Page 2 of 2
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:42 am
by vlcz
I'd love to see a version of the game that allowed the Allies to "mix things up" a bit and leave the Japanese Player as unsure of what and where his opposition would be as the real Jap commanders were on that fateful morning.
A limited use of the editor by allied player could achieve those tweaks easily.
Personally I would prefer a "random" allied initial deploy feature (an option as initial surprise) including alternative -changing each replay- initial positions of some air, land and navy units , specially CVs (even a low chance of them being at PH). And of course veriable % of surprise. This could give an interesting first turn presenting him some more the problems its historical counterpart had.
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:26 am
by herwin
HISTORY
Oahu on 7 December 1941 was one of the strongest fortified positions in the world. A Japanese invasion was infeasible--which is why Short and Kimmel were fat, dumb, and happy when the IJN did hit it.
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:47 am
by vlcz
HISTORY
Oahu on 7 December 1941 was one of the strongest fortified positions in the world. A Japanese invasion was infeasible--which is why Short and Kimmel were fat, dumb, and happy when the IJN did hit it.
HISTORY?!?![:-], kimmel could qualify as "fat" but Walt Short was quite a slim man [;)][:D]
Walter-Short-General.jpg
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:02 am
by EUBanana
ORIGINAL: Barb
question for all: What do you think is the allied single weakest point in AE? this should be Japanese "schwerpunkt"...
In 1942 - fighter aircraft.
In general - land combat units. Western Allied divisions are in short supply. They'll get the carriers back, 1st USMC Div would be gone forever. [:D]
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:35 am
by PawnPower
So the majority think Pearl is untouchable.
Pity a few big ships could not get within range of Pearl Harbour. Couple of hundred or thousand shells landing on Pearl would have caused a lot of damage. The shells from the ships would have been a lot heavier than aircraft delivered bombs.
Well, looking forward to pbem sometime next year.
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:46 am
by EUBanana
ORIGINAL: PawnPower
So the majority think Pearl is untouchable.
Not untouchable, but it's about cost and benefit. The cost is high - five divisions, all the transport required, and the acceptance of the loss of a lot of naval aviators to the defences. Same as in WITP really.
But I don't think the benefit is as great as it was in WITP, the map of the Pacific is larger, you got bases like Tahiti and such you can use instead, and if the worst comes to the worst, you can get to Australia by sailing east not west.
Pity a few big ships could not get within range of Pearl Harbour.
There are a lot of very big CD guns at Pearl... I imagine the commanders of the likes of Singapore, Bataan and Oahu are thinking every day 'pity the Yamashiro isn't in range'. You don't want to fulfill their wishes. [;)]
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:22 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: PawnPower
Pity a few big ships could not get within range of Pearl Harbour. Couple of hundred or thousand shells landing on Pearl would have caused a lot of damage. The shells from the ships would have been a lot heavier than aircraft delivered bombs.
I don't know how many times I've seen opinions like this expressed on the forums. You folks have to stop and ask yourselves if this is so obvious to you, why were the admirals of the time so blind? Or were they? Perhaps they realized that Lord Nelson had been correct when he observed "No sailor but a fool attacks a fortress." I guess the historical admirals weren't fools.
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:45 pm
by Venividivici10044
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: PawnPower
Lets face it the American production capacity far out strips the Japanese. The opening moves of the game are crucial for the Japanese and should not be squandered.
Depends on if you are an historian, or a pure "gamer". The opening move is the biggest burst of "hindsight exploitation" that will ever take place in the course of play. Never again will either side be so exactly certain just what opposition they will face, where it will be, how ready it will be, how much it will be worth in combat, and exactly how to exploit the rules to achieve the most "bang for the buck".
Historically the Japanese had only their estimates and their expectations to plan with. And they expected more opposition and losses EVERYWHERE in their opening moves.
KNOWING you will achieve "total suprise" and exactly what opposition you will face and just how to use the game's mechanics to achieve maximum results is a huge advantage for the Japanese Player! Every lucky break the Japanese received historically (and some they didn't) are built in to the Game's opening.
A perfect example of this is the "Manilla ploy". In real life, subs came and went all the time, and for safety reasons most of them in the Bay submerged during daylight hours. In the game the Japanese player KNOWS that they will be docked and vulnerable and that he can sink them in large numbers on the first turn if he wants to.
In the game there really isn't anything to prevent the Japanese player from going "CV hunting" on the morning of the 7th. He knows exactly where the
Lexington and
Enterprise will be, and what their orders will be. If they are as important as some have suggested, why not "whack" them on day one? The only thing preventing it is the possible charge of being "gamey". In real life the Japanese didn't have anymore idea where the 3 US CV's were than Kimmel did of where Kido Butai was. And they certainly had no idea that US sub commanders were going to be saddled with faulty torpedoes. Or that every possible "tip-off" to what they were doing would be ignored.
So I'd say it's mostly a matter of just how "gamey" you and your opponant want to be. Personally, I'd love to see a version of the game that allowed the Allies to "mix things up" a bit and leave the Japanese Player as unsure of what and where his opposition would be as the real Jap commanders were on that fateful morning. Just to see how "bold" the player would be without 100% hindsight?
I have to agree with Mike on this issue. The game by default attempts to provide a historic first turn, but after that point alternative history ensues. I do not find any excitement knowing the location of the American CV force at the start or the fact that I can potentially wipe out the submarine force in the Philippines that has been conveniently been left docked on the surface waiting to be sunk. It reminds me of a story I heard about an Indian tribe escorting hunters out to a field with penned in elk; the hunter could choose the animal to kill and then shoot it. Exciting...You decide. I'd find the game much more exciting NOT knowing where that carrier force is located and the fact that I'm going to have to watch my shipping a whole lot more closely knowing that subs could be lurking. So...if you prefer shooting your elk in a fenced enclosure, you'll get much the same thrill by sending forces to wipe out the carrier and sub forces. Such a scenario may be fun against the computer AI, but I'd expect more from a PBEM opponent.
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:55 pm
by Q-Ball
Going after the USN CVs turn one is gamey, and a good PBEM opponent won't do that.
Other than that, while I don't disagree that foreknowledge gives the Japanese some advantages, this cuts both ways. There are many ways in which Allied foreknowledge helps them, even early. One example is that you know what to expect in Malaya, and you probably won't send the 18th UK Division there to die. Etc. We could put a list together a mile long where both sides benefit.
It's just not possible to play this game like RL in this regard, we know too much.
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:20 pm
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Going after the USN CVs turn one is gamey, and a good PBEM opponent won't do that.
Other than that, while I don't disagree that foreknowledge gives the Japanese some advantages, this cuts both ways. There are many ways in which Allied foreknowledge helps them, even early. One example is that you know what to expect in Malaya, and you probably won't send the 18th UK Division there to die. Etc. We could put a list together a mile long where both sides benefit.
It's just not possible to play this game like RL in this regard, we know too much.
I never understood why the Allied player should let the Japanese player catch his carriers on turn one. How does that work if the Allied player sets his carriers to a different location. Set them to move somewhere full speed and in WITP you will find them 12 hexes away from the position the Japanese player knows. I would just love to see KB trying to go after one of my carrier TFs instead of bombing PH. In this case the IJN wouldn´t get a carrier and wouldn´t get my BBs...
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:14 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
A perfect example of this is the "Manilla ploy". In real life, subs came and went all the time, and for safety reasons most of them in the Bay submerged during daylight hours. In the game the Japanese player KNOWS that they will be docked and vulnerable and that he can sink them in large numbers on the first turn if he wants to.
Mike,
I think it was only really commonplace for USN subs to submerge during daylight hours AFTER the onset of hostilities. In the days prior to the onset of hostilities, I don't think this was done that often.
Having just pulled off the "Manila ploy" with KB in my two PBEMs, I can rationalize the move easily. IJ sympathizers or embassy employees in the Phillipines could easily have been keeping tabs on USN movements in the days before the attack, as they did in PH IRL. I will default believe the OOB and setup that AE has provided us re: whether ships were docked or not on the morning of December 8 local. I'm open to evidence that shows that 50% of the submarines were submerged in harbor or on patrol, but I'm guessing that's not the case.
The trade off that I gave my PBEM partners was that I port strike on December 7-8 morning phase in only one time zone. I can't get around temporal reality and Newtonian physics. A surprise attack in PH on the am would have been at least many hours later in the PI, thereby negating realistic surprise. So, in both cases, I opted for only Manila strikes.
I think if players are considerate of one another with a nod to metaphysical reality, that will go a long way to engendering a pleasant start to a PBEM. Do unto others and all that...
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:20 pm
by stuman
" temporal reality and Newtonian physics " ; " metaphysical reality " : now this is a good example of why I like these forums [:)]
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:39 pm
by Kwik E Mart
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: PawnPower
Pity a few big ships could not get within range of Pearl Harbour. Couple of hundred or thousand shells landing on Pearl would have caused a lot of damage. The shells from the ships would have been a lot heavier than aircraft delivered bombs.
I don't know how many times I've seen opinions like this expressed on the forums. You folks have to stop and ask yourselves if this is so obvious to you, why were the admirals of the time so blind? Or were they? Perhaps they realized that Lord Nelson had been correct when he observed "No sailor but a fool attacks a fortress." I guess the historical admirals weren't fools.
didn't the Union successfully subdue/reduce/destroy a significant number of Confederate forts during the course of the Civil War? i agree that the historical admirals probably weren't fools, but it seems to me the IJN was overly cautious in their opening moves of the war...plus the fact that bombarding Pearl was probably not viewed as a glorious use of the IJN fleet...better to draw the US fleet out for the glamorous and decisive "Final Battle"...but then again, i have perfect hindsight [;)]
RE: Better strategy for the Japanese
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:54 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: PawnPower
Pity a few big ships could not get within range of Pearl Harbour. Couple of hundred or thousand shells landing on Pearl would have caused a lot of damage. The shells from the ships would have been a lot heavier than aircraft delivered bombs.
I don't know how many times I've seen opinions like this expressed on the forums. You folks have to stop and ask yourselves if this is so obvious to you, why were the admirals of the time so blind? Or were they? Perhaps they realized that Lord Nelson had been correct when he observed "No sailor but a fool attacks a fortress." I guess the historical admirals weren't fools.
didn't the Union successfully subdue/reduce/destroy a significant number of Confederate forts during the course of the Civil War? i agree that the historical admirals probably weren't fools, but it seems to me the IJN was overly cautious in their opening moves of the war...plus the fact that bombarding Pearl was probably not viewed as a glorious use of the IJN fleet...better to draw the US fleet out for the glamorous and decisive "Final Battle"...but then again, i have perfect hindsight [;)]
The subdued a few batteries..., but if you look at the history you will find that Ft. Donaldson, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Ft. Fisher, etc were all siezed from the landward side by the Army---much the same as with Corregadore and Singapore.
Also remember that the backbone of the IJN was composed of officers from the "Battleship School" devoted to the idea of the "Decisive Battle". If you think they would support getting those BB's trashed by highly accurate CD fire 2,500 miles from home; then you would have to allow for every Allied Leader to ignore all their pre-war doctrine and background as well.
If you want to try it in your own game, feel free to do so. If the programming is anything close to realistic you should discover just why "No sailor but a fool attacks a fortress". [:D]