RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila?

RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (Full Version)

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

Message

geofflambert -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/19/2022 4:18:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Neither. Singapore. I wondered if someone would suggest this.....Singapore offers more interesting targets than Manila (a good CL 2 AMCs) and positions you even better for an SRA move. The issue is I wonder if this is gamey or not. There's no way that KB could sail close to Singapore on Dec 7th without alerting Allied Intel. So? What are they going to do with that intel?

SuluSea -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/19/2022 9:07:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad quote: ORIGINAL: SuluSea The case for Pearl,its shipyard is tied up well into late 1942 if repairing BB's. I have one BB that's going to take over two years and one close to two before repairs are completed for instance. Not too big a deal but at times the allied player might have to choose sending carriers or other warships to the WC or halt shipyard repairs on the damaged BB. Just something to think about..... This is not something that should sway the argument. As an Allied player I do not put any BBs into the repair shipyard until all other ships are fully repaired. They all go into pierside repapir. Then I put one or two that have floatation damage above 50 into ship yard repair until the flotation damage is at or below 50. Then they go back into pierside until the system damage is at 0 and then send them to the West Coast repair yards. They generally do not leave Pearl Harbor until sometime in the middle of 1942 or later. So no damaged BBs move out of Pearl Harbor until at least June 1942. Good Morning, I was just offering an opinion if I were attacking that would be one of my considerations from my gaming experience if you or anyone else use a different strategy that is okay.[:)] My current game left any number of BBs afloat and heavily damaged as I lost two BB's Maryland and California. I'm not as aggressive as you with damaged ships as I don't move my battleships to the west coast until they're 20 flotation damage or less as to attain more speed. I believe all should prioritize CA, CL, DD, DMS's and anything else that may be of service first than the big boys rotate in. 12/08/41 damage [image]https://i.imgur.com/nicqGuO.jpg[/image] Current game is at 11/05/42 [image]https://imgur.com/xRucBWJ.jpg[/image] Shipyards at Pearl being tied up has caused me to move Lexington class to California for upgrades and a few CAs, again my experience.

Sardaukar -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/19/2022 9:28:21 AM)
I always move heavily damaged ships to West Coast when it is reasonably safe to do so. PH shipyards are for units that are not too heavily damaged and needed soon.

Andy Mac -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/19/2022 10:46:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe You left out the day 2 Portland Invasion![:D] Not really a viable tactic as 99% of players would insta concede and never play that player again if they did that tactic I dont mind Portland if the allies strip the west coast or if the invasion is 2 - 3 weeks after game start because no allied player would lose portland in that circumstance But a day 2 attack when the allies can do nothing to stop it because they are not allowed to give orders on day 1 - insta concede and find another opponent.

Insano -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/20/2022 6:13:22 PM)
I'm a big proponent of an all in port strike on Manila - and I mean ALL in. Nells, Betties, Sallies at extended range, the entire KB. It is possible to sink all 25 subs there on the opening turn. It is relatively easy to sink 20+ with a total commitment. The loss to the Allies is not measured in sunk ships but loss of intel gathering provided by the subs being out and sailing around - regardless if they are effective or not. I was too concerned with suppressing allied air and opted for a mixed port/airfield strike in my game. The reality is that it is easy to establish air superiority on subsequent days but you will get only one first day shot on the port. The worst my opponent did to me was obliterate the Hong Kong repair ship yard with B-17D after I captured it. That hurt and cost 50k supply to repair. Those 20ish subs are gone forever though. What would change my mind is if it was possible to replicate historical aircraft losses at Pearl Harbor which I think was something like 400 aircraft. It's not really possible in game to get over 200 aircraft destroyed. If there was a random chance of an aircraft carrier being in port that would really spice it up as well. Otherwise, as mentioned by others, the ship losses are generally temporary. The allied BB's won't be used much in 1942 anyway, even if they are pristine, due to lack of fuel, aircover, sub protection. For the game as it is send everything you've got to Manila on turn 1. If I could duct tape two Sonias together and send them too, I would.

Q-Ball -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/20/2022 6:23:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Neither. Singapore. I wondered if someone would suggest this.....Singapore offers more interesting targets than Manila (a good CL 2 AMCs) and positions you even better for an SRA move. The issue is I wonder if this is gamey or not. There's no way that KB could sail close to Singapore on Dec 7th without alerting Allied Intel. So? What are they going to do with that intel? Place air units in SIngapore on high-alert, re-route Force Z. Basically, no Dec 7th surprise.

Tanaka -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/20/2022 6:49:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Insano What would change my mind is if it was possible to replicate historical aircraft losses at Pearl Harbor which I think was something like 400 aircraft. It's not really possible in game to get over 200 aircraft destroyed. If there was a random chance of an aircraft carrier being in port that would really spice it up as well. Otherwise, as mentioned by others, the ship losses are generally temporary. The allied BB's won't be used much in 1942 anyway, even if they are pristine, due to lack of fuel, aircover, sub protection. For the game as it is send everything you've got to Manila on turn 1. If I could duct tape two Sonias together and send them too, I would. Completely agree always thought the same myself. If the same historical aircraft destruction results were possible most would pick the Pearl attack. How the hell are you even getting 200 destroyed?? I'm lucky to get 20. Are you putting every aircraft on bomb AF below 10K?

Nomad -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/20/2022 7:53:41 PM)
I went out on the web and looked, I found references to American aircraft losses to be in the 170 to 190 range. I have no idea where the 400 figure comes from.

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/21/2022 1:01:13 AM)
I'd say a Sing strike would only be OK if the Allies get a free turn (non-historical first turn, ability to set TFs and air units, etc.). I haven't checked the manual, but only the Allies put subs on lifeguard duty. USN subs saved 504 airmen, so I'd say it was significant for practical (i.e. keeping a trained pilot in the war) as well as morale purposes. The Japanese did not do that. I just googled this, a nice 10-pager on the practice: https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2014/fall/lifeguard.pdf Cheers, CB

Sardaukar -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/21/2022 4:21:14 AM)
Manila strike can have more immediate effect sinking (maybe) lot of submarines that have working torpedoes. And Mk 14 still works 20% of time too... So, they are immediate threat, old battlewagons in PH are no threat, are difficult to sink in harbour and cannot be used in CV TFs because of slow speed. So they become useful only when USN has local air superiority. so, it is choice between (maybe) removing some of imminent threat vs. (maybe) gaining more points. Both strikes depend heavily on dice rolls.

Insano -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/22/2022 3:20:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad I went out on the web and looked, I found references to American aircraft losses to be in the 170 to 190 range. I have no idea where the 400 figure comes from. You're right. I was going from memory (shows you what that is worth). I found this nice reference which shows 169 aircraft destroyed. The total damaged plus destroyed is more inline with what I was thinking this is listed as 328 aircraft. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/pearl-harbor-fact-sheet-1.pdf The game total of 200 I was speaking of was just based on some tests I ran to see if it was possible to close the airfield on day 1 to allow for follow on strikes in subsequent days. In short, it wasn't. The airfield is too large and by putting every single aircraft in KB on airfield strike, including the Zeros, I was getting around 200 aircraft destroyed. Of course this then meant 0 bomb hits and damage to any of the ships present. Not a relevant game scenario, just testing an extreme case.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/22/2022 10:27:47 AM)
I'm not a fan of "other-than-PH" opening attacks for "historical" scenarios (not talking about "what if" mods where anything goes). Smells too much like 'alternative history' for me. Granted, the game will deviate from history from Day 1, but IMO in a historical scenario, the opening situation should be as close as possible to the real one - and the real war did start at PH (well, actually the landings in Malaya started 90 minutes before the PH attack). Also wondering if an attack on Manila would have had the same psychological impact than the attack on PH in unifying the US people. Furthermore, I shun taking too much advantage of 20/20 hindsight - for me, going for the subs in Manila is in the same league than Day 1 carrier hunting, Day 1 Mersing gambit, deep invasions like Day 2 Portland etc. - not my cup of tea. The great variations in the results of PH strikes - potentially going from none to all BBs sunk - can be avoided by using the "Dec 8th" or "Dec 7th post attack" scenarios which apply the historic damage done - also in regards to planes destroyed. edited for spelling

Tanaka -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/22/2022 7:35:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget I'm not a fan of "other-than-PH" opening attacks for "historical" scenarios (not talking about "what if" mods where anything goes). Smells too much like 'alternative history' for me. Granted, the game will deviate from history from Day 1, but IMO in a historical scenario, the opening situation should be as close as possible to the real one - and the real war did start at PH (well, actually the landings in Malaya started 90 minutes before the PH attack). Also wondering if an attack on Manila would have had the same psychological impact than the attack on PH in unifying the US people. Furthermore, I shun taking too much advantage of 20/20 hindsight - for me, going for the subs in Manila is in the same league than Day 1 carrier hunting, Day 1 Mersing gambit, deep invasions like Day 2 Portland etc. - not my cup of tea. The great variations in the results of PH strikes - potentially going from none to all BBs sunk - can be avoided by using the "Dec 8th" or "Dec 7th post attack" scenarios which apply the historic damage done - also in regards to planes destroyed. edited for spelling Very good points. I've actually never played the Dec 8th scenarios but the destruction of those PBY's it offers is definitely tempting!

Platoonist -> RE: Pearl Harbor or Manila? (2/22/2022 10:33:43 PM)
One of my biggest nitpicks about the December 7th scenario is that it treats all the ships in Pearl Harbor that day as if they were lined up single file like ducks in a shooting gallery. (of course, it does that with every port attack everywhere) At least with the December 8th scenario you get the sense that some ships were shielded from torpedoes by being moored inboard or in dry dock, while others got the brunt of it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6484375