I think it does not make sense to base any discussion about this topic on "gameyness" because of 20/20 hindsight issues.
You can´t even start playing if you want to avoid sitations occuring because everybody knows how the war went.
We know: - that the IJN night experience is higher than the Allies for a year- the Zero won´t dominate the skies forever
- Singapore will fall
- The Japanese oil comes from the DEI´s
- the Allies will get better ship upgrades than the Japanese
- Allied torps will stop failing in Jan ´43
- the Kamikaze activation date
- the worse Japanese damage control
- .......
- ...
- ..
why is it only higher for a year? Yeah, ships gain experience but what are you doing with your surface combatants in the first year of the war to reach 70 night experience? If the Japanese player got BBs or CAs left in 45 then I guess they still have better night experience than any USN ship, the British are a different thing of course, but they start out as good as the Japanese.
Brad has a good point. And to carry it one step further, suppose Yamamato was allowed only 4 carriers for the PH strike due to army insistance on having carrier support for the invasion of the Phlippines.
Would he have continued the attack using just Cardivs 1 and 2? And what would he have done with Cardiv 5? I'm willing to bet that Yamato would have sent Shokaku and Zuikaku (brand new and least experienced airgroup) and sent Cardiv 1 and 2 to Pearl.
Personally I see nothing wrong with a Manila strike or splitting KB and hitting both assuming it fits the type of game both players want.
Chez
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
Suppose that Yamamoto's plan to attack Pearl Harbor had not been conceived or accepted. In that case, how would the Japanese have used the Kido Butai? Not attacking Pearl Harbor is a viable option in a game, though in a PBEM one would want to discuss things beforehand.
Now that is an interesting point. But then again, suppose Roosevelt had not insisted on moving the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii? Or suppose the US commanders there had been conducting a live fire preparedness exercise that Sunday AM? "Suppose" is a lot of fun..., but only when the "suppositions" work both ways. Back in board game face-to-face days, a friend and I used to come up with things like this and have the result determined by the other side's die roll. Neither side could look at the other's options list until after the game was over.
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
Sending KB to Manila instead of PH is really an exploit of hindsight by the Japanese player. KB went to pearl to cripple the US Pacific Fleet at the outset of the war. They didn't know until the 6th that the US Carriers were not in port..., too late to change the objective. To me it seems just as "gamey" as sending KB out hunting Enterprise and Lexington just because in the game the Japanese Player knows where they will start.
Eh? Come again? Sorry, this makes no sense. Even if the IJ didn't know where the USN carriers were, they could have reasonable surety where they WEREN'T. I think if the allied carriers were operating anywhere around the Phillipine islands, the IJ would have caught wind of it, just as if the KB were monkeying about off of Vancouver.
Just cause KB went to Pearl to cripple whatever was there, doesn't mean that I have to follow suit. Because I do something different from historical makes it neither gamey, nor an exploit. Change your terms.
I don't think I will.
Suit yourself. I've had enough of your name calling for the time being. Green button on.
I think it does not make sense to base any discussion about this topic on "gameyness" because of 20/20 hindsight issues.
You can´t even start playing if you want to avoid sitations occuring because everybody knows how the war went.
It makes sense for people who want to argue. [:D]
What should really be the point is that two people who decide to play this long game should decide beforehand betweenst themselves what kind of game they want and that should be the end of it. Not hard to do, especially for those who only play one side of the game ever.
Sending KB to Manila instead of PH is really an exploit of hindsight by the Japanese player. KB went to pearl to cripple the US Pacific Fleet at the outset of the war. They didn't know until the 6th that the US Carriers were not in port..., too late to change the objective. To me it seems just as "gamey" as sending KB out hunting Enterprise and Lexington just because in the game the Japanese Player knows where they will start.
Come on. Now, anything that is Non-historical is gamey? It is a freaking game! If you select a Non-historical start, then it is already "gamey", and if you select historical start, everything after the first combat resolution is "gamey." Get over the gamey label and move on.
I think it does not make sense to base any discussion about this topic on "gameyness" because of 20/20 hindsight issues.
You can´t even start playing if you want to avoid sitations occuring because everybody knows how the war went.
It makes sense for people who want to argue. [:D]
What should really be the point is that two people who decide to play this long game should decide beforehand betweenst themselves what kind of game they want and that should be the end of it. Not hard to do, especially for those who only play one side of the game ever.
Sending KB to Manila instead of PH is really an exploit of hindsight by the Japanese player. KB went to pearl to cripple the US Pacific Fleet at the outset of the war. They didn't know until the 6th that the US Carriers were not in port..., too late to change the objective. To me it seems just as "gamey" as sending KB out hunting Enterprise and Lexington just because in the game the Japanese Player knows where they will start.
Come on. Now, anything that is Non-historical is gamey? It is a freaking game! If you select a Non-historical start, then it is already "gamey", and if you select historical start, everything after the first combat resolution is "gamey." Get over the gamey label and move on.
You want "non-gamey"? Fine. Chose non-historical and allow BOTH sides to issue orders to ALL their forces on turn one. Then neither side can make use of hindsight exploits. What most of you seem to want is freedom for the Japanese to do anything they can think of (based on total knowledge of Allied positions, dispositions, and game restrictions), while the Allies are nailed to the ground by "history".
All I'm saying is that if the Allies are to be staked out like a sacrificial lamb by "historical" restrictions, then the Japanese should have some "reality" restrictions on their freedom to exploit hindsight. Turn one is the most vulnerable to such exploitation as it is the one turn in the game where one side knows exactly where ALL of the oppositions units will be.
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
You want "non-gamey"? Fine. Chose non-historical and allow BOTH sides to issue orders to ALL their forces on turn one. Then neither side can make use of hindsight exploits. What most of you seem to want is freedom for the Japanese to do anything they can think of (based on total knowledge of Allied positions, dispositions, and game restrictions), while the Allies are nailed to the ground by "history".
All I'm saying is that if the Allies are to be staked out like a sacrificial lamb by "historical" restrictions, then the Japanese should have some "reality" restrictions on their freedom to exploit hindsight. Turn one is the most vulnerable to such exploitation as it is the one turn in the game where one side knows exactly where ALL of the oppositions units will be.
Really tired of hearing that same old broken record.
The people who understand these things have already made adjustments that are way beyond your capacity to judge. The people who don't understand these things , frankly don't give a crap, and are still way beyond your capacity to judge.
Just who the heck do you think you are, anyway, and why should anyone pay attention to your demands that they play the game your way? You just got the green button award.
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
yikes....well there's one less Japan player for Mr Scholl to face off against.
Bout 6 or so, but who cares. He don't play, he just whines and tries to everybody else to play his way. I'd give him 45 seconds at the O'side bar with MO; maybe 30 seconds with Jeremy, or 20 seconds with Faustini. Not anything anyone needs to listen to.
Fascinating debates...especially regarding the McNabb trade (Redskins got the best of that trade, btw). However, as for the original topic of this post...
As the Allied player, I would LOVE the Japanese player to nuke Manila instead of Pearl Harbor. My reasons for this are as follows:
The Initiative
1. My most important reason is this : 1942 is THE key year for the Allies. The Allied goal is to stop the Japanese and to, hopefully, try to wrest the initiative away from the Japanese - thereby forcing the Japanese to react to Allied moves instead of the other way around. As the Allied player, having a fully intact surface fleet - not to mention the gobs of undamaged airframes at Pearl Harbor - will make this task far, far easier. All the subs and other ships sunk at Manila are useless in terms of wresting the initiative away from the Japanese in 1942 - and are also basically useless in terms of stopping the Japanese in 1942. As an Allied player, I will most definitely trade everything at Manila in order to have all my BB's and planes at Pearl Harbor. These BB's and planes will allow the Allied player to fight back more vigorously and effectively during 1942 - and make it far easier for the Allies to wrest control of the initiative provided the Allied player keeps their CV's afloat.
Yes, it's true. Those old BB's suck fuel, are slow and don't have the latest gadgetry of the newer BB's that come out. Yet, those old BB's can make nuke most of the Japanese surface fleet - and can stack up favorably in surface engagements against many of the Japanese BB's, too. And if some of the old Allied BB's are sunk battling Japanese BB's? So what! I'll happily trade one old BB for a heavily damaged Japanese BB any day of the week. The Yamato for the Arizona and Nevada? That's a trade I'll make anyday, too!
Equally important, by allowing the Allied BB's to remain alive, the Japanese player is giving away one of their greatest advantages in my opinion - their uncontested surface fleet superiority, especially as it pertains to night time actions. With the Allied BB's alive and well, the Japanese surface fleet will no longer be able to sail into contested waters (aka...think Guadalcanal) and bombard away - while the Allies sit on and watch helplessly. The Japanese player will also have to deal with far more intense, and frequent, Allied bombardments. And the Japanese player will no longer be able to always count on the "Tokyo Express" for supply - as an Allied BB just might be lurking nearby.
More Standard Reasons
2. Many of the subs in Manila have very short range and are, for many purposes, functionally useless. If the Allied player bases the S boats out of Noumea, they can barely linger around Rabaul for any length of time. Nor are they much more effective if based out of Colombo. The only place S boats can really wreck any havoc is if they are based out of Darwin. But Darwin is basically indefensible to a determined Japanese attack, can be easily bombed by the Japanese from multiple airbases and any CV's that happen to be passing by, and is extremely difficult to supply.
3. The uselessness of Allied torpedoes in 1942 and early 1943.
4. The best subs in the Allied arsenal at the beginning of the war are the O boats. These aren't based out of Manila but instead Soerbaja. Attacking Manila doesn't do anything to get rid of the O boats.
There Are Some Advantages to Attacking Manila
I do see where the original poster is coming from. By doing the math, you can come up with some substantial shipping theoretically "saved" by getting rid of all the Allied subs at Manila - although in reality you can't really count the short-range S boats since they are basically useless once they are forced out of the Philippines. That said, there is no doubt that by getting rid of those subs at Manila, the Japanese will save some of their shipping over the life of the entire game.
But is saving that shipping "over the life of the game" worth the massive cost of allowing the Allied surface fleet to prowl the Pacific? And is it worth it to allow the Allies to have - for once - enough fighters and Catalina's so that the Allied player can fight more effectively in 1942?
In my opinion, saving shipping "over the life of the game" is not what matters most to the Japanese player. What matters is what happens in 1942. And attacking Manila in my opinion accomplishes absolutely nothing to help the Japanese in 1942. Worse, attacking Manila makes it far, far easier for the Allies to create an effective defense and to begin the process of rolling back the Japanese advances in the South and Central Pacific.
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
yikes....well there's one less Japan player for Mr Scholl to face off against.
Bout 6 or so, but who cares. He don't play, he just whines and tries to everybody else to play his way. I'd give him 45 seconds at the O'side bar with MO; maybe 30 seconds with Jeremy, or 20 seconds with Faustini. Not anything anyone needs to listen to.
Actually my current PBEM just entered September of 1943. And I didn't "whine", I simply expressed an opinion (something I was taught every American is entitled to do). And you are correct..., no one has to listen to it. But from the outrage expressed by several folks, I apparently hit a nerve. If so, then I consider it a success. My goal was simply to get players to think about what they suggest..., and look at it from both sides.
Yet there is a difference between hitting a nerve by repeatedly stating a meanwhile obvious, incomplete or simply wrong assumption and drawing conclusions from there,
and hitting a nerve because you actually hit the mark, no? [;)]
When you are basing your argument on the fact that the pre-knowledge of Allied troop positions and composition makes the first turns easier for the Japanese
compared to actual history and using this as point to consider every Japanese move except the "historically correct" ones as gamey, you are neglecting the fact that
the 20/20 hindsight feature is equally strong on other parts of the game, as the knowledge of Japanese weaknesses beyond ´43, their limited naval production and their
dependency on DEI oil (thats just an example, theres a couple of 1000´s more btw...).
If you accept that fact, you would suddently recongnize that giving the Japanse an freedom to act on Dec 7. is not the advantage you are trying to make it, because
the same 20/20 hindsight factors influence every other aspect of the game, including, naturally, the timeframe when the tables are turned.
And IF you accept that fact, you would realize that theres exactly two options:
- playing gamey (if you consider our knowledge on history gamey)
- surgically remove all your stored information on WWII from your brain, expect your opponent to follow suit, and stop reading the forum. [:D]
Yet there is a difference between hitting a nerve by repeatedly stating a meanwhile obvious, incomplete or simply wrong assumption and drawing conclusions from there,
and hitting a nerve because you actually hit the mark, no? [;)]
When you are basing your argument on the fact that the pre-knowledge of Allied troop positions and composition makes the first turns easier for the Japanese
compared to actual history and using this as point to consider every Japanese move except the "historically correct" ones as gamey, you are neglecting the fact that
the 20/20 hindsight feature is equally strong on other parts of the game, as the knowledge of Japanese weaknesses beyond ´43, their limited naval production and their
dependency on DEI oil (thats just an example, theres a couple of 1000´s more btw...).
If you accept that fact, you would suddently recongnize that giving the Japanse an freedom to act on Dec 7. is not the advantage you are trying to make it, because
the same 20/20 hindsight factors influence every other aspect of the game, including, naturally, the timeframe when the tables are turned.
And IF you accept that fact, you would realize that theres exactly two options:
- playing gamey (if you consider our knowledge on history gamey)
- surgically remove all your stored information on WWII from your brain, expect your opponent to follow suit, and stop reading the forum. [:D]
This is what I said:
"Sending KB to Manila instead of PH is really an exploit of hindsight by the Japanese player. KB went to pearl to cripple the US Pacific Fleet at the outset of the war. They didn't know until the 6th that the US Carriers were not in port..., too late to change the objective. To me it seems just as "gamey" as sending KB out hunting Enterprise and Lexington just because in the game the Japanese Player knows where they will start."
"To ME it seems gamey". With an comparison to another move that almost all players would agree was an exploit, and my reason's for thinking so. I didn't say a thing about having to make EVERY move historical..., just that this particular one seemed especially exploitive of "hindsight".
The default (prewar) Japanese strategy was to hit Manila with the KB. Going to Pearl was a surprise. Allowing the Japanese player to opt out of the Pearl Harbor gambit isn't gamey.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Interesting thoughts re 1942 being the 'key' year for the Allies, in RL thuogh it was more of a holding action and whilst the two key battles - Midway and Guadalcanal both went the US way quite decisively, one coudl argue that luck played an important part here ratehr than strategy - in fact, up until Midway it was a case of 'backs to the wall'.
As Yamato predicted, the IJ forces ran merry hell around teh Allies for the first six months of the war, with a series of stunning victories from New Britain right across to Malaysia. Capturing the key oil and raw material production centers in the DEI was perhaps their biggest goal/achievement, for as an island nation Japan was dependant upon these if it had any chance in the strategic long-term. Although these were a goal of the High Command, few people there realised their true importance, nor the equallly important task of protecting the lines of communication to said places in DEI (something US sub skippers were quick to exploit!)
Not quite sure though exactly how the Allies do take the iniative from the IJ, like I said in RL it was down to a lot of luck coupled with poor inter-service communication on the part of the IJ, not to mention them making the more serious mistakes than the Allies.
If I were playing as the Allies, I would consider a holding action, saving as many troops (particularly CW ones from Malaysia), planes and ships as I could early on. Also I would have to set my subs intelligently at important key locations/arterial routeways/bottlenecks and hope their torpedos actually do work.
Subs here perhaps are the key, at least in '42. Every sub the IJ can sink before they get some reliable fish is one less to worry about later on. Also every tanker (or possibly even a CV, yeah I got the Hosho with ironically a sub-dropped mine!) the subs can sink (get the S-boats or the Dutch ones into tanker-rich waters and keep toes crossed!) will pay back ten-fold later on.
Re the orginal BB's, sorry but they are just too darn slow, a tempting target for the KB and, dare I say it, dated - send back those you can for much needed updates and refits, turn them into floating AA platforms to protect the carriers in later montsh/years.
Re US carriers, well whilst you could get some lucky hits around Truk and Eniwok early on (so long as you definitely know where the KB is!) I would keep these back and update/increase the airgroups. Any US carrier going into battle armed with Buffallo's and Devestator is really testing the throw of the dice!
LoBaron is right in that as many advantages as the Japanese player has in hindsight, the Allied player does too in the opening turns. Here is a partial list of historical actions that I bet any decent Allied player will avoid. Why? Hindsight!
18th UK Division to Singapore
Black Force, US FA unit, other units to Java
Force Z attacking Japanese fleet
Attempting to Attack KB immediately after Pearl with 2 USN CVs
Actually my current PBEM just entered September of 1943. And I didn't "whine", I simply expressed an opinion (something I was taught every American is entitled to do). And you are correct..., no one has to listen to it. But from the outrage expressed by several folks, I apparently hit a nerve. If so, then I consider it a success. My goal was simply to get players to think about what they suggest..., and look at it from both sides.
An additional benefit of the Manila strike opening move for Japan would be that their diplomats would have delivered the declaration of war documents to the US government before the actual attack occurred. So they wouldn't have stirred so much hatred from their historical screw-up. Therefore Allied determination for unconditional surrender of Japan would not have had as much a following. So anytime in 1942 that the Japs get double the Allied VPs they should win a auto victory.
