troop convoys headed to the Malaysian Peninsular) and sighting 6 CVs headed toward their eastern Gibraltar would certainly have raised lots of red flags. So, in short, I was suggesting that any mods would have to be within a relatively narrow band of reality given the actual tactical and strategic situation in early December 1941. Thus my limits placed in my first post to this thread concerning the Japanese attacking Manila rather than Pearl.... but not any other place. I trust this helps you makes sense of the intent for this thread.


I'm back again but I may be in and out.
My wife said something to me about trimming a tree.

I don't know which one she had in mind but I think
it is the one in our house this time of year.

I agree with you 99.9%. I would never do this.

I would discourage players not to go down this path.
Manila may be fine but there are other dark gamey things
that are down the path of the special first turn move.

I was thinking that I might show new players something they may have
never have seen before but now I wondering if that is a good idea.

My definition of gamey may be different from most.

My definition is not just about the game mechanics but
what I think a player should never do to another player.



(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 47
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 12:41:38 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
Still, I cannot really grasp, for my limits for sure, what's the difference on acting on hindsight on 7-Dec and the hindsight we have for the threst of the war.

Moreover, I do not see why striking Manila instead of PH is ok, but, for example, avoiding the certain death of Force Z is not.



There are many, many terrible moves Japan can do with hindsight on 7-dec. Manila is, among the many, one of the most probable and justifiable. I mean, I had people landing in Singapore in day-1. Or in Tulagi & co. Etcetc.

Also, I would agree on the importance of PH if there wuld be a modification in the game which has a die roll for the presence of US CVs in PH. But, I suspect, most of the Allied players would simply prefer to skip this possibility (me included).



I think we can only accept the fact that we act with hindsight because we live in 2019 and we also know how the game works, while in reality there was a much much higher level of uncertainty over most of the war's elements.
And the entire possibility of acting with hindisght has a stronger magnitude on the game than just PH-vs-Manila dilemma.


Finally, would be ok to land in, just to make an example, Noumea with a strong force on 8-DEC instead of the 7th? Just using the magic movement to reach 1 hex out of the place and then land the day after.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Trugrit)
Post #: 48
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 1:18:16 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13578
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
The first turn magic move is not unlimited. I once tried to move KB south of PH on turn one and it could only go a few hexes south, not even full strike range. I can't think of any invasion convoys with the magic move that could make one hex from Noumea on turn one. There are only five or six TFs that get the magic move. KB and its AOs take up two of the them.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 49
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 1:27:06 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
Ground combat at Noumea (115,160)
Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 5990 troops, 51 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 180
Defending force 774 troops, 17 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 28

Japanese adjusted assault: 200
Allied adjusted defense: 10
Japanese assault odds: 20 to 1 (fort level 0)
Japanese forces CAPTURE Noumea !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)


Japanese ground losses:
101 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 20 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
341 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 9 (7 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!


Assaulting units:
Kimura Det
Kure 1st SNLF
II/81st Naval Guard Unit
2nd JNAF Coy
5th JNAF Coy
1st JNAF Coy
1st Naval Construction Battalion

Defending units:
New Caledonia Det



Happened on 9th Dec. I landed on 8th Dec.


It can be done...

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 50
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 1:31:08 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13578
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Wow, I am surprised that is possible. Where did the Amphib convoy originate from? The Marshalls? Truk?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 51
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 1:41:15 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
The allied was surprised as well...

I do not remember from where, to be honest.



Ok. Just checked. Babeldaob.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 52
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 1:46:11 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2053
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
here are only five or six TFs that get the magic move. KB and its AOs take up two of the them.

There are about a dozen actually. In stock GC it is any TF with a * in the name. Some of them are DDs that you can use to give a lift to BBs starting in HI, but most are your mundane amphib invasions into insignificant places like east coast of Malacca. Reaching Noumea is possible - for this you need to pick the right ships into a particular TF, relatively fast and fully loaded at start so that they not waste their magic action points in the port

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 12/5/2019 1:48:42 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 53
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 2:04:16 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3121
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
I hate to throw cold water on all these hot romps by Japanese forces to such places as McHale's Navy, however to refocus the thread, I was interested in options that were actually considered by the planners in '41 not the players in '19! Was it really possible for the Japanese to invade Noumea in '41, was it even in the wildest dreams of anyone back then? I know some things are possible given the wide latitude of the game mechanics, but I was trying to explore the "realistic" alternatives to Pearl, not the outlandish or offworldish possibles thanks to the game mechanics! I do think it would be interesting to see "what if" the US CVs were caught at Pearl, which is certainly possible if the Japanese had delayed a day or two, or a week.... Again, this is within the realm of "possible" as are many other things.... Simply put, I'm just trying to throw back into the mix a bit of realistic probability rather than simply expanding the envelope due to wide ranging game mechanics.

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 54
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 2:32:36 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
To reply:

I do not know whether Manila instead of PH has ever been thought by Japanese leadership.


But it would have been much more feasible than PH itself.

Same goes with my usual "skipping the Philippines". It would have been quite difficoult for the Allies to transform them in a proper threat to Japanese forces. Also, it would have been quite a reasonable option given the Japanese strategy of a decisive battle with the US Navy approaching Philippines to bring relief.

US Navy itself planned that, also.


Therefore, there is little possibility to say that striking Manila would have been impossible or unrealistic. Under many points of view, it is somehow closely linked to the entire Japanese strategic approach of forcing a defensive decisive battle with US Navy.



Now, we know that US Navy wouldn't have sent their entire fleet across the Pacific to bring relief to Philippines forces under siege, but, again, we are reasoning with hindsight because we know that the leadership on the other side, in Washington, knows that it would be suicidal and doesn't do that. So it's a double hindsight: on one side US leadership does know, and therefore doesn't want to, cross the Pacific to bring relief to Philippines.
On the other side, Japanese players perfectly know that the americans know. Therefore, not a single Japanese would think that skipping Philippines and focussing on them would force (or even invite) US to try to move toward them.


Funnily enough, I have just sent a little relief force from PH to Philippines which have been skipped by my enemy (who, also, landed quite massively on Mersing with everything on day-1 and took Tulagi as well immediately).




Now, if you think under the "feasability" constraint, you have that Manila is perfectly possible.
Under the strategic point of view, somehow yes as well (including skipping Philippines altogether and getting them few months later).
If you speak about gameplay, it's up to you and your adversary. To be honest, I wouldn't play against somebody who gets bothered if things take a very different path than they did in history. As mentioned above, I've never found somebody willing to be under those constraints as well when they do bring some disadvantage to them.




Noumea or Tulagi on 7-dec and so on are totally wild and unfeasible. Still, I do not see a major problem in that (note that in one of my two PBEM I am on the receiving end of having had Noumea attacked in the first few days of war). I think that, on the mid- and long-run, things naturally flow in a somehow historical direction. Some operations are inherently nasty, but I consistently found that over time they do not really matter.

The game in which I got Philippines skipped and Singapore directly invaded at day-1, ended before 1942 just to make an example.

The one in which I got Noumea attacked early (I think 10th dec but I might be few days wrong), it's going on and it's still at the beginning. But I just sank Hosho, trapped 1,000AV in Java and hit multiple times the whole 2ndKB (Akagi/Kaga/2xCVL/2xCVE) with no major losses (few DDs).

So, also in the short-run, some wild initiatives can happen but the whole balance doesn't really change.





Just to make another example of wild Japanese moves to much allied horror. I landed on 28th Jan with 3 divisions coming from Java in... Port Augusta. I did a roughly 150hex trip with 3 embarked Divs plus support units and attacked Port Augusta from South.
Now it's few months later and the last Allied base in the area, Sidney, is falling.

It's not only 7-dec which can go wild.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 55
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 2:34:32 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13578
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
As I understand it, the U.S. did not take control or French Islands in SOPAC (through the Free French) until early 1942, so at game start the Vichy French would have been in charge at Noumea. There would certainly have been no resistance to the Japanese there.
Then the question becomes one of logistics and tactical exposure. The Japanese were confident in their army being superior to the Allies, but protecting their LOC would be up to the navy, and Yamamoto had a much more realistic view of what was prudent. I doubt he would have gone along with it.
Even in the Gilberts/Marshalls, the Japanese halted their expansion at Tarawa.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 56
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 2:36:36 PM   
Trugrit


Posts: 742
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I hate to throw cold water on all these hot romps by Japanese forces to such places as McHale's Navy, however to refocus the thread, I was interested in options that were actually considered by the planners in '41 not the players in '19! Was it really possible for the Japanese to invade Noumea in '41, was it even in the wildest dreams of anyone back then? I know some things are possible given the wide latitude of the game mechanics, but I was trying to explore the "realistic" alternatives to Pearl, not the outlandish or offworldish possibles thanks to the game mechanics! I do think it would be interesting to see "what if" the US CVs were caught at Pearl, which is certainly possible if the Japanese had delayed a day or two, or a week.... Again, this is within the realm of "possible" as are many other things.... Simply put, I'm just trying to throw back into the mix a bit of realistic probability rather than simply expanding the envelope due to wide ranging game mechanics.


dr.hal,

I think you are too late.

The Japanese have discovered that they have a magic Sea Dragon
that can carry them very far over the water.


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 57
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 2:38:55 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24196
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal
I was interested in options that were actually considered by the planners in '41


IIRC, IJ capture of Samoa and New Caledonia were very much considered by the planners in 1941-1942. Obviously, Port Moresby was a fixture of their planning until mid-1942. Occupation of parts of Australia was also considered, but shelved because of infeasibility by the IJA.

_____________________________


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 58
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 2:47:14 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24196
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Those are massive advantages that a vaguely competent Japanese player (ie me!) can go way further than what was possible

So you do need to have some house rules to counter balance that (IMHO of course)



In my last couple PBEMs, I have started this discussion before December 7 first turn. My most frequent 'suggestion' involves foreswearing the 'magic move' in exchange for foreswearing funky game mechanics. Example: I vow not to land on Palembang and Java on turn one with a division and a half of troops if the Allies vow to not pack Palembang full of British infantry and live off of the oil field / refinery supply production. I've yet to hear any resistance to this congenial like-minded exchange.

_____________________________


(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 59
RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 2:54:30 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13578
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal
I was interested in options that were actually considered by the planners in '41


IIRC, IJ capture of Samoa and New Caledonia were very much considered by the planners in 1941-1942. Obviously, Port Moresby was a fixture of their planning until mid-1942. Occupation of parts of Australia was also considered, but shelved because of infeasibility by the IJA.

The IJA may have had such plans, but I read somewhere that the IJN was much less sure it could support them. Yamamoto was not happy about being forced to go as far as Port Moresby since he could not get all of his fleet ready in time. So Shoho, Shokaku and Zuikaku went to Coral Sea, got whacked and were not available for the Midway operation that Yamamoto did want to support.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila Page: <<   < prev  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

0.180