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: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank**

 
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: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/4/2010 1:40:28 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		True but the strikes on the PI (especially Clarke) mid-morning 8th of Dec (other side of the international date line) managed to catch the US completely by surprise even though the base had had definite confirmation of the raid on PH beforehand.
The reasons for this have been discussed, debated and argued about ever since.  Nobody has quite come up with a valid explanation

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 31
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/4/2010 2:54:35 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
Sure they have. Mac was an idiot.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 32
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/4/2010 3:07:00 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		That's a good point Chickenboy I hadn't thought of; how could you do a dawn sneak attack at Pearl and Manila simultaneously?

You can't. Now, USAAFE forces WERE caught on the ground in the event, but they knew there was a war on. Was the Asiatic Fleet in a similar state of unreadiness? Would a Nettie port attack on Cavite been effective? I think probably not, as they were readying for sea.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 33
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/4/2010 3:18:03 PM   
vlcz


Posts: 387
Joined: 8/24/2009
From: Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Either the Phillipines have ~8 hours to get ready or the Hawaiian islands have about 16 hours to get ready-IJN


well..I think the japanese had the technology to avoid so a big difference in timing (a clock and a abacus would suffice ) .... A perfect timing is imposible for sure (so bye bye total surprise ) but 8 hours...

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 34
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/4/2010 4:00:14 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Sure they have. Mac was an idiot.

No argument there, but even his idiocy was insufficient to bend the principles of quantum mechanics.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 35
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/4/2010 4:01:39 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Was the Asiatic Fleet in a similar state of unreadiness? Would a Nettie port attack on Cavite been effective? I think probably not, as they were readying for sea.

Don't think it was so unready. I believe that they were making way or (the SS) had submerged in the harbor by then.

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 36
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/4/2010 4:04:34 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Now, USAAFE forces WERE caught on the ground in the event, but they knew there was a war on.

Also, didn't Clark get pounded later in the morning. IIRC, the AF did scramble ASAP in the morning, only to get pounded when they returned to base later that morning.

Although this initial early foray by the USAAFE was unsuccessful, it does indicate that morning attacks by the PI-based planes should be permitted if one elects for an attack on Hawaii.

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 37
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/4/2010 5:01:48 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		I have a quick question regarding Singapore. I have no idea what the fortifications level is, but does the game take into account the fact the defences were focused on a seaborne attack and not inland, making it a much weaker base in reality?

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 38
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/4/2010 8:16:37 PM   
undercovergeek

 

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		need to check something with you guys - with a bit of swapping around and jiggery pokery i can land the 65th brigade, a snlf or two and a base force at Balikpapan on turn 1 - is this fair and right? too aggressive? too gamey?

remember the strategy is to go take what it is i came for - oilfields and the strategic capitals of the zones involved - Sing, Palembang, Soerbaja, Balikpapan and Miri it cuts off a huge detour and means the 4 divisions tasked to taking the javan/sumatran capitals dont have so far to go - on the last test run against the AI 3 midgets broke into Pearl but no torps exploded - gutted!

Forgot to add - by moving all the Nates and Oscars to Patani on turn 1 the Nates provided an excellent LRCAP over Kuantan and the Oscars and Zeros LRCAPped Mersing - in the end no hits were scored on the landing craft and many a Vildebeest and Swordfish met their doom - the 3rd Air HQ and the 22 Air Flotilla HQ are headed to Patani to fix whats broke and then everyone will move to the new airbase at Kuantan.

Does anyone know if by sitting at Johore Bharu ive cut the supply line to Sing or do i need Malacca?

< Message edited by undercovergeek -- 2/4/2010 8:19:13 PM >

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 39
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/4/2010 8:22:37 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

need to check something with you guys - with a bit of swapping around and jiggery pokery i can land the 65th brigade, a snlf or two and a base force at Balikpapan on turn 1 - is this fair and right? too aggressive? too gamey?

remember the strategy is to go take what it is i came for - oilfields and the strategic capitals of the zones involved - Sing, Palembang, Soerbaja, Balikpapan and Miri it cuts off a huge detour and means the 4 divisions tasked to taking the javan/sumatran capitals dont have so far to go - on the last test run against the AI 3 midgets broke into Pearl but no torps exploded - gutted!


I think it's gamey, only because I don't see how a transport force could get that deep into the DEI without detection.




_____________________________


(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 40
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/4/2010 8:25:14 PM   
Mikeydz

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 8/29/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: bigbaba

just a question from someone who never played japanese in AE:

why not attacking PH with the KB AND manila via zero escorted IJN LBA from formosa like in WITP?

this way, you can get your BBs at pearl AND the nasty subs at manila.


There are a variety of HRs against this.

Personally, I think that the IJ only should be able to port attack on turn one on only one side of the International Date Line. Either the Phillipines have ~8 hours to get ready or the Hawaiian islands have about 16 hours to get ready-IJN choice-but it's unreasonable to expect that both would attacks would surprise the allies. Metaphysics and time/space continuum and all that...

In effecting my Manila strike I also throw the Formosa bombers into the mix, hitting Clark and Manila again, in addition to the KB strikes on the latter. I think you need lots of numbers of bombers to get most of the subs at Manila-I doubt the Formosa bombers would be sufficient by themselves.



The house rule in my games I have going right now is no more than 1 port attack on day 1 unless in the same time zone, which would be similar in concept to Cbs date line rule. Since 2 day turns seem to be popular, the way to hit PH and Manila in the 1st 2 day turn is set up your LBAs to night attack, that way they go in on the night phase of 12/08. But unless you get really really lucky with your LBAs, you'll never wipe out the Allied sub fleet at Manila unless you use KB. The best result I got using KB in some test games against Manila was 25 of 27 subs sunk (37% of the active 12/7/41 Allied sub fleet) At best, a full blown assault with LBAs against Manila (assuming no house rule) probably does at best half that.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 41
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/5/2010 9:38:04 AM   
undercovergeek

 

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		but i can get from Samah to Mersing, Takao to Kuantan without been seen, and even HI to Pearl!!!

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 42
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/5/2010 1:37:38 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		MacArthur was not an idiot - his biographer said so.  He was always being let down by 'lesser men'.  And he could have held the PI in '42 if he'd received all of the reinforcements that he'd demanded from Washington (and, to be fair, they'd promised him without realising he'd asked for more than were present in the entire Pacific theatre)
Actually though the blame as to why all the planes were on Clarke AF runway bombed up and ready to go but no CAP and nobody actually going anywhere on Dec 8th has never been put to rest.  I shall have to look up the precise details of what was supposed to have happened and then post them here,  although even the details are disputed.

(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 43
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/5/2010 2:13:57 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

MacArthur was not an idiot - his biographer said so.  He was always being let down by 'lesser men'.  And he could have held the PI in '42 if he'd received all of the reinforcements that he'd demanded from Washington (and, to be fair, they'd promised him without realising he'd asked for more than were present in the entire Pacific theatre)
Actually though the blame as to why all the planes were on Clarke AF runway bombed up and ready to go but no CAP and nobody actually going anywhere on Dec 8th has never been put to rest.  I shall have to look up the precise details of what was supposed to have happened and then post them here,  although even the details are disputed.


He wasn't an idiot. He did have some Greek god-sized character deficiencies, but stupidity wasn't one of them. Apparently he wasn't so great at choosing commanders and staff, but American performance was patchy in all parts of the world--lots of commanders in over their heads. In his case, he had a famous aviator commanding his air assets (Lewis Brereton) who was not on top of events.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 44
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/5/2010 3:30:30 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

MacArthur was not an idiot - his biographer said so.  He was always being let down by 'lesser men'.  And he could have held the PI in '42 if he'd received all of the reinforcements that he'd demanded from Washington (and, to be fair, they'd promised him without realising he'd asked for more than were present in the entire Pacific theatre)
Actually though the blame as to why all the planes were on Clarke AF runway bombed up and ready to go but no CAP and nobody actually going anywhere on Dec 8th has never been put to rest.  I shall have to look up the precise details of what was supposed to have happened and then post them here,  although even the details are disputed.


He wasn't an idiot. He did have some Greek god-sized character deficiencies, but stupidity wasn't one of them. Apparently he wasn't so great at choosing commanders and staff, but American performance was patchy in all parts of the world--lots of commanders in over their heads. In his case, he had a famous aviator commanding his air assets (Lewis Brereton) who was not on top of events.

Ah, I see. So it's back to the fault of his underlings, is it? Well then, whose fault was it that Mac bailed out of Bataan and left Wainwright holding the (emaciated) bag? No, wait...lemmee guess-he only did that on orders from Washington. He had no personal interest in evacuating his family or his own being from the theater, but really was hoping to die with his men? Please.

Macarthur wasn't an idiot per se, but was self-serving in all respects and frequently did a poor job at generalship. His imperious attitude served us poorly in SW Pac and in relations with our commonwealth allies, upon whom so much hinged in the early going. Later in his career, his delusions of grandeur and outright insubordination nearly led to use of nuclear weapons against China in Korea and eventually required his dismissal.

Mercifully, his imperial and god-sized ego served him well as Governor of Japan post-war. It's strange, but most Japanese remember Macarthur with fondness as a governor...

His attacks up P/NG and outmanuevering of the Japanese bastions were laudable goals and performed well enough, but on balance, he's totally overrated. No, not an idiot, but very very deeply flawed and occasionally incompetent.

_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 45
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/5/2010 3:52:26 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		Chickenboy, are you looking to stir up an argument? Please read what I wrote. I might add that Brereton wasn't necessarily a bad general; he just had a bad day. On the other hand, he may not have been a great general. See the story about Fermi at the end of this article and also the discussion of aces here. Perhaps the same thing might be said of MacArthur.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 46
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/5/2010 4:04:09 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

MacArthur was not an idiot - his biographer said so.  He was always being let down by 'lesser men'.  And he could have held the PI in '42 if he'd received all of the reinforcements that he'd demanded from Washington (and, to be fair, they'd promised him without realising he'd asked for more than were present in the entire Pacific theatre)
Actually though the blame as to why all the planes were on Clarke AF runway bombed up and ready to go but no CAP and nobody actually going anywhere on Dec 8th has never been put to rest.  I shall have to look up the precise details of what was supposed to have happened and then post them here,  although even the details are disputed.


I just finished Manchester's biography of MacArthur. Facinating man. Complex....brilliant....flawed....he was one of those larger than life figures one occasionally hears and reads about. It proves once more the merit i've often held in staying out of threads regarding famous military leaders. Too easy to pay lip service to generalizations and myths. I found it a very interesting contrast to how this same man was portrayed by Hastings in his last book. D'este's bio on Patton was similarily revealing.

Anyway....one of Mac's biggest issues had nothing to do with his military prowess which on the strategic level, may truely have had few peers. His issue was that he could never admit to a mistake. In this he was like Montgomery though the reasoning was different. (Monty feared attacks on his position and status....Mac's ego simply did not allow that he might on occasion be "wrong")

As such the debacle of Dec10 may never be fully known but ultimately Mac was be held accountable to a large degree. This being said, he also orchestrated the brilliant fighting withdraw to Bataan, aided by his near photographic memory and intimate knowledge of the terrain, having personally scouted it well in advance of the Japanese attack of Dec7. His was the energy of a man half his age.

Biggest myth bust too was the irony of one of his most well known derogatory names...."Dugout Doug". In fact, he was brave almost to a point of stupidity, and risked his life numerous times making appearances at the front. He was also reputed to watch air raids out in the open vs. huddling in his "dugout" as many of his men derisively thought. I'm currently reading a book on the Hurtgen and it was interesting to read an account of Omar Bradley scrambling for the rear area after a sniper shot his driver. MacArthur would have just looked, and kept on observing and touring the front.



_____________________________


(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 47
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/5/2010 11:36:54 PM   
dasboot1960


Posts: 389
Joined: 8/2/2009
From: St Augustine, Florida
Status: offline 		What the hell, I've got two cents. IMO Mac would've better served everybody by following the plan - stock Bataan and stick it out. The US Army history manages to point out glaring deficiencies in prior stocking, and materials that got left behind without tarring him very much at all. I'm ditto-head on the personal bravery points - there are repeated references throughout his career. He WAS 'just following orders' when he pulled out - face the fact. All this said, I think his ego led to earlier than 'might have been' defeat in the PI. When one considers the drastic straits the IJ army fell into prior to finally being reinforced enough to subdue Bataan, I think a breakout wasn't very far-fetched. As to Brereton.... isn't this the guy who Kenney (5th air force) marked a pencil point on a blank sheet of paper and said (something like) "this dot represents what you know about employment of air power; the remainder of the page represents what I know". The Manila vs PH argument is starting to gain traction with me (I'm having better than expected allied sub results in my PBEM as ally) But the HR based on the time zones kind of wrankles - the allied command proved themselves capable of enough bad luck, inattention to detail, and other deficiencies that I'm not sure the ally in a GAME should have any claim as to what is 'impossible'. I'll spare you good gentlemen my game vs simulation rant.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 48
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/6/2010 4:07:14 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		I supose the dual port strke also goes with Force Z , if it sets sail then it is the next day  . If you only allow 1 port strike i would say few units are allowed to be moved , if you allow 2 strikes you must allow some movement.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to dasboot1960)
Post #: 49
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/6/2010 4:33:18 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		Regarding the egotistical generals . these flaws dont make you a bad general, the more famous geman generals Guderian , Rommel , Kesselring  etc had some big egos  also...We can add WWI Foch and the Hague and Napolean ...Planet sized egos go with the teritory.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 50
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/6/2010 7:32:48 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Regarding the egotistical generals . these flaws dont make you a bad general, the more famous geman generals Guderian , Rommel , Kesselring  etc had some big egos  also...We can add WWI Foch and the Hague and Napolean ...Planet sized egos go with the teritory.

Agreed. With Mac, it was more a hinderance than most.

_____________________________


(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 51
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/6/2010 10:36:28 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline 		Two thoughts about the whole PI and Manila issue here.

First the historical issue of why little CAP was up. There was CAP up at dawn and for a few hours as the USAAF was expecting an attack. Bad weather on Formosa delayed the Japanese from launching for a few hours. Therefore the attack came just as the the US fighters were cycling to land to refuel. It was a combination of incredible bad luck and poor operations. The fault lies in the fighter commanders for not rotating the CAP. That said the US was very ill prepared for war in terms of how they trained. They had not developed the operational skills necessary to fight the war. In truth, in many cases it was late '42 before the US was up to speed. While Mac did bugger the Luzon defense, all he really could have bought was some more time. The Allies were in no position to reinforce the PI in early 1942. Even if Mac had been able to hold off Homma, the Japanese would just have sent in more troops.

As to the whole bombing Manila on turn 1, I think it is one of the gamiest things a Japanese player can do. That is only if there is a PH attack. Now if there is no PH attack then go for it. Why couldn't PH have been Manilla? The High Command could have told Yamamoto no. It was a risky operation and it could have gone badly for the Japanese. We know what the outcome was but they didn't beforehand. This is one reason I prefer the December 8th start. So many variables are in play that I feel for historical relevancy the game is best started on the 8th. I sincerely doubt the American public would have been galvanized by the slogan, "Remember Manila Bay".

Just my two cents worth.

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 52
RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** - 2/8/2010 1:47:03 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		NOthing wrong with a general having an over-inflated opinion of himself and his own abilities,  but what distinguishes MacArthur were :
(1). His flair for publicity and self-promotion.  There have been few equals in history,  in another era he would have been a brilliant PR-man.
(2). His inability to admit his mistakes.  Only Russian leaders shared this conception (and usually found a way to blame and punish subordinates)

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 53
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Japanese strategy - turn 1 *** no Yank** Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.672