RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Warplan Pacific



Message

AllenK -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 6:23:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YueJin

You don't use the carriers at all, they just get sunk 90% of the time if you try to attack with them. The most effective sequence I've found is:

1)Sacrifice 2 DD groups to burn the interdiction.
2)Naval attack twice with the Hawaiian air group
3)Use the sub, it's rare but it full sinks a BC sometimes and often does 1 damage.
4)Attack with all surface ships except the carriers. Around 10% of the time they can't find the target and the DD sacrifice is for nothing but whenever they manage combat they sink 1-2 BC/CV


What are the usual losses to the Allies?



YueJin -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 6:28:50 PM)

0-2BB's plus whatever got sunk in the initial Pearl Harbour strike, 7-8 losses on the air group but they inflict near equal damage to the carrier planes.



eskuche -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 6:29:31 PM)

Two DD (~500 prod), 5-10 air, and 1-2 BB. You can keep the 1-2 HP ones in port if you’d like.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 6:39:14 PM)

I am trying this stunt and pretty much the Allies get waxed pretty hard. I did nerf the Air unit as I forgot to deplete it for accuracy.

But I don't see how this strategy works unless you get really lucky.

Like use the air, use the 2x DD groups to soak up the interceptions, attack with the CVs, then attack with the surface and hope you get a night action and favorable result.

Still ok the Japanese might lose a CV, the USA is losing ~50 naval strength in this engagement with PH attack. That shift so early will just let them dominate completely.
Also what will you do if it doesn't work? Resign the game? That's no fun for the other guy.

Doing this gives the Japanese a 60 point advantage in naval forces. You are just asking to lose a game with this gambit.



YueJin -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 6:49:56 PM)

You don't attack with the CV's. It's essentially sacrifice 2DD's for a very decent chance at sinking 2 Japanese capital ships. Using the four steps I mentioned previously I sink a CV in exchange for the 2DD's way more than 70% of the time.

This is a typical end of turn 1 screen, even if the counterattack misses and can't find the Japanese carriers I don't think losing 2 extra DD groups is something to resign over.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/xmqcLYF.png[/image]



eskuche -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 6:50:14 PM)

I’m not sure how valuable the USN is in ‘42 which is why I think trading for carriers or heck even carrier damage might be worth it, to the tune of one entire turn of IJA production per pip. The US doesn’t have to spend the production on repairing the BB damage strictly speaking and has quite a few turns to decide when to repair.

The (from a surface analysis) real immediate downside is sacrificing two DD, which may mean more lost merchant marines.



jwarrenw13 -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 6:57:26 PM)

Counter to Pearl Harbor gambit. I tested it 12 times and seems to work well. Battleships got through to the carriers once. Very simple. Ring the carriers with a screening force of surface ships and submarines. Use your surface ships in the fleet to do it and the two submarines in the area. Bring in the one submarine from the Kwajalein area to finish it. If you want, you can also bring in the two cruisers from Kwajalein after your carrier strike to put some surface ships in the same hex as your carriers. I tested YueJin's gabmit against it, modified, because you have to first get through the ring, so I used half the remaining surface ships after sacrificing the two destroyer groups to try to punch a hole in the ring by sinking a screeening surface ship. The first group succeeded three times. It is a waste to send the second group if you don't punch through the screen with the first. On the three occasions I did make a hole, the second surface group was repelled and underwent a fleet retreat without getting to fire on the carriers. But on one occasion the second group did get through and sank a carrier. Others of you can further test this to see how it works for you. Might be helpful to some of you in PBEM games. As for me, I'm just not going to use it against the Japanese if I'm playing as the Allies. Personal preference. And playing as the Japanese, the Allied AI won't use it. I would be interested in Alvaro's views on the Pearl Harbor gambit. Edit - I see Alvaro commented while I was testing the counter.



eskuche -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 7:05:10 PM)

I think if the allies force this kind of commitment I’d be happy to cower in the harbor for some extra turns ;)
Currently I think it’s historically plausible and historically probably an even gamble
This IS how metagames evolve, which is usually healthy for games.



YueJin -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 7:17:44 PM)

I suppose the Japanese player could always give up the second strike at PH to ensure carrier safety if the damage numbers from the first attack looked satisfying enough and it wouldn't be the end of the world. It has the benefit of getting the carriers into port at Truk on turn 2 and into the action around the DEI earlier than usual as well.



stjeand -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 7:32:21 PM)

I don't think giving up the second attack is what should happen.

For me...the US should either have their oil start at 0 so they can't counter...or something needs to change.

This is quite simply gaming the system. The DD attacks are just that.

For the US to do anything realistically they would have to coordinate the attacks and since this game is step by step they are able to get around this.
I have tried a few more times and still can take out a Japanese CV with sometimes minimal losses....sometimes I lose another 4 or 5 BBs...

Not sure the BBs matter as much in the end as we know...CVs are king.


I suspect this will end up being a house rule, unless oil starts at 0 and that keeps their ships from attacking.



AllenK -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 8:20:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand

I don't think giving up the second attack is what should happen.

For me...the US should either have their oil start at 0 so they can't counter...or something needs to change.

This is quite simply gaming the system. The DD attacks are just that.

For the US to do anything realistically they would have to coordinate the attacks and since this game is step by step they are able to get around this.
I have tried a few more times and still can take out a Japanese CV with sometimes minimal losses....sometimes I lose another 4 or 5 BBs...

Not sure the BBs matter as much in the end as we know...CVs are king.


I suspect this will end up being a house rule, unless oil starts at 0 and that keeps their ships from attacking.


I agree.

Using DD's or other low value ships to attempt to soak up interception air strikes needs to be made pretty unlikely to succeed but not impossible. I think this would be valuable for the game in general, not just this particular Pearl Harbour scenario.

The problem is, the Allies could still just decide to sacrifice the two most damaged BB's from the Pearl Harbour strike and then go all in with the rest of the surface fleet. I've tried this twice, so a limited sample. The first time sank 2 CV's and a BC (got lucky I guess). The second still sank a CV and damaged a second. The Allied CV's weren't committed and the damage was minimal. I'd take that every time.




sveint -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 8:22:13 PM)

How about non-captial ship attacks should not use up intercepts? So throw as many DDs as you want, they'll get sunk and absorb nothing.



AllenK -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 10:03:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

How about non-captial ship attacks should not use up intercepts? So throw as many DDs as you want, they'll get sunk and absorb nothing.


I don’t think it should be quite so definite. Misidentification resulted in the Japanese launching a strike against a DD and an oiler at Coral Sea. Just give a low percentage of a strike launching and possibly further modify it by the experience of the CV. If too difficult to code, then the simpler total prevention would still be better.

The only problem is, it doesn’t prevent the two most damaged BB’s at Pearl being used for the suicide runs. On the two attempts I tried, with settings all at Historical, the results were favourable. Needs more run throughs to make sure the US weren’t simply extremely lucky and then moderately lucky.

Other than a house rule or US oil set at 0 for turn 1, it might be the standard Japanese moves on turn 1 will have to be the ring defence outlined above.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 11:49:35 PM)

I really don't understand how everyone here thinks this works. I have done it now several times and the Japanese kill the USN fleet. Sure once in a while they lose a CV. But it just doesn't justify the risk. Losing 50 strength of ships in the hope of sinking 1-2 Japanese CVs I don't think is worth it.



jwarrenw13 -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/5/2021 11:55:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I really don't understand how everyone here thinks this works. I have done it now several times and the Japanese kill the USN fleet. Sure once in a while they lose a CV. But it just doesn't justify the risk. Losing 50 strength of ships in the hope of sinking 1-2 Japanese CVs I don't think is worth it.


That's pretty much the result I got in my testing using HOTSEAT and just playing the PH attack and Allied counter using the methods described above. If you put a screen around the Japanese carriers it becomes even harder to get a good Allied result. My results agree with yours. I think it is a much higher risk than waiting six months and taking on the Japanese under better conditions most likely in the Solomons. I think one big problem is lack of patience because the Allies can't do much at all for several months. I will say that using the air unit at Pearl Harbor is not a bad move because you occasionally sink a carrier and the loss to your air unit is probably inconsequential in the scheme of things.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/6/2021 1:38:14 AM)

The air unit got nerfed. I forgot to nerf if before.



AllenK -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/6/2021 8:05:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I really don't understand how everyone here thinks this works. I have done it now several times and the Japanese kill the USN fleet. Sure once in a while they lose a CV. But it just doesn't justify the risk. Losing 50 strength of ships in the hope of sinking 1-2 Japanese CVs I don't think is worth it.


That's pretty much the result I got in my testing using HOTSEAT and just playing the PH attack and Allied counter using the methods described above. If you put a screen around the Japanese carriers it becomes even harder to get a good Allied result. My results agree with yours. I think it is a much higher risk than waiting six months and taking on the Japanese under better conditions most likely in the Solomons. I think one big problem is lack of patience because the Allies can't do much at all for several months. I will say that using the air unit at Pearl Harbor is not a bad move because you occasionally sink a carrier and the loss to your air unit is probably inconsequential in the scheme of things.



Just tried multiple run throughs in Hotseat myself. Similar conclusion. However, I did find it easier to get a reasonable Allied result if the Japanese used the 'ring defence'. This was a smaller sample but once the two suicide runs had triggered the interceptions, the remaining Allied surface ships could split up and take a on a BC and CA group. The Allied CV's could also safely wade in as, since they were attacking one of the BC/CA hexes and not the CV hex, the Jap CV's didn't get involved. Effectively, it opened up the possibility of defeat in detail.

Still needed some luck as units spotted but didn't engage or failed to find but at the end the BC's and CA's weren't generally looking happy (if still afloat).

Overall, looks about right, so hats off to the designer [&o].




eskuche -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/6/2021 8:37:37 PM)

I’m pretty happy with where it is as long as there’s decision-making and counterplay.



timmyab -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/8/2021 3:27:26 PM)

Maybe make the interdiction limit relative to the size of the fleet?
So in this case for example the Japanese fleet could interdict up to 9 attacks.




Redmarkus5 -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/9/2021 9:33:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YueJin

Every game I've seen try to simulate naval combat has run into this issue of suiciding small ships to mess up a large fleet's organisation, supply attack point ect.
WiTP has the ridiculous single MTB fleet spam to soak up carrier strikes and screw up pathing. Sadly house rules are probably the only way to deal with it although I don't know exactly what wording would make sense.


If a human player did that to me I'd conclude they have no love of history and that would be game over :)



Numdydar -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/9/2021 3:20:59 PM)

Well small ships attacking a larger fleet would mess up a larger fleets organization lol. As the larger fleet would still have to deal with the attack. Also the same applies to air attack as well due to no one being 100% sure of what was going on.

Besides that was the whole purpose of MTB ships. I have played WitP a LOT, mostly as Japan and it is something that you just have to learn to counter. Also, I really do not care as Japan what the Allies do or do not do in the game as WitP is the absolutely the most one sided game in the history of games. lol. Spoiler alert, Japan will lose except in two cases. A very, very, incompetent Allied player or playing against the Allied AI. In the case of the Allied player being so bad, chances are high the game will end long before 1945. So that would be a 'win' (not really, but this is a game and not RL).

One thing that we as gamers tend to lose sight of is that all the actions that we take in theses game would cost real people's lives in the real wars. Plus there was no reloads, do overs, etc. So the majority of actions taken in the real wars that we simulate how to accomplish something with the highest chance of success with the least loss of life. While in games people can try higher rick actions for a greater reward, like invading Russia, earlier/later, invading India, etc. without regard of what failure would have meant in RL. "Oh I lost 5 divisions in that attack, I'll just rebuild them next turn." It does not matter to us that we just lost 100K of people's lives.

So Japan can try all sorts of 'interesting' options that the real planners discarded due to the higher chance of failure and what that would mean for their forces.

So the comment "If a human player did that to me I'd conclude they have no love of history and that would be game over :)" is really interesting, especially in the PTO. Because for as a Japanese player, you really need to do ahistorical stuff at the start because you know you will pay the price come mid-43 as it is ALL downhill from there [:(]

As a Japanese player you will ALWAYS lose. Some historians feel that Japan's loss in WWII was set all the way back to their reformation (1870s?) So by the time 1936 rolls around, the seeds for their defeat were too late to be fixed.

I am not sure how WP Pacific's late game works out for Japan, but from my WitP experience, I am not hopeful lol.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/9/2021 4:32:25 PM)

As with WPE, WPP will take time and testing from players to balance it out. WPE is still being balanced but it is pretty close.



jwarrenw13 -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/9/2021 5:07:27 PM)

Indeed WWII in the Pacific was only fought once. That is the sample Alvaro has to work with. And consider the number of actual carrier battles. You can count them on your fingers. To yield a "historical result" from such a small sample is not possible, because the carrier battles themselves hinge on things that could have easily gone the other way. If Nagumo had not ordered his planes to be rearmed at a critical moment. If McCluskey had not spotted the wake of a single Japanese destroyer. Etc. One of the things I really liked about the game from the very start was the uncertain nature of the carrier battles. You don't reallly know what is going to happen, and in a single battle you can lose a significant part of your carrier strength. To me the carrier battles are the most enjoyable part of the game, and they have to have a wide spread of uncertainty to be what you might call historically accurate.

As for the destroyer suicide tactic, I always play solo and just don't use that gambit against the AI because the AI isn't going to use it. Call it a house rule between the AI and me. Playing a human opponent options to counter that might be using multiple fleet groups on the attack including surface elements and more than one carrier group, and as much landbased air as you can muster. If in the Solomons, for example, have your landbased air ready to react. Landbased air should be a major threat there.



eskuche -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/9/2021 5:11:23 PM)

Currently am losing India, Solomons, and perhaps Australia against a human before February ends, so... to [sm=00000619.gif] with historicity!

Edit: I would ask Alvaro to re-look at either ZOC or surrender rules. With extremely small corridors for movement, it's extremely easy for one division/corps to literally move around another one to its rear with no reaction and cause it to surrender with one attack.



Numdydar -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/10/2021 4:19:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

Indeed WWII in the Pacific was only fought once. That is the sample Alvaro has to work with. And consider the number of actual carrier battles. You can count them on your fingers.


In all my time playing WitP, in each game there were maybe 3 carrier battles when playing against a human. The first one usually occurs when the US matches/exceeds Japanese CV power and/or is trying to start their land offense.

Depending how the first one goes, the second is typically a 'take 2' of the first one.

The 3rd and later ones (if any) are last ditch efforts of Japan to slow down the Allied advance. Once the Essex's come online for the Allies, any hope of winning a carrier battle as Japan is pretty much over.

I have actually played as Japan versus the Allied AI, which is a lot of fun by the way lol as you can take over pretty much the whole map [:D] But even with Japan's full CV strength, the Essex class is still damn hard to sink using the crap planes Japan has even later in the war.

But the main reason that people play WitP and the game has lasted so long is the detailed CV versus CV battles are so amazing. So people play for YEARS in pbem just because you know there will be CV battles and they will be awesome when they happen, win or lose. Just like the real war, the game versions will stick in your mind for a long time [:)]




stjeand -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/12/2021 3:17:36 PM)

So my first Hotseat test of the PH attack and return gambit...

The fighter at PH sank a Japanese carrier...
Crazy...

Fighters in WP Pacific are WAY more powerful than fighters in WP Europe. I never attack ships with fighters there because 99% of the time all that happens is fighters get shot down and on the off chance might...just might do 1 damage.

Perhaps a change needs to happen with fighters set as intercepters...a 5 str fighter should have no chance against 6 CVs...none.
Maybe reduce it to a 1?

I don't know, but I am sure this cannot be allowed as an option.

This attack should pretty much happen 100% of the time as the Allies just for this reason. It is a game changer.
The Japanese can lose a carrier and maybe the US loses a fighter that they can just rebuild with their insane economy.
No brainer.



Numdydar -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/12/2021 10:55:49 PM)

In WitP you can have a Dec 8th start. That might be a good option to have here as well. Would totally prevent a lot of first turn 'oddness' [:)]



eskuche -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/12/2021 11:15:38 PM)

Suddenly Pearl Harbor is empty!
Outside of ships there is not much the allies can do. I expect a fairly optimized IJN start to come into being soon.



FirstPappy -> RE: Allies pearl harbor gambit (5/13/2021 1:40:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

In WitP you can have a Dec 8th start. That might be a good option to have here as well. Would totally prevent a lot of first turn 'oddness' [:)]


+1



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.015625