Matrix Games Forums

I see mention of Panama canal being represented on the map in some way, shape or form. If that is the case, if I was an enterprising I-Boat captain, would I have the opportunity of trying to bomb the locks and deny this entry point to the Americans?

No. The Canal doesn't exist, just the Canal Zone.

But your enterprising I-boat captain would provide some useful practice for some eager Cleveland-class DD captains... 
 
-F-

ORIGINAL: Feinder

But your enterprising I-boat captain would provide some useful practice for some eager Cleveland-class DD captains... 

-F-

"Cleveland Class DD's"? Suggest you consult your reference materials again, Feinder...

Doh.
 

 
Clemson.
 
Phhhtttt...
 
-F-

Cleveland... Clemson... they're both nasty cesspools... [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

I see mention of Panama canal being represented on the map in some way, shape or form. If that is the case, if I was an enterprising I-Boat captain, would I have the opportunity of trying to bomb the locks and deny this entry point to the Americans?

What do you think this is a Humphry Bogart movie or something. [:D]

What's the diff? There was no weapon that you could put on an I-boat that could do anything to a set of canal locks anyhow.

Yeah, those things are big. The English had to ram one with a old DD loaded with TNT to get the job done.

Actually, it was an option in Victory Game's "Pacific War".  You could option to "expend" one of the sub counters (with float planes, or maybe it was the kind that your could bounce Emily's off of) at game start.  On a roll of "00" of 100, you had successfully bombed the locks at Panama and damaged the locks.  All reinforcements in 1942 would be delayed by 3 months (and in 1943, they were considered repaired).

-F-

For one, the I-400's were designed in part so that they could carry there 3 aichi seaplanes close eough so that they could attack the locks (i didn't say it would work) each carried a 800kg bomb.  And  given the predication of the sons of Nippon in crashing into things, it’s not beyond reason to think that they’d create a flying bomb out of em, and take a shot at one of the locks.  Again, I’m not saying that it would work, just if the game would make the attempt possible.  At the very least the perceived threat would cause a prudent Allied player to keep a patrol wing, and some AS forces in place.  That’s what I meant by I-Boat, the aircraft they carried, not harpooning themselves against concrete

The thing is, why would you make "the attempt" 'possible' when the only outcome of even a successful attempt would have been "no effect?" Knowing that there was a 100% chance of failure and "do or die" kamikaze orders will automatically result in failure would seem to eliminate any incentive for the Japanese player to try it.

The Campbelltown rammed the drydock at St. Nazaire and detonated her fuel, herself, and 4.5 metric tonnes of HE to damage a much flimsier construct than the Panama Canal lock-gate. There's no bomber in the Japanese inventory that could pack 4500 kg of explosives, much less a pos recon floatplane launched from a Japanese sub.

The thing is, why would you make "the attempt" 'possible' when the only outcome of even a successful attempt would have been "no effect?"

I believe it goes in the category of "suspension of disbelief" (current Japanese production comes to mind [;)]).  In the case of VG's Pacific War, probably the game designer(s) put it in because they read an article about the mission to bomb the locks, thought it sounded cool, and presumed it was therefore potentially successful.  Or there are plenty of other cases where various "options" are included games, simply because they either increase playability (like Scen 19 of UV with more replacement pilots) or just some cool (and even wierd) if not impossible "what ifs".

I also remember there was an option in that same game (VGs Pacific War) to get the Tirpitz in 1943 or 1944.  I have no idea why (much less how it would even be feasible).  But besides thinking it was stupid thing to begin with, a single BB added to Japan's OB in 1943/4 wouldn't matter anyway.

In the Third Reich game, you could draw chits for various game option events.  As I recall, "FDR outfoxes the isolationists" and he USA joins the game in summer of 1941.  Others were Nationalist Socialist uprisings in Ireland, Iraq, and Turkey (separate events), activating them as German Minor Allys.  Another was Spain as active Minor Ally.  I dunno.  There were about 20 different possible events (each player could draw 2 chits, and I think there was an additional chit that was played in 1943, that was unknown to both players).  The point was more to "mix things up a bit", to compel a bit of difference from the "usual" flow of the game.  It didn't matter so much much that actual events were (likely) not even remotely possible.  But it allowed for additional replayablity, even after you played the same game with the same group of friends 30 times.

Third Reich with variants was a decent beer and pretzels game, and it had the virtue of allowing both the Axis and the Allies to draw for "variants on history." I could find a forlorn hope of wacking the Panama Canal more acceptable if there was an equal chance that, for example, the high-altitude B-17 turns out to be the ship killer that Allied strategic planners imagined it to be prior to the start of the war.

A coup that might work would be for Japanese merchant ships (loaded to the gunnels with thousands of tons of nitrates that had thoughtfully been prepped for explosives) to detonate while transiting the locks (a deliberate Port Chicago disaster) as an opening blow instead of or in addition to Pearl Harbor.  The practical problem is that this would have to precede a Pearl Harbor attack and get through inspections, etc.  Although conditions were pretty chilly between the US and Japan leading up to Pearl Harbor, I don't think Japanese merchant ships were forbidden entry or transit of the canal.   

Another, even less likely scenario would be for a surprise attack by a sucide commando team to blow up the lock machinery with high explosives.  

That first one was used by Bywater in his book.

Kind Sirs I believe you are missing my point. Its not a matter of gamesmanship, or a no result, it’s a matter of giving your enemy something else to think about.  And more importantly something to plan against- an allocation of forces that he or she, would rather not do. For those of you who are football fans – the American kind – do you ever wonder why a team who cant run the football still runs 20, 30 times a game?  Because the coach and the offensive coordinator, who a paid very good money because they know what they are doing, wants the defense to have something else to think about.  You do not want to be one dimensional.  Sure most of the time you will gain 1 maybe 2 yards, but defense has to guard against the run. Because the one time you don’t – BANG 20 or 30 yard gain and the whole dimension of the game can change.

hb... In my PBEM with ChezDaJez our house rules allow him to attack Panama if he wishes. I have kept several squadrons of aircraft in Panama, as well as ground troops to defend it. We have reached apoint in our game where I don't think that I need to worry about an invasion there anymore, but it will be a long time before I strip the Canal Zone of its defenses. PP restrictions go a long way towards controlling that...

Actually you would not have to destroy a lock only badly damage it to delay the use of the Canal. A sub putting a couple of torpedoes into the locks would probably jam the 'doors' so badly that they would need to be replaced. To replace even one 'door' would take a considerable amount of time. Thus the Americans keep troops, aircraft and ships in the Canal Zone for protection all during the war. The threat is viable.

A torpedo wouldn't do jack. The lock gates are designed to withstand the pressure of about 500,000 tons of water and they were overbuilt for the job specifically with sabotage and other strategic considerations in mind. A torpedo detonating against one of them would be like shooting a bottle rocket at the wall of a brick outhouse. You'd need something more like a dambuster. Only the Allies ever came close to designing a weapon that could achieve that sort of destruction.

The only realistic model involving the Japanese player being given the opportunity to attempt to shut them down would always lead to the outcome "mission unsuccessful." Such an endeavor would be substantially less likely than a USN submarine penetrating the Sasebo yards, deploying Seals, and sabotaging most of the Japanese in-yard fleet in 1942.