FYI: Alternate December 7th Start

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

As the option only applies when using the historical first turn option, you will not be allowed to change group assignments. However, Admiral Nagumo does have the option of changing the assignments given in the scenario. If he does so or no will depend on a lot of tactical factors, task force detection levels and skill tests at runtime. He may divert one or more carrier strikes from Pearl to the American carriers and he may have to wait until the second strike.

Ahhhh. Pardon my obtuse question; I did not catch that these variables only apply on a historical first turn in which the human Japanese player would not have the opportunity to change group assignments. But a very enlightening response just the same.

I would have to agree with mdiehl ([X(]) that these variable are pretty much scotched for a PBEM game. The possible extreme results on either end of the spectrum look to be more extremely bad for the U.S. than good. And I'm not sure that a human player would want to commit to such an important turn being subject to the whims of a computer.

HOWEVER, I intend to play primarily against the AI. Since there is no investment in time when playing turn 1 of a game against the AI, I think think these variables are pretty darned nifty, by George. If the first turn is too lopsided, I can just alt-ctrl-del and replay the turn within two minutes. And, since a human should be able to beat the AI with arm behind his back (or two carriers on the bottom of the Pacific by dusk on Dec. 7), a lopsided result against me, as the human, will only increase the challenge. So I plan on experimenting with these variables.

Mike, thanks for taking the time to personally respond to my question. Also, thanks for (secretly) listening to the suggestions made on this forum and implementing certain of them. While Mike Scholl is right that these variables may not incorporate the single most likely alternate history, your variables by-and-large seem to incorporate plausible alternate histories that will spice up the game for those that choose to use them. Thanks, and keep up the good - no, excellent - work. [&o]

[sven6345789]

i would say, put it on random and live with the results!!!
Giving the players the possibility of a random opening takes the air out of the "what is allowed to move on Dec. 7" discussion. This way, the japanese surprise attack is what it historically was, a risk. you no longer know the outcome. For the allies, you might end up unlucky, loosing your carriers, or very lucky, taking only limited losses. Uncertainty. great. historical hindsight this way won't have that much effect on a PBEM game.

Great idea!!
Thnx[&o]

[Luskan]

Even when the allied fanboys (hereafter referred to as the nay-brigade) get something they're supposed to be happy about.

Where is the option where KB gets caught with its pants down, is hit by a surprise attack by b17s at 6000ft followed by waves of cv aircraft that sinks 6 jap cvs???? [8|]

Frag's assessment was generous - 2 of those scenarios are REALLY bad for the IJN and the other 2 are "sort of" bad for the allied player. CV's in port will make them unsinkable (and at pearl with all the repair facilities, even 2 cvs sent to 99 sys will be back at 0 (or at san fran and then 0) in no time.

The extra fighters on CAP, higher AA and therefore higher tolls on the attacking IJN pilots will hamstring the IJN for the rest of the game.

But, there is no pleasing some people!

[mogami]

Hi, I think we should wait for them to be tested before we throw our fits.

[Speedysteve]

Excellent!

I for one am happy with this since it offers variability and surprise on turn one rather than a guaranteed result so to speak.

Regards,

Steven

[Pier5]

If you hear some loud screaming and look outside to see a world of red and silver, it is the Ohio State Alumni Association come to smite thee mightily for attributing a Woody Hayes quote to Bo.

If the PH strike force is detected, and they know they have been detected, the whole force turns around and goes home. Nice training cruise. So, IMHO, under that option which only could occur if the task force has been detected but doesn't know it, the initial strike should only be permitted to attack PH, not any carrier task force which might be moving to an ambush position.

Pier5

[PzB74]

I don't understand why you won't play with any of these options Mog, you must be in a class for
yourself after doing all this massive playtesting. You'll kick 9/10 opponents straight through the Pacific and
back to the Home Islands in VJ - 1 year [;)]

It will be a very one sided affair to play WitP from mid 43-> mid 45, so by taking an extra hit to the head in the beginning -a more balanced game can be achieved for an extended period of time.
A bigger challenge means bigger fun! [8D]

When I think about it, I've actually not played the 'Midway did happen' scenario in UV many times...
Scenarios 17 & 19 are my favourites! Wobbly voluenteered to play a historical 1943 scenario as Japan, and that certainly got him thinking!-) The hammer blows are brutal and relentless!

I actually found myself planning less and depending more on brute force! I would meet the Japs head on for a few weeks, and when the smoke cleared, not much opposition was left standing. Playing this game for another year would be utterly meaningless. Capturing island after island without much more than token resistance may be historical, but even though I'm considered 'die hard' by most of those who knows me, I would tire of this within a few weeks.

'It's not the kill, but the thrill of the hunt!'

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: David Heath

Let me thank Mike, Joel, Gary and Keith for taking the time to program this. This was somthing I wanted in the game for a while and we figured it would add a lot of replay value to the game.

David

David, where'd you get that Bill the Cat and Opus picture. Bill was Gary's unofficial mascot in the eighties, and my wife and I had our Opus at our wedding. I'm envious.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Pier5

If you hear some loud screaming and look outside to see a world of red and silver, it is the Ohio State Alumni Association come to smite thee mightily for attributing a Woody Hayes quote to Bo.

If the PH strike force is detected, and they know they have been detected, the whole force turns around and goes home. Nice training cruise. So, IMHO, under that option which only could occur if the task force has been detected but doesn't know it, the initial strike should only be permitted to attack PH, not any carrier task force which might be moving to an ambush position.

Pier5

I absolutely agree, option 2 needs to force KB's initial strike against PH. IIRC there was no pre-attack recon and the USN would only be deployed that way if KB had been discovered, but KB was unaware.

Other than that I dont know why, and since I hate the terms "Allied" and "Axix" fanboys, lets just say individuals with an allied proclivity are so negative about this option. Clearly 2 of 3 possibilities will more often than not favor the Allies. IMO an IJN player has more reason to sweat than an USN player when this option is selected.

[Nikademus]

whats really funny is, noone's asked, who's going to "not" CTRL-ALT-DELETE if Japan does suffer a crushing reverse on Turn1? Everyone knows that Japan's road will only be an uphill one as the game progresses, so whats the incentive for the Japan player to commit to such a long game if his 6 all but irreplacable CV's are smashed from the get go?

use the option, dont use it.....noone's forcing anyone to do anything they dont want to[8|]

Myself...i see the latest addition as a repeat playability tool....particularily for AI play as one poster has already mentioned. Probably wont use it for PBEM but then again, might....i'm always open.

Bill and Opus for Prez in '04

[mdiehl]

Frag's assessment was generous - 2 of those scenarios are REALLY bad for the IJN and the other 2 are "sort of" bad for the allied player. CV's in port will make them unsinkable (and at pearl with all the repair facilities, even 2 cvs sent to 99 sys will be back at 0 (or at san fran and then 0) in no time.

I just don't think Frag's assessment is correct, nor yours. Any result that increases the ratio of Japanese CVs to Allied ones qua history is pretty definitively worse for the Allies than the historical result, since it means the Japanese have less to worry about in 1942 during their blitzkrieg land grab. When you consider that the USN really was not in a position to consider a counteroffensive in the SoPac until after they involuntarily converted Japanese assets at Midway. Unless the USN can with some reasonably high frequency sink 6 CVs in the "infield" scenario it does not seem very attractive to me. Allowing the Japanese to select an option that mitigates their worst case scenario to something like a guaranteed exchange (remember, even when surprised, a CV automatically detects the CV TF that attacks it and launches a counterstrike) pretty much takes away all the nail biting in the "op infield" option.

Of the four possibilities, only the "historical result after all" seems on the face of it likely to NOT favor the Japanese. But as Mogami suggested, playtesting will tell all. If the USN CVs perform better in 1941 than I have ever seen them perform against any Japanese CV in GGPW or UV, then "infield" may be a variation with real consequences for Japan.

Now, of course, if you made the Japanese player choose how many CV airgroups in the 6 CV Strike Force he was going to dedicate to the PH strike BEFORE he knew what random opening variant was going to occur, that would make things much more interesting. Then he has to figure on the possibility of getting a "historic" surprise raid on PH but if he assigns fewer CVs to do the job then he gets worse results than historically, so there is an incentive to set an objective and attempt to attain it.

And I thought we covered the "unsinkable" business in the PH "how to do it discussion." There are no "unsinkable" ships in PH. If the flot damage runs up to 100% they're gone. Period.

The options look very entertaining for an AI game.

[Mr.Frag]

mdiehl ... You just will have to see when the game comes out. There are a bunch of factors at play here that you seem to be missing in evaluating these openings.

(a) Japan is critically short on highly skilled CV pilots. Large losses from KB will never be recovered from making future raids less likely to score.

(b) Repairs of Capital ships takes a LONG time. The USA does not have to sink any CV's to score big here. All they need to do is inflict 50%+ damage to take the CV out of the game until Japan's land grab is over.

(c) Each Japan CV that can not land aircraft (50% damage) will result in total loss of the air wing as pretty much every single aircraft Japan has is flying, further compounding (a)

(d) Each USA CV that gets damaged has to limp a couple of hexes into a huge repair yard that will prevent it from sinking.

(e) Each USA airgroup that can not land on a CV due to CV loss/damage has a pretty little airstrip to land on at PH.

(f) Damage control will likely add to the toll of CV's lost as they run all the way back to Japan. There is no port anywhere near that they can hole up and deal with floatation damage.

[TIMJOT]

Mdiehl

I still think you are being a little too negative here. Option 1 is absolutely better than historical. You got KB launching a strike against an totally alerted but half empty port with seemingly all the important assets out of harmsway. I can see KB loosing many times the a/c than historical, while being subject to LBA counterattacks. You can very easily end up with a hurt and now toothless KB retireing with USN CV's hot on their trail to pick off any stragglers.

Option 2, even if results in a 2 for 2 trade in CVs, the USN will have within weeks 3 CVs available against 4 IJN CVs a better ratio than historical. Also keeping in mind the re-spawning rule, you will get 5 Essex CVs in 43 instead of the historical 3 and those 2 extra CVs will come much earlier in 43 than historical.

Option 3 is bad for the allied player, but hardly a game resigning set back. Especially since there is no guarantee both CVs will be sunk.

I see quite the opposite I dont see any IJN player ever wanting to choose this option in an PBEM. Why should he when he can get a guarantee PH result plus the possibility to hunt down those 2 CVs anyway.

[mdiehl]

I agree that the general context remains to be observed. I am of course basing my assessment on what's been seen of UV and GGPW (in which 1942 army pilots are in sort of a "reverse turkey shoot"). In theory attacking a fully alerted Oahu with the main fleet assets lurking out of harm's way should be a major setback and result in the loss of alot of irreplacable IJN pilots. Whether the theory holds up in the game is at this point anyone's guess but the playtesters.'

As I said, it sounds great for an AI game. Considering that probably 80% of the buyers of this game will (edit) NOT (edit) be PBEM players, but will instead be fighting the AI, it's a good enhancement and a good marketing move.

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Any result that increases the ratio of Japanese CVs to Allied ones qua history is pretty definitively worse for the Allies than the historical result, since it means the Japanese have less to worry about in 1942 during their blitzkrieg land grab. Unless the USN can with some reasonably high frequency sink 6 CVs in the "infield" scenario it does not seem very attractive to me. Allowing the Japanese to select an option that mitigates their worst case scenario to something like a guaranteed exchange (remember, even when surprised, a CV automatically detects the CV TF that attacks it and launches a counterstrike) pretty much takes away all the nail biting in the "op infield" option.

I'm not sure this is an accurate take. I only know what Mike Woods posted, but here is his quote:

"However, Admiral Nagumo does have the option of changing the assignments given in the scenario. If he does so or no will depend on a lot of tactical factors, task force detection levels and skill tests at runtime. He may divert one or more carrier strikes from Pearl to the American carriers and he may have to wait until the second strike."

It sounds to me like there is a risk (how large, I don't know) that scenario two can result in the Japanese committing to a PH strike - for at least one impulse - whilst the U.S. carriers pummel the Japanese carriers with its own carriers and possibly LBA. Mogami has already stated he thinks this risk is too high to bet on the other better-than-historical variables.

[sven6345789]

If you use the "historical first turn surprise" rule alone, the Pearl Harbor attack will lead to similar results like historical (there was a thread on this a while back).
By using these options, the first turn becomes interesting again since
1. The japanese don't know what to expect at pearl (Hey, this attack was a large risk taken by yamamoto. could have ended differently)
2. The allies supreme commander (player) has uncertainty on how kimmel has reacted to the information available to him (or sort of.. yeah, i know mdiehl[:D]). But you have a chance of being in an excellent position to hit KB early (very early).

I really like this options. (I allways play with just about all options on, makes it more interesting, even if i have a disadvantage (sub doctine in UV, for example))

[mbatch729]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
As I said, it sounds great for an AI game. Considering that probably 80% of the buyers of this game will (edit) NOT (edit) be PBEM players, but will instead be fighting the AI, it's a good enhancement and a good marketing move.

Not trying to start an arguement here, but why would you think 80 % won't be doing PBEM? My guess is that after an initial feetwetting versus the AI, 80 % WILL be playing a human opponent in a PBEM or hot seat game.

[The Gnome]

Batch: I for one never have and in all probability never will play by email. Believe it or not there are still a large number of gamers that just want to play the computer.


I know the crazed PBEM cultists will come out and try to convert me but for a plethora of reasons it's not likely to happen. In fact I've never made a post regarding AI where at least one person has tried to show me the err in my ways.

A) Yes I know you have crazy fun with it and I'm missing out.
B) Yes I know the AI will never match a human.
C) Yes I know there are a lot of good chaps out there that PBEM

I'm just not interested. The PC is my way of getting *away* from people so anything that can be added to the single player version is great by me.

Edit note: The latter part of this message is directed at no one in particular. The message itself reads harsher than I wanted it to - sorry about that, got out of a hateful meeting at work and should know better than to post after those! . Just hate having to explain that I don't PBEM every time I bring up anything to do with AI.

[USSMaine]

Despite the claims of all the rabid PBEMers - there are a number of us solo gamers that in bits and pieces do get to play vs the AI - but can't commit to regular play due to an irratic schedule.

[Damien Thorn]

A quick look at the numer of units sold for agiven game and the number of people seen on-line (for those games that use game matching services like Gamespy) will show that more than 95% of games are predominately single player. We had this discussion over at the SFC forums. We couldn't believe anyone would play single player but we never saw more than 250 to 300 people on-line at the same time. Since most of these people were the same every day, we figured no more than 800-1000 were regular multiplayer gamers.