Pearl Harbor or Manila?

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
I find Zero losses from strafing not worth it...

I would like to make an observation triggered by Tanaka's point above, but more broadly based. One thing I think the game does remarkably well is its historically accurate focus on pilots and their skills. A well trained pilot is worth his (and now her) weight in gold. Good aircraft are important, but in the hands of a skilled pilot, even a less than desirable aircraft can seemingly perform miracles. The Japanese have amazing pilots (especially in their naval arm) at the outset coupled with very good aircraft. And what all historians agree upon, is that it took a long time to get them to that level. It is also agreed that their replacement, given Japan's restrictive replacement pipeline, was nearly impossible. Japan was planning on a short, sharp conflict and didn't have the infrastructure to support a long duration war or the needed training for it. This was notably true for her pilots.

To me, the game reflects this very well as I've stated. The pilots that one gets down the line are not even close to the capability of the frontline pilots in the opening of the war. So my point is why "waste them"? Having fighter pilots expose themselves to needless ground fire, or other forms of combat put them at risk. This risk should be carefully considered. Losing a Zero is bad, but what's FAR FAR worse is losing the pilot of that Zero. The aircraft can be replaced "relatively" easily, the pilot not so much. One of the things I'm loath to do in my games as the Japanese player is to expose my experience pilots needlessly. Players here talk about going for a second day's attack against Pearl. What of the cost in trained pilots? Especially if those pilots are lost shooting up grounded aircraft that have NO pilots in them? And it's over enemy territory, so there's almost no chance of recovery of that pilot if shot down? I know it's the 20/20 of hindsight to play the "long game" as Japan, but isn't that what's needed? A key element in that "long game" is well trained, effective pilots. However, it's just a thought!!!!

I thought that having a sub(s) in the combat hex would help retrieve downed pilots. But I am not sure that works for Japan or only Alled.

[Kull]

An interesting counterfactual comes into play if KB hits the Philippines instead of Pearl. Does the aggressive USN - having missed it's meal of humble pie - gather up those healthy BBs, give them an escort of a couple carriers, and hurl them across the Pacific ala War Plan Orange? No rational player would do that, of course, but it would make for an unusual scenario opening.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Nomad
I thought that having a sub(s) in the combat hex would help retrieve downed pilots. But I am not sure that works for Japan or only Alled.

I don't remember ever seeing a note claiming a pilot was recovered at sea for Japan in any of my games. But I think it should be allowed for both sides in terms of the game. However, the odds of it happening are infinitesimally small. I think George Bush Sr. was an INCREDIBLY lucky man in being recovered by a sub. It happened, but only to a really lucky few. But consider that an attack at Pearl and especially low level attacks are over land. So being shot down during the raid usually means over land. A few might make it out to sea, but it's a BIG ocean. Of the 20 odd planes Japan lost on 7 December, I've only ever read about ONE pilot living through it, and that for only three days as his plane came down on another island. Although this idea of a sub safety net is possible, it's not something I would rely upon at all!

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I thought that having a sub(s) in the combat hex would help retrieve downed pilots. But I am not sure that works for Japan or only Alled.

I cant speak for Japan either, but there is no doubt that it helps the Allies. I was sweeping a large Japanese airbase for an extended period (months), and all the pilots lost over that base were either KIA during combat or MIA. Having a sub in the hex cuts the MIAs by a LOT. There isn't a specific message, but if you check the unit screen afterwards, with few exceptions the pilots of downed aircraft don't go MIA. Otherwise it's nearly 100%.

To my chagrin, the AI eventually dumped a butt-load of mines in the base hex, damaging one sub and sinking another - and bringing "Operation Pilot Recovery" to a halt.

[Lowpe]

You left out the day 2 Portland Invasion![:D]

[apbarog]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: apbarog

ORIGINAL: Tanaka




How do you guys get good results destroying Catalina's at Pearl? All I ever get are some damaged planes so I just prefer going after the naval targets. What are your air settings?

I don't do anything special for the airfield strikes. Bombing at 10k. Consider a 2nd day attack. This helps destroy previously damaged planes also. The replacement rate for the Cats is so low that I believe it is worthwhile. I cover the unoccupied bases and dot bases from the Gilberts to the southwest north of Suva, using Catalinas for search.

What are you bombing with? Just Vals? Also Kates? What percentage of each? Strafing with Zeros? I find Zero losses from strafing not worth it...

I bombed with Vals and Kates, at 10k. I did not strafe with Zeros. I find the losses at low altitude to be too high in a DBB game, with increased flak compared to a stock game. In my current game, I did have far more Catalinas damaged than destroyed, but I did get some. I may have gotten around 10 Cats. I used more Vals and fewer Kates to attack the airfield than the stock historical turn, on both day 1 and day 2. I had all Kates go to the harbor, with some of the Vals. Is it worth it? I don't know. I do know that when I played as the Allies last game, and my opponent attacked Singapore instead of Pearl, I greatly appreciated the Catalinas that went to work immediately in the South Pacific.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Kull

An interesting counterfactual comes into play if KB hits the Philippines instead of Pearl. Does the aggressive USN - having missed it's meal of humble pie - gather up those healthy BBs, give them an escort of a couple carriers, and hurl them across the Pacific ala War Plan Orange? No rational player would do that, of course, but it would make for an unusual scenario opening.

In my current game, Japan attacked Singers....[X(]

I took an island or two in the Marianas and evacuated most of the Thundering Herd that way also netting a CVE and CS (I believe). Subsequently lost those islands...but they were very lightly garrisoned.

Also kept Wake & Midway, and just took Marcus Island thanks to a nuclear bombardment by Battleship Row. It is September of 1942...so things can always change and there is yet to be a CV clash.

Scenario 2, Iron babes stacking game, smaller cargo.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


How do you guys get good results destroying Catalina's at Pearl? All I ever get are some damaged planes so I just prefer going after the naval targets. What are your air settings?

Fly all but 10 or so Zeroes at 9K bombing the runway.[:)] There is a substantial bonus on Dec 7th for this...and you avoid the flak for the most part and can sweep Pearl on the 8th if you want. Every day after that you stay, Kates will sink another BB if you fly them at 13K...flak losses minimal.

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You left out the day 2 Portland Invasion![:D]

Aahhh. The Columbia River Shipyards. All those Liberty Ships and CVEs waiting to be born. Truly America's Achilles Heel. [;)]

[dr.hal]

Kull, you pose an interesting question. In game terms that of course would be dumb. However, given no knowledge (would the lessons of PoW and Repulus been enough?), it just might have been tried, especially if Manila was really plastered. However, the subs around Pearl might have had a field day. The relatively short legs of the old BBs might also have been a consideration. Quite a few oilers would have been needed. If there WAS a trans-Pac effort, it would have taken a while.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Neither. Singapore.

I wondered if someone would suggest this.....Singapore offers more interesting targets than Manila (a good CL 2 AMCs) and positions you even better for an SRA move.

The issue is I wonder if this is gamey or not. There's no way that KB could sail close to Singapore on Dec 7th without alerting Allied Intel.

So? What are they going to do with that intel?

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

The case for Pearl,its shipyard is tied up well into late 1942 if repairing BB's. I have one BB that's going to take over two years and one close to two before repairs are completed for instance.

Not too big a deal but at times the allied player might have to choose sending carriers or other warships to the WC or halt shipyard repairs on the damaged BB.

Just something to think about.....

This is not something that should sway the argument.

As an Allied player I do not put any BBs into the repair shipyard until all other ships are fully repaired.
They all go into pierside repapir.

Then I put one or two that have floatation damage above 50 into ship yard repair until the flotation damage is at or below 50. Then they go back into pierside until the system damage is at 0 and then send them to the West Coast repair yards. They generally do not leave Pearl Harbor until sometime in the middle of 1942 or later. So no damaged BBs move out of Pearl Harbor until at least June 1942.

Good Morning,

I was just offering an opinion if I were attacking that would be one of my considerations from my gaming experience if you or anyone else use a different strategy that is okay.[:)]

My current game left any number of BBs afloat and heavily damaged as I lost two BB's Maryland and California. I'm not as aggressive as you with damaged ships as I don't move my battleships to the west coast until they're 20 flotation damage or less as to attain more speed. I believe all should prioritize CA, CL, DD, DMS's and anything else that may be of service first than the big boys rotate in.

12/08/41 damage


Current game is at 11/05/42


Shipyards at Pearl being tied up has caused me to move Lexington class to California for upgrades and a few CAs, again my experience.

[Sardaukar]

I always move heavily damaged ships to West Coast when it is reasonably safe to do so.

PH shipyards are for units that are not too heavily damaged and needed soon.

[Andy Mac]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You left out the day 2 Portland Invasion![:D]

Not really a viable tactic as 99% of players would insta concede and never play that player again if they did that tactic

I dont mind Portland if the allies strip the west coast or if the invasion is 2 - 3 weeks after game start because no allied player would lose portland in that circumstance

But a day 2 attack when the allies can do nothing to stop it because they are not allowed to give orders on day 1 - insta concede and find another opponent.

[Insano]

I'm a big proponent of an all in port strike on Manila - and I mean ALL in. Nells, Betties, Sallies at extended range, the entire KB. It is possible to sink all 25 subs there on the opening turn. It is relatively easy to sink 20+ with a total commitment. The loss to the Allies is not measured in sunk ships but loss of intel gathering provided by the subs being out and sailing around - regardless if they are effective or not.

I was too concerned with suppressing allied air and opted for a mixed port/airfield strike in my game. The reality is that it is easy to establish air superiority on subsequent days but you will get only one first day shot on the port. The worst my opponent did to me was obliterate the Hong Kong repair ship yard with B-17D after I captured it. That hurt and cost 50k supply to repair. Those 20ish subs are gone forever though.

What would change my mind is if it was possible to replicate historical aircraft losses at Pearl Harbor which I think was something like 400 aircraft. It's not really possible in game to get over 200 aircraft destroyed. If there was a random chance of an aircraft carrier being in port that would really spice it up as well. Otherwise, as mentioned by others, the ship losses are generally temporary. The allied BB's won't be used much in 1942 anyway, even if they are pristine, due to lack of fuel, aircover, sub protection.

For the game as it is send everything you've got to Manila on turn 1. If I could duct tape two Sonias together and send them too, I would.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Neither. Singapore.

I wondered if someone would suggest this.....Singapore offers more interesting targets than Manila (a good CL 2 AMCs) and positions you even better for an SRA move.

The issue is I wonder if this is gamey or not. There's no way that KB could sail close to Singapore on Dec 7th without alerting Allied Intel.

So? What are they going to do with that intel?

Place air units in SIngapore on high-alert, re-route Force Z. Basically, no Dec 7th surprise.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Insano
What would change my mind is if it was possible to replicate historical aircraft losses at Pearl Harbor which I think was something like 400 aircraft. It's not really possible in game to get over 200 aircraft destroyed. If there was a random chance of an aircraft carrier being in port that would really spice it up as well. Otherwise, as mentioned by others, the ship losses are generally temporary. The allied BB's won't be used much in 1942 anyway, even if they are pristine, due to lack of fuel, aircover, sub protection.

For the game as it is send everything you've got to Manila on turn 1. If I could duct tape two Sonias together and send them too, I would.

Completely agree always thought the same myself. If the same historical aircraft destruction results were possible most would pick the Pearl attack. How the hell are you even getting 200 destroyed?? I'm lucky to get 20. Are you putting every aircraft on bomb AF below 10K?

[Nomad]

I went out on the web and looked, I found references to American aircraft losses to be in the 170 to 190 range. I have no idea where the 400 figure comes from.

[CaptBeefheart]

I'd say a Sing strike would only be OK if the Allies get a free turn (non-historical first turn, ability to set TFs and air units, etc.).

I haven't checked the manual, but only the Allies put subs on lifeguard duty. USN subs saved 504 airmen, so I'd say it was significant for practical (i.e. keeping a trained pilot in the war) as well as morale purposes. The Japanese did not do that.

I just googled this, a nice 10-pager on the practice: https://www.archives.gov/files/publicat ... eguard.pdf

Cheers,
CB

[Sardaukar]

Manila strike can have more immediate effect sinking (maybe) lot of submarines that have working torpedoes. And Mk 14 still works 20% of time too...

So, they are immediate threat, old battlewagons in PH are no threat, are difficult to sink in harbour and cannot be used in CV TFs because of slow speed. So they become useful only when USN has local air superiority.

so, it is choice between (maybe) removing some of imminent threat vs. (maybe) gaining more points. Both strikes depend heavily on dice rolls.