Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ndworl
I agree it is something players should discuss both before and during the game. But why is invading at Mersing gamey? If the primary objective is Singapore and Mersing is acceptable as an air base, it has a number of advantages, mostly that it cuts off British units from retreating to Singapore. I agree it makes it more difficult for the British, but I would have thought that was the idea. (I am on turn 1 of a game in which I did exactly that, so I am genuinely interested to understand why it is seen as gamey.) Conversly, why is abandoning most of Malaya gamey? Churchill was urging his generals to do exactly that.

The Mersing Gambit is considered by some to be gamey because it takes advantage of the Japanese player knowing exactly where the ADBA forces are on day 1 and knowing that those forces are rarely if ever going to be able to react well to an attack there, as opposed to a historical commander on the ground that would have no such knowledge.

ORIGINAL: Quixote
Attacking at Pearl Harbor is cheesy because in the game (system) everybody knows that:

A Pearl Harbor raid in comparison isn't necessarily as gamey/cheesy because the Japanese player will have to deliberately choose to do it at the expense of any other possible attack that the KB could pull off, i.e. Manila. What would be an exploitation of historical foreknowledge would be sticking around Pearl Harbor for days knowing that the USN will be in a poor position to react, and/or sending the KB to try and hunt down the American carriers since you know where they start from.

Just an update on my Mersing gambit. (We discussed and decided to press on.) The antique British air show put two torpedoes into CA Mogami, sank one AK and severely damaged two more. That with CAP from the Tayo with 27 A6M2. BC Repulse sortied and got into the invasion zone, but was stopped and sunk by the covering force. (I'm guessing she was already a bit broken and the owner thought he may as well get some use out of the 15 inch guns before the ship they were on went down.) I'm kind of wishing I had gone somewhere else. But it does suggest the game does (or at least can) accurately model reality and Mersing is not without its risks, which the Japanese in real life decided not to take, but which a player has the option to.

Nothing wrong with the Mersing Gambit as long as you don't do it on Turn 1.

Historic first turn is probably the way to go, then as least both sides pretty much know where each others major units are, and its a free for all after that

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Nothing wrong with the Mersing Gambit as long as you don't do it on Turn 1.

Historic first turn is probably the way to go, then as least both sides pretty much know where each others major units are, and its a free for all after that

The other option is for the Japanese player to not treat it as a gambit. If you have enough surface ships to protect the invasion against anything the British might possibly have had to use then you aren't abusing any knowledge or game systems.

But you are abusing the game system

Its the War in the Pacific and while I fully appreciate that its a game rather than a simulation the magic T/F's make the move far too effective. By all means do it without magic move T/F's but its far too effective with them.

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: godochaos

So post your opinions on what tactics do you consider to be "cheesy"

Depends on who you're playing, are you in it for the journey or for the win? If you're happy to play for the journey then there are a lot more cheesy tactics than if you're just in for the win. Examples can include:


A full on retreat down Malaya into Singapore without trying to hold back the Japanese tide.

I would disagree with this, simply because it's exactly what Percival should have done when he didn't receive the promised aircarft to make holding the northern airfields a worthwhile endevour.