RE: Better strategy for the Japanese

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Better strategy for the Japanese

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Better strategy for the Japanese - 10/27/2009 7:14:21 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
A perfect example of this is the "Manilla ploy". In real life, subs came and went all the time, and for safety reasons most of them in the Bay submerged during daylight hours. In the game the Japanese player KNOWS that they will be docked and vulnerable and that he can sink them in large numbers on the first turn if he wants to.

Mike,

I think it was only really commonplace for USN subs to submerge during daylight hours AFTER the onset of hostilities. In the days prior to the onset of hostilities, I don't think this was done that often.

Having just pulled off the "Manila ploy" with KB in my two PBEMs, I can rationalize the move easily. IJ sympathizers or embassy employees in the Phillipines could easily have been keeping tabs on USN movements in the days before the attack, as they did in PH IRL. I will default believe the OOB and setup that AE has provided us re: whether ships were docked or not on the morning of December 8 local. I'm open to evidence that shows that 50% of the submarines were submerged in harbor or on patrol, but I'm guessing that's not the case.

The trade off that I gave my PBEM partners was that I port strike on December 7-8 morning phase in only one time zone. I can't get around temporal reality and Newtonian physics. A surprise attack in PH on the am would have been at least many hours later in the PI, thereby negating realistic surprise. So, in both cases, I opted for only Manila strikes.

I think if players are considerate of one another with a nod to metaphysical reality, that will go a long way to engendering a pleasant start to a PBEM. Do unto others and all that...

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 31

RE: Better strategy for the Japanese - 10/27/2009 7:20:20 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

" temporal reality and Newtonian physics " ; " metaphysical reality " : now this is a good example of why I like these forums

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 32

RE: Better strategy for the Japanese - 10/27/2009 7:39:16 PM

Kwik E Mart

Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: PawnPower
Pity a few big ships could not get within range of Pearl Harbour. Couple of hundred or thousand shells landing on Pearl would have caused a lot of damage. The shells from the ships would have been a lot heavier than aircraft delivered bombs.

I don't know how many times I've seen opinions like this expressed on the forums. You folks have to stop and ask yourselves if this is so obvious to you, why were the admirals of the time so blind? Or were they? Perhaps they realized that Lord Nelson had been correct when he observed "No sailor but a fool attacks a fortress." I guess the historical admirals weren't fools.

didn't the Union successfully subdue/reduce/destroy a significant number of Confederate forts during the course of the Civil War? i agree that the historical admirals probably weren't fools, but it seems to me the IJN was overly cautious in their opening moves of the war...plus the fact that bombarding Pearl was probably not viewed as a glorious use of the IJN fleet...better to draw the US fleet out for the glamorous and decisive "Final Battle"...but then again, i have perfect hindsight

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 33

RE: Better strategy for the Japanese - 10/27/2009 11:54:14 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: PawnPower
Pity a few big ships could not get within range of Pearl Harbour. Couple of hundred or thousand shells landing on Pearl would have caused a lot of damage. The shells from the ships would have been a lot heavier than aircraft delivered bombs.

I don't know how many times I've seen opinions like this expressed on the forums. You folks have to stop and ask yourselves if this is so obvious to you, why were the admirals of the time so blind? Or were they? Perhaps they realized that Lord Nelson had been correct when he observed "No sailor but a fool attacks a fortress." I guess the historical admirals weren't fools.

didn't the Union successfully subdue/reduce/destroy a significant number of Confederate forts during the course of the Civil War? i agree that the historical admirals probably weren't fools, but it seems to me the IJN was overly cautious in their opening moves of the war...plus the fact that bombarding Pearl was probably not viewed as a glorious use of the IJN fleet...better to draw the US fleet out for the glamorous and decisive "Final Battle"...but then again, i have perfect hindsight

The subdued a few batteries..., but if you look at the history you will find that Ft. Donaldson, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Ft. Fisher, etc were all siezed from the landward side by the Army---much the same as with Corregadore and Singapore.

Also remember that the backbone of the IJN was composed of officers from the "Battleship School" devoted to the idea of the "Decisive Battle". If you think they would support getting those BB's trashed by highly accurate CD fire 2,500 miles from home; then you would have to allow for every Allied Leader to ignore all their pre-war doctrine and background as well.

If you want to try it in your own game, feel free to do so. If the programming is anything close to realistic you should discover just why "No sailor but a fool attacks a fortress".