Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Manila vs PH

 
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 >> The War Room >> Manila vs PH Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Manila vs PH - 3/8/2011 7:05:14 PM   
koniu


Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline 		I`m just preparing for my first PBEM game as Japan, and I have dilemma, attack PH or Manila.
I do not know what will be best for me. Sunk/damage few BB in PH or focus on SS in Manila

For now I decided to attack Manila and try to sunk as many ss as I can

This will be probably best for my in long term, when in early `43 US torpedoes will stop being useless and my ASW will star to be


< Message edited by koniu -- 3/8/2011 7:15:38 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/8/2011 7:11:51 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		You may want to browse this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2272554&mpage=1&key=manila%2Cparadigm

_____________________________


(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 2
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/8/2011 7:12:37 PM   
trojan58


Posts: 266
Joined: 8/8/2004
From: bendigo, Victoria, Australia
Status: offline 		Manila, take out the subs. They are far more dangerous than a few old BB's that you may not sink anyway

_____________________________

There are two types of ships in the world

Submarines and Targets

D.B.F

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 3
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/8/2011 7:20:36 PM   
koniu


Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline 		Thanks

I`m searching forum manually, but i must miss it


< Message edited by koniu -- 3/8/2011 7:21:26 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 4
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/8/2011 8:10:03 PM   
findmeifyoucan

 

Posts: 579
Joined: 10/14/2009
Status: offline 		Few old BB's that still can be nasty in bombarding your naval and air bases if left in tact to say nothing of possibly catching the Enterprise or the Yorktown if the American player isn't careful! Besides, two PH strikes back to back pretty much guarantees that most of these BB's will be sunk at PH!! :-) Don't forget all those aircraft you are also blowing up in the process in the pre-turn at PH and other support ships!

Subs are nasty and an interesting option to go after in the Philipines but if you have sufficient ASW escort you will sink those too in time. In one game after 3 weeks of the war I have already sunk 10x subs due to ASW escorts of my transports and miscellaneous bombing and bombarding of various naval bases in the area !

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 5
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/8/2011 11:00:30 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline 		You will get a lot of differing opinions. My take is this; I never play Japan and am quite happy when KB launches against Manila for three reasons. 1) US subs are worthless until the beginning of '43 and not much better until '9/43 when I have lots of them around. By then I have lost 10 or 15 anyway to ASW and the most I have ever lost in 1 day turns is 9 at Manila and 10 were lost on 2 day turns-I have a HR on two day turns regarding a port attack on Manila that reduces the damage. 2) I would rather have KB rampaging near Manila than Pearl Harbor. I find those old BB's quiet helpful for soaking up torpedoes in CV TF's, leading invasions (shore batteries tend to target BB's instead of the APA's), and they are also good on bombardments. and finally 3) It can be quite a jolt to start the game with 6 sunken BB's at Pearl. And the rest out of commission for a long time as opposed to 10 subs.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 6
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/9/2011 12:04:12 AM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline 		The subs just arent that effective before 1943. The BBs are worth a fair number of points. But the MAIN reason to hit Pearl isnt subs or BBs. Its airplanes. Anyone that says the subs in Manila are more important than the BBs AND aircraft at Pearl isnt thinking long range.

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 7
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/9/2011 1:52:54 PM   
Hanzberger


Posts: 921
Joined: 4/26/2006
From: SE Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		R U guys playing with reliable USN torps on or off? What's usually the consenus on this?

_____________________________

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 CV 2)
Post #: 8
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/9/2011 3:24:32 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		If you hit Manila, you have also the benefit that you can keep KB supporting the landings to DEI etc. and interdicting Allied surface forces.

Also, Allied subs are not useless before 9/43 (or even 1/43), not even those with Mk 14 torpedoes with 80% dud rate. You still get decent amount of sinkings and S-boats do not suffer from big dud rate anyways.

Using KB to support operations around PI & DEI will most likely net more sunk shipping that area (that Allies cannot evacuate to Australia or India), Also it will make either reinforcing DEI or evacuating units from Singapore practically impossible for Allied player, limiting Allied options. It will also screen your landings quite well against Allied surface forces, preventing possible nasty surprises. And it will most likely allow quicker conquest of DEI and quicker access to oil there.

There are quite a few things to consider when choosing between PH & Manila.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 3/9/2011 3:25:50 PM >

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Hanzberger)
Post #: 9
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/9/2011 4:18:58 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

R U guys playing with reliable USN torps on or off? What's usually the consenus on this?



I try to keep it historical...

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to Hanzberger)
Post #: 10
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/9/2011 5:00:40 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

R U guys playing with reliable USN torps on or off? What's usually the consenus on this?


I have hardly ever seen where PBM opponents agreed to play with reliable USN torps = On. Most people (Allied players included) want that historical limitation because it's part of the situation being gamed.

(in reply to Hanzberger)
Post #: 11
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/9/2011 6:17:32 PM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

If you hit Manila, you have also the benefit that you can keep KB supporting the landings to DEI etc. and interdicting Allied surface forces.

Also, Allied subs are not useless before 9/43 (or even 1/43), not even those with Mk 14 torpedoes with 80% dud rate. You still get decent amount of sinkings and S-boats do not suffer from big dud rate anyways.

Using KB to support operations around PI & DEI will most likely net more sunk shipping that area (that Allies cannot evacuate to Australia or India), Also it will make either reinforcing DEI or evacuating units from Singapore practically impossible for Allied player, limiting Allied options. It will also screen your landings quite well against Allied surface forces, preventing possible nasty surprises. And it will most likely allow quicker conquest of DEI and quicker access to oil there.

There are quite a few things to consider when choosing between PH & Manila.


First of all, there are only 4 "S" boats in Manila.

Secondly as for evac to Australia or India, you GREATLY under-estimate the power of the PBY to lift troops out. Leave Pearl untouched and you have all them Cats on Java in 3-4 days pulling troops. Which lends itself to not needing ships in the NEI and thus the KB has no targets other than what starts in HK and Manila.

Plus the fact that you surrender the eastern Pacific to the allied carriers. You can cover your forces in the NEI with land based air and the 3 lights just fine, dont need the KB there.

< Message edited by CV 2 -- 3/9/2011 6:18:44 PM >

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 12
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/9/2011 6:23:40 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		The link provided in post #2 leads to a very, very lengthy thread which thoroughly canvassed the question raised by the OP. So far I haven't seen any new arguements advanced. We should let the OP fully digest that thread first.

Alfred

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 13
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/9/2011 8:28:29 PM   
PresterJohn001


Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline 		Pearl Harbour all the way, like the historical context and really... sink subs or battleships.. its answers itself !!!

Ok those allied subs are not very effective due to torpedoe failure, and later the allies get loads and loads of subs so BB's are better option. Kido Butai is out of position but
really theres not much real damage the allies can do if its not there.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 14
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/9/2011 10:23:32 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

If you hit Manila, you have also the benefit that you can keep KB supporting the landings to DEI etc. and interdicting Allied surface forces.

Also, Allied subs are not useless before 9/43 (or even 1/43), not even those with Mk 14 torpedoes with 80% dud rate. You still get decent amount of sinkings and S-boats do not suffer from big dud rate anyways.

Using KB to support operations around PI & DEI will most likely net more sunk shipping that area (that Allies cannot evacuate to Australia or India), Also it will make either reinforcing DEI or evacuating units from Singapore practically impossible for Allied player, limiting Allied options. It will also screen your landings quite well against Allied surface forces, preventing possible nasty surprises. And it will most likely allow quicker conquest of DEI and quicker access to oil there.

There are quite a few things to consider when choosing between PH & Manila.


First of all, there are only 4 "S" boats in Manila.

Secondly as for evac to Australia or India, you GREATLY under-estimate the power of the PBY to lift troops out. Leave Pearl untouched and you have all them Cats on Java in 3-4 days pulling troops. Which lends itself to not needing ships in the NEI and thus the KB has no targets other than what starts in HK and Manila.

Plus the fact that you surrender the eastern Pacific to the allied carriers. You can cover your forces in the NEI with land based air and the 3 lights just fine, dont need the KB there.


Most IJ players would love to have Allied player to shuttle troops with PBYs around DEI. Attrition is brutal, I know because I have tried it. It'd kill Allied naval search capability in couple of weeks.

Surrender Eastern Pacific to Allied carriers? What about Eastern Pacific? Unless IJ player is really going to over-extend himself to invade those areas, I don't see what's the point of contesting places that do not provide resources, supply, oil, fuel or VPs?

As Yamamoto et all found out, Eastern Pacific is LEAST important and most useless area for Japan to contest.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 15
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/9/2011 10:53:03 PM   
roy2008


Posts: 42
Joined: 10/8/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline 		make both, Manila and PH, send Carriers to hit PH, and send carriers to hit Manila, with a little luck can you kill the most Subs in Manila and the BB in PH

_____________________________

- The strategy is a system of temporary. -
- von Moltke -

- You have to see the whole before its parts. -
- Scharnhorst -


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 16
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/9/2011 11:43:45 PM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


Most IJ players would love to have Allied player to shuttle troops with PBYs around DEI. Attrition is brutal, I know because I have tried it. It'd kill Allied naval search capability in couple of weeks.

Surrender Eastern Pacific to Allied carriers? What about Eastern Pacific? Unless IJ player is really going to over-extend himself to invade those areas, I don't see what's the point of contesting places that do not provide resources, supply, oil, fuel or VPs?

As Yamamoto et all found out, Eastern Pacific is LEAST important and most useless area for Japan to contest.


Mid-Jan 42. I have every combat squad out of Malaya and Java that isnt perma restricted (and even a few of those units moved). The changeable Malaya command went to ABDA as well as the Dutch. I lost 28 PBYs on the ground at Pearl, and 28 to attrit moving troops (15 PBY-4s and 13 PBY-5s). I think most of the PBY-4s were lost pulling a few naval base forces out of the PI at max range.

I'll take that trade ANY day of the week.

KB is off Perth. There isnt an allied ship for 1500 miles in any direction except a few scattered local minesweepers. And thats WITH a Pearl Harbor strike. Imagine what I could do with the 28 I lost there (not to mention all the fighters I lost as well). Most of III corps is sitting in Ceylon. Most of ABDA is in Oz with a few units in South Africa.

More than happy to send you a save if you would like to verify. I "search" with Hudsons and B-17s.

Can argue about it until the cows come home. Im willing to prove it. Are you?

< Message edited by CV 2 -- 3/9/2011 11:52:39 PM >

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 17
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/10/2011 9:58:05 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Well, everyone has his own style and strategy.  

_____________________________

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


(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 18
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/11/2011 2:05:50 AM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		I find it difficult to justify a manila CV strike strategy. Those American BB's will wreak havoc in an experienced players hands. Besides, I see nothing of value in Manila that cant be destroyed with surface groups patrolling, LBA, and a few CVL's. In any event, were you to overkill commit to Manila as Empire, I would love to be Allies with 8 extra BB's as toys in 42.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 19
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/11/2011 4:24:10 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		given the tendancy for Allied players to be far more aggressive vs. their RL counterparts and with knowledge that player one has one hand tied behind his back trying to suppress the SRA while guarding against early incursions into the outer mandates.......my preference is to allow the PH attack. It is valuable to destroy alot of those planes on the ground and take out the BB's from harrasement/bombardment duty. Leaving PH vulnerable for a time also gives Player one pause. He must defend this vital base which takes away from adventures in the Mandates or even the SRA via the off map routes or the US-NZ-Oz route.

I can see the value of a Manilla strike though. I've been stung more than once by all those subs but one can also have the Formosa AF bomb Manila too. Having KB in the SRA early has merit as the first thing Player two always does is start the SIR ROBIN resource/ENG unit evac. It also discourages the fast surface raids that are virtually impossible for land based air units to defend against due to the way the combat phase works. The con of course is that once KB's location is firmly ID'd......player one is more free to create chaos with it's US fleet and carriers.

pros and cons either way but personally i lean towards PH over Manila.

_____________________________


(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 20
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/11/2011 5:23:25 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

given the tendancy for Allied players to be far more aggressive vs. their RL counterparts and with knowledge that player one has one hand tied behind his back trying to suppress the SRA while guarding against early incursions into the outer mandates.......my preference is to allow the PH attack. It is valuable to destroy alot of those planes on the ground and take out the BB's from harrasement/bombardment duty. Leaving PH vulnerable for a time also gives Player one pause. He must defend this vital base which takes away from adventures in the Mandates or even the SRA via the off map routes or the US-NZ-Oz route.

I can see the value of a Manilla strike though. I've been stung more than once by all those subs but one can also have the Formosa AF bomb Manila too. Having KB in the SRA early has merit as the first thing Player two always does is start the SIR ROBIN resource/ENG unit evac. It also discourages the fast surface raids that are virtually impossible for land based air units to defend against due to the way the combat phase works. The con of course is that once KB's location is firmly ID'd......player one is more free to create chaos with it's US fleet and carriers.

pros and cons either way but personally i lean towards PH over Manila.


Due to first turn surprise, having a port surprise attacks so many time zones apart is a non-starter for me. Multiple port attacks in the far east is fine, but Hawaii plus one or more in the far east is too much because they all get the surprise model.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 21
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/12/2011 3:30:22 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		I would go with a Manila strike now that I know that Allied subs are more of a threat in 42-43 than 44-45 because in 44-45 IJN ASW like those super E will bring Allied sub attacks to a halt (if you don´t accept a 1:1 trade of subs vs freighters). So it´s 42 and 43 where you should sink a hundred + enemy tankers with your subs to at least keep the Japanese on a pre war level as this pretty much should be the number of replacements in this time frame. By mid 44 you have to aim at cutting off the SRA as your subs won´t be able to stop oil/fuel imports. So I would sink all those subs in Manila than attacking PH to aim at the old BB and aircraft that can be shot down by your IJ aircraft at will in 42 if the Allied employs them. If you go for points then PH is the target of course, on the other hand, I haven´t lost a single BB during the PH attack in my PBEM.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/12/2011 3:31:07 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 22
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/12/2011 4:52:11 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline 		Castor Troy, I'm not surprised that you have not had any BBs sunk on any Pearl raid, given the depth of the water, 40 feet, that's not possible, if you note on the 8 December scenario both the Arizona and Oklahoma are still "afloat" however in about as bad a shape as possible. But just for spite the allied play could get both recommissioned in time. So sinking them would require deep water (which is why there were a lot of Jap subs sitting outside the harbor mouth, waiting for something like what the Nevada "tried" to do... BTW, I noticed something strange on the 8 Dec scenario, that many of the BBs were listed both on the active list and then they also appeared on the "Manage Ships Under Repair" list, but not the "Show Ships Under Repair" list. Not sure I follow that. Is it the norm? Can someone shed some light? Also the Pennsylvania is listed in "Active Ships" and also listed in "Manage Ships Under Repair" but in "repair allocation" mode it is listed as "readiness"... should it not be in "shipyard" as it was in dry dock? Or was she pulled out on the 8th? Just curious if someone knows. Thanks...

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 23
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/14/2011 1:42:47 AM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		Nickademous

Agreed that the american subs are the unstoppable enemy in a seasoned player's hands. Even without significant advances on the surface military front, the subs can be a horrible terror that rips out the heart of the booty capability. In 43, a seasoned player can flood the military zone too and make surface operations there very very costly. My question is in that critical period of the first 18 months, which is a worse terror...10-20 extra subs or 8 BB's and a few extra smaller warships. IMHO, trying to win the ASW war as Empire is like trying to hold back the tide, if the allied player is persistant and thorough. I just dont know what up to 20 less subs might do. Is there any real difference in the merchant attrition rates - or other less obvious benefits?

My not completely thorough review of the manila gambit AAR's suggest that the allies are quicker on the surface front offensive and a quicker end to the war.

thoughts?

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 24
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/14/2011 8:55:43 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Castor Troy, I'm not surprised that you have not had any BBs sunk on any Pearl raid, given the depth of the water, 40 feet, that's not possible, if you note on the 8 December scenario both the Arizona and Oklahoma are still "afloat" however in about as bad a shape as possible. But just for spite the allied play could get both recommissioned in time. So sinking them would require deep water (which is why there were a lot of Jap subs sitting outside the harbor mouth, waiting for something like what the Nevada "tried" to do... BTW, I noticed something strange on the 8 Dec scenario, that many of the BBs were listed both on the active list and then they also appeared on the "Manage Ships Under Repair" list, but not the "Show Ships Under Repair" list. Not sure I follow that. Is it the norm? Can someone shed some light? Also the Pennsylvania is listed in "Active Ships" and also listed in "Manage Ships Under Repair" but in "repair allocation" mode it is listed as "readiness"... should it not be in "shipyard" as it was in dry dock? Or was she pulled out on the 8th? Just curious if someone knows. Thanks...



in WITP and AE you can sink the BB in Pearl Harbour. Think about it as "damaged beyond repair" or "destroyed".

_____________________________


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 25
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/14/2011 10:59:32 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Nickademous

Agreed that the american subs are the unstoppable enemy in a seasoned player's hands. Even without significant advances on the surface military front, the subs can be a horrible terror that rips out the heart of the booty capability. In 43, a seasoned player can flood the military zone too and make surface operations there very very costly. My question is in that critical period of the first 18 months, which is a worse terror...10-20 extra subs or 8 BB's and a few extra smaller warships. IMHO, trying to win the ASW war as Empire is like trying to hold back the tide, if the allied player is persistant and thorough. I just dont know what up to 20 less subs might do. Is there any real difference in the merchant attrition rates - or other less obvious benefits?

My not completely thorough review of the manila gambit AAR's suggest that the allies are quicker on the surface front offensive and a quicker end to the war.

thoughts?


I take bite on this, even not being Nik.

Those old US BBs are not a real threat to IJN, as long as IJN has most of it's CVs intact. They are horribly vulnerable even to land-based Nells/Betties when those carry torpedoes. For Japan, if you have not "won" by 1943, it is time to dig in and fear for the worst anyway. Before 1943, those old BBs are not going to swing the balance that much. I think it'd be even beneficial to IJN if Allied player would resort using Surface Combat TFs without having superiority in CVs.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 26
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/14/2011 11:41:20 AM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		I'd favour a PH strike over Manila every time.  You're not just removing the USN BBs, you've also got the chance to destroy a lot of potentially unrestricted B-17s and P-40E aircraft.  

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 27
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/15/2011 9:17:09 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		It's definitely PH for air losses and ships losses. Not mentioned yet (I think) is that the damaged 2-5 BBs and other ships tie up the yards at PH for a good amount of time. If they are moved then they become targets again for the IJN subs.

Taking out the BBs later means losing a lot of ships, planes or subs in the process, and they do soak up hits that would go to other units.

But the Cats are hat I don't want to lose early. Especially since they also are your best long range naval bomber early on. Mine have often been at 30-40% hits on naval targets. If you have forty more of those sitting in the DEI, both moving and hitting things, that's better than 10-15 anaemic subs in 42.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 28
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/15/2011 2:48:40 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline 		One thing that we seem to be overlooking in this thread is the support ships and the losses they would take. It is all very nice and flashy to talk about killing BBs, CAs, etc, but sometimes the ships behind the ships are more important. I think the Sub Tenders in Manila are very valuable and a prime target. Too bad you can't target specific ships. By taking out the tenders, you take out the resupply of US subs short of Pearl until the US can get another AS to Oz (my experience is that only sub tenders of a specific nationality can resupply subs of the same nationality). An empty ammo sub is almost as good as a dead sub. It is a long way between Pearl and the western Pacific. Hal

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 29
RE: Manila vs PH - 3/15/2011 6:07:49 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

It's definitely PH for air losses and ships losses. Not mentioned yet (I think) is that the damaged 2-5 BBs and other ships tie up the yards at PH for a good amount of time. If they are moved then they become targets again for the IJN subs.



Any competent Allied player will just use Pierside repair and move those BBs to West Coast when it is safe. IJN subs can get lucky, but so can US DDs. There is no issue about shipyard capacity in PH.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Manila vs PH Page: [1] 2   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

1.047