RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila

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: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila

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 >> RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 2:55:51 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Some really good discussion on the pros and cons....but ultimately, this is exactly why I prefer the 8 Dec start!

Don't POW and Repulse get Nettied to death on December 8th start? Ahistoric too. There's no getting away from it!

Only if you do the historical turn option - why would they get crushed with the Ahistorical? Unless of course the Allied player decides to run up the Malayan coast....not likely!

What I meant by this was that in the 'stock' December 8 'historical' start-the one that *should be* fair to Allies that decry exaggerated Japanese first move shenanigans, POW and Repulse will get Nettied to death. In this sense, this 'historical' setup is ahistorical. The two aforementioned ships didn't sortie and meet their ends until December 10.

So why this assumption of historical normatives is 'OK' with Allied players is beyond my ken. They're in essence agreeing to the same foolhardy disaster-hardcoded-that never happened on that date in history. As a Japanese player, they're agreeing to 4 BBs sunk (two at PH, two off Malaya) instead of two on December 7-8.

I'm left with the choice of spending 25+ hours setting up the first turn for Japan and getting middling results versus *no* hours on the first turn as Japan and getting wildly ahistorically generous results by assuming a December 8 start that's supposed to be historical. That's not a hard choice to make.

_____________________________

(in reply to IdahoNYer)

Post #: 61

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 2:57:40 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

I agree Trugrit, I missed the boat on this...that ship has sailed....the wind is not at my back....etc....

My thread has been hijacked.

Chickenboy, yes you are right, the Japanese DID see an eventual reach down into the south that would isolate Australia, but that was AFTER much activity... this thread was supposed to deal with an opening move. Remember it was also to be a "surprise" opening move. Trying to reach New Caledonia without being detected, let alone countered in some way would have been impossible.

Finally the Japanese high command DID consider attacking the US fleet at Manila, in fact it was THE prime target until some fool called Yamamoto dreamed up an attack on Pearl (believing it possible to torpedo ships in shallow water with short run times for the torpedoes, WHAT was he thinking.... oh yes, I forgot, the British Swordfish).....

(in reply to Trugrit)

Post #: 62

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 3:07:19 PM

ITAKLinus

Posts: 630
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal
I was interested in options that were actually considered by the planners in '41

IIRC, IJ capture of Samoa and New Caledonia were very much considered by the planners in 1941-1942. Obviously, Port Moresby was a fixture of their planning until mid-1942. Occupation of parts of Australia was also considered, but shelved because of infeasibility by the IJA.

The IJA may have had such plans, but I read somewhere that the IJN was much less sure it could support them. Yamamoto was not happy about being forced to go as far as Port Moresby since he could not get all of his fleet ready in time. So Shoho, Shokaku and Zuikaku went to Coral Sea, got whacked and were not available for the Midway operation that Yamamoto did want to support.

We are coming back again to my example previously made of the guy who fell from high altitude with no parachute and survived.

I agree that it was unfeasbile in line of priciple. But same goes with the usual massive reinforcements sent by the allies from all over the world. Allied players usually make a priority of sending extremely strong reinforcements in the area, something which hasn't been done in reality.

It's again a matter of accepting historical behaviours for both parties or for none. I have yet to see somebody sending the 18th UK Division to Singapore when it's evident that it will get slaugthered. Nobody does that.
And so? Under an historical point of view there is little justification to do so. Same goes with Force Z, which never gets nailed if the allied player can move its TFs on day-1.

Now, on 7th Dec there are many wild moves which are possible, but if the Allied player doesn't want to accept them because of historical feasability and so on, he should do the same when the Japanese player presents its arguments for a-historical Allied behaviours. It's a muddy ground and I prefer to solve it not caring at all since there are little (to none) clear parameters to judge these things. Also, I firmly believe that they do matter relatively little in the overall results of the match. Finally, acting with hindsight and doing things which weren't feasible under logistical or political points of view, is somehow balanced: both the players get something (with a much stronger impact on the allied side from my perspective).

In other words, drawing the line is very complex and most of the players I have met haven't been collaborative at all when something from their very approach was hurting them instead of me. On both sides of the barricade, it's not just an Allied problem.

I find an invasion of India totally unfeasible. Totally. A-historical to the maximum extent. But... One could argue that the invasion begins and the allied are caught by surprise and that the centrifugal political movements are not displayed in the game but they are playing a huge role etcetcetc
Same goes with allied players reinforcing like there is no tomorrow areas that they know now in 2019 that have been strategically relevant in the war. At that time, nobody gave a f@ck about Tulagi&co for example. We cannot say the same of many matches in witp ae.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 63

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 3:18:46 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

I find an invasion of India totally unfeasible. Totally. A-historical to the maximum extent.

ITAKLinus,

I agree, once the game starts, there is considerable historical insight on both sides such that many traps are avoided. However, on pain of being accused of repetition, I was simply asking about opening moves. Once one goes beyond that, history is out the window. Many Allied players do a "Sir Robin" on Singapore. In "reality" this was simply POLITICALLY not possible for Churchill, as it would have brought down his government. But most Allied players realize that trying to save Singapore is not feasible, thus your remark about the British reinforcements. This game only VERY loosely tries to emulate political considerations by the political point system. It doesn't do major political considerations at all, nor should it. I like the free flow of the game after the start. It was the start I was trying to bring into focus.

(in reply to ITAKLinus)

Post #: 64

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 3:34:31 PM

ITAKLinus

Posts: 630
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

I find an invasion of India totally unfeasible. Totally. A-historical to the maximum extent.

ITAKLinus,

I agree, once the game starts, there is considerable historical insight on both sides such that many traps are avoided. However, on pain of being accused of repetition, I was simply asking about opening moves. Once one goes beyond that, history is out the window. Many Allied players do a "Sir Robin" on Singapore. In "reality" this was simply POLITICALLY not possible for Churchill, as it would have brought down his government. But most Allied players realize that trying to save Singapore is not feasible, thus your remark about the British reinforcements. This game only VERY loosely tries to emulate political considerations by the political point system. It doesn't do major political considerations at all, nor should it. I like the free flow of the game after the start. It was the start I was trying to bring into focus.

I see what you mean and I agree. My entire point being that the a-historical feasability is not only for 7-dec and goes on all along the game.

I think that wild moves with magic TFs* are just wrong and when I play allied they are a PITA. But, on the other side, they can accomplish their intended results even few days after 7-dec (example being landing on Noumea on 8th Dec) and they still remain something, at least, imaginative.

Now, on 7-dec strikes I generally adopt the following HR:
- Only ONE port attack on 7-dec, whatever the type of plane making this attack (also LBA then)
- No US CV hunt
- No landings in any base which starts with CD (don't ask me why, but I came to the conclusion it's easier to draw this line in the sand than making lists)
- Allied players are allowed to move already created TFs outsite the co-prosperity sphere (if I play allied) or any TF (if I play Japan).
- No allied moves apart from the afromentioned already created TFs and of course China.

I find the whole "max 1 port strike" a good compromise because it prevents having both Manila and PH trashed. Since it brings a choice between the two, it's quite easy to say that Japanese leadership wanted to get rid of Manila as a threat and support its advance into the DEI, avoiding the high-risk strike on the battleship row.

Eventually, it somehow obliges Japan to make a strategic decision so that it is justifiable either strike: in Manila case, as said above, the Japanese leadership takes a conservative decision, in PH case they go historical.
My main reason of preferring a strike on Manila over the one on PH is that I do not care much of Pacific Theater as Japan and I prefer to secure DEI ASAP smashing through with KB support.

Also, as Allied player I am quite a-historical under many points of view, but less on the general picture. To explain further, from day-1 my allied leadership forgot "europe first" and went wild for a "burma first" strategy. Now, it's totally a-historical but I find that more historical than many allied players who do the mentioned Sir Robin (I intentionally redirected Force Z on Mersing on 8th Dec because I found that it would have been a reasonable desperation move by the guys in Singapore. They both sank miserably, of course).

I guess that magic TFs* movement is difficoult to limit if somebody wants to exploit it. Another rule of thumb for a Japanese player could be "dont' land on 7-dec somewhere where you wouldn't land on 8th." Meaning that the Singapore landing on day-1 can be done on 7-Dec but already on 8th it's quite tricky to accomplish. Landing massively on Wake and taking it is instead somehow fine with me: I see that in any case the magic movement hasn't changed the result, just anticipated it of few days.

In this case it's up to the Japanese player to auto-limit himself. My landing on Noumea on 8-Dec, for example, is not that bad under this point of view: finally, landing few days after wouldn't have changed much. Landing in Singapore, instead, is no go for me. But, again, it's me: with all the evidence of the world my emey has thought differently when he landed there

< Message edited by ITAKLinus -- 12/5/2019 3:36:57 PM >

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 65

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 3:42:09 PM

ITAKLinus

Posts: 630
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

Just a side note.

Got few turns as "test" with an opponent and he hasn't touched any american ship, LCU or plane. He was claiming, for fun of course, that the US should have been out of the war.

That's quite funny if you think that under an historical point of view, it is true to say that a "shy" Japanese opening wouldn't have triggered war with US immediately.

Again, he was claiming that for fun and we had just few turns as a test to see whether every file was compatible. Still, it remained in my mind as an example of how things can go wild: he was right in what he claimed, technically.

Little OT: has anyone thought about that in an actual game?

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to ITAKLinus)

Post #: 66

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 4:58:47 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Those are massive advantages that a vaguely competent Japanese player (ie me!) can go way further than what was possible

So you do need to have some house rules to counter balance that (IMHO of course)

In my last couple PBEMs, I have started this discussion before December 7 first turn. My most frequent 'suggestion' involves foreswearing the 'magic move' in exchange for foreswearing funky game mechanics. Example: I vow not to land on Palembang and Java on turn one with a division and a half of troops if the Allies vow to not pack Palembang full of British infantry and live off of the oil field / refinery supply production. I've yet to hear any resistance to this congenial like-minded exchange.

Now that I completely agree with.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 67

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 5:10:36 PM

Trugrit

Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Chickenboy,

I set it up for you.

Here is the Pearl Harbor Historical attack with surprise.
The two CV's with their escorts are in port.

A bad day for the Allies.

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 96 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 68
B5N2 Kate x 144
D3A1 Val x 126

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 8 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 13 destroyed by flak
B5N2 Kate: 7 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 3 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 11 damaged
D3A1 Val: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
P-36A Mohawk: 1 destroyed, 38 damaged
P-36A Mohawk: 4 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 35 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 3 destroyed on ground
A-20A Havoc: 11 damaged
A-20A Havoc: 5 destroyed on ground
PBY-5 Catalina: 126 damaged
PBY-5 Catalina: 15 destroyed on ground
B-18A Bolo: 46 damaged
B-18A Bolo: 3 destroyed on ground
O-47A: 5 damaged
O-47A: 4 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 5 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed on ground
SBD-1 Dauntless: 30 damaged
SBD-1 Dauntless: 8 destroyed on ground
C-33: 1 damaged
C-33: 1 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 77 damaged
P-40B Warhawk: 14 destroyed on ground
F4F-3 Wildcat: 4 damaged
F4F-3 Wildcat: 3 destroyed on ground
R3D-2: 1 damaged
R3D-2: 1 destroyed on ground
OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB California, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CV Enterprise, Torpedo hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Lexington, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CL Helena, Bomb hits 1
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
DM Tracy, Bomb hits 1
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DM Gamble, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 1
DD MacDonough, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Gridley, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
CA Chester, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1
AR Medusa, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CA Portland, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1
AE Mauna Loa, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
AS Pelias, Torpedo hits 1
CA Northampton, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CL Raleigh, Torpedo hits 1
DD Allen, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CA Astoria, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DMS Zane, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 1
CL Honolulu, Torpedo hits 1

Allied ground losses:
17 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Repair Shipyard hits 4
Airbase hits 44
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 68

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x A6M2 Zero bombing from 100 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
14 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
City Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
7 x A6M2 Zero bombing from 100 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
7 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
24 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
City Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
18 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
18 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
7 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
13 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
10 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
14 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
10 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
City Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
15th PG/46th PS with P-36A Mohawk (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 10000.
Raid is overhead

Training flight from 15th PG/46th PS has been caught up in attack
Magazine explodes on BB West Virginia

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 68

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 6:34:19 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

You can easily do both as has already been mentioned.

Add Kaga to the DEI and you've got more than enough to damage both Manila based subs and PH based units and aircraft.

I've 'sandboxed' adding Kaga to the mKB/Nell/Betty/Sally bombardment mix on Manila. The tricky bit with the subs is that you've got to overpower them and sink them on turn one or it's no go. Merely damaged ones that aren't sunk will scatter and limp to Singapore or Soerbaja and frequently live to fight another day. IMO merely adding Kaga won't produce sufficient overkill to sink the subs.

+1

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 69

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 6:58:14 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I think what is more important to be honest is that the starting knowledge that the Japanese have

- They know that China can be taken out completely

- They know how weak the Allies are in certain sectors

- They have the invasion bonus till April 1st

Those are massive advantages that a vaguely competent Japanese player (ie me!) can go way further than what was possible

So you do need to have some house rules to counter balance that (IMHO of course)

Basically though that should be restricted to No carrier hunting, allowing existing TFs to move and no unrealistic invasions (the post above in which the Japanese invaded Singapore on Turn 0 is a case in point. That just wasn't going to happen under any circumstances without the allies getting at least a couple of days warning)

But just want to echo what has been said above.

As long as you are clear at the start about what sort of game you want to play, then you should have no problem finding an opponent that shares your view.

I didn't invade on S on turn 0, I just ringed S with carriers so no escape. The sun came up and there they were. Taking S took some time, but less than historical. Instead of landing all that stuff in Northern Malaya, I landed at Johore Bahru and Malacca, cutting S off.

Nothing happened at Pearl or Manila so there was no warning, the War started at Singapore.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 12/5/2019 7:04:41 PM >

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 70

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 8:03:16 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I agree, once the game starts, there is considerable historical insight on both sides such that many traps are avoided. However, on pain of being accused of repetition, I was simply asking about opening moves. Once one goes beyond that, history is out the window. Many Allied players do a "Sir Robin" on Singapore. In "reality" this was simply POLITICALLY not possible for Churchill, as it would have brought down his government. But most Allied players realize that trying to save Singapore is not feasible, thus your remark about the British reinforcements. This game only VERY loosely tries to emulate political considerations by the political point system. It doesn't do major political considerations at all, nor should it. I like the free flow of the game after the start. It was the start I was trying to bring into focus.

Historical Reality according to such experts as Jonathan Parshall / Richard Frank /etc
** their books, various USN academy lectures on You Tube,

1) The Japanese Empire was shocked by its early success's

2) It suffered 'mere scratches' militarily - relatively speaking to the empire captured.

3) They achieved their 'entire war' objectives within 6 months

4) In order to invade Guadalcanal and points further south the IJN / IJA relied on captured British Empire Maps of the 19th Century that in many instances 'made up the topography' of the island so long as the coast lines were accurate. In other words even the Empire lacked reliable Pacific Intelligence . (The IJN / Allied Game Player on the other hand have 100% accurate intelligence)

5) In the initial advances of the Imperial Forces - Japan conquered some of the best most developed Airbases and Port Facilities in the Pacific Ocean. Hong Kong / Singapore / Palembang. It was from these developed facilities that they were further able to project power forward. The empire never had in 1941 - nor developed sufficient - the advanced capability of "SeeBees" or military construction units with bulldozers / earth movers / etc.
(i) The Japanese ability to advance may have been possible based on shipping.
(ii) The Japanese ability to develop a base to pose a significant threat to SLOC / Allied Forces must be questioned.
(iii) The Japanese ability to "persistently supply" far flung bases with merchant shipping available - even in 1941 - 1943 must also be questioned.**

**Ian Tolls 2nd book of the Pacific War breaks down the merchant capacity engaged just to supply Guadalcanal during 42/43. I do not recall the exact amount but it was a ridiculous percentage of merchant shipping for the 1 + Divisions present. Furthermore the Guadalcanal forces essentially starved to death (a significant portion).

So when we opine about IJN invasions and expansion that the game allows - what we know from History is:

The Imperial Japanese Army was China-Centric and viewed Soviets as the greatest threat.

The Imperial Japanese Navy was Pacific-Centric and viewed Americans / British as the greatest threat.

1) An Invasion of Australia was considered - nixed by the IJArmy

2) An Invasion of India - specifically Ceylon was considered and the Empire fostered active anti British sentiment in anticipation of

3) Invasions deep into the South Pacific were planned vis a vis success at Midway.

They "might have been taken". They could have been held for a period but the capability to develop and supply those expansions must be seriously questioned.

< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 12/5/2019 8:06:00 PM >

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 71

RE: First Turn, Pearl vs. Manila - 12/5/2019 9:01:36 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus
My entire point being that the a-historical feasability is not only for 7-dec and goes on all along the game.

Yes quite right. Thus I believe the "advantage" to one side or the other is cancelled out in further play, thus my focus on the first turn alternatives. Certainly both sides can exploit knowledge during the first moves. A number of you have cited the PoW and Repulse going on their death ride. Yes this happened on the AM of the 10th, why the game sets them up to do it on the 8th (remember the International Date Line) is beyond me, but it does. SO, I think it's within the realm of possibilities that the TF doesn't sail north to its death but south to fight another day. The British admiral in charge was no fool, just totally ignorant of the Japanese capabilities of flying torpedo bombers such great distances (his yardstick was the Swordfish for goodness sake!) and thus he thought keeping to the Malaysian coast would be enough to keep his ships out of harms way. Again our 20/20 vision of hindsight allows the Allied player to avoid this "trap". So all in all both sides take advantage of history and lessons learned before their real counterparts even knew there were lessons to be learned!

(in reply to ITAKLinus)

Post #: 72