RE: gamey turn 1? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room



Message

sveint -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/2/2004 10:41:41 PM)

IMO the Japanese player should be free to change the initial plan without being too gamey. Bombing Manila instead of PH could very well have happened... in fact the US probably though of it as more likely...



Feinder -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/3/2004 6:11:32 PM)

While I certainly haven't played the campaign game to the bitter end (has anyone?), I'm pretty much for giving the IJN the option do just about anything he wants on Turn 1. It might well be considered "gamey" to know the exact defense strength of a base (or lack thereof), and subsequently land there. Or know that there are 25 subs in Manilla, and kill them all with a port attack.

But the simple truth is, the IJN is going to be overwhelmed in 1944 anyways, with or without those 25 subs, or even the loss of key bases in December like Midway or Noumea. We all know that, at most, IJN is going to kill 2 or 3 BBs at PH. The rest WILL eventually be repaired. Even if he crunches all 25 subs (not likely, more like 10), the loss of those 10 subs (or even 25) will certainly hurt during the first 6 months, but the fact is, there is very little that is going to affect the overall outcome of the war. Production wins this war, and killing a few BBs or even 25 subs has no effect on the Allied production capabilities.

Don't forget that, the Allies already have the "advantage" of hindsite also. They can start retreating (or in my case consolidating) the DEI and PI asap. Or rushing troops to a defensive posiiton in Burma, or Bismark Archipeligo. The USN player can (and does) actucally play much more aggressively than his historical counterparts did anyways. And this aggression level usually translates into the IJN offensives being blunted that much ealier. So if allowing IJN to make unhistorical first-turn moves is what it takes to "make a good game of it", then I say bring it on.

-F-



2ndACR -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/3/2004 6:39:08 PM)

Port attack on Manila has almost always netted me 20+ sunk subs. That is in 6 PBEM games and countless AI starts. But I feel the same way as you do Feinder. Hindsight works both ways at all times. Unless the players want to re-create history as exactly as possible, which I do not. I have books for that.



sven6345789 -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/3/2004 7:09:36 PM)

attacking manila port on turn 1 means that Clark isn't hit that hard. So there actually might be some air force around.
furthermore, if the japanese player starts to undertake 20+ landings on turn one, his forces will most likely be dispersed. he can't have major concentrations of ships everywhere. for the allied player, this increases the chance of taking out a few transports and maybe combat ships before leaving the SRA with what is left. An opponent of mine landed close to singapore, to close. my vildebeasts and swordfish are really having a good time.
Spreading out as the japanese means putting your scarce assets at risk. The more you spread out, the higher the losses will be. The allied player can afford to loose the whole navy concentrated in the PI, Malaya and DEI, and still get enough power to come back 4-5 times stronger. The japanese player cannot do that.

But reading all these posts, i would accept one more houserule->the japanese player may only land where he landed historically on turn one (with what is up to him), in addition to the others i mentioned earlier. this one is not a must though.

since we are talking about whats gamey and what is historical, do you really think the japanese would have used their carriers to hunt the allied carriers? 1. they had no idea where they could be (Pearl Harbor maybe); if you look up the allied setup, you as players of course know where the allied CVs are. There are probably cracks out there who have created maps with circles in it pointing out to them where the allied CVs could go at maximum speed. THAT is gamey, if you ask me. on turn one, attacking installations with KB is something that should be done. which one doesn't really matter.



mogami -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/3/2004 7:35:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Port attack on Manila has almost always netted me 20+ sunk subs. That is in 6 PBEM games and countless AI starts. But I feel the same way as you do Feinder. Hindsight works both ways at all times. Unless the players want to re-create history as exactly as possible, which I do not. I have books for that.



Hi, The only problem I have with a port attack on Manila or Singapore is that such attacks have to occur hours after the Pearl Harbor attack. Manila was aware of the Pearl Harbor attack while that attack was still in progress. If the Japanese player does not attack Pearl Harbor but instead orders his CV to attack Manila then I would consider that a legal use of his carriers and forces. Now the question is at dawn Manila time what is the status of Singapore? How long between dawn Manila and dawn Singapore? If Japanese bombers took off in darkness from Saigon when would they arrive over Singapore? (long enough to justify the Allied player being allowed to get underway if he desired. Long enough for the Allied player not to be surprised there?

I am in favor of allowing any plausible historically possible use of both players forces from turn 1 to turn 1650. I have for several years now tried to stress that WITP is not a tactical game. The combat displayed during the course of a turn is provided so that the player can judge the result of his operational planning.
Operation Planning is simply (from the ground up)

1. Decide Objectives. What do you want to capture what do you want to defend how will the picture change as you meet or fail to meet objectives? Planning is always along a time line. As your operations (and those of the enemy) proceed the picture will change and the result will be you set new objectives.

2. Decide forces required.

3. Provide for movement to objective

4. provide for supply

5. establish schedule

The game (war) is nothing more then a series of operations tied together in a manner to meet changing objectives. Some operations are proactive (you are forcing the enemy to respond) Some are reactionary (the enemy is forcing you to respond)

The War for simplicities sake can be broken into three parts. I call them Phase 1 Phase 2 and phase 3.

In Phase 1 Japan is expanding for the purpose of gathering the resources required for continued National existence.

In Phase 1 Japanese advantages include the isolated nature of the enemy force in the area the operations occur.
A comparatively stronger force. (Japan is massed the enemy is dispersed)
Quality. The Japanese forces on hand are more prepared then the enemy.


In Phase 2 Japan will shift operations from the SRA to other areas. Many of the advantages enjoyed in Phase 1 will be gone or quickly diminishing. The primary goal of phase 2 operations is to secure space that Japan will use during phase 3 to survive and while the means remain to destroy enemy material to weaken and delay enemy Phase 3 offensive operations.

In Phase 3 Japan is fighting for time.

After turn 1 I feel Japan should have complete latitude in the employment of her forces.
If Japanese operations are sound and well executed then I see no objective beyond Japanese capability to achieve unless Allied Operations are planned and executed at least as well.

Both players should realize that if the enemy is controlled by the AI the enemy Operations will not be well thought out or executed but the game can still be enjoyed just realize your enemy is a dunderhead. (We of course know there were no dunderheads commanding in WWII or history)



2ndACR -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/3/2004 8:18:34 PM)

I do not bother with PH. KB goes to Manila. I only port attack 1 port on turn 1. Singapore gets a reprieve of execution.

I only tinker against the AI. My REAL games are PBEM games. Since I only port attack 1 port on turn 1 that is the only reason I request no orders except formed Allied TF's. If however my opponenet wants the latitude of an all hindsight game, then I have no problem with it. Everything on turn 1 gets set for naval attack and the turkey shoot begins in full. KB winds up around Davao or the vicinity there of blocking any escape.

***NOTE**** To any current or future PBEM opponents, trust everything above only to your own doom. I vary every 1st turn I send out.



mogami -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/3/2004 8:26:09 PM)

Hi, My thoughts as Japan on turn 1 is what is most dangerous enemy force on map that can disrupt my phase 1 operations.

1. USN CV
2. Enemy BB
3 Other enemy surface ships
4. enemy air
5 enemy submarines.

The subs in PI are all of older types that as Allies I gradually assign to rear area ops. Bad boats with bad torpedos and bad leaders.

8 USN BB in South Pacific (shiver)



2ndACR -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/3/2004 8:30:47 PM)

None of my games have progressed far enough along yet to verify if this is a sound tactic yet.
My game with Panzer is the first to have the BB's from PH roaming about. Of course 1 is now a coral reef. They can hurt me yes, but at least away from PH I have a better chance of sinking them if they get caught.

Only the Dutch subs have been a pain so far.



freeboy -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/3/2004 9:35:25 PM)

My pbem game against the Kaleun , Emporers deleght or humble pie? shows this what if, 8 bb from PH are just so slow I am having difficulty using them., just took some torps trying to defend rabaul...
They need air cover against Betties, the first attack by Kweijeliens Nells they beat off handily[:-] but where nonetheless forces, frieghtened into retreating....



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/3/2004 11:33:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789
since we are talking about whats gamey and what is historical, do you really think the japanese would have used their carriers to hunt the allied carriers? 1. they had no idea where they could be (Pearl Harbor maybe); if you look up the allied setup, you as players of course know where the allied CVs are. There are probably cracks out there who have created maps with circles in it pointing out to them where the allied CVs could go at maximum speed. THAT is gamey, if you ask me. on turn one, attacking installations with KB is something that should be done. which one doesn't really matter.


Again you're projecting too much history on a game!

You say IJN would have "no idea where the CVs would be"? OK. True, perhaps. Now please tell me HOW do you know, IN GAME, unless you CHEAT, that there are 8 BBs in PH on turn one? That's right, you DON'T know. You SHOULDN'T know. If you put your mouse over PH on turn one it says something like XY ships in harbor and that's it.

If you really want to be 100% honest, and 100% deprived of history knowledge, we could say you know jack sh*t about PH. If we could erase all the knowledge from historic books from every player's head prior to turn one, you would see less than 5% PH raids on turn one. NO ONE in his right mind would go after PH.

Yet, attacking PH blindly (sic) is accepted as regular tactic. Why? Well, because that's what (more or less) happened in history, right?

Well I don't agree. Assuming no locations to the east of dateline are attacked, even the Singapore port attack is perfectly legitimate IMO. Why wouldn't it be?

What you're trying to say is that "pretending" we know (or don't know) where the US BBs are is somehow right, but pretending we know (or don't know) where the CVs, or SSs, or Force Z are on turn one, is gamey?

Oleg



irishman -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/4/2004 1:22:54 AM)

Am I (and 52 lowland) the only people to use scen 16? This gets rid of any debate/bad feeling about what is gamey/ingenious. The battle starts as historically accurate i.e. your initial strategic objectives are set but afterwards anything is fair game.
Just as the Japanese production model is designed to allow the player to tweak it but not alter it completely, the start should be preset. The PH strike is not a tactical choice, it was the basis of the whole Japanese warplan. Knock the USN out at the start, grab what you can for 6 months then sue for peace.
Ignoring PH ofr Manila because you KNOW there aren't any CVS there is the ultimate exploit. While the Japanese didn't have the intel that we have now, the odds of there being not even one CV in PH were pretty low.

(I'm sure someone knows exactly how many days each CV spent in PH but out of interest, how often was PH without any CVs at anchor?)



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/4/2004 2:11:42 AM)

#16 is a fine choice, but it's as easy for KB to go CV hunting in #16 as it is in #15, perhaps even easier. Go look at starting positions. In #16 you have CV Enterprise starting docked at PH with no land based fighters as cover. So IJN first does historic damage in PH and then returns to PH to hunt your CVs, doing even more damage.

Are you trying to say it's OK if IJN player uses his knowledge of game/scenario/history/astrology/chiromanty to try to hunt down your CVs in first turn of #16, but it's *not* OK if he does the same in first turn of #15?

O.



irishman -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/4/2004 2:39:11 AM)

I don't understand the whole CV hunting thing. Yes, as IJN I know where Lexington, Enterprise etc are on turn one, but the Yanks also know where Kido Butai is. In the first turn on scen 16 simply run away south and KB will not catch you. Therefore you will not lose anything that isn't already damaged in PH and you have a chance to evacuate/reinforce Manila/Clark/Singapore.
As an example, in my PBEM with 52 lowland in scen 16 turn 1, I headed back to PH and sank the Enterprise which he hadn't evacuated (bad move), hit Manila and sank several subs which he hadn't sortied (bad move), hit Singapore with Nells and got butchered by the flying tigers which he had moved in (excellent move). There are no special movement rates etc which make a mockery of reality. IRL the Japanese could just about hit PH without being detected but a sneak Naval attack against Singapore, Java or Borneo is ridiculous.



freeboy -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/4/2004 4:04:40 AM)

Irish, we are playing 15, with Japs able to move and variable setup, so Oleg did "guess " correctly and crushed my forces....



sven6345789 -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/4/2004 11:19:45 PM)

read john Toland on the account of Pearl Harbor. The attack on PH was a masterpiece of planning. Actually, the japanese knew well what was in PH at the time of attack. There were spies in PH. They were send there in early 1941 and worked for half a year for only one purpose. planning the surprise attack on pearl. Locating a taskforce at sea is an entirely different matter.
I agree to the point that if the japanese wouldn't have attacked PH, no player probably would.

How about just settling to historic turn 1 with variable setup. This way, the CVs might be in Pearl, there might be a CV-Battle, there might be a fouled up wake landing (Operation outfield).



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/4/2004 11:51:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

read john Toland on the account of Pearl Harbor. The attack on PH was a masterpiece of planning. Actually, the japanese knew well what was in PH at the time of attack. There were spies in PH. They were send there in early 1941 and worked for half a year for only one purpose. planning the surprise attack on pearl. Locating a taskforce at sea is an entirely different matter.


Geez... of course PH was masterpiece of planning. The point is, in fact two points:

- Player would want to do his own "masterpiece of planning" be it PH or something else.
- Spies in PH don't count. Historical Japanese knowledge doesn't count. Toland doesn't count. Your local library doesn't count. If you really insist on playing absolutely fair, then ALL knowledge, except what game itself provides on turn 0, is CHEATING, ie GAMEY.

It's not that I insist on this as I, playing as US, personally don't care - if I play as US, do absolutely whatever you want it's all fair in my book. I am with Feinder on that. If I am USN do whatever you please, I will beat you when my time comes. But if I play as IJN and someone cires foul when I *try* to attack his CVs or anything else besides PH, then that's ridicolous.

You can't say "knowledge A that you don't see on turn 0 is fair", while "knowledge B that you also don't see on turn 0 is unfair (because I don't like it)".

Why is it so impossible IJN CVs would approach from direction Kwajalein instead of north, thus surprising whatever ships USN might have sortied from PH? *Including* CVs? Why is this, perfectly normal scenario, somehow more SF than - up to 7th Dec 41 absolutely unthinkable - PH raid?

quote:

I agree to the point that if the japanese wouldn't have attacked PH, no player probably would.


As they say in those courtroom movies: "I rest my case." [:D]

quote:

How about just settling to historic turn 1 with variable setup. This way, the CVs might be in Pearl, there might be a CV-Battle, there might be a fouled up wake landing (Operation outfield).


That is cool option, but unfortunatelly, to stay on topic, it's open to even more gamey tactics. Since the turn resolution in that case happens immediatelly, IJN player may re-start the game any times he want, until he gets the favorable result.

Oleg



Twotribes -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/5/2004 2:36:39 AM)

Yup sorry to dissade you but, the Japanese knew that Pearl harbor was the main American Naval base in the Pacific and they knew that all or most of the Battleships were tied up to the slips. They didnt just wake up one morning and go "humm, I think I will attack the americans, and well why not Pearl harbor?"



moses -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/5/2004 4:01:14 AM)

The root of all evil is the special Jp first turn move bonus. Why should it be there? It is the equivilant of allowing the allied player to redeploy all his ground forces prior to turn one. Everyone would scream if that were implimented.

The simple solution is too place everything where it was on Dec 6 and play from there. On turn one you can forbid all allied orders east of Midway and your done. No possibility of a gamey start.

As long as JP carriers can cross the ocean in a single day some discretion must be used if you want to play a game which remotely models historical possibilities. If you just want to win a game and care nothing of reality then it shouldn't matter if its gamey or not. Just play your game. But for those who want to play an historical simulation discretion is required.

It would have been absurd for the Japanese to move KB into the central pacific on Dec 7 in the hope that the US carriers would show up and be sunk. Now even a stupid plan can sometimes work but the likely outcome would have been that KB would have spent a couple days searching, run out of fuel, and headed home with little to show for the commitment of their primary strike force. The only reason this operation can be contemplated is that the JP carriers on turn one have the ability to teleport on top of the US carriers from their starting position in Japan!!

I wonder how people can even argue about the historical game accuracy of the ASW, PT boats, land combat, etc and then be willing to allow JP fleets to telaport to palemburg and Kendari on turn 1 or 2.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/5/2004 4:53:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

The root of all evil is the special Jp first turn move bonus. Why should it be there? It is the equivilant of allowing the allied player to redeploy all his ground forces prior to turn one. Everyone would scream if that were implimented.


The first turn move bonus is not there to be used as gamey technique, but to allow players to put their own plans into action. And as such it's welcome. I'd really hate that WITP took the possibility of planning our own 7th Dec from us (IJN or USN doesn't matter but it's obviously more important for IJN).

Using the bonus you can even do port attack on San Diego on turn one. OK, that's certainly gamey. That much we can all agree on. KB would not cross whole Pacific risking to be sighted by merchant shipping on busy merchant lanes off US coast etc. So, in any fair game that's off the map.

But WHY it has to be PH, or else it's gamey?

quote:

It would have been absurd for the Japanese to move KB into the central pacific on Dec 7 in the hope that the US carriers would show up and be sunk.


Why? It's not CVs that count.

Well, analysing the map, and knowing roughly what IJN knew on 7th Dec, I note that PH-Palmyra-Canton, and PH-Johnston-Midway-Wake regions must be very active with ship movements after the start of hostilities, and I decide to place my CVs there and let them hunt any ship that might try to come to help to Wake, PI etc. I approach from direction Kwajalein, thus I am undetected. I don't know for sure CVs are there, but if they do come, I will sink them as any other ship that comes my way. Perfectly reasonable and realistic war plan for first days of war with the US!

Not only that, but since I publicly announced what I can, and maybe will do here on board [:D] I think it's perfectly fair. That is just *part* of my very intrincate opening moves, but is crucial. I don't care if I catch US CVs there. If any of the opponents read this, he may take care to move them away. I don't care. Maybe I'll do it, maybe I won't. Maybe I'll attack PH and sink his CVs there if he tries to escape that way... Possibilities are open, as they should be.

There's this group of players, not necesarilly belonging to "IJN fanclub" nor "USN fanclub" but rather to "wargame as historic slideshow" fanclub. "PH must be attacked". "Singapore must fall, you must have sucky general there!" (why? I can find better commander). "Germans never had more than 50 King Tigers on one place." (Yes but in this game I have so what?)

I refuse to accept their "rules" [:D]

quote:

Now even a stupid plan can sometimes work but the likely outcome would have been that KB would have spent a couple days searching, run out of fuel, and headed home with little to show for the commitment of their primary strike force.


Absolutely, and that's exactly what may happen if the USN player is on his toes and uses his brain. If he just blindly retreats his carriers towards Palmyra because "IJN will attack PH on turn one, *yawn*" then he deserves to be punished.

quote:

The only reason this operation can be contemplated is that the JP carriers on turn one have the ability to teleport on top of the US carriers from their starting position in Japan!!


Not "teleport". It's not teleporting. In my game - my carriers spent week prior to opening of hostilities docked on Kwajalein, and made their move towards wherever they are on turn 1 undetected (not that there's anything to detect them anyway [:D]). I'm talking about totally different opening schemes, perfectly workable, completely realistic. "Turn 1 teleport" is just a technique this game uses to make this happen. They could have given us possibility to plan our moves and redeployments for a whole months prior to opening of hostilities, but decided on "special turn 1 rules" which are OK IMO.

quote:

I wonder how people can even argue about the historical game accuracy of the ASW, PT boats, land combat, etc and then be willing to allow JP fleets to telaport to palemburg and Kendari on turn 1 or 2.


This game is so pro-Allies it's not even funny. If IJN teleport on turn 1 (of 1500+ turns) is your biggest problem, than I want to play you in PBEM, no matter which side [:D] And I'll let you do whatever you want on turn 1. [8D]

Teleport is just a game tool to allow players to execute their own invasion plans, that's all. Some people have problems with ANY plan other than 100% history (or what's 100% suitable for them), and that's problem here.

Oleg



moses -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/5/2004 5:20:32 AM)

The first turn move rule is the JP equivilant of allowing the allied player to redeploy the US divisions in the PI to austrailia on turn one. Or maybe I can place the 3 US carriers south of Lagaspi so that I can destroy JP invasion fleets while KB is occupied in the PI. Maybe I should evacuate PH and place everything in LA for the first week. Why can't I evacuate Hong Kong?

All these things were physically possible. All these things might make good military sence. Politically some of them seem unlikely but why should I be stuck with the decisions actually made? "I want to improve on history not just repeat it"?!

I'd say "no its not telaportation, this new allied redeployment rule just represents different possible decisions make in the weeks preceding PH". Of course this is rubish.

I'm not saying they should remove the first turn rules. But for those who want to play an historically plausable start these rules should be used with discretion.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/5/2004 5:08:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

The first turn move rule is the JP equivilant of allowing the allied player to redeploy the US divisions in the PI to austrailia on turn one. Or maybe I can place the 3 US carriers south of Lagaspi so that I can destroy JP invasion fleets while KB is occupied in the PI. Maybe I should evacuate PH and place everything in LA for the first week. Why can't I evacuate Hong Kong?


The "magic" available to IJN player on turn one is not that extensive really. All IJN can do is reshuffle some of their shipping, pick some alternative invasion beaches (Kuantan vs. Kota Bharu), take island A instead of historical island B, pick another PH, and that's all. All the INF divisions are in their places, loaded on transports, their objectives are set, their HQs are given... So there's nothing remotely equivalent to "redeploying PI divisions to Australia" available to JA player...

As for USN ship "teleport no. one" - personally I would not have that big a problem with that. But I'd like to see ONE USN player willing to risk his CVs (knowing they are inferior to KB) by deploying them "south of Legaspi", in hope KB won't show up behind their backs [:D]

Obviously there was solid reason why developers did what they did. They felt only the attacking side, IJN, may have the opportunity to achieve surprise on turn 1. That's fine by me, realistic and historic. If you can't live with one "Kimmel moment" in the whole game, even if it's imposed on you by game engine or "gamey opponent", then that's too bad. That's how the war started you know, by one attack no one before thought could ever happen. Teleport rule is like saying "IJN has right to pick one 'attack that could never happen' and make it happen".

quote:

I'm not saying they should remove the first turn rules. But for those who want to play an historically plausable start these rules should be used with discretion.


Game allows you to use them with a discretion, or to turn them off completely, which is certainly good thing. I can only assume we won't be playing any PBEMs vs each other since we could not agree on what rules to implement for turn 1. [:D]

O.



sven6345789 -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/6/2004 3:01:26 AM)

have you tried playing historical first turn+ vary setup pbem? You will find out that the japanese player cannot just restart the game over and over again until he gets a good result.
Fact is, you get to name your password and end up in the save game menu. period. For the allied player, same thing once he gets the file.period. he sends the file back. Now the combat resolution starts. next, the japanese player enters his turn for the 8th!!!
So, no cheating possible, at least not the way you said it.

but as you said it. we have 1500+ turns in front of us. The japanese fall behind in strength in late 1942 already. They will have a hard time anyhow. So just let the japanese run amok during turn 1 if they feel like it. i believe most maps will look similar to the historical one during mid 1942 no matter how many landings the japanese do or where they attack.

I still hold up the rule that Kido Butai should attack installations on turn 1. The japanese would never send their main striking force somewhere in the middle of nowhere hoping to catch some carrier. It doesn't make sense to me.If the other player doesn't agree, the allied player is allowed to move their TFs he starts the game with. The player i am playing right now attacked Manila with his CVs. sure was painful. Lost about 10 subs and have about 10 damaged. 3 got away. not that many. but thats life. I get lots of everything later on.

therefore, i stick to my houserules but leave the option of a historical turn with vary setup open to anybody.



esteban -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/6/2004 8:05:27 AM)

My personal house rule is that the Japanese can only use their "preloaded" TFs on turn one. So you don't get 30 invasions all at once.

A second favorite of mine is that the Japanese can only perform one port attack, which must be done using carriers.

I had a pretty good experience in my one aborted PBEM game using KB on Singapore on turn one, and then hunting down allied shipping in a big sweep through the SRA. KB bagged about 50 ships (nearly all of them AKs, TKs, AS and ADs) during the sweep. Air losses were pretty low for KB, about 30-40 aircraft. Also, having KB in the SRA made the Allied player pull all his non-submarine/PT warships out of the SRA.

I can see a lot of promise in using KB against Manila as well. If you use KB against the port, you can still blast Clark with your land-based air in Formosa.

The most desirable targets in PH are actually not the ships, but the B-17s and the 80 or so Catalinas sitting on the airbase. You can hit PH and sink a couple old BBs, but they are not that useful to the allies anyway, at least not until late 1943, when having 2-3 fewer BBs is no big deal anyway. If you want to take out high VP value ships, I would suggest attacking Singapore and blowing the Repulse and PoW out of the water there. Those fast BBs are actually much more useful to the Allies than the slow ones in PH.

I am against going hunting for the U.S. carriers. You can pretty much guarantee yourself that you can bag one of them, but it's utterly unrealistic to suggest that the Japanese had an idea where the American carriers were. An alternate history involving throwing KB at the SRA seems just fine to me. An alternate history of sending Japan's carrier roaming around the central Pacific when they shouldn't know that anything is there is not.



mogami -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/6/2004 8:41:05 AM)

Hi, The only way the Japanese can hunt CV on turn 1 is because he has looked to see where they are at start and figures where they can reach on turn 1. If he began from scracth he would not know if they were east of PH north of PH west of PH or South of PH and what direction they were heading. But he has peeked and made turn 1 according to that. Still it's ok as long as he lets the USN player order those TF's there is a good chance he will guess wrong.

(USN player should move at full speed. And make sure the 2 TF are as far from one another as possible. )
Also the Japanese should turn off the turn 1 surprise since the CV at sea are steaming under wartime conditions.



esteban -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/6/2004 11:45:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The only way the Japanese can hunt CV on turn 1 is because he has looked to see where they are at start and figures where they can reach on turn 1. If he began from scracth he would not know if they were east of PH north of PH west of PH or South of PH and what direction they were heading. But he has peeked and made turn 1 according to that. Still it's ok as long as he lets the USN player order those TF's there is a good chance he will guess wrong.

(USN player should move at full speed. And make sure the 2 TF are as far from one another as possible. )
Also the Japanese should turn off the turn 1 surprise since the CV at sea are steaming under wartime conditions.


I disagree. Between KB and the Ryujo TF, (which can reach PH for the port attack if you wish) you have enough carriers for 3 TFs. Which if you arrange in the correct pattern around one of the American carrier TFs, will always be in strike range with at least 2 carriers. The American TF can only move a maximum of 5-6 hexes.

While that is somewhat risky to the Japanese, they can easily bag one Allied carrier and a lot of it's escorts. And probably the second carrier if you try to link the two carrier divisions up. If you let the Zuiho and Hosho sail, they can reach far enough to get into the carrier hunt, and now you have 9 Japanese carriers fighting 1-2 American carriers.

If you turn off surprise, then you "ahistorically" screw up the Japanese land-based air attacks in the SRA.

So in my mind, the best way to manage this is to insist that the Japanese carriers end movement within 3 hexes (normal Val range) of PH, Manila, Singapore, or I guess Surabaya, though Surabaya is a much worse target than the first 3 are.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/6/2004 2:23:22 PM)

Sorry, but KB doing sneak attack on Sorabaja is almost impossible - now that would be gamey IMO.

(Too bad nobody wants to do that anyway [:D])

O.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/6/2004 4:11:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

have you tried playing historical first turn+ vary setup pbem? You will find out that the japanese player cannot just restart the game over and over again until he gets a good result.
Fact is, you get to name your password and end up in the save game menu. period. For the allied player, same thing once he gets the file.period. he sends the file back. Now the combat resolution starts. next, the japanese player enters his turn for the 8th!!!
So, no cheating possible, at least not the way you said it.


Well, I stand corrected. Wow, that's very cool feature! I guess all the "gamey issues on turn one" are all but solved with this: if players can't agree on house rules for turn 1 they should use some form of variable historic start and that's it.

Though personally I'd rather have usual unrestricted turn one woth my set of house rules... [:D]

quote:

I still hold up the rule that Kido Butai should attack installations on turn 1.


Attacking "installations" is generally very very stupid way to use powerful but fragile force like KB in WITP. There are many players who don't consider 8 old and slow BBs worth losing a *single* pre-war KB aviator, ie. who are not interested in PH at all, (unless there is some possibility of meeting CVs of course) [:D]

Oleg



moses -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/6/2004 4:25:57 PM)

Scenario 16 is currently the most historically accurate scenario. Scenario 15 with the historical start is fine although it does give the JP player a three or four day head start. These two options allow the players to completly dispence with all house rules.

Scenario 15 non historical start is playable if the JP player keeps his first turn within historical plausability. When I play as Japan I attack the historical sites in Malaysia, one or two locations in north PI, Lagaspi, and Guam. The wake attack is modified a bit and my carriers go to PH. I get some other invasion fleets going but all of these end turn one well within JP air cover and within a turns move of JP controlled territory. Even then I feel I am cheating as I am well ahead of the historical timeline which doesn't have invasions in PI for seveal days. Still from this point on I play without restrictions and expect none from the allied player.

To be clear I have no concern for following history from this point on. If the JP player wants to invade PH or Numea in the first couple weeks thats just fine. An attack on Palemburg or Kendari on turn 6 is just fine. I may try these or many other strategies myself. I simply insist that the Jp player actually conduct these operations using the normal rules of the game and not simply telaport to the immediate vicinity of these objectives on turn one.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/6/2004 4:31:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The only way the Japanese can hunt CV on turn 1 is because he has looked to see where they are at start and figures where they can reach on turn 1. If he began from scracth he would not know if they were east of PH north of PH west of PH or South of PH and what direction they were heading. But he has peeked and made turn 1 according to that. Still it's ok as long as he lets the USN player order those TF's there is a good chance he will guess wrong.

(USN player should move at full speed. And make sure the 2 TF are as far from one another as possible. )
Also the Japanese should turn off the turn 1 surprise since the CV at sea are steaming under wartime conditions.


That's right. It's a gamble. IJN may come out of it totally empty handed, maybe even with some damaged CVs of his own (is US player unloads his CV squadrons on Johnson and Midway he may be able to damage some of KB CVs, all the while his USN CVs steam full speed into security). USN CVs are significantly faster than KB.

Freeboy and me switched side in our tests and he didn't catch any of my CVs on turn one (suffering some damaged CAs near Midway to boot).

So it's a gamble, but I think it's a gamble that IJN player has every right to try - once.

O.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: gamey turn 1? (9/6/2004 4:40:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: esteban
I disagree. Between KB and the Ryujo TF, (which can reach PH for the port attack if you wish) you have enough carriers for 3 TFs. Which if you arrange in the correct pattern around one of the American carrier TFs, will always be in strike range with at least 2 carriers. The American TF can only move a maximum of 5-6 hexes.


The point is - you can't "arrange correct pattern around CVs" because:

a) They CAN move faster than IJN CVs - guessing where they will be at the end of turn one is a gamble.
b) I would never recommend hunting with 3 2xCV groups. Also Ryujo is unusable for this - it will most probably get sunk.

USN CVs are very strong and those SBD squadrons have incredible EXP rating. Once in my experiments vs myself I went CV hunting with 3 TF. Result - 2 IJN CVs lost, 2 seriously damaged, 1 USN CV sunk, 1 damaged. Total disaster for IJN. So this is by no means sure-shot tactic for anyone.

That's why, if you're serious about this tactic, you must use two 3xCV TFs. And forget about Ryujo and other CVLs... Even then you may end up emptyhanded or with unfavorable result. USN may decide to group his CVs and deliver some very damaging attack on your 3CV group that manages to find them. Etc.

Oleg



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625