Looking for an Allied opponent (probably)

[esteban]

I am ready to announce to an anxious world that I am ready for a scenario 15 PBEM game!! (well, at least once I can get the patch downloaded and installed)

Now, now, before you all crowd around....

Preferred side: Japanese (not really a fanboy, but I want to see if I can do better than RL!) Willing to consider allies I guess.

Things I won't negotiate on:

1. Historical turn one off, no varied setup, advanced weather and FOW on, turn one surprise on, Allied damage control on

2. Both sides may only use/move precreated TFs, Japanese air and land units, Chinese air and land units on turn one. You can give any orders you want to these units, with the exception that the Japanese can only do one port attack on turn one.

3. Only one Japanese port attack on turn one, to be performed by Japanese carriers, target to be selected by the Japanese player.

4. No, KB cannot be taken on some kind of hunting expedition for the U.S. carriers. Unless slowed by an unfortunate encounter with an Allied sub, all Japanese carriers must end movement within 5 hexes of an Allied port/base, or in port.

5. Serious players only please. No leaving the game in 1942 because things aren't going your way. Things would have to be REALLY bad, like you have lost nearly all your carriers in return for a couple of mine, to justify an early concession/retirement.

6. Right now, my availability is 3-4 hours per day on average. Looking for someone who can do roughly the same. If your availability is more than mine, and you can live with that, that's ok as well.

7. Only carrier-trained air units may operate off of carriers. No carrier capable air units may fly combat missions from carriers. They may of course use carriers to transfer from place to place, if desired.

8. One day turns. Yes, I know that it will take forever to finish the game, but too much goofy stuff happens with multi-day turns.

9. Auto sub ops, air upgrade, air/ground replacements off


10. You must have the 1.20 patch installed.

Things I can negotiate on:

1. Sub doctrine. I am willing to go with the historical sub doctrines if you are. I do so love watching transports blissfully sail past my submarines!

2. I would prefer a U.S./Canadian/Mexican player, willing to consider one from another time zone, if the time difference between where you are and lil' old me on the West Coast of the U.S. is not going to be a big deal.

3. Fixed/variable/very variable reinforcements--I'm easy-going on such things....


I can be emailed at kraftyse@comcast.net

Thanks for comin' by!!

[tsimmonds]

1. Historical turn one, no varied setup, advanced weather and FOW on, turn one surprise on, Allied damage control on

2. Both sides may only use/move precreated TFs, Japanese air and land units, Chinese air and land units on turn one. You can give any orders you want to these units, with the exception that the Japanese can only do one port attack on turn one.

I believe that "Historical turn one" means that no one gets to enter orders, the game just runs using the pre-set move. The first chance you get to enter orders is turn 2.

[adsoul]

Just looking at your post... what is KB? Sorry for my dumb question

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

1. Historical turn one, no varied setup, advanced weather and FOW on, turn one surprise on, Allied damage control on

2. Both sides may only use/move precreated TFs, Japanese air and land units, Chinese air and land units on turn one. You can give any orders you want to these units, with the exception that the Japanese can only do one port attack on turn one.

I believe that "Historical turn one" means that no one gets to enter orders, the game just runs using the pre-set move. The first chance you get to enter orders is turn 2.

Whoops! Thanks, I meant "historical turn one off". I will edit it in my original post

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: adso

Just looking at your post... what is KB? Sorry for my dumb question

KB is an acronym for "Kido Butai" which is the Japanese name for their carrier strike force. More or less, you can think of it as the Pearl Harbor strike force, though in the larger sense, it really applies to pretty much all the Japanese fleet carriers. No, I don't know what it means. I have John Toland's "Rising Sun" history in a closet right now, and it gives the English translation, but I am not going to hunt for the book at this time.

[adsoul]

many thanks [:)]

[rogueusmc]

Kido Butai translated as Star of Death or Death Star.

[mogami]

Kido Butai is a Naval term loosely translated is "Carrier Strike Force" There is a word for non carrier strike force but because the IJN CV operated together for so long and were so important they became "The" Strike Force. There was only one "Kido Butai" even though there were times there were more then one "Kido Butai" at sea. When used most often it refers to the group containing Kaga and Akagi (then it gets "The" implied rather then "A"

In English it would be the difference between saying "A carrier strike force" and saying "The Carrier Strike Force" In WWII Japanese knew when you used it you were speaking of Kaga and Akagi. After Midway they tried to use it this way but it was never the same.

Another way of looking at it would be "The first Team" You can't make a first team again once it is lost even if you try passing the name on. When any IJN CV was operating with Kaga and Akagi they were "Kido Butai" When they formed a group without them it was just a kido butai. Hope this makes more sense to you then it does to me after reading it.

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Kido Butai translated as Star of Death or Death Star.

So "Star Wars" was a WW2 allegory?

[mogami]

Hi, Have you found your victim yet? I can't start any PBEM games for a few more weeks.
I don't use Japanese submarine doctrine. (I don't believe there was one) Submarine Doctrine is more a product of where you send them. If they are on supply lines they sink more merchants then if they are out in front of your combat TF. If they are running supply to bases they sink very little of anything. (and this explains why early in the war IJN submarines sank almost a milllion tons of shipping and then moved to sinking warships and finally stopped sinking much of anything.)

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Have you found your victim yet? I can't start any PBEM games for a few more weeks.
I don't use Japanese submarine doctrine. (I don't believe there was one) Submarine Doctrine is more a product of where you send them. If they are on supply lines they sink more merchants then if they are out in front of your combat TF. If they are running supply to bases they sink very little of anything. (and this explains why early in the war IJN submarines sank almost a milllion tons of shipping and then moved to sinking warships and finally stopped sinking much of anything.)

Hey Mogami:

I'd love to play you, but I don't really want to wait a couple weeks to start a PBEM game. However, keep in touch with me about your availability, and maybe I will have time for another game. I have a partner for this current game, and it looks like I will be Japanese. So if I have time for a second game with you, I will give you your choice of sides!

Thanks!

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: esteban

7. Only carrier-trained air units may operate off of carriers. No carrier capable air units may fly combat missions from carriers. They may of course use carriers to transfer from place to place, if desired.

There is a rule that differentiates between "Carrier Based" and "Carrier Capable". In the case of "Carrier Capable" (i.e., US Marine units), they suffer a substantial penalty when operated from a carrier, unlike in UV.

Let your opponent base them on his CVs, and watch his Ops losses grow [:D]

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

ORIGINAL: esteban

7. Only carrier-trained air units may operate off of carriers. No carrier capable air units may fly combat missions from carriers. They may of course use carriers to transfer from place to place, if desired.

There is a rule that differentiates between "Carrier Based" and "Carrier Capable". In the case of "Carrier Capable" (i.e., US Marine units), they suffer a substantial penalty when operated from a carrier, unlike in UV.

Let your opponent base them on his CVs, and watch his Ops losses grow [:D]

Yes, but I have done this myself, and the op loss penalty is not that bad really.

[Twotribes]

What about the cve's with no air attached?

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

What about the cve's with no air attached?

You have to use them for air transfers, or wait until a carrier trained squadron shows up. There are a few loose squadrons of this nature, and if you have a carrier that is in the shop for whatever reason, you can put it's planes on the escort carrier.

The Japanese and the Allies both have escort carriers that start in this situation.

My biggest concern is that land-based corsairs do not show up on Allied carriers. In 1944, historical carrier trained squadrons show up with corsairs, but throughout 1943, mostly you just have marine carrier-capable sqadrons.

The Japanese can also abuse this too, by placing carrier capable Kates on their carriers for Pearl Harbor. Vals cannot penetrate battleship armor and are actually pretty much wasted in divebombing Pearl Harbor on turn one, especially since fires are put out so rapidly in a big port like Pearl. So on turn one, you can fly off the Vals, and land several squadrons of Kates that are in Japan and China in their place, then off you go. The Japanese start with enough PPs to do this.

[mogami]

Hi, Is is also important during the PH strike to destroy Allied aircraft. You can ground PH for quite a while. The Vals are for airfield attack at PH not anti shipping. (You destroy over 200 aircraft there during the strikes) During the AM phase when you are making your attack the Allies are "surprised" In the PM phase they are not. While the chance of their strike scoring hits is low it does exist. 1 Hit could cause the loss of 1 of the IJN CV (It's a long way back to a size 3 port) Don't screw around. Destroy the aircraft and close the airfield. (Then if you want to monkey with history your day 2 strikes will be much safer. Let the Vals pound the port and supply and add to the damage done the day before .) That being said. Vals on day 1 set to port attack still damage the port/fuel/supply and 250kg bombs work fine on ships CL and smaller. The fires they start on the larger ships could be what in the end sinks the ship.

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Is is also important during the PH strike to destroy Allied aircraft. You can ground PH for quite a while. The Vals are for airfield attack at PH not anti shipping. (You destroy over 200 aircraft there during the strikes) During the AM phase when you are making your attack the Allies are "surprised" In the PM phase they are not. While the chance of their strike scoring hits is low it does exist. 1 Hit could cause the loss of 1 of the IJN CV (It's a long way back to a size 3 port) Don't screw around. Destroy the aircraft and close the airfield. (Then if you want to monkey with history your day 2 strikes will be much safer. Let the Vals pound the port and supply and add to the damage done the day before .) That being said. Vals on day 1 set to port attack still damage the port/fuel/supply and 250kg bombs work fine on ships CL and smaller. The fires they start on the larger ships could be what in the end sinks the ship.

Yes, I should have been more clear. Vals are not much use bombing THE PORT in Pearl Harbor, because 2/3+ of them go after the BBs, and they cannot penetrate the BB armor. When I have a non-historical raid, I usually send them after the airfield.