Replacing Kimmel

Replacing Kimmel (Full Version)

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

Message

Admiral Scott -> Replacing Kimmel (2/7/2010 4:33:27 PM)
Just how much of an impact on the game is there by replacing Kimmel with Nimitz? If Hawaii never gets attacked after December 7th 1941, will the Politcal points be better used on something else? I am curious as to everyone's opinion on this.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/7/2010 4:36:12 PM)
Nimitz is a great leader. Check his statistics.

khyberbill -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/7/2010 4:41:11 PM)
I have never replaced Kimmel. The war is usually somewhere else and that somewhere is where I want my good leaders!

topeverest -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/7/2010 5:30:54 PM)
Agreed. Use Nimitz in your active war effort.

Admiral Scott -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/7/2010 7:25:08 PM)
If you guys dont use Nimitz as Kimmel's replacement, where do you use him? S. Pacific theater commander, and keep Halsey leading an AirCombat TF?

Shark7 -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/7/2010 8:37:51 PM)
The trouble is we really don't know how good of a commander Kimmel was, he got fired before he could do anything...same with General Short. Kimmel did have a plan to save Wake Island though, had he been in command, Wake Island may not have fallen, though it would have been an extreme gamble for sure.

spence -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/8/2010 5:52:35 AM)
Admiral Pye was in tactical command of the Wake Relief expedition. Kimmel was not in a position to materially effect what Pye did in a battle: particularly the world's first carrier battle (had it happened). The command reach of CINCPAC should extend to any USN/USMC unit anywhere in a strategic sense. But the Nimitz "character" never gets the kind of strategic intelligence that would figure in his strategic direction of the war effort so he becomes some sort of glorified platoon commander that you stick on Baker Island because it happens that the Japanese are invading there.

Admiral Scott -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/10/2010 3:40:34 AM)
So, its better to use Nimitz elsewhere, and keep Kimmel at Pearl?

spence -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/10/2010 4:03:12 AM)
Unless Nimitz can effect the speed of repair of ships at PH (most advanced decent shipyard) it's probably just as well you use him "with the 3rd platoon on Apamama". Don't really know though and don't have my manual with me to look it up.

Shark7 -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/11/2010 3:14:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence Unless Nimitz can effect the speed of repair of ships at PH (most advanced decent shipyard) it's probably just as well you use him "with the 3rd platoon on Apamama". Don't really know though and don't have my manual with me to look it up. And a smart Japanese player will target with repair yards at Pearl to slow the repairs. Not sure if Nimitz would make a difference with that in mind.

msieving1 -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/13/2010 9:54:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence Admiral Pye was in tactical command of the Wake Relief expedition. Kimmel was not in a position to materially effect what Pye did in a battle: particularly the world's first carrier battle (had it happened). A correction of the history here: Fletcher was in tactical command of the Wake operation. The relief was approved by Kimmel, and Fletcher's TF 14 (Saratoga) left Pearl Harbor on 16 December. (The plan also included TF 11 under V Adm Brown in Lexington making a diversionary strike on the Marshall Islands, and TF 8 with the AV Tangier carrying supplies and reinforcements for Wake.) Kimmel was relieved of command on 17 December, and Pye replaced him temporarily as CINCPAC, until Nimitz arrived on 31 December. Fletcher, in what was to become a bit of a pattern, delayed his advance to Wake to refuel, and Wake fell before he could arrive. Pye could have ordered Fletcher to hurry, but he was aware of the risks and his own caretaker status, and didn't want to have to greet Nimitz with the news that he'd gotten one of Nimitz's carriers sunk. There really isn't a place in the game for commanders like Nimitz or Yamamoto. Their roles are held by the player. The seagoing fleet commands, like 3rd Fleet and 5th Fleet, were in real live task force organizations. What would be nice is if the game could handle a heirarchical task force sttructure. For example, the organization for the Operation Flintlock had V Adm Spruance commanding 5th Fleet as a TF, with TF 58, the Fast Carrier Force commanded by R Adm Mitscher subordinate to Spruance, and Task Groups (TG) 58.1, 58.2, 58.3, and 58.4 comanded by R Adm Reeves, Montgomery, Sherman, and Ginder respectively subordinate to TF 58. And then there were subordinate Task Group Units (TGU) under the TGs, for the battleship or cruiser escorts and the destroyers. The game only recognizes the TG level, so Mitscher and Spruance, as well as the escort commanders, are irrelevant. The game includes a vast number of commanders, but not the positions that they filled.

Pascal_slith -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/13/2010 11:33:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: msieving1 quote: ORIGINAL: spence Admiral Pye was in tactical command of the Wake Relief expedition. Kimmel was not in a position to materially effect what Pye did in a battle: particularly the world's first carrier battle (had it happened). A correction of the history here: Fletcher was in tactical command of the Wake operation. The relief was approved by Kimmel, and Fletcher's TF 14 (Saratoga) left Pearl Harbor on 16 December. (The plan also included TF 11 under V Adm Brown in Lexington making a diversionary strike on the Marshall Islands, and TF 8 with the AV Tangier carrying supplies and reinforcements for Wake.) Kimmel was relieved of command on 17 December, and Pye replaced him temporarily as CINCPAC, until Nimitz arrived on 31 December. Fletcher, in what was to become a bit of a pattern, delayed his advance to Wake to refuel, and Wake fell before he could arrive. Pye could have ordered Fletcher to hurry, but he was aware of the risks and his own caretaker status, and didn't want to have to greet Nimitz with the news that he'd gotten one of Nimitz's carriers sunk. There really isn't a place in the game for commanders like Nimitz or Yamamoto. Their roles are held by the player. The seagoing fleet commands, like 3rd Fleet and 5th Fleet, were in real live task force organizations. What would be nice is if the game could handle a heirarchical task force sttructure. For example, the organization for the Operation Flintlock had V Adm Spruance commanding 5th Fleet as a TF, with TF 58, the Fast Carrier Force commanded by R Adm Mitscher subordinate to Spruance, and Task Groups (TG) 58.1, 58.2, 58.3, and 58.4 comanded by R Adm Reeves, Montgomery, Sherman, and Ginder respectively subordinate to TF 58. And then there were subordinate Task Group Units (TGU) under the TGs, for the battleship or cruiser escorts and the destroyers. The game only recognizes the TG level, so Mitscher and Spruance, as well as the escort commanders, are irrelevant. The game includes a vast number of commanders, but not the positions that they filled. You chronological facts are correct. There is much more debate and nuance about Fletcher's actions than you seem to imply. I strongly recommend reading 'Black Shoe Carrier Admiral' by John Lundstrom. Essentially, Fletcher has been very short changed by quite a few people that were never there or based their judgements on heresay.

Gary D -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/14/2010 12:46:44 AM)
From Pascal: quote: There is much more debate and nuance about Fletcher's actions than you seem to imply. I strongly recommend reading 'Black Shoe Carrier Admiral' by John Lundstrom. Essentially, Fletcher has been very short changed by quite a few people that were never there or based their judgements on heresay. I could not agree more, the book is superb. From day to day when underway replenishment was in its infancy, the TF commanders had no idea if it would take half a day or two days to refuel the group. What we take almost for granted from the late war on was truly high adventure in the spring of 1942. Maybe AE should roll the dice each time we refuel early in the game, and if your unlucky you spend all your movement points and get no fuel! [:'(] All the best!

Frode Larsen -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/14/2010 1:02:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary D From Pascal: quote: There is much more debate and nuance about Fletcher's actions than you seem to imply. I strongly recommend reading 'Black Shoe Carrier Admiral' by John Lundstrom. Essentially, Fletcher has been very short changed by quite a few people that were never there or based their judgements on heresay. I could not agree more, the book is superb. From day to day when underway replenishment was in its infancy, the TF commanders had no idea if it would take half a day or two days to refuel the group. What we take almost for granted from the late war on was truly high adventure in the spring of 1942. Maybe AE should roll the dice each time we refuel early in the game, and if your unlucky you spend all your movement points and get no fuel! [:'(] All the best! And I agree as well... John Lundstrom's works should be required reading for anyone enjoying AE. In 1941-42 no one really knew how to fight a naval war in the Pacific. Refueling difficulties and, equally important, the extreme fuel usage by warships in wartime conditions came as a surprise to most US naval leaders. As far as Wake is concerned, Pye ordered Fletcher to abort the relief operation. It really isn't fair to expect Fletcher to disobey these orders, particularly since he had every reason to believe Pye had superior intelligence on Japanese operations in the area....

Pascal_slith -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/14/2010 4:06:15 AM)
Two works on underway replenishment you can look at online. Thomas Wildenberg's book Gray Steel and Black Oil is completely available at HyperWar. It's the history of the development of Underway Replenishment in the US Navy (Nimitz had a crucial role earlier in his career). The second is the War Service Fuel Consumption FTP-218 statistics study also at HyperWar.

Central Blue -> RE: Replacing Kimmel (2/14/2010 8:44:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott Just how much of an impact on the game is there by replacing Kimmel with Nimitz? If Hawaii never gets attacked after December 7th 1941, will the Politcal points be better used on something else? I am curious as to everyone's opinion on this. If you are faced with multiple days of bombing at PH, and the threat of an invasion of PH, I'll take Nimitz over Kimmel at the very first opportunity -- even if all he adds is increased ship repair. As a theater commander, I think his ratings carry a little further than that, but don't quote me. But if Pearl isn't hit on day one . . . there is no reason to spend the points there when they can be better spent rearranging the deck chairs in the Chinese General Staff or any other command that isn't timed out with a date certain withdrawal. I'll admit I am always a little perplexed when it comes to those theater commands under Navy control that have land and air HQ's underneath. I err on the side of sating my animal brain that tells me these changes must make a difference -- and so they do.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2