Pearl Harbor or Manila?

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 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 >> Pearl Harbor or Manila?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 2:45:05 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

This seems like the first question a Japanese player has to answer when embarking on a new PBEM. Pearl Harbor or Manila? What do YOU prefer?

I can see benefits from both approaches, but curious what other think.

Where KB is on Dec 8th to me is as important as what you can/can't sink via either approach, so that has to be a strong part of any consideration.

The case for Pearl Harbor:

1. Obviously, Pearl has more valuable ships; this is the main reason to hit it
2. Hitting Pearl leave KB in good position to support a Wake Island invasion, as well as an early move to Rabaul/Port Moresby
3. Hitting Pearl will also stop/limit any aggressive moves by the on-map USN CVs; where they start they pretty much have to flee south the first week if KB is near Hawaii

The PROBLEM with Pearl Harbor is that a) results are very luck dependent; you could sink nothing. b) Damaged BBs don't buy you much, because they have limited usefulness anyway until 1943, at which point most will be repaired. You really need to SINK ships to get something out of it, and that is difficult to do. If you could somehow order your planes to only attack cruisers then Pearl would be always #1 for me.

Also, I usually play DDB-C, a mod that has alot of flak, usually too much to try a Day-2 strike

The case for Manila

1. If you want to make early moves in the SRA, an attack on Manila will position KB well
2. With Netties in range to help, you're going to obliterate Manila and you're guaranteed to sink a bunch of ships, unlike Pearl
3. Will take a bite out of the US Submarine fleet, as a dozen subs sunk is not out of question
4. You can spare some planes to hit the airbases, which will take out/limit interference from P-40 and B-17 right away

The PROBLEMS with Manila are:

1. The utility of the ships in Manila are debateable; by the time the USN has working torpedoes they will also have many, many submarines and won't miss the ones sunk in Manila. The rest of the ships range from somewhat useful (the AS ships, Clemson DDs) to completely replaceable (all the AK, AP, TK, etc). Any losses the USN suffers will not be strategic.
2. Hitting Manila will give those 2 USN CVs free reign in the Eastern Pacific; you probably need to cancel the Wake Invasion in December, because a good Allied player will jump that

Anyway, that's my take, and I still don't know what my preference would be

What do you think?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 3:03:19 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

The case for Pearl,its shipyard is tied up well into late 1942 if repairing BB's. I have one BB that's going to take over two years and one close to two before repairs are completed for instance.

Not too big a deal but at times the allied player might have to choose sending carriers or other warships to the WC or halt shipyard repairs on the damaged BB.

Just something to think about.....

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 2

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 3:06:29 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Neither. Singapore.

_____________________________

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 3

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 3:12:42 PM

WEXF

Posts: 180
Joined: 9/7/2020
Status: offline

Not an expert but I think PH is the better target. The pressure will be on the Allied player to plan a movement of heavily damaged BB and other ships to the WC as the SY at PH will surely be overcrowded. That is an opportunity for Japan to use their sub fleet to pick off big targets. If nothing else it will force the Allied commander to use lots of DD and other escort ships to protect the damaged BB.
I would also re-consider the 2nd strike at PH. Sure there will be lots of flak and CAP but sinking and heavily damaging those capital ships has to be worth it.
WEXF

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 4

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 3:14:55 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Neither. Singapore.

I wondered if someone would suggest this.....Singapore offers more interesting targets than Manila (a good CL 2 AMCs) and positions you even better for an SRA move.

The issue is I wonder if this is gamey or not. There's no way that KB could sail close to Singapore on Dec 7th without alerting Allied Intel.

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 5

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 4:18:19 PM

apbarog

Posts: 3769
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline

I recommend hitting Pearl Harbor. Destroying the Catalinas on the ground is an overlooked benefit of a Pearl Harbor strike. There are many at Pearl, and the replacement rate is very low. Not hitting Pearl allows the Allied player to spread Catalina coverage all across the South Pacific early on, exposing Japanese movements. This can make the Japanese player more cautious about deep invasions like Pago Pago and Christmas Island. Just being spotted will cause some Japanese players to cancel such operations.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 6

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 6:21:45 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

The case for Pearl,its shipyard is tied up well into late 1942 if repairing BB's. I have one BB that's going to take over two years and one close to two before repairs are completed for instance.

Not too big a deal but at times the allied player might have to choose sending carriers or other warships to the WC or halt shipyard repairs on the damaged BB.

Just something to think about.....

This is not something that should sway the argument.

As an Allied player I do not put any BBs into the repair shipyard until all other ships are fully repaired.
They all go into pierside repapir.

Then I put one or two that have floatation damage above 50 into ship yard repair until the flotation damage is at or below 50. Then they go back into pierside until the system damage is at 0 and then send them to the West Coast repair yards. They generally do not leave Pearl Harbor until sometime in the middle of 1942 or later. So no damaged BBs move out of Pearl Harbor until at least June 1942.

< Message edited by Nomad -- 2/18/2022 6:23:22 PM >

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 7

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 7:12:10 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

This is certainly a foundational question that every Japanese player has to tackle first if given the option. I think that going after Pearl is a waste of time and assets. BBs damaged can be refloated, unlike when sunk at sea. Also, having the KB out wandering back from Pearl for the better part of two weeks is a waste AND most likely it will need some down time in Japan due to maintenance. As for Singapore, I think, as Q-Ball points out, that going after this target on day one is gamey and shouldn't be allowed. The British were far too aware of things to be caught napping plus the KB "found" that far south would have triggered MANY alarms (the stealth approach as exercised by the KB on Pearl would be impossible). So to me, Manila is the key. Yes, true, many of the ships there are second class vessels HOWEVER, they need to be suppressed as they are the only things the US will have on that side of the IDL for quite some time. The US subs are defective (although the older "S" boats with the MK10 torps are a danger) BUT they are effective scouts and CAN hit upon occasion. But the real key to Manila is keeping the KB in play for the first month of the war where the REAL action is; the South China Sea. The KB will be there to support landings in Malaysia starting on day 2 (Mersing initiative) and will dominate the airspace. The key to the Japanese delaying the inevitable loss of the war is in this arena, not out by Pearl. But heck, what do I know? I was only a lowly O-3 in the navy!!!!

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 2/18/2022 8:15:04 PM >

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 8

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 8:09:40 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

This seems like the first question a Japanese player has to answer when embarking on a new PBEM. Pearl Harbor or Manila? What do YOU prefer?

I can see benefits from both approaches, but curious what other think.

Where KB is on Dec 8th to me is as important as what you can/can't sink via either approach, so that has to be a strong part of any consideration.

The case for Pearl Harbor:

1. Obviously, Pearl has more valuable ships; this is the main reason to hit it
2. Hitting Pearl leave KB in good position to support a Wake Island invasion, as well as an early move to Rabaul/Port Moresby
3. Hitting Pearl will also stop/limit any aggressive moves by the on-map USN CVs; where they start they pretty much have to flee south the first week if KB is near Hawaii

The PROBLEM with Pearl Harbor is that a) results are very luck dependent; you could sink nothing. b) Damaged BBs don't buy you much, because they have limited usefulness anyway until 1943, at which point most will be repaired. You really need to SINK ships to get something out of it, and that is difficult to do. If you could somehow order your planes to only attack cruisers then Pearl would be always #1 for me.

Also, I usually play DDB-C, a mod that has alot of flak, usually too much to try a Day-2 strike

The case for Manila

1. If you want to make early moves in the SRA, an attack on Manila will position KB well
2. With Netties in range to help, you're going to obliterate Manila and you're guaranteed to sink a bunch of ships, unlike Pearl
3. Will take a bite out of the US Submarine fleet, as a dozen subs sunk is not out of question
4. You can spare some planes to hit the airbases, which will take out/limit interference from P-40 and B-17 right away

The PROBLEMS with Manila are:

1. The utility of the ships in Manila are debateable; by the time the USN has working torpedoes they will also have many, many submarines and won't miss the ones sunk in Manila. The rest of the ships range from somewhat useful (the AS ships, Clemson DDs) to completely replaceable (all the AK, AP, TK, etc). Any losses the USN suffers will not be strategic.
2. Hitting Manila will give those 2 USN CVs free reign in the Eastern Pacific; you probably need to cancel the Wake Invasion in December, because a good Allied player will jump that

Anyway, that's my take, and I still don't know what my preference would be

What do you think?

Great post. And definitely the one question all Japanese players need to ask themselves at the beginning to what their plan will be.

You left out another key option for the Pearl attack. Supporting Wake and Rabaul and Port Moresby yes. But also MIDWAY. This base is so key in my opinion from keeping all of those pesky subs further away from the home islands! Take Alaska islands to push them even further.

The other key point is allied bombardments. And allied bombardments with BB's is just devastating. I want them all out of the picture sunk or damaged!

In my opinion you have enough land based air power in the SRA to damage Manila and Singapore ships in ports. And use the Japanese CVL's to support SRA.

Note that if you play LST's Bottlenecks the Manila strike is not a possibility.

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 2/18/2022 8:10:22 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 9

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 8:11:49 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: apbarog

I recommend hitting Pearl Harbor. Destroying the Catalinas on the ground is an overlooked benefit of a Pearl Harbor strike. There are many at Pearl, and the replacement rate is very low. Not hitting Pearl allows the Allied player to spread Catalina coverage all across the South Pacific early on, exposing Japanese movements. This can make the Japanese player more cautious about deep invasions like Pago Pago and Christmas Island. Just being spotted will cause some Japanese players to cancel such operations.

How do you guys get good results destroying Catalina's at Pearl? All I ever get are some damaged planes so I just prefer going after the naval targets. What are your air settings?

_____________________________

(in reply to apbarog)

Post #: 10

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 8:13:12 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

This is certainly a foundational question that every Japanese player has to tackle first if given the option. I think that going after Pearl is a waste of time and assets. BBs sunk can be refloated, unlike when sunk at sea. Also, having the KB out wandering back from Pearl for the better part of two weeks is a waste AND most likely it will need some down time in Japan due to maintenance. As for Singapore, I think, as Q-Ball points out, that going after this target on day one is gamey and shouldn't be allowed. The British were far too aware of things to be caught napping plus the KB "found" that far south would have triggered MANY alarms (the stealth approach as exercised by the KB on Pearl would be impossible). So to me, Manila is the key. Yes, true, many of the ships there are second class vessels HOWEVER, they need to be suppressed as they are the only things the US will have on that side of the IDL for quite some time. The US subs are defective (although the older "S" boats with the MK10 torps are a danger) BUT they are effective scouts and CAN hit upon occasion. But the real key to Manila is keeping the KB in play for the first month of the war where the REAL action is; the South China Sea. The KB will be there to support landings in Malaysia starting on day 2 (Mersing initiative) and will dominate the airspace. The key to the Japanese delaying the inevitable loss of the war is in this arena, not out by Pearl. But heck, what do I know? I was only a lowly O-3 in the navy!!!!

Wait you can refloat sunk BB's? How do you do this?

_____________________________

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 11

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 8:16:17 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
Wait you can refloat sunk BB's? How do you do this?

Post is edited. Sorry for the confusion.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 12

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 8:53:33 PM

apbarog

Posts: 3769
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: apbarog

I recommend hitting Pearl Harbor. Destroying the Catalinas on the ground is an overlooked benefit of a Pearl Harbor strike. There are many at Pearl, and the replacement rate is very low. Not hitting Pearl allows the Allied player to spread Catalina coverage all across the South Pacific early on, exposing Japanese movements. This can make the Japanese player more cautious about deep invasions like Pago Pago and Christmas Island. Just being spotted will cause some Japanese players to cancel such operations.

How do you guys get good results destroying Catalina's at Pearl? All I ever get are some damaged planes so I just prefer going after the naval targets. What are your air settings?

I don't do anything special for the airfield strikes. Bombing at 10k. Consider a 2nd day attack. This helps destroy previously damaged planes also. The replacement rate for the Cats is so low that I believe it is worthwhile. I cover the unoccupied bases and dot bases from the Gilberts to the southwest north of Suva, using Catalinas for search.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 13

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 8:59:55 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

This is certainly a foundational question that every Japanese player has to tackle first if given the option. I think that going after Pearl is a waste of time and assets. BBs sunk can be refloated, unlike when sunk at sea. Also, having the KB out wandering back from Pearl for the better part of two weeks is a waste AND most likely it will need some down time in Japan due to maintenance. As for Singapore, I think, as Q-Ball points out, that going after this target on day one is gamey and shouldn't be allowed. The British were far too aware of things to be caught napping plus the KB "found" that far south would have triggered MANY alarms (the stealth approach as exercised by the KB on Pearl would be impossible). So to me, Manila is the key. Yes, true, many of the ships there are second class vessels HOWEVER, they need to be suppressed as they are the only things the US will have on that side of the IDL for quite some time. The US subs are defective (although the older "S" boats with the MK10 torps are a danger) BUT they are effective scouts and CAN hit upon occasion. But the real key to Manila is keeping the KB in play for the first month of the war where the REAL action is; the South China Sea. The KB will be there to support landings in Malaysia starting on day 2 (Mersing initiative) and will dominate the airspace. The key to the Japanese delaying the inevitable loss of the war is in this arena, not out by Pearl. But heck, what do I know? I was only a lowly O-3 in the navy!!!!

Wait you can refloat sunk BB's? How do you do this?

No refloat, but the opening turn builds in a reduction in damage from Japanese torpedoes and bombs to simulate the ships being partially sunk (resting on the bottom but capable of starting repairs.)

_____________________________

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 Tanaka)

Post #: 14

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 9:34:20 PM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

An interesting counterfactual comes into play if KB hits the Philippines instead of Pearl. Does the aggressive USN - having missed it's meal of humble pie - gather up those healthy BBs, give them an escort of a couple carriers, and hurl them across the Pacific ala War Plan Orange? No rational player would do that, of course, but it would make for an unusual scenario opening.

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 15

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 10:11:37 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

You left out the day 2 Portland Invasion!

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 16

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 10:14:54 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

An interesting counterfactual comes into play if KB hits the Philippines instead of Pearl. Does the aggressive USN - having missed it's meal of humble pie - gather up those healthy BBs, give them an escort of a couple carriers, and hurl them across the Pacific ala War Plan Orange? No rational player would do that, of course, but it would make for an unusual scenario opening.

In my current game, Japan attacked Singers....

I took an island or two in the Marianas and evacuated most of the Thundering Herd that way also netting a CVE and CS (I believe). Subsequently lost those islands...but they were very lightly garrisoned.

Also kept Wake & Midway, and just took Marcus Island thanks to a nuclear bombardment by Battleship Row. It is September of 1942...so things can always change and there is yet to be a CV clash.

Scenario 2, Iron babes stacking game, smaller cargo.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/18/2022 10:19:13 PM >

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 17

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 10:18:26 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

How do you guys get good results destroying Catalina's at Pearl? All I ever get are some damaged planes so I just prefer going after the naval targets. What are your air settings?

Fly all but 10 or so Zeroes at 9K bombing the runway.

There is a substantial bonus on Dec 7th for this...and you avoid the flak for the most part and can sweep Pearl on the 8th if you want. Every day after that you stay, Kates will sink another BB if you fly them at 13K...flak losses minimal.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 18

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 10:21:37 PM

Platoonist

Posts: 1342
Joined: 5/11/2003
From: Kila Hana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You left out the day 2 Portland Invasion!

Aahhh. The Columbia River Shipyards. All those Liberty Ships and CVEs waiting to be born. Truly America's Achilles Heel.

_____________________________

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 19

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/18/2022 11:03:32 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

Kull, you pose an interesting question. In game terms that of course would be dumb. However, given no knowledge (would the lessons of PoW and Repulus been enough?), it just might have been tried, especially if Manila was really plastered. However, the subs around Pearl might have had a field day. The relatively short legs of the old BBs might also have been a consideration. Quite a few oilers would have been needed. If there WAS a trans-Pac effort, it would have taken a while.

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 20

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/19/2022 1:55:28 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: apbarog

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: apbarog

I recommend hitting Pearl Harbor. Destroying the Catalinas on the ground is an overlooked benefit of a Pearl Harbor strike. There are many at Pearl, and the replacement rate is very low. Not hitting Pearl allows the Allied player to spread Catalina coverage all across the South Pacific early on, exposing Japanese movements. This can make the Japanese player more cautious about deep invasions like Pago Pago and Christmas Island. Just being spotted will cause some Japanese players to cancel such operations.

How do you guys get good results destroying Catalina's at Pearl? All I ever get are some damaged planes so I just prefer going after the naval targets. What are your air settings?

I don't do anything special for the airfield strikes. Bombing at 10k. Consider a 2nd day attack. This helps destroy previously damaged planes also. The replacement rate for the Cats is so low that I believe it is worthwhile. I cover the unoccupied bases and dot bases from the Gilberts to the southwest north of Suva, using Catalinas for search.

What are you bombing with? Just Vals? Also Kates? What percentage of each? Strafing with Zeros? I find Zero losses from strafing not worth it...

_____________________________

(in reply to apbarog)

Post #: 21

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/19/2022 1:59:08 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

How do you guys get good results destroying Catalina's at Pearl? All I ever get are some damaged planes so I just prefer going after the naval targets. What are your air settings?

Fly all but 10 or so Zeroes at 9K bombing the runway. There is a substantial bonus on Dec 7th for this...and you avoid the flak for the most part and can sweep Pearl on the 8th if you want. Every day after that you stay, Kates will sink another BB if you fly them at 13K...flak losses minimal.

Hmm interesting bombing instead of strafing they are set at is better then? Why 9K?

_____________________________

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 22

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/19/2022 2:00:17 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You left out the day 2 Portland Invasion!

Has anyone ever actually done this in an AAR?

_____________________________

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 23

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/19/2022 2:08:14 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

How do you guys get good results destroying Catalina's at Pearl? All I ever get are some damaged planes so I just prefer going after the naval targets. What are your air settings?

Fly all but 10 or so Zeroes at 9K bombing the runway. There is a substantial bonus on Dec 7th for this...and you avoid the flak for the most part and can sweep Pearl on the 8th if you want. Every day after that you stay, Kates will sink another BB if you fly them at 13K...flak losses minimal.

Hmm interesting bombing instead of strafing they are set at is better then? Why 9K?

It keeps them above most of the flak and reduces losses.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 24

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/19/2022 2:09:09 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You left out the day 2 Portland Invasion!

Has anyone ever actually done this in an AAR?

Yes.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 25

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/19/2022 2:20:18 AM

dr.hal

Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
I find Zero losses from strafing not worth it...

I would like to make an observation triggered by Tanaka's point above, but more broadly based. One thing I think the game does remarkably well is its historically accurate focus on pilots and their skills. A well trained pilot is worth his (and now her) weight in gold. Good aircraft are important, but in the hands of a skilled pilot, even a less than desirable aircraft can seemingly perform miracles. The Japanese have amazing pilots (especially in their naval arm) at the outset coupled with very good aircraft. And what all historians agree upon, is that it took a long time to get them to that level. It is also agreed that their replacement, given Japan's restrictive replacement pipeline, was nearly impossible. Japan was planning on a short, sharp conflict and didn't have the infrastructure to support a long duration war or the needed training for it. This was notably true for her pilots.

To me, the game reflects this very well as I've stated. The pilots that one gets down the line are not even close to the capability of the frontline pilots in the opening of the war. So my point is why "waste them"? Having fighter pilots expose themselves to needless ground fire, or other forms of combat put them at risk. This risk should be carefully considered. Losing a Zero is bad, but what's FAR FAR worse is losing the pilot of that Zero. The aircraft can be replaced "relatively" easily, the pilot not so much. One of the things I'm loath to do in my games as the Japanese player is to expose my experience pilots needlessly. Players here talk about going for a second day's attack against Pearl. What of the cost in trained pilots? Especially if those pilots are lost shooting up grounded aircraft that have NO pilots in them? And it's over enemy territory, so there's almost no chance of recovery of that pilot if shot down? I know it's the 20/20 of hindsight to play the "long game" as Japan, but isn't that what's needed? A key element in that "long game" is well trained, effective pilots. However, it's just a thought!!!!

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 26

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/19/2022 2:25:24 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
I find Zero losses from strafing not worth it...

I would like to make an observation triggered by Tanaka's point above, but more broadly based. One thing I think the game does remarkably well is its historically accurate focus on pilots and their skills. A well trained pilot is worth his (and now her) weight in gold. Good aircraft are important, but in the hands of a skilled pilot, even a less than desirable aircraft can seemingly perform miracles. The Japanese have amazing pilots (especially in their naval arm) at the outset coupled with very good aircraft. And what all historians agree upon, is that it took a long time to get them to that level. It is also agreed that their replacement, given Japan's restrictive replacement pipeline, was nearly impossible. Japan was planning on a short, sharp conflict and didn't have the infrastructure to support a long duration war or the needed training for it. This was notably true for her pilots.

To me, the game reflects this very well as I've stated. The pilots that one gets down the line are not even close to the capability of the frontline pilots in the opening of the war. So my point is why "waste them"? Having fighter pilots expose themselves to needless ground fire, or other forms of combat put them at risk. This risk should be carefully considered. Losing a Zero is bad, but what's FAR FAR worse is losing the pilot of that Zero. The aircraft can be replaced "relatively" easily, the pilot not so much. One of the things I'm loath to do in my games as the Japanese player is to expose my experience pilots needlessly. Players here talk about going for a second day's attack against Pearl. What of the cost in trained pilots? Especially if those pilots are lost shooting up grounded aircraft that have NO pilots in them? And it's over enemy territory, so there's almost no chance of recovery of that pilot if shot down? I know it's the 20/20 of hindsight to play the "long game" as Japan, but isn't that what's needed? A key element in that "long game" is well trained, effective pilots. However, it's just a thought!!!!

I thought that having a sub(s) in the combat hex would help retrieve downed pilots. But I am not sure that works for Japan or only Alled.

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 27

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/19/2022 2:43:51 AM

dr.hal

Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad
I thought that having a sub(s) in the combat hex would help retrieve downed pilots. But I am not sure that works for Japan or only Alled.

I don't remember ever seeing a note claiming a pilot was recovered at sea for Japan in any of my games. But I think it should be allowed for both sides in terms of the game. However, the odds of it happening are infinitesimally small. I think George Bush Sr. was an INCREDIBLY lucky man in being recovered by a sub. It happened, but only to a really lucky few. But consider that an attack at Pearl and especially low level attacks are over land. So being shot down during the raid usually means over land. A few might make it out to sea, but it's a BIG ocean. Of the 20 odd planes Japan lost on 7 December, I've only ever read about ONE pilot living through it, and that for only three days as his plane came down on another island. Although this idea of a sub safety net is possible, it's not something I would rely upon at all!

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 2/19/2022 2:46:00 AM >

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 28

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/19/2022 2:57:55 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I thought that having a sub(s) in the combat hex would help retrieve downed pilots. But I am not sure that works for Japan or only Alled.

I cant speak for Japan either, but there is no doubt that it helps the Allies. I was sweeping a large Japanese airbase for an extended period (months), and all the pilots lost over that base were either KIA during combat or MIA. Having a sub in the hex cuts the MIAs by a LOT. There isn't a specific message, but if you check the unit screen afterwards, with few exceptions the pilots of downed aircraft don't go MIA. Otherwise it's nearly 100%.

To my chagrin, the AI eventually dumped a butt-load of mines in the base hex, damaging one sub and sinking another - and bringing "Operation Pilot Recovery" to a halt.

< Message edited by Kull -- 2/19/2022 3:03:04 AM >

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 29

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? - 2/19/2022 3:13:06 AM

apbarog

Posts: 3769
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: apbarog

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: apbarog

I recommend hitting Pearl Harbor. Destroying the Catalinas on the ground is an overlooked benefit of a Pearl Harbor strike. There are many at Pearl, and the replacement rate is very low. Not hitting Pearl allows the Allied player to spread Catalina coverage all across the South Pacific early on, exposing Japanese movements. This can make the Japanese player more cautious about deep invasions like Pago Pago and Christmas Island. Just being spotted will cause some Japanese players to cancel such operations.

How do you guys get good results destroying Catalina's at Pearl? All I ever get are some damaged planes so I just prefer going after the naval targets. What are your air settings?

I don't do anything special for the airfield strikes. Bombing at 10k. Consider a 2nd day attack. This helps destroy previously damaged planes also. The replacement rate for the Cats is so low that I believe it is worthwhile. I cover the unoccupied bases and dot bases from the Gilberts to the southwest north of Suva, using Catalinas for search.

What are you bombing with? Just Vals? Also Kates? What percentage of each? Strafing with Zeros? I find Zero losses from strafing not worth it...

I bombed with Vals and Kates, at 10k. I did not strafe with Zeros. I find the losses at low altitude to be too high in a DBB game, with increased flak compared to a stock game. In my current game, I did have far more Catalinas damaged than destroyed, but I did get some. I may have gotten around 10 Cats. I used more Vals and fewer Kates to attack the airfield than the stock historical turn, on both day 1 and day 2. I had all Kates go to the harbor, with some of the Vals. Is it worth it? I don't know. I do know that when I played as the Allies last game, and my opponent attacked Singapore instead of Pearl, I greatly appreciated the Catalinas that went to work immediately in the South Pacific.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 30