PI Subs

[vettim89]

Seeing some AAR's where JFB like to attack both PH and Manila on day one. I think doing both is a bit gamey because of the time difference. Still as long as the possibility exists, people will do it. So I thought about if the Devs had it right as far as the USN Asiatic Fleet subs go. At present two subs (both S-boats) are at sea at game's start (scenario 1 although I would assume this would be true of scenario 2 also). Those are indeed the correct positions for those two boats. All the rest of the boats are in port in Manila which is wrong. First the glaring errors

USS Salmon was at sea off the west coast of Luzon on 7/8 Dec 1941
USS Snapper was at sea in bound to Manila (she actually arrived ther on the 8th)
USS Sturgeon was at Mariveles Harbor (game location Bataan not Manila)
USS Porpoise was at Olongapo undergoing refit - should start with some syst damage (game location Clark Field)

That alone should reduce the number of SS at Manila from 27 to 23. Now of those remaining 23, eight are listed as having departed on 8 December 1941 (Stingray, S-38, S-41, Sailfish, Sargo, Saury, Seawolf, and Pike). The remaining fifteen departed over the next week except for Sealion which was sunk at Cavite on 14 December.

In my mind, those eight subs should be at Manila but already in TF's. They would be exempt from the port attack but would not be at sea for game purposes. While this would not guarantee a port attack on turn one, it certainly would decrease the Japanese player's ability to cream the entire Asiatic Fleet Sub force before they could react.

If I ever do a mod, this will be what I would do. I also would probably just list Porpoise as a reinforcement arriving on 20 December as that is when her engines were put back together and she arrived at Manila. Optionally if using stock scenarios historic first turn off, the Allied player should be allowed to form up to eight sub TFat Manila but with no orders. Also the four other subs should be allowed to be put to sea.

[jeffs]

Since it is a a non historical start, you can have an HR that allows you to put some subs to sea before the war begins...
I agree the IJN could not have bagged all of them....

[John 3rd]

Since I LOVE to hit those SS in Manila, we brokered (in our 2x2) the chance for anywhere between 2-12 SS being exempt from attack by a HR. This worked pretty well as the Allies were allowed to form-up 12 subs that avoided the attack. Sort of see this as the Asiatic Fleet having a chance to have its act together FAR BETTER then Dugout Doug's Far Eastern Air Force!

Our House Rules pertaining to subject:
1. 1st turn can have multiple port attacks, but ONLY from carriers. Manila and Singapore may have Fighters up and on CAP. Cannot transfer new Squadrons reflecting prior knowledge.

4. Manila subs can form TF based on a date/time stamp (use the last digit in a pre-determined e-mail). Since this may be the second port attack, the last digit in the time (hh:mm:ss) is used to determine how many subs can form TF

Rule 1 allows for Fighters to be flying CAP (allowing for time change) and Rule 4 gets some SS out of there in a random manner.

Our .02!

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Since I LOVE to hit those SS in Manila, we brokered (in our 2x2) the chance for anywhere between 2-12 SS being exempt from attack by a HR. This worked pretty well as the Allies were allowed to form-up 12 subs that avoided the attack. Sort of see this as the Asiatic Fleet having a chance to have its act together FAR BETTER then Dugout Doug's Far Eastern Air Force!

Our House Rules pertaining to subject:
1. 1st turn can have multiple port attacks, but ONLY from carriers. Manila and Singapore may have Fighters up and on CAP. Cannot transfer new Squadrons reflecting prior knowledge.

4. Manila subs can form TF based on a date/time stamp (use the last digit in a pre-determined e-mail). Since this may be the second port attack, the last digit in the time (hh:mm:ss) is used to determine how many subs can form TF

Rule 1 allows for Fighters to be flying CAP (allowing for time change) and Rule 4 gets some SS out of there in a random manner.

Our .02!

Seems quite a fair compromise. Quite the cooincidence when you consider that your twelve sub TF's exactly matches the four that were not there plus the eight that left on 7/8 December 1941.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Since I LOVE to hit those SS in Manila, we brokered (in our 2x2) the chance for anywhere between 2-12 SS being exempt from attack by a HR. This worked pretty well as the Allies were allowed to form-up 12 subs that avoided the attack. Sort of see this as the Asiatic Fleet having a chance to have its act together FAR BETTER then Dugout Doug's Far Eastern Air Force!

Our House Rules pertaining to subject:
1. 1st turn can have multiple port attacks, but ONLY from carriers. Manila and Singapore may have Fighters up and on CAP. Cannot transfer new Squadrons reflecting prior knowledge.

4. Manila subs can form TF based on a date/time stamp (use the last digit in a pre-determined e-mail). Since this may be the second port attack, the last digit in the time (hh:mm:ss) is used to determine how many subs can form TF

Rule 1 allows for Fighters to be flying CAP (allowing for time change) and Rule 4 gets some SS out of there in a random manner.

Our .02!

I suppose for IJ players starting with a fantasy OOB with 50% more aircraft carriers than IRL in service, this may be an option. For most that play with a realistic OOB, the choice will generally be an EITHER (PH) OR (Manila).

Does your Rule 1 HR overrule the hard coded first turn CAP restrictions?

[John 3rd]

I ALWAYS split the KB to hit Manila.  Any of my past, present, and future opponents have/can take that to the bank.  If my PH attack--in a normal scenario--causes slightly less damage then that is fine as long as I can hit those damned SS.  I like to use CarDiv2 (Hiryu/Soryu) and leave my four bigger Cvs for PH. Must...sink...SS...call...it...obsession... 


As to Rule One trumping, check in with our Opponents in the 2x2.  Our attack came up against (I think) 25 or so P-40s and they simply died well.  In many ways it helped to serve Japanese interest that the planes DID fly as we could then shoot them down.  Rather perverse if you think about it.


Funny that we did have 12 sortie and be spared!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I ALWAYS split the KB to hit Manila.  Any of my past, present, and future opponents have/can take that to the bank.  If my PH attack--in a normal scenario--causes slightly less damage then that is fine as long as I can hit those damned SS.  I like to use CarDiv2 (Hiryu/Soryu) and leave my four bigger Cvs for PH. Must...sink...SS...call...it...obsession... 


As to Rule One trumping, check in with our Opponents in the 2x2.  Our attack came up against (I think) 25 or so P-40s and they simply died well.  In many ways it helped to serve Japanese interest that the planes DID fly as we could then shoot them down.  Rather perverse if you think about it.


Funny that we did have 12 sortie and be spared!

I think I've made it clear to your opponents that I consider surprise port attacks on both sides of the international date line to be gamey in the extreme. Also, I doubt that your imposed HRs trumped the hard coded CAP restrictions in the game.

Glad you inserted some semblance of reality into your first day HRs to offset the other worldly OOB in your game. I suppose if I had 16 CVs (or 20 or 22, whatever), there's very little downside to halving my strike force and attacking Manila.

[John 3rd]

Wow.  Not sure how to take that.
 
We have a force of 8 CVs, 2 CVLs, and 1 CVE.  Not 16--20--22.  Have you read Juan's Designer Notes on the scenario?
 
As to reality, those fighters got chewed up just as they would have on the real Dec 7th/8th.  I would note the horrible performance of Dugout Doug's AF that day.  This is the reason why the Surprise Option--to me--needed to stay on.  If we would have chosen to attack Singapore as Juan had intended for the Mod start, I would NEVER make that case.  The Brits were as ready as they could be.  The Americans were not.
 
 

[John 3rd]

Addendum to earlier Post:
 
Please note that I said I will ALWAYS do it in ANY scenario.  When I play a 1x1 you can plan on seeing that attack right there all over again.  If forced to choose for one attack, I just might go for Manila with EVERY Japanese historical CV.  Roughly 30 SS sitting at the docks is a fantastic target.  Potentially they are more dangerous in the long run (1943 on) then the 8 BB at PH.
 

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Wow.  Not sure how to take that.

We have a force of 8 CVs, 2 CVLs, and 1 CVE.  Not 16--20--22.  Have you read Juan's Designer Notes on the scenario?

As to reality, those fighters got chewed up just as they would have on the real Dec 7th/8th.  I would note the horrible performance of Dugout Doug's AF that day.  This is the reason why the Surprise Option--to me--needed to stay on.  If we would have chosen to attack Singapore as Juan had intended for the Mod start, I would NEVER make that case.  The Brits were as ready as they could be.  The Americans were not.

Hi John,

I have read the scenario notes, but really there's no need. One man's fictious OOB is as good an another's. I've a rough feel for the fictious OOB involved in this scenarios and the fictious rationale for it's existence / deployment. Your 11 carriers on 7 December 1941 is as reasonable as someone else's 14-16-20-22. No difference.

You may be overlooking the hard coded poor CAP performance of the allied on December 7, 1941. This is in the manual under 18.1.6, p. 268. To summarize: no matter the weight of opposition or Japanese strike, the allied CAP is muted and reduced in efficacy. This occurs automatically if 'surprise' is on for a scenario. Was 'surprise' on for your scenario? If so, no need to blame the American performance, nor the British performance, nor dugout Doug, nor the IJN / IJAAF performance. It's strictly hard coded to permit IJ dominance on turn one. That's my point.

Cheers.

[John 3rd]

OK. I understand now.

I would have been happy with Surprise off, however, that lessons the chance for a catastrophic hit. If memory serves...isn't it doubled for Dec 7th and then lowered to normal? Might be thinking WitP but that was our rationale.

Fighter performance for the Americans sucks anyway at the start. Michael is sweeping Manila and Clark everyday and shooting down goods numbers of Allied fighters for little to no cost. That will change as experience grows for the Allies but right now this is the situation.

Michael has the DEI, Malaya, Burma, and China along with 3 CV, 2 CVL, and 1 CVE. Perhaps he can chime in on this discussion but we felt our opening moves were highly conservative. Only had a landing at Aparri and Kota Bharu plus the double Port Strikes. I always see the first turn as a chance to get things moving along the priorities established by the team for the game more then lightning strikes against 10 locations across the map.

[ny59giants]

Chickenboy,

You don't sound like a big fan of "what if" mods which Juan has put out and others are also doing. That's fine. I don't feel guilty that Japan has done a few things beyond historical since the Americans will get 19 Essex Class and 4 Midway Class CVs. I like some of the "what if" mods as I play to have fun.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Chickenboy,

You don't sound like a big fan of "what if" mods which Juan has put out and others are also doing. That's fine. I don't feel guilty that Japan has done a few things beyond historical since the Americans will get 19 Essex Class and 4 Midway Class CVs. I like some of the "what if" mods as I play to have fun.

You're right, ny59giants. I'm not a big fan of 'what if' mods in general, but it's got little to do with being magnanimous as the game winds on.

What I find particularly problematic is the extrapolation of the lessons learned from 'what if' games to every other 'standard' game. Gambits that work in the former likely would not work in the latter. For those that aren't regular forumites, it may be confusing for them to hear commentary about the success of different approaches that would not work in their 'standard' game. Early Japanese victories in the mod you're playing can just as easily be chalked up to fantasy OOBs instead of feat of arms, clever use of assets or a player's leadership capabilities, IMO.

I think it's great that you're having fun with a 'what if' mod. Whatever (literally) floats your boats. I would assume that you wouldn't roll your eyes when I introduce the BBSC (Space Cruiser BB) Yamato in a game and post lessons learned? You know, just for fun? Maybe if I do that, I should post a big warning label on my posts that my lessons learned have no basis in reality for everyone else out there though.

[John 3rd]

Chickenboy--I have more in common with your position then Michael's.  This Mod is pretty extreme but should be fun to play. 
 
The Mod I amn working on '4th Circle' is a Yamamoto 'what if' that only makes reasonable changes in the timeline from about 1938 on... 

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: vettim89
In my mind, those eight subs should be at Manila but already in TF's. They would be exempt from the port attack but would not be at sea for game purposes. While this would not guarantee a port attack on turn one, it certainly would decrease the Japanese player's ability to cream the entire Asiatic Fleet Sub force before they could react.

I agree with your approach above, except for this paragraph.

The way port attacks are conducted in the game precludes attacks on a ship already in a TF in harbor. In reality, it makes little difference to a divebomber whether a ship in harbor has slipped off of her moorings but not moving at speed yet or is still tied in or anchored.

Furthermore, with submarines, a 'naval attack' setting is ineffective, one must use ASW settings to attack. Of course, in reality, there's no difference in attacking a non-submerged submarine running on the surface and attacking another class of ship running on the surface.

So, these settings ASSUME that the submarine is not (game terms) disbanded in port, but is rather moving and in a position to submerge defensively if needed-like a SS TF at sea. How many of the subs that you've put in TFs in Manila, IRL, submerged in the harbor when the first attack came in?

Now with all that said, if I, as IJ, had foreknowledge of the number of SS TFs that would be in the Manila hex on turn one (but not disbanded in port), I could redirect some of my attack aircraft towards ASW attack. I could 'narrow beam' attack several groups just on Manila to get some hits too. That would be a moderately reasonable work around, I suppose.

But since the Japanese knew that they were going to strike Manila ahead of time, don't you think that (game terms) they should have preplaced some attack aircraft with high ASW to model the effects of this strike? Will you include such training for IJ units in your mod?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
If forced to choose for one attack, I just might go for Manila with EVERY Japanese historical CV.  Roughly 30 SS sitting at the docks is a fantastic target.  Potentially they are more dangerous in the long run (1943 on) then the 8 BB at PH.

By the way, I agree with you here. Given the opportunity to 'do it all over again' for my 2x PBEMs, I wouldn't change anything about my choice for KB's December 7 alpha strike. I chose Manila and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Taking those subs out now may mean hundreds of saved xAKs, xAPs and TKs later.

[Q-Ball]

Talking about Stock, I think John's idea is a good one, and pretty fair. Even if all the subs are there, though, I favor Pearl Harbor for several reasons:

1. In AE, Pearl attack is often devastating; even ships that don't sink can take a very long time to repair.
2. In AE, LBA is not near as effective at killing ships as in WITP. This means AE is more of a Naval game. Surface ships are more important than in WITP, thus BBs more important. Taking out the USN BBs, even those old ones, will help secure all the Japanese landing zones early-on.
3. If KB is near Luzon, USN CVs can interfere with Wake, Tarawa, and other landings on that side of the Pacific.
4. It's historical anyway

[John 3rd]

Qball's points are sound as always.  I agree with everything he states, however, I've found a 4 CV (CarDiv1 and CarDiv5) Strike with EVERYTHING set for Port Attack does darned near as much as the 6 CV attack.  Don't kill as many planes but still puts holes in ships.
 
The 4 CVs are more then enough to keep the Americans from getting frisky early on.
 
Using CarDiv2 places some serious punch in the DEI and really helps to crush the Thundering Herd.  Additionally, if needed, it can move quickly to Truk for support operations there...
 

[Schatten]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Talking about Stock, I think John's idea is a good one, and pretty fair. Even if all the subs are there, though, I favor Pearl Harbor for several reasons:

1. In AE, Pearl attack is often devastating; even ships that don't sink can take a very long time to repair.
2. In AE, LBA is not near as effective at killing ships as in WITP. This means AE is more of a Naval game. Surface ships are more important than in WITP, thus BBs more important. Taking out the USN BBs, even those old ones, will help secure all the Japanese landing zones early-on.
3. If KB is near Luzon, USN CVs can interfere with Wake, Tarawa, and other landings on that side of the Pacific.
4. It's historical anyway

Those BB´s absolut no Danger...AI dont even put them out of PH (and if the Torp Nell´s at Kawalajnen-or so- more as enough to v. them).
Your Carrier can go to Tarawa after 2 days to intercept any raid from PH or the US Carriers

With my Manila Strike i have sunk more US Subs as i will sink in all they next years for sure
And it has the nice effect that the AI--always great to do anything stupid-- sends now much Sub´s into defensive Missions so they no more any danger to your shipping--Sidenotice for the Devloper, pls build a Option into TF Menue that a Patrol Sub TF will ga back to rearm/refuel after used all Torpedos or 50% Fuel..if you have to use the Computer you have to deal time after time with those useless defensive Patrols.

for Nr.4: as last i dont replay Japans mistakes and defeat but try to win so i dont care what for foolish decisions they have make 1942.
Foolish enough not to attack only Russia or Russia the british and dutch alone and leave the Americans in the Phillipines alone where they were no danger and not give them any reason for war

[bklooste]

That raises the question why on earth were 15 subs left there for a week historically ?? That certainly suggest a surprise mines the recomended task force should be allowed.

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Seeing some AAR's where JFB like to attack both PH and Manila on day one. I think doing both is a bit gamey because of the time difference. Still as long as the possibility exists, people will do it. So I thought about if the Devs had it right as far as the USN Asiatic Fleet subs go. At present two subs (both S-boats) are at sea at game's start (scenario 1 although I would assume this would be true of scenario 2 also). Those are indeed the correct positions for those two boats. All the rest of the boats are in port in Manila which is wrong. First the glaring errors

USS Salmon was at sea off the west coast of Luzon on 7/8 Dec 1941
USS Snapper was at sea in bound to Manila (she actually arrived ther on the 8th)
USS Sturgeon was at Mariveles Harbor (game location Bataan not Manila)
USS Porpoise was at Olongapo undergoing refit - should start with some syst damage (game location Clark Field)

That alone should reduce the number of SS at Manila from 27 to 23. Now of those remaining 23, eight are listed as having departed on 8 December 1941 (Stingray, S-38, S-41, Sailfish, Sargo, Saury, Seawolf, and Pike). The remaining fifteen departed over the next week except for Sealion which was sunk at Cavite on 14 December.

In my mind, those eight subs should be at Manila but already in TF's. They would be exempt from the port attack but would not be at sea for game purposes. While this would not guarantee a port attack on turn one, it certainly would decrease the Japanese player's ability to cream the entire Asiatic Fleet Sub force before they could react.

If I ever do a mod, this will be what I would do. I also would probably just list Porpoise as a reinforcement arriving on 20 December as that is when her engines were put back together and she arrived at Manila. Optionally if using stock scenarios historic first turn off, the Allied player should be allowed to form up to eight sub TFat Manila but with no orders. Also the four other subs should be allowed to be put to sea.