Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the winner is...

 
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 >> Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the winner is... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the winn... - 11/26/2013 2:56:19 PM   
Crazypantoufle


Posts: 33
Joined: 7/30/2013
Status: offline
...me!
I knew that luck was very important in this game, but i didn't know my legendary lack of luck would interfere on the very first turn of a GC with a 100% automatic historical first turn.

Let's play a game: this is the report of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Can you see what is the weird thing?
Tip: i have more than 140 Kates, which are supposed to be torpedo bomber right?

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 106 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 35 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 68
B5N2 Kate x 144
D3A1 Val x 126

Allied aircraft
P-36A Mohawk x 1
P-40B Warhawk x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 7 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 14 destroyed by flak
B5N2 Kate: 2 damaged
D3A1 Val: 6 damaged
D3A1 Val: 2 destroyed by flak


Allied Ships
DM Sicard
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 12, heavy fires, heavy damage
AV Wright
CL Helena, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 12, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 11, and is sunk (because of a magazine explosion)
BB California, Bomb hits 8, heavy fires
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 9, heavy fires
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 8, heavy fires
DD Shaw, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DM Preble
DM Pruitt
DM Tracy
CM Oglala
DM Ramsay
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 12, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 11, heavy fires
AVD Hulbert, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
PG Sacramento, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AD Dobbin, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Hull, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Patterson, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Reid, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 1

Allied ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Repair Shipyard hits 5
Airbase hits 43
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 91

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x A6M2 Zero bombing from 100 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
14 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
City Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
9 x A6M2 Zero bombing from 100 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
18 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
City Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
13 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
9 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
City Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
8 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
7 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
11 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb


This was supposed to be THE devastating torpedo attack on sleeping BB of the entire war.
But God of Luck, who seems to be the king of witp ae's pantheon, decided that it would be much more groovy if NONE of my 144 TB pilots would remember to bring at least a SINGLE torpedo.

I checked after the raid: not a single of the torpedo reserve in any of the KB CV has been used.

If you still doubt about my right to deserve this award, let me precise what followed this marvellous 250 kg bombs raid on PH: half of my bombers were cut down on a raid on Clark Field (against P35s), and of course my Nells and Bettys were not in the mood for an attack on the Prince of Wales TF, so most of them attacked some DDs in Singapore's harbor instead, leaving the 2 BBs alive with only 1 torpedo hit to each of them.

I agree first historical turns should not be the same. But do they have to be THAT random? Come on, i haven't done anything yet, and i'm already handicaped compared to the historical situation!

< Message edited by Crazypantoufle -- 11/26/2013 4:06:21 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/26/2013 3:12:43 PM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline
There always the 8 Dec start, if one wishes to be 'in the shoes', so to speak...

as an AFB I have had one Esteemed Opponent do me twice at PH - first time: 6 BBs sunk - sunk, bye bye. Second time - woo hoo! I got two BBs I can repair. The rest are, of course, sunk.

_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to Crazypantoufle)
Post #: 2
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/26/2013 3:15:31 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Looks like my most recent PH strike!

Idunno, those 800kg bombs pack a decent punch. Still, a mix with torpedoes is better... You got "lucky" on the 70+ XP Port Attack rolls for the 800kg bombs.

(in reply to Crazypantoufle)
Post #: 3
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/26/2013 4:30:13 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 2869
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
My AI game against Japan went pretty lightly for me.  I only lost Nevada.  All the others will be out of drydock within four months.  No torps were dropped.  All but two BBs went to the west coast, and two of them are now bound for Suva.

Ed-

_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 4
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/26/2013 4:31:10 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
Wow. I have never seen such bad (good?) rolls for the weapon selection of the Kates on a Pearl Harbor strike.

On the flip side of the coin, I once had a PH strike against AI where every single Kate squadron went in with torpedoes. The result was devastation - six BBs, a CL and about three DDs sunk, with the remaining two BBs taking two torpedoes each.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 5
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/26/2013 4:35:09 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 2869
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
The dice gods provideth outliers. 

Ed-

_____________________________


(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 6
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/26/2013 4:57:35 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
The Type 99 Number 80 Mark 5 bomb, used at Pearl Harbor, was remanufactured from obsolete 40cm battleship shells. Out of a total weight of 800 kg, the bomb had a charge of only 23 kg of Type 91 explosive. The Type 99 had two base fuses with 0.2 second delay that were insensitive enough to require impact on armor plate for detonation. One such bomb went clear through AR Vestal at PH to explode (harmlessly) on the harbour floor beneath the ship. These bombs could penetrate almost 15cm of deck armor when dropped from a height of 10,000 feet, but they had a notoriously high dud rate - apparently of the 800kg bombs dropped at PH, 20% failed to explode and a further 40% only yielded low-order explosions.

This is somewhere where AE is a bit unrealistic, for example when you do a first turn port strike of Manila. A 800kg AP bomb hit on a submarine will likely destroy it, but in real life such a bomb would have gone straight through the submarine without detonating (and if it did detonate it would already have gone straight through it), leaving a more-or-less 40cm hole in the sub's hull.

I have had 800kg AP bomb hits on PT Boats that obliterated those in-game. One might argue that a 800kg bomb creating a 40cm hole in a PT boat would have sunk it, however...

(in reply to Mundy)
Post #: 7
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/26/2013 5:05:58 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

The Type 99 Number 80 Mark 5 bomb, used at Pearl Harbor, was remanufactured from obsolete 40cm battleship shells. Out of a total weight of 800 kg, the bomb had a charge of only 23 kg of Type 91 explosive. The Type 99 had two base fuses with 0.2 second delay that were insensitive enough to require impact on armor plate for detonation. One such bomb went clear through AR Vestal at PH to explode (harmlessly) on the harbour floor beneath the ship. These bombs could penetrate almost 15cm of deck armor when dropped from a height of 10,000 feet, but they had a notoriously high dud rate - apparently of the 800kg bombs dropped at PH, 20% failed to explode and a further 40% only yielded low-order explosions.

This is somewhere where AE is a bit unrealistic, for example when you do a first turn port strike of Manila. A 800kg AP bomb hit on a submarine will likely destroy it, but in real life such a bomb would have gone straight through the submarine without detonating (and if it did detonate it would already have gone straight through it), leaving a more-or-less 40cm hole in the sub's hull.

I have had 800kg AP bomb hits on PT Boats that obliterated those in-game. One might argue that a 800kg bomb creating a 40cm hole in a PT boat would have sunk it, however...


Probably larger than 40cm, given that wood doesn't usually "punch" cleanly. It has a tendency to splinter...

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 8
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/26/2013 5:08:44 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
True, that.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 9
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/26/2013 9:07:31 PM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
My worst outcome just happened in my new game vs ai. I lost 1 but all others severely damaged as in out for 3mos to 1yr at PH repair rates & not likely to be able to move for 1mo to WC at earliest.

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 10
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/26/2013 10:22:31 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

My worst outcome just happened in my new game vs ai. I lost 1 but all others severely damaged as in out for 3mos to 1yr at PH repair rates & not likely to be able to move for 1mo to WC at earliest.


That actually sounds pretty light. Your other results must have been awesome!

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 11
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 12:44:34 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Well, the good news is that the Pearl Harbor attack does not have a great impact on the game. The Allied player can recover from the loss of the old BBs and if they are damaged that is one good way to keep them out of trouble for a year or so. For the Japanese player, if he does not find and sink a carrier or two, Pearl Harbor does not mean too much either.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 12
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 1:36:18 AM   
HexHead

 

Posts: 464
Joined: 2/9/2010
From: I'm from New Hampshire; I only work in cyberspace
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, the good news is that the Pearl Harbor attack does not have a great impact on the game. The Allied player can recover from the loss of the old BBs and if they are damaged that is one good way to keep them out of trouble for a year or so. For the Japanese player, if he does not find and sink a carrier or two, Pearl Harbor does not mean too much either.




I agree largely, Sarge, but wish to point out, at the risk of an Intel leak:

In the scenario I described above, with six BBs gone, off the board right away, the Allies are hurtin' fer certain when it comes to severe losses. Why? This is my teacup of experience: the Allies have next to no BB power when suffering more than a few bad losses/extreme damage/on the shelf time. The IJN has what, ten BBs on the board? The difference between the battlewagon capabilities is stark. This means that the IJ player can escort with, theoretically, a single BB or more practically, two; he can have more than a few SurfFleets to support invasions and cause trouble in general. Ya got nuttin' to stop 'em.

When the best the AFB can do is scratch together CruRons (OK, mebbe/prolly POW &, OK, Repulse) - well, all is takes is a Kongo in the vicinity and there went the neighborhood.

He doesn't even need the KB, etc., to run wild. Allied LBA? Yeah, right. Some good episodes here & there, but not a truly serious threat to a full fledged IJN flotilla. Will/should he use the KB? Sure, but the central point is that his surface capabilities are now a whole 'nother ball game, on top of existing problems.

It really stinks when you gotta be constantly worrying about an IJ BB TF with a bad attitude comin' round the bend - CA/CL combos can't deal with it for long, I think.

Especially at night. It is just a Most Royal PITA - it handcuffs the Allied surface game.

These are bad losses, to repeat - like six, fer instance, just poof!

ADDENDUM

I did forget Colorado and Warspite, but still...

Colorado won't see the waves 'til mid-Jan42, if you want the upgrades; Warspite is on the other side of the map from HM brethren. So, for weeks and weeks and weeks, an AFB can be looking at three or four BBs (BC) and that is it. Not a pretty picture.

< Message edited by HexHead -- 11/27/2013 3:03:01 AM >


_____________________________

"Goddamn it, they're gittin' away!!"
- unknown tincan sailor near the end of Leyte Gulf, when Kurita retired

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 13
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 4:14:16 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
But they're sooooo slowwwwww. Torpedo bait .

(in reply to HexHead)
Post #: 14
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 5:00:27 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Maybe a mimimum number of torpedoes used on December 7 could be coded to avoid such rolls? Right now it seems it is the Japanese who have the faulty torpedoes, not the Americans.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 15
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 5:50:35 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Maybe a mimimum number of torpedoes used on December 7 could be coded to avoid such rolls? Right now it seems it is the Japanese who have the faulty torpedoes, not the Americans.


And this should be because? If you don´t like random results...

quote:

ORIGINAL: HexHead

There always the 8 Dec start, if one wishes to be 'in the shoes', so to speak...

as an AFB I have had one Esteemed Opponent do me twice at PH - first time: 6 BBs sunk - sunk, bye bye. Second time - woo hoo! I got two BBs I can repair. The rest are, of course, sunk.


This might have nothing to do with faulty torps but with attack decisions. E.g. in the OP scenario the IJN did not invent the wooden fins for the air dropped torps and decided to go all in with the 40cm ammo. In an alternate reality this might have happened. Jeez, a bit of fantasy please...

_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 16
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 6:21:41 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
No-torpedo roll on PH attack is pretty rare, but in the view of KB composition ( CV have torpedoes plus there are 144 torpedo planes on decks) such random result makes little sense. It seems December 7 surprise is not only the option affecting Americans, but in such rare occurences also Japanese aviators who fly torpedo planes.

"Surprise, surprise! No torpedo for you today!".

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 17
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 6:52:42 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

No-torpedo roll on PH attack is pretty rare, but in the view of KB composition ( CV have torpedoes plus there are 144 torpedo planes on decks) such random result makes little sense.
"Surprise, surprise! No torpedo for you today!".


As I said, with a bit of imagination it is quite easy to think of a scenario where no torps were used in the PH attack. Did you read my post at all before responding?

_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 18
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 7:21:58 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

This is somewhere where AE is a bit unrealistic, for example when you do a first turn port strike of Manila. A 800kg AP bomb hit on a submarine will likely destroy it, but in real life such a bomb would have gone straight through the submarine without detonating (and if it did detonate it would already have gone straight through it), leaving a more-or-less 40cm hole in the sub's hull.

I have had 800kg AP bomb hits on PT Boats that obliterated those in-game. One might argue that a 800kg bomb creating a 40cm hole in a PT boat would have sunk it, however...



Take it that way, 800kg bombs wouldn't be used to attack Manila (no need for these bombs when you know you attack a port without BBs) so the Kates would carry something like 250kg or 500kg bombs and a 500kg bomb would certainly destroy a sub. Same with the 250kg bomb. And then I say enough subs surviving such hits in the game, so if you unrealistically attack Manila and Kates drop unrealistically 800kg AP bombs you get at least realisticaly sunk subs by one bomb direct hits.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 11/27/2013 8:24:53 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 19
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 7:44:15 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

No-torpedo roll on PH attack is pretty rare, but in the view of KB composition ( CV have torpedoes plus there are 144 torpedo planes on decks) such random result makes little sense.
"Surprise, surprise! No torpedo for you today!".


As I said, with a bit of imagination it is quite easy to think of a scenario where no torps were used in the PH attack. Did you read my post at all before responding?



I did. A non-torpedo roll on December 7 attack ( when you go with historical first turn) makes no sense. Pearl Harbor attack was a set-piece attack which involved prior rehearsals. That is why a OP is baffled when he sees no-torpedo attack on December 7. As I said, a non-torpedo roll is very rare ( personally, I haven't seen one in my games) and I would be baffled too if it happened to me. I would get rid of this roll for December 7 PH attack.
I guess had the Japanese drilled for PH dive-bombing attack, the proportion of dive-bombers to torpedo bombers would have been different on December 7.

The OP was unlucky with the rolls and his anger is, in my view, justified.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 20
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 8:18:28 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Pearl Harbor attack was a set-piece attack which involved prior rehearsals.


Well I guess this is where we disagree.


My opinion is, if you choose Dec 7th you need to accept that the strategic TF and ship locations, and the general strategic targets are predefined, but the intel leading to the tactical setup for the attack, the individual target designation, and the exact layout, position, protection, and readiness of the individual targets and so on, is not. Which leads to highly variable attack patterns and so results.

Those results will shape the initial phase of the alternate history you play.

I embrace that, and for exactly this reason I am always thrilled to watch a Dec 7th replay. I might be disappointed or overwhelmed by the attack and the results, but thats part of the exitement.

If someone does not like it, well thats a shame. One wants that set piece attack to have happened exactly as in history, stop complaining and play Dec 8th scen.



< Message edited by LoBaron -- 11/27/2013 9:19:56 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 21
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 8:33:26 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Yes, this is where we disagree.

The Japanese were rehearsing for Pearl Harbour attack in real life. If Pearl Harbour had been a tactical attack, the Japanese would have achieved greatly lower bomb/torpedo hit ratio then the historical one.

Thus, a non-torpedo roll on December 7 historical first turn would mean that the Japanese had been rehearsing a dive attack with 800 kg bombs prior to Pearl Harbor bombing. This is the only explanation one can offer if such unlucky roll happens. I can live with that, but I understand why original poster found the whole thing confusing.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 22
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 10:01:38 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
You can't have it both ways though

You want the chance to sink the whole US Fleet at Pearl Harbour, then play Dec 7th, but you also might not sink a thing.

The random chance of pretty much everything is why this game continues to be playable time and time again



_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 23
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 10:45:53 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
This is a game, not a simulation or re-enactment.

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 24
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 12:43:01 PM   
Feltan


Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

This is a game, not a simulation or re-enactment.


I couldn't disagree more.

Monopoly is a game. No one complains to Milton Bradley that the Reading Railroad should cost $205 instead of $200. Everyone knows it is a game, and such discussions would be idiocy.

If WITP-AE had been available in the 1960's or 1970's, it would have been seized by the Government and slapped with a Top Secret classification. It is that good.

It doesn't simulate everything, and some things are abstracted -- but guess what, in actual DoD simulations some things are abstracted too (and they don't work as well).

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 25
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 2:20:09 PM   
Crazypantoufle


Posts: 33
Joined: 7/30/2013
Status: offline
Yaab got my point.

I'm not crying because i didn't manage to sink all the BBs in Pearl because of bad dice rolls (ok, maybe a little bit, but i'm used to bad rolls so that's not the main reason).

I'm just (in a bad way) surprised because NO torpedo was used. It's not just dud torpedoes, or unexpected heavy CAP or Flak destroying half of my planes, or pilots missing their target.
LoBaron, I agree results should be different if i accept to play the 7th december this way. But i think the 0 torpedo factor goes a little too far. I would have prefered 0 BB sunk, but having at least a few torpedoes shot.
The problem is not the result, it's this torpedo issue that really annoyes me.

I have no doubt we can accept a lot of thing with a bit of imagination. So we could imagine that a KB without torpedo would find some US CV at Pearl, because we can imagine that while Nagumo was traumatized because his parents died in a torpedo explosion when he was a kid so he promised to never use torpedo in his life, some US CV commander had a bad nightmare just before december, and cancelled all CV sortie until January 42.
We can also imagine a SS meeting a CV would use the deck gun instead of torpedo, because the SS captain was mainly trained for gun shooting (and anyway he's always wanted to be a BB commander, why did they assign him to this bloody bathtub?!).

I think, like Yaab suggested, use of a minimum number of torpedo should be coded for PH attack on 7th december.

< Message edited by Crazypantoufle -- 11/27/2013 3:37:17 PM >

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 26
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 4:24:58 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
"use of a minimum number of torpedo should be coded for PH attack on 7th december. "

I would be against this option, myself. Heck, the Japanese were not even sure their new torpedos would work in this attack! They heavily modified these, and ran some limited tests, but they were not sure. That was also one of the reasons they split the attack up between level bombing Battleship Row, and torpedo bombers.

(in reply to Crazypantoufle)
Post #: 27
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/27/2013 7:38:15 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

"use of a minimum number of torpedo should be coded for PH attack on 7th december. "

I would be against this option, myself. Heck, the Japanese were not even sure their new torpedos would work in this attack! They heavily modified these, and ran some limited tests, but they were not sure. That was also one of the reasons they split the attack up between level bombing Battleship Row, and torpedo bombers.


My thoughts exactly. Had the Japanese not invented the wooden support fins for shallow water airdrops the torpedo option might have been discarded in the first place. I interprete an attack where no torps are launched against the ships at PH as exactly such a situation. Other people might think different but I like that ammount of randomness.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 28
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/28/2013 6:40:51 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
LoBaron, thanks for the clarification. Your interpretation sounds reasonable.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 29
RE: Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the ... - 11/28/2013 2:01:18 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HexHead

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, the good news is that the Pearl Harbor attack does not have a great impact on the game. The Allied player can recover from the loss of the old BBs and if they are damaged that is one good way to keep them out of trouble for a year or so. For the Japanese player, if he does not find and sink a carrier or two, Pearl Harbor does not mean too much either.




I agree largely, Sarge, but wish to point out, at the risk of an Intel leak:

In the scenario I described above, with six BBs gone, off the board right away, the Allies are hurtin' fer certain when it comes to severe losses. Why? This is my teacup of experience: the Allies have next to no BB power when suffering more than a few bad losses/extreme damage/on the shelf time. The IJN has what, ten BBs on the board? The difference between the battlewagon capabilities is stark. This means that the IJ player can escort with, theoretically, a single BB or more practically, two; he can have more than a few SurfFleets to support invasions and cause trouble in general. Ya got nuttin' to stop 'em.

When the best the AFB can do is scratch together CruRons (OK, mebbe/prolly POW &, OK, Repulse) - well, all is takes is a Kongo in the vicinity and there went the neighborhood.

He doesn't even need the KB, etc., to run wild. Allied LBA? Yeah, right. Some good episodes here & there, but not a truly serious threat to a full fledged IJN flotilla. Will/should he use the KB? Sure, but the central point is that his surface capabilities are now a whole 'nother ball game, on top of existing problems.

It really stinks when you gotta be constantly worrying about an IJ BB TF with a bad attitude comin' round the bend - CA/CL combos can't deal with it for long, I think.

Especially at night. It is just a Most Royal PITA - it handcuffs the Allied surface game.

These are bad losses, to repeat - like six, fer instance, just poof!

ADDENDUM

I did forget Colorado and Warspite, but still...

Colorado won't see the waves 'til mid-Jan42, if you want the upgrades; Warspite is on the other side of the map from HM brethren. So, for weeks and weeks and weeks, an AFB can be looking at three or four BBs (BC) and that is it. Not a pretty picture.



Well having just wrapped up a full campaign (Aug 1 1945, Soviets activated) I can say that the BBs especially the old BBs are highly overrated for surface combat. I never use old Allied BBs in surface fights, they are too slow, too inexperienced and rarely fire their guns at night It is just easy points for the Japanese player. They have their greatest value later in the war supporting landings and should be saved for that.

I never found Japanese BBs to be that much of a threat either. Yes, they are powerful and you will be pounded on occasion but just like Allied BBs they are vulnerable at night, vulnerable to subs, vulnerable to PTs, One torpedo hit on a BB might put it in the shipyard for four to six months. I played my whole campaign and never intentionally used my Allied BBs once in a night surface fight. You simply do not need to waste them this way. Of course losing them all at Pearl Harbor kind of removes that temptation anyways...

< Message edited by crsutton -- 11/28/2013 3:03:01 PM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to HexHead)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Historical December 7th Turn Loose awards: and the winner is... 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

1.313