Unbelievable PH attack

Unbelievable PH attack (Full Version)

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

Message

offenseman -> Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 4:52:10 AM)
I just ran turn one of a new PBEM and my 12/7 attack on PH was a complete disaster. I did not sight a single BB or CA. My air units attacked en masse and sank or damaged 20-30 ships, the largest being a CL, the smallest being several PT boats. We are not running historical start so I am at a loss to explain this one. Has anyone seen a PH attack like this?

CapAndGown -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 5:04:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: offenseman I just ran turn one of a new PBEM and my 12/7 attack on PH was a complete disaster. I did not sight a single BB or CA. My air units attacked en masse and sank or damaged 20-30 ships, the largest being a CL, the smallest being several PT boats. We are not running historical start so I am at a loss to explain this one. Has anyone seen a PH attack like this? Sight? Did you mean Sink? If the latter, then yes, I have seen it. I did not sink any BBs on Dec. 7 in my game against witpqs. The raid the next day, however, managed to take out three of them.

offenseman -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 5:44:06 AM)
Nope I meant sight. They did not see them because they were not there. To test it out, I just set up a PBEM and on the Allied turn put all 8 BBs, all the CAs, several CLs, and 6-8 long range DDs in a TF and sent them due east. They got out and left before the IJN attack. I did not think that was something that needed a house rule.

PaxMondo -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 6:04:14 AM)
Most house rules prevent Allies from creating any new TF's the first day.

offenseman -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 6:14:52 AM)
Hmmph. I guess I should read that section of AARs more often. lol I am going to discuss it with my opponent. He is a reasonable man and I am sure we can come up with something like a restart.

akdreemer -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 7:02:51 AM)
Which is why I prefer historical first turn. Never like the ability of the Japanese to redo their attacks while the Allies are frozen. I also have real concern about the KB sticking around for day two when they historically they had insufficient fuel. Unfortunately the games gives all ships in pre-game task forces full fuel bunkers. So you might also suggest as a house rule that the KB must retreat after first day.

witpqs -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 8:15:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown Sight? Did you mean Sink? If the latter, then yes, I have seen it. I did not sink any BBs on Dec. 7 in my game against witpqs. The raid the next day, however, managed to take out three of them. To be fair, they sank on the 8th before a shot was fired. They had high flooding and massive fires and could not be saved. So I would say that your initial attack got 3 BB's.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 1:56:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: offenseman Nope I meant sight. They did not see them because they were not there. To test it out, I just set up a PBEM and on the Allied turn put all 8 BBs, all the CAs, several CLs, and 6-8 long range DDs in a TF and sent them due east. They got out and left before the IJN attack. I did not think that was something that needed a house rule. [:D] You wanted non-historic so that you could change all your moves..., and apparently your opponent thought that was a good idea as well. What's good for the goose... One of the reasons I like the 12/08/41 start.

castor troy -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 2:35:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: offenseman I just ran turn one of a new PBEM and my 12/7 attack on PH was a complete disaster. I did not sight a single BB or CA. My air units attacked en masse and sank or damaged 20-30 ships, the largest being a CL, the smallest being several PT boats. We are not running historical start so I am at a loss to explain this one. Has anyone seen a PH attack like this? thought about your opponent moving them out? [:D]

offenseman -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 2:53:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy thought about your opponent moving them out? [:D] No, never thought he would consider doing something that would have made Kimmel look like he had read books written on the subject after the war. Ignorance on my part.

offenseman -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 3:02:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 [:D] You wanted non-historic so that you could change all your moves..., and apparently your opponent thought that was a good idea as well. What's good for the goose... One of the reasons I like the 12/08/41 start. If IJ does not change some moves, then the Allied player knows what is going to happen and again gets benefit of the use of hindsight. You now, like smashing the Wake, Tarawa, Makin, etc invasions. Just because they were somehow gifted a crystal ball and Japan was not. Moving battleship row out is similar to using the asterisked amphib TFs that are slated to go to Malaya to capture Palembang on 12/8 or 12/9. Imagine that, sailing 130 ships past Singapore without anyone noticing just because you get a freakish movement rate. Should I have placed a house rule in place that someone mentioned most PBEMS have? In hindsight yes. Should I have started this thread, NO.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 4:11:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: offenseman If IJ does not change some moves, then the Allied player knows what is going to happen and again gets benefit of the use of hindsight. You now, like smashing the Wake, Tarawa, Makin, etc invasions. Just because they were somehow gifted a crystal ball and Japan was not. Moving battleship row out is similar to using the asterisked amphib TFs that are slated to go to Malaya to capture Palembang on 12/8 or 12/9. Imagine that, sailing 130 ships past Singapore without anyone noticing just because you get a freakish movement rate. Should I have placed a house rule in place that someone mentioned most PBEMS have? In hindsight yes. Should I have started this thread, NO. I agree..., but people have tried it (and tried to justify it). And the [:D] was meant to indicate you were being teased, not "taken to task". But I still prefer the 12/08/41 start. You can change destinations and timing on the first turn to deal with the problems you mention (leaving an Allied opponant who tries to make use of "hindsight" floating uselessly in the wrong locations). But it's about the only way to ensure that the "suprise" and other bonuses are legitimate---the opening moves are all historical, so the opening move "bennies" are all justified. Anything else is subject to controversy...

offenseman -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 5:36:58 PM)
No I really shouldn't have started this thread. I was so flabbergasted to have had no BBs sighted that I never stopped to think that he might have moved them out! lol After I started this, it dawned on me that was what happened. I should be taken to task for that if nothing else. ;)

seydlitz_slith -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 6:09:24 PM)
Well, if he is at sea you should track him down and sink him. You have a lot of Subs around Pearl at start. If they did not sight the ships then you know which way they did not go. With no air cover and your faster task forces you can track them down and sink them. At sea they will stay sunk.

Q-Ball -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 6:13:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seydlitz Well, if he is at sea you should track him down and sink him. You have a lot of Subs around Pearl at start. If they did not sight the ships then you know which way they did not go. With no air cover and your faster task forces you can track them down and sink them. At sea they will stay sunk. That's a good point, and unless you changed the start position (which he was probably counting on), chances are they headed Southeast. Split KB into 2 or 3 parts to cover more ground, and get them. Even in the absence of House Rule, that's super-gamey. I would ask for a re-do.

offenseman -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/20/2010 6:27:35 PM)
As expected we are going to restart with a house rule of no new TFs for Allies. I am also not going to attack PH more than once. Seydlitz, I did think of tracking him down and actually ran some turns to test it and it was real shaky at best if I could catch him. Both moving at full speed, I have less than a ten knot advantage and at least 320 miles to make up. I am 4 hexes west of PH an done hex south. My subs on that side were largely transiting toward the WC (as you do have done it [&o]) so they make for a nice picket line already. Even so, KB is pretty far away and has to go around Hawaii before it can pursue. I reckoned that if he went for SF or LA at full speed for several days, I'd never catch him. It did cross my mind though to sink them in deep water. :) Q-Ball- yeah thats what I thought too. Thanks

RevRick -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/29/2010 6:44:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: offenseman quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy thought about your opponent moving them out? [:D] No, never thought he would consider doing something that would have made Kimmel look like he had read books written on the subject after the war. Ignorance on my part. To be fair, if Kimmel had really thought about the war warning he had received, and remembered King's raid on Pearl Harbor on a Sunday Morning as part of a fleet exercise some years earlier - the IJN could have received a much warmer welcome then they did. And, it could have been worse. What if Uncle Franklin had put King in command at CincPac and Kimmel in CincLant. King was not the same person Kimmel was, and would have had another outlook on war preparations. The signs were all there, they were abysmally ignored. Besides, Kimmel's idea of what to do when war came was to assemble the fleet and raid Kwajalein. That's where they might be headed. Idiotic in 20/20 hindsight, but that was the plan, man.

Nikademus -> RE: Unbelievable PH attack (6/29/2010 7:21:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior Which is why I prefer historical first turn. Never like the ability of the Japanese to redo their attacks while the Allies are frozen. I also have real concern about the KB sticking around for day two when they historically they had insufficient fuel. Unfortunately the games gives all ships in pre-game task forces full fuel bunkers. So you might also suggest as a house rule that the KB must retreat after first day. I've never minded it. In fact as Allies i've yet to do anything first turn while allowing Player 1 to modify certain aspects if desired (within reason of course......my opponents and i always discuss house rules and other such things before starting). Given the Allied advantages in future material and resources, its no biggie for me. It takes a brave person to play Japan in AE. Its also administratively tougher to play Player 1 in the initial months because he/she's on the offensive. Player two can get away with a more relaxed approach while on the defensive. I can spend the first few turns getting rid of all those annoying 2-plane HQ units on the West Coast and PH for example. [:D]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.65625