|
Trugrit -> RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila (12/4/2019 2:55:57 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus
quote:
ORIGINAL: Trugrit
quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Differing opinions abound.
For all of my PBEMs (where I had control that is), I've opted to blast Manila instead of PH.
Advantages:
1. Liquidate USN Far East command, including submarines. I can usually get all or near all the subs in Manila in the opening day. That's 25 of 'em for you keeping track at home. In my current game versus AcePylut, the Allies are down 32 subs (FOW of course) in August 1942. That effectively removes enemy submarines' direct action in the DEI, limiting their ability to reconnoiter, resupply, interfere with landings in the DEI and take direct action.
2. Puts KB in a position to either support additional actions in the DEI *or* escort Guam, Rabaul and SoPac landings immediately. KB's 'mispositioning' at PH will cost another 2 weeks before they can lend similar support.
3. Eliminates any possibility of damage to scarce fleet oilers in the Pacific (the ones supporting the PH raid) or to a 'Hail Mary' PH surface sortie against KB. Also reduces normal KB plane losses from flying into a dense AAA port attack like PH.
4. Allows for air wing reinforcement of KB immediately. KB is low on fighters at war start. I'll frequently reinforce them from 'carrier capable' air units from Formosa or the Home Islands.
5. More predictable damage wrought on the target port in question. Manila is reduced 100% of the time with a KB-infused strike there. I've seen some PH attacks where *no* BBs were sunk in exchange for the usual wear and tear on the KB. What a disappointment that would be!
Disadvantages:
1. PH is 'open for business' on day one. No port damage to slow it down for a few months. No big ships clogging its repair yards. Odds are that the Japanese will *never* reduce it. For a "Hawaii takedown" Japanese approach, *not* striking PH is a non-starter.
2. Assuming a historical number of BBs sunk in game terms (2), the VPs wrought from an average PH strike are probably higher than a Manila strike. But not overwhelmingly so, IMO.
3. (The biggy IMO) American aircraft at Pearl are not wiped out like they were historically. This allows American PBY and fighter pools-with woefully deficient replacement pools-to hold up and perform better than historically the first 6 months of the war. Subsequent deep raids by the KB are less likely to be surprises due to NavSearch detection.
Gamey.
The reason the Japanese attacked Pearl was not just the battleships but the carriers.
The Japanese thought the carriers were in port at Pearl.
In this game the players have what the Japanese did not have; knowledge that the carriers are not there.
Of course Manila looks better if you know that in advance with God like certainty.
So, I’m going to turn this question around.
We have the editor available to modify the scenario.
Lets put the Lexington and Enterprise in port at Pearl with a lot of their CA escorts.
Maybe the Saratoga as well? She was close by on the west coast, and could have been there.
Now that you know for sure the carriers are at Pearl what is your decision?
Pearl or Manila?
Ahahahahahah sometimes people's reasonings are so bizarre...
"Gamey".
Because in history bla bla bla bla bla
To put it simple:
- As Allies, do you invade Tarawa on the precise date Americans did with insufficient troops and preparations? I know already the answer.
GAMEY!
- As Japanese, you sink you CVs autonomously at say 8th of June because in history they lost Midway?
GAMEY!
Of course I suppose you run your forces precisely as they did in WWII for more than a thousand turns.
It's evident that with CVs in PH everybody would sink them. We know they're not there. We don't strike PH.
I mean, for what it matters they can be disbanded in the wonderful dot of Sangi and at that point we would strike Sangi without thinking. It's obvious.
Since they are not in PH and therefore we cannot sink them, we strike Manila for the subs and we are happy with that. Things being different, we would do something different. But things are in they way they are.
This is nonsense.
What we are talking about here is the first turn.
We are not talking about Tarawa, Singapore or China.
The first tun is special. Both players know exactly where all the forces are located.
The Japanese get special movement.
I’m going to say that again: We are talking about the first turn.
You can play the first turn historically or non-historically, your choice.
You should do one or the other but not both.
What is gamey is to do both.
The Japanese player plays the first turn with a non-historical first move and then expects
the Allied player to play the turn historically, sit still and take it up the wazoo.
You should do one or the other on the first turn not both.
If the Japanese is going to move non-historically then the Allied player should be able
to set up non-historically.
Things are the way they are. BS!
|
|
|
|
