Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Torplexed
The latter two were the result of poor pre-war Japanese commitment to intel and their inability to commit resources to (indicative of their contempt for) strategic intelligence.

And their total inability to change plans on the fly, or "improvise" off of a superior's original gameplan (like the Germans tended to do). Parshall & Tully said it best in Shattered Sword:

At an operational level, plan inertia manifested itself in a stubborn unwillingness to adapt immediately before & during battle. Karl von Clausewitz' famous maxim that "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy," probably never met with a less enthusiastic audience than the Imperial Japanese Navy.

[and, quoting a British general]

The fundamental fault of their generalship was a lack of moral, as distinct from physical, courage. They were not prepared to admit they made a mistake, that their plans had misfired and needed recasting. Rather than confess that, they passed onto their subordinates, unchanged, the order that they themselves had received, well knowing that with the resources available the tasks demanded were impossible. Time & again, this blind passing of responsibility ran down a chain of disaster. They scored highly by determination; they paid heavily for lack of flexibility.

Back to the problem in game with CVs... let's look at the attack at Pearl Harbor.

As the Japanese I attack Pearl Harbor twice with air attacks and sink a paltry 2 BBs. Having expended my OPs, the CV group is unable to move. I then switch to the US, sortie my surface task force and attack the Japanese and sink 1 CV.

[:-]

So it doesn't make any sense to attack Pearl Harbor. The day that will live in infamy. [&:]

In general I think naval units have too few OPs. Hell, once you get into 1943 the American fleet is always at sea... it never returns to port and is replenished at sea. I think that needs to be reflected in the game.

My recommendation would be to increase OPs for naval units to 3 OPs. If nothing else, this allows Pearl Harbor as one can attack twice and then move out of the area.

I would also recommend that expending a Supply Oiler, not only replenish fuel, but also OPs as well.

A fleet at sea is supported by Cargo, Ammunition and Tanker ships. It just doesn't make any sense for major fleets to have to return to Port if the player doesn't want. As the only support ship that is represented in the game is the Supply Oiler, more importance (just like trucks) needs to be placed on this unit.

CV vs CV battles really need to be adjusted. You just don't get to have a CV group conduct 2 (or 3 if changed) free attacks without a response, as I have discussed before. It is just not the way CV fights worked.

When a CV group attacks another; you should have an attack phase, followed by a counter-attack phase and it shouldn't matter how many OPs the enemy CV group has. So if I want to attack the enemy CV group 2 or 3 times, they should receive a corresponding amount of counter-attacks. After the turn ends, if battle is continued, once again the enemy CV attack should be responded to by a counter-attack. In a full fledged CV vs CV battle, one side will gain the upper hand due to the amount of aircraft lost. CVs will be lost on both sides, not just one.

Overall, I think the game needs to take a new look at the way they handle fleets and especially carrier warfare.

I know that my proposed changes would cause a major revision of the game. But, IMO, if the naval portion of the game is flawed... you will lose a lot of sales by those who want to relive the amazing naval conflict which was so characteristic of the War against Japan. And that impact will also be felt in WarPlan 2.

There's currently an issue with Pearl Harbour where the US fleet can make a night move to get next to the Japanese carriers without interdiction taking place. This didn't use to occur in old versions of the game and shouldn't be the case, the counterattack used to be suicidal for the USN.

I'm not sure what you mean by operations points in carrier combat. Operations points have absolutely zero bearing on the actual combat outside of how many strikes the attacker can make. Fleets will fight back whenever attacked at full strength regardless of how many op points they finished their turn with.

Increasing op points for fleets to three and reducing maximum movement by 1/3rd would be interesting as it would allow for many more hit and run attacks by small fleets against ships blockading ships without having to leave them vunerable to a counterattack on the opponent's turn. It would make all naval combat much more decisive though as after two attacks one side is typically almost wiped out, the game would be very likely be decided in a single engagement, whether that's a good thing or not is personal opinion I suppose.

ORIGINAL: YueJin

Fleets will fight back whenever attacked at full strength regardless of how many op points they finished their turn with.

They defend themselves, like ground units, but a CV will not only defend itself, it will respond to an attack from another CV with a counter-attack. And that won't be 2 weeks later.

A CV attacked defends itself with its air combat value and strikes back with its naval combat value against the attacking ships. When combat takes place it's like both fleets strike at the same time with their values modified by a random dice roll and reconnaissance levels.

ORIGINAL: YueJin

A CV attacked defends itself with its air combat value and strikes back with its naval combat value against the attacking ships. When combat takes place it's like both fleets strike at the same time with their values modified by a random dice roll and reconnaissance levels.

Okay, I'll have to check that out.

ORIGINAL: YueJin

There's currently an issue with Pearl Harbour where the US fleet can make a night move to get next to the Japanese carriers without interdiction taking place. This didn't use to occur in old versions of the game and shouldn't be the case, the counterattack used to be suicidal for the USN.

I have tried several times in hotseat mode using the latest beta version. Night move to counter attack is devastating against the US fleet. Lost all my subs. Lost my air superiority group. Lost few ships.

I ran it a couple of times and got 1 Japanese CV or 2 BB/BC sunk for no US losses 3/3 times. Shows how random the game can be for sure.

ORIGINAL: YueJin

I ran it a couple of times and got 1 Japanese CV or 2 BB/BC sunk for no US losses 3/3 times. Shows how random the game can be for sure.

Are you attacking in a precise order? Planes first? Or subs first? Just trying to understand the difference.

Just 2 plane strikes then fleet attack, didn't bother using the sub I find it's a waste. Tried rerunning it a few more times and kept getting enemy fleet not found which didn't tell me much [>:]

Just 2 plane strikes then fleet attack, didn't bother using the sub I find it's a waste. Tried rerunning it a few more times and kept getting enemy fleet not found which didn't tell me much [>:]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

It is an excellent video. I have seen this before. But the Japanese naval combat officers were not aggressive enough. Their plans too complicated.

I think only one guy named Tanaka had the balls to be aggressive.

As aggressive as possible! Tenacious Tanaka!

What I have never understood about Midway is why Japan committed 4 aircraft carriers to this battle. Perhaps I need to read the article Midway from the Japanese perspective.

Two CV under repair after Battle of Coral Sea. Two CVLs used for diversion in the north.
Their plan was overly complicated imo.

At 4:00 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXjydKPcX60

Carriers Junyo and Ryujo were in the Aleutian islands for the diversion.

ORIGINAL: BradK82

What I have never understood about Midway is why Japan committed 4 aircraft carriers to this battle. Perhaps I need to read the article Midway from the Japanese perspective.

There is also a good summary at 19:00 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHO6xrSF7Sw

ORIGINAL: BradK82

What I have never understood about Midway is why Japan committed 4 aircraft carriers to this battle. Perhaps I need to read the article Midway from the Japanese perspective.

Originally there were supposed to be six, but Shokaku and Zuikaku got scratched from the line-up due to damage and ail group losses in the Coral Sea battle.