Pearl Harbor

[Shilka]

Is there really a point doing Pearl Harbor as Japan?

I have 2 BBs and 3CV all with lvl 2 fighters and naval weaponry doing air strikes, and I can't get a single point of damage on enemy ships at port.

[Mercutio]

Do you have the carriers set to naval/tactical attack?

[Shilka]

Thanks... lets try that again. Still learning and haven't really experienced the CV game aspect yet too much.

[Boonierat1972]

Yes, they need to be on Naval/tactical mode to be effective (also I recommend a fourth CV to make sure all 4 US ship are wiped out)

Speaking of which, is the mixed mode of any interest? never really used it so far.

[Boonierat1972]

.

[Hartmann]

Attacking the fleet in Pearl Harbour is worth it, but what's not really worth it is invading Pearl at the same time. I did that and the main effect was that it tied up forces there for the rest of the game.

[Christolos]

I'm playing a PBEM game as the Allies and just suffered a devastating attack (lost all ships) in which Hawaii was attacked with CVs and invaded with 4 AVLs each attacking with and unloading a special forces unit destroying one fighter air unit at the same time. I was also attacked in the Philippines, DEI and a slew of other places. I can't remember the exact number of AVls and AVs that were used in total...but it seemed like there were something like 8 AVLs (it may have been 7) and at least 2 AVs (it may have been 3) in total.

Kudos to my opponent who knew this could be done...but it has completely shifted the tide of the game in favour of the Axis (at least in the Pacific) in one turn. Of course I'm not quitting because of this as I always play to the end no matter what.

All this to say that it is definitely worth attacking Pearl harbour with CVs (and support ships) especially if it is coupled to landings that will seize the Island.

My concern here, and I mean this with no disrespect to my esteemed opponent, is that the amphibious landing aspect could be considered somewhat gamey in that there isn't much the US can do to prevent it other than placing units on Hawaii that would trigger US Isolationists complaints.

I know there has been discussion (on this forum) about whether AVLs being able to sail long distances and attack anywhere without penalty, is unrealistic, especially when Hawaii can be taking as early as late December 1941 - January 1942. It seems quite unrealistic that Hawaii can be invaded before taking Midway and Wake Island. There's no need to Island hopping!?

Perhaps instead of the two fighter units (less than three land or air units to not trigger the Isolationists) I had stationed there, I should have had two land units...

I'm also a little puzzled in the way that Japan can have so many AVLs/AVs at sea at the same time this early in the game. I imagine, in addition to the number relatively high number of AVLs/AVs Japan starts with, my opponent must have researched Amphibious warfare to increase that number. This leads me to another question, since we are playing with soft builds on, which originally came up in another game with another opponent, and that is whether playing with soft builds on influences the number of AVLs/AVs that can be 'purchased/built' by circumventing the need to have higher Amphibious warfare levels... Maybe not...but the same question applies in the context of whether the need to have higher Command and Control levels to purchase additional HQs, can also be gotten around by playing with soft builds on.

C

[Grotius]

I'm also a bit concerned about the long-distance amphibious units. In a few instances I do see them as essential. I just carried out an Operation Torch, and as my nearest base was the eastern US, I had no choice but to use long-distance amphibious transports. So I'm a bit uncertain whether to suggest any changes.

Maybe the game could provide greater incentive to invade from nearby bases? One incentive might be a greater role for land-based air cover. Or another might be supply or attrition penalties for amphibious transports at sea for more than a turn or two. Or maybe just jack up the cost of long-term transports more? Or maybe permit more ground units on Hawaii as a garrison before US entry, but forbid more fleet and aircraft there? I dunno, all these options worry me, so I'm hesitant to suggest them.

For what it's worth, the AI did not land at Hawaii in my one game in which I'm playing as the Allies. I'd garrisoned Oahu with two units and Hawaii with one. (By the way, the rule seems to be no more than 3 units total in the Hawaiian islands. You can't put 3 in Oahu and 3 on Hawaii, right?)

[Christolos]

Hi Grotius,

I agree that the ability is important. It is also historically accurate.
The Allied invasion of NA (Operation Torch) had some of the forces sailing from the US East coast (the Western Task Force targeting the West Coast of NA, so it is plausible to land troops with AVLs boarded long distances away.

There are many things that can perhaps be done, as you have suggested (good suggestions too!), if everyone and the developers think this is a area that can be tweaked for better balance. The fact that SFs land with considerable supplies, makes it easy to do without securing more forward bases first. Maybe, and as you suggested, the longer an AVL travels before unloading without replenishing supplies in a more forward port, the less supplies they would have when landing. This could be a sort of penalty to make it a bit harder for better balance. Right now and because of the Isolationists, Hawaii is a sitting duck for early land invasion.

C

[Captjohn757]

Christolos: For planning purposes, do you have any idea how long it takes a Long Range Amphibious Transport (AVL) to cross the Atlantic in game turns (i.e., as in Operation Torch)? Historically, the Western Task Force troop ships left various U.S. ports on October 23, 1942 and landings followed 16 days later on Nov. 8 . . . that's not exactly warp speed (8-9 knots). If I recall regular transports in Strategic Command War in Europe make the North Atlantic crossing in three turns in cruise mode (Mayflower speed!). Thanks and cheers.

[Christolos]

Hi Captjohn757,

The distance from the US east coast to Casablanca is about 3600 miles. The distance from Japan to Hawaii is roughly 4100 miles, so not impossible to do either.

The other aspect to all this is that the Japanese will soon have use of the Hawaiian ports and will have a strong forward base to attack the US west coast next. In my game, I foolishly brought up my there US carriers to chase/harass the Japanese carriers thinking they would be on their way back to bases further west, but forgot to take into consideration that my opponent would hang around until he could use the Hawaiian ports when they would be ready. I went on to lose all three US carriers plus other key surface units...so the game is now hopeless for me in the Pacific. Oh well, live and learn.

Cheers,

C

[Captjohn757]

Hi, Christolos:

Thanks for your insight and the Pearl Harbor warning. I just completed the Dec. 7 turn as the Allies and the U.S. carriers are en route (they left the previous turn, but it will take them at least a couple of turns to get to Pearl). The Japanese AI sank everything in the harbor, so I guess I'll see next turn if they attempt an amphibious landing. I could use some F-14s and B-52s about now . . .

[chucknra]

If you want some F-14s, then you need to watch the movie “The Final Countdown” with Kirk Douglas. It’s about the USS Nimitz going back in time to Pearl Harbor!

[Captjohn757]

Hi, Chucknra,

I've watched "The Final Countdown" several times, the first with a friend who was an S-3 Viking pilot aboard the Nimitz at the time of filming. His claim to fame was that he appeared in a snippet as one of the background characters. Alas, he decided he wouldn't have much of a career in Hollywood with such a feeble screen test.

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: Captjohn757

Hi, Christolos:

Thanks for your insight and the Pearl Harbor warning. I just completed the Dec. 7 turn as the Allies and the U.S. carriers are en route (they left the previous turn, but it will take them at least a couple of turns to get to Pearl). The Japanese AI sank everything in the harbor, so I guess I'll see next turn if they attempt an amphibious landing. I could use some F-14s and B-52s about now . . .

I don't think you need to worry about the AI attempting an amphibious landing on Hawaii that early in your game. It is certainly something that a crafty human opponent might try, especially since it would require considerable planning, including heavy investments in logistics to increase the number of AVLs/AVs that can be used in one turn if the plan is to also invade elsewhere at the same time (as my opponent did).

I made a mistake in my initial post in which I wondered if using soft builds could get around the limits in place for building transports and extra HQs. In that post, I mentioned amphibious warfare and Command and Control as ways to increase these, respectively. In actual fact, it is research in Logistics that can increase both limits. So my question, to all, is: can having soft builds on partly circumvent the need to have higher levels of Logistics to build extra transports (of all kinds) and/or extra HQs? My sense is no...but if anyone can confirm that, that would be great. Bill and/or Hubert?

Cheers,

C

[ThunderLizard11]

It's quite easy to take out Hawaii against AI and the AI doesn't seem to be able to retake it or defend it in the first place. In, MP, it's another story as most players will stage a decent defense. In either case worth while to destroy the 2 BB and 2 CAs. Be sure to coordinate with attacks on DEI, Philippines, etc.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Christolos

So my question, to all, is: can having soft builds on partly circumvent the need to have higher levels of Logistics to build extra transports (of all kinds) and/or extra HQs? My sense is no...but if anyone can confirm that, that would be great. Bill and/or Hubert?

I think it would. However, as the cost rises with the number of units bought, research should still be useful because it would raise the threshold before the price rises.

That said, it might be worth running a test if you're interested just to be certain.

[Helsingor]

In relation to defending Pearl Harbor, what is the limit of US units that can be stationed on Oahu before US Mobilization levels drop because of America Firsters' whingeing? Two? Three? And can one swap the Marine and Fighter unit deployed there at-start for better defensive units, or will that trigger a Mobilization penalty as well?

[Captjohn757]

Don't believe you can deploy any additional units, especially the CVs, to Pearl without incurring a mobilization penalty --- this flies in the face of history because both the Enterprise (Task Force 8) and Lexington (Task Force 12) were located well west of Oahu on Dec. 7, whereas in the game they're in port on the west coast of the continental U.S.

[BillRunacre]

You could deploy two units to Hawaii without any penalty, so perhaps some Fighters there with ground units on Oahu.