IJN *TF bonus (Full Version)

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



Message

chrispanton -> IJN *TF bonus (7/7/2015 11:12:23 PM)

Back lurking after an 18 month gaming detox and refreshing all the bits and pieces I forgot (including conveniently forgetting how addictive/time consuming WITP can be...). One thing I couldn't remember and/or find via search is the effect of the *TF's in the IJN first move. How far can these bad boys shift? And if the TF splits do both parts get the bonus? Can you add other ships in? Anything else one should know in terms of their limits etc?



John 3rd -> RE: IJN *TF bonus (7/7/2015 11:35:04 PM)

Only the original TF with * gets the bonus movement.



Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: IJN *TF bonus (7/8/2015 12:32:44 AM)


How far: I think 20X

splitting: as already mentioned.. NO

adding ships: yes, but careful to only add fully loaded ships; also don't put ships that had spent lots of operation points

limits: play within defined HRs if this is a PBEM. I personally won't like something that was impossible in RL life Mersing or crossing the strait of Malacca



rustysi -> RE: IJN *TF bonus (7/8/2015 2:06:32 AM)

quote:

crossing the strait of Malacca


Ah, a question I've been pondering a bit of late. I'll start a new thread for it.



dr.hal -> RE: IJN *TF bonus (7/8/2015 2:18:54 AM)

In relation to things that are not possible, including changes to the "*" TFs, I have a point to make. The British were a lot more "aware" of the situation that Doug or others in Pearl seemed to be. They had extensive patrols out in the South China Sea and knew about the troop ship movements. It is my belief that if they had sighted the KB (that is if the Japanese player was going to put the KB in range of Singapore) that would have crossed a line for the British and they would have acted on a war footing and struck. Thus I think it is unrealistic for the KB to be too close to Singapore without giving the game away so to speak. Thus I normally insist upon a house rule that if an attack unit (such as the KB) is to be shifted it can not be within search range of Singapore (Hong Kong is ok but arguably a problem). Thus a sneak attack on Singapore is not possible unlike that on Pearl or even Manila.



rustysi -> RE: IJN *TF bonus (7/8/2015 2:32:29 AM)

quote:

The British were a lot more "aware" of the situation


Yep, even had a search or two (don't recall now) 'disappear' the day/night before it hit the fan.



Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: IJN *TF bonus (7/8/2015 4:12:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

crossing the strait of Malacca


Ah, a question I've been pondering a bit of late. I'll start a new thread for it.


I will be interested to see the answers from other forum members that know more than I do about this. I don't think in real life it was feasible to cross the strait with major naval, air bases and 15' guns at Singapore.
But regardless of how feasible this was, and maybe it was, the point of this topic is the use of the bonus TFs that will magically teleport long distances without any Allied interference.
It is not realistic to think that the British would had allowed an invasion fleet to cross the strait without sending the fleet and naval aviation to intercept it.

If I am playing a PBEM, I would always request that deep invasions/ strikes well within the search area, and in a region with high traffic sea lanes should not be allowed, or maybe to allow it but balance it by turning off "December 7th surprise" so that the Allied can respond accordingly





rustysi -> RE: IJN *TF bonus (7/8/2015 5:21:45 AM)

I wasn't thinking of using it during turn one. I was just positing the question in general. See the thread I opened on the matter.



chrispanton -> RE: IJN *TF bonus (7/8/2015 7:42:58 AM)

Thats great, thanks. The x20 I couldn't find anywhere and didn't realise it was that big giving so much flexibility to so many TFs. Indeed does seem like there is a good case for HR



Numdydar -> RE: IJN *TF bonus (7/8/2015 1:32:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

In relation to things that are not possible, including changes to the "*" TFs, I have a point to make. The British were a lot more "aware" of the situation that Doug or others in Pearl seemed to be. They had extensive patrols out in the South China Sea and knew about the troop ship movements. It is my belief that if they had sighted the KB (that is if the Japanese player was going to put the KB in range of Singapore) that would have crossed a line for the British and they would have acted on a war footing and struck. Thus I think it is unrealistic for the KB to be too close to Singapore without giving the game away so to speak. Thus I normally insist upon a house rule that if an attack unit (such as the KB) is to be shifted it can not be within search range of Singapore (Hong Kong is ok but arguably a problem). Thus a sneak attack on Singapore is not possible unlike that on Pearl or even Manila.


Correct. Here is an excerpt to support this.

The invasion fleet left the port of Samah on 4 Dec 1941. Although detected by British scout planes two days earlier, bad weather provided stealth for the invasion convoy. On 8 Dec, after some fighting at Kota Bharu, the Japanese troops took coast cities of Singora (Thailand), Patani (Thailand), and Kota Bharu (Malaya).

So the British knew troop ships where in transit, just not sure of where. So any gambits to sail past to anywhere in the DEI, I would call 'foul' as the Allies. Even as Japan I would not support this.

I have done a lot of tweaking with these 'special' TFs and have come to the conclusion that Japan's planners did a pretty good job of setting things up properly. Except for the Batann Is invasion, I tend to leave the rest as they are. But YMMV [:)]



geofflambert -> RE: IJN *TF bonus (7/8/2015 3:25:03 PM)

Here's another thread on this:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3714608



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.515625