Yes, PH attack is borked. Some test data...

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: pad152

Well pre 1.5 I use to see more ships damaged and sunk in the Pearl Harbor attack. Now we see only 1 or 2 ships sunk max and fewer ships damaged. In 1.4 even when no ships were sunk you would see 2 more pages of damaged ships.

I haven't had the chance to do the PH attack since 1.5 came out, but there's one thing to keep in mind. Historically, the attack on Pearl Harbor happened once. We don't know if the results were high end, low end or average. Assuming it's average, then what you say may be an issue.

On another issue...

I look at this game differently. I find WitP to be a successful simulation if it can reproduce history successfully. That doesn't mean that it should always be reproduced in the same way. On average, if you do things in a historical manner, your outcome will be historical. If you want the outcome to be the same as history, why bother? Just read a book. I want to be able to do things differently than was done historically. Granted, we have hindsight, but both sides have hindsight. There's no way to prevent that with a historical simulation. Should the Japanese player be forced into the PH attack? Personally, I'd say no. If you're playing the game your way, do what you want. You may find an Allied player who insists on the PH attack. If you don't like that, I'm sure you can find an Allied player that will agree to your terms.

Personally, I am greatly appreciative of all the work Matrix is doing on this game. I've had the old boardgame of the same name and have never had the opportunity to play it. I've waited for years for this game and will play it the rest of my life. Is it perfect? I suspect that everyone can complain about some facet of it. What do I think? I think that right now it's about as perfect as it can be. Can it get better? I suspect it can (although you will never hear me publically complain about it). The work and love that has gone into it is amazing. I (and I suspect many of you) will never have the talent to be able to create this wonderful game. I owe a lot to the people who have created this.

Mike Solli

Yea, what he said.[:)]

I tried to say the same thing a couple of days ago (Were the historical PH results normal?) but I didn't say it this well. And I certainly applaud to rest of the post[&o]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: LittleJoe

Thinking about this i do agree with you, most PBEM's only allow one port attack, why not use the Japanese taskforce boost to take the KB south of PH to the Canton island/line island area. To possibly catch one, or two of his carriers fleeing to the south pacific, and then rampage across the south pacific sinking his Crusiers which are a lot more of a threat to you than his slow BB's.

Then use your one Port attack on Manilla, and hit it with the Mini KB, and betties from Formosa. sinking those dangerous subs.

You might not get as many points, but hey you stand a low chance of winning by points as Japan, wouldnt it be better to stall the chances of an Allied counterattack for a few months by sinking his carriers, crusiers and subs.

This is the kind of "gamer thinking" that drives me nuts. First, the Japanese had NO IDEA where the US CV's were located. They new they were BASED out of PH, and hoped to catch them in port. You suggest that the Allies be "pinned" to the exact historical positions while the Japanese make full use of "hindsight" to hunt whatever targets they want.
Second, Kido Butai turned north on the 7th because they had to get back to their tankers.
And they (and the tankers) HAD to approach from the North because had they come farther South they would have been traveling the trade and air routes and been spotted days too early for any suprise. Even hanging around for a second attack on the 8th is pretty much a crock. The only reason I consider it "kosher" at all is that the Japs COULD have made a second strike on the afternoon of the 7th, As this isn't possible in in the game, it has some legitimacy.
If you gentlemen really have to play this way, at least play without the "surprise" and give the Allies a move on the first day as well. Then you will face at least some "fog of war".

[freeboy]

I agree, let the allies get a suprise attack from there carriers if the japs stumble into them as they where out looking for them

[509th Bob]

Interesting ranting going on here. First, I agree with M. Solli. Next, please spell location names correctly.

Next, should Japan be FORCED to attack PH? Absolutely, regardless of results. The PH infuriated the American public, with code-delayed Japanese declaration of war and sneak attack. The war in Europe was underway. US Navy ships were fighting an undeclared war against Nazi U-boots in the Atlantic (this side of Iceland "belonged" to the US). US ships were sunk, lives were lost, the American public was concerned, but not exactly ready to jump into a war. The attack at PH galvanized the American public in a way only faintly seen after 9/11/01.

The Japanese believed that the American public had no stomach for a protracted war, with large casualties. They thought that the Americans were too fond of easy living and material possessions. Does any of this sound familiar? It seems to be one of those repetitive misconceptions about Americans. We fight each other (usually politically) for sport, until some outsider decides to "exploit" our internal divisions. Then we unite, kick some serious behind, and afterwards go right back to our favorite internal bickering. So you START with a fundamental Japanese misunderstanding of American culture. That misunderstanding was then compounded by outdated strategtic thinking.

Militarily, PH was useless. But remember, both the IJN and USN were absolutely overrun with "battleship admirals," who wanted nothing other to do than to have a big battleship duel out around Mindinao that would supposedly settle everything at once. [SEE TANKERACE'S PLAN ORANGE.] PH results FORCED the USN to adopt CV tactical doctrine. At the end of war, the US had, what, about 100 CV, CVL, and CVEs? And how many new battleships? And what doctrine has remained the primary USN doctrine? CV (and SSN) doctrine.

Could the KB be better used elsewhere at the beginning of the game? Sure. But what effect would that have had at home? The Japanese invade the PI, which we had scheduled for independence in 1945 anyway. US public is vaguely concerned about war on the other side of the planet (like in Europe). No mobilization, no public outrage, old European colonial governments get their butts kicked. Based on US reaction to fall of Europe, not a sufficient reason to go to war. Try mirroring THAT in your game. Drop US morale to mid-30's and lock it there?

Finally, yes the game has bugs. But this forum has plenty of people who fix them. Thus, we come full circle - I agree with M. Solli.

[509th Bob]

Oops![X(] Too many re-runs of "Das Boot"! [:D] So, it's U-BOATS.

[LittleJoe]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: LittleJoe

Thinking about this i do agree with you, most PBEM's only allow one port attack, why not use the Japanese taskforce boost to take the KB south of PH to the Canton island/line island area. To possibly catch one, or two of his carriers fleeing to the south pacific, and then rampage across the south pacific sinking his Crusiers which are a lot more of a threat to you than his slow BB's.

Then use your one Port attack on Manilla, and hit it with the Mini KB, and betties from Formosa. sinking those dangerous subs.

You might not get as many points, but hey you stand a low chance of winning by points as Japan, wouldnt it be better to stall the chances of an Allied counterattack for a few months by sinking his carriers, crusiers and subs.

This is the kind of "gamer thinking" that drives me nuts. First, the Japanese had NO IDEA where the US CV's were located. They new they were BASED out of PH, and hoped to catch them in port. You suggest that the Allies be "pinned" to the exact historical positions while the Japanese make full use of "hindsight" to hunt whatever targets they want.
Second, Kido Butai turned north on the 7th because they had to get back to their tankers.
And they (and the tankers) HAD to approach from the North because had they come farther South they would have been traveling the trade and air routes and been spotted days too early for any suprise. Even hanging around for a second attack on the 8th is pretty much a crock. The only reason I consider it "kosher" at all is that the Japs COULD have made a second strike on the afternoon of the 7th, As this isn't possible in in the game, it has some legitimacy.
If you gentlemen really have to play this way, at least play without the "surprise" and give the Allies a move on the first day as well. Then you will face at least some "fog of war".

Jeez im sorry, but the allies player benifits a lot more from this "gamer thinking" than the Japanese ever will.

Im sorry but the only fog of war on the first turn of any scenario will be the first time you play a scenario.

I place the Ryujo in the sulu sea to engage shipping that i know will be fleeing the Philipines, as the allied player i do not use force Z to engage the Japanese invasion fleets off Malaya knowing the abilty of the betty and nell.

I land at bases that the Japanese would of not in real life, as they did not know what was at these bases.

This knowledge of the positions of ships/planes and ground units is unignnorable, some players will take more and less advantage of this than other, but EVERY player will use this in some way of another during the game

I learn each time i play allies/japanese, new moves that i could use on the first turns of the scenario to hurt the enemy. I agree pre set rules with all my PBEM partners to cover any disagreements over this, i tend to play Historical first turn and have only done one non-historical first turn start, in which i hit PH anyway.

Infact i have never attempt a stratergy like this, it was just an idea to give the Japanese a good start.

Sorry you took it so to heart.

[BraveHome]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
I sometimes spend that much on a bottle of wine and then cant remember it in the morning [;)]

You're obviously overpaying for your wine, if you can remember you drank any the evening before at all.... [;)]

[BraveHome]

ORIGINAL: William Amos

MOVE Zeros up to 10,000 feet set to escort. No use losing the fighters.

This is probably still the most misunderstood setting in Air Combat. Worth repeating what I've posted in threads past:

Section 7.2.2.10 of Manual (Impact of Altitude Selection) states of Escort altitudes:
"Fighters flying escort will automatically fly a few thousand feet above the bombers they are escorting." So it doesn't matter what altitude you set them to. Note CAP altitude also doesn't matter, as most planes are on the ground and must take off to intercept anyway (CAP, section 7.3.1).

Hope this helps!

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: LittleJoe

Infact i have never attempt a stratergy like this, it was just an idea to give the Japanese a good start.

Sorry you took it so to heart.

JOE I could only go by what you said. What you said amounted to "under the rules of the Scenario 15 start, it is possible to totally ignore reality and do this and that...". That was what I objected to. You might as well have said "Use the editor to remove a bunch
of Allied troops and supplies and the Japanese will do better." It's about as historically realistic as what you had proposed.

Sorry if what you said wasn't what you meant..., but what else can a reader go by?