IJN *TF bonus

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
chrispanton
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:52 pm

IJN *TF bonus

Post by chrispanton »

Back lurking after an 18 month gaming detox and refreshing all the bits and pieces I forgot (including conveniently forgetting how addictive/time consuming WITP can be...). One thing I couldn't remember and/or find via search is the effect of the *TF's in the IJN first move. How far can these bad boys shift? And if the TF splits do both parts get the bonus? Can you add other ships in? Anything else one should know in terms of their limits etc?
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17790
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: IJN *TF bonus

Post by John 3rd »

Only the original TF with * gets the bonus movement.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: IJN *TF bonus

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »


How far: I think 20X

splitting: as already mentioned.. NO

adding ships: yes, but careful to only add fully loaded ships; also don't put ships that had spent lots of operation points

limits: play within defined HRs if this is a PBEM. I personally won't like something that was impossible in RL life Mersing or crossing the strait of Malacca
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: IJN *TF bonus

Post by rustysi »

crossing the strait of Malacca

Ah, a question I've been pondering a bit of late. I'll start a new thread for it.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3587
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: IJN *TF bonus

Post by dr.hal »

In relation to things that are not possible, including changes to the "*" TFs, I have a point to make. The British were a lot more "aware" of the situation that Doug or others in Pearl seemed to be. They had extensive patrols out in the South China Sea and knew about the troop ship movements. It is my belief that if they had sighted the KB (that is if the Japanese player was going to put the KB in range of Singapore) that would have crossed a line for the British and they would have acted on a war footing and struck. Thus I think it is unrealistic for the KB to be too close to Singapore without giving the game away so to speak. Thus I normally insist upon a house rule that if an attack unit (such as the KB) is to be shifted it can not be within search range of Singapore (Hong Kong is ok but arguably a problem). Thus a sneak attack on Singapore is not possible unlike that on Pearl or even Manila.
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: IJN *TF bonus

Post by rustysi »

The British were a lot more "aware" of the situation

Yep, even had a search or two (don't recall now) 'disappear' the day/night before it hit the fan.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: IJN *TF bonus

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

ORIGINAL: rustysi
crossing the strait of Malacca

Ah, a question I've been pondering a bit of late. I'll start a new thread for it.

I will be interested to see the answers from other forum members that know more than I do about this. I don't think in real life it was feasible to cross the strait with major naval, air bases and 15' guns at Singapore.
But regardless of how feasible this was, and maybe it was, the point of this topic is the use of the bonus TFs that will magically teleport long distances without any Allied interference.
It is not realistic to think that the British would had allowed an invasion fleet to cross the strait without sending the fleet and naval aviation to intercept it.

If I am playing a PBEM, I would always request that deep invasions/ strikes well within the search area, and in a region with high traffic sea lanes should not be allowed, or maybe to allow it but balance it by turning off "December 7th surprise" so that the Allied can respond accordingly


User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: IJN *TF bonus

Post by rustysi »

I wasn't thinking of using it during turn one. I was just positing the question in general. See the thread I opened on the matter.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
chrispanton
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:52 pm

RE: IJN *TF bonus

Post by chrispanton »

Thats great, thanks. The x20 I couldn't find anywhere and didn't realise it was that big giving so much flexibility to so many TFs. Indeed does seem like there is a good case for HR
Numdydar
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: IJN *TF bonus

Post by Numdydar »

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

In relation to things that are not possible, including changes to the "*" TFs, I have a point to make. The British were a lot more "aware" of the situation that Doug or others in Pearl seemed to be. They had extensive patrols out in the South China Sea and knew about the troop ship movements. It is my belief that if they had sighted the KB (that is if the Japanese player was going to put the KB in range of Singapore) that would have crossed a line for the British and they would have acted on a war footing and struck. Thus I think it is unrealistic for the KB to be too close to Singapore without giving the game away so to speak. Thus I normally insist upon a house rule that if an attack unit (such as the KB) is to be shifted it can not be within search range of Singapore (Hong Kong is ok but arguably a problem). Thus a sneak attack on Singapore is not possible unlike that on Pearl or even Manila.

Correct. Here is an excerpt to support this.

The invasion fleet left the port of Samah on 4 Dec 1941. Although detected by British scout planes two days earlier, bad weather provided stealth for the invasion convoy. On 8 Dec, after some fighting at Kota Bharu, the Japanese troops took coast cities of Singora (Thailand), Patani (Thailand), and Kota Bharu (Malaya).

So the British knew troop ships where in transit, just not sure of where. So any gambits to sail past to anywhere in the DEI, I would call 'foul' as the Allies. Even as Japan I would not support this.

I have done a lot of tweaking with these 'special' TFs and have come to the conclusion that Japan's planners did a pretty good job of setting things up properly. Except for the Batann Is invasion, I tend to leave the rest as they are. But YMMV [:)]
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: IJN *TF bonus

Post by geofflambert »

Here's another thread on this:

tm.asp?m=3714608

Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”