Pearl Harbor or the West coast?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Pearl Harbor or the West coast?

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] >> World in Flames >> WIF School >> Pearl Harbor or the West coast?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/9/2014 8:40:26 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

So, just dinking around with my Global game, I finally got to the point where it was time for the Japanese to show up and pay the US a visit.

The US was more or less in anti-surprise mode as much as they could to a point, although they were in a position to improve their chances of declaring war against Japan.

Briefly, I put all new construction/repaired warships (except the two old battleships) on the east coast. Pacific had 2 transports and a amphib. Pearl had Nimitz and a AA gun along with 8 battleships. Most everything else was in San Diego, including another AA gun.

The Japanese Kido Butai included 9 carriers (all but the Hosho basically) and mustered 30 points of port strike.

The Japanese had the choice of either going for the obvious Pearl strike against nothing but old battleships or to go take a crack at San Diego.

That is part of the question of this little exercise: Do the Japanese do the obvious and go for Pearl or do they go strike the West Coast in search of more juicy targets?

I first moved the Japanese force into the 1 box off the coast of the US. During the US turn, the US player moved the three carriers there south out of harms way. The Japanese then declared war and sent in the 30 points of aircraft. Potential targets included convoy markers, cruisers, 2 transports and a amphib. The Japanese scored the transports, amphib along with a cruiser sunk. 2 more are in the repair pool.

Was I better off doing that over getting some battleships in Pearl?

In the future as the US, I think I will put any new amphibs on the East Coast until I am in the war.

Post #: 1

RE: Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/9/2014 8:55:15 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

So, just dinking around with my Global game, I finally got to the point where it was time for the Japanese to show up and pay the US a visit.

The US was more or less in anti-surprise mode as much as they could to a point, although they were in a position to improve their chances of declaring war against Japan.

Briefly, I put all new construction/repaired warships (except the two old battleships) on the east coast. Pacific had 2 transports and a amphib. Pearl had Nimitz and a AA gun along with 8 battleships. Most everything else was in San Diego, including another AA gun.

The Japanese Kido Butai included 9 carriers (all but the Hosho basically) and mustered 30 points of port strike.

The Japanese had the choice of either going for the obvious Pearl strike against nothing but old battleships or to go take a crack at San Diego.

That is part of the question of this little exercise: Do the Japanese do the obvious and go for Pearl or do they go strike the West Coast in search of more juicy targets?

I first moved the Japanese force into the 1 box off the coast of the US. During the US turn, the US player moved the three carriers there south out of harms way. The Japanese then declared war and sent in the 30 points of aircraft. Potential targets included convoy markers, cruisers, 2 transports and a amphib. The Japanese scored the transports, amphib along with a cruiser sunk. 2 more are in the repair pool.

Was I better off doing that over getting some battleships in Pearl?

In the future as the US, I think I will put any new amphibs on the East Coast until I am in the war.

Or you could spread out the valuable naval units in different ports on the west coast. That is one strategy Italy uses to protect its transports from surprise port attacks.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 2

RE: Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/9/2014 8:55:51 PM

joshuamnave

Posts: 967
Joined: 1/8/2014
Status: offline

Seems to me the biggest drawback of attacking the west coast that way is having 9 Japanese carriers sitting in the 1 box on the US turn, an advantage the US has given up by vacating the area. If the US battle fleet had been in San Diego, you might have lost a few ships of the line, but had the opportunity to counter attack and deal a decisive blow. Use the fleet in Pearl to set up a picket line and take another shot at the Japanese as they try to return to base.

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 3

RE: Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/9/2014 9:29:51 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

Oh, the part about the Japanese being made to pay in attacking the west coast hasn't played out quite yet since I am not there yet. One of the downsides is the Japanese fleet does have to deal with all those battleships out of Pearl and the ones on the WC yet as well as any remaining cruisers. Considering the Japanese got to the West Coast, they don't have a lot of surface fleet with them.

At some point from what I see, the US must move ships to Pearl in order to present the threat that they can declare war on the Japanese. In most cases, that means the Japanese are going to have a choice between Pearl and whatever is on the West Coast. As long as the US doesn't have additional carriers on the WC other than the starting 3, the Japanese are going to be hard pressed in sinking them on the surprise round simply because the US will be able to play keep away. Part of the downside of that is the US then is not going to be able to risk them in a defeat in detail attempt to hammer the Japanese fleet when it may not be in the best position. If the US wants to party with 3 US CV vs 9 Japanese all in the same sea box, then I think the Japanese would be for that. Now, if the US gets a chance to get all 7 of their carriers concentrated together, then that is a different matter but that isn't happening until after the war starts.

I thought about dispersing the transports up and down the coast, but I am not sure how well that would have gone as the Japanese could have divided up their strike as well should they have been interested in pursuing transports/amphib. The AA gun did help a bit as the Japanese had to use some of their surprise to reduce the effects and also had bomb load reduced anyway. One issue with dispersing the fleet (I think) is that anytime part comes out to do battle, they have to go through a check to see if they get found by the Japanese and face potential defeat in detail.

The turn almost ended after the Axis move (would have been perfect), but it wasn't really planned that way and the Japanese have plenty to do elsewhere after all their landings.

(in reply to joshuamnave)

Post #: 4

RE: Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/9/2014 9:51:40 PM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

You give up surprise points by attacking the West coast. At Pearl the difference is for the same result you can pick the first three targets, but only the first and third on the West Coast.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 5

RE: Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/9/2014 11:08:58 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

I must have gotten good rolls (and I did if I recall) on the West coast. I picked the first three and they were either the amphib or transports.

The turn has concluded. The US was unable to make the Japanese pay. For the Pearl fleet to get out and go after them, they would be in the 0 box. There was not enough surface fleet left on the west coast to risk an engagement as it was divided up some.

A good learning experience for me and I will change what I build for the west coast and where I put it. (One thing the US could do is build a pile of nav and fighters and have it standing by to go at it with the Japanese). Most of my stuff was in air reserve. I believe I will be putting any amphib built on the east coast in the future as well.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 6

RE: Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/10/2014 2:04:06 AM

WarHunter

Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Was I better off doing that over getting some battleships in Pearl?

Its never wrong to try things out in a game for variety.

Generally I'd council a single cut on Pearl Harbor. Those USN battlewagons have great AA, great shore bombardment and there are lots of them. The BB's are threats best taken care of early. 30 air-to-sea factors vs 8-11 ships packs a wallop.

_____________________________

�We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.�
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 7

RE: Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/10/2014 6:48:21 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I must have gotten good rolls (and I did if I recall) on the West coast. I picked the first three and they were either the amphib or transports.

The turn has concluded. The US was unable to make the Japanese pay. For the Pearl fleet to get out and go after them, they would be in the 0 box. There was not enough surface fleet left on the west coast to risk an engagement as it was divided up some.

A good learning experience for me and I will change what I build for the west coast and where I put it. (One thing the US could do is build a pile of nav and fighters and have it standing by to go at it with the Japanese). Most of my stuff was in air reserve. I believe I will be putting any amphib built on the east coast in the future as well.

The exact same rolls at Pearl would have allowed you to pick the first 5 targets because you would have been 3 boxes higher.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 8

RE: Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/10/2014 12:27:58 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

Gotcha. However at Pearl, the choices were battleships and more battleships, so I don't think it would have been as important there.

The most I could have hoped to sink at Pearl would have been 5 battleships (8 minus the 3 that would have left between the time the Japanese showed up and the port strike phase the following turn).

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 9

RE: Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/10/2014 4:34:33 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Another factor to consider is that sinking naval units in port, when playing with the Bottomed Ships optional rule, means they usually come back fairly quickly and with a cost that the US can easily afford. On the other hand, if the Japanese get caught out at sea, any of their destroyed units are very unlikely to enter the war later.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 10

RE: Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/10/2014 5:24:30 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

Killing TRS and AMPH is not bad at all for the Japanese. The US should try to avoid to lose CV's, TRS and AMPH in the first impulse of war with the Japanese. A BB isn't that bad to lose (they are expendable, as are the CW BB's).

If you've got the choice, I would go for the TRS and not for the BB's...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 11

RE: Pearl Harbor or the West coast? - 2/11/2014 5:37:22 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

the USA has a decent set of decent range FTR-2 that can be built in 1940 � very nice to fight Japanese CV planes with those. also if the IJN raids the West Coast, they may have positioned themselves in a way that limits where they can return to base, giving the USN options to attempt some SUB or BB + FTR2 + CV interceptions on their way back to base. The Americans are a dangerous opponent in World in Flames early on, as compared to history, as they can fight very aggressively without regard for casualties. Woe to a Japanese player that starts the war without garrisoning a few critical points, even when the USA looks seemingly weak in the Pacific. Blow one search roll and the USMC might be waiting at the IJN's oil tank farm when the carriers come back from their big raid.

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 12