Page 2 of 2
RE: Manila vs PH
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:23 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
given the tendancy for Allied players to be far more aggressive vs. their RL counterparts and with knowledge that player one has one hand tied behind his back trying to suppress the SRA while guarding against early incursions into the outer mandates.......my preference is to allow the PH attack. It is valuable to destroy alot of those planes on the ground and take out the BB's from harrasement/bombardment duty. Leaving PH vulnerable for a time also gives Player one pause. He must defend this vital base which takes away from adventures in the Mandates or even the SRA via the off map routes or the US-NZ-Oz route.
I can see the value of a Manilla strike though. I've been stung more than once by all those subs but one can also have the Formosa AF bomb Manila too. Having KB in the SRA early has merit as the first thing Player two always does is start the SIR ROBIN resource/ENG unit evac. It also discourages the fast surface raids that are virtually impossible for land based air units to defend against due to the way the combat phase works. The con of course is that once KB's location is firmly ID'd......player one is more free to create chaos with it's US fleet and carriers.
pros and cons either way but personally i lean towards PH over Manila.
Due to first turn surprise, having a port surprise attacks so many time zones apart is a non-starter for me. Multiple port attacks in the far east is fine, but Hawaii plus one or more in the far east is too much because they all get the surprise model.
RE: Manila vs PH
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:30 pm
by castor troy
I would go with a Manila strike now that I know that Allied subs are more of a threat in 42-43 than 44-45 because in 44-45 IJN ASW like those super E will bring Allied sub attacks to a halt (if you don´t accept a 1:1 trade of subs vs freighters). So it´s 42 and 43 where you should sink a hundred + enemy tankers with your subs to at least keep the Japanese on a pre war level as this pretty much should be the number of replacements in this time frame. By mid 44 you have to aim at cutting off the SRA as your subs won´t be able to stop oil/fuel imports. So I would sink all those subs in Manila than attacking PH to aim at the old BB and aircraft that can be shot down by your IJ aircraft at will in 42 if the Allied employs them. If you go for points then PH is the target of course, on the other hand, I haven´t lost a single BB during the PH attack in my PBEM.
RE: Manila vs PH
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:52 pm
by dr.hal
Castor Troy, I'm not surprised that you have not had any BBs sunk on any Pearl raid, given the depth of the water, 40 feet, that's not possible, if you note on the 8 December scenario both the Arizona and Oklahoma are still "afloat" however in about as bad a shape as possible. But just for spite the allied play could get both recommissioned in time. So sinking them would require deep water (which is why there were a lot of Jap subs sitting outside the harbor mouth, waiting for something like what the Nevada "tried" to do... BTW, I noticed something strange on the 8 Dec scenario, that many of the BBs were listed both on the active list and then they also appeared on the "Manage Ships Under Repair" list, but not the "Show Ships Under Repair" list. Not sure I follow that. Is it the norm? Can someone shed some light? Also the Pennsylvania is listed in "Active Ships" and also listed in "Manage Ships Under Repair" but in "repair allocation" mode it is listed as "readiness"... should it not be in "shipyard" as it was in dry dock? Or was she pulled out on the 8th? Just curious if someone knows. Thanks...
RE: Manila vs PH
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:42 pm
by topeverest
Nickademous
Agreed that the american subs are the unstoppable enemy in a seasoned player's hands. Even without significant advances on the surface military front, the subs can be a horrible terror that rips out the heart of the booty capability. In 43, a seasoned player can flood the military zone too and make surface operations there very very costly. My question is in that critical period of the first 18 months, which is a worse terror...10-20 extra subs or 8 BB's and a few extra smaller warships. IMHO, trying to win the ASW war as Empire is like trying to hold back the tide, if the allied player is persistant and thorough. I just dont know what up to 20 less subs might do. Is there any real difference in the merchant attrition rates - or other less obvious benefits?
My not completely thorough review of the manila gambit AAR's suggest that the allies are quicker on the surface front offensive and a quicker end to the war.
thoughts?
RE: Manila vs PH
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:55 am
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: dr.hal
Castor Troy, I'm not surprised that you have not had any BBs sunk on any Pearl raid, given the depth of the water, 40 feet, that's not possible, if you note on the 8 December scenario both the Arizona and Oklahoma are still "afloat" however in about as bad a shape as possible. But just for spite the allied play could get both recommissioned in time. So sinking them would require deep water (which is why there were a lot of Jap subs sitting outside the harbor mouth, waiting for something like what the Nevada "tried" to do... BTW, I noticed something strange on the 8 Dec scenario, that many of the BBs were listed both on the active list and then they also appeared on the "Manage Ships Under Repair" list, but not the "Show Ships Under Repair" list. Not sure I follow that. Is it the norm? Can someone shed some light? Also the Pennsylvania is listed in "Active Ships" and also listed in "Manage Ships Under Repair" but in "repair allocation" mode it is listed as "readiness"... should it not be in "shipyard" as it was in dry dock? Or was she pulled out on the 8th? Just curious if someone knows. Thanks...
in WITP and AE you can sink the BB in Pearl Harbour. Think about it as "damaged beyond repair" or "destroyed".
RE: Manila vs PH
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:59 am
by Sardaukar
ORIGINAL: topeverest
Nickademous
Agreed that the american subs are the unstoppable enemy in a seasoned player's hands. Even without significant advances on the surface military front, the subs can be a horrible terror that rips out the heart of the booty capability. In 43, a seasoned player can flood the military zone too and make surface operations there very very costly. My question is in that critical period of the first 18 months, which is a worse terror...10-20 extra subs or 8 BB's and a few extra smaller warships. IMHO, trying to win the ASW war as Empire is like trying to hold back the tide, if the allied player is persistant and thorough. I just dont know what up to 20 less subs might do. Is there any real difference in the merchant attrition rates - or other less obvious benefits?
My not completely thorough review of the manila gambit AAR's suggest that the allies are quicker on the surface front offensive and a quicker end to the war.
thoughts?
I take bite on this, even not being Nik. [:D]
Those old US BBs are not a real threat to IJN, as long as IJN has most of it's CVs intact. They are horribly vulnerable even to land-based Nells/Betties when those carry torpedoes. For Japan, if you have not "won" by 1943, it is time to dig in and fear for the worst anyway. Before 1943, those old BBs are not going to swing the balance that much. I think it'd be even beneficial to IJN if Allied player would resort using Surface Combat TFs without having superiority in CVs.
RE: Manila vs PH
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:41 am
by Dixie
I'd favour a PH strike over Manila every time. You're not just removing the USN BBs, you've also got the chance to destroy a lot of potentially unrestricted B-17s and P-40E aircraft.
RE: Manila vs PH
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:17 am
by obvert
It's definitely PH for air losses and ships losses. Not mentioned yet (I think) is that the damaged 2-5 BBs and other ships tie up the yards at PH for a good amount of time. If they are moved then they become targets again for the IJN subs.
Taking out the BBs later means losing a lot of ships, planes or subs in the process, and they do soak up hits that would go to other units.
But the Cats are hat I don't want to lose early. Especially since they also are your best long range naval bomber early on. Mine have often been at 30-40% hits on naval targets. If you have forty more of those sitting in the DEI, both moving and hitting things, that's better than 10-15 anaemic subs in 42.
RE: Manila vs PH
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:48 am
by dr.hal
One thing that we seem to be overlooking in this thread is the support ships and the losses they would take. It is all very nice and flashy to talk about killing BBs, CAs, etc, but sometimes the ships behind the ships are more important. I think the Sub Tenders in Manila are very valuable and a prime target. Too bad you can't target specific ships. By taking out the tenders, you take out the resupply of US subs short of Pearl until the US can get another AS to Oz (my experience is that only sub tenders of a specific nationality can resupply subs of the same nationality). An empty ammo sub is almost as good as a dead sub. It is a long way between Pearl and the western Pacific. Hal
RE: Manila vs PH
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:07 pm
by Sardaukar
ORIGINAL: obvert
It's definitely PH for air losses and ships losses. Not mentioned yet (I think) is that the damaged 2-5 BBs and other ships tie up the yards at PH for a good amount of time. If they are moved then they become targets again for the IJN subs.
Any competent Allied player will just use Pierside repair and move those BBs to West Coast when it is safe. IJN subs can get lucky, but so can US DDs. There is no issue about shipyard capacity in PH.
RE: Manila vs PH
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:43 pm
by Sun Tempest
ORIGINAL: dr.hal
One thing that we seem to be overlooking in this thread is the support ships and the losses they would take. It is all very nice and flashy to talk about killing BBs, CAs, etc, but sometimes the ships behind the ships are more important. I think the Sub Tenders in Manila are very valuable and a prime target. Too bad you can't target specific ships. By taking out the tenders, you take out the resupply of US subs short of Pearl until the US can get another AS to Oz (my experience is that only sub tenders of a specific nationality can resupply subs of the same nationality). An empty ammo sub is almost as good as a dead sub. It is a long way between Pearl and the western Pacific. Hal
But US subs are able to resupply&rearm with torps in the large ports of DEI region (Batavia, Singapore or Sorebeja), so no need for AS.
Even more the surface ships in Manila port will have a hard time trying to escape to safety[:D]