Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

The main problem I see so far in the AARs, in this example of PH and from my own experience is that the Japanese seem to take far fewer losses in both ships and ground troops during their invasions. This makes it quite easy to invade, load up, invade, load up, invade, etc... throw a couple of divs somewhere, destroy the enemy, move on to your next target two weeks later and destroy it.

Hi Castor,

I think that this is what have happened in a reall world ie. historical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook
So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men?

There is a term for such results..., and it's abbreviation is "BS"!

All in all the losses for the invader are far from somewhere near what would have happened in real life. You canīt take out a base like PH and suffer only a handful crappy ships lost with 200 dead and 800 wounded from the landing when you attack such a base and yes the abbreviation for this result really would be BS. Unfortunatetely. In this case WITP definetely produced "better" results.

Iīm confident that weīll reach something better when the next couple of patches will be released, letīs say, in 24 months.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy
My uninformed guess is that a bum rush would see ships making it close enough to offload the troops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Area night bombardment against fortified positions is a waste of shells.  The USN figured that out quickly in their invasion bombardment missions against atolls; only deliberate, aimed fire at located gun positions, fired from slowly moving or anchored bombardment ships, would work.  The big gun positions on Oahu were protected from everything but direct hits from big shells; area bombardment wouldn't disturb them at all.  Rangefinder positions were numerous and camoflaged, so unless the Japanese knew where they were they couldn't hit them either except through luck.

If the IJN showed up offshore and started an Iwo Jima-like bombardment of Oahu, they'd get pounded.  If they tried a "blitzkrieg" invasion without aerial or naval bombardment, they'd be slaughtered both before and on the beach.  If the game doesn't point this out then it's not working right.

For example, in WitP I made an amphibious landing on Tinian with two big TF's of LST's and another of AP's and AK's, screened by DD's and CL's.  The CD units there had a field day with my ships; all the landing craft were at least damaged and many sunk, while the AK/AP TF had several ships hit and sunk.  The escorts got shot up too but nowhere near what the transports/landing craft did.  An attempt against Oahu should look worse than that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I mean, you can haggle over how much force would be likely to survive the act of getting ashore. Haggle away. But I am certain that that percentage would not be 100 percent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

No idea if the big guns would have had AP ammo as I guess those were meant to fight BBs and cruisers but there would be more than enough medium sized guns around to shred both the PBs (heck, thatīs the biggest joke of all) AND the merchants. It would have been like shooting ducks in a zoo. Get those transports in range and put halve a dozen 5 or 6 inch HE shells into them and I wonder how many troops such a ships would still be able to land. And PBs doing COUNTERFIRE. LOL, not even BBs or heavy cruisers were expected to get into range of such a coast defense. Itīs laughable that such an invasion isnīt whiped out. Ok, perhaps you canīt whipe out every ship (while the invasion would be nuts in real life anyway, guess the ships would have tried to get away after losing the first four or five dozen?), but the invasion should really be clobbered. Itīs January and itīs war already, you canīt expect to land somewhere and lose 6 PBs and nothing else, then take the base when it has one of the best CD of itīs time. Thatīs just plain wrong and the problem is clear anyway: if there are escorts, no matter how crappy they are, then they are "duelling" with the CD guns. This results in crappy PBs duelling with 16 inch CD guns and you see "PB Sh*t Maru firing at Pearl Harbor coast defense to supress 16 inch gunfire"

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Djordje

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that this is scenario 2, so Japan has stronger forces than historically. Taking Malaya, Philippines and Pearl Harbor in January 1942 is pure fantasy when playing scenario 1. In fact taking any one of those in that time frame is extremely difficult which can be seen in many AARs.

On the other hand scenario 2 + good play from Japanese player + bad play from Allied player + luck with no detection should sometimes be able to produce successful invasion of Pearl. This is just one example from one game, not really a good statistics sample for any engine changing conclusions...

but this invasion in the example of the OP isnīt either good play from the Japanese nor bad play from the Allied. Well, if the Japanese player hasnīt tried vs the AI to do the same then I would even say it is BAD play (sorry) because if he doesnīt know the completely screwed CD routine of the guns only engaging the crappy escorts (heck, why are there only expendable PBs? Why no CAs, CLs, DDs?) then this is the perfect example of how not to do such an invasion. No air attacks, no naval bombardments, no heavy units to surpress CD guns during the landing.

So what? Either the IJN player knew about it already due to testing it vs AI or it was a perfectly "how not to do it" that turned out perfectly (for the attacker) because the routine of the game is showing itīs worst face.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook
So the Japs land something around 75 000 troops on Pearl Harbor from 350+ ships, without any previous bombardment and against well-supplied and undisrupted US defences, and they lose something like 10-15 PBs, a handful of xAKs and roughly 1000 men?

There is a term for such results..., and it's abbreviation is "BS"!

All in all the losses for the invader are far from somewhere near what would have happened in real life. You canīt take out a base like PH and suffer only a handful crappy ships lost with 200 dead and 800 wounded from the landing when you attack such a base and yes the abbreviation for this result really would be BS. Unfortunatetely. In this case WITP definetely produced "better" results.

Iīm confident that weīll reach something better when the next couple of patches will be released, letīs say, in 24 months.

BS?

Sinking most modern BBs with a handfull of biplanes in Toronto? BS!
Getting Corregidor with forces they did? BS!
Sinking 6 CAs in one go and in the night? Without any visable loses? BS!
last but not least:

To sink several BBs in most defended "pearl" harbour in the world for a lose of a few pilots? BS! BS! BS!

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

All in all the losses for the invader are far from somewhere near what would have happened in real life. You canīt take out a base like PH and suffer only a handful crappy ships lost with 200 dead and 800 wounded from the landing when you attack such a base and yes the abbreviation for this result really would be BS. Unfortunatetely. In this case WITP definetely produced "better" results.

Iīm confident that weīll reach something better when the next couple of patches will be released, letīs say, in 24 months.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Area night bombardment against fortified positions is a waste of shells.  The USN figured that out quickly in their invasion bombardment missions against atolls; only deliberate, aimed fire at located gun positions, fired from slowly moving or anchored bombardment ships, would work.  The big gun positions on Oahu were protected from everything but direct hits from big shells; area bombardment wouldn't disturb them at all.  Rangefinder positions were numerous and camoflaged, so unless the Japanese knew where they were they couldn't hit them either except through luck.

If the IJN showed up offshore and started an Iwo Jima-like bombardment of Oahu, they'd get pounded.  If they tried a "blitzkrieg" invasion without aerial or naval bombardment, they'd be slaughtered both before and on the beach.  If the game doesn't point this out then it's not working right.

For example, in WitP I made an amphibious landing on Tinian with two big TF's of LST's and another of AP's and AK's, screened by DD's and CL's.  The CD units there had a field day with my ships; all the landing craft were at least damaged and many sunk, while the AK/AP TF had several ships hit and sunk.  The escorts got shot up too but nowhere near what the transports/landing craft did.  An attempt against Oahu should look worse than that.

Gotta disagree. Oahu and the atolls are fundamentally different in several respects. One, Oahu was not dug in like Iwo or even Saipan (I've been in the Saipan bunkers; pretty impressive.) A lot of Oahu emplacements were open air, or "hull down", not inside mountains. On some vectors, like the Ewa side we've been discussing, there aren't any mountains. It's lava flow for a long way inland.

Second, the emplacements were known about long before the war. There was virtually no op sec on Oahu before Dec. 7. You can see many of them from roads, or small boats. Pre-war Japanese intel should have mapped them very accurately. A big problem with the atolls was we had no idea in advance where the guns were. All we had was aerial photos, mostly very close to the invasion itself, and the emplacements were only visible horizontally.

Third, I'm not talking about area bombardment. I'm talking about known firing spot, known impact point, then volume fire. Repeat for several days. You don't ever get them all, but you get a lot. If we'd had another two weeks at Iwo we would have degraded that place a lot more too (especially in terms of human factors such as shellshock), but the B-29s didn't have those two weeks to spare.

Fourth, early 1942 rangefinding is pretty useless in the dark. There would have been some counterfire, but the advantage would be with the ships, which didn't need rangefinding services.

Fifth, many/most of the CD emplacements were positioned to protect PH itself. There was a system 360 around the island, but nowhere as intense or integrated as near the channel. Images of bristling 16-in emplacements girdling the island are false. To say it was the best protected island in the world shouldn't give the impression that such protection was uniform on each axis of invasion. It was hard to get to the North Shore in 1941, and it was doubly hard to haul building supplies and 16-in magazines over those mountains as well. PH was where the fleet lived, so it was what got protected in the big gun era when the CD system was designed. Nobody lived up at Kaneohe but Samoan fruit pickers (thought those big gun admirals.)

Who's in favor of a new "Let's invade Oahu!" game with 500-yd hexes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL



BS?

Sinking most modern BBs with a handfull of biplanes in Toronto? BS!

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

It was not tested vs AI!

I knew the routine from my PBEMs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Djordje

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that this is scenario 2, so Japan has stronger forces than historically. Taking Malaya, Philippines and Pearl Harbor in January 1942 is pure fantasy when playing scenario 1. In fact taking any one of those in that time frame is extremely difficult which can be seen in many AARs.

On the other hand scenario 2 + good play from Japanese player + bad play from Allied player + luck with no detection should sometimes be able to produce successful invasion of Pearl. This is just one example from one game, not really a good statistics sample for any engine changing conclusions...

but this invasion in the example of the OP isnīt either good play from the Japanese nor bad play from the Allied. Well, if the Japanese player hasnīt tried vs the AI to do the same then I would even say it is BAD play (sorry) because if he doesnīt know the completely screwed CD routine of the guns only engaging the crappy escorts (heck, why are there only expendable PBs? Why no CAs, CLs, DDs?) then this is the perfect example of how not to do such an invasion. No air attacks, no naval bombardments, no heavy units to surpress CD guns during the landing.

So what? Either the IJN player knew about it already due to testing it vs AI or it was a perfectly "how not to do it" that turned out perfectly (for the attacker) because the routine of the game is showing itīs worst face.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


not just early 1942 rangefinding was pretty useless in the dark, IJN naval gunfire support was even more useless. And are we now at the stage where we would say that the IJN would have landed 6 divisions from 350 AKs during the NIGHT.

This discussion about a completely screwed game result goes into a direction that Iīm not used to on this forum, because it really seems to become more than complete phantasy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

I think sometimes we look at things from a certain point as to where we are, in this case I think we have to look at the "World" that these two players are in. After the fall and the march that WITPPL has done in this game (timeline) the fall of Singapore 1/1/42, Wake, Midway, ect, ect, it seems that what he has accomplished may have very well led to this happneing. I'm not saying that everything in the AE is perfect, we all know that there have to be tweaks all along, and we are very lucky to have people who listen to us about the game they have created. Invading PH seems for a lot of players to be, no chance in hell is that going to happen, but, in their game, I can see that this could happen. I am amazed at the planning this took and logistics involved, what a bold move !. 40 mile hexes leaves quite a bit to "Chance, fate, Karma", but from my experience as a Marine, no place on earth, no matter how impenetrable is seems, really is. History is full of those lessons. You can find a way. All the good arguments i have seen here, testify to the good players that are on the forums here, as well to the very knowledgable people who play and post here on subjects that are way above my expertise. I think the think to remember in game terms, not all guns fire at everything every time, Shock and suprise are formidable. Almost every US Invasion after Guadacanal was telegraphed. They know we were coming, and they were ready. I think Bluebook may have had a thought that it "may" happen, but Had I been in his shoes, I would, as I think most players would have tought it was a very small chance. Throw in the Suprise factor, and almost everything changes.

I hope they both keep playing, I would like to see how it turns out. In my game, I have not taken some troops out of PH now because I see the risk, small as it may be.

Dig in Bluebook. Hold the line. Wait for help to arrive, and hit em where thay ain't.

Semper Fi , Mac

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

To everybody:

The result is crazy. No doubt about it.

castor: this icon means joking and not taking seriously RIGHT?

thank You.

It is a game achievment. Does it make me happy? Yes.
Is it realistic? Who the F### knows? Rather not.
Have I expected huge loses? Yop.

Is this really worth to exchange best Nav Torp pilots and Betties for some disabled guns to save some AKLs and troops IN OUR GAME? My answer was NO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I SAID, leave the AKs OTH until the beach was prepped. Then unload them in daylight.
IJN naval gunfire support was good enough to hit a fixed target from a fixed firing location. That's the easiest task in artillery. It's hitting moving targets that's hard from ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

I'm waiting for the invasion of San Francisco AAR. Regardless of whether this is "gamey" or not you have to give credit for the audacity and the ability to plan and organize this feat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

It was not tested vs AI!

I knew the routine from my PBEMs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Djordje

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that this is scenario 2, so Japan has stronger forces than historically. Taking Malaya, Philippines and Pearl Harbor in January 1942 is pure fantasy when playing scenario 1. In fact taking any one of those in that time frame is extremely difficult which can be seen in many AARs.

On the other hand scenario 2 + good play from Japanese player + bad play from Allied player + luck with no detection should sometimes be able to produce successful invasion of Pearl. This is just one example from one game, not really a good statistics sample for any engine changing conclusions...

but this invasion in the example of the OP isnīt either good play from the Japanese nor bad play from the Allied. Well, if the Japanese player hasnīt tried vs the AI to do the same then I would even say it is BAD play (sorry) because if he doesnīt know the completely screwed CD routine of the guns only engaging the crappy escorts (heck, why are there only expendable PBs? Why no CAs, CLs, DDs?) then this is the perfect example of how not to do such an invasion. No air attacks, no naval bombardments, no heavy units to surpress CD guns during the landing.

So what? Either the IJN player knew about it already due to testing it vs AI or it was a perfectly "how not to do it" that turned out perfectly (for the attacker) because the routine of the game is showing itīs worst face.

Iīm sorry, ok, youīve tested it vs a PBEM opponent. But this is exactly my point. The whole operation was carried out completely poor, due to the points Iīve given a couple of times already. Only the fact that you knew how crappy the routine is working made this whole operation doable. Lol, no applause for doing something great in the game, but applause for gaming the game.

Itīs something like, the dice only has 6 eyes but I know how to get a 7.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


not just early 1942 rangefinding was pretty useless in the dark, IJN naval gunfire support was even more useless. And are we now at the stage where we would say that the IJN would have landed 6 divisions from 350 AKs during the NIGHT.

This discussion about a completely screwed game result goes into a direction that Iīm not used to on this forum, because it really seems to become more than complete phantasy.

OK, now you're just frothing.

I SAID, leave the AKs OTH until the beach was prepped. Then unload them in daylight.
IJN naval gunfire support was good enough to hit a fixed target from a fixed firing location. That's the easiest task in artillery. It's hitting moving targets that's hard from ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

castor: All I knew from my Guadalcanal Campaigns (4 or 5 won) that escorts helps to screen the invasion. I had no idea how it will work out here. It was not tested.

You should not be that decisive in your opinions. Lahaina is mine and it is 2 hexes away. My calculation was that if they will unpack in one go I will be able too save most of damaged ships.

It was my CHOICE a well thought out CHOICE not to waste Betties and its pilots not to mention KB pilots and BBs to save some AKLs. Have You ever considered that there is no one way of doing things? Everything is just and only a risk management (what I do for life).

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

It was not tested vs AI!

I knew the routine from my PBEMs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Djordje

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that this is scenario 2, so Japan has stronger forces than historically. Taking Malaya, Philippines and Pearl Harbor in January 1942 is pure fantasy when playing scenario 1. In fact taking any one of those in that time frame is extremely difficult which can be seen in many AARs.

On the other hand scenario 2 + good play from Japanese player + bad play from Allied player + luck with no detection should sometimes be able to produce successful invasion of Pearl. This is just one example from one game, not really a good statistics sample for any engine changing conclusions...

but this invasion in the example of the OP isnīt either good play from the Japanese nor bad play from the Allied. Well, if the Japanese player hasnīt tried vs the AI to do the same then I would even say it is BAD play (sorry) because if he doesnīt know the completely screwed CD routine of the guns only engaging the crappy escorts (heck, why are there only expendable PBs? Why no CAs, CLs, DDs?) then this is the perfect example of how not to do such an invasion. No air attacks, no naval bombardments, no heavy units to surpress CD guns during the landing.

So what? Either the IJN player knew about it already due to testing it vs AI or it was a perfectly "how not to do it" that turned out perfectly (for the attacker) because the routine of the game is showing itīs worst face.

Iīm sorry, ok, youīve tested it vs a PBEM opponent. But this is exactly my point. The whole operation was carried out completely poor, due to the points Iīve given a couple of times already. Only the fact that you knew how crappy the routine is working made this whole operation doable. Lol, no applause for doing something great in the game, but applause for gaming the game.

Itīs something like, the dice only has 6 eyes but I know how to get a 7.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

I don't disagree. I would have expected bigger loses in everything then happned. What would have happned at the end of the war, if we had to Invade Japan. Would we have an Invasion where we get a shore with small loses, or would it have been horrific. I agree that the game, any game allows ahistorical results. I never mind my opponet trying something like invading a island that wasnt IRL, or using a plane type for something it wasnt intended to, unless we discover that the game does not manage something well, then you have to either get them to change what we think is wrong, or use a house rule. I forget the game at the moment, but its a Revl war game. My opponent, playing as the Americans used every art unit in the game. in one hex, like a armored Div. needless to say, I got crushed by this tactic. So the questions is, without knowing how the game would react to this, is it gamey, or is it, say using Guns against people with bow and arrows.?