Allies pearl harbor gambit

[AllenK]

ORIGINAL: stjeand

I don't think giving up the second attack is what should happen.

For me...the US should either have their oil start at 0 so they can't counter...or something needs to change.

This is quite simply gaming the system. The DD attacks are just that.

For the US to do anything realistically they would have to coordinate the attacks and since this game is step by step they are able to get around this.
I have tried a few more times and still can take out a Japanese CV with sometimes minimal losses....sometimes I lose another 4 or 5 BBs...

Not sure the BBs matter as much in the end as we know...CVs are king.


I suspect this will end up being a house rule, unless oil starts at 0 and that keeps their ships from attacking.

I agree.

Using DD's or other low value ships to attempt to soak up interception air strikes needs to be made pretty unlikely to succeed but not impossible. I think this would be valuable for the game in general, not just this particular Pearl Harbour scenario.

The problem is, the Allies could still just decide to sacrifice the two most damaged BB's from the Pearl Harbour strike and then go all in with the rest of the surface fleet. I've tried this twice, so a limited sample. The first time sank 2 CV's and a BC (got lucky I guess). The second still sank a CV and damaged a second. The Allied CV's weren't committed and the damage was minimal. I'd take that every time.

[sveint]

How about non-captial ship attacks should not use up intercepts? So throw as many DDs as you want, they'll get sunk and absorb nothing.

[AllenK]

ORIGINAL: sveint

How about non-captial ship attacks should not use up intercepts? So throw as many DDs as you want, they'll get sunk and absorb nothing.

I don’t think it should be quite so definite. Misidentification resulted in the Japanese launching a strike against a DD and an oiler at Coral Sea. Just give a low percentage of a strike launching and possibly further modify it by the experience of the CV. If too difficult to code, then the simpler total prevention would still be better.

The only problem is, it doesn’t prevent the two most damaged BB’s at Pearl being used for the suicide runs. On the two attempts I tried, with settings all at Historical, the results were favourable. Needs more run throughs to make sure the US weren’t simply extremely lucky and then moderately lucky.

Other than a house rule or US oil set at 0 for turn 1, it might be the standard Japanese moves on turn 1 will have to be the ring defence outlined above.

[AlvaroSousa]

I really don't understand how everyone here thinks this works. I have done it now several times and the Japanese kill the USN fleet. Sure once in a while they lose a CV. But it just doesn't justify the risk. Losing 50 strength of ships in the hope of sinking 1-2 Japanese CVs I don't think is worth it.

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I really don't understand how everyone here thinks this works. I have done it now several times and the Japanese kill the USN fleet. Sure once in a while they lose a CV. But it just doesn't justify the risk. Losing 50 strength of ships in the hope of sinking 1-2 Japanese CVs I don't think is worth it.

That's pretty much the result I got in my testing using HOTSEAT and just playing the PH attack and Allied counter using the methods described above. If you put a screen around the Japanese carriers it becomes even harder to get a good Allied result. My results agree with yours. I think it is a much higher risk than waiting six months and taking on the Japanese under better conditions most likely in the Solomons. I think one big problem is lack of patience because the Allies can't do much at all for several months. I will say that using the air unit at Pearl Harbor is not a bad move because you occasionally sink a carrier and the loss to your air unit is probably inconsequential in the scheme of things.

[AlvaroSousa]

The air unit got nerfed. I forgot to nerf if before.

[AllenK]

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I really don't understand how everyone here thinks this works. I have done it now several times and the Japanese kill the USN fleet. Sure once in a while they lose a CV. But it just doesn't justify the risk. Losing 50 strength of ships in the hope of sinking 1-2 Japanese CVs I don't think is worth it.

That's pretty much the result I got in my testing using HOTSEAT and just playing the PH attack and Allied counter using the methods described above. If you put a screen around the Japanese carriers it becomes even harder to get a good Allied result. My results agree with yours. I think it is a much higher risk than waiting six months and taking on the Japanese under better conditions most likely in the Solomons. I think one big problem is lack of patience because the Allies can't do much at all for several months. I will say that using the air unit at Pearl Harbor is not a bad move because you occasionally sink a carrier and the loss to your air unit is probably inconsequential in the scheme of things.

Just tried multiple run throughs in Hotseat myself. Similar conclusion. However, I did find it easier to get a reasonable Allied result if the Japanese used the 'ring defence'. This was a smaller sample but once the two suicide runs had triggered the interceptions, the remaining Allied surface ships could split up and take a on a BC and CA group. The Allied CV's could also safely wade in as, since they were attacking one of the BC/CA hexes and not the CV hex, the Jap CV's didn't get involved. Effectively, it opened up the possibility of defeat in detail.

Still needed some luck as units spotted but didn't engage or failed to find but at the end the BC's and CA's weren't generally looking happy (if still afloat).

Overall, looks about right, so hats off to the designer [&o].

[eskuche]

I’m pretty happy with where it is as long as there’s decision-making and counterplay.

[timmyab]

Maybe make the interdiction limit relative to the size of the fleet?
So in this case for example the Japanese fleet could interdict up to 9 attacks.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: YueJin

Every game I've seen try to simulate naval combat has run into this issue of suiciding small ships to mess up a large fleet's organisation, supply attack point ect.
WiTP has the ridiculous single MTB fleet spam to soak up carrier strikes and screw up pathing. Sadly house rules are probably the only way to deal with it although I don't know exactly what wording would make sense.

If a human player did that to me I'd conclude they have no love of history and that would be game over

[Numdydar]

Well small ships attacking a larger fleet would mess up a larger fleets organization lol. As the larger fleet would still have to deal with the attack. Also the same applies to air attack as well due to no one being 100% sure of what was going on.

Besides that was the whole purpose of MTB ships. I have played WitP a LOT, mostly as Japan and it is something that you just have to learn to counter. Also, I really do not care as Japan what the Allies do or do not do in the game as WitP is the absolutely the most one sided game in the history of games. lol. Spoiler alert, Japan will lose except in two cases. A very, very, incompetent Allied player or playing against the Allied AI. In the case of the Allied player being so bad, chances are high the game will end long before 1945. So that would be a 'win' (not really, but this is a game and not RL).

One thing that we as gamers tend to lose sight of is that all the actions that we take in theses game would cost real people's lives in the real wars. Plus there was no reloads, do overs, etc. So the majority of actions taken in the real wars that we simulate how to accomplish something with the highest chance of success with the least loss of life. While in games people can try higher rick actions for a greater reward, like invading Russia, earlier/later, invading India, etc. without regard of what failure would have meant in RL. "Oh I lost 5 divisions in that attack, I'll just rebuild them next turn." It does not matter to us that we just lost 100K of people's lives.

So Japan can try all sorts of 'interesting' options that the real planners discarded due to the higher chance of failure and what that would mean for their forces.

So the comment "If a human player did that to me I'd conclude they have no love of history and that would be game over " is really interesting, especially in the PTO. Because for as a Japanese player, you really need to do ahistorical stuff at the start because you know you will pay the price come mid-43 as it is ALL downhill from there [:(]

As a Japanese player you will ALWAYS lose. Some historians feel that Japan's loss in WWII was set all the way back to their reformation (1870s?) So by the time 1936 rolls around, the seeds for their defeat were too late to be fixed.

I am not sure how WP Pacific's late game works out for Japan, but from my WitP experience, I am not hopeful lol.

[AlvaroSousa]

As with WPE, WPP will take time and testing from players to balance it out. WPE is still being balanced but it is pretty close.

[JWW]

Indeed WWII in the Pacific was only fought once. That is the sample Alvaro has to work with. And consider the number of actual carrier battles. You can count them on your fingers. To yield a "historical result" from such a small sample is not possible, because the carrier battles themselves hinge on things that could have easily gone the other way. If Nagumo had not ordered his planes to be rearmed at a critical moment. If McCluskey had not spotted the wake of a single Japanese destroyer. Etc. One of the things I really liked about the game from the very start was the uncertain nature of the carrier battles. You don't reallly know what is going to happen, and in a single battle you can lose a significant part of your carrier strength. To me the carrier battles are the most enjoyable part of the game, and they have to have a wide spread of uncertainty to be what you might call historically accurate.

As for the destroyer suicide tactic, I always play solo and just don't use that gambit against the AI because the AI isn't going to use it. Call it a house rule between the AI and me. Playing a human opponent options to counter that might be using multiple fleet groups on the attack including surface elements and more than one carrier group, and as much landbased air as you can muster. If in the Solomons, for example, have your landbased air ready to react. Landbased air should be a major threat there.

[eskuche]

Currently am losing India, Solomons, and perhaps Australia against a human before February ends, so... to with historicity!

Edit: I would ask Alvaro to re-look at either ZOC or surrender rules. With extremely small corridors for movement, it's extremely easy for one division/corps to literally move around another one to its rear with no reaction and cause it to surrender with one attack.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

Indeed WWII in the Pacific was only fought once. That is the sample Alvaro has to work with. And consider the number of actual carrier battles. You can count them on your fingers.

In all my time playing WitP, in each game there were maybe 3 carrier battles when playing against a human. The first one usually occurs when the US matches/exceeds Japanese CV power and/or is trying to start their land offense.

Depending how the first one goes, the second is typically a 'take 2' of the first one.

The 3rd and later ones (if any) are last ditch efforts of Japan to slow down the Allied advance. Once the Essex's come online for the Allies, any hope of winning a carrier battle as Japan is pretty much over.

I have actually played as Japan versus the Allied AI, which is a lot of fun by the way lol as you can take over pretty much the whole map [:D] But even with Japan's full CV strength, the Essex class is still damn hard to sink using the crap planes Japan has even later in the war.

But the main reason that people play WitP and the game has lasted so long is the detailed CV versus CV battles are so amazing. So people play for YEARS in pbem just because you know there will be CV battles and they will be awesome when they happen, win or lose. Just like the real war, the game versions will stick in your mind for a long time [:)]

[stjeand]

So my first Hotseat test of the PH attack and return gambit...

The fighter at PH sank a Japanese carrier...
Crazy...

Fighters in WP Pacific are WAY more powerful than fighters in WP Europe. I never attack ships with fighters there because 99% of the time all that happens is fighters get shot down and on the off chance might...just might do 1 damage.

Perhaps a change needs to happen with fighters set as intercepters...a 5 str fighter should have no chance against 6 CVs...none.
Maybe reduce it to a 1?

I don't know, but I am sure this cannot be allowed as an option.

This attack should pretty much happen 100% of the time as the Allies just for this reason. It is a game changer.
The Japanese can lose a carrier and maybe the US loses a fighter that they can just rebuild with their insane economy.
No brainer.

[Numdydar]

In WitP you can have a Dec 8th start. That might be a good option to have here as well. Would totally prevent a lot of first turn 'oddness' [:)]

[eskuche]

Suddenly Pearl Harbor is empty!
Outside of ships there is not much the allies can do. I expect a fairly optimized IJN start to come into being soon.

[FirstPappy]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

In WitP you can have a Dec 8th start. That might be a good option to have here as well. Would totally prevent a lot of first turn 'oddness' [:)]

+1