KB after PH strike

[ChezDaJez]

I know what you mean..., though I was on the opposite side. As the Allies I'd been stacking B-17's and LB-30's up in back areas and trying to limit myself to relatively historic levels. Then I found out how many Tony's my opponant had trained and deployed around Rabaul. About 200 of the 30-odd the Japanese actually built in 1942..., and no idea how many others were out there. After that I didn't worry much about trying to keep my excessive bombers out of the game.

My viewpoint is that wrong is wrong, no matter what side you are playing. Others want to "play with whatever toys tools the game gives them". The fact that the game has given them a chainsaw instead of the axe they were supposed to have historically doesn't bother them at all. To each his own....

It's funny. At first I was all in favor of PDU so that I could upgrade my Nates and Claudes faster. Didn't realize what the long term effect would be.Now I only favor PDU on if it is to be a lunacy type game where anything goes. I much prefer a game based on historical context. Doesn't matter to me whether I win or not, Japan will always lose the war against a competent player. The joy is in competition.

What's funnier is that when I bought the game, I wanted to be the Allied player because I didn't know very much about Japanese land forces or production, had never studied them. I was always drawn to the warships and aircraft on both sides. Fortunately, I couldn't find anyone who wanted to play the Japanese player so I said, "Oh, ok. I'll be the Japanese.. dang it!"

Now, I'm completely satisfied playing as the Japanese. There's just something about being the underdog and trying to stave off thousands of roundeyes intent on killing ya! I have learned so much more about the capabilities and limitations of the forces involved from playing the game, and much of that info came from this forum and our sometimes heated discussions.

I would highly recommend that every player play at least one game year as the Japanese and one as the Allies. I think this would go a long way towards understanding the capabilties of both sides in the game. So many players have misconceptions about what the other side can and cannot do because they have a strong affinity for one side or the other.

Chez

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

It's funny. At first I was all in favor of PDU so that I could upgrade my Nates and Claudes faster. Didn't realize what the long term effect would be.Now I only favor PDU on if it is to be a lunacy type game where anything goes. I much prefer a game based on historical context. Doesn't matter to me whether I win or not, Japan will always lose the war against a competent player. The joy is in competition.

What's funnier is that when I bought the game, I wanted to be the Allied player because I didn't know very much about Japanese land forces or production, had never studied them. I was always drawn to the warships and aircraft on both sides. Fortunately, I couldn't find anyone who wanted to play the Japanese player so I said, "Oh, ok. I'll be the Japanese.. dang it!"

Now, I'm completely satisfied playing as the Japanese. There's just something about being the underdog and trying to stave off thousands of roundeyes intent on killing ya! I have learned so much more about the capabilities and limitations of the forces involved from playing the game, and much of that info came from this forum and our sometimes heated discussions.

I would highly recommend that every player play at least one game year as the Japanese and one as the Allies. I think this would go a long way towards understanding the capabilties of both sides in the game. So many players have misconceptions about what the other side can and cannot do because they have a strong affinity for one side or the other.

Chez

Amen!

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Also given the rolls I've seen on PH attacks, staying for 5 days is fine as far as I am concerned. There just is no other way that the Japanese PH attack will come close to historical results.

So what should the historical results be??? In game terms all of three ships were sunk at Pearl Harbor... Arizona, Oklahoma and Utah. It takes you 6 strikes to sink three ships?


BB39 Arizona - one torpedo, eight bomb hits - Sunk
BB44 California - two torpedo hits, one bomb hit - "Sunk" - later raised in game terms not Sunk.
BB46 Maryland - two bomb hits - damaged
BB36 Nevada - one torp., 5 bombs - heavily damaged
BB37 Oklahoma - five torpedo hits - in game terms effectively Sunk
BB38 Pennsylvania - one bomb hit
BB 43 Tennessee - two bomb hits
BB 48 West Virginia - two bombs, 5-7 torps, "sunk" raised and later returned to service
CL 50 Helena - one torpedo
CL 48 One near bomb hit with collateral damage
CL 7 Raleigh - one torpedo and one bomb hit, heavily damaged.
DD 373 Shaw three bomb hits bow blown off
DD 372 one bomb hit one near miss heavily damaged
DD 375 Downes two bomb hits heavily damaged
DD 388 one bomb near by damaged
CM4 Oglala One torpedo, "sunk", raised and repaired
AV4 Curtiss - One bomb hit
YT9 Sotoyomo sunk, raised and repaired
AG16 Utah - two torpedos capsized left at bottom
AR4 Vestal two bomb hits heavily damaged
YFD-2 sunk, raised and repaired

Tree, I've run literally hundreds of turn 1's as Japan. In less than 10 percent, I sank a BB on the first day. In three days of attacks (I ran 100 games for three turns of attacks), I exceeded historical single day results less than 5 percent of the time (I inadvertently threw out the tally sheets and don't have them to reference). I think in 10 percent of trials, results met or exceeded historical results. Sure, I've seen an AAR or two where 7 or 8 BB's are sunk after multiple days, but they are extremely rare. It is important to note that while Allied BB losses are staying the same, the IJN is losing 3-4x as many air crews.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I know what you mean..., though I was on the opposite side. As the Allies I'd been stacking B-17's and LB-30's up in back areas and trying to limit myself to relatively historic levels. Then I found out how many Tony's my opponant had trained and deployed around Rabaul. About 200 of the 30-odd the Japanese actually built in 1942..., and no idea how many others were out there. After that I didn't worry much about trying to keep my excessive bombers out of the game.

My viewpoint is that wrong is wrong, no matter what side you are playing. Others want to "play with whatever toys tools the game gives them". The fact that the game has given them a chainsaw instead of the axe they were supposed to have historically doesn't bother them at all. To each his own....

It's funny. At first I was all in favor of PDU so that I could upgrade my Nates and Claudes faster. Didn't realize what the long term effect would be.Now I only favor PDU on if it is to be a lunacy type game where anything goes. I much prefer a game based on historical context. Doesn't matter to me whether I win or not, Japan will always lose the war against a competent player. The joy is in competition.

What's funnier is that when I bought the game, I wanted to be the Allied player because I didn't know very much about Japanese land forces or production, had never studied them. I was always drawn to the warships and aircraft on both sides. Fortunately, I couldn't find anyone who wanted to play the Japanese player so I said, "Oh, ok. I'll be the Japanese.. dang it!"

Now, I'm completely satisfied playing as the Japanese. There's just something about being the underdog and trying to stave off thousands of roundeyes intent on killing ya! I have learned so much more about the capabilities and limitations of the forces involved from playing the game, and much of that info came from this forum and our sometimes heated discussions.

I would highly recommend that every player play at least one game year as the Japanese and one as the Allies. I think this would go a long way towards understanding the capabilties of both sides in the game. So many players have misconceptions about what the other side can and cannot do because they have a strong affinity for one side or the other.

Chez

would highly recommend that every player play at least one game year as the Japanese and one as the Allies.

Great Idea - only problem is - I like you can never find anyone to play Allies - so I have always "had" to play Japanese !! [:D][:D]

[mlees]

would highly recommend that every player play at least one game year as the Japanese and one as the Allies.

Great Idea - only problem is - I like you can never find anyone to play Allies - so I have always "had" to play Japanese !!

Um. You can never find someone to play (against you) as Allies, so you have to play Japanese? *blinks confusedly*

[Nikademus]

I think he meant to say its "hard to find someone to play the Japan side"

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I think he meant to say its "hard to find someone to play the Japan side"

That's what I assumed too. I just wanted to insert a mental image in your minds of a bespectacled person blinking at you.

(I have a bushy moustache. I think I look a little like a sea otter with it.)

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Result from running "Historic" turn 1 scenario 15

Day Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 112,68

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 76
D3A Val x 126
B5N Kate x 143

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 4
P-26A x 5
P-36A Mohawk x 2
P-40B Tomahawk x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed, 4 damaged
D3A Val: 6 destroyed, 43 damaged
B5N Kate: 9 destroyed, 33 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 6 destroyed
P-26A: 7 destroyed
P-36A Mohawk: 11 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 43 destroyed
B-18A Bolo: 9 destroyed
PBY Catalina: 21 destroyed
SBD Dauntless: 6 destroyed
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed
A-20B Boston: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 9, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 5
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB California, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Helm, Bomb hits 1, on fire
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 3, on fire
DD Bagley, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Litchfield, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AK Alchiba, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DM Pruitt, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL Helena, Bomb hits 1
CL Detroit, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AV Curtiss, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Conyngham, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AV Tangier, Torpedo hits 1, on fire


Allied ground losses:
326 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Vehicles lost 1

Airbase hits 42
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 168

BB Oklahoma sunk (gone from game)
BB Arizona damage equal to being sunk and then raised.
(any ship with damage above 90 sys was most likley saved from sinking by the "raise sunk ship" routine.

Have to run next turn to see if any other ships sink (gone)
At least 3 BB will require over a year to repair (from time they reach west Coast repair yard)

Run the same test 100 times for three days of turns each. I have ( I forget which .exe version) - and the results are pathetic by historical standards. In most cases (>90%) the results were less than historical, even after 3 days. I used Scen 16 as my standard for historical results (100 + 100 + 99 + 99 + 75 + 15 + 15 + 15 = 518).
To classify as better than historical, total system damage on the BB's had to exceed 518 (sunk BB's counted as 100 system damage) or had to sink 2 BB's. Most of the three-day results that were "good" achieved that status by sinking 2 or more BB's, but left others relatively unscathed and the total sys damage was under 518. Around 5 three day trials bettered historical results in total system damage and BB's sunk. None of the first day results did, though one did sink 2 BB. At least one first day trial saw no strikes by KB (due to weather?).

One good result is not an indicator that all is well. You got 23 torpedo hits, which is a high number on average (I recorded torpedo hits on most of my trials and 23 is on the high end of the distribution). In your trial, you fell short of historical results. Your total sys damage is still only 410 (100 + 86 + 66 + 66 + 46 + 39 + 5 + 2). You have CA and TN basically undamaged, so you have 2 operational BB after you clear the float damage on CA. I recently started a game as the Allies, and my opponent's day 1 score was 0 BB's and 263 total sys damage. I have 3 BB operational and 5 that will require varying amounts of yard time. (Max is 58 sys damage)

[treespider]

Run the same test 100 times for three days of turns each. I have ( I forget which .exe version) - and the results are pathetic by historical standards. In most cases (>90%) the results were less than historical, even after 3 days. I used Scen 16 as my standard for historical results (100 + 100 + 99 + 99 + 75 + 15 + 15 + 15 = 518).
To classify as better than historical, total system damage on the BB's had to exceed 518 (sunk BB's counted as 100 system damage) or had to sink 2 BB's. Most of the three-day results that were "good" achieved that status by sinking 2 or more BB's, but left others relatively unscathed and the total sys damage was under 518. Around 5 three day trials bettered historical results in total system damage and BB's sunk. None of the first day results did, though one did sink 2 BB. At least one first day trial saw no strikes by KB (due to weather?).

One good result is not an indicator that all is well. You got 23 torpedo hits, which is a high number on average (I recorded torpedo hits on most of my trials and 23 is on the high end of the distribution). In your trial, you fell short of historical results. Your total sys damage is still only 410 (100 + 86 + 66 + 66 + 46 + 39 + 5 + 2). You have CA and TN basically undamaged, so you have 2 operational BB after you clear the float damage on CA. I recently started a game as the Allies, and my opponent's day 1 score was 0 BB's and 263 total sys damage. I have 3 BB operational and 5 that will require varying amounts of yard time. (Max is 58 sys damage)

Did you run your tests with historical CAP? IE stand down the aircraft at pearl with the exception of say one fighter group at 10% CAP for the first day.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The Betty groups will help in SRA more then KB. (KB are the pilots you don't want to lose) KB out of sight of Allied player holds back USN more then Betty deployed to Kwajalean where weather might betray you.
Splitting KB in 1942 is how I always lose IJN CV.

The Allied player always attempts to go where the Japanese are not. If KB is out of sight Allied player hides.

This is the first time, in all the endless yammering about the dearth of BBs sunk during GT1 attacks in this game, that I remember seeing this point mentioned. This is the central reason for the PH attack, to buy time. If some BBs are gone for good, that is a bonus. But an Arizona or two more or less in 1944 is, well, irrelevant.

[Terminus]

I thought you were irrelevant?

[tsimmonds]

L'etat, c'est Napoleon; l'irrelevant, c'est moi.

[Terminus]

Actually, Louis XIV was l'etat, but potayto, potahto...

[tsimmonds]

[:o]

but potayto, potahto...

.....Kartoffel, stoemp (yum!).