KB after PH strike

[Nikademus]

Attacking Manila is an interesting alternative. I have no problem with it. However I still prefer to attack PH not only to damage the warships there but also to kill a swath of enemy LBA airpower. That tends to get undervalued IMO.

For Turn 1's i usually request Singapore be exempted because i like to have a chance to play with PoW and Repulse. (BB fanboy!) I'll usually risk em too. (and lose them in the process most of the time but i have fun doing it!)

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
(and lose them in the process most of the time but i have fun doing it!)

But not always eh?[8|]

[mogami]

Hi, The Betty groups will help in SRA more then KB. (KB are the pilots you don't want to lose) KB out of sight of Allied player holds back USN more then Betty deployed to Kwajalean where weather might betray you.
Splitting KB in 1942 is how I always lose IJN CV.

The Allied player always attempts to go where the Japanese are not. If KB is out of sight Allied player hides.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
(and lose them in the process most of the time but i have fun doing it!)

But not always eh?[8|]

lol....our game was the first time i was both successful in disrupting an enemy transport TF AND escaping to fight another day. [:D]

[Nikademus]

"Where's KB?" seems to have replaced "Where's Waldo?"

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: treespider

So what should the historical results be??? In game terms all of three ships were sunk at Pearl Harbor... Arizona, Oklahoma and Utah. It takes you 6 strikes to sink three ships?

greetings, i would just say that i've started PBEM 6 or 7 times and only in one i manage to sunk one BB (i would not comment other ships damage but i can assure you that almost all would be ready for service in year or so).

In six strikes? The post I was responding to indicted that it took them six strikes to achieve historical results.

[mogami]

Hi, I've had good luck with Repluse and POW. Sunk several IJN CA and they always whoop on Kongo class BB. (Only the Nagato and Mutsu can play with them early in war if Japanese torpedos don't hit)

DON'T put low experiance Dutch ships into the TF. (The RN usally get surprise if there are no low experiance ships involved)

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Attacking Manila is an interesting alternative. I have no problem with it. However I still prefer to attack PH not only to damage the warships there but also to kill a swath of enemy LBA airpower. That tends to get undervalued IMO.

For Turn 1's i usually request Singapore be exempted because i like to have a chance to play with PoW and Repulse. (BB fanboy!) I'll usually risk em too. (and lose them in the process most of the time but i have fun doing it!)

I'll second that...

[Speedysteve]

Nik....love the avatar. Might have to look at that again now for some evil humour[:D]

[Mifune]

This simulation is a game. If you want to avoid some of the gameyness then set up appropriate house rules. WitP has flaws, and how we use or not use them is our choice (and should be agreed upon). I myself enjoy the game for its immersion, and try to play accordingly. Whatever advantage KB has to start the game off is dissapated over time (i.e. sunk ships or pilot casualties). Those losses can not be recovered. Of course when the Allies get into high gear and over their bruised ego then everything is a moot point. There is no stopping that steamroller. Well that is my two cents.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
Just like in my current PBEM game.; We didn't house rule heavies (PDU on) so now I'm getting blasted by huge masses of them flying from Koepang (level 4 base). One raid alone had over 500 strike Kendari unescorted. I wish now that we had made a rule but we didn't so I live with it. I don't consider it unfair or gamey but it sure does hurt! (BTW, his ops losses for that raid were 3!).
Chez

I know what you mean..., though I was on the opposite side. As the Allies I'd been stacking B-17's and LB-30's up in back areas and trying to limit myself to relatively historic levels. Then I found out how many Tony's my opponant had trained and deployed around Rabaul. About 200 of the 30-odd the Japanese actually built in 1942..., and no idea how many others were out there. After that I didn't worry much about trying to keep my excessive bombers out of the game.

My viewpoint is that wrong is wrong, no matter what side you are playing. Others want to "play with whatever toys tools the game gives them". The fact that the game has given them a chainsaw instead of the axe they were supposed to have historically doesn't bother them at all. To each his own....

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I've had good luck with Repluse and POW. Sunk several IJN CA and they always whoop on Kongo class BB. (Only the Nagato and Mutsu can play with them early in war if Japanese torpedos don't hit)

DON'T put low experiance Dutch ships into the TF. (The RN usally get surprise if there are no low experiance ships involved)

One advantage I have found in using Force Z to attack the Khota Bahru invasion is that it will almost invariably result in sending the Japanese surface covering force home for more ammo, leaving the transports open to air attack.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
Just like in my current PBEM game.; We didn't house rule heavies (PDU on) so now I'm getting blasted by huge masses of them flying from Koepang (level 4 base). One raid alone had over 500 strike Kendari unescorted. I wish now that we had made a rule but we didn't so I live with it. I don't consider it unfair or gamey but it sure does hurt! (BTW, his ops losses for that raid were 3!).
Chez

I know what you mean..., though I was on the opposite side. As the Allies I'd been stacking B-17's and LB-30's up in back areas and trying to limit myself to relatively historic levels. Then I found out how many Tony's my opponant had trained and deployed around Rabaul. About 200 of the 30-odd the Japanese actually built in 1942..., and no idea how many others were out there. After that I didn't worry much about trying to keep my excessive bombers out of the game.

My viewpoint is that wrong is wrong, no matter what side you are playing. Others want to "play with whatever toys tools the game gives them". The fact that the game has given them a chainsaw instead of the axe they were supposed to have historically doesn't bother them at all. To each his own....

I agree ... For players who want PDU's ...Why not just start the game with Essex's and Bearcats and New Jerseys and give the Japanese whatever toys they want and have at it...Not that I would find that enjoyable at all.

[mlees]

I agree ... For players who want PDU's ...Why not just start the game with Essex's and Bearcats and New Jerseys and give the Japanese whatever toys they want and have at it...Not that I would find that enjoyable at all.

I don't think selecting PDU "on" makes anything available at an earlier date, nor does it change the build rates of the aircraft models in question.

PDU "off" is using the same device database, same replacement rates and pools, it just keeps the historical upgrade paths for the air commands "locked in".

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: mlees

I agree ... For players who want PDU's ...Why not just start the game with Essex's and Bearcats and New Jerseys and give the Japanese whatever toys they want and have at it...Not that I would find that enjoyable at all.

I don't think selecting PDU "on" makes anything available at an earlier date, nor does it change the build rates of the aircraft models in question.

PDU "off" is using the same device database, same replacement rates and pools, it just keeps the historical upgrade paths for the air commands "locked in".

You missed my point. I understand how PDU's work. Sarcasm sometimes doesn't translate well into electronic format for us amatuers...

[Cap Mandrake]

"shaken player syndrome" [:D][:D]

As has been stated, it is unfair to hunt the US carriers on turn 1 because the Jap. player has unrealistic intel on their position. If the fuel issue for KB were corrected, I would have no problem with the Jap player attacking PH again on the 8th or hunting carriers.

It is hard for me to believe; however, that a second day attack is worth the pilot losses for the Japs. Better to have KB steal away, keeping the Allies guessing where she will show up next.

Another funny thing....Imagine what would have happened to Kimmel and Short if the Japs had bombarded PH for 8 days. [:D]

[mlees]

You missed my point.

I thought your point was that PDU was too ahistorical for your tastes, and you used a deliberately exaggerated example of starting with Essex's et al to show your level of distaste for that gameplaying style.

My point was that it doesn't seem like a departure into "Nimitz class CVN fantasy land" to me. (The planes are still coming in at the PDU "off" levels, at the same intro-dates, and so on.) *shrug*

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: mlees

You missed my point.

I thought your point was that PDU was too ahistorical for your tastes, and you used a deliberately exaggerated example of starting with Essex's et al to show your level of distaste for that gameplaying style.

My point was that it doesn't seem like a departure into "Nimitz class CVN fantasy land" to me. (The planes are still coming in at the PDU "off" levels, at the same intro-dates, and so on.) *shrug*

I was a bit extreme...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
Just like in my current PBEM game.; We didn't house rule heavies (PDU on) so now I'm getting blasted by huge masses of them flying from Koepang (level 4 base). One raid alone had over 500 strike Kendari unescorted. I wish now that we had made a rule but we didn't so I live with it. I don't consider it unfair or gamey but it sure does hurt! (BTW, his ops losses for that raid were 3!).
Chez

I know what you mean..., though I was on the opposite side. As the Allies I'd been stacking B-17's and LB-30's up in back areas and trying to limit myself to relatively historic levels. Then I found out how many Tony's my opponant had trained and deployed around Rabaul. About 200 of the 30-odd the Japanese actually built in 1942..., and no idea how many others were out there. After that I didn't worry much about trying to keep my excessive bombers out of the game.

My viewpoint is that wrong is wrong, no matter what side you are playing. Others want to "play with whatever toys tools the game gives them". The fact that the game has given them a chainsaw instead of the axe they were supposed to have historically doesn't bother them at all. To each his own....

I agree ... For players who want PDU's ...Why not just start the game with Essex's and Bearcats and New Jerseys and give the Japanese whatever toys they want and have at it...Not that I would find that enjoyable at all.

Actually, we weren't playing with PDU's..., it was just shabby research on the part of the original Designers that was causing the problems.

[el cid again]

As the Allies I'd been stacking B-17's and LB-30's up in back areas and trying to limit myself to relatively historic levels.

It appears a grand total of about 86 LB-30s were transferred back to USAAF - from RAF - although they were called that for the French Air Force (but France fell). The first 6 to come back were a different type - and 100% had been converted to transports. The rest were of the main production block - and SOME of these (on the order of 30) were used on PATROL missions in PTO. The rest were converted (in a variety of different ways) to transports. The patrol planes mostly ended up as hacks or transports as well. While many USAAF units show they operated the type, few operated it alone - they served alongside B-24s, B-17s and sometimes other bombers - often in tiny numbers.

In RHS I always count LB-30s - but they are called B-17s, B-24s or C-83s (depending on the main type in the unit). ONLY the C-83 designation shows the name - in the form of C-83/LB-30 - in honor of the fact MOST started USAAF service as transports and ALL which survived ended up in that role.