Pearl Harbor

Moderator: Hubert Cater

Captjohn757
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:17 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor

Post by Captjohn757 »

The first time I played as Allies I moved two carriers to Pearl which triggered the ubiquitous complaints from the isolationists and the U.S. mobilization level took a hit . . . perhaps something has changed since the initial release(?). Or perhaps I'm overlooking something.
lwarmonger
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:19 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor

Post by lwarmonger »

So I saw Svient launch an extremely competent invasion of Hawaii against me. Which failed. It required two entrenched and upgraded armies, along with several upgraded fighters and maritime bombers from both the US and Britain which were operated into the big island as well as an upgraded fleet ready to intervene and another army and infantry corp which were transported in after the fact to defend. In exchange, Japan lost a pretty big chunk of her fleet and about half her marines when the invasion failed... but it was a close run thing.

As Christalos's opponent in the game he mentions I committed 4 marines on AVLs to attack Hawaii plus several other units on transports for after the harbors were secure, then 3 AVLs for DEI and 2 for Philippines (with units transported in... I took DEI in one turn, because letting it survive longer then that is dangerous if the Indian Army lands, but Philippines took a couple). Ground based armies took Hong Kong and I used paratroopers to take Sarawak and then Brunei. After Hawaii was seized, some of my ground forces not necessary to hold the island were then diverted to clean up the other islands that I had not seized initially because so much went into attacking Hawaii.... also I lost two marines that I had loaded onto AVL's because I had assumed the naval battle was over after sinking the US Pacific fleet... just in time for the Australians and the Atlantic fleet to show up.

Frankly, I think it is safest to assume your opponent will try to seize Pearl Harbor and act accordingly. Armies are the best defensive option you have, and you will need maritime bombers for a properly executed pacific war anyways, along with fighters, so you might as well have them all prepared at the outset. You don't really need to produce any more armies prior to 1942, but you do need to make sure your starting units are upgraded, with 2 Armies upgraded and entrenched to defend Oahu and your air force upgraded and prepared to operate in, as well as other ground formations staged in transports to reinforce the islands. Even if the Japanese only use carrier air to destroy your ships, your maritime bombers can still take a bite out of the Japanese fleet as it withdraws if they are prepared... and if there is no invasion, then everything is prepared and ready to start seizing outlying Japanese bases, limiting their ability to run wild.

Historically, Pearl Harbor and the whole Japanese war strategy was a gamble... I would not invade Hawaii every game, because if a human player is prepared for that it means Japan can suffer a very serious defeat early on. But I think taking even more of a gamble can and should pay off sometimes.
User avatar
Christolos
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:45 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

RE: Pearl Harbor

Post by Christolos »

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

ORIGINAL: Christolos

So my question, to all, is: can having soft builds on partly circumvent the need to have higher levels of Logistics to build extra transports (of all kinds) and/or extra HQs? My sense is no...but if anyone can confirm that, that would be great. Bill and/or Hubert?

I think it would. However, as the cost rises with the number of units bought, research should still be useful because it would raise the threshold before the price rises.

That said, it might be worth running a test if you're interested just to be certain.
Thanks Bill.

I may run a test at some point, and will post back about it if I do.

Cheers,

C
“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-
User avatar
Christolos
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:45 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

RE: Pearl Harbor

Post by Christolos »

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

So I saw Svient launch an extremely competent invasion of Hawaii against me. Which failed. It required two entrenched and upgraded armies, along with several upgraded fighters and maritime bombers from both the US and Britain which were operated into the big island as well as an upgraded fleet ready to intervene and another army and infantry corp which were transported in after the fact to defend. In exchange, Japan lost a pretty big chunk of her fleet and about half her marines when the invasion failed... but it was a close run thing.

As Christalos's opponent in the game he mentions I committed 4 marines on AVLs to attack Hawaii plus several other units on transports for after the harbors were secure, then 3 AVLs for DEI and 2 for Philippines (with units transported in... I took DEI in one turn, because letting it survive longer then that is dangerous if the Indian Army lands, but Philippines took a couple). Ground based armies took Hong Kong and I used paratroopers to take Sarawak and then Brunei. After Hawaii was seized, some of my ground forces not necessary to hold the island were then diverted to clean up the other islands that I had not seized initially because so much went into attacking Hawaii.... also I lost two marines that I had loaded onto AVL's because I had assumed the naval battle was over after sinking the US Pacific fleet... just in time for the Australians and the Atlantic fleet to show up.

Frankly, I think it is safest to assume your opponent will try to seize Pearl Harbor and act accordingly. Armies are the best defensive option you have, and you will need maritime bombers for a properly executed pacific war anyways, along with fighters, so you might as well have them all prepared at the outset. You don't really need to produce any more armies prior to 1942, but you do need to make sure your starting units are upgraded, with 2 Armies upgraded and entrenched to defend Oahu and your air force upgraded and prepared to operate in, as well as other ground formations staged in transports to reinforce the islands. Even if the Japanese only use carrier air to destroy your ships, your maritime bombers can still take a bite out of the Japanese fleet as it withdraws if they are prepared... and if there is no invasion, then everything is prepared and ready to start seizing outlying Japanese bases, limiting their ability to run wild.

Historically, Pearl Harbor and the whole Japanese war strategy was a gamble... I would not invade Hawaii every game, because if a human player is prepared for that it means Japan can suffer a very serious defeat early on. But I think taking even more of a gamble can and should pay off sometimes.
Nice post Iwarmonger.
Expecting only a carrier based attack, I was prepared with two upgraded fighters on the main Island, which were quickly dispatched with your AVL loaded special forces units that landed. While I now know that it would be better to have two upgraded Armies instead of the two fighters, I don't see how it would be good to have other additional units without upsetting the Isolationists unless the timing of the deployment of the additional units above the no penalty value of two, is such (i.e., as close to December 1941 as possible before being attacked) that the penalty of triggering the Isolationists is minimized by being in effect for a shorter time and with the US as close to 100% mobilization as possible.

C
“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-
lwarmonger
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:19 pm

RE: Pearl Harbor

Post by lwarmonger »

If you have them staged on the west coast, they can rapidly transport in. Against a properly put together Japanese attack, those 2 armies will need reinforcements because 5 marines with a headquarters will take some killing. Units on the west coast, or within a few hexes of the west coast, are not a problem for the isolationists (who only appear to want to lose hawaii for some reason).
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: Pearl Harbor

Post by Grotius »

What exactly is the isolationist rule? Can you have two units on Oahu and two on the Big Island, for a total of 4 units in the Hawaiian Islands? Or only two units in the islands? The rule uses the always-confusing term "and/or".

Also, it appears the isolationists don't mind if you park a couple corps on ships one hex away from the islands. That's gamey, though, and it's probably also pointless, as you can naval-cruise from the West Coast to Hawaii pretty fast anyway.
Image
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 6651
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: Pearl Harbor

Post by BillRunacre »

Hi Grotius

The full details can be found on page 13 of the 1939 World at War Strategy Guide.

The US can have 2 naval units (and Transports are classed as naval units for this) within 30 hexes of Midway, but no more without triggering the isolationists. If you're parking some nearby, bear in mind that the Axis could get an Intelligence Report disclosing their location, which could lead to them sinking them rather easily on the turn they begin their attack on the US.

There can be 2 units on both Hawaii and Oahu without triggering the isolationists, but if there are 3 on either island then they will be triggered.

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII: World at War”