The Allies underestimated Japan's capabilities and therefore didn't have the hindsight we have now. I don't see any argument for restricting Japanese opening moves. They have the initiative, only they know if a TF is headed for Kendari, Darwin or Davao. If some of you want to play with surprise off to simulate the raising of the alarm after the PH strike, I can see that. But the allies were waiting to see what Japan would do and they wanted them to start the fight for political reasons. They had declared economic war on Japan and this was Japan's answer. Any base such as Kendari or Kuching was valuable and both sides knew that. I think Japan hesitated to attack the Dutch at first due to wanting to support all their landings. If the Japanese player decides to send forces in harms way without proper support, make him pay for it. It's his decision to take the risks of such long distance attacks. That's how I see it from my reading of history and the game play so far.
Edited for spelling.
Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
Hi The objection is simple. The Japanese are moving 4 days worth of movement in a single turn. This all happens before the Allies can react. It's like a person who has been saying for months "I am going to punch you in the nose" He makes you let him handcuff you Then he draws his arm back, lifts his leg and starts a wind up. Then he hits you then he takes the handcuffs off and says he achived surprise because you didn't react.
Then he tells you he didn't need the hand cuffs because you had no reaction to his brilliant surprise attack. This is not directed at anybody. It is just what a player who thinks it is ok to send ships to invade on turn 1 is thinking whethter they realize it or not.
You have to assume the other side would have changed it's action if you change the historic Japanese turn 1. You admit this for all the turns after turn 1. (No one expects or requires anyone to repeat all the operations and movements conducted by the side during the war except a Japanese player imposing it on the Allied player during turn 1.)
The ALlied player is not imposing the historic turn 1 on the Japanese. The Japanese are free to make their own turn. However the more freedom they take the more they have to give. No where can the Allies overcome their disadvantages but it is not fair for the Japanese to try to increase their advantage even further. Next it will be port attacks where Bomber groups move into locations and along with Clark Field the Japanese do a Pearl Harbor on Manila and Singapore because "the Japanese should have do this and would have if they had been as smart as the Japanese player making the turn"
Then he tells you he didn't need the hand cuffs because you had no reaction to his brilliant surprise attack. This is not directed at anybody. It is just what a player who thinks it is ok to send ships to invade on turn 1 is thinking whethter they realize it or not.
You have to assume the other side would have changed it's action if you change the historic Japanese turn 1. You admit this for all the turns after turn 1. (No one expects or requires anyone to repeat all the operations and movements conducted by the side during the war except a Japanese player imposing it on the Allied player during turn 1.)
The ALlied player is not imposing the historic turn 1 on the Japanese. The Japanese are free to make their own turn. However the more freedom they take the more they have to give. No where can the Allies overcome their disadvantages but it is not fair for the Japanese to try to increase their advantage even further. Next it will be port attacks where Bomber groups move into locations and along with Clark Field the Japanese do a Pearl Harbor on Manila and Singapore because "the Japanese should have do this and would have if they had been as smart as the Japanese player making the turn"
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Culiacan Mexico
- Posts: 600
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Bad Windsheim Germany
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
Well, historically the Allies reacted slowly if at all before the war started.ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi The objection is simple. The Japanese are moving 4 days worth of movement in a single turn. This all happens before the Allies can react. It's like a person who has been saying for months "I am going to punch you in the nose" He makes you let him handcuff you Then he draws his arm back, lifts his leg and starts a wind up. Then he hits you then he takes the handcuffs off and says he achived surprise because you didn't react.
Example #1: On 2 December the Allies 12 Japanese submarines near Saigon on the surface speeding west towards Malaya, and Navy Intelligence believed there goal (correctly) was to “up set up patrol lines around Singapore to interdict a British naval sortie”. On 4 December, Admiral Sir Tom Phillips and Admiral Hart were in conference in Manila when they were informed that a large invasion task force of “27 transports, escorted by a battleship (actually Chokai), five cruisers and seven destroyers. Its position was well south of Saigon with a course to the west”.
Admiral Sir Tom Phillips ordered Force Z “be ready to put to sea at short notice” and Admiral Hart planned on sending 57th Destroyer Division to support the British. Yet the planning came to naught, because by the time the war start 57th Destroyer Division was still south of Borneo and Force Z was still docked a Singapore.
Example #2: Admiral Sir Tom Phillips and Admiral Hart discussed how the British Far Eastern Fleet might join the United States Asiatic Fleet at Manila. Because of their northern position, the Philippines were considered ideal for forward operations against the Japanese. But no ships could leave Singapore until there were enough planes to protect Malaya in the air.
Singapore wasn’t getting any new air squadrons soon so Force Z was stuck there.
The Allies were handcuffed.
I don’t believe that deep attacks into the DEI on turn one could happen without a response, so I basically have set up my own bizarre system:
Every Allied Base (Philippines, DEI, and Malaya) has a Locking Zone of Control three hexes in all directions (Japanese Bases negate allied Zone of Control). Pick a hex outside of Allied Zone of control and count four hexes in (one day travel), that is as far as the Japanese can penetrate using turn one bonus. Most of the Philippines, the west coast of Malaya, Northern Borneo and certain parts of the DEI can be invaded Turn one.
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
Well there you go. Thats what I mean. The Japanese player is not under any historic restraints but the allied player must be because they were historicly. Play the Allied AI.
Or use the Historic turn 1. The moment you begin tampering with it you have to allow the other player some freedom as well. The Allied players do not expect complete freedom and they allow great freedom to the Japanese player.
I don't give a hoot about the slow Allied reaction or their being handcuffed in their reactions. That is all included in the historic turn 1. If you want something else the cost is the Allies player gets a little as well. Don't tie me up with "they were slow to react" I am not they just as you are not playing the historic Japanese on turn 1. The AI is there to provide a whipping boy when ever you want.
The Japanese did noit steal a 4 day march on the allies at the start of the war. And they could not have done so no matter how brilliant their planning.
It does not take a genius to see the object of the turn one exploits. It is to grab Kendari while all the allied shipping sits in port. Then astride the allied line of retreat Betty/Nell mop up. I do the same thing as Japan only I wait at the starting line for the gun before I take off. Using the extended move for this is a "mis-start" The Japanese had to wait foe their airforces to cripple the Allied air. You know this is going to happen. But only because you've ran turn 1 before and the Allied player is handcuffed. If the Allies had spotted some movement the question is not "Did they react" it is "could they have reacted?"
just load the TF on turn 1 and move it 1 day from Palau. On turn 2 let it rip. Then it is a fair start. Sure you lose a few days but this is the only way your not taking advantage of a system put in place so the PH strike force can reach PH and not for anything else.
The turn 1 extended move is great for rearranging your forces using movement between friendly bases. It allows your submarine to be where you want at start. It's just going to far to use it for offensive operations. Same with those who like to set port attacks on turn 1. To be completly accurate of the actual situation turn 1 should begin after the PH strike. but that is not possible. Turn 1 is for the PH strike not a head start accross the map.
Or use the Historic turn 1. The moment you begin tampering with it you have to allow the other player some freedom as well. The Allied players do not expect complete freedom and they allow great freedom to the Japanese player.
I don't give a hoot about the slow Allied reaction or their being handcuffed in their reactions. That is all included in the historic turn 1. If you want something else the cost is the Allies player gets a little as well. Don't tie me up with "they were slow to react" I am not they just as you are not playing the historic Japanese on turn 1. The AI is there to provide a whipping boy when ever you want.
The Japanese did noit steal a 4 day march on the allies at the start of the war. And they could not have done so no matter how brilliant their planning.
It does not take a genius to see the object of the turn one exploits. It is to grab Kendari while all the allied shipping sits in port. Then astride the allied line of retreat Betty/Nell mop up. I do the same thing as Japan only I wait at the starting line for the gun before I take off. Using the extended move for this is a "mis-start" The Japanese had to wait foe their airforces to cripple the Allied air. You know this is going to happen. But only because you've ran turn 1 before and the Allied player is handcuffed. If the Allies had spotted some movement the question is not "Did they react" it is "could they have reacted?"
just load the TF on turn 1 and move it 1 day from Palau. On turn 2 let it rip. Then it is a fair start. Sure you lose a few days but this is the only way your not taking advantage of a system put in place so the PH strike force can reach PH and not for anything else.
The turn 1 extended move is great for rearranging your forces using movement between friendly bases. It allows your submarine to be where you want at start. It's just going to far to use it for offensive operations. Same with those who like to set port attacks on turn 1. To be completly accurate of the actual situation turn 1 should begin after the PH strike. but that is not possible. Turn 1 is for the PH strike not a head start accross the map.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
In reply to Caliacan Mexico.
The invasion of Kendari occured on 23-24 Jan and the Dutch did little to resist. Of course I would not have resisted either!! By that date japan had aircraft operating out of Manado which fell on 11 Jan and had established air superiority in the area. Once this occurs Kendari is going to fall.
Actually though I think we agree on most things. You should read Mogami's post about the handcuffs in this thread. That is exactly my position. I have no objection whatsoever with players launching invasions of Kendari or any other location. I simply object to players to be able to close on these objectives using the first term rules to negate any possibility of reaction and then to claim that surprise is still in effect.
When 2ndACR talks about his day 6 invasion of Kendari I think great, that's perfectly legitimate. And if he supports it with 3 mini-carriers and a BB as he posted I may very well head for the hills and let him have the base. If I sight 60 invasion TF's on day 2 moving to arrive at their destinations in the next 2-10 days I think its perfectly OK. I only object to abuse of the first turn move rule.
The invasion of Kendari occured on 23-24 Jan and the Dutch did little to resist. Of course I would not have resisted either!! By that date japan had aircraft operating out of Manado which fell on 11 Jan and had established air superiority in the area. Once this occurs Kendari is going to fall.
Actually though I think we agree on most things. You should read Mogami's post about the handcuffs in this thread. That is exactly my position. I have no objection whatsoever with players launching invasions of Kendari or any other location. I simply object to players to be able to close on these objectives using the first term rules to negate any possibility of reaction and then to claim that surprise is still in effect.
When 2ndACR talks about his day 6 invasion of Kendari I think great, that's perfectly legitimate. And if he supports it with 3 mini-carriers and a BB as he posted I may very well head for the hills and let him have the base. If I sight 60 invasion TF's on day 2 moving to arrive at their destinations in the next 2-10 days I think its perfectly OK. I only object to abuse of the first turn move rule.
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
Really quite simple ... No landings on Dec 7th. Air Attacks only.
That does not mean you can't have your TF's stopped 1 hex off shore anywhere you want, but they can not enter the coastal hex. This uses the speed boost of turn one to get your ships into positions that give play to the fact they had been loaded and on their way for days. It also gives you the air surprise effects. But you'll see how it completely ends any silliness. Any of these TF's you choose to not support will get hit by Allied aircraft which restricts your operating area to that you can protect via air power or by inclusion of support ships to provide AA cover.
At the end of this turn one, the Allied player can choose to react to what he has uncovered during turn 1 and gets a *chance* to send his ships into harms way should he choose.
It probably gives you the most realistic combination of both worlds and plays out quite fairly for both sides.
That does not mean you can't have your TF's stopped 1 hex off shore anywhere you want, but they can not enter the coastal hex. This uses the speed boost of turn one to get your ships into positions that give play to the fact they had been loaded and on their way for days. It also gives you the air surprise effects. But you'll see how it completely ends any silliness. Any of these TF's you choose to not support will get hit by Allied aircraft which restricts your operating area to that you can protect via air power or by inclusion of support ships to provide AA cover.
At the end of this turn one, the Allied player can choose to react to what he has uncovered during turn 1 and gets a *chance* to send his ships into harms way should he choose.
It probably gives you the most realistic combination of both worlds and plays out quite fairly for both sides.
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
I have had to modify my "blitz attacks" due to some quirks I have discovered in PBEM. Troops seem to unload alot faster against the AI than in PBEM. I have used the same types and numbers of transports each time (made massive notes) in both play modes.
Troops not unloading as fast leaves some VERY exposed. Now for PBEM I pretty much stick to about 16 -17 invasions turn 1 all under my aircover. Of course Kendari will still fall by turn 7 at the latest. That number is all I can support long term due to the quirk. 2 and 3 days to unload the Kure SNLF at Menado is crazy when they are all loaded on 1500 size AP's.
Against the AI that same force will unload in 1 day completely. I can take some losses to AP's and such, but I do not want my troops sunk. Especially my primary named unit.
Troops not unloading as fast leaves some VERY exposed. Now for PBEM I pretty much stick to about 16 -17 invasions turn 1 all under my aircover. Of course Kendari will still fall by turn 7 at the latest. That number is all I can support long term due to the quirk. 2 and 3 days to unload the Kure SNLF at Menado is crazy when they are all loaded on 1500 size AP's.
Against the AI that same force will unload in 1 day completely. I can take some losses to AP's and such, but I do not want my troops sunk. Especially my primary named unit.
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Really quite simple ... No landings on Dec 7th. Air Attacks only.
That does not mean you can't have your TF's stopped 1 hex off shore anywhere you want, but they can not enter the coastal hex. This uses the speed boost of turn one to get your ships into positions that give play to the fact they had been loaded and on their way for days. It also gives you the air surprise effects. But you'll see how it completely ends any silliness. Any of these TF's you choose to not support will get hit by Allied aircraft which restricts your operating area to that you can protect via air power or by inclusion of support ships to provide AA cover.
At the end of this turn one, the Allied player can choose to react to what he has uncovered during turn 1 and gets a *chance* to send his ships into harms way should he choose.
It probably gives you the most realistic combination of both worlds and plays out quite fairly for both sides.
If you add to this no port attacks except PH you get my basic house rules for turn1
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
Sounds like a good idea to me.ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, I think the extended move on turn 1 should be removed and instead the TF placed where they were on Dec 6th. I'd allow new TF created by Japanese making non historic turn 1 to load and make a normal move.
"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
I agree. Placing everything as it was on Dec 6 and having no special first turn move rule is the ideal option.
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
With that setup the Japanese non historical turn 1 would still be interesting but it would not be PFM
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
PFM=Pure Freakin Magic
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
If you add to this no port attacks except PH you get my basic house rules for turn1
<chuckle> as you probably remember, I'm not a big fan of the port attacks on turn 1 either. It strikes me as just silly to go that path. PH is the only port that gets hit. Everything else is AF only.
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
Personally, I think the basic rule should be to let the Japanese do what they want with their preloaded TFs, use their air force for airfield, ground attack or naval missions, and have the allies stay in place.
Historically, all the invasions that the Japanese pull off on turn one (just with the preloaded TFs) did not happen. The only seaborne invasions that the Japanese performed on the first day were at Khota Bharu, Song Ki, and I think Guam.
So the Japanese can basically hit PH, Manila or Singapore on turn one. And they can capture a few islands and make significant landings in Malaya, Borneo or the Phillipines.
But running wild and performing 20-30 invasions on turn one isn't a true option. The Japanese expected significant resistance in the SRA, and would not have "teleported" to Kendari on the first day, bypassing lots of other operational Dutch bases. They didn't know the location of the Dutch fleet. Nor could they have projected the Allied reaction.
What if the movement of a troop convoy with cruiser escort through the DEI had triggered hostilities on December 5th or 6ht? They would have been concerned that this would cause the fleet at Pearl Harbor to sortie, or at least the carriers. You have to remember, the Japanese hoped and expected to find at least a couple carriers at Pearl. They wouldn't have been happy campers if KB showed up on December 7th, only to find that the Pacific fleet had sailed for Australia 36 hours earlier, because hostilities had already commenced. They wouldn't have been happy if Japanese fleets encroaching on Dutch waters had caused the carriers to put out from Pearl, to scout nearby waters for any Japanese threat. They wouldn't have been happy if a convoy sailing into Dutch waters caused the Pacific fleet to sortie ASW groups, to sweep the area around Hawaii, since the Japanese had already shown that they were willing to send warships into neutral waters.
I can see turn one attacks on the Phillipines, west Borneo, Amboina, Sorong and Malaya, but not beyond that.
Historically, all the invasions that the Japanese pull off on turn one (just with the preloaded TFs) did not happen. The only seaborne invasions that the Japanese performed on the first day were at Khota Bharu, Song Ki, and I think Guam.
So the Japanese can basically hit PH, Manila or Singapore on turn one. And they can capture a few islands and make significant landings in Malaya, Borneo or the Phillipines.
But running wild and performing 20-30 invasions on turn one isn't a true option. The Japanese expected significant resistance in the SRA, and would not have "teleported" to Kendari on the first day, bypassing lots of other operational Dutch bases. They didn't know the location of the Dutch fleet. Nor could they have projected the Allied reaction.
What if the movement of a troop convoy with cruiser escort through the DEI had triggered hostilities on December 5th or 6ht? They would have been concerned that this would cause the fleet at Pearl Harbor to sortie, or at least the carriers. You have to remember, the Japanese hoped and expected to find at least a couple carriers at Pearl. They wouldn't have been happy campers if KB showed up on December 7th, only to find that the Pacific fleet had sailed for Australia 36 hours earlier, because hostilities had already commenced. They wouldn't have been happy if Japanese fleets encroaching on Dutch waters had caused the carriers to put out from Pearl, to scout nearby waters for any Japanese threat. They wouldn't have been happy if a convoy sailing into Dutch waters caused the Pacific fleet to sortie ASW groups, to sweep the area around Hawaii, since the Japanese had already shown that they were willing to send warships into neutral waters.
I can see turn one attacks on the Phillipines, west Borneo, Amboina, Sorong and Malaya, but not beyond that.
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
So then non-preloaded TF's can just load and make a normal 3 or 4 hex move? If so I agree with your set-up and pretty much your entire post. I could quibble with the invasion of west Bornio but since its done either at the expence of the malaya or one of the PI first turn assaults it keeps the game within reasonable limits. I'm curious as to why you allow Amboina and Sorong to remain as invasion locations. I have no real problem with it since it comes at the expence of the Lagaspi landings. I'm just wondering what your rational is. Since your restricting yourself to one invasision out of Palau on first turn I don't know that I would object to Manado either.
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
Hi, The Japanese don't need to grab Kendari on turn 1. Just reinforce the TF going to Legaspi from Palau and send it to Davao instead. (If the TF could reach Legaspi then it could have waited longer and still arrived a Davao. Betty groups there do the same thing as Betty groups at Kendari. In fact they help protect the future move on Kendari.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
There are 26 preformed task goups not counting subs. Maybe only they may get the "speed turn" any others move as normal.
Most of this tread is on the "speed move" any thoughts on limiting the #of created allied task groups in the first month of the war or perhaps requiring PP's to form Allied task Groups for the 1st month. This will keep everything from doing the 1st turn bug-out and represent some of the allied confusion.
Again I don't want to repeat history but do put some limits to represent what the allied and Japanese commanders had to face.
A dec 8th Scenerio would be great as well. I just want this not to be a collection of "house rules" but an official scenerio
Most of this tread is on the "speed move" any thoughts on limiting the #of created allied task groups in the first month of the war or perhaps requiring PP's to form Allied task Groups for the 1st month. This will keep everything from doing the 1st turn bug-out and represent some of the allied confusion.
Again I don't want to repeat history but do put some limits to represent what the allied and Japanese commanders had to face.
A dec 8th Scenerio would be great as well. I just want this not to be a collection of "house rules" but an official scenerio
Support the Boy Scouts buy Popcorn!
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/scouts ... id=3133025
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/scouts ... id=3133025
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
Gee I don't think the Japanese need any more then they already get. The "First turn Bug out" Does not get Allied ships to safety. They have to move through almost 1000 miles of enemy air controled water. The Japanese player can have nearly the entire IJN steaming about. IJN submarines and 1600 aircraft. And now we think he needs some rules to recreate allied confusion? I say it's up to him to cause confusion.
I don't bug out. I adjust my positions. But I fight.
I don't bug out. I adjust my positions. But I fight.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.
Maybe the best that can be done is to find an opponent who shares your philosophy. An 8 Dec scenario would be cool but lets face it, its fun to plan the invasion. I still think a scenario with everything in its dec 6 location and no first move rule is best. Everyything in port starts unloaded and then you can load everything you want on the first turn. Adjust the first turn surpise rule so that the port effects only apply to PH.