Manila or Pearl-new paradigm?

Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

Chickenboy -> Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (10/20/2009 2:34:05 PM)
Just started two PBEMs as IJN. I elected for a Manila port strike on both occasions over a PH strike. Both were pretty nasty and resulted in the sinking or damaging of most of the SS fleet there. At least that's what my FOW intel is telling me. 800kg bombs on submarines make a real mess of things. I can't talk about follow-up for KB in the area right now because both PBEMs are in their infancy. My rationale for striking Manila was due, in part, to the increased resource, oil and supply shipping effort required of the IJN in AE versus WiTP. No longer do I have supernumerary xAKs-it's all hands on deck for hauling stuff back home to the HI. Because of the greater threat that submarines have against merchant shipping convoys and the lack of effective IJN escort for said convoys, I elected to take as many of these out of the equation as possible in 1941. I'm less concerned about a bunch of old slow USN battleships' activities against my merchant convoys. I'm pretty sure that there will also be fewer USN ships successfully evacuating the Phillipines with KB nearby. Call it a hunch. In AE, what do you think about the rationale for a Manila port strike versus WiTP? Has your rationale changed with a different game engine and resource management?

undercovergeek -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (10/20/2009 3:36:23 PM)
i opted for both - still sent the KB to Pearl but sent every betty and nell to manilla from formosa and killed 10-12 subs and then hung around for the inevitable exodus with the LBA to the North and the Ryujo to the south - its working so far

Yank -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (10/20/2009 4:45:36 PM)
But he has no defense against my rampaging Vildebeests in Singapore! [;)]

Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (10/20/2009 4:55:41 PM)
I should have mentioned in my original post that I would not consider surprise port attacks on BOTH sides of the international date line (e.g., PH and Manila) in the name of fairness. It's an either / or for me.

undercovergeek -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (10/20/2009 5:22:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yank But he has no defense against my rampaging Vildebeests in Singapore! [;)] indeed - a cursed plague upon my landings they are - ill not be sorry when ive destroyed them all

undercovergeek -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (10/20/2009 5:23:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy I should have mentioned in my original post that I would not consider surprise port attacks on BOTH sides of the international date line (e.g., PH and Manila) in the name of fairness. It's an either / or for me. fair enough - as mentioned in my AAR yank and i have no home rules just common sense, well discuss anything that seems off or wrong at the time. It never even occureed to me it could be seen this way - each to their own [:)]

Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (10/21/2009 4:01:47 AM)
Bump for additional insight...

aprezto -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (10/21/2009 4:12:57 AM)
Chickenboy. Talk to Herbie: 1275psi. He swears black and blue that hitting Manilla is the go due to the sub cull, as you've pointed out. However, I do know he does this due to pain suffered at the hands of allied subs, generally the S class, but that it is a hangover from WitP Vanilla. From my perspective the danger offered by both targets: subs and BBs is minimal until the sub torpedoes are sorted out and the allies gain some aerial presedence such that you can afford to utilise the old slow BBs in harms way. Personally I think the subs are more useful but my heart lies with the BBs. Nothing like heavy metal thumping some hapless surprised airstrip, which IMO is much easier in AE due to the restricted scouting.

Ketza -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (10/22/2009 12:14:50 AM)
Back in the days of WITP I decided that manila was the way to go for several reasons: 1) Killing the subs - face it you will never get another opportunity to kill so many subs so quickly. I look at it this way. You have to deal with the subs on a constant basis with a very low chance of sinking them. Sinking 25 or more saves you shipping and hassles in the long run. I have practiced my opening air raids to the point where I sink or seriously damage every sub at Manila. Now I get this accomplished by commiting the KB. Most players will not allow multiple port attacks in different time zones so if your going to pick one port go all out. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Manila , at 79,77 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 28 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 9 G4M1 Betty x 81 No Japanese losses Allied Ships xAKL Compagnia Filipinas, Bomb hits 1, on fire SS Swordfish, Bomb hits 1 AS Holland, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires xAKL Sagoland, Bomb hits 1, on fire DD Peary, Bomb hits 1, on fire SS Tarpon, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk SS Searaven, Bomb hits 1 AM Finch, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage SS Pickerel, Bomb hits 1 SS Sargo, Bomb hits 2 AVD Childs, Bomb hits 1, on fire SS Perch, Bomb hits 1 TK Gertrude Kellogg, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Ethel Edwards, Bomb hits 1, on fire SS S-41, Bomb hits 1 SS Seal, Bomb hits 1 xAK Capillo, Bomb hits 1, on fire SS Porpoise, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage AV Langley, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage PG Isabel, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage SS S-38, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk SS Salmon, Bomb hits 1 AM Lark, Bomb hits 1, on fire SS Skipjack, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage xAP Rochambeau, Bomb hits 1, on fire AO Pecos, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage SS Sailfish, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage xAKL Bisayas, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires SS Sculpin, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage xAKL Corregidor, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires SS Spearfish, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage Allied ground losses: 11 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled) Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled) Port hits 4 Port fuel hits 2 Aircraft Attacking: 27 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 6000 feet Port Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb 27 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 6000 feet Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb 27 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 6000 feet Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb 1 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 10000 feet * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Clark Field , at 79,76 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 26 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 62 G3M2 Nell x 36 Allied aircraft P-40B Warhawk x 1 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-40B Warhawk: 1 damaged P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground O-47A: 3 destroyed on ground P-35A: 1 destroyed on ground Allied ground losses: 20 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Airbase hits 38 Airbase supply hits 2 Runway hits 154 Aircraft Attacking: 19 x A6M2 Zero diving from 6000' Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb 27 x G3M2 Nell bombing from 6000 feet Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb 3 x A6M2 Zero diving from 11000' Airfield Attack: 1 plane(s) with no ordnance Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb 9 x G3M2 Nell bombing from 6000 feet Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb 24 x A6M2 Zero diving from 11000' Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb 4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 6000 feet CAP engaged: 24th PG/Hq Sqn with P-40B Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 10000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 10 minutes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Manila , at 79,77 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 40 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 75 B5N2 Kate x 144 D3A1 Val x 135 Allied aircraft no flights Japanese aircraft losses B5N2 Kate: 1 damaged D3A1 Val: 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground Allied Ships xAKL Sagoland, heavy fires SS Sargo, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk SS Perch, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk SS Salmon, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk DD John D. Ford, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage DD Pope, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk xAKL Paz, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage SS Snapper, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk SS Pickerel, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk AM Bittern, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Compagnia Filipinas, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage AO Trinity, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage SS Swordfish, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk SS Seawolf, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk SS Skipjack, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk SS Sculpin, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk xAKL Corregidor, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage SS Permit, Bomb hits 4, and is sunk xAK Si Kiang, Bomb hits 2, on fire xAP President Madison, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage SS Sealion, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk SS Saury, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk xAK Capillo, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage SS Searaven, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk PG Asheville, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires xAKL Bisayas, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk AV Langley, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage SS Seal, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk DD Peary, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage DD Pillsbury, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage SS S-37, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk SS Stingray, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk SS Pike, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk AM Whippoorwill, Bomb hits 1, on fire xAP Neptuna, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage PG Tulsa, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage xAP Rochambeau, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage SS Sturgeon, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk SS S-40, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk SS S-41, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk xAK Tantalus, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage PT Q-111, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk PT-32, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk AS Otus, Bomb hits 1, on fire SS Shark, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk SS Spearfish, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk AVD Childs, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage TK Mindanao, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires PT-35, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk xAK Ethel Edwards, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage SS Seadragon, Bomb hits 1 PT-34, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk AM Lark, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage PT-31, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk Allied ground losses: 34 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled) Airbase hits 2 Airbase supply hits 4 Runway hits 37 Port hits 14 Port fuel hits 2 Port supply hits 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Iba , at 78,75 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid detected at 34 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 10 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 8 Ki-21-IIa Sally x 18 Ki-48-Ib Lily x 27 Allied aircraft no flights No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground Allied ground losses: 15 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Airbase hits 5 Airbase supply hits 5 Runway hits 38 Aircraft Attacking: 27 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 9000 feet * Airfield Attack: 2 x 100 kg GP Bomb 18 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 9000 feet * Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Naval bombardment of Iba at 78,75 Allied aircraft no flights Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground Japanese Ships CA Ashigara CA Maya CL Kuma CL Natori DD Hatakaze DD Harukaze DD Nagatsuki DD Fumizuki DD Minazuki DD Satsuki Allied ground losses: 180 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 14 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 4 (0 destroyed, 4 disabled) Airbase hits 10 Airbase supply hits 9 Runway hits 57 Port hits 1 As you can see to me its just important to focus on the allied air force in the PI. Clark gets the most attention and a bombardment tf visits IBA. Most of my tests of the above raids leave 75% of the allied fighters in the PI damaged or destroyed. usually 90% or so of the B-17s are damaged/destroyed as well. 2) Strategic positioning of the KB and freedom of movement in the SRA - As an allied player I loved it when the Jap hit PH. It gave me all kinds of options in the SRA. Withdrawing troops, fuel to OZ and the ability to concentrate unmolested made the going tougher for the Japanese and increased their losses. Knowing what can happen if the allies are given time to prepare I choose to disrupt them. 3) Allied reaction - I have found a Manila strike in WITP usually meant an agressive allied action early. This is to be welcomed in my opinion. Sinking Old BBS in the Coral sea or the Lexinton near Tarawa with Betties is the usual type outcome of such moves. Once things in the DEI/PI are under wraps and covered with LBA sailing the KB back to the Cent or South pacific by Mid january usually trumps and moves the allied player may make.

Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (10/22/2009 1:36:49 AM)
Very helpful post, Ketza. Good concentration of striking force. Can you comment on the effect of KB in sinking any straggler shipping, CA Houston or CL Boise from your actions? Do you find this easier to accomplish with such an abundance of air striking power? Also, in AE, have you noticed an effect on your ability to quickly exploit resource and oil sources versus the 1-2 month delay usually brooked while conquering the DEI without KB's assistance? Many thanks for your insight.

koontz -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/2/2010 5:51:38 PM)
Interesting opening move! So where do you position the KB? West or East of Philippines? And what about the Wake invasion, put that on hold? And securing the Fiji? Was also thinking on an early invasion of Ceylon. Decisions decisions...that is all that make this game so great [:)]

sfbaytf -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/2/2010 6:20:53 PM)
Interesting decision, given the concensus that surface ships rule in AE. If I understand correctly you're leaving the Pacific Fleet at Pearl intact. Given the piss poor performance of American torpedoes till mid 43, I'm not sure you have much to fear from them. By the time American torpedoes begin working, the US Navy will be getting new subs by the bucketload.

Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/2/2010 6:51:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf Interesting decision, given the concensus that surface ships rule in AE. If I understand correctly you're leaving the Pacific Fleet at Pearl intact. Given the piss poor performance of American torpedoes till mid 43, I'm not sure you have much to fear from them. By the time American torpedoes begin working, the US Navy will be getting new subs by the bucketload. I'm not sure if I'm on board with 'consensus' of surface ships' rule in AE. I've heard those opinions, but believe them to be simplistic binary false choices. AE is such the rock/paper/scissors game that I don't think any one weapons platform or manifestation holds sway over all others. Is the surface fleet more important that WiTP? Maybe. Who cares? I'm not comparing weapons systems in AE to WiTP. They're two totally distinct playing experiences. The Pearl Harbor attack can be simulated easily (2 sunk BBs or more) by one ill-advised old BB SCTF that gets nailed by torpedo carrying aircraft. Bingo-you've got your PH attack right there. Mini-KB can do this, an aggressive IJN SS can do this, KB can do this or LBA torpedo aircraft can do this. Ketza was right on target about this. I think the other argument is that these 20-25 SS that get nailed in opening phases with the Manila gambit aren't alive in 1944 to get better torpedoes. Yes, it will make a sizeable difference, having 25 fewer allied subs in the OOB in 1944. Attacking Manila isn't the sexy or splashy big bang that greasing Pearl is. Its effects are more subdued or subtle (how do you define 'fewer' allied SS attacks?). But, I believe that they are more far-reaching than allowing some old BBs to stick around longer than historical.

sfbaytf -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/2/2010 7:36:05 PM)
I like the idea of trying something new and u expected. In the meantime I'll play devils advocate. Having 25 fewer subs at the beginning of the war does hurt the allieds-I would argue in terms of scouting and recon. Their effectivness against Japanese merchants and warships limits their early war usefulness in that department. The argument that 25 fewer subs in 1944, I have trouble swallowing. By then many of the 1941 subs would have been sunk-many in attacks that failed due to bad torpedoes. The battleships at Pearl are slow and suck up fuel like no tomorrow. Still with a refit or 2 they will morph into pretty formidable warships. Also now the allied player can "afford" to lose them. They make good bomb magnets and if used properly can be the "sponge" that asorbs the blow and allows the carriers to get away. I would argue too that come late 42 and 43 when chances are good you'll be fighting in the Solomons and DEI where surface duels will more than likely be common, those BBs will be moses useful to the allieds. Ok my devils advocate hat is off... I would love to try a game where Pearl was left untouched and Manila the main target. Sounds like an interesting change. Question is where is your main strike force headed? If it's to the DEI with the intention of not letting the allieds truck away the fuel and supplies before the DEI falls then this could become very interesting.

jetjockey -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/2/2010 9:45:11 PM)
I can't argue against going after the shipping in Manila vs. PH; most of the ships sunk in Manila stay sunk! There is much valuable shipping in Manila that is much better at the bottom of the Bay than working against you, including those pesky SSs. I would however like to alter the calculation a bit. I don't feel that the allied subs are as invulnerable as most seem to believe, at least since the latest update. I have spent much time working on my ASW techniques and have used them (effectively) in a PBEM game started with the latest update. Well, it's now 2/9/42 and I've sunk six Allied SSs (5 US and 1 Dutch). Four were sunk by Type 95 DCs and two by 800kg AP bombs while seeking repairs in Manila for DC damage. Even allowing for FOW, my opponent will be seriously short of subs by summer.

Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/2/2010 10:11:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf I like the idea of trying something new and u expected. In the meantime I'll play devils advocate. Having 25 fewer subs at the beginning of the war does hurt the allieds-I would argue in terms of scouting and recon. Their effectivness against Japanese merchants and warships limits their early war usefulness in that department. The argument that 25 fewer subs in 1944, I have trouble swallowing. By then many of the 1941 subs would have been sunk-many in attacks that failed due to bad torpedoes. The battleships at Pearl are slow and suck up fuel like no tomorrow. Still with a refit or 2 they will morph into pretty formidable warships. Also now the allied player can "afford" to lose them. They make good bomb magnets and if used properly can be the "sponge" that asorbs the blow and allows the carriers to get away. I would argue too that come late 42 and 43 when chances are good you'll be fighting in the Solomons and DEI where surface duels will more than likely be common, those BBs will be moses useful to the allieds. Ok my devils advocate hat is off... I would love to try a game where Pearl was left untouched and Manila the main target. Sounds like an interesting change. Question is where is your main strike force headed? If it's to the DEI with the intention of not letting the allieds truck away the fuel and supplies before the DEI falls then this could become very interesting. If one assumes an 'average' PH attack, then 2 BBs are sunk (out of the game) and 4-6 others are badly damaged so as to be out of the game for a calendar year (more or less). By 1943, all of these ships will be back in action. Others that have posited on this topic have supposed that if one of those unsunk allies SS goes on to sink 4-5 IJ ships in a given year (a very modest and attainable goal), that's essentially a 400-500 ship deficit that the IJ is being asked to calculate by not sinking these subs in Manila. Again, think your two old allied BBs are worth the difference in 1943? Cause I sure don't. Or, for your example in the Solomons: Would I rather have 20-25 allied SS swamping the sea lanes of the Solomon chain and all approaches or two more old allied BBs? I'd take the SS, were I you.

sfbaytf -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/3/2010 12:54:40 AM)
I have to put on the devils advocate cap regarding American subs. If you're playing with "historical American torpedoes" off, then by all means your assumptions are correct. If however Historical American Torpedoe setting is in play the figures quoted are way to high. Few if any American sub will sink 4-5 ships a year in 42 with faulty torpedoes in my experiece. The first half of 43 will be about the same. 44-45 yes, but the Type E escorts as they now stand will make short work of any sub they detect. Would I want subs instead of battleships in the Solomons? Mabye, maybe not. I placed more than a dozen American subs in my opponents path and it basically gave him more opportunities to sink them. The few that did get off shots missed or had duds hit their target. If I had a dime for everytime that happened I could get a six pack of some pretty good beer. I like the idea of hitting Manila instead of Pearl, but I have doubts about the overstated payoff from the loss of subs- if historical torpedoes setting is used. At least you'll know the ships that survive Pearl have weapons that function. American subs are heartbreakers and an excercise in fustration for nearly 2 years.

wpurdom -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/3/2010 1:30:26 AM)
Well, it seems to me the question is getting blurred by the blithe "sink or severly damage" formulation. Damaging a fleet sub in December 1942, no matter how severely means zilch, IMHO, unless they never make to where they can be repaired. And damaging an S-sub doesn't mean a whole lot. On the other hand, sinking a bunch of fleet subs could be a big deal. So unless you check up in 6+ months and find out exactly how many you actually sunk, it's going to be hard to evaluate. Let us know how it works out in 1943.

sfbaytf -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/3/2010 3:44:41 AM)
Curious to what the thoughts are on the airpower that is left untouched on Oahu when you don't attack Pearl Harbor. It would probably cost PP's to change commands to deploy, but the airpower, plus the ships left intact is quite a force.

castor troy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/3/2010 8:46:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undercovergeek i opted for both - still sent the KB to Pearl but sent every betty and nell to manilla from formosa and killed 10-12 subs and then hung around for the inevitable exodus with the LBA to the North and the Ryujo to the south - its working so far two port strikes on day one are restricted by hrs in many PBEMs.

Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/3/2010 2:40:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf Curious to what the thoughts are on the airpower that is left untouched on Oahu when you don't attack Pearl Harbor. It would probably cost PP's to change commands to deploy, but the airpower, plus the ships left intact is quite a force.� You're right, sfbaytf. I haven't been able to get around this. That's a serious bunch of intact airframes that you're leaving on the table by failing to attack the Pearl airframes on turn one. Say 40-50 P-40s and a large number of PBYs too? Yep. That's a detriment to the plan and provides the Allies a nice starter pool of fighters for the fight. With the crummy quality of USN and USAA aviators initially, do you think those P-40 squadrons would be instantly deployed or would most players train them up so they could be useful in resistance? If the former, they're meat on the table for the early IJNAF and IJAAF pilot advantage. If the latter, they're out of the picture for a few months whilest they train up. But, yes, they are going to be dealt with earlier than historical because of the pools available to them.

PaxMondo -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/5/2010 3:49:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf Curious to what the thoughts are on the airpower that is left untouched on Oahu when you don't attack Pearl Harbor. It would probably cost PP's to change commands to deploy, but the airpower, plus the ships left intact is quite a force.� You're right, sfbaytf. I haven't been able to get around this. That's a serious bunch of intact airframes that you're leaving on the table by failing to attack the Pearl airframes on turn one. Say 40-50 P-40s and a large number of PBYs too? Yep. That's a detriment to the plan and provides the Allies a nice starter pool of fighters for the fight. To me, it is simply the air frames, not the groups per se. Allies are so starved for airframes until late 42 when the replacement rates start to move up, and those P-40 and Catalina's are what you need most in the early war. They represent a couple of months production, or in the case of the Catalina's, several months production. So leaving those untouched is tough.

ny59giants -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/5/2010 4:56:36 PM)
Manila will allow some useful options. This assumes a non-historical first turn. 1) Position on west side of Luzon and then move in masse or split up to support a landing at Mersing around Dec 10th. 2) Many now play with a HR that doesn't allow strategic bombing until mid-43. Thus, the 5th Division which is in multiple TF at Samah can be moved around into 1 TF for either Mersing OR Palembang. 3) KB could support a quick invasion of Java. a) I have thought of allowing only three divisions being used in Malaya to drive south to Singapore. b) Meanwhile, the other 3 to 5 free divisions could take southern Sumatra and Java quickly, especially with KB in the area. 4) Allied subs may not kill large warships, but they can put them out of the war for a few months. The bad news is what is to prevent the Americans from being aggressive in the eastern Pacific?? 1) The Marshalls are relatively weak and the Americans could take it or at the least make it very difficult for the Japanese to defend 2) Pago Pago, Suva, and Noumea can be reinforced relatively cheaply and allow the Allies to solidify their SLOC to Australia. 3) All those undamaged PBYs will wing their way to the SRA and be used to evac and/or move LCUs around. 4) Put those slow BBs in a SC TF could take on some Japanese SC TF. I would send them to Australia and then try to get into surface combat. Even if they are sunk, I can hope to take down a few BBs and CAs along the way. I'll take that trade. Just my $.02

Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/5/2010 7:39:17 PM)
Great post, ny59giants. Creative use of the early KB in the DEI. Here's how I would look at these bad news options: quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants The bad news is what is to prevent the Americans from being aggressive in the eastern Pacific?? 1) The Marshalls are relatively weak and the Americans could take it or at the least make it very difficult for the Japanese to defend mini-KB plus some assistance from land-based Netties (Kwaj) may be sufficient here to stem the tide against all but the most directed attack. quote: 2) Pago Pago, Suva, and Noumea can be reinforced relatively cheaply and allow the Allies to solidify their SLOC to Australia. I think that having KB completely away from these bases would make it easier / 'cheaper' to reinforce them, provided that the Allied player acts quickly to fill the void. quote: 3) All those undamaged PBYs will wing their way to the SRA and be used to evac and/or move LCUs around. Meh. It will take a week or so to get the PBYs sent to the DEI. Do you really think that most Allied players will jump on the opportunity to send all available PBYs to the DEI or do you think that they would reinforce bases on the LOC to Australia instead? I would guess the latter. quote: 4) Put those slow BBs in a SC TF could take on some Japanese SC TF. I would send them to Australia and then try to get into surface combat. Even if they are sunk, I can hope to take down a few BBs and CAs along the way. I'll take that trade. The more those old slow BBs are at sea sniffing around for a fight, the more likely they are to catch a TT from a sub (or worse) lying in wait. In one of my PBEMs, one of my opponents elected to go sniffing around with a reinforced SCTF near Gili Gili in January 1942. Problem was that homey didn't want to play that game-mini KB was there to settle the issue from afar. One old BB sunk with 5xTTs, another limping towards home with 2xTT hits through sub-infested waters. If the allied player loses this 'might as well try' trade-which I propose they will often do, then you've got your PH attack on the cheap there by sinking a few or badly damaging a few old BBs.

John 3rd -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/5/2010 9:26:55 PM)
I have voiced my opinion on this topic MANY times and I believe it is a case of hitting BOTH targets on Dec 7th. I'll gladly split KB and hit Pearl with 4 CVs and nail Manila with 2 CV and Mini-KB. Net result sees the Battleline damaged and out of the picture for enough time AND a number of SS gone forever. Sinking those SS has a much stronger impact on the long-term then does sinking an old BB or two... Before Castor and others go off regarding attaining surprise in both attacks, remember in the 2x2 we have running right now allowances were made for that. Fighters at Manila were allowed to be set for CAP and a random number of SS were allowed to be formed up in TF (turn time stamp x 2 for SS allowed into TF). Made no difference to the attack. In Mike and I's upcoming AAR (Reluctant Admiral) using my new Mod we will follow the same HR for the double attacks.

ny59giants -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/5/2010 9:31:18 PM)
There is only Claudes in the Marshalls at start. You need a size 7 AF and 20k in supply to upgrade to Zeros. The closest base is Takao or Tokyo. You want to have Mini-KB defending the eastern Pacific is OK in my book. 3 American CVs vs Mini-KB. I'll take that as the Allied player. [;)] I've learned the use of PBYs to move troops around from following Nemo's old AAR in WITP. Many players don't use them this way, but I would. I'm playing Japan for the second time and have learned many of their weaknesses.

Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/5/2010 9:42:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd I have voiced my opinion on this topic MANY times and I believe it is a case of hitting BOTH targets on Dec 7th.� I'll gladly split KB and hit Pearl with 4 CVs and nail Manila with 2 CV and Mini-KB.� Net result sees the�Battleline damaged and out of the picture for enough time�AND a number of SS gone forever.� Sinking those SS has a much stronger impact on the long-term then does sinking an old BB or two... Before�Castor and others go off regarding attaining surprise in both attacks, remember in the 2x2 we have running right now allowances were made for that.� Fighters at Manila were allowed to be set for CAP and a random number of SS were allowed to be formed up in TF�(turn time stamp x 2 for SS allowed into TF).� Made no difference to the attack. In�Mike and I's upcoming AAR (Reluctant Admiral) using my new Mod�we will follow the same HR for the double attacks.� Yes, John, you have voiced your opinion on this topic MANY times. As I have mentioned previously, your HRs in the Philipines do not override the hard-coded first turn Allied CAP limitations / hard settings. Point being: whatever 'allowances' you offer to the Allies to permit first turn Manila / Clark CAP settings, the game hardcodes to 'nerf' them on December 7-8. Result: CAP don't fly as Allies have been told to expect. Also, your allowances do not offset temporal metaphysical realities, as I have pointed out before. To whit: you assume surprise where there cannot be, due to the time zone differences. Assuming that surprise will exist in a game because, IRL, someone screwed the pooch big time is granting yourself too much benefit at the expense of your opponent.

Chickenboy -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/5/2010 9:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants There is only Claudes in the Marshalls at start. You need a size 7 AF and 20k in supply to upgrade to Zeros. The closest base is Takao or Tokyo. You want to have Mini-KB defending the eastern Pacific is OK in my book. OK, so I've got to wait a bit before updating my Claudes from Kwajalein. That limits my offensive striking power somewhat, but it doesn't completely pull my teeth. quote: 3 American CVs vs Mini-KB. I'll take that as the Allied player. [;)] You wanna come within Nell / Claude range of Kwajalein with mini-KB backing? Bring it on. I'll trade you a couple of CVLs for three of your fleet CVs any day of the week.

ny59giants -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/5/2010 11:12:24 PM)
quote: You wanna come within Nell / Claude range of Kwajalein with mini-KB backing? Bring it on. I'll trade you a couple of CVLs for three of your fleet CVs any day of the week. Your going to marry Mini-KB to the Marshalls for how long?? One or two months?? You have left the whole of the American fleet intact and this is going to stop me?? I have ideas on how your defense can be defeated, but I rather wait until I play the Allies against John to present them.

OldCanuck -> RE: Manila or Pearl-new paradigm? (4/5/2010 11:30:43 PM)
Playing against the AI, I have tried it both ways. Using Bettys and Nells, I usually destroy 20 SS in Manila (hitting Manila with everything several days running). With the KB I don't do much better than that. For me the deciding factor is the number of aircraft destroyed. An attack on PH (with Zeros and Sallys hitting airfields in the PI) generates much higher total allied aircraft loses. Hitting PH two days running will usually kill around 6 BBs and a lot of other ships as well.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.71875