gamey turn 1?

[Oleg Mastruko]

What is the public opinion on IJN going CV hunting on turn 1? Set KB a/c on Naval attack and send them to the *supposed* position of US CVs? But giving Allied player all the freedom he wants. Dirty trick or what? Japanese expected US CVs in the general area of PH historically, so one could argue they knew as much as any player knows...

O.

[freeboy]

Oleg,
Dirty trik? Well not really those carriers are in three different groups on my turn one pbem game, and to attack only one and maybe not find it wastes your other options, and to attack two or three invites a cv trade, often I have seen the posts here of jap players cv's woes one early game turns.... jap cvs are too valuable and fragile ...etv

So not gamey but very risky.

In regard to the origonal? I do not think the Brits or the US where much aware of the December movement, pre war of shipping, and thus I could see borneo attacked t1, and raids at Hong Kong Singipore minila but only surprise at PH... maybe a new feature, actually it can be modeled as a ho rule with us not allowd to fly cap at Pearl and no Fleet formation..

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: admiral56

Lets say i'm playing japanese.

Would it be considered gamey to do 10, 20 or 30 landings/invasions (large and small)?

IMHO, 1st turn attack on PH always seems too weak, is it gamey to attack Manilla instead/also, where i can sink and damage 20+ subs?

The GAMEY portion of doing a massive number of invasions on the 7th as the Japanese
is that they were trying to achieve "suprise". If most of your navy has been spotted on
the 5th and 6th escorting massive convoys of troops far beyond any rational Japanese-
held destination, it's hard to argue for "suprise". Or against massive Allied reaction and
re-deployment to meet such obvious threats. Historically the Japanese landings on the
first day of the war were pretty much limited to Northern Malaya/Southern Thailand. The
convoys headed there could legitimately be assumed to be heading into the Gulf of Thai-
land right up to the last moment, and as Thailand was already pretty much in the Jap
camp, triggered worry but not reaction.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

What is the public opinion on IJN going CV hunting on turn 1? Set KB a/c on Naval attack and send them to the *supposed* position of US CVs? But giving Allied player all the freedom he wants. Dirty trick or what? Japanese expected US CVs in the general area of PH historically, so one could argue they knew as much as any player knows...

O.

The Japanese HOPED the US CV's would be in PH. They had NO idea where they were
otherwise. Players know EXACTLY where they are (which is what makes CV Hunting
even possible). They also KNOW that their A/C enjoy distinct "built in" advantages at
the start of the game. The Japanese THOUGHT they were better prepared and equipped,
but they didn't KNOW it down to the A/C values the way players do. Nagumo was wor-
ried sick he was putting his head into a noose. Players KNOW better. Hindsight is an
enevitable issue in historical games..., and limiting how much advantage the players
can take of it a major challange. Changing the basic historical moves based on game
knowledge is "pushing it". How bold would you be if you DIDN'T know every factor
involved down to the last decimal place? Suppose there was a 50-50 chance that the
PH strike was seen, all guns were manned, and all CAP was flying, and the US had put
TBF's into service early? You have to remember that the real commanders didn't know
SQUAT compared to what you know..., then decide how GAMEY your actions will be.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I always got a chuckle about *us* declaring war on Japan first. Mess with us will ya? We don't need the Yanks, we'll take you on all alone! [:'(]

Hi, Canada did not like having it's troops in Hong Kong attacked.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
The Japanese HOPED the US CV's would be in PH. They had NO idea where they were
otherwise. Players know EXACTLY where they are (which is what makes CV Hunting
even possible). They also KNOW that their A/C enjoy distinct "built in" advantages at
the start of the game. The Japanese THOUGHT they were better prepared and equipped,
but they didn't KNOW it down to the A/C values the way players do. Nagumo was wor-
ried sick he was putting his head into a noose. Players KNOW better. Hindsight is an
enevitable issue in historical games..., and limiting how much advantage the players
can take of it a major challange. Changing the basic historical moves based on game
knowledge is "pushing it". How bold would you be if you DIDN'T know every factor
involved down to the last decimal place? Suppose there was a 50-50 chance that the
PH strike was seen, all guns were manned, and all CAP was flying, and the US had put
TBF's into service early? You have to remember that the real commanders didn't know
SQUAT compared to what you know..., then decide how GAMEY your actions will be.

Hm.

Using CVs for port attack is generally stupid idea in the world of WITP/UV, and is very rarely used. It was like that in history as well - massive US raids vs. Truk and Rabaul later in war are basically "Naval attacks" on base hex, in WITP lingo. Seen like that, PH was maybe the *only* pure port attack in WW2 IIRC (at least in Pacific, lets forget about Taranto for now).

So, if you'd erase all my historical knowledge from my head, but kept my knowledge of WITP system, I would not be doing PH on turn 1, but will try to do something to catch US CVs.

The most important thing we know (and Japanese didn't) is that CVs are way more important than a bunch of old BBs. So how we do use that (legitimate) knowledge without being gamey?

O.

[mogami]

Hi, Oleg that sounds reasonable. To make it fair the Japanese CV can move no farther then 5 hexes from Midway. (any direction) and the USN CV get to issue orders on turn 1.
Or if that is too much. Then allow IJN to go where they want but USN gets to give orders as well. It would be a waste of time for the IJN. The USN just heads south at full speed.
Now you have IJN CV needing fuel and their oilers many hundreds of miles behind. (The tankers move as far as they can already. No change in orders will get them further south.)

[freeboy]

Oleg,
Want to do a small five day ocean only pbem simulating this with me... you set my forces at random start advanced damage and weather, then go looking, I won't hide either, at least not too much?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Oleg,
Want to do a small five day ocean only pbem simulating this with me... you set my forces at random start advanced damage and weather, then go looking, I won't hide either, at least not too much?

OK, will do. What was your mail again? [&:]

O.

[freeboy]

sent you note with info, when will you send the turn? Just so I'll be looking for it, I'm on Mountain Standard Time, Denver.. US.. and I think you are in Europe.. like +8 from me...
Thanks.. we will let you see the results in an aar if Oleg consents...

[sveint]

IMO the Japanese player should be free to change the initial plan without being too gamey. Bombing Manila instead of PH could very well have happened... in fact the US probably though of it as more likely...

[Feinder]

While I certainly haven't played the campaign game to the bitter end (has anyone?), I'm pretty much for giving the IJN the option do just about anything he wants on Turn 1. It might well be considered "gamey" to know the exact defense strength of a base (or lack thereof), and subsequently land there. Or know that there are 25 subs in Manilla, and kill them all with a port attack.

But the simple truth is, the IJN is going to be overwhelmed in 1944 anyways, with or without those 25 subs, or even the loss of key bases in December like Midway or Noumea. We all know that, at most, IJN is going to kill 2 or 3 BBs at PH. The rest WILL eventually be repaired. Even if he crunches all 25 subs (not likely, more like 10), the loss of those 10 subs (or even 25) will certainly hurt during the first 6 months, but the fact is, there is very little that is going to affect the overall outcome of the war. Production wins this war, and killing a few BBs or even 25 subs has no effect on the Allied production capabilities.

Don't forget that, the Allies already have the "advantage" of hindsite also. They can start retreating (or in my case consolidating) the DEI and PI asap. Or rushing troops to a defensive posiiton in Burma, or Bismark Archipeligo. The USN player can (and does) actucally play much more aggressively than his historical counterparts did anyways. And this aggression level usually translates into the IJN offensives being blunted that much ealier. So if allowing IJN to make unhistorical first-turn moves is what it takes to "make a good game of it", then I say bring it on.

-F-

[2ndACR]

Port attack on Manila has almost always netted me 20+ sunk subs. That is in 6 PBEM games and countless AI starts. But I feel the same way as you do Feinder. Hindsight works both ways at all times. Unless the players want to re-create history as exactly as possible, which I do not. I have books for that.

[sven6345789]

attacking manila port on turn 1 means that Clark isn't hit that hard. So there actually might be some air force around.
furthermore, if the japanese player starts to undertake 20+ landings on turn one, his forces will most likely be dispersed. he can't have major concentrations of ships everywhere. for the allied player, this increases the chance of taking out a few transports and maybe combat ships before leaving the SRA with what is left. An opponent of mine landed close to singapore, to close. my vildebeasts and swordfish are really having a good time.
Spreading out as the japanese means putting your scarce assets at risk. The more you spread out, the higher the losses will be. The allied player can afford to loose the whole navy concentrated in the PI, Malaya and DEI, and still get enough power to come back 4-5 times stronger. The japanese player cannot do that.

But reading all these posts, i would accept one more houserule->the japanese player may only land where he landed historically on turn one (with what is up to him), in addition to the others i mentioned earlier. this one is not a must though.

since we are talking about whats gamey and what is historical, do you really think the japanese would have used their carriers to hunt the allied carriers? 1. they had no idea where they could be (Pearl Harbor maybe); if you look up the allied setup, you as players of course know where the allied CVs are. There are probably cracks out there who have created maps with circles in it pointing out to them where the allied CVs could go at maximum speed. THAT is gamey, if you ask me. on turn one, attacking installations with KB is something that should be done. which one doesn't really matter.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Port attack on Manila has almost always netted me 20+ sunk subs. That is in 6 PBEM games and countless AI starts. But I feel the same way as you do Feinder. Hindsight works both ways at all times. Unless the players want to re-create history as exactly as possible, which I do not. I have books for that.

Hi, The only problem I have with a port attack on Manila or Singapore is that such attacks have to occur hours after the Pearl Harbor attack. Manila was aware of the Pearl Harbor attack while that attack was still in progress. If the Japanese player does not attack Pearl Harbor but instead orders his CV to attack Manila then I would consider that a legal use of his carriers and forces. Now the question is at dawn Manila time what is the status of Singapore? How long between dawn Manila and dawn Singapore? If Japanese bombers took off in darkness from Saigon when would they arrive over Singapore? (long enough to justify the Allied player being allowed to get underway if he desired. Long enough for the Allied player not to be surprised there?

I am in favor of allowing any plausible historically possible use of both players forces from turn 1 to turn 1650. I have for several years now tried to stress that WITP is not a tactical game. The combat displayed during the course of a turn is provided so that the player can judge the result of his operational planning.
Operation Planning is simply (from the ground up)

1. Decide Objectives. What do you want to capture what do you want to defend how will the picture change as you meet or fail to meet objectives? Planning is always along a time line. As your operations (and those of the enemy) proceed the picture will change and the result will be you set new objectives.

2. Decide forces required.

3. Provide for movement to objective

4. provide for supply

5. establish schedule

The game (war) is nothing more then a series of operations tied together in a manner to meet changing objectives. Some operations are proactive (you are forcing the enemy to respond) Some are reactionary (the enemy is forcing you to respond)

The War for simplicities sake can be broken into three parts. I call them Phase 1 Phase 2 and phase 3.

In Phase 1 Japan is expanding for the purpose of gathering the resources required for continued National existence.

In Phase 1 Japanese advantages include the isolated nature of the enemy force in the area the operations occur.
A comparatively stronger force. (Japan is massed the enemy is dispersed)
Quality. The Japanese forces on hand are more prepared then the enemy.


In Phase 2 Japan will shift operations from the SRA to other areas. Many of the advantages enjoyed in Phase 1 will be gone or quickly diminishing. The primary goal of phase 2 operations is to secure space that Japan will use during phase 3 to survive and while the means remain to destroy enemy material to weaken and delay enemy Phase 3 offensive operations.

In Phase 3 Japan is fighting for time.

After turn 1 I feel Japan should have complete latitude in the employment of her forces.
If Japanese operations are sound and well executed then I see no objective beyond Japanese capability to achieve unless Allied Operations are planned and executed at least as well.

Both players should realize that if the enemy is controlled by the AI the enemy Operations will not be well thought out or executed but the game can still be enjoyed just realize your enemy is a dunderhead. (We of course know there were no dunderheads commanding in WWII or history)

[2ndACR]

I do not bother with PH. KB goes to Manila. I only port attack 1 port on turn 1. Singapore gets a reprieve of execution.

I only tinker against the AI. My REAL games are PBEM games. Since I only port attack 1 port on turn 1 that is the only reason I request no orders except formed Allied TF's. If however my opponenet wants the latitude of an all hindsight game, then I have no problem with it. Everything on turn 1 gets set for naval attack and the turkey shoot begins in full. KB winds up around Davao or the vicinity there of blocking any escape.

***NOTE**** To any current or future PBEM opponents, trust everything above only to your own doom. I vary every 1st turn I send out.

[mogami]

Hi, My thoughts as Japan on turn 1 is what is most dangerous enemy force on map that can disrupt my phase 1 operations.

1. USN CV
2. Enemy BB
3 Other enemy surface ships
4. enemy air
5 enemy submarines.

The subs in PI are all of older types that as Allies I gradually assign to rear area ops. Bad boats with bad torpedos and bad leaders.

8 USN BB in South Pacific (shiver)

[2ndACR]

None of my games have progressed far enough along yet to verify if this is a sound tactic yet.
My game with Panzer is the first to have the BB's from PH roaming about. Of course 1 is now a coral reef. They can hurt me yes, but at least away from PH I have a better chance of sinking them if they get caught.

Only the Dutch subs have been a pain so far.

[freeboy]

My pbem game against the Kaleun , Emporers deleght or humble pie? shows this what if, 8 bb from PH are just so slow I am having difficulty using them., just took some torps trying to defend rabaul...
They need air cover against Betties, the first attack by Kweijeliens Nells they beat off handily[:-] but where nonetheless forces, frieghtened into retreating....

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: sven6345789
since we are talking about whats gamey and what is historical, do you really think the japanese would have used their carriers to hunt the allied carriers? 1. they had no idea where they could be (Pearl Harbor maybe); if you look up the allied setup, you as players of course know where the allied CVs are. There are probably cracks out there who have created maps with circles in it pointing out to them where the allied CVs could go at maximum speed. THAT is gamey, if you ask me. on turn one, attacking installations with KB is something that should be done. which one doesn't really matter.

Again you're projecting too much history on a game!

You say IJN would have "no idea where the CVs would be"? OK. True, perhaps. Now please tell me HOW do you know, IN GAME, unless you CHEAT, that there are 8 BBs in PH on turn one? That's right, you DON'T know. You SHOULDN'T know. If you put your mouse over PH on turn one it says something like XY ships in harbor and that's it.

If you really want to be 100% honest, and 100% deprived of history knowledge, we could say you know jack sh*t about PH. If we could erase all the knowledge from historic books from every player's head prior to turn one, you would see less than 5% PH raids on turn one. NO ONE in his right mind would go after PH.

Yet, attacking PH blindly (sic) is accepted as regular tactic. Why? Well, because that's what (more or less) happened in history, right?

Well I don't agree. Assuming no locations to the east of dateline are attacked, even the Singapore port attack is perfectly legitimate IMO. Why wouldn't it be?

What you're trying to say is that "pretending" we know (or don't know) where the US BBs are is somehow right, but pretending we know (or don't know) where the CVs, or SSs, or Force Z are on turn one, is gamey?

Oleg